Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
1998-0824 PEC
THIS ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail will hold a public hearing in accordance with Section 12-3-6 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail on August 24, 1998, at 2:00 P.M. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. In consideration of: A final review of a conditional use permit for a proposed addition to the Vail Interfaith Chapel, located at 19 Vail Road/ Tract J, Block 7, Vail Village 1st. Applicant: Vail Interfaith Chapel, represented by Gwathmey/Pratt Architects Planner: Dominic Mauriello A request for an amendment to a previously approved plan for the Timber Falls Development, located at 4468 Timber Falls Court/u n platted. Applicant: RAD Five L.L.C., represented by Greg Amsden Planner: Dominic Mauriello A request for a major amendment to SDD #4, to allow for a fractional fee club and a change to the approved Development Plan, located at 1325 Westhaven Dr., Westhaven Condominiums/ Cascade Village Area A. Applicant: Gerald L. Wurhmann, represented by Robby Robinson Planner: George Ruther The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours in the project planner's office located at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479- 2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. Community Development Department Published August 7, 1998 in the Vail Trail. v TOWN OFVAIL THIS ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail will hold a public hearing in accordance with Section 12-3-6 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail on August 24, 1998, at 2:00 P.M. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. In consideration of: A final review to discuss the remodeled entryway with additional GRFA and site coverage variance, located at 333 Bridge Street/Lot C, Block , Vail Village 1 st. Applicant: Vail Village Club Planner: Christie Barton The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours in the project planner's office located' at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479- 2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. Community Development Department Published August 10, 1998 in the Daily Trail. C7 TOW,Y ff VAIL THIS ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail will hold a public hearing in accordance with Section 12-3-6 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail on August 24, 1999, at 2.00 P.M. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. In consideration of: A final review of a conditional use permit for a proposed addition to the Vail Interfaith Chapel; located at 19 Vail Road/ Tract J, Block 7, Vail Village 1 st. Applicant: Vail Interfaith Chapel, represented by Gwathmey/Pratt Architects Planner: Dominic Mauriello A request for an amendment to a previously approved plan for the Timber Falls Development, located at 4469 Timber Falls Cou rt/un platted. Applicant: RAD Five L.L.C., represented by Greg Amsden Planner: Dominic Mauriello A request for a major amendment to SDD #4, to allow for a fractional fee club and a change to the approved Development Plan, located at 1325 Westhaven Dr., Westhaven Condominiums/ Cascade Village Area A. Applicant: Gerald L, Wurhmann, represented by Robby Robinson Planner: George Ruther A request for a worksessian to discuss a major amendment to SDD #4, to allow for the use of the tennis facility for special events and conference facilities, located at 1300 Westhaven DrJ Cascade Village Area A. Applicant: Vail Cascade Hotel and Club, represented by Chris Hanen Planner: George Ruther The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours in the project planner's office located at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479- 2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. Community Development Department To OF V,4IL? Updated 8114 4pm • PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION Monday, August 24, 1998 FINAL AGENDA Proiect Orientation / LUNCH - Communitv Development Department MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Greg Moffet John Schofield Galen Aasland Diane Golden Ann Bishop Brian Doyon Tom Weber Site Visits: 1. RAD Five - 4469 Timber Falls Court 2. Vail Village Club - 298 Hanson Ranch Road 3. Vail Cascade Hotel - 1300 Westhaven Drive Driver: Dominic , 6_1 12:00 p.m. STAFF PRESENT Dominic Mauriello George Ruther Jeff Hunt Judy Rodriguez 12:45 p.m. NOTE: If the PEC hearing extends until 6:00 p.m., the board will break for dinner from 6:00 6:30 p.m. Public Hearing - Town Council Chambers 2:00 p.m. 1. A final review of a conditional use permit for a proposed addition to the Vail Interfaith Chapel, located at 19 Vail Road/ Tract J, Block 7, Vail Village 1st. Applicant: Vail Interfaith Chapel, represented by Gwathmey/Pratt Architects Planner: Dominic Mauriello MOTION: John Schofield SECOND: Diane Golden VOTE: 6-0-1 (Brian Doyon recused) APPROVED WITH 5 CONDITIONS: 1. The approval is subject to Town Council approval of encroachments on the Town -owned stream tract . 2. The applicant shall enter into an encroachment agreement with the Town of Vail for all new and existing encroachments on Town-owned property. 3. No grading shall occur in the flood plain and all grading issues shall be worked out with staff prior to DRB approval. 1 TOW*VAIL 4. That there be a provision to provide access to a streamwalk. a.r Updated 8/14 4pm 5. That parking be added if the basement is finished. 2. 3 A request for an amendment to a previously approved development plan for the Timber Falls Development, located at 4469 Timber Falls Courtfunplatted. Applicant: RAD Five L.L.C., represented by Greg Amsden Planner: Dominic Mauriello MOTION: Galen Aasland SECOND: Brian Doyon VOTE: 6-1 (Greg Moffet opposed) DENIED A request for a major amendment to SDD #4, to allow for a fractional fee club and a change to the approved Development Plan, located at 1325 Westhaven Dr., Westhaven Condominiums/ Cascade Village Area A. Applicant: Gerald L. Wurhmann, represented by Robby Robinson Planner: George Ruther MOTION: Galen Aasland SECOND: Brian Doyon VOTE: 6-1 (John Schofield opposed) APPROVED WITH 14 CONDITIONS: 1. That the applicant appear before the Town of Vail Design Review Board for a conceptual review of the proposed major amendment prior to appearing before the Vail Town Council for final consideration of the request. Any and all issues identified by the Design Review Board at the time of the conceptual review shall be addressed prior to appearing before the Town Council. 2. That the applicant submit a detailed contractor=s cost estimate identifying the costs necessary to relocate the existing overhead utility line along the applicant=s north property line underground, and that the applicant establish a financial bond with the Town of Vail in the sum of 125% of the said relocating costs to insure the undergrounding of the utility line. 3. That the applicant regrade and revegetate the knoll located at the northwest corner of the development site at the time of the final grading of the Westhaven Club & Lodge. Due to the exposure and aspect of the hillside, the knoll shall be regrading to slopes not exceeding 3:1. The regrading shall be reviewed and approved by the Town Engineer. 4. That the applicant provide Type III Employee Housing Unit deed-restrictions , which comply with the Town of Vail Employee Housing 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 housing be made available for occupancy, and that the deed restrictions be recorded at the Office of the Eagle County Clerk & Recorder, prior to requesting a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for the Westhaven Club & Lodge. 5. That the applicant submit detailed civil engineering drawings of the required off- site improvements (street lights, drainage, curb and gutter, sidewalks, grading, etc.) to the Town of Vail Public Works Department for review and approval prior to the issuance of a building permit. 2 Updated 8/14 4pm 6. That the applicant record a twenty foot (20') wide pedestrian/bike easement for that portion of pedestrian/bike path traversing the applicant=s property and as identified on the Topographic Map prepared by Intermountain Engineering Ltd., dated 12/22/94, and that said easement be recorded at the Office of the Eagle County Clerk & Recorder, prior to the issuance of a building permit. The exact location and language of the easement shall be reviewed and approved by the Town Attorney and Town Engineer prior to recordation. 7. That the applicant provide written documentation from the Public Service Company granting approval of the construction of the Westhaven Club & Lodge in the location identified on the site plan relative to the high pressure gas line. Written approval shall be granted prior to the issuance of a building permit. 8. That the applicant record an access easement along the east property line for that portion of the driveway and access and trash enclosure which encroaches upon the adjoining property and that said easement be recorded at the Office of the Eagle County Clerk Recorder. The exact location and language of the easement shall be reviewed and approved by the Town Attorney and Town Engineer prior to recordation. 9. That the applicant explore alternatives to the proposed parking plan and provide all of the required parking spaces (58) on-site as requested by the Vail Town Council. 10. That the final landscape plan and architectural elevations be reviewed and approved by the Town of Vail Design Review Board. 11. That the approval of this major amendment to Special Development District #4 shall become lapsed and void one year from the date of a second reading of an ordinance amending the district, and that should the approval lapse, the applicant shall be required to remove the Aruins@ and restore and revegetate the site by no later than October 31, 1999. A bond providing financial security to ensure that said removal occurs shall be required following second reading of an amending ordinance. It shall be the applicant=s responsibility to provide a cost estimate of the removal work. The bond shall be a minimum of 125% of the removal costs. 12. That the applicant revise and submit an amended site plan, landscape plan, and grading plan indicating improvements to the existing boulder retaining wall along 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. 13. That the surface parking lot be heated. 14. That the applicant pay-in-lieu for 10 parking spaces. 4. A request for a CC1 minor exterior alteration and site coverage variance to the Vail Village Club, located at 298 Hanson Ranch Road/Lot C, Block 2, Vail Village 1st. Applicant: Remonov, Inc., represented by Gies Architects Planner: George Ruther MOTION: John Schofield SECOND: Ann Bishop VOTE: 7-0 Updated 8114 4pm APPROVED WITH 1 CONDITION: 1. That the existing roof-top mechanical equipment be screened to staff's satisfaction. 5. A request for a worksession to discuss a major amendment to SDD #4, to allow for the use of the tennis facility for special events and conference facilities, located at 1399 Westhaven Dr./ Cascade Village Area A. Applicant: Vail Cascade Hotel and Club, represented by Chris Hanen Planner: George Ruther WORKSESSION - NO VOTE 6. Information Update 7. Approval of August 19, 1998 minutes. The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours in the project planners office located at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479- 2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. Community Development Department 4 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: August 24, 1998 SUBJECT: A request for a conditional use permit for a proposed addition to the Vail Interfaith Chapel, located at 19 Vail Road/ Tract J, Block 7, Vail Village 1st. Applicant: Vail Interfaith Chapel, represented by Gwathmey/Pratt Architects Planner: Dominic Mauriello 1. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST This site is zoned General Use (GU) which allows churches and related facilities subject to the review and approval of a conditional use permit. The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to allow the construction of a new building on the premises. The proposed two-story structure will house clergy offices and consultation areas. All of the existing surface parking spaces will remain substantially as they are today and 6 additional spaces will be provided. The proposed structure will be constructed on an area of the lot behind the existing Chapel and complies with the 50' Gore Creek centerline setback and the 190-year flood plain. Adjacent to the Chapel property is a portion of the Town-owned stream tract. The stream tract is dedicated for open space, recreation and access to the Gore Creek. The Chapel's original and current proposals include improvements on the Town's stream tract. The Chapel obtained permission from the Town Council on August 6, 1996 to proceed through the review process, however, the Council did not give wholesale approval of the encroachments on Town of Vail property. Additionally, the Council directed staff to minimize the Chapel's impacts on the Town's stream tract. Staff and the Council gave the applicant general direction to maintain a 30' building setback from the top of the stream bank on the Town owned property. The existing Chapel building encroaches onto the Town owned stream tract with a footprint of 200 sq. ft. The proposed building encroaches on the Town owned property with a footprint and stairs of 440 sq. ft. and the extended parking area encroaches with an area of 1,035 sq. ft. ?i ?`DIVNOPYAtI 11. ZONING ANALYSIS 0 The development standards for the GU district are determined by the PEC. The PEG must determine what development standards are needed on a site specific basis. The proposed standards are as presented on the site plan and building plans for the site and summarized in the following table: Zoning: General Use (GU) Lot area: 31,611 sq. ft. ( 0.726 acres) Standard Allowed GU Existing Proposed "Total Building height: PEG nla 28' highest ridge/29.5' to top of cupola Landscape area: PEC 13,950 sq. ft. (440/6) 10,400 sq. ft. (33%) Site Coverage: PEG 4,514 sq. ft. (14%) 7,264 sq. ft. (23%) Parking: PEC 31 spaces 37 spaces Ill. REVIEW CRITERIA FOR THIS REQUEST The code criteria for review of a conditional use permit are included below. In addition to the conditional use criteria, staff has included the purpose statement from the zoning code, as we believe this will help the PEG in its evaluation of the request. The Vail Interfaith Chapel is located in the General Use (GU) zone district. According to Section 12-9C-1 of the Zoning Regulations, the purpose of the GU district is: to provide sites for public and quasi-public uses which, because of their special characteristics, cannot be appropriately regulated by the development standards prescribed by other zoning districts, and for which development standards especially prescribed for each particular development proposal or project are necessary to achieve the purposes prescribed in Section 12-1-2 and to provide for the public welfare. The General Use District is intended 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 of residents and visitors to Vail, to harmonize with surrounding uses, and, in cases of buildings and other structures, to ensure adequate light, air, open spaces, and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of uses. A church shall be permitted in the GU zone district subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the previsions of Chapter 16, Conditional Use Permits. For the PEC's reference, the conditional use permit purpose statement indicates that: in order to provide the flexibility necessary to achieve the objectives of this title, specified uses are permitted in certain districts subject to the granting of a conditional use permit. Because of their unusual or special characteristics, conditional uses require review so that they may be located properly with respect to the purposes of this title and with respect to their affects on surrounding properties. The review process 2 prescribed in this chapter is intended to assure compatibility and harmonious development between conditional uses and surrounding properties in the Town at large. Uses listed as conditional uses in the various districts may be permitted subject to such conditions and limitations as the Town may prescribe to insure that the location and operation of the conditional uses will be in accordance with the development objectives of the Town and will not be detrimental to other uses or properties. Where conditions cannot be devised, to achieve these objectives, applications for conditional use permit shall be denied. The conditional use permit consideration of factors are as follows: 1. Relationship and impact of the use on the development objectives of the Town. Staff believes the proposed use and the additional building are consistent with the development objectives of the Town. This quasi- public use provides benefits to a wide cross-section of the Town of Vail citizens. 2. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities needs. Staff believes the proposed building addition will have little impact on these criteria. The facility will add additional building mass to the site, but this additional mass will have little impact on adjacent properties with respect to light and air. 3. Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and parking areas. The existing Chapel cannot accommodate all of the parking demand on peak days on the subject property. The Chapel has agreements with adjacent properties to share parking. The proposed building will provide offices and consultation areas for the different faiths utilizing the Chapel. The seating capacity of the Chapel remains unchanged. Staff believes that the proposed building addition and the proposed use of this building will not increase the parking demand on-site but will simply alleviate a crowded office condition found on-site. Additionally, the proposal provides 6 additional parking spaces. Staff believes that these parking spaces will help alleviate the crowded parking demand on peak days. The proposal also includes the heating of the parking area and entire drive out to Vail Road thereby reducing the need for snow removal on- site. 3 4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the scale andbulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. Staff believes the proposed building is consistent with the character of the area and is consistent with the existing chapel building located on- site. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a conditional use permit: 1. That the proposed location of the use is in accordance with the purposes of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. 2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends approval of the conditional use permit allowing new building on-site subject to the following findings: That the proposed location of the use is in accordance with the purposes of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. 2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code. The recommendation of approval is also subject to the following conditions: 1. The approval is subject to Town Council approval of encroachments on the Town -owned stream tract. 2. The applicant shall enter into an encroachment agreement with the Town of Vail for all new and existing encroachments on Town-owned property. 3. No grading shall occur in the flood plain and all grading issues shall be worked out with staff prior to DRB approval. P:\EVERYONE\PEC\MEMOS\98\CMAPL824.w PO 4 0 9 I'll, V-1'..A J t CHAPEL 111 ?..'