Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-0510 PECTHIS ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail will hold a public hearing in accordance with Section 12-3-6 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail on May 10, 1999, at 2:00 P.M. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. In consideration of: A request for a final review of a proposed locker room expansion to the Dobson Ice Arena, located at 321 E. Lionshead Circle/Lot 1, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 2"d Filing. Applicant: Vail Recreation District Planner: George Ruther A request for a variance from Section 12-6D-6, to allow for a building encroachment into a rear setback, located at 2657 Arosa Drive / Lot 8, Block D, Vail Ridge. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Allison Ochs A request for a variance from Section 12-6D-9 (Site Coverage) of the Town of Vail Municipal Code, to allow for site coverage in excess of 20% and a variance from Section 12-6D- 6 (Front Setbacks) of the Town of Vail Municipal Code, to allow for an encroachment into the front setback on a Primary/Secondary Residential zoned lot, located at 362 Mill Creek Circle / Lot 9, Block 1, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: Walter Forbes, represented by Gwathmey-Pratt Architects Planner: Allison Ochs 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 April 23, 1999 in the Vail Trail. v TOWN&VAULY 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 May 10, 1999, at 2:00 P.M. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. In consideration of: A request for a final review of a proposed locker room expansion to the Dobson Ice Arena, located at 321 E. Lionshead Circle/Lot 1, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 2" d Filing. Applicant: Vail Recreation District Planner: George Ruther A request for a variance from Section 12-6D-6, to allow for a building encroachment into a rear setback, located at 2657 Arosa Drive / Lot 8, Block D, Vail Ridge. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Allison Ochs A request for a variance from Section 12-6D-9 (Site Coverage) of the Town of Vail Municipal Code, to allow for site coverage in excess of 20% and a variance from Section 12-6D- 6 (Front Setbacks) of the Town of Vail Municipal Code, to allow for an encroachment into the front setback on a Primary/Secondary Residential zoned lot, located at 362 Mill Creek Circle / Lot 9, Block 1, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: Walter Forbes, represented by Gwathmey-Pratt Architects Planner: Allison Ochs A request for a worksession to discuss a conditional use permit to allow for the Vail Mountain School to construct a temporary classroom on the site of the school for a ten-month period, located at 3160 Katsos Ranch Road/Part of Lot 12, Block 2, Vail Village 121" Filing. Applicant: Vail Mountain School, represented by Pam Hopkins 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 April 23, 1999 in the Vail Trail. , (Q?)? POWNO VAILLY THIS ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Town Council 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 May 11, 1999, at 2.00 P.M. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. In consideration of: An appeal of the Planning and Environmental Commission's approval of the Vail Associates request for a minor amendment to a previously approved development plan, to allow for the construction of a skier tunnel at the Golden Peak Ski Base, located at 458 Vail` Valley Drive d Tract B, Vail Village 7th Filing. Appellant: John W. Dunn, attorney for Kenneth S. Brown Planner: Jeff Hunt The application, appeal form and information about the proposal is 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 April 26, 1999 in the Vail Trail. E E TOWN OF Monday, May 10, 1999 AGENDA Proiect Orientation / NO PEC LUNCH - Community Development Department 1:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Site Visits : 1:15 p.m. 1. Vail Mountain School - 3160 Katsos Ranch Road 2. GLOB -1000 S. Frontage Rd. West Driver: George NOTE: If the PEC hearing extends until 5:00 p.m., the board will break for dinner from 6:00 - 6:30 p.m. Public Hearinq - Town Council Chambers 2:00 p.m. 1. A request for a final review of an amendment to Special Development District No. 4 (Cascade Village), revising the Glen Lyon Office Building site (Area D), located at 1000 S. Frontage Road West/Lot 54, Glen Lyon Subdivision. Applicant: Glen Lyon Office Building Partnership, represented by Kurt Segerberg Planner: Dominic Mauriello 2. A request for a worksession to discuss a conditional use permit to allow for the Vail Mountain School to construct a temporary classroom on the site of the school for a ten- month period, located at 3160 Katsos Ranch Road/Part of Lot 12, Block 2, Vail Village 121" Filing. Applicant: Vail Mountain School, represented by Pam Hopkins Planner: George Ruther 3. A request for a variance from Section 12-6C-6, to