_•" ?616iILYim WY?cleer.YlYEUmYI .YL ?u?'IiH I:n ISII+'ipW611r5YUHN lilt ill lu lil lei?It i11h, nl III Ih lli,,. E NEW MINISTRY CENTER BUILDING 19 VA-11- IOAI?, TRACT---J, BLOCK-7, VAIL VILAGE I st. FILING, VAIL, COLOR.AIDO I?fREGTORY AOBREVIATIONB OU1`IER __-_ AB dBV ANCHOR BOLL Al3PVE Nta DII NOT To SCALE OPPOSITE HAND AD AREA DRAIN OPG OPENWJG ADJ ADJACENT PL LAM PLASTIC LAMINATE AFF ABOVE "I". FLOOR {'LBG PLUMBING Af2GF{ItEGT AL- ALT Al, -INUH ALTERNATE PL PLWO PROP€RTT LINE PLYWAOOP GwntSYTEY PR411 AfC 11-TS FC AP ACCESS PANEL F'WL PAWEL IPP1P 4 MGNtA6E ROAD "IT 4 ANGLE TO PAfNTEP i"TE AIL, CO 6566. CLG Cell- r RA f510, aT4-014T T5tm1 ale-1611 (rn.) CPT CARPET _ R RISER $jF31Cj11RAL ENGINEER CAST IRON RE REFER tO KRM CONSU T T6, NC C CJ CONTROL JOINT CENTERLINE RD EF ROOF DRAIN RA F PO W-. a512 VAIL. COLORADO 61458 MID: 616.6355 CLR C,tI COLOR CGNCRETE MASONRY WIT R REFL REO0 RE RIGE TOR REFLECTED REGVIIR CD CIVIL ENGINEER CO CLEANO5IT REv REVERSE VIER-IYUNikN EN]NEEWIIY. CDC CONC COL Lt'N CONCRETE RSN RD RCI,GN ROUfN OPENU{G It YIXGAtf IV TAD B - PO ON 616 A A C O CONT CONTINkfCU5 RM ROOM VON. q_ DO R <g}p}gaq-40'L} DO DW DOABLE WALL OVENS DISMEASHER SEAL SKI SEALANT 6HE€1 BPEGIFIGATION9 ELEv ELEVATION but SIMILAR SPECPICATICN6 Cpv&1e.F-1. tfG. . FP EDUAL FLOOR DRAIN BOG SPUD SLAB ON FiRADE SPECIFIED 13a5 N ACADEMY PLACE, SUITE IY2d RA CO 4P I B Y FON FOUNDATION SPECS 6PEGIFICdiYCNS s {.O DO R I CO 40538 h l116)41T-5i54 [Ic (119, k11.6164 PN fN19H STD STANDARD p FLP FIELD 611A STONE 53011 S ENG,1NEER FLR FLOOR 6TOR 6TORO<E KOEG?a{.ir1 G;siM,.1-E-AWI-, Y1C FOW FACE - WALL ISMP, ETC, T TREAD Gla1SV-rvy, i,eoTECNJICAL CtgF$ER4 1231, .x YS Al u-WPA 5M¢ul1'. FTC. GYP F'O"'0 GY .'-WALL. BDA.P TL VE ONE TELEPH 19LEPHHiC1YNE66 LdY:.'+ux:, GQLORADO MR4-i4a4 GL OI i LA- TO. TOP OF N AVON, 151o36a6c009 HM TIUt LLw METµ TOW TOP OF WALL G04jR4GTOR NT NSUL NE1GIIr ft-- 1*cN TYP UN.Ct TYPICAL -1!56 NOTED DT"ERWISE Kit KIic:1E11 'IF. WER(FT IN FIELD LP LO.u POINT Wt WITW MAIL MAU-IAL two WITHOUT Mo MA6Cn'RY OPENIkK WD WOOD MIL METAL Wv WASWER r DRYER NEC NtG. HeCc 'qy i ICI ccNTAGT WIC WOW WATER CLOSET WINDOW NO (#ltBER _ WY wel awr 5YNBOL.5 DRAWING INPEX "CO" FIN15N 5"M'OL / KEY TO ROOM FNISM6 COYER SHEET C1vJL ARCHITECTURAL n .. x.aa w 0 .r..n¢co AN SITE PLAN GRAF+HIC KEY 10 MATERIALS DYLAWWi SYMBOLS All FIRST L€VEL FLOOR PLAN /,t:/,p ¢urr« Ott-S7's5=b{lcacaiaros tt¢.uarlcw A23 LCONP SIKiG: PLAN vEL FLOOR PLAN S< ?4\ noon nrn V? •IUA ? . / All A32 NORTH AND WEST ELEVdT1ON8 . -? G) SWTH AND EAST ELEVATIONS - caKn¢I¢ xClrcNru txa A41 WALL SEMOR SAVE DE7411 ¢rnlu eT Ialxnn ""? py u¢ls nuakn ASI A51 WNDOW AND DOOR SCHEDULES C011011! VEL REFLECTED CEILING PLAN "?° .?y,. (Fpp1 \ ^+ -Kryn «<s5 wwxn A53 ASA ENLARGED STAIR 1 TOILET FLOOR PLAN6 NSERIOR ELEVATIONS ? }/yl/1 Mrr ¢wtA(KH ¢knrrb tartan ?nT•"' Po6ro tAU.alwf .^''? ¢nnnSMn La:a.a Itt'.w+14114 J'2?r !>ux+uoc'n STRUCTURAL 61- FA+IDATION PLAN 62- 6ECG1,0 LEVEL FRAMING PLAN 83- ROOF FRAMING PLAN 54- 5TSIZtURAL DETAILS 66- 6TROCTIIRAL DETAILS 6t+- 6'11 WRAL 6PECWICAT50N6 ELECTRICAL Ell 611E ELECTRICAL PLAN AND LEGENO eU FIRST LEVEL ELECTRICAL PLAN Ell SECOND LEAL ELECTRICAL PLAN PROJECT MANUAL SEPARATE E? GWATHMEY Prolt R z O 1W11 , T H W Y? W y t* a r?j L?^ z a N bete- 4-lo-lsss Red5n4: S..t N-1 AO. .L 5 OF24 VAIL WLAGE SECOND FILING L°r i t / toy / tg? _ ail CO "I'9p`Ef(/YIU?.S ? .e.?.. t "wry Y ? I? '{ `{ _ «fY ' l!yyq.a.. .u -?,.a<o 6 - 09:55:5/" f `writt 394.59' yyyLLL??? I?. i? \ E3 a i 9 1 „lT t -. w ar - scar ca - s 9szJr" a R I 2 I v"WT -M. 0) ? 4 } ??\ 4 ?:+q„ VI 0` +.,.. 4 y •^ ?•--.__ w.gew_n L«?zrs?? I Jq" ? ? ? t?f f R - 1197;59" \ Al o-?l"1i? R - 1255 JS' 6 real cr #xcG@ - ?--- _ _ 4 3 1 [ ! 1 F= SJ1.49`.. i ?,.arsrw uead1rxNC ?'^? Lti? it L - 2261,5 sbrT9,w '"? ^?-•, ?y' if'! ? ? CA} = 121.54' CA - N 522250" w ^ \ _ a n«o,... n mr- rei "Y•• ?! :! .?`+_ ia?nL! a+bann_nua wbw.. 60 ""--.. D ^. ,7359 (M" R - JM22' L f 7V, 2a' Q Y at - 175.22' ?f3.K S) . y-c. p . t ft 54arx ?y L14 N7JZJ:10"w 2.4rS/ ?Yc. i b { ?i.,e >aa { ? LEGENQ ?Sp. Y 75 CONTOUR 1NFERVAL = 2 F£EF S8977-00'W 12482" u L%CLfYLl!!PL£ `l"...W..«,....?...,.a»... „Y"^"' 6 1 cuvu' rx:Ye xaws utc rtac , r aax ?raro a?.++"?O+'.? ?*+-«..w.? wt ?rari [-J 349'!6' J4.l6' 9399 l.Qb' 72 H' Mall J6`a ??° «a.,.?.«r«x. ....aw.. r•^-.• ?" uw ww.r .,m r. an wv:Frw.: `" 1? F p. Y F " ? yr y 4 m t _ r r ,x rr ? r ttT V?•-? ? t ?? ? i a?v ?`? t? Y . V /t V t?? 1 .saa' Vi ;?5??\\ ? nt 4 ?C+7Y'}.??f? ( C'^y _ E 1 aesr? Yie: r..rc ?- `_•?"?','kbz• V ILA i .--? v<tx e {}t L i v kL •f1,=t(r ? `?..? 17'. t ..--- ?? trxa'`•';-'-?".? ? e t i A\i`V\ ??`? !! ?Y? n9 A 1 d .." f? i'? i ( r 't6r4V 7 ^.+za •?-? --?r._ -.___`_`---.r t/ l i t= ,• rrxs na. wr.s•`\• 1 .t i v'KxraL G.? q v "??. ri i 7• .. .? "we. \t. \ i Y. '°• T' \''?.? ",t?..=E it ?? \ y v r \ - t were "YT?a --•- v"o. l?\ h? t: d is r 1: NE IN CE. R STk r ?'? ?ASCKN[ \'c. rtr r e„ea v?r`?w'xtr`'C t y r EXISTING CHAPEL .;k r \ rwX \ \\ ° \\ `? tr •C yy ~CL .?? \ APPRQX[MATELY 8,500,00 SO. FT. p. k tok'K rt vKu WA? \\\ \ #L_, ' .'j... rurLU ewe - n e x a runcr s "? // WS.wn?4 !% AN ?, vw/G / GYp! KnP SLC4VP JG 4W ? ? F /4a YCK J Ma Of LPPE C FLK AT (Nala YSa 11 IM 14" ".{" _ `?•?. 9c /a (Y Yp f.1Ml,' C [t? It 0au rYnlH '' Sd !w'rfT `•'' - " xNR?Gf r x„ror rumneeu wr <,Yaw- north PLAN rcre. , fu ..YNf tw?a SITE I Lf?i1Y. ? ??ao`_?.,,_•__ ._..--_• ° ecx TOTAL LOT AREA CulJECs 9T .'L SiiMAM4 CHAPEL 113063 60. FT_ r 164 AC'S A GWATHMEY Pratt µ ?;a1 h?,.,Y a Ch E"t r7 ? > z a? 0 v Y rr ?a a° m G a tc.'xiS. ` -Mr, 7-11-fM Ra.isad 5k.l Number al.1 Yw: ?a?« r w 0 ? ®® GiIA{` M SCAU r ?n.x ,xm Ju GWATHMEY VA([. V/LLACC SECOM) FILING .G1Ge :._rndEf r , rwpus rc bwnar u ccHr awn x.?mc _ Pratt = °•• a , k .. ..vrc ai . Sf' "W "x MA!` C-Y SOfeE' ? _ R JN3e' . }9' )FH' eLdJ` .t.CH' x ?3d'J6' w f?K) ? I Riac 4UrN •.c crwa-avi CONTOUR INTEERVAL? 2 2FECT? . F ` G - H . g x j .? " cl - a Cy 4 ' aar,,cy a 4t w1 w°`k T x z x? ;+ ' n- 09:1551 394.59' 44 4 C" 66, CB K 5 9:17:1t" k..? rrrm. iTw' h ?y b y SR!G? `- L' L? =:-bx i?ERIa DUlLDIN ? ?'SN l ? 1 R7 5 ? i > z o ? .. 1 We f-u-iave _ ?-589'17'00"w tfG€d¢ 170.86' ? arts rt xro nwx la` awe: _ - - i 1 a2+ IF, ra,...-„.rt wwrao rrar,.. oa ..a..-w xp. r. r.rv 0w wvx F SITF Pt AN/ .'"a rr xa+r FOf t /.? N h/f7l?EY aaivs .n,.... `°w ' w : ;"' ' " "•. "" t . U( / / 810C` : T, w..n?s .a. o„ Vnta Nu n t trx s r J 141NG r 1u? ...?.., w ? SnaYl Nw{.Fi?N _ . . ..« r ,... ,» w~. . roi.. ,w m ..aaa wnr f TJ rxx 0f ! vt. C4CLE COUNTX 'Jt 0RAD0 .ar r. w.. ?` 0 0 E J_- - - - - - - - - - - - - z prat - a q'a 1- ff ? "- 1 -? 0 11 ~- L f S Scr . awt` Lf I L L - n ii. iP( V T 1 cam C _ I r[cia } CiceECeES) ft?ctect?et?l j--? - 1w -7-r t- 71 -- - ICk.k_ILWY1Yi ---- "? - -.-. Q O I } p Jlf g c?? n; ??tf_? I = i?o I w w ?F ----- ----- - ----- " ` i P(r. 1 [ 5?? wit rt C?f4Scel?s? C? 4? 1 I' C-D l t --- ----- - } _- - - 1 r I i f ? ? I I? - -_._:,?_-_ _ 1-__ • ., ,,.. ? , ., .,, 1?? _.__ ,.-, .,> .l...z_ _ ._._a.., s,,. _ ? _ a._.ie . _ ,..» s,y 1 , , ?,. ,,..k ?? ? .. ?.-3 r, ua b ROOM FINISH SYMBOL / KEY V ROOM FINISHES L n c1rv?. @a?k -/ vn€? -- cuuG Z !{7.r ?? EJ S i 5 r ?S??r Y`?riro ?P ? M I A E thmey Prnit 990 - 7a O W z ti v a CS _ t/Y??•J{e yam` ? 1 W zz? z ?4.olnm.y P.arl aU )-20-1998 R-'.a. e ENTRY LEVEL FLOOR PLAN north wac ua' r-a' 2,56@.@@ sG].fl. ? '?' W . ShEC! kvmpa, A2.{1 v ' s ?:s?? ?r?• 1'mY. < .1 ?^ ?? SUNCC ELEV. 'u cg? n 4. Ek t'1 a ? !p a N[CHaNICK riw utarc p t h E ICJ #l ICS f Ic-o IQ (C9 ( I f r i I f ? I d i j ? t 4• 4 __?= 1! _ ..- t<,C cv DuEGK N5DVE - i) ' f ? ? ,.n_,_ w'-n vw I rc.a i.r' a-,r vt'? "V M ?at4!thmey Pr <;I ?ra? mw l l"4 _ K E-+ o- a b ? > vrw M WtJ'. 7-RT-iBB9 _' N<.iseC RGOM FfNISN SYMBUt. / KEY T? RDOM FINISHES ?nc?cth LOWER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN {c/?(}5??7?/ - ``u__tuus rrner""fixiearir";? -''' ,?maa, scue: rf.? . xtin• 2.5Q+ftJ.27F? Ae?.ft. l??ff y. ? ?t ?. EGJE S5t Ay?,?,' i CC `1. t?rxx Sf > c seYC'< ?Z?1r? ? ? 1f C`a ?{ ?' ? ?? _ Snrot Mrm6<r.. . i•?.4 5 wwiBBB666MMBASucra Itklr.'?i"" P e °. a A2.2 • Pro?i hmey t I1 I fI I? ROOF PITCH ?? ? 'i-12 FYPICd? 90= a o - wz°tt F4 ?' ^ H z " F W ?J aH?, }?y U ? G rt,.???y! E? V` z a° 1 ? CN?aMUC PN.aii N ?rwr r.. P ' Oafs 7-22-f888 PeriaeJ north ROOF PLAN .. R III'. 1'-J' S..I N..W A2a3 aca»en v.vc ?.wreo _ ? n7j- rYk J II .......»_? OYOM'1 ?. ? ?=k NORTH ELEVATION .-?arna vw>v ____,, ? Nv x?iarr'tira?ne°avenrb -- - --------- - ------- r 4° tTY1C 1 t ?' ,tx.«rnrtowb WEST ELEVATION Profihmey 0 aCs w z L) M . W ? (mil w W ?-1 t3 > ,Z °a 6 n «? CA/11 U.. 7-22-1448 Hn sbd. y[ma S%3.0[1 A ?,aykthmey _ P rrcw,. m. ./?_x - - d (s J Ef u 61 ?? Ld W 6 r oF.E aE -.. a4 IT. iW _ _ ?.. E- z ? f ?... t -14 tlF 1i6YKM _ _ .. MIME W »Ew aacr • _ -- - - b 4 ?- ------------- -- ----- Y65••r SOUTH ELEVATION •• -.. H..WKrvnED 5CNL; t/<' a f' d' y m ?// eEV i45Neru row' wme - ._ _ / r` ? _ F pCM 1f1uE'f PMn rre.mEa T ? GE?? ?O hiftr E atN3 GNRt ?1??4?14?I?N??ifPlr? E'aRR EAST ELEVATION I E tr.?« 6 s?.Et w m? N,,.:,• A3.2 ATTIC ATTIC 1 u utae _ EIEVAIOR iWLI TOR9t KO!{,Et _ BR.Af• _ RCGfl IW., CWK#LlKr ROCI'I _ j STAR wow ? ? l T1~t 1? 1 f 1 t I ?Fi1111I ttllllli illll??: } CLOSET SAKI Rt 61AIR BAS N04T 11IRM BAMEW r EL MOR SECTION - A sue: ,f,. _ ,.?• 'f ff ?~ • SECTION - B SCRt' tfd- • T'-ti h to nary Qx?thmep ra?? Z }n 4 P., M-e a? s? w ~ f'•'1 y PP 1X E-+ 3 D.I., 7-22^1969 Rmiub: sh"I tlum A4.1 r t MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: August 24, 1998 SUBJECT: A request for an amendment to a previously approved development plan for the Timber Falls Development, located at 4469 Timber Falls Courtlunplatted. Applicant: RAD Five L.L.C., represented by Greg Amsden Planner: Dominic Mauriello 1, BACKGROUND The Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC), at its April 13, 1998 meeting, found that Phase X (Building #19) of Timber Falls has a vested development right for one structure in the exact form, size, density [6 dwelling units], and configuration as Building #18 and that anything in addition to or different than specifically that, will require a PEC review and approval of an amended plan. Subsequently, on April 27, 1998, the PEC gave the applicant direction to amend the development plan by proposing single-family and duplex development. Subsequent to that meeting, on June 8, 1998, the PEC gave the applicant general direction that the proposal was not in keeping with the scale and character of the area and that there was excessive site disturbance and bulk being added,to the site. There was concern expressed over the impacts to vegetation on the site. On July 13, 1998, the applicant returned to the PEC with a proposal for 2 single-family structures and 1 duplex structure, for a total of 4 dwelling units. The applicant tabled the discussion so that they could develop new plans. The July 13 minutes and memo are attached for your reference. 11. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant is requesting approval of an amended development plan for the site of Building #19. The proposal provides one building envelope and a total of 4 dwelling units. The building envelope is approximately 7,400 sq. ft. in size and the building footprint shown is approximately 4,830 sq. ft. in size. The plan provides for 7,325 sq. ft. of GRFA. The PEC, at its April 13, 1998 meeting, determined that the applicant is entitled to the GRFA contained in Building #18, which is 6,541 sq. ft. Additionally, staff has digitized the floor plans for Building #20, which the applicant 0 TOWN OF 1LIL refers to with respect to GRFA for Building #19, and has determined that Building #20 contains 7,275 sq. ft. of GRFA. Staff also analyzed this site in accordance with the LDMF Zone District. Thissite, looked at as a stand-alone building site, would allow for 8,180 sq. ft. of GRFA, and 5 dwelling units (see Zoning Analysis). The proposal includes 6 enclosed parking spaces and 6 surface parking spaces, for a total of 12 parking spaces. The Zoning Regulations require 8 parking spaces, or 2 parking spaces per dwelling unit. The Fire Department has determined that these dwellings will all be required to be sprinkled per the Uniform Fire Code requirements. The proposed access modifies the parking area and amount of landscaping directly in front of Building #20. The same number of parking spaces are maintained, but they are moved approximately 7 closer to the building. There is a letter from the management company representing the owners of Building #20 expressing concern over the development of the site for Building #19 (attached). The site is located in a High and Moderate Debris Flow Hazard, High Severity Rockfall Hazard, and a Snow Avalanche Area of Influence. The applicant has provided a site specific geologic hazard report addressing these hazards. The report finds that there is no impact of these hazards to this site. An owner affidavit is required to be submitted with the Design Review Board application for any development on this property. III. COMPARISON OF PROPOSED PLAN TO PREVIOUSLY APPROVED DEVELOPMENT PLAN, Staff has prepared a comparison of the proposed development plan with the previously approved development plan and the previously approved development plan with parking (as developed by the applicant). Staff has analyzed these plans two ways. First, staff has provided an analysis of the building footprints on all three concepts. This allows the site to be analyzed as to building bulk and mass located on this parcel. Second, staff analyzed the amount of "site, disturbance" proposed for each plan. For this analysis, site disturbance is the area of building footprint, plus any paved drive aisle or parking area. The difference in building footprint from the proposed development plan to the previously approved development plan is 2,477 sq. ft. of additional mass/footprint. The difference in site disturbance from the proposed development plan to the previously approved plan is 6,777 sq. ft. of additional disturbance. The difference in site disturbance from the proposed development plan to the previously approved development plan with parking on-site (as developed by the applicant) is 1,287 sq. ft. of additional disturbance. The change in site disturbance from the July 13, 1998 proposed plan is 145 sq. ft. less site disturbance. 2 0 Plan Aug. 24 Proposed Development Plan July 13 Proposed Development Plan Previously Approved Development Plan Previously Approved Development Plan with Parking Area IV. DISCUSSION Building Site Difference from Foot Print Envelooe Paved Area Disturbance Proposed 4,830 sq. ft. 7,400 sq. ft. 4,300 sq. ft. 9,130 sq. it. n/a 5,362 sq. ft. 6,556 sq. ft. 3,913 sq. ft. 9,275 sq. ft. nIa 2,353 sq. ft. n/a None 2,353 sq. ft. 6,777 sq, ft. 2,353 sq. ft. n/a 5,490 sq. ft. 7,843 sq. ft. 1,287 sq. ft. ; Staff believes that the proposed bulk and mass (footprint) being added to the site is a substantial departure from the previously approved development. The proposed massing utilizes much more of the site than the approved development plan. Staff believes the proposed use is much more consistent with the adjacent multiple family uses than the previous proposal. Additionally, the proposal will have a greater physical impact to the site, which staff believes is a substantial departure from the approved development plan for the site. Staff also believes that the development provided, which shows Building #19 in its original massing with the addition of parking, clearly demonstrates that the site can be developed with less physical impacts to the site and with substantially less building mass (footprint). If the applicant wishes to proceed with the development of Building #19 as a replica of Building #18, the applicant may proceed with a DRB application. Parking for all uses on-site is required. V. ZONING ANALYSIS Zoning: Low Density Multiple Family Hazards: Nigh and Moderate Debris Flow High Severity Rockfall Snow Avalanche Area of Influence Lot area: 34,064.7 sq. ft. (0.782 acres) Buildable area: 24,269.8 sq. ft. (0.557 acres) Standard Allowed LDMF Allowed Building #18 Proposed GRFA: 6,180 sq. ft. 6,541 sq. ft. 7,325 sq. ft.* Density: 5 dwelling units 6 dwelling units 4 dwelling units Building height: 38' sloping nla 38' sloping Landscape area: 13,625.88 sq. ft. (40%) n/a 24,934.7 sq. ft, (73%) Note: 'A zone check of Building #20, reveals a total GRFA of 7,275. 3 Vi. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends denial of the applicant's request for an amendment to the approved development plan for Timber Falls, subject to the following finding: 1. The proposed development plan is a substantial departure from the approved development plan due to the increased site disturbance and building footprint, which has a potential detrimental effect to the site and surrounding uses. Should the PEC decide to approve this development plan or a modified version, the PEC should consider making the following conditions: 1. The site plan shall meet all development standards utilized by the Town of Vail and that this approval is accepted only as a preliminary grading and layout plan. A detailed plan shall be required prior to scheduling for DRB review of the proposal. 2. The building envelope be reduced in size to correspond with the building footprint (4,830 sq. ft. in size). 3. At least 50% of the Aspen trees located on-site shall be relocated or replaced on-site on a per caliper basis. 4. Prior to DRB review of the proposal, the property be appropriately platted. The plat shall include the building envelope, all proposed easements (including off- site access easements), development standards (including number of dwelling units, GRFA, parking spaces, and site coverage) and include the following note: All future development will be restricted to the area within the platted building envelopes. The only development permitted outside the platted building envelopes shall be landscaping, driveways and retaining walls associated with driveway construction. At-grade patios (those within 5' of existing or finished grade) will be permitted to project beyond the building envelopes not more than ten feet (10') nor more than one-half (1/2) the distance between the building envelope and the property line, or may project not more than five feet (6) nor more than one-fourth (1/a) the minimum required dimension between buildings. 6. The applicant shall revise the total GRFA for this development site to 6,541 sq. ft. 7. The site area and buildable area shall be limited to the area shown on the survey provided entitled: Site 19, Timber Falls, dated 3/31/98, with project number 98-0032S, prepared by Inter-Mountain Engineering, Inc. and stamped by Duane Feringer, P.E. and P.L.S. 26626. 8. The applicant shall provide written approval of owner(s) of the parking area in front of Building #20, for all modifications proposed for the parking area. F:AEVERYONE\PEC\MEMOS\98\T1MBF824. W PO 4 'VICINI r y ACCE_.. SS --- 500 o? ry a "'Q i ? YY?? W V1 Y ? Mrq ? '? c t 0 a o? ?a C AU.1 _V, 0 0 / i f i, -?_._ ,, ',// ol 'l FLAN 4CATE5 BUILDING ?)TPRINT 11CATE5 DRIVEWAY N o ° r` 0 PARKING EA5 (12 SPACES) d / tt t ? f/ t// ! f / W4 ! 4 f r f r r r f ?. .G M r r f ? ,.. r ok. f A o f ?j f ! 4 Or awn. q? f 1 r m Am U VELOpMENTPLAN I i„ to,C> kiELpPE: ??0 'rY r ? 'moo ~ S y ST?. ? EWIL.PIN -"'j) tiT5= 4 NUMBER o MAXiMRFA=1 325 PA??tNC-? ?iPAGE?= 12 NI,6.X. HEiNT: 3S ET. ?' \ 1 } ? f ? C7 F?11_C7ttJC?i'O? ? ? ? ? i € c° t k ?< ?? t 1 I I} t t t 7L f t w ? t 1 d f f l f?d } X ".. ti ? 1 1 t 1? / 1f ' t ??f ?l 1 1 d} 1(f l l rf rd#Hi 1I 1 to 4 t.. ? ti ? t } f ? 1 f?# t R I t t Ef{ -\, - - -'--- f 1 ? r } ! _ ' MpN {`;-''? ?? t_? t r t rt r t tr ° t! 1t tt t ? tt tt f 4 t ? I i t p' t p ! p} f !? ? "? ?} 1 t! f 4 f ? t ? ? t M j ? 6 Q 1 ?? ,. ? -? 1 t l ! t f ! l t It ! t t' I? '? ` V t t t t/ pit i t /j d ? 1 t f Lor fa ? .? t } d I t t i t t t t t I I!t f ft d tk ?t `? } ,,,,, ? 1 l ?/j f er?`?ieN ?s?tc,??u a ? i d ! f } i t t/! t f, t ,?9 f't ?? t 1 t? ?cY?zrr-? acrofru ? , ? r d dl r t p,+ ,? ,f t t ? 8 ?`?_., ? t t } fd tffdplt tt t?t tf l t l? 4y } d ! t ? /Jl/Ffffdrrf?'f t R?t?;,,.?ttl p t? ?:` } ! t ?? / f f F f! f f f f/ ? t ?;„rt t t t / d d ,f f f f I d f f f ??? t ?,?' t ! l ! f ? f y /? t/ddd Jr f d ff f tf fdr? ?,? ?'? q t r if t4? f t r t t t r l? /d-? } j ,?Vdd /dd/ftdfdffdri?? };`1 } I ? ? f ! J / ?- ._ T C r ?eoaoSEa ? - \ PARK110, EXTEN51ON $ f ;f f? i 0 0 2 01, APPROVED DEVELOPMENT PLAN } 2,353 5Q,FT. INDICATES 6tJiLDIN6 FOOTPRINT 1 tf If s '' n 5,490 50.FT. INDICATES DRIVEkgAY AND I AREAS (1125PACE5) LIME OF'UILDIN? AT 5PADE ANNE OF RA)OF AROVE ? ? f f f I I! / t ? ? ? 4 ! f E?FI}lf / f, f f 1 ?f ff !I f f f f ?.f !7 /i f I0 t V till 1, t f if 1 G` 1 f !f ?4 ff )f ! if f ! Jf l 1 l /?? ?l ,' f f f if ff ?r l rf; f5 ;w t it 1 f tit f I f/ f f 17 t l ! !l ? i I f? f? f?l ?? it/ t i / r ,` ? ? l /fl /f fff f f? Af,l Ff/ !? f V E ? if ? f/ // ff off ff f f? ff r fl?? ? i/?? /! f f f / f /? f 1 t? f f) f ff ffff f if ff,r f// ?? ff r ?? r B i f/ f/ f f f f r f f f'?f? ( ' ?,T? ?r f eou. w.4./fff / / / / // / f f? f f ff O ?a v° H 0 U fi ? IA H w Q! a O .r A2.1 E n 8. A request for an amendment to a previously approved plan for the Timber Falls Development, located at 4469 Timber Falls Court/unplatted. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes July 13, 1998 5 Applicant: RAD Five L.L.C., represented by Greg Amsden Planner: Dominic Mauriello Dominic Mauriello gave an overview of the staff memo and added that a hazard study had been received stating that the site would not be impacted. He also said he had received,, several letters from neighboring property owners. Ann Bishop left at 4:30 p.m. (This was the last item on the agenda). Greg Moffet disclosed for the record that he did business with the applicant, but that it would not affect his decision. Greg Amsden, representing RAD IV and himself, showed the perspective and how low the building sat on the site from the west elevation, as seen from Bald Mountain to the project. He said it was 6'-8' lower than Building #18 or #20 and was stepped back. He said, as viewed from the property across the creek, it was lower than a condominium building. He stated that the opportunity to replace trees was lessened dramatically, if a 6-unit building was there instead of this proposal. He said that the parking scenario was better than outdoor parking. He reminded the PEC that staff was taking a conservative approach in relation to what this site could handle. He again stated that they were going from a potential condominium building to smaller single-family units. Dominic Mauriello said that this was a substantial departure from the plan and potentially detrimental to adjacent neighbors, as the proposal encroached closer into buildings in that development. He said this development was zoned multiple-family and by introducing single- family dwellings into an area zoned multiple-family would be potentially inconsistent with what was built there. Greg Amsden said he was not interested in dropping the GRFA. Greg Moffet asked for any public comment. Marilyn Heller, an owner of a condo on the east side of Building #18, said she would be impacted with whatever went on that site. She said it was a very large footprint and that one of the single homes would go over the path that was an access way to the swimming pool, tennis courts and recreation area. She said it would be very close to her patio, impacting the view and taking away the trees. She said the original plan did not take parking into account, which was also a problem and needed some rethinking. She stated that the sewer line needed to be looked into, as they needed to be careful not to cross over the existing sewer line for Buildings #18-#20. Mel Brodie, who lived directly across the creek, said this was just a huge mass of buildings with these three separate structures. He said the 35' high condo would be replaced by 3 buildings ranging in height 32' - 35' . Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes July 13, 1998 6 Dominic Mauriello made a correction on #2 of the findings in # V.- Staff Recommendation. He said it should add the word "potential,,, before the word "detrimental.,, Tom Weber stated that what was approved was the right to build the same building as Building #18 or #20. He said he was being asked to depart from what had been approved. He said the proposed plan caused more site disturbance and was closer to the neighboring buildings. He said he would like to see some investigation of putting the parking into the existing common area He said that this proposal had more impact than the previously approved plan. He said because of the way it looked and its use being such a departure from the original plan and it affected the neighbors more, he wouldn't be able to support the request at this time. Brian Doyon echoed what Tom said. He said that the PEC only approved the master plan and that this was a large massing in the footprint. He said that this was a condo project and the parking was intended to be in the common area the same as the rest of the area. He thought that trees should be replaced 100% caliper per caliper. Dominic Mauriello said it was reasonable to replace at 50% caliper per caliper, if replacing a large number of trees. Brian Doyon again said to add as much caliper per caliper as could be accommodated. Greg Moffet asked if the garages were counted in the GRFA figure. Greg Amsden said, no. Brian Doyon suggested that moving the parking lots closer to the balconies on Building #20 was a concern. Tom Weber said the common area started at the exterior wall of Building #20. Greg Amsden said Building #18 owned their own parking and that Building #20 did not own their own parking. He said that Ron Riley had granted easements for the building to have access, but he-owns the common area. Brian Doyon said to have a car parked 10' from your window was a detrimental effect. John Schofield said the site disturbance for three foundations was much more and that access pinned in by parking wouldn't function. Therefore, he said realistically, the site disturbance was substantially more and the access was not accessible. Galen Aasland said he had concerns with the site disturbance and if it couldn't be demonstrated that the site disturbance was the same, the applicant shouldn't'get GRFA. He said he did see merit in enclosing the parking. He said for this to be approvable, the scale would have to be consistent with what was on the site. He said he believed that the applicant could build significantly more upwards to 35' and that his biggest concern was the footprint and the building mass and bulk, so he would have trouble supporting this. Diane Golden stated that this was a great departure from what was previously approved. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes July 13, 1998 7 Greg Moffet said the problem in hand was that this was uncharted territory with an approved development plan. He questioned single-family houses in the middle of this project. He said he was hung up on the bulk and mass of the garages. He said there was an additional 2,500 sq. ft. for the garages. He said he wanted to see covered parking, with no more bulk and mass. Greg Amsden summarized that the single-family approach didn't seem workable with the Commission or with the staff, as there was too much disturbance. He said they needed to put the parking on the site. He thought they would have to put a condo building here or put a . townhome scenario. He said he would like to table this and come back with a townhome scenario. Galen Aasland said a townhome would fit into the neighborhood better, having a common wall. He then made a motion to table this item until 8110/98. John Schofield seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 6-0. v Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes July 13, 1998 8 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: July 13, 1998 SUBJECT: A request for an amendment to a previously approved development plan for the Timber Falls Development, located at 4469 Timber Falls Court/unplatted. Applicant: RAD Five L.L.C., represented by Greg Amsden Planner: Dominic Mauriello 1, BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC), at its April 13, 1998 meeting, found that Phase X (Building #19) of Timber Falls has a vested development right for one structure in the exact form, size, density [6 dwelling units], and configuration as Building #18 and that anything in addition to or different than specifically that, will require a PEC review and approval of an amended plan. Subsequently, on April 27, 1998, the PEC gave the applicant direction to amend the development plan by proposing single-family and duplex development. Subsequent to that meeting, on June 8, 1998, the PEC gave the applicant general direction that the proposal was not in keeping with the scale and character of the area and that there was excessive site disturbance and bulk being added to the site. There was concern expressed over the impacts to vegetation on the site. The applicant is requesting approval of an amended development plan for the site of Building #19. The proposal provides 3 building envelopes (A, B, and C) and a total of 4 dwelling units. Building envelope "C" would contain a duplex structure. The applicant has provided a site plan of building site #19 (no building forms or plans have been provided, per PEC direction). Building envelopes "A" and "B" would allow for 1,950 sq. ft. of GRFA each and building envelope "C" would allow for 3,425 sq. ft. of GRFA for a total site GRFA of 7,325 sq. ft. The PEC, at its April 13, 1998 meeting, determined that the applicant is entitled to the GRFA.contained in Building #18, which is 6,541 sq. ft. Additionally, staff has digitized the floor plans for Building #20, which the applicant refers to with respect to GRFA for Building #19, and has determined that Building #20 contains 7,275 sq. ft. of GRFA. Staff also analyzed this site in accordance with the LDMF Zone District. This site, looked at as a stand-alone building site, would allow for 8,180 sq. ft. of GRFA, and 5 dwelling units (see Zoning Analysis). The proposal includes enclosed two-car garages for each of the dwelling units located on-site. The Zoning Regulations require 2 parking spaces per dwelling unit. The applicant has provided 4 parking spaces per dwelling unit (2 enclosed, 2 surface). The applicant has revised the building envelopes to exclude areas of 40% slope or greater and 0 TOWN UF'V areas where there is a substantial number of conifer trees on-site (Building envelope "B") The Fire Department has given approval of the general layout, but has stated to the applicant, that structures, based on final design, may be required to be sprinkled per the Uniform Fire Code requirements. The access to the site has been modified in order to work more efficiently. The proposed access modifies the parking area and amount of landscaping directly in front of Building #20. The same number of parking spaces are maintained, but they are moved approximately T closer to the building. Staff has not received any indication from the owners of Building #20 as to the acceptability of this modification. There is a letter from the management company representing the owners of this building expressing concern over the development of the site for Building #19 (attached). The proposed, plan no longer shows a pedestrian path easement on the western portion of the site. The site is located in a High and Moderate Debris Flow Hazard, High Severity Rockfall Hazard, and a Snow Avalanche Area of Influence. A site specific geologic hazard report and owner affidavit are required to be submitted with the Design Review Board application for any development on this property. The applicant's submittal, as well as correspondence received from adjacent property owners, are attached. 11. COMPARISON OF PROPOSED PLAN TO PREVIOUSLY APPROVED DEVf=LO? LENT PLAN Staff has prepared a comparison of the proposed development plan with the previously approved development plan and the previously approved development plan with parking (as developed by the applicant). Staff has analyzed these plans two ways. First, staff has provided an analysis of the building footprints on all three concepts. This allows the site to be analyzed as to building bulk and mass located on this parcel. Second, staff analyzed the amount of "site disturbance" proposed for each plan. For this analysis, site disturbance is the area of building envelope/footprint, plus any paved drive aisle or parking area. The difference in building footprint from the proposed development plan to the previously approved development plan is 3,009 sq. ft. of additional mass/footprint. The difference in site disturbance from the proposed development plan to the previously approved plan is 6,922 sq. ft. of additional disturbance. The difference in site disturbance from the proposed development plan to the previously approved development plan with parking on-site (as developed by the applicant) is 1,432 sq. ft. of additional disturbance. Building site Difference from Plan Foot Print Envelooe Paved Area Disturbance Prooosed Proposed/Amended 5,362 sq. ft. 8,556 sq. ft. 3,913 sq. ft. 9,275 sq. ft. n!a Development Plan Previously Approved 2,353 sq. ft, n/a None 2,353 sq. ft. 6,922 sq. ft. Development Plan Previously Approved 2,353 sq. ft. n/a 5,490 sq. ft. 7,843 sq. ft. 1,432 sq. ft. Development Plan with Parking Area 2 Ill. DISCUSSION Staff believes that the proposed bulk and mass (footprint) being added to the site is a substantial departure from the previously approved development. The proposing massing utilizes much more of the site than the approved development plan. Additionally, staff believes the proposed use is inconsistent with the adjacent multiple family uses. This is not to say that multiple family development and single-family/two-family are always incompatible, but in this specific instance, given the location of the parcel in relationship to the adjacent buildings, staff believes the proposed use is inconsistent with the remainder of the development Additionally, the proposal will have a greater physical impact to the site, which staff believes is a substantial departure from the approved development plan for the site. Staff also believes that the development provided, which shows Building #19 in its original massing with the addition of parking, clearly demonstrates that the site can be developed with less physical impacts to the site and with substantially less building mass (footprint). If the applicant wishes to proceed with the development of Building #19 as a replica of Building #18, the applicant may proceed with a DRB application. Parking for all uses on-site is required. IV. ZONING ANALYSIS Zoning: Hazards: Lot area: Buildable area: Standard GRFA: Density: Building height: Low Density Multiple Family High and Moderate Debris Flow High Severity Rockfall Snow Avalanche Area of Influence 34,064.7 sq. ft. (0.782 acres) 24,269.8 sq. ft. (0.557 acres) Allowed I. DMF 8,180 sq. ft. -5 dwelling units 38' sloping Allowed Buildino #18 6,541 sq. ft. 6 dwelling units n/a Landscape area: 13,625.88 sq. ft. (40%) n/a Note: *A zone check of building #20, reveals a total GRFA of 7,275. V. STAFF RECOMMEENDA71ON Proposed 7,325 sq. ft.* 4 dwelling units 35' sloping 24,789.7 sq. ft. (72%) The Community Development Department recommends denial of the applicant's request for an amendment to the approved development plan for Timber Falls, subject to the following findings: 1. The proposed development plan is inconsistent with the character and massing of the area and the remainder of the Timber Falls development. 2. The proposed development plan is a substantial departure from the approved development plan due to the increased site disturbance and building footprint, which has a detrimental effect to the site and surrounding uses. 3 3. The proposal is inconsistent with the development objectives of the Town of Vail and is potentially detrimental to the environment. Should the PEC decide to approve this development plan or a modified version, the PEC should consider making the following conditions: The site plan shall meet all development standards utilized by the Town of Vail and that this approval is accepted only as a preliminary grading and layout plan. A detailed plan shall be required prior to scheduling for ORB review of the proposal 2. All grading associated with buildings on-site be contained within the building envelopes. 3. At least 50% of the Aspen Trees located on-site shall be relocated or replaced on- site on a per caliper basis. 4. Prior to ORB review of the proposal, the property be appropriately platted. The plat shall include all building envelopes, all proposed easements (including off-.site access easements), development standards (including number of dwelling units, GRFA, parking spaces, and site coverage) and include the following note: All future development will be restricted to the area within the platted building envelopes. The only development permitted outside the platted building envelopes shall be landscaping, driveways and retaining wails associated with driveway construction. At-grade patios (those within 5' of existing or finished grade) will be permitted to project beyond the building envelopes not more than ten feet (10') nor more than one-half (1/2) the distance between the building envelope and the property line, or may project not more than five feet (5') nor more than one-fourth (1/4) the minimum required dimension between buildings. 5. Prior to ORB application, the applicant shall provide a site-specific hazard report and a-owner hazard affidavit for the development in accordance with the Zoning Regulations. 6. The applicant shall revise the total GRFA for this development site to 6,541 sq. ft. 7. The site area and buildable area shall be limited to the area shown on the survey provided entitled: Site 19, Timber Falls, dated 3131158, with project number 98- 00325, prepared by Inter-Mountain Engineering, Inc. and stamped by Duane Feringer, P.E. and P.L.S. 26626. 8. The applicant shall provide written approval of owners of the parking area in front of Building #20, for all modifications proposed for the parking area. F:\EVERYONE\PEC\MEMOS\98\`r1M BFALL.713 4 The Chalets at Timber Falls The applicant, AMS Development, Inc., is F1 VFOsing to amend a previously approved development plan for Building #19, Timber Falls Condominiums. The previously approved development plan consisted of two 3-story structures containing 3 condominium units each (total of six units) connected by a covered stairwell structure (see attached photos of Buildings #18 and #20, Timber Falls Condominiums). No formal plans were ever filed on Building 419, thus the planning staff at the Town of Vail researched GRFA figures of the adjacent building's and determined that Building #18 contained 6,541 sq.ft. and Building #20 contained 7,275 u sq.ft. The staff also determined that the current site under consideration, given the existing Low Density Multi-Family zoning, could accommodate 8,180 sq.ft, of GRFA. After several worksessions regarding zoning issues and development concepts for Building Site #19, the applicant researched constructing a duplicate of Building #18 on the subject property. Such a building would require 12 new parking spaces on site under current zoning and the location of the actual structure (40' high) would be pushed toward the edge of the 40% slope areas and create a more visible exposure to neighboring creekside property owners to the north (see attached site plan). Since site disturbance appeared to be an important issue at the June PEC worksession, the applicant decided not to pursue a condominium building development. The applicant is proposing to construct three structures, one duplex and two single-family residences, on the property commonly known as Building Site #19. The applicant is requesting a total GRFA number of 7,325 sq.ft. The applicant is proposing specific building envelopes for each of the three structures. All parking shall be located within the proposed building envelopes and the applicant is proposing a 2-car garage for each residence. Property Use The condominium approach to developing Building Site #19 would create a product that appeals exclusively to second home ownership. A single-family or duplex approach (smaller 1,825-2,020 sq.ft. floor plans) would attract local ownership as well as second home buyers. The Vail Valley is now seeing a good number of retired and semi-retired couples moving here as full time residences. The availability of new single-family and duplex residences with smaller floor plans is almost non-existent. A good example of the demand for this type of product is Innsbruck Meadows, where 7 of the 17 units constructed are occupied by local residents. Such results would not occur with new condominium products. Parking As discussed above the applicant is providing a 2-car garage with each residence proposed. In addition, two guest spaces per residence are proposed. Although garages do create more site coverage, they eliminate the view of an exposed parking lot required for a condominium building. In addition, the parking areas proposed by applicant allow for better use of landscaping buffers than the 12-car parking lot required under the condominium approach. Fire Department Issues The applicant's architect, Rich and Krustn Designs, met with Mike McGee regarding fire department access issues. Fire engine access and turn-around information provided to the planning staff was acceptable to Mike McGee, but the actual structures may be required to be sprinklered in the Design Review process ( submittal of the actual plans). The applicant acknowledges this may be a requirement in obtaining architectural and structural approval of the proposed project. Trees The applicant is proposing to protect all existing evc. ,? eens on the site as well as several of the aspens exceeding 6" caliper. The applicant field verified 2+ aspen trees in the 4" to 5" caliper category scattered throughout the site (see applicant's tree location site plan). It is the applicant's intention to relocate these trees (those located within areas of site disturbance) to areas,adjacent to Buildings #18 and #20 to buffer the proposed structures. The actual survey indicating the existing location of these trees shall be provided in the Design Review stage of this development. A tree relocation plan as well as a tree mitigation plan will be discussed in the Design Review process. Site Coveraee and Heieht Issues The applicant's proposal increases that portion of the site covered by structural elements, but decreases the amount of site covered by asphalt (when comparing it to the condominium building approach). The lower building heights in the proposed duplex and single-family structures act as a compensating factor, as well as the dispersed nature of the structures. Landscaping between driveways can also soften the front elevation as one enters the property. The applicant feels the visual impact of this proposal is mach less than that ofa 3-story condominium building. Compatibility to Surrounding Pronerties Site #19 at Timber Falls is bordered by the following property types: South Condominiums, 900-1300 sq.#t., 2-3 BR floorplans, older structures. West Single-Family residences, 4,000-7,000 sq.ft., 4-6 BR floorplans, new structures. North Duplex and Primary-Secondary residences, 1800-3000 sq.ft. floorplans, a mix of older and remodeled structures. East Condominiums, 900-1300 sq.ft., 2-3 BR floorplans, older structures. The applicant believes that smaller duplex and single-family structures (1,825-2,020 sq.ft.) are well suited for this site and very compatible to surrounding properties. The Design Review Board shall administer to the specific architectural compatibility and details of the applicant's proposal upon approval of this amended development plan. BUILDING #18, TIMBER FALLS CONDOMINIUMS Aft. Ifs' c ;? ?b k .'. .rte ' _ ._ -r^_ f IJ)A ?ti? BUILDING #20, TIMBER FALLS C40NDOMINWMS 11 0 0 a 1 VIoA ; 0 0 r k a = o v " P > Co sry R ?] H? M? m C d .a O Q Q m an, ,AO.l v :r LENS a ^? . LINE OA { D , •,R o (1 °-- \X SE P?, ABOVE 1 _ 10 _? +J? SIT p'j, -- ;.•-'4??,lt' Lpp€ 1 \ > ? 5 ?r 1N?rt C7prpRfN7`St/ILDINC? k 467 INDICATE5 ANL t'q Kt DRf?lEh tAY CA5 (16--f l?''?.• - ?? ? ;??. ??? ?sot?°r'°''?#? ? ? ? ?; ?f fI { ? F 1{ '? rrrrr r ?•:. \ ? ?. `'.,.. .,. •:- \- ? - } fl ? ?` 1 ! ?I ff ?s•. }-r f rl ii f ?3„M4 - cos, \ ,? : `'- ? ? .?" ? ? •?. > ..` ? .y- '\ .. } } } } s t } f f /f f ! i r ?r` f `E 4 , srr -. S 11 1 t{ 1} 11 /// f r f Jr, rr a r - _--- ----` m ARC 1 '` a., . • } } { r ?V I ?..:, t \ : - ,,,.? .,., y t i 1 f ! I 1 { f!!I / fr,'' f ?f 4+1 N ! // 1 aQ u ??ROr?p?,EV ? ?) ? A•: t ?a?` ? ???? ? 1 { 1 !!!{ {{f /! !If !!{t !'d a' !rr` ? ?f ? ?i" +t .. Ex EN \ ll . J ! 1? 1 1 / ? f ! f f! ! /! ! !! ! ! } lrr 1 ! •ay ',J 47 ?. . ? ? ? ? ? ?: r ::. 1, {{{ f !r P? ! !f ! I !? fr !.? , i i 1 1 Ili ?1 ?? ?} ., t ?` : !r! i!, !iI f f{lfff I ! r r } ! I d ?' r ???! >! R ? 1. •• ? ?' f! f !f I !f ! f! !!/! I! ! !% {{? ? rr {{ } /? ?? ! { ? ? 74 J .? ..r ?? .'? ,.. ? r rf f °' / f I ! ! ! I 1? rl r°! f (? ! }; t?" w r y,r?(f f, rf f/ ;f!!r!I ! fl fxrJ f 1 rfff t{ !f { ?a "` -., _....•- r - ' \?` r L?` °?, C3bY f '° f f f f f //? 1 / ' ?f / I 1?' ffA t?`'?',AL? } ^--., "'--?..,.,..? "' r. '° .`?' "',.d '? r f r ° r r r 9 / ? f r? ? .„ •'' f ?? ??J` ''.'^e Q? AN OSIVI) 4 t l si le t Utl1 C N- ttU?t2 F P?= l- j t? t t ++ o 014 ? t t t ?, ? t f 1 f 1 f !+f 1 ! ttacar t / o `` ?.. ? !? `r'r ? !t tl f r/ !f / r ! f/ ?` j 1 ?'+ aa? '? 1 ? t i ? t ? f fl 41 ?;ikett4 ° ?? _ ` ??e ! 1 t t! ?! !t t t;! t¢ tit +ff r1tl1/C. ?tt?4tT?t? _ w p,t +?` t t t t f f r +! ?< e G4t`4HO14 MAXI r? E l r l r+ t ail r` i /j lI t it ? ?l ••, ? ?,,, ,? ..- .,,_ -••,.,, s y1"'?a..? -^' ?? ?. ? ?... ? ? t t 3 ? ? // ? ? ? r ? ? / t f ?+ ? ? t ? ? ? / ?/cSNG? fM1T GO tit ?r ! A t l ! 6t lt( l (/ f/{ t j? FAQ 14 _ + 517-f fjcf t r+'u 1 '"' -. ?,tlf \. ©? ?+??? f / f l + l t / l ? f! 47 p't„qyl.] `_xr r?X`? ( _ /x 1 ?P-oeosep N FZ> 1 ! r r r r 1/ l l lr If o :?.. ?/ ?' `? pp iK1 tCr PHASE XI M r t f I f/ t 1 1 1 + t r / ?t PkizKN& P+ t ?r ff //1f ff f/ ff f /f /t ff! ?t /tt ? ?35 k ? E 1 / f f 1 f ff f f // 4 , t ! +A i t? tti t ? / X20 1? C f )?f f 1 !1 !! f l 1 / l f (J , t i t l f ,?'? ? 1 ! ! t t l / t !t ? 1 + T / ? ?xrsrrmy ?- ?? ,it % -- .- j !! 1!t t / l f / t / ` ! i t j! t f ? 1 If tf 1 ° f t _ G amp AS-2 APPROVED DEVELOPMENT PLAN 2 f N 2,353 SQ.FF. FOCJTPREIJ EiU4LDING O e ! t* ?Wz/'?j \ t o a t V t t ' 5,4G0 SQ.FT, INDICATES PRIVEJgAY I \ t t AND PARKING AREA5 02 SPACES) h LIME OF?VLPII, ? AT GRADE '- +?sr ( SINE OF R&OF ANOVE off' ?• .cr??Sr. ? ? ? \ / / ? ? I IN51LIE :? - ` 1 ( ! t ( ( 1 ( t , f 1 1 J/ ! ,' 1 ! .C1 a r ? ? ? ? : ? •.. ?. 4 ? \ ?,_,, !.: :A' / 1 1 1 / f 1 1 1 111 I f , ,? ! i ? ? i ? iFiir ? ? ? '? ;,? ?' •:\ :: f 1 1 ! 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ? X t I / ?? '?'? Dt °`?' ,? _ ? _ '• ? ?? ;? : 111 f l f f 11 / f 1, 1? , 1 1 I /,? ??t ;.. 'bl 1 ( II ... - ? .??• ? '? '` ? " ( I 1 t 1 1 ? 111 / 1/ 1 1 1 ; 1 1 (?, / / 33 a ?p?oa©5?o ? ??,-'at ? ? 1 I / 1 / 1 f ?' l 1 f ! f ? ( -? 'PAZK/rre ` f / 1 E 111 1 1/ 1 1 1 E,' 1 If1 ' t I 1 "°1 ExrEA5EOrv araa V It , 1 f !!1 11 1/11 1 /1 1 1 .' 1 /' 11 1 { I j a ?1 o ? 1 1 1 1 1 1! /` J {? 1 8 - Q n t i t f/ 1 1 1 1 f 1 (!' ! A ,'l°°?. 1 1 L ?1 1?: 1'? /f! 1 f / l1 11 1? / 1 ei It / / ) ,? r / 11 / 1 1 1 'llrl i 11 / 1 1 r mac; , l1 f /? ! ! ! 1 / / / 1 / 1! 1T I?q l - m rr , 1 r!!! ? 11 1 !; y f 1 f, i , ?1 t ? \r..l ? / ?? ? 5T T / !/ 1 / !! / 1!ll,rf I , k '? G' ` 1 1 . 1 r ! f ?! 1% r , ? i 1 0500 enuw4 ?r / ! 1 ! ! / r c / 1 --- , n f r'un?rfE /'Rrsabe• i r/ ' sxas 4 1 A2.1 y f (( tt ( ! / i / f / f / r ?? .° ?? t 1, l 1 I Alk. s x • _..?cu FALLO .. "(1Mo Sti FIVISIDE CIRCLE r- _.___.__-._....... - SAO t r? ri ?r C) OFEtCE ?' ;•'? ; r?. C_C31f o 4 4, ((_r µ4f. ? ? ••,? ?; _;?,__((• 4/ ?Z 07/0811998 11:20 303723-0233 Z-AXIS PAGE 01 Dear Mr_ Morrielli: I'm writing to you in order to protest the proposed site plan amendment for Site 19 at Timber Falls Condominiums.. I'm a condominium owner of Building 181asoon Vorbeapms dent of the association of that building, and am spewing on behalf of myself as well as others in my building. The primary reason we moved into the Timber Falls community was our apprecia- tion of the harmony that exists between the development itself, and the beautiful views that the natural setting provides. Unfortunately, the proposed amendment to Site 19 would create a strong negative impact on our adjacent building as well as the entire community. this is due to the discord created by the density of the proposed amendment coupled with the inconsistency of the proposed plan to the existing complex.. I appreciate the opportunity to express the c,,-...-pity concerns over this proposed amendment. Please feel free to contact me should you have any questions about our concerns: 303-796-0601. Sincerely yours, Marilyn Helle June 10, 1998 Date Rpnezv JUN 14 1998 Ma: er wnt ConWus-ill Mr. Dominic Mauriello Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 Dear Mr. Mauriello: I represent the management company for Timber Falls Building 20. I would like to express the concerns of the owners of this property with regards to the proposed new development adjacent to it. My understanding is that the new building will be only 22 feet from Timber Falls Building 20. This is obviously very close. We would ask that the elevations of the new building be softened by having the roof line go away from the existing Timber Falls building and/or having just one story this close to lessen its impact. There are currently only 6 parking spaces for the Timber Falls building 20. There should be 15 spaces. We cannot have the parking reduced at all. Any reduction would leave less than 1 parking space per unit. .I would appreciate having these concerns presented to the committee evaluating this new development. Should you have any questions, pease feel free to call me at 476-4262. Si\ ely, Ste acDonald President 201 Gore Creek Drive • Vail, Colorado 81657 (970) 476-4262 • 1-800-944-VAIL 9 Denver 893-3853 v Facsimile (970) 479-9624 V 9137382012 PESTINGER DIST July x, i99s Inc is F. Mauriclo scnicsr Tower of Vans 75 Frott&W Roo Yad, CO. 81657 ft: Lot 19 I*imbcr Falls Dw Mr. Mauriclto: When we purcluued our ctmdanutt vm at 2001 Tintbor Falls in 1991, we werc infarmed of the 1 uL 19 Dcvvl,,e ; - .tilt PWL lofl& we a ?, . j , 41 object to b it ft on lot for a munber of reasons, m(hub% the lack of suitable wan and the "..am of the aspen. Sww, we at testa were aware of be posOle &ev 1opmart when we p=hwd the writ. stti?im lit .?.?. their pates area aztd tittuc itye their uttdt.. BUikft 20 has ortly six p place8 at the .. ?.?Citt tutee which is ieQ4*gWc; the apPeoved p "!'1' s ttt einninatc at levee two of the sic. This is tKn accAq abk. The "ond &vidtapttteitt plats is .*"ukiy mapprc>lm to for Ld 19. R *no= tlic .t 4;xt on the csntire w,.%A* and ravWm be be" of the srtc by 4i., aft ft 10t With oversize buildings and pst nt. It has alt ofthe ,r trl oft to o[igit>at pc4)aaat in taus of Pafth?& but be accen bectmm own of a sathy ccnacant, in the Gwent of fim. The p.,,,,Aiscd building would utver utility t?W'i+l m blot!! ionit lS We shunsly urge denial of atty dcw-tc wncmt on Lot 19 b cyond the rWnal propomA and r"mt that the moved proposd be mvisited its t?..rw of adequate pay lmg and access, aaA4, and site distutfianc o. Thank you for your work on this situation. Sinccmly, r? Pol Gene & Kara em Pest cnr Bwlding 20 ( 2001) 91805 4459 Timberfalls Court Vail, Co. 81657 August 22, 1998 Mr. Dominic F. Mauriello Town of Vail 75 Frontage Road Vail, Co. 81656 RE Plan for Lot 19 Dear Mr. Mauriello: As a follow up to our meeting this morning, please allow me to document my concerns regarding the proposed expansion on lot 19. Any building on this lot will further exacerbate the problems and confusion currently in Timberfalls. The land that building 18 owns has already been used too much as a common area and any expansion plans should correct these problems rather than making them more severe. Specific items that should be considered are: Access to the swimming pool and tennis courts. Currently the only vehicle access is across our property. We have allowed this access as a courtesy for a few years, but now the access has become a daily event and we are taking steps to close this driving route to protect our property. Further, one of two footpaths to the pool and courts cross our property. While the area for building 19 is owned by the developer of Timberfalls, he should develop both road and foot access to this pool so that it can be properly serviced. The proposed drive access to this building appears to cross land owned by building 1.8: We plan to have a survey completed in the next few weeks to establish this property line in the common area. From the information we have, the plans submitted have drive area that crosses on to our land. The development of Building 19 will destroy many valuable trees. While the plan calls for replacing them, the footprint of buildings and parking make this nearly impossible. Before any building is allowed, plans should be made and access provided for all of the infrastructure requirements of Timberfalls. This should have been done before any construction was started. Now is the time to make corrections before a swimming pool and two tennis courts are land locked and there is way to service them. They would further deteriorate and become a significant safety hazard. Please stop any development until these errors have been rectified. Very truly your , x ?John C. Schierholz Ll E U e plan i, ? rte V'ee `t` e C"W, ek- ?. LAC 40 c t r lea r' ?° '? c. ?r°.f r# rat r e ax- ' ',,1 414- :7 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: August 24, 1998 SUBJECT: A request for a major amendment to Special Development District #4, Cascade Village, to allow for the construction of eleven fractional fee club units, fifteen accommodation units and twenty-one employee housing units, to be located at 1325 Westhaven Drive, Westhgven Condominiums/Cascade Village Area A. Applicant: Gerald L. Wurhmann Planner: George Ruther t. BACKGROUND On July 27, 1998, Jerry Wurhman appeared before the Planning & Environmental Commission with a request for a final review and recommendation of the proposed major amendment to SDD#4. The request was tabled to provide the applicant with the opportunity to reconsider the proposed parking and loading design. The Commission was especially concerned with the lack of loading and delivery faciltilies and the guest vehicle parking configuration. In response to the Commission's concerns, the applicant has made the following revisions to the proposal: 1. A 12' x 25' loading/delivery berth has been provided on the east end of the surface parking lot. According to the Zoning Regulations, the standard loading/delivery berth shall be 12'x 25' in size. 2. A letter from Vail Honeywagon has been provided verifying the companies ability to adequately access the trash and recycling facility. 3. A letter from Public Service Company of Colorado has been provided granting preliminary approval of an encroachment agreement into a gas line easement. No changes were made to the proposed structured parking area configuration. Instead, the applicant believes that the 36 structured spaces adequately provide for the actual parking needs of the project. Larger vehicles such as passenger vans and suburbans will be able to parking in one of the ten surface parking spaces on the north side of the building. 46 parking spaces continue to be proposed. 58 spaces are needed if the parking requirement schedule is applied to this project. *YA10" TOWNO II. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant, Jerry Wurhman, is requesting a major amendment to Special Development District #4 (Cascade Village) pursuant to Title 12, Chapter 9A of the Town of Vail Zoning Regulations. The major amendment is intended to modify a 1995 major amendment approval for the Westhaven Condominiums, located at 1325 Westhaven Drive (the "Ruins"). The applicants proposing to amend the 1995 Westhaven Condominium approval to allow for the operation of a fractional fee club. The new fractional fee club is proposed to include: eleven, two-bedroom, fractional fee club units, fifteen, one-bedroom accommodation 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. The accommodation units are to be 300 square feet to 762 square feet in size with the majority being the larger size. The employee housing units are proposed to be Type Ill units and are between 450 and 500 square feet each. The on-site manager's unit is more than twice the size of the other employee units and is 1,084 square feet in size. All of the employee units are intended to be one bedroom units. The applicant is proposing to meet the anticipated parking demand on-site. To meet this need, the applicant has proposed to utilize the existing lower level parking garage as well as provide surface parking on the north side of the building. At this time, the applicant is proposing 36 enclosed garage parking spaces and 10 surface parking spaces. Of the 46 total spaces, four parking spaces will be handicapped accessible. The anticipated parking need as projected by the applicant differs from the parking requirement prescribed for the various uses outlined within the Municipal Code. The Municipal Code requires 58 parking spaces total. As this request is for an amendment to an existing Special Development District, the applicant is proposing various deviations from the required development standards. Some of the deviations are unchanged from the existing Special Development 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 units/acre) • Parking • Site Coverage • Common Area All other development standards are generally the same. A complete analysis of the zoning statistics is provided in Section III of this memorandum. The 1995 approval allowed for the construction of fourteen free-market condominiums and seventeen employee housing units. At this time, only minor alterations are anticipated to the exterior of the building and all the other development standards are proposed to remain substantially unchanged. 2 111. ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND On March 2, 1976, the Vail Town Council approved Ordinance #5, Series of 19 establishing Special Development District #4, Cascade Village. Special Development District #4, Cascade Village, is made up of four development areas. Area A is made up of the Cascade Hotel, Cascade Club, CMC; Millrace Phases i through IV, Westhaven Condominiums, Liftside/Waterford, and Cornerstone. Area B is the Coldstream Condominiums. Area C is made up of the Glen Lyon residential duplex lots. Area D is the Glen Lyon 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%d, applies to approximately 18 acres. Rather than require the applicant to provide a site coverage analysis of approximately 18 acres, in the past, staff has applied the development statistics to each lot individually. This has been the practice since approximately 1990. The projects that have been reviewed under this method include Cornerstone, Waterford, Millrace Phase Ill and Millrace 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. In the previous examples, the proposals complied with the development statistics when calculated for the individual lots and the proposed drawings clearly conformed with the maximum development allowances provided for in the SDD: When the staff reviewed the development standards on the individual parcel for this project, there are four development standards which the applicant's proposal exceeds. These include density, parking, site coverage, and common area. The developer agrees that the request for additional GRFA is above what the SDD allowed. Staff continues to believe that it is most reasonable and appropriate to evaluate each parcel within each development area individually. From a record keeping point of view, staff believes that the development standards for each parcel should be calculated based on the area of the land under the proposed development site. This has been the method used historically. Notwithstanding the simplicity of this method, staff acknowledges that the site coverage and landscaping discrepancies identified in the memo should not be viewed as significant issues as, elsewhere within Area A, there is excess site coverage and landscaping which could hypothetically be shared. In 1982, the Town of Vail issued a building permit allowing for construction on the then undeveloped site. Construction continued through the partial completion of the foundation and lower level parking garage. No new construction has occurred since. On April 19, 1995, the Vail Town Council approved a major amendment to Special Development District #4. This amendment approval granted the applicant the ability to construct fourteen free-market condominiums and seventeen employee housing units. Additional deviations granted allowed for increases in GRFA, site coverage and landscaping. No action has been taken on this approval. This approval shall lapse and become void pending the outcome of the current application. On March 3, 1998, the staff met with the Vail Town Council to discuss the proposed development review process and to provide the Council with an opportunity to provide initial feedback and direction to the applicant, staff and Planning and Environmental Commission regarding the major amendment request. The Council provided the following direction and feedback: What is the anticipated construction timeline? If the site is not to be developed in a reasonable time period, the existing improvements needs to be removed. 