allow for the construction of a garage within a front setback and Section 12-10-8, to allow for the construction of an undersized garage, located at 5125 Black Bear Lane / Lot 11, Block 2, Gore Creek Subdivision. Applicant: Montogomery (Mike) Mathias Planner: Allison Ochs TABLED UNTIL MAY 24,1999 TOWNV OF YAW) 1 4: A request for a variance from Section 12-6D-9 (Site Covt:raye) of the Town of Vail Municipal Code,. to allow for site coverage in excess of 20% and a variance from Section 12-6D-6 (Front Setbacks) of the Town of Vail Municipal Code, to allow for an encroachment into the front setback on a Primary/Secondary Residential zoned lot, located at 362 Mill Creek Circle i Lot 9, Block 1, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: Walter Forbes, represented by Gwathmey-Pratt Architects Planner: Allison Ochs TABLED UNTIL MAY 24, 1999 5. A request for a final review of a proposed locker room expansion to the Dobson Ice Arena, located at 321 E. Lionshead Circle/Lot 1, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 2nd Filing. Applicant: Vail Recreation District Planner: George Ruther TABLED UNTIL MAY 24, 1999 6. A request for a variance from Section 12-60-6, to allow for a building encroachment into a rear setback, located at 2657 Arosa Drive / Lot 3, Block D, Vail Ridge. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Allison Ochs TABLED UNTIL MAY 24, 1999 7. A request for a modification to a platted building envelope, located at 1047 Rlva Glen/ Lot: 6, Spraddle Creek Estates. Applicant: Franco D'Agostino, represented by Robert Mach Planner: Allison Ochs TABLED UNTIL. MAY 24, 1999 8. A request for a variance from Section 12-6D-6 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code, to allow for an encroachment into the required side setbacks, located at 3003 Bellflower Drive / Lot 9, Block 6, Vail Intermountain. Applicant. Mr. Guillermo Huerta Planner: George Ruther WITHDRAWN 9. Information Update 10. Approval of April 26, 1999 minutes. The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours in the project planner's office located at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479-2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. Community Development Department Published May 7,1999 in the Vail Trail 2 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION • PUBLIC MEETING SCHEDULE Monday, May 10, 1999 FINAL AGENDA / PEC Project Orientation LUNCH,- Comm„uni tv Development Debartment 1:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT John Schofield Galen Aasland Diane Golden Brian Doyon Tom Weber Chas Bernhardt Doug Cahill MEMBERS ABSENT Dominic Mauriello George Ruther Judy Rodriguez Site Visits : 1:15 pm. 1. Vail Mountain School - 3160 Katsos Ranch Road 2. GLOB -1000 S. Frontage Rd. West Driver: George Rod 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 Hearinq - Town Council Chambers 2:00 p.m. 1. A request for a final review of an amendment to Special Development District No. 4 (Cascade Village), revising the Glen Lyon Office Building site (Area D), located at 1000 S. Frontage Road West/Lot 54, Glen Lyon Subdivision. Applicant: Glen Lyon Office Building Partnership, represented by Kurt Segerberg Planner: Dominic Mauriello APPROVED WITH 13 CONDITIONS: • 1. The owner/applicant shall ensure that the utilities to this site are all placed underground for the entire length of the site prior to the issuance of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for the development. TOWNO?G'kAIL 2. The owner/applicant shall be required to provide roadway improvements in accordance with the approved plans. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall obtain approval by the Town of detailed civil engineering drawings for all proposed improvements including drainage improvements. 3. The owner/applicant shall deed restrict two Type 111, Employee Housing Units in accordance with the. Zoning Regulations prior to obtaining a temporary or final certificate of occupancy on the project. 4. The owner/applicant shall record an easement for the existing bike path on the west end of the property prior to obtaining a temporary or final certificate of occupancy on the project. 5. The building plans, rooftop mechanical plans, landscape plan, tree protection plans, and dumpster enclosure details shall be reviewed and approved by the DRB. 6. The owner/applicant shall mitigate the trees being removed by the development. The DRB shall determine the ratio of mitigation. A substantial vegetative buffer shall be established along the north elevation of the building. y. Lower the eve line of the roof over the center building form. 8. Move either the employee housing units to improve the indoor/outdoor access or improve the access to these units to make them easier to access by occupants. 9. Add a significant gutter system to the roof which ties into the drainage system for the site. 10. Provide a commitment to provide significant trees prior to being reviewed by the Town Council. 