2. The parking requirement for the development shall be provided, on-site. 3. A detailed plan outlining the proposed fractional fee club ownership pattern and operation shall be provide for review and consideration. 4. The proposed review process is acceptable. On March 8, 1998, the applicant appeared before the Planning and Environmental Commission for a worksession meeting to discuss the current proposal. The purpose of this worksession was to discuss the following issues: • The proposal's compliance with the Town's land use regulations. • The combination and integration of the three differing types of residential uses. • The completeness of the major amendment application. The relationship of the proposed development with the existing improvements. The Town Council's initial thoughts and comments as received on Tuesday, March 3 regarding the applicant's request. During this first worksession, the Commission members expressed their general satisfaction With-the major amendment as proposed. The Commission did however indicate their concerns regarding the lack of an on-site front registration and reservation desk. The Commission requested that the applicant appear at a future meeting with detailed information indicating how the on-site front desk issue was to be addressed. According to Section 12-2-2 of the Municipal Code, a Fractional Fee Club is defined as, "A fractional fee project in which each condominium unit, pursuant to recorded project documentation as approved by the Town of Vail, has no fewer than six (6) and no more than twelve (12) owners per unit and whose use is established by a reservation system. Each of the fractional fee club units are made available for short-term rental in a managed program when not in use by the club members. The project is managed on-site with a front desk operating twenty-four (24) hours a day, seven (7) days a week providing reservation and registration capabilities. The project shall include or be proximate to transportation, retail shops, eating and drinking establishments, and recreational facilities." 4 On April 27, 1998, the applicant again appeared before the Planning and Environmental Commission for a worksession 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 on-site front desk operation as required by Section 12-2-2 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code. The amended development standards approved by the Town Council are compared to the original SDD approval and the 1998 proposal, and are listed below: IV. ZONING ANALYSIS / DEVELOPMENT STATISTICS Lot Area: 0.85 acres or 37,626 sq. ft. Zoning: SDD #4 (Cascade Village) Develooment Standard UUriainal SDD Aooroval 1995 AK)oroval Height: GRFA: Free Market: Accommodation Fractional Fee: EHUs: Total- Common Area: Density: Free Market: Accommodation: Fractional Fee: EHUs: _ , . - Setbacks: Site Coverage: Landscaping: Retaining Walls: Parking: 0 Loading/Delivery: 55' 22,500 sq. ft. 0 sq. ft. 0 sq. ft. 6.400 so. ft. 28,900 sq. ft. (78%) 10,115 sq. ft. (35%) 20 du's 0 au's 0 ffu's 10 EHU's 30, total units (27.4 du's/ac) 20' 35% (12,959 sq, ft.) 50% (18,513 sq, ft.) 3'16' 75% shall be enclosed 44 total spaces one required 55' 1998 Prooosal 55' 25,644 sq. ft. 0 sq. ft 0 sq. ft. 9;550 sq. ft. 0 sq. ft. 13,860 sq. ft. 8.296 so. ft. 10.731 so. ft. 33,940 sq. ft. (92%) 34,141 sq. ft. (92%) 3,417 sq. ft. (10.101x) 7,054 sq. ft. (21%) 14 du's 0 au's 0 ffu's 17 EHU's 31 total units (23.2 du's/ac) 24' 0 du's 15 au's 11 ffu's 21 EHU's 47 total units (25.49du's/ac) 24' 36.7% (13,598 sq. ft.) 38.3% (14,173 sq. ft.) 47.9% (17,767 sq. ft.) 47.9% (17,767 sq. ft.) none proposed 82% shall be enclosed 45 total spaces one required none proposed 78% shall be enclosed 46 total spaces one provided 5 J Employee Housing: minimum of 8 units; 17 EHUs, similar to 21 EHUs, similar minimum of 648 sq. ft. each; Type Ili restrictions to Type III should not count towards restrictions density or GRFA. for density calculation purposes, accommodation units are 0.5 du's, employee units are 0.333 du's and fractional fee club units and free market units account are 1 du. each. Westhaven Club & Lodoe Souare Footaoe Analusis Parking Area Common Area 4th Floor 603 sq. ft. 3rd Floor 925 sq. ft. 2nd Floor 2,019 sq. ft. 1st Floor 1,492 sq. ft. Parking 11,180 sq. ft. 2,015 sq. ft. Level Total 11,180 sq. ft. 7,054 sq. ft. Employee Accommodation Housing Unit 2,089 sq. ft. 3,609 sq. ft. 1,084 sq. ft. 3,852 sq. ft. 9,647 sq. ft. 10,731 sq. ft. 9,550 sq. ft. Fractional Fee Unit 3,976 sq, ft. 6,326 sq. ft. 3,558 sq. ft. 6,668 sq. ft. 10,860 sq. ft. 10,513 sq. ft. 11,139 sq. ft. 13, 195 sq. ft. 13,860 sq. ft. 52,375 sq. to, Total V. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS Pursuant to Section 12-9A-2 of the Municipal Code, in part, a major amendment is defined as., "Any proposal to change uses; increase gross residential floor area; change the number of dwelling or accommodation units; modify, enlarge or expand any approved special development district." Since the applicant proposes to change the uses and change the number of dwelling and accommodation units, staff has identified the applicant's request as a major amendment. In accordance with Section 12-9A-4, A-C of the Municipal Code, an approved development plan shall be required prior to construction. The approved development plan shall establish requirements regulating development, uses and other activities in the special development district. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall conduct the initial review of the amendment to the special development district. The review shall take place at a regularly scheduled meeting. Following the Planning and Environmental Commission's 6 review, the Community Development Department shall forward a report to the Town Council stating the PEC's findings and recommendations on the amendment request. The Town Council shall then review the application based upon the information submitted. An approval of the application by the Town Council shall require two readings of an ordinance. VI. SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT REVIEW CRITERIA Title12, Chapter 9 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code provides for the establishment of Special Development Districts in the Town of Vail. According to Section 12-9A-1; the purpose of a Special Development District is, "To encourage flexibility and creativity in the development of land, in order to promote its most appropriate use; to improve the design character and quality of the new development within the Town; to facilitate the adequate and economical provision of streets and utilities; to preserve the natural and scenic features of open space areas; and to further the overall goals of the community as stated in the Vail Comprehensive Plan. An approved development plan for a Special Development District, in conjunction with the properties underlying zone district, shall establish the requirements for guiding development and uses of property included in the Special Development District." The Municipal Code provides nine design criteria, which shall be used as the principal criteria in evaluating the merits of the proposed Special Development District. It shall be the burden of the applicant to demonstrate that submittal material and the proposed development plan comply with each of the following standards, or demonstrate that one or more of them is not applicable, or that a practical solution consistent with the public interest has been achieved. The staff has addressed each of the nine SDI review criteria below: A. Design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate environment, neighborhood and adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones, identity, character, visual integrity and orientation. Staff believes the applicant has designed a structure which relates well to the site and the surrounding neighborhood. The mass of the Westhaven Club & Lodge is appropriate for the site and takes into consideration the massing of the buildings on the adjoining properties. The building could step down more on the east and west ends to insure a smooth transition between properties and does not create an imposing "canyon" along property lines. The north side of the Westhaven Club & Lodge was designed with the front entrance in mind. The porte cochere entrance provides a formal entry into the building. The exterior building materials of the Westhaven Club & Lodge are a mixture of stucco and metal. The roof material is proposed to be a dark green standing seam metal roof. The applicant has shown flower boxes on the decks and balconies on the rendering. Staff would recommend that the flower boxes be a required accent element on the building. The window and door trim is proposed to be bronze metal cladding. The proposed balconies will be constructed of metal rails and pickets. Staff believes that the combination of building materials has been well incorporated into the design of the Westhaven Club & Lodge. The applicant has proposed that the exterior stucco color be 7 an off-white to yellowish/cream color to blend in with the exteriors of the other buildings and structures in the area. The development standards for the original SDD indicate that the maximum height for buildings with sloping roofs shall be 55 feet. The applicant is requesting that the maximum building height for the Westhaven club & Lodge be 55 feet, from finish grade. Staff believes that the height proposed by the applicant is compatible with the development and the development objectives of the Town. B. Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. The Westhaven Club & Lodge is located at the perimeter of the Cascade Village Development. The Westhaven Club & Lodge is bound on the east by the Cascade Health Club, on the west by the opens space and residential development and on the south by the Mill Race Condominiums, CMC, and the Cascade Hotel: The applicant is proposing a lodging, short term accommodation and residential development that is in compliance with the uses allowed in the original SDD and as amended . The applicant is proposing to develop the Westhaven Club & Lodge at a density of 25.49 dwelling units per acre. Included in the density figure are the eleven member-owned club units (fractional fee), the fifteen hotel rooms (accommodation units) and the twenty-one employee housing units including the on-site manager's residence. Each of the ehu's are to be Type III Employee Housing Units. The applicant's proposal differs greatly from the original SDD approval. The original approval allowed the applicant to construct twenty free market condominiums and only ten employee housing units. The currently proposal significantly alters the use of the property from mainly second homeowner condominiums to a lodging and short term accommodation use of the site. Given the proximity of the development site to the amenities in the area, the Westhaven Club _& Lodge is ideally located and suited for the proposed development. Overall, staff believes that the density and uses proposed by the applicant for the Westhaven Club & Lodge do not conflict with the compatibility, efficiency or workability of the surrounding uses and/or activities. In fact, staff feels that the proposed Westhaven Club & Lodge will enhance the existing uses and activities in the area.. C. Compliance with parking and loading requirements as outlined in Title 12, Chapter 10, of the Town of Vail Municipal Code. Parking and loading requirements for development are established in Section 12-10-10 of the Municipal Code. The parking and loading requirements are based on the square footage of the uses proposed within a building. Based on the square footage of the uses proposed by the applicant, 58 parking spaces and one loading/delivery berth are required on-site. The applicant is proposing an enclosed parking structure on the lowest level of the building designed to accommodate 36 parking spaces and 10 surface parking spaces on the north side of the building (46 spaces total). On March 3, 1998, the applicant appeared before the Vail Town Council for a conceptual review and discussion of the current proposal. The Council indicated that the parking requirement for the development shall be met entirely on-site. The applicant is deficient 12 parking spaces on-site (46 spaces vs. 58 spaces). The applicant has indicated that amble parking will be provided to accommodate the anticipated demand. The anticipated demand is thought to be less than projected by the Municipal Code since it is believed many guests will arrive via shuttle services and that the parking; standards do not address the fractional fee clubs as accommodation units rather than dwelling units. Given Council's direction, staff would recommend that the applicant explore alternatives to the proposed parking situation and provide all of the required parking on-site. The applicant is now proposing one loading/delivery berth for service vehicles on the east end of the surface parking lot, located on the north side of the building and a guest drop-off space at the porte cochere. Staff believes that the guest drop-off space is conveniently located near the entrance to the front desk and is appropriately located. Staff feels that the newly proposed loading/delivery berth for service vehicles is a positive change, though we believe additional visual screening may be necessary. D. Conformity with the applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, Town policies and Urban Design Plan. Vail Land Use Plan The goals contained in the Vail Land Use Plan are to be used as the Town's policy guidelines during the review process of establishing or amending Special Development Districts. Staff has reviewed the Vail Land Use Plan and believes the following policies are relevant to the review of this proposal: 1. General Growth/Development 1.1 Vail should continue to grow in a controlled environment, maintaining a balance between residential, commercial and recreational uses to serve both the visitor and the permanent resident. 1.2 The quality of the environment including air, water, and other natural resources should be protected as the Town grows. 1.3 The quality of development should be maintained and upgrade whenever possible. 1.12 Vail should accommodate most of the additional growth in existing developed areas (infill). 3. Commercial 3.1 The hotel bed base should be preserved and used more efficiently. 3.2 The Village and Lionshead are the best location for hotels to serve the future needs of the destination skier. 40 3.4 Commercial growth should be concentrated in existing commercial areas to accommodate both local and visitor needs. 9 5. Residential 51 Quality timeshare units should be accommodated to help keep occupancy rates up. Staff believes the proposed amendment of Special Development District #4 is in concert with the goals and policies of the Vail Land Use Plan as outlined above. E. Identification and mitigation of natural and/or geologic hazards that affect the property on which the special development district is proposed. There are no natural and/or geologic hazards, including the Gore Creek floodplain, that effect the applicant's property. F. Site plan, building design and location and open space provisions designed to produce a functional development responsive and sensitive to natural features, vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the community. The site plan currently proposed has remained relatively unchanged from the previous 1995 major amendment approval. The applicant has altered the surface parking area to comply with our recently amended development standards. The alterations to the parking area resulted in minor changes to the landscape plan. The changes made to the landscape plan do not effect the south side of the building which was highly scrutinized during the review process in 1995. The changes to the plan essentially result in better accommodations for snow storage on the site. A condition of the 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 road cut after Holy Cross or others bury or remove the line. Staff believes that road cut and revegetation needs to take place at the time of construction of the Westhaven Club & Lodge. Staff would recommend that the applicant be required to either relocate the utility line or remove the line and complete the grading and revegetation. The applicant is proposing to utilize the existing street cut and entrance on the east side of the property adjacent to the Cascade Club. Currently, a boulder retaining wall is constructed along the entrance driveway. Staff would recommend that the applicant revise the site plan, grading plan, and landscape plan to reflect proposed improvements to the retaining wall. The existing wall is in disrepair and in need of work. This is especially important since this entrance will be the "front door" to the project. Staff would recommend that the proposed improvements to the wall be reviewed and approved by the Town Engineer and the Design Review Board. G. A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and off-site traffic circulation. The Westhaven Club & Lodge will have major impacts on the amount of pedestrian and vehicular traffic in the area. In light of the increase in traffic, the applicant has proposed 10 off-site and on-site vehicle and pedestrian traffic systems surrounding the property. This includes internal 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 substantially improved as result of the proposal There is an existing portion of the Town of Vail bike path which crosses the south west comer of the applicant's property. At this time there is not an established easement for the bike path. Staff would recommend that the applicant be required to provide an easement for the bike path. The exact language and location of the easement shall be reviewed and approved by the Town Attorney and Town Engineer prior to recordation with the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder's office. H. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and preserve natural features, recreation, views and functions. The proposed landscape plan will have important beneficial impacts on the quality of the development site and the surrounding area. The existing site has been termed the "ruins„ due to the dilapidated condition of the site. Staff would recommend that the final 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 subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional and efficient relationship throughout the development of the special development district. Phasing of development is not proposed. The applicant is required to submit a construction phasing and staging plan to the Town prior to receiving a building permit. The plan will be used to ensure an efficient and workable relationship with surrounding uses during the development of the Westhaven Club & Lodge. At the time of the Town Council's 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 void pending the outcome of the current proposal. The lapse of the approval is in accordance with the Municipal Code which limits SDD approvals to a maximum of three years unless the project is diligently pursued towards completion. Staff would recommend that a maximum of a one year approval be granted for the current application. Unless work is diligently pursued on the project, the existing "ruins" shall be removed and the site restored by October 31, 1999. VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department staff recommends that the Planning and Environmental Commission recommend approval of the request for a major amendment to Special Development District #4, Cascade Village, located at 1325 Westhaven Drive to the Vail Town Council. The staff believes that each of the SDD design criteria continue to be met, as identified in Section V of this memorandum. 11 Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to recommend approval of the major amendment to Special Development District #4, staff would recommend that the following finding be made: The Planning and Environmental Commission has held a public hearing on the major amendment to Special Development District #4 request to allow for a fractional fee club and a change to the approved Development Plan, located at 1325 Westhaven Dr., Westhaven Condominiums/ Cascade Village Area A, pursuant to Section 12-9A-4 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail, and finds that the proposed major amendment complies with the design criteria outlined in Section 12-9A-8 of the Municipal Code, meets the definition of a fractional fee club as defined in Section 12-2-2 of the Municipal Code, and furthers the development goals and objectives of the Town of Vail. The staff has identified the following conditions of approval, which we recommend be included in a Planning and Environmental Commission motion. That the applicant appear before the Town of Vail Design Review Board for a conceptual review of the proposed major amendment prior to appearing before the Vail Town Council for final consideration of the request. Any and all issues identified by the Design Review Board at the time of the conceptual review shall be addressed prior to appearing before the Town Council. 2. That the applicant submit a detailed contractor's cost estimate identifying the costs necessary to relocate the existing overhead utility line along the applicant's north property line underground, and that the applicant establish a financial bond with the Town of Vail in the sum of 125% of the said relocating costs to insure the undergrounding of the utility line. 3. That the applicant regrade and revegetate the knoll located at the northwest corner of the development site at the time of the final grading of the Westhaven Club & Lodge. Due to the exposure and aspect of the hillside, the knoll shall be regrading to slopes not exceeding 3:1. The regrading shall be reviewed and approved by the Town Engineer. 4. That the applicant provide Type III Employee Housing Unit deed-restrictions , which comply with the Town of Vail Employee Housing 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 housing be made available for occupancy, and that the deed restrictions be recorded at the Office of the Eagle County Clerk & Recorder, prior to requesting a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for the Westhaven Club & Lodge. 5. That the applicant submit detailed civil engineering drawings of the required off-site improvements (street lights, drainage, curb and gutter, sidewalks, grading, etc.) to the Town of Vail Public Works Department for review and approval prior to the issuance of a building permit. 6. That the applicant record a twenty foot (20') wide pedestrian/bike easement for that portion of pedestrian/bike path traversing the applicant's property and as identified on the Topographic Map prepared by Intermountain Engineering Ltd., dated 12/22/94, and that said easement be recorded at the Office of the Eagle County Clerk & Recorder, prior to the issuance of a building permit. The exact location and language of the easement shall be reviewed and approved by the Town Attorney and Town Engineer prior to recordation. 12 7. That the applicant provide written documentation from the Public Service Company granting approval of the construction of the Westhaven Club & Lodge in the location identified on the site plan relative to the high pressure gas line. Written approval shall be granted prior to the issuance of a building permit, & That the applicant record an access easement along the east property line for that portion of the driveway and access and trash enclosure which encroaches upon the adjoining property and that said easement be recorded at the Office of the Eagle County Clerk Recorder. The exact location and language of the easement shall be reviewed and approved by the Town Attorney and Town Engineer prior to recordation. 9. That the applicant explore alternatives to the proposed parking plan and provide all of the required parking spaces (58) on-site as requested by the Vail Town Council. 10. That the final landscape plan and architectural elevations be reviewed and approved by the Town of Vail Design Review Board. 11. That the approval of this major amendment to Special Development District #4 shall become lapsed and void one year from the date of a second reading of an ordinance amending the district, and that should the approval lapse, the applicant shall be required to remove the "ruins" and restore and revegetate the site by no later than October 31, 1999. A bond providing financial security to ensure that said removal occurs shall be required following second reading of an amending ordinance. It shall be the applicant's responsibility to provide a cost estimate of the removal work. The bond shall be a minimum of 125% of the removal costs. is 12. That the applicant revise and submit an amended site plan, landscape plan, and grading plan indicating improvements to the existing boulder retaining wall along 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. n 13 08/05/1998 03:26 4145477267 EXECUTIVE FFICE CEN PAGE 01 , 'AP't 417"! ,+?/e"ar ?',?/ ?r r ?r 't t -Pmoo . WLSTHAV'EN)CASCADE nAcrioNAL FEE GUIN PAj IMGMLRYfCES CONSkT3>l RATtat)NS Parking spaces for the Wtsthave WCsscsde factional fee Club project will include: A. Ga m pe with (33) parking spaces of ii' x 18' plus (3) Handicapped parking spaces. They wig be am mssed *om a 20 ft. wide overhead doer with 8 it. headroom dmatwe and be adequate: for all standard vehicles. Non-stmdard vehicles (i.e. Suburbans, Fagan„ etc.) will have to park in the (S) aw6ce spaces on the East and of lat. B. Surtkee parking for (10) spaces of 1 x 18' idu two (2) loaft zone spaces (i.e. (1) of 12' x IV and (I) of 18' x 221.. The loading acne spaces immOdutta;ly adjacent to the front . 'u J vestibule will be used for unloading patrons atxiving by car or van b hiding handicapped persons. If they become overnight guests and have their own vehicle. they will park to the garages Handicap designated spaces (or in the other loading zone space depending on size and type of vehicle). The second !aiding tone space will be used for service vehicles (i.e. Fed-Ex type typical vans) awaking defivwies to the Club or any other vehicle requiring a larger tut*$ radius. We Seel that the total 49 parking spaces including (3) handicap will adequately wavice the *zikq based upon: A Tfdmkatily we lbel we con£tum with the parking reds.:. u?..enta of SOD 4 as defined therein with the (411) spaces available based on: I . (21) Employee Housing units as studio sWtes including 2 manage' apa. -.-is calling for 2 parking spaces. 2. (15) Accommodation units of 1BR IBA for transient. Short-tam residence calls for (13) parkin!; spaces. 3. (11) Club units for 28R 2BA will be used by up to 132 ftactional fee members (none of whom can rtside permanently or call a suite thew own) and thus realistically will be "transient lodging units" calling for (11) parking spaces as opposed to (22) spaces if they were truly primary or secondary residential condos for a deeded stays. R. Rased upon "practical" requ'.;.."watts from the experience of our mausaSavent company in operating other hotels and lodging facilities with "transla " Vests, they And a viot mimatesly W19 of their patrons arrive: without their own vadsic w. They would not require parkin! i Aug-04-98 02:54P HMEYWACON MATT JANE 970 845 9484 P.01 N]EYA AUB" 4.1"S J.L. W'n6iU= WcothavrbrascI& 11C. do Rd* Afto as MW/VAR &UP Susa Pox 476.2658 W OM RufW wash r m" To Whm It M%YC m=o, A W in.,.* i.r..'w a '1hC iiWABM ft W4 &U,01jo *ijh ?&. WW wV ft.j d* ft p vpam d trssh arm U*A aMt lw ad up to 4 reek bi" TM akd owt slrwW xlo !gave a roof ind Soud drAinW bemuse ottha lltnlted swn ? ion the winar. W? pact that smviaa saheduls at2 ,to ? tlaux lam' ?b? d ing oft mum, will ba 4pprop iatm 7e?a and sezyi schodutc will `bc dd=ieed upon Of thtprtdam 0 ' ft.. 1014 Hasnxst Circle', Vaal. Colorado 81"7 970.47&3511 Fax: 476-2989 311 ' U' A 'A* S'S WU9V :20 86 , se and JUL 28 '88 9.59 FROM SILUERTHORNE t'HU?.n?t " CCi?MPAAFY Of COLOR A00 AtOWU+NWiw Lp,? c+wxA..er r P.M Box 182$ Dillon. Calaroclo 8043,5-7828 Tciopkv+?« 970."S.2522 FocAmil* 970,466.1401 T• J* 28,1994 t ? 79` 7 c/o Rabble Ro u (970476-2653 rar Mr Wubnmm. Pki mse fmd attmcki 1, tbi~ from our c. ? - Ifyou ffiE t out ft first Of Way wS hf y a,*.t tWs ,. w a om wc& of .4,.IA1A based wt the iuL txy= rchWcd to = apt the lac T* 28,1994. m Thank you in adva= for o. ji"III jli *is matter and if your shoWd be" aw tw its, 01" J1 1W I AM to c.:.t flt May Ca... m4 "4W25 2A. Very uY Yom. ?+IIJYIV.?4I? Ono td Wd2S:t70 8661 K '6nti 2V2?.SW- T99 `ON BNOHd d1s i n U 113a : W02li r `70 - 4Ito -- 2 5 ? _____--_-__-_-----__-__--_-------------_----- ., ------------------------------- ------ Aate,,?-j --_---__---------__--------- - -_--__--_--------------------------- ?J _y _«_..__.... --._.. _ /?"?" f 'STORAGE STORAGE STORAGE ______ 728 SIV 198 14tt 196 s4(t _ . _r , ? • • ? ? /'? ears. 9046 ZT*AGE / s4r? ra M ? t y eogz? ? -' 08044 07 DOW .aze ????D eoaz ------ -------------- 0044 @ptt SPRF`^C.E F-',RFGING ... 10 F-^RKING SF-ACE:S 1 5 PARKA IG SPA .-EIS 5 PARklNG SI ACES I.OA TRASH 4 -1 \KE UT SIGIIA,GE r 1 G is f r ? ?E { W / co 1 8040 .---.? i ? t v i E 00 -- 1 E ' o } 4 G -- T c) ao? ? F-• -u r t i ° r-Y eo•a _ ausz MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission PROM: Community Development Department DATE: August 24, 1998 SUBJECT: A request for a minor CC1 Exterior Alteration and site coverage variance for a proposed entryway at the Vail Village Club, located at 333 Bridge Street/ Lot C, Block 2, Vail Village 1st. Applicant: Remonov, Inc., represented by Geis Architects Planner: George Ruther/Christie Barton DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant is requesting approval for a new entryway for the Vail Village Club. The building was constructed in 1994 and the owners are interested in improving the visibility of the access. The alteration will be two stories in height and includes a display window on the ground level. The proposal will add 75 square feet of commercial floor area to the building. The proposal increases the site coverage by 53.5 sq. ft., which exceeds the 80% allowable by 543 sq. ft. In 1994, the PEC approved a variance for 489.5 sq. ft. (90.5%) of site coverage. No additional parking is required by this application. A modification to the existing easement agreement will be completed as the second floor of the entryway extends over Town property by 24 sq. ft. The addition is on the north side and therefore has no impact on the 50' Gore Creek centerline setback and the 100-year floodplain, as currently mapped. The design maintains the existing color and texture of the existing building. The application received a conceptual review by the Design Review Board on August 19, 1998. The Board requested the roof pitch be shallower to match existing roof line and that the truss element be simplified. The Board directed Staff to approve the application if approved by the PEC. II. ZONING ANALYSIS Zoning: Commercial Core 1 (CC1) Lot size: 4,646 sq. ft. Allowed Existina Commercial no limit Floor area: on floor area 9.405 sq. ft. Proaosed 9,480 sq. ft. Site coverage: 80% of site 90.5% of site 3,717 sq. ft. 4,205 sq. ft. 91.6% of site 4,258.5 sq. ft. lY)WYEJP vit?li Ill. REVIEW CRITERIA FOR THIS REQUEST The code criteria for review of such a request are provided for your information.. Staff has included the purpose statement from the zoning code, as we believe this will help the PEC in its evaluation of the request. The Vail Village Club is located in the Commercial Core 1 (CC I) zone district. According to Title 12, Chapter 78 of the Zoning Regulations, the purpose of the CC 1 district is: The Commercial Core 1 District is intended to provide sites and to maintain the unique character of the Vail Village commercial area, with its mixture of lodges and commercial establishments in a predominantly pedestrian environment. The Commercial Core 1 District is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space, and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of buildings and uses. The District regulations in accordance with the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and Design Considerations prescribe site development standards that are intended to ensure the maintenance and preservation of the tightly clustered arrangements of buildings fronting on pedestrianways and public greenivays, and to ensure continuation of the building scale and architectural qualities that distinguish the Village. (Ord. 21(1980) 1) Any exterior alterations are required to prove the proposal is in compliance with the purposes of the CC1 Zone District as specified in Section 12-7B-1 of this Article; that the proposal is consistent with applicable elements of the Vail Village Master Plan, the Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan, and the Vail Comprehensive Plan; and that the proposal does not otherwise negatively alter the character of the neighborhood. Further, that the proposal substantially complies with the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and the Vail Village Design Considerations, to include, but not be limited to the following urban design considerations., pedestrian ization, vehicular penetration, streetscape frame ework, street enclosure, street edge, building height, views, service/delivery and sun/shade analysis, and that the proposal substantially complies with all other elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan. The approval of an exterior alteration shall constitute approval of the basic form and location of improvements including siting, building setbacks, height, building bulk and mass, site improvements and landscaping. IV. ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION Vail Village Master Plan The Vail Village Club is in the Seibert Circle Study Area. This plan will remove one tree in a small landscape planter. The planter was not designed for an evergreen tree to grow to full size. The proposal will not change any of the existing sun exposure areas and will maintain the existing access and circulation patterns. The addition of the entry vestibule and display case will enhance the pedestrian experience. The creation of the new entry vestibule will assist in drawing the public to continuing their walking to the open space along Mill Creek and to Mill Creek Court. 2. Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan The Streetscape Master Plan identifies the following issues to be addressed: 1) Existing pedestrian character to be maintained and enhanced 2) Enhance an already exciting walking experience This proposal improves the pedestrian experience by adding a display window and improving the visibility of the entrance to the Vail Village Club. 3. Vail Comprehensive Plan The quality of development should be maintained and upgraded whenever possible. Although this is a new building, the existing entryway is subtle and difficult to find. Improving the entryway will make it easier for people to find the entrance to the building. 4. Character of the Neighborhood The alteration of the entrance to the building by adding a new entry vestibule and display case with the integration of the existing landscape planter will increase visibility and connection to the street and in return enhance the pedestrian environment. The proposal will not effectively reduce the volume of space along the two pedestrian streets or the square, and the addition of the vestibule and display case will articulate the space and create focal points at the pedestrian level. 5. Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan! This proposal conforms to Sub-Area Concepts #9, 11, 15 and 18 by improving the pedestrian scale of the building. The transparency of the fagade is increased with the addition of the display case, which in turn strengthens the pedestrian activity. The new entryway continues to be oriented to the pedestrian access areas and has increased visibility for ease of access. 6. Vail Village Design Considerations The quality of the pedestrian way is increased through the addition of a more central architectural focal point. Landscaping has been reduced minimally to introduce a display case that replaced a void on the fagade. This also enhances the framework, and articulation is added to the building to create additional visual interest and activity. The general characteristics of the `outdoor room' are unchanged. An entry vestibule and display case have been added to create a pedestrian focus and divert attention from upper building heights. The proposed shape of the building has additional articulation to create greater visual interest. The new entry vestibule and display case will create welcome protection from rain or snow when 'window shopping' or simply pausing while walking through the Village. The proposal will not adversely affect views or shadow patterns. 11 V. VARIANCE CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Title 12, Chapter 17-6, Criteria and Findings, of the Town of Vail Municipal Code, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the requested site coverage variance. The recommendation for approval is based upon on the following factors: A. Consideration of Factors: 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. Staff believes the variance request will have no negative impacts on the relationship to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity of The Vail Village Club or Seibert Circle. The request for the additional 53.5 square feet of site coverage will result in an improved streetscape and pedestrian experience along Hansons Ranch Road and will not interfere with the operation of the existing businesses on adjacent properties. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of the title without grant of special privilege. Staff believes the applicant is requesting the minimum amount of relief from the site coverage limitation to obtain compatibility and uniformity amongst the sites in the vicinity of the Vail Village Club. Staff does not believe that the granting of the variance request will result in a grant of special privilege since the intent of the development standards is being met. The site coverage limitation of 80% was intended, in part, to ensure that an adequate amount of the site was left undeveloped to permit areas for landscaping and streetscape. The applicants request to increase the site coverage percentage by 1.1% has few negative impacts on the landscape area of the Vail Village Club. The planter was not designed to accommodate a full grown tree in the planter. Staff further believes that the request does not constitute a grant of special privilege since the addition proposed by the applicant furthers the goals and objectives of the master plans of the Town of Vail without resulting in negative impacts on adjacent properties or uses. As discussed previously in this memorandum, the applicant's proposal implements many of the recommendations proposed in the Towns Master Plans. As stated in the Vail Village Master Plan, "Vail Village has not escaped the aging process: There is a need to encourage the continued upgrading and enhancement of existing lodging and commercial facilities within the Village in order to maintain the unique character that is its main attraction." Lastly, staff believes that while it is always possible to design and construct a building that is in full compliance with the Zoning Code, it is not always practical or reasonable to do so. 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. Staff believes the variance request will have no negative impacts on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. B. The Plannina and Environmental Commission shall make the following finding before arantina a variance: That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitation on other properties classified in the same district. 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: a. The strict and literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. b. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the site of the variance that does not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. C. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Minor Exterior Alteration The Community Development Department recommends approval of the request for a minor exterior alteration in Commercial Core I to the Vail Village Club. The recommendation for approval is based upon the staffs review of the minor exterior alteration criteria outlined in Sections III through VI of this memorandum. Staff believes the applicant has met each of the criteria. 0 Site Coverage Variance The Community Development Department recommends, approval of the applicants request for a site coverage variance subject to the following findings: That the granting of the site coverage variance allowing for an increase in site coverage by 1.1% does not result in a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitation on other properties in the Commercial Core I Zone District. 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, nor will it be materially injurious to the adjacent properties or uses in the vicinity of the Vail Village Club. 3. That the strict and literal interpretation or enforcement of the 80% site coverage limitation would result in a practical difficulty inconsistent with the objectives of the Commercial Core I Zone District development standards and the goals and objectives of the Master Plan documents of the Town of Vail. E f :`everyone\pec\memos\vvc.824 E REMOVE OVERi44NC: AND 3RAC<ETS r=# tOVE GANDOW -- AND RELOCATE ON NEW ELEVATION 5POm i r-rt DECK AN? RE-SUPPORT • REMOVE 1ROCK FACT OF COLL-1-IN, ILEA VNG STRUCTUfAL `STEEL " INTACT ``?1"tC`,!E ROCtC CUT BACK EXISTING PLANTER RE-HOVE STORE FRONT DUCK' ,!.ND UJINDOW ?t REPt A vT EXlpilNm" t h; ` r ROG FACE 4 oil, 'i i k 1 1 t! i 4 _ ' j ? a !' 4 1 2 } }) t ? ? t :t { S ( t 5 ? 4 f ? 111 z Cat : CT f a (t 1 ` r i s ?; r G? ax a i ??tC Roo, I V1 GL ALJ Wt C7ti1? l . ` 4 ?' LY '? EXI "C ?urw IQ3 I I 1 -?1 I r Ec N F t? 1'-29<, 9" rv u?, E .?.L.? Fi•II K ?- 1 II F is t.,?. ms's •J t > -.^ i.'s. t. t a ?'f ._..- I S.vr pec-i FCG.-G: D16--Ay ,.C4= =- ZE4-c, i ?2TY L:\E tL -? ?- - _ -t??,? } ! S*VLIS-7 i• .. Ct_. j zoo< taw! ? Y - As #A ?-' j - -- 2 \ w ,? i IN I L) t? >r ° e t ? r ii w iW • MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: August 24, 1998 SUBJECT: A request for a worksession to discuss a major amendment to Special Development District #4, Cascade Village, to allow for the use of the tennis facility for special events and conference facilities, located at 1300 Westhaven Drive, Vail ` Cascade Hotel & Club/Cascade Village Area A. Applicant: Vail Cascade Hotel & Club, represented by Chris Hanen Planner: George Ruther DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST • The applicant, Vail Cascade Hotel & Club, represented by Chris Hanen, is requesting a worksession to discuss a major amendment to Special Development District #4 (Cascade Village) pursuant to Title 12, Chapter 9A of the Town of Vail Zoning Regulations. The major amendment is intended to allow the Vail Cascade Hotel & Club to begin utilizing the existing tennis court facilities for special events and conference facilities. The Vail Cascade Hotel & Club is currently under contract with the Vail Valley Foundation to provide the use of the tennis facilities as the major press facility for the 1999 World Alpine Ski Championships. In order to utilize the space for the championships, several costly building improvements are required in order to bring the building into compliance with the Uniform Building Code and the Uniform Fire Code. To better justify the costs of the improvements, the Vail Cascade Hotel & Club wishes to use the tennis facility for other special events and conference-types of uses into the future after the World Championships. In order to do so, a major amendment to SDD #4 must be approved by the Town of Vail. A copy of a letter dated August 17, 1998, from Chris Hanen to George Ruther has been attached for reference. This letter more completely explains the applicant's current and future intentions. II. DISCUSSION ISSUES The purpose of this worksession meeting is to provide the applicant, staff and Planning & Environmental Commission with the opportunity to discuss the various aspects of the proposal and to begin to identify potential areas of concern. In reviewing the initial proposal, the staff has identified several issues for discussion. The issues for discussion include: 9 TOWN OF VAIL 4 1. Comoatibilitv of the oronosed special event and conference use of the tennis facility with existing and potential uses in the surrounding area. The tennis court facility is located in Area A of the Cascade Village development area. Other uses currently located within Area A include a 289 room hotel, residential condominuims available for short-term rent, a major health club facility,- 20 - 25,000 square feet of conference space, restaraunts, a movie theatre and Colorado Mountain College. A mixed use hotel and fractional fee club is currently under consideration by the Town on the "ruins" development site. Does the Commission foresee any possible negative impacts of additional conference facilities on the current or potential uses in the area surrounding the tennis facility? Should a conference facilitity located within Area A be a permitted use by right, accessory use incidental to other permitted uses, or should the use be subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit? 2. Impacts on traffic circulation, park no and load ino/delivery The applicant is proposing to convert the use of the existing tennis facility to special events and conference-types of uses from time to time on an as needed basis. With the exception of building improvements required to ensure the public health and safety, no other building alterations are anticipated. No additional parking is being proposed. The Zoning Regulations prescribe that the conference use of a space shall require 1 parking space for each 8 seats, based on seating capacity, or maximum building occupancy, whichever is most restrictive. Parking for the Vail Cascade Hotel & Club and tennis facility is provided in the parking structure located within Area A. The utilization of the parking structure is at its maximum and can accommodate no more parking spaces. The applicant believes that there will only be a minimal increase in parking demand resulting from the proposed special event and conference use of the tennis facility. It is anticipated that the use of the tennis facility for special events and conferences will be accessory to the hotel and club, and that attendees of the special events and conferences will be guests of the hotel. Therefore, as guests of the hotel, parking accommodations will have already been provided. The Zoning Regulations further prescribe that a minimum of one loading/delivery berth shall be provided. It is anticipated that the large, concrete paved area located at the east end of the tennis facility will provide amble loading/delivery space. No additional loading/delivery space is being proposed. Does the Commission agree or disagree with the applicant's position on both the parking and loading/delivery situations? Is additional study or analysis on this issue required prior to a final review? Should additional parking and/or loading/delivery be required and provided? Should it be on- site or is off-site a possibility? Is the applicant's managed parking proposal acceptable and reasonable? If not, how might it be improved? Should any 0 2 limitations be placed on the use (frequency of events, #°s of attendees, time of year, etc.) of the tennis facility for special events and conferences to minimize potential negative impacts on parking' 3. Public benefits to the community When considering the establishment of, or an amendment to, a Special Development .District, the applicant shall demonstrate that there are public benefits to the community of the proposal which outweigh any potential negative impacts when requesting deviations from the Town's development standards. The staff has identified the following public benefits of this proposal. Increased tax revenue resulting from an increase in hotel occupancy 2. Increased opportunities to attract larger group conferences 3. Increased competition for Vail in the competitive national conference market 4. Increased exposure of Vail in the destination resort market resulting in repeat visits 5. Increased guest visits during the shoulder seasons Are there any other public benefits not identified by staff? Does the Commission believe that, in fact, the benefits identified by staff are actually public benefits which may outweigh potential negative impacts such as parking? 4. Other Are there any other issues the Commission wishes the applicant and staff explore and address prior to a final review of the current request? Ill. STAFF RECOMMENDATION As this is a worksession to discuss various issues of the proposal, staff will not be providing a formal staff recommendation at this time. Staff will however, provide a formal recommendation to the Planning & Environmental Commission at the time of final review. A final review of this proposal is tentatively scheduled for Monday, September 14, 1998. 11 3 August 17, 1998 Mr. George Ruther Town Planner Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 Re: Vail Cascade Tennis Facility-1999 World Alpine Ski Championships and Beyond Dear George: This letter responds to your request for an informational outline of how the Vail Cascade Tennis Facility might be used for the 1999 World Alpine Ski Championships and potentially, other functions thereafter. In an effort to simplify this understanding of our needs, I will define potential uses into three categories. They are: In-House Functions These would be defined as group functions which would be housed within the Vail Cascade Hotel complex and would require no additional parking requirements than are typically required currently when we experience full occupancy, as we now do on a regular basis. The profile of such groups would likely be one large group occupying all, or the majority of, the hotel. They would most likely utilize our existing conference space for meetings and food functions and the tennis courts for tradeshows utilizing 8'x8' and 10'x10' exhibits. Exhibit space requirements- could range in number from 40-120 booths. The potential also exists that the tennis courts would be used for general session meetings for 300-600 people (theatre style or classroom style meetings), or a combination of a general session and exhibits, which would allow exhibitors greater exposure to delegates, which is always a priority. It is possible that food could be served from warmer boxes (breakfast, lunch, dinners or coffee breaks), but not prepared, in the tennis facility. Town-Wide Functions This use would be very similar to the "in-house" use described above, with the exception that additional housing to that of the Vail Cascade Hotel would be required, resulting in additional occupancy requirements in the tennis courts and additional parking requirements. It is anticipated that this scenario might increase tennis court occupancy requirements for meetings up to the 500-800 range. Such a scenario might also not require meeting space, but rather 1300 Westhaven Drive, Vail Colorado 81657 • 970.476.7111 • Internet: www.vailcascade.com Guest Fax 970.479.7020 • Sales Fax 970.479.7025 • Fax on Demand 303.643.0199 DESTINATION HOTELS & RESORTS Is C might allow each lodging property to house guests, utilize each property's conference space for meetings and food functions and utilize the tennis facility for exhibits only. Parking challenges could be managed at the time of booking the group by requiring that shuttle service be provided between properties, rather than allowing additional private vehicles to park in the Vail Cascade's parking facility. A similar situation which has successfully been managed each April for the past few years is that of the Future Business Leaders of America (FBLA) group. In this instance, 2000+ young adults dine in the Vail Cascade conference center space within a two and one-half hour period. These individuals are transported via shuttle from a variety of Lionshead based lodging properties to Vail Cascade Hotel in a very organized and well-managed fashion, without incident. Special Events These types of functions may or may not require lodging and would include community events such as the 1999 World Alpine Ski Championships, or could include other events such as musical concerts or other one time day or evening events accommodating up to 1000-1500 people. Outside events not utilizing lodging would likely present parking challenges which would need to be managed. Quite frankly, other than the World Alpine Ski Championships, these types of events would be of very low priority and would not likely be the type of event which would be solicited. 1999 World Alpine Ski Championships The Vail Cascade Hotel and Club will serve as the Official Press Center Hotel and the Vail Cascade tennis courts are intended to serve as the International Broadcast Center during the championships, with set up beginning on January 3 and breakdown/departure from the facility on February 22, 1999. The actual dates of the championship events will be from January 31 to February 14, 1999. This International Broadcast Center will require approximately 25,000 square feet of space to accommodate individual offices, studios, portable restrooms, limited food service and telephone service(s). Occupancy at any given time is not expected to exceed 200-400 persons. This same facility served the identical function during the 1989 World Alpine Ski Championships and our understanding from those involved is that there were no access or egress issues or problematic incidents related to access or egress. Summary Given the premise that we will invest substantial capital in the tennis facility to meet current town codes in an effort to accommodate the World Alpine Ski Championships, Vail Cascade is interested in using this facility upon occasion in future years following the Championships for the aforementioned uses described in this letter. 2 Although the Championships are an exciting event to host and will provide increased recognition for the Vail Valley in future years, the short-term benefits from an economic standpoint are minimal for our particular business. In fact, we estimate that displaced revenue will amount to $1,700,000 due to lost room (complimentary rooms, discounted rooms and inefficient arrival/departure patterns), food, beverage and conference center rental revenue. As an example, conference space will be required prior to and following the Championships for set up and breakdown. During this time, Vail Cascade is unable to utilize this space as a tool to sell hotel rooms, food and beverage to other groups. Since 70% of our annual occupancy is generated by group business, this is important to us. However, Vail Cascade, in an effort to be a responsible participant within the community, is willing to support this event. Of those uses previously described, our primary focus would be to accommodate the "in-house functions" which would have minimal or no impact upon parking requirements. Both "town wide events" and "special events" would represent a much lesser priority. As I have expressed to town representatives during our past meetings, we are not financially prepared to increase our capital commitment past current budget to improve the tennis facility as a permanent conference facility. We are not prepared, for example, to install permanent restrooms. Since we do not envision a frequent need to use the tennis facility for conference related functions, we have discussed with the town the possibility of amending the SDD to limit the number of functions (conference/trade shows) allowed by the town each year in the tennis facility as a means of limiting some of the life safety related capital improvements which would be required by a more permanent facility. I would expect that a maximum of six (which would probably exceed our needs) functions per year would allow us reasonable latitude to accommodate our needs. It should be kept in mind that use of the tennis facility is not uncomplicated since it requires costly ($10-15,000) covering of the court surfaces during each use, displacement of tennis members and financial concessions to them during special use periods, as well as other challenges which would make use of this space desirable only in a limited number of circumstances. We feel that the ability to use this space would make available to us a new market niche and enable us to accommodate those types of conferences requiring more facility than we currently have to offer. Vail Cascade currently offers 289 hotel rooms, 70 rental condominiums and 20- 25,000 square feet of meeting space (varies winter to summer). Access to the tennis courts would provide an additional 28,000 square feet of facility. It would enable us to keep business in Vail which might otherwise be driven to Keystone Resort (77,000 square feet of meeting space, 16,000 of which is in one facility), Snowmass Conference Center (40,000 square feet) and other competitors. As an example, a member of our sales staff advised me today of a potential client (an Association) which has used the Snowmass Conference Center for the past five years and is looking for a new location. They would consider our facility for a July, 2000 conference. Without the tennis facility, we cannot accommodate this piece of business, but the client has expressed that we would be seriously considered if we could offer an additional 15,000 square feet of space. We have another potential piece of business for the month of C 3 April, 1999 which will advise us pending the outcome of whether or not we can provide the tennis facility. Other examples of groups which we have lost due to a lack of space is attached. George, you requested that I provide an existing plan of the facility marked to indicate both the fire system design and the emergency lighting design. We are unable.to provide this at this time since our director of resort maintenance is out of town until August 28. However, Mike McGee, along with other town staff members, has been directly involved in inspection of the facility and discussions with our Director of Resort Maintenance in developing life safety design options which would be acceptable in our facility. Mr. McGee has offered to attend the PEC hearing on Monday, August 24 to express his comfort level with design options to date.. It would be helpful if we could receive feedback from the PEC on Monday, August 24 to determine if our making inipi uvements to this facility is economically feasible so that we can hopefully keep this project moving forward in an effort to be sufficiently prepared for the Championships in January, 1999. Thanks again for your cooperation and assistance with this process. Should you have any quens, please let me know. Managing Director Vail Cascade Hotel and Club 4 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION August 24, 1998 Minutes MEMBERS PRESENT: Greg Moffet Galen Aasland Diane Golden John Schofield Ann Bishop Tom Weber Brian Doyon Public Hearing MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Dominic Mauriello George Ruther Judy Rodriguez 2:00 p.m. A final review of a conditional use permit for a proposed addition to the Vail Interfaith Chapel, located at 19 Vail Road/ Tract J, Block 7, Vail Village 1 st. Applicant: Vail Interfaith Chapel, represented by Gwathmey/Pratt Architects Planner: Dominic Mauriello • Brian Doyon recused himself from this item. Dominic Mauriello gave an overview of the staff memo. Greg Moffet asked for any public comments and if the commissioners had any comments. Galen Aasland asked about parking requirements if the basement space was used. John Schofield made a motion with the additional conditions that there be a provision to provide access to the streamwalk and that parking be added if the basement is finished. Diane Golden seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 6-0-1. 