11. Provide a pedestrian scale element at the front entry (i.e., porte cochere). 12. Make improvements to breakup the overall €agade of the south elevation. 13. In the drainage plans, provide adequate drainage for snow melt from surface parking area to prevent draining directly into creek. 2. A request for a worksession to discuss a conditional use permit to allow for the Vail Mountain School to construct a temporary classroom on the site of the school fora ten- month period, located at 3160 Katsos Ranch Road/Part of Lot 12, Block 2, Vail Village 12th Filing. Applicant: Vail Mountain School, represented by Pam Hopkins Planner: George Ruther WOIRKSESSION - NO VOTE 3. A request for a variance from Section 12-6C-6, to allow for the construction of a garage within a front setback and Section 12-10-8, to allow for the construction of an undersized garage, located at 5125 Black Bear Lane / Lot 11, Block 2, Gore Creek Subdivision. Applicant: Montogomery (Mike) Mathias Planner: Allison Ochs TABLED UNTIL MAY 24, 1999 2 4. A request for a variance from Section 12-6D-9 _(Site Coverage) of the Town of Vail Municipal Code, to allow for site coverage in excess of 20% and a variance from Section 12-6D-6 (Front Setbacks) of the Town of Vail Municipal Code, to allow for an encroachment into the front setback on a Primary/Secondary Residential zoned lot, located at 362 Mill Creek Circle / Lot 9, Block 1, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: Walter Forbes, represented by Gwathmey-Pratt Architects Planner: Allison Ochs TABLED UNTIL MAY 24,1999. 5. A request for a final review of a proposed locker room expansion to the Dobson Ice Arena, located at 321 E. Lionshead Circle/Lot 1, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 2nd Filing. Applicant: Vail Recreation District Planner: George Ruther TABLED UNTIL MAY 24,1999 6. A request for a variance from Section 12-6D-6, to allow for a building encroachment into a rear setback, located at 2657 Arosa Drive / Lot 8, Block D, Vail Ridge. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Allison Ochs TABLED UNTIL MAY 24,1999 7. A request for a modification to a platted building envelope, located at 1047 Riva Glen/ Lot 6, Spraddle Creek Estates. Applicant: Franco D'Agostino, represented by Robert Mach Planner: Allison Ochs TABLED UNTIL MAY 24, 1999 8. A request for a variance from.Section 12-6D-6 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code, to allow for an encroachment into the required side setbacks, located at 3003 Bellflower Drive / Lot 9, Block 6, Vail Intermountain. Applicant: Mr. Guillermo Huerta Planner: George Ruther 9. Information Update 10. Approval of April 26, 1999 minutes. The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours in the project planner's office located at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479-2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. Community Development Department 3 11 E FROM: Community Development Department DATE,: May 10, 1999 SUBJECT. A request for a worksession to discuss a conditional use permit to allow for the Vail Mountain School to construct a temporary classroom on the site of the school for a ten-month period, located at 3160 Katsos Ranch Road/Part of Lot 12, Block 2, Vail Village 12 1h Filing. Applicant: Vail Mountain School, represented by Pam Hopkins Planner: George Ruther 1. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The Vail Mountain School, represented by Pam Hopkins of Snowdon & Hopkins Architects, is requesting a worksession to discuss a request for a conditional use permit to allow for a modular classroom to placed on the school site. The modular classroom is intended to accommodate an increase in the demand for students to attend the school. The temporary classroom is intended to meet the immediate demand and would be installed for the 1999-2000 academic school year (August 1-May 31). The modular classroom is approximately 20' x 40' in size and can accommodate 16 to 18 students. The applicant is proposing to locate the temporary building on the south side of the school partially under an existing canopy. This location was selected by the applicant for convenience and function: A reduced copy of the proposed plans and a letter describing the request have been attached for reference. II. BACKGROUND According to the Official Town of Vail Zoning Map, the Vail Mountain School, is located in the General Use Zone District. Pursuant to the Town of Vail Zoning Regulations, the purpose of the General Use Zone District is tog "provide sites for public and quasi-public uses which, because of their special characteristics, cannot be appropriately regulated by the development standards prescribed for 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 of this Title 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 the case of buildings and other structures, to ensure adequate light, air, open 1 spaces, and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of uses. (Ord. 21(1994) § 10)2 0 1. Sections 12-9C-2 & 3 outline the permitted and conditional uses allowed in the General Use Zone District. The temporary modular classroom is an allowed conditional use in the General Use Zone District subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit. 111. DISCUSSION ISSUES The Community Development Department has completed a preliminary review of the proposed temporary modular classroom. Upon completion of our review, staff has identified an issue we believe the applicant, staff and the Planning and Environmental Commission should address prior to final review. Temporary Structures The Planning & Environmental Commission has approved temporary structures for a variety of uses in the past, subject to a conditional use permit. In more cases than not, the applicant requesting the conditional use permit for the temporary structure reappears before the Commission requesting an extension to the permit to allow the continued use of the structure. In the past, the Commission has expressed their concern that with the request for extensions, the structure begins to become more permanent than temporary. To avoid unintended consequences in the future, staff would recommend that the applicant and Commission discuss the duration of the modular structure and arrive at an agreed upon date of removal of the structure. The Commission should also discuss their thoughts on a request in the future for an extension of the conditional use permit. Historically, temporary structures have been allowed to deviate slightly from the Town's adopted Design Guidelines. The deviations have been permitted due to the temporary nature of the structures. In this case, staff would recommend that the applicant be required to improve the modular structure so that it blends in with the existing buildings on the school site. Improvements to the structure may include painting, landscaping, detailing, skirting, etc. If approved, the exterior design of the structure will require Design Review Board approval. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION As this is a worksession to discuss the proposed installation of a temporary modular classroom at the Vail Mountain School, staff will not be providing a formal recommendation at this time. However, at the time of final review by the Planning and Environmental Commission, staff will provide its recommendation. Dail Mountain Sc6001 April 12, 1999 Mr. George Ruther Senior Planner Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road Vail CO 81657 Dear Mr. Ruther: After the last addition to Vail Mountain School and the rezoning of our property, we were asked by the Town to refrain from requesting, in piecemeal fashion, changes to the campus. Instead, a long-range plan was requested. Toward that end, we have hired a consultant to guide the efforts of three dozen Vail Mountain School representatives in a long-range planning process which will occur this weekend, April 16-18. A primary topic will be the growing demand for the school'. I anticipate the suggestion that one possible way to address the immediate situation will be to place a modular classroom on campus for ten months, August 1 through May 31 of the next academic year. We are experiencing a significant increase of inquiries about our school, perhaps because of a new influx of people to the valley as of next fall, and the Eagle County Charter Academy's decision to drop its high school program at the end of this academic year. In response to these matters and the reconfiguration of what we offer our current population, we are considering ways to add'classroom space on this campus. Our request of you is for the opportunity to accommodate the demand for Vail Mountain School in 1999-2000 while using that academic year to make preparations to blend Lhc new students into the school permanently. That effort is one part of the long-range plan we hope to submit to you and it is the rationale for this specific request. Knowing that the process of approval takes time, I am writing to you now to secure a date on the calendar to make the step possible in a timely manner. It is my assumption that the school's long-range planning session next weekend will confirm the wish to do so. Enclosed please find a check in the amount of $250.00 for the cost of this phase of that process. Thank you for considering this request. I am available to answer questions, as is Pam Hopkins, our liaison with the Town of Vail. Sincerely, Peter M. Abuisi Headmaster PMA/ty encl. 3160 KATSOS RANCH ROAD + VAIL, COLORADO 81657 • (303) 476-3850 20.0 Litlij Ty EASEuFpq 'CHAIN-LINK ! COVERED ENTRY S STUCCO WALL RET. ?- x ?? - " - - WALL -' '.-- 2Q 71.9 u 15.5 " -_ OVRHNt; 15.2 8.4 OVRHNG.p _--- fro. a B.a (a''??If6 e CONC. to 8.0 SCHOOL .. 1 a a, (a.a1 / DE GK ?o ?1.5' PI LIAR TYP. DECK ! ?? o l ? .s 9.3 r 12.0 ? N M 2CABIN r` ybl ( .O 49.2 32.8 .3 HYq ATdT o t I! (a.) FIRE. AOL -A j -y BENCH 28.8 (a.3x2) ROOF' - - 14- (o.s)-- - GRILL ~- x 8332.! -` PATRICK. FILLIETTAZ 1/30/95 '? III 88.5 x 8332.5 x 8333.289.9 ---- ?? _ _? 1187"33`Oa'"`W` . - 39485 TOPOGRAPHIC .- ------ - _. _ '-^_ /AIL MOUTAII PART OF 12; MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: May 10, 1999 SUBJECT: A final review of a major amendment to Special Development District No. 4 . (Cascade Village), revising the Glen Lyon Office Building site (Area D), located at 1000 S. Frontage Road West/Lot 54, Glen Lyon Subdivision. Applicant: Glen Lyon Office Building Partnership, represented by Kurt Segerberg Planner: Dominic Mauriello DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant is proposing to amend SDD #4, as it relates to the Glen Lyon Office Building property, Area D. The applicant is proposing to construct a 37,088 sq. ft. (gross) office building addition to the east of the existing building, a 3,270 sq. ft. modification to the existing building by adding hallways and an elevator, and two EHU's (1,127 sq. ft. and 738 sq. ft.). The resulting total leaseable area of the building is 35,741 sq. ft. which requires a total of 143 parking spaces. The new building is proposed to be constructed above two levels of a parking structure containing 127 parking spaces. The east end of the site will also contain a surface parking (with a level of parking below) of 24 parking spaces, for a total of 151 parking spaces. The proposal also includes aligning the entrance of the parking lot with that of the Vail Professional Building directly across the street and re-striping of the traffic lanes on the S. Frontage Road to accommodate turn lanes and bike lanes. The original Cascade Village SDD was approved in 1976 and has since been amended several times. The development plan approved in 1988 for this area included additional office space and a micro-brewery. On August 10, 1998, the PEC provided direction to the applicant to provide structured parking, substantially increase the square footage of office space, eliminate the proposed duplex development, and upgrade the architectural quality of the existing building. The Commission stated that adherence to the interior landscape provisions and the building height provisions of the previous approval could be varied. The Town Council gave very similar guidance, to the applicant, at its September 1, 1998 meeting. Please refer to the Description of the Previous Approval and the Zoning Analysis for a comparison of the previous approval to the present proposal. TOWN OF PROJECT PROS AND CONS 0 Benefits • Provides a substantial increase in office space in the Town of Vail • Improves and redevelops an unsightly area and building in the Town of Vail • The project is an overall reduction in traffic impact from the previous approvals • Less of the site is utilized for development than previous approvals Negatives • The building is larger than the previous approvals • Project will add additional traffic to the South Frontage Road 111. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends approval of the project subject to the following finding: That the proposed major amendment to Special Development District #4 (Cascade Village) complies with the nine design criteria outlined in Section 12-9A-8 of the Town Code. Additionally, the applicant has demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Commission that any adverse effects of the requested deviations from the development standards of the previous approvals are outweighed by the public benefits provided. The recommendation of approval is also subject to the following conditions 1. The owner/applicant shall ensure that the utilities to this site are all placed underground for the entire length of the site prior to the issuance of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for the development. 2. The owner/applicant shall be required to provide roadway improvements in accordance with the approved plans. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall obtain approval by the Town of detailed civil engineering drawings for all proposed improvements including drainage improvements. 3. The owner/applicant shall deed restrict two-Type III, Employee Housing Units in accordance with the Zoning Regulations prior to obtaining a temporary or final certificate of occupancy on the project. 4. The owner/applicant shall record an easement for the existing bike path on the west end of the property prior to obtaining a temporary or final certificate of occupancy on the project. 5. The building plans, rooftop mechanical plans, landscape plan, tree protection plans, and dumpster enclosure details shall be reviewed and approved by the DRB. 6. The owner/applicant shall mitigate the trees being removed by the development. The DRB shall determine the ratio of mitigation. A substantial vegetative buffer shall be established along the north elevation of the building. 2 V1, DESCRIPTION OF PREVIOUS APPROVAL 119881 Staff has summarized the information for the Cascade Village SDD that pertains to Area D below: 1. Permitted Uses: Business and professional offices. Please note that other uses are also listed as allowed in the SDD. 2. Density -Dwelling Units: Three dwelling units were previously allowed, two of which were employee dwelling units. 3. GRFA: The GRFA for the EHU's were to be a minimum of 795 square feet and 900 square feet. These dwelling units shall be restricted as Type III EHU`s. The free market unit was not to exceed 1,630 square feet. 4. Commercial Square Footage: Total office area for Area D was not to exceed 32,314 square feet. The existing building is 10,500 sq. ft. in leaseable area (14,000 sq. ft. gross area). 5. Setbacks: Setbacks were to be as indicated on the approved development plans, which are as follows: N: 2 feet S: 8 feet E: 30 feet W: 15 feet Gore Creek: 50 feet 6. Height: A maximum of 51%n of the roof was to have a height between 32 and 40 feet. A minimum of 49%0 of the roof area was to have a height under 32 feet. 7. Site Coverage: No more than 37% of the total site area was to be covered by buildings. 8. Landscaping: 60% of the area was to be landscaped. 9. Parking: A minimum of 109 spaces were to be located in the parking structure. Parking shall conform to Town of Vail parking requirements. Please note that there are other standards regarding parking tied specifically to the operation of the micro-brewery. • 3 V. ZONING ANALYSIS The development statistics for the proposed buildings in Area D are shown below (note that there is no underlying zoning in this SDD): Lot Area: 78,307.81 sq. ft. Standard Allowed by SDD (previously) Height: 51 % max. 40 feet 49% max. 32 feet Setbacks: Per development plan: N: 2 feet S: 8 feet E: 30 feet W: 15 feet Stream Setback: 50 feet from centerline Site Coverage: Landscaping: Parking: Commercial Floor Area: (existing) 37% or 28,974 sq. ft. 60% or 46,985 sq. ft. Per Vail regulations 32,314 sq. ft. Density: 1 free market DU allowed 2 EHUs required GRFA: DU -1,630 sq. ft. EHU - 1,479 sq. ft. total min. Loading and Delivery: 1 berth required Proposed 43'- 72' N: 19' (existing) 1' new S: 10' E: 155' W: 135' 55' 29% (22,700 sq. ft.) 59.7% (46,757.81 sq. ft.) 143 req./ 155 provided 35,741 sq. ft. total/leaseable 37,088 sq. ft. total/gross (14,000 sq. ft. gross) 2 EHUs 0 sq. ft. 1,865 sq. ft. 1 provided VI. DISCUSSION ISSUES 1. Building Height Building height is one aspect of the proposal that may exceed the development standards listed in the SDD. For the 1988 approval of the micro-brewery, building height standards were as follows: • Maximum of 51% of the roof was allowed to range from 32 feet to 40 feet. • A minimum of 49% of the roof was required to be less than 32 feet. E 4 The applicant is proposing a building that ranges from 43'- 72' in height at the direction of the PEC, DRB, and the Town Council. The previous direction given by the PEC and the Town Council was that the previous limitation could be varied for this project. 2. Architectural Character The applicant is proposing improvements to the existing building in order to create a consistent architecture across the site. The applicant has received positive feedback from the DRB on the proposal. Final DRB approval will be required. 3. Employee Housing The applicant is proposing this same quantity of employee housing units (2 EHU's) as was previously approved. The scale of the project and the type of use proposed will not generate as many employees as the previous approval, since that project included a micro-brewery and restaurant. The applicant has been working with the 2 EHU requirement for the past several years. The PEC gave the applicant the direction that due to the type of use being proposed and based on the direction the applicant has been working under for a number of years, that the proposal for 2 EHUs on the property seem fair. A recent study (June 1998) on Town of Vail businesses shows that professional offices in Vail, on average, operate with 5.86 employees per 1,000 sq. ft. of net leaseable floor area. With other SDD projects the Town Council has required that 30% of the demand generated be accommodated either on-site or,off-site, in the form of deed restricted housing. The currently accepted standard for minimum square footage of housing required per person is 350 sq. ft. If we apply these numbers to this project we find the following: New Impact Only: ? 25,241 sq. ft. (net leaseable floor area) x 5.86 employees/1,000 sq. ft. _ 148 employees Employees to provide housing for = 148 x 30% = 44.4 employees ? Translates to 15,540 sq. ft. of housing 4. Utilities The previous approval for this site required that all utilities be placed underground. Staff continues„to believe that this should be required and the applicant is proposing to underground these utilities. VII. REVIEW CRITERIA FOR THIS REQUEST Titlel 2, Chapter 9 of the Town 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 5 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 Town 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. 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. The proposed design of the building is of an architectural style consistent and compatible with other structures in the area. The DRB has reviewed the proposal on two occasions and, with revisions, has given the project a conceptual approval. The proposal was revised to place development over structured parking on the site and thus eliminate new development on the west end of the site. This concentrates development to the east half of the site where the existing parking lot is located. The building will be quite larger in scale than the buildings that exist in the area or across the street. However, due to the extreme grade change from the road to the creek and due to the presence of the steep hillside behind, the project will not appear as dominent as it might on other sites. The presence of additional height will have little impact on adjacent uses due to the amount of setback being proposed or open space surrounding the lot. Additionally, there will be limited front setback for the project along the road frontage, however, the right-of-way in this area is 125'+ wide and therefore will not have adverse impacts on development across the street or on vehicular or pedestrian movement. Staff believes that the proposed building is appropriate for the area and compatible with the surroundings. Existing Building - North Elevation 6 B. Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. The proposed use is an office building with two on-site employee dwelling units. This area is characterized by commercial, office and heavy service uses serving mostly the permanent population of the Town with some uses also serving the guest. The proposed uses are compatible with existing and potential uses and activities in the area. C. Compliance with parking and loading requirements as outlined in Title 12, Chapter 10, of the Town Code. The proposed development provides all of the required parking for the existing and proposed uses on the site in a structured parking lot. Due to the office type of use and in accordance with the loading and delivery requirements for office uses, one loading berth has been provided in addition to extra parking spaces on the site for van size delivery trucks. 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 7 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 upgraded whenever possible. 1.5 Commercial strip development of the Valley should be avoided. 1.12 Vail should accommodate most of the additional growth in existing developed areas (infill). 3. Commercial 3.4 Commercial growth should be concentrated in existing commercial areas to accommodate both local and visitor needs. 4. Residential 5.3 Affordable employee housing should be made available through private efforts, assisted by limited incentives, provided by the Town of Vail, with appropriate restrictions. 5.4 Residential growth should keep pace with the market place demands for a full range of housing types. 5.5 The existing employee housing base should be preserved and upgraded. Additional employee housing needs should be accommodated at varied sites throughout the community. E. Identification and mitigation of natural and/or geologic hazards that affect the property on which the special development district is proposed. The proposed development is concentrated to the area of the site that is currently disturbed with parking areas. The proposal will remedy some existing drainage issues affecting the site. There are several large evergreen trees on the property that will be impacted by the development. The DRB will be required to review the landscape plan in order to provide proper mitigation and protection for trees impacted by the development. Additionally, the applicant has provided an environmental impact report and a drainage study for the proposed development and those reports shall be made part of any approval. There are no geologic hazards affecting the site. 8 • 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. As stated previously, the proposal provides for adequate open spaces and buffering of the project from adjacent uses. Staff believes that there should be large scale vegetation provided along the north elevation of the building to help soften the scale of the building and provide adequate buffering in an area with little landscaping opportunity. The DRB will be responsible for ensuring an adequate landscape plan. G. A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and off-site traffic circulation. The on-site vehicular circulation will be mostly accommodated in two levels of structured . parking with two access points from the frontage road. The pedestrian circulation will also be primarily within the parking structure or along the front of the building on a path provided by the applicant. Per Town Regulations, the applicant is required to ensure snow removal from this path. 9 H. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and preserve natural features, recreation, views and functions. See discussion under A, B, and F above. 1. Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional and efficient relationship throughout the development of the special development district. The project will be constructed as a single phase project. 10 Photos of the Site pm, 11 Cascade Crossings Vail. Professional Building FAEVE RYON E\PEC\M EMOS\99\GLOB2 12 Glen Lyon Office Building - S. Elevation I II II VIII 1 111111 II 111111 1111111 IIII I II III IIII IIII II II I III III VIII I 1. II I VIII IIII III 1111111111 p111111111111 IIII III I I II IIIIIIIIIIII II II I I I 11u 111 I I 1 Glen Lyon Office Building Location Map - 1144 1146(1 1 ?.. - - - • 14 ii ,dal 6i U ti48 '7?? ,idt b 069 15 (A-! ABC s? ll?ACyyp TPACTA _ 874 U SNOW LION V ""CA SOLAR II 9M 82 12 1040 Y 1090 1073 8 ail 901 1INTERSTATE 70 A 1151 11A" 1 41 SNOW FOX 993 (IN T.O.V-) 7t75 - 1090 909 O? BREAKAWAY 1089 WEST _ 'Aptk"+favr { I 989 cry G? 1140 VAN. RUN NR VAIL LYB Lovell low PAIL ASSOC _- MAiNT SHOP WEST aPrt \ GAY LOT tia L'NFlATT64 MORCUS SUBDIVlSIG / s LOT Cacio ago 1100 1031 SEWcR PLANT CROSSWO TRACT C' 040 9i4 VAIL IL AMOCO UNPLATTEG UNPLATTeD TUCTX is 14 1 99,2 a00 759 T 98 t 1150 i.... . . , ........ .,., 40 1206 A Subject Property N Produced by the Community Development Department IS . 11 1 1 1 III IIII I IIII VIII II 1114 I I I IIII III IIII II 1 I IIII 1 I ull 1 I I I II I I 1 11 III II IIII 1 II 111111 I II III II I I 1 11 IIII IIII VIII IIII 1 lull IIII IIII I I III II 1I III IIII III II II 11 11111u11111111111111 IIIIIIIIIIII 1 III III t RESORT DESIGN • I INTERNATION! L. Planning and Environmental Council Submittal for the GLEN LYON O.ev'ICE BUILDING Proposed Addition and Improvements Lot 54, Glen Lyon Subdivision 1000 S. Frontage Road West Town of Vail Eagle County, Colorado March 29, 1999 I Resort Design Associates International, Inc. 1000 South Frontage Road West e Suite 300 + Vail, Colorado • 81657 970 476 4433 phone * 970 476 4608 fax www.resortdesign.com March 29, 1999 Glen Lvon Office Buildine Addition Summarv. The Glen Lyon Office Building is an existing structure consisting of 14,000 gross square feet and. 10,500 square feet of leasable space. The structure is two stories on the West end and three stories on the East end. There are approximately 60 surface parking stalls. The proposed addition will consist of two levels of underground parking accommodating 127 parking stalls, with an additional 24 surface parking stalls at the East end of the site. The parking structure represents 42,304 square feet of new construction. The office portion of the project will consist of a maximum of three stories of leasable space representing a total of 37,088 gross square feet and 25,241 leasable square feet. The new construction will also include two Employee Housing Units. The construction will include upgrading the existing building with a connecting hallway to the new construction. This will allow handicap access to both new and existing buildings via an elevator located in the new construction. Additionally, the existing siding on the building will be removed to allow new construction to blend with old by using a combination of stucco elements and new wood siding. A mansard roof will be used on both new and old construction. This will facilitate the hiding of new and existing rooftop mechanical units. The refurbishing of the existing building and the new construction will provide site improvements including a raised bike path for the length of the property adjacent to the Frontage Road. The overhead utilities are scheduled to be placed underground in this construction scheme. Resort Design Associates International, Inc. 1000 South Frontage Road west s suite 300 « Vail, Colorado • 81657 970 476 4433 phone • 970 476 4608 fax www.resortdesign.com THE RESORT DESIGN COLLABORATIVE 4 N- T E R N A T t 0 N A L March 29, 1999 Glen Lvon Office Building' Addition: Existing Office mace. Gross Level0 5,600 Level 1 5,600 Level2 2.800 Total 14,000 sq.ft. Leaseable s.f.- 10,500 sq.ft. Addition to Existing Building (circulation): Gross Building s.f.- 3,270 New Building: Gross Level 1 15,660 Level 2 12,470 Level3 8,958 Total 37,088 sq.ft. Leaseable s.£- 25,241 sq.ft. Emtolovee Housing Units: Two units: Unit 1 1,127s.f. Unit 2 738 s.f. 1.5 Parking stalls per unit = 3 stalls required Parking Structure: Gross s.f.- 42,304 sq.ft. 5 handicapped stalls Totals-127 Parking stalls in parking structure 24 Surface compact parking stalls 151 total parking stalls provided 25% compact stalls = 38 allowable compact stalls, 26 provided 11 phone: 970.476.4433 1000 South Frontage Road West, Suite 100. Vail, CO 81651, info@resortdesign_com fax: 970, 476.4608 V A I L F R I S C 0 D E N V E R S A N F R A N C I S C O iii u u GLEN LYON Ali, r x I S BtJILC}IN ?. -itl ttlttt tffi4f{ -? L'?=- 