2. A request for an amendment to a previously approved development plan for the Timber Falls Development, located at 4469 Timber Falls Court/unplatted. Applicant: RAD Five L.L.C., represented by Greg Amsden Planner: Dominic Mauriello Dominic Mauriello gave an overview of the staff memo. He explained the difference between this plan and the previously approved plan being 1300 sq. ft. and that the previous plan had a deficient parking plan. 1 Planning and Environmental Commission . Minutes August 24, 1998 +Zv e.i 5 Greg Moffet disclosed for the record that Greg Amsden was a customer of his, but that he felt it did not present a conflict. He then asked if the applicant had anything to add. Greg Amsden, the applicant, said the number 2,353 sq. ft. did not include the area of the building where the stairway was making a 1,000 sq. ft. difference and that site coverage had been a point of contention. He said Timber Falls had approximately 780,000 sq. ft. and that site coverage was 35% for this zoning. He said there was 65,000 sq. ft. of site coverage, which was well under 1/3 for the whole development and that the amount they were asking for was such a small amount. He explained that this project was a scaled down scenario, but said it needed to be marketable and that the last alternative was to build another building. He said the townhome format had decreased being in the setback and the biggest difference was putting all the parking on site. Greg Moffet asked why there was so much more parking with this plan. Dominic Mauriello said that this needed a vehicle turnaround area, which the previous plan had not accommodated for. Greg Amsden asked if there was any way to reduce the asphalt area and preserve the trees. Jack Snow, the architect, said the turnaround area was required by the Fire Department and Public Works. Greg Amsden asked to move the parking back 7, which would provide 19 spaces as part of the plan and also preserve the trees. John Schofield said 30' from the asphalt to the building takes out landscaping, not trees. Dominic Mauriello said the plan showed 22 from the parking to the building. Greg Amsden said the adjacents would lose the view of the lower portion of the mountain, but that there were no view corridors established here. Greg Moffet said, referring to Bob Borne's Innsbruck situation, the PEC gave him flexibility to get staff approval on some changes. Greg Amsden said they would keep the footprint of the whole building. Dominic Mauriello said, regarding Condition #8, that the owner of the parking area had to give permission. John Schofield asked who the owner was. Greg Amsden said Ron Riley. Greg Amsden said the encroachment of 2' belonged to the Association and that they needed 7,275 sq. ft. regarding Condition #6 and that they had to have it. He said outside stairwells didn't count for GRFA. 2 Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes August 24, 1998 Greg Moffet asked for any public comment. Mel Brodie, a neighbor, said he was concerned about the site disturbance. He stated that at the 7113198 PEC meeting, the PEC was concerned about site disturbance and that this was not an improvement, just shuffled around. Chris Morrison, residing at the duplex at 4494 Streamside Circle, said after walking the site, you could see this was putting a 10 lb. project on a 5 lb. site. She said she was here to speak in opposition, as the pine trees would be stressed. Joe Clary, President of Building 18, Phase 9, said that Building 20 had 6 parking spaces and that multiple occupants had to double park for that building. He said it this project is approved, tenants won't be able to get in and out with the parking doubled up. He also said there was no way to access the swimming pool or tennis courts, after the garages are built, so we have to figure out an access before this is built. He felt the path should go through Riley's land. He said that trucks cannot maneuver around and there won't be hardly a tree left, if this project is approved. He said it has to be a smaller development. He mentioned that the snow from Building 20 gets pushed down to where this project will be. He said the access to the pool by car and by people had to be addressed. Marilyn Heller, from Building 18, wanted to bring to the DEC's attention that the approval of the original Building 19 was in error and that the parking was not adequate for Building 20. She said 12 spaces were needed, not 6. The footprint had too much going across the footpath to the swimming pool and we don't want a footpath down steep stairs. She stated there was a signed contract between Ron Riley and Rad IV, but Rad IV had Ron Riley on the Board, therefore, the buyer and the seller were the same. Greg Moffet said the PEC was not permitted to look beyond the applicant Rad IV. Dominic Mauriello said the action taken today would not take development rights away from Timber Falls. Tom Weber said he was concerned about the parking in the common space and the main problem was with the footprint being almost twice as much as what was out there. He said that views from surrounding areas would be impacted. He said if the applicant was proposing more site disturbance, he would like to see the project lower than 38' to benefit some of the neighbors, as the project seems too tall. Brian Doyon said his biggest concern was the bulk and mass and now it is twice the mass. He said he sees more opportunity to go under the building and that flat roofs could drop some of the height. He said he was reluctant on bringing the parking 7' closer to the building and with a non-conforming house, the applicant would have to get parking up to standard, which isn't happening at all. John Schofield said this was tweaked a little, but not enough. Galen Aasland said he appreciated that parking moved away from Building 20. 3 Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes August 24, 1998 Greg Amsden said the existing development plan is not just Building 20 and we were looking at Timber Fails as a whole. Galen Aasland said that the Board has responsibility to the applicant and to the neighbors. The approval plan was for a building in similar scale with Building 19. This proposal is significantly larger than that and he couldn't support it. Ann Bishop said to take the comments from the neighbors and this is substantial departure. Diane Golden said the original parking had to be in the common area and was not well thought out and she then asked who parked down by the road. Greg Amsden said that Building 18 and 20 were the Association's problem and not the developers and that all our parking was on-site. Greg Moffet asked how much enclosed parking would have GRFA above it. Greg Amsden said all of it. Greg Moffet said what your plan does was to pull cars off the road and put them in garages and have lower density in terms of units, therefore reducing the traffic and parking demand on this site. He said he thought the neighbors should be in favor of this. He said the PEC approved a plan that was very close to this. He said we as a board approved a whole bunch of aspens and he thought this was truly pretty close to something he could approve. He then said the approved development plan had no parking on the original plan. Greg Amsden said the applicant was going to the DRB with the approved development plan Dominic Mauriello said parking had to be accommodated somewhere and the DRB would determine that, Greg Amsden said he had no say about parking on the rest of the site. Galen Aasiand made a motion for denial. Brian Doyon seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 6-1, with Greg Moffet opposed. - 3. A request for a major amendment to SDD #4, to allow for a fractional fee club and a change to the approved Development Plan, located at 1325 Westhaven Dr., Westhaven Condominiums/ Cascade Village Area A. Applicant: Gerald L. Wurhmann, represented by Robby Robinson Planner: George Ruther Dominic Mauriello gave an overview of the staff memo. Greg Moffet asked if the applicant had anything to add. 4 Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes August 24,1998 s.t y t Gerry Wurhmann said the parking consideration boils down to whether or not you need 2 parking spaces for the dwelling units or if, in this zone district, the units are determined to be transient units, in which case only one parking space per unit would be needed. He said they were considering heating the front lot. He asked Dominic if a Type Ill EHU could be sold. Dominic Mauriello said a Type III unit could only be rented, but a condition could be made to allow it to be sold. Gerry Wurhmann said it would be desirable to be able to be sold. Greg Moffet asked for any public comments. Galen Aasland said loading had been approved and he had no trouble with the EHU being sold, but he had concerns about the parking. He said he saw the Cascade Village having challenges in the summer months with parking. Ann Bishop shared Galen's concerns. Diane Golden said she was ok with the project. Tom Weber said if the applicant would put the loading next to the front door, they would pick up an extra parking space and he would like the applicant to stick to the parking requirements. Brian Doyon had concerns with the parking, as well as the accuracy of what was being shown today. He said the 20' turning radius needed to be 45'. He said they needed to see grading and retaining walls, as they would affect the parking especially if it was not snowmelted. He said if there was a retaining wall, there would not be snow storage. Gerry Wurhmann said there was a preliminary grading plan that George had shown to Greg Hall. Brian Doyon said he needed to see an accurate survey and grading plan. John Schofield said the slope was such that if it were not heated it would be a concern. He said he preferred a for-sale EHU and he needed to see an operation plan for the FF Club. Greg Moffet said a vote was needed to approve with conditions, or deny, as this was not a worksession. Gerry Wurhmann said the reason we were not conforming to parking was because we wanted to know if the club units were transient lodging units. Tom Weber asked if the fractional fee units were termed transient because they would not be occupied all year long. Gerry Wurhmann said there would be one car per party, and the owner was a transient lodging guest. Diane Golden said historically Fractional Fee users use one car, or the same as a hotel guest. 5 Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes August 24, 1998 ky Dominic said location determines the number of cars. Greg Moffet said the Town shuttle made a stop there and if the driveway were heated, a lot of problems would be solved, but it needed to be an additional condition. Greg agreed with Brian's issues and also that the loading space needed to be next to the door. Dominic Mauriello corrected himself, saying a Type III does allow for units to be sold. Greg Moffet said an owned unit vs. a rented unit makes a difference in the parking requirement. Dominic Mauriello said we F'FU's are treated the same as dwelling units, as the presence of a kitchen requires an additional parking space. He said a fire truck would not need access from the front side of the building and the building will be sprinkled. Diane Golden made a motion for approval with the additional condition that surface be heated, Tom Weber seconded the motion. The motion failed by a vote of 4-3, with Tom Weber, Brian Doyon, Galen Aasland and Ann Bishop opposed. Galen Aasland made a motion for approval as previous proposed with the additional condition that a pay-in-lieu parking fee be paid for the difference between 47 parking spaces and the required 88. Dominic Mauriello said the cost would be approximately $17,000 per space, which would be increasing after January 1st. Brian Doyon seconded the motion. Diane Golden asked if the applicant was comfortable with this condition. Gerry Wuhrmann said yes, that the club members would need to pick this up at $1000 apiece. The motion passed by a vote of 6-1, with John Schofield opposed. 4. A request for a CC1 minor exterior alteration and site coverage variance to the Vail Village Club, located at 293 Hanson Ranch Road/Lot C, Block 2, Vail Village 1st. Applicant: Remonov, Inc., represented by Gies Architects Planner: George Ruther Dominic Mauriello gave an overview of the staff memo. Greg Moffet asked if the applicant had anything to add. Russell Gies, representing the applicant, showed the PEC the revised plans. Greg Moffet said to let the record show there was no public input. 6 Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes August 24, 1998 Tom Weber said he had no problem with the variance, as it made sense for the circulation in the building. He mentioned some of the roof top equipment was unscreened and needed to be a condition. Brian Doyon agreed with Tom to add a condition to bring the equipment into compliance. He said his one concern was with the planter that needed to be consistent with the rest that were along the walkway in order to blend in with the rest of the streetscape. John Schofield asked if the decks were heated. Rick Muller, owner of the property, said all the decks were heated. Galen Aasiand asked about relocating the trees and agreed with the rooftop being screened. Ann Bishop asked if it was still going to be called the Vail Village Club. Rick Muller said he didn't know yet. Diane Golden asked what would go in the planter when the tree came down. Russell Gies said shrubs. Greg Moffet said this was supposed to be visually screened as a previous condition, as it was visible from the Vista Ban. John Schofield made a motion for approval in accordance with the staff memo, with the additional condition that the rooftop mechanical be screened to staff's satisfaction. Ann Bishop seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 7-0. 5. A request for a worksession to discuss a major amendment to SDD #4, to allow for the use of the tennis facility for special events and conference facilities, located at 1300 Westhaven DO Cascade Village Area A. Applicant: Vail Cascade Hotel and Club, represented by Chris Hanen Planner: George Ruther Dominic Mauriello gave an overview of the staff memo. George Ruther arrived at 4:20 p.m. Chris Hanen, Managing Director of the Club, formerly the Westin, stated that in 1989, this was an existing use before becoming the Cascade Movie Theater. He said in order to participate in the World Championships, they would like to use this space for interviews. 7 Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes August 24, 1998 John Schofield said Mike McGee said if it was sprinkled, the applicant could do whet he wanted. Chris Hanen said he would like to upgrade the facility for the Championship. He said the 28,000 sq. ft tennis facility was not a big money maker. He said if they had to apply on a per-use basis, they would be happy to do that. He suggested 6 uses per year would help where they fall short of Snowmass and some of the other competitors. He said his first priority was to use the facility for in-house groups. He said the parking issue was currently being handled. He stated that renting out space for trade shows or big meetings would generate some additional traffic that could be handled through shuttle service. He mentioned a pending FBLA dinner for2000 kids in the spring. Chris said a third use, though not a top priority, would be one-time events which would be more problematic with the cars, etc. He stressed the first priority was the Championship. Chris stated it was very costly ($10-15,000) to cover the tennis floor, so as not to damage the courts. He said because they didn't want to interrupt the tennis members, as they would need to provide some compensation, he didn't want to be using the facility all the time. He mentioned that he received a letter from a Travel Show that had been meeting in Whistler and Banff for the last two years and they now wanted to meet here if there was a facility. He stated the 2,000 people needing a minimum facility of 10,000 sq. ft. would bring a lot of business into Town. He said he had requests that needed answers by the end of the month and that one request wanted to come to Vail in the shoulder month. He said there was business to be had to use this facility occasionally. Greg Moffet asked for any public comments. There were no comments from the public. Galen Aasland said he was in favor of using the facility for the Championships, but for trade shows, the Ruin's parking advantage would be gone and he felt a shuttle plan would be needed in the summer months. He said no to concerts. Chris Hanen asked about filing a special event permit for some uses. Galen Aasland suggested a blanket range of events. George Ruther said staff would need to prepare an ordinance for the SDD with specific uses. Greg Moffet said the current ordinance permitted tennis exclusively. George Ruther said a conference facility was an accessory use. Greg Moffet said the amendment would be to include more real estate as an accessory use and to treat it as conditional or by right. Galen Aasland said there would be an impact by 18-wheelers setting up for trade shows. Ann Bishop asked if Vail `99 was a separate issue. 8 Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes August 24, 1998 George Ruther said yes, as an emergency ordinance for Vail '99 was passed. Ann Bishop advised the applicant to focus on parking and loading and said she would be supportive of whatever plan the applicant came up with. Diane Golden said this would be a great amenity, with the Town of Vail bus system right there and having their own shuttle. She said she would need to see a parking analysis showing when the parking lots were full. She advised the applicant not to put any limits on this request, so as not to have to back track. Tom Weber thought this was a great idea and some of the challenges were not impossible and told the applicant to move forward. He suggested looking at how someone entered that space and to make it easy, so as not to have people wandering around the club. He suggested a separate entrance for improved circulation. Brian Doyen said they needed a major access for bringing in heavy equipment and he saw an opportunity to put in double doors, by extending the shoulder over. He said he was not opposed to concerts. Tom Weber said doors could be put in by the exterior wall where slab was and he would like to see a plan. Brian Doyon suggested utilizing the concrete path and maybe putting _a tent out there. 9A John Schofield said this was a great and better use than tennis courts. He said the east end would be the best access, as it coincides with the bus stop. He said this was an opportunity to pick up what the smaller folks in Town can't pick up. He said he was concerned with parking and this was a great opportunity to talk to the neighbor to the west, Gerry Wurhmann. He said to do the `99 Championship, but they would have 18- wheelers with 0,000 sq. ft. of space to fill. He said they had a good chunk of land on the east end to work with. Greg Moffet said this was great, as it was just sitting idle when community acknowledgment stated they needed this space. He then asked how many tennis courts would the applicant need to permanently dedicate this facility to conferences. Chris Hanen said 2-3 courts would be needed as an amenity to the hotel. Greg Moffet mentioned the VRD gymnastic facility as an unmet community need. Chris Hanen said that had not been fully talked about. Greg Moffet said to entertain an application quickly, the PEC would need to see a parking circulation and loading plan that was well thought out and kept off the Westhaven hill, He asked how the applicant would keep people from turning cars on Westhaven, particularly in the winter. He said the PEC could look at conference uses on a case-by-case basis, until there was a track record. He noted Golden Peak's parking plan with what worked and what didn't. He suggested a staff review if the 9 Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes August 24, 1998 parking and circulation plan was working. 0 Dominic Mauriello said perhaps an annual review, similar to Garton's and Golden Peak. Greg Moffet said this was an appropriate use. Galen Aasland said the PEC would be more in favor of this use, rather than tennis courts. 6. Information Update There was no information update. 7. Approval of August 10, 1998 minutes. John Schofield made a motion for approval . Brian Doyon seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 6-0, with Diane Golden abstaining. Galen Aasland made a motion to adjourn. Brian Doyon seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 7-0. The meeting adjourned at 5 p.m. Z?l 10 Manning and Environmental Commission Minutes August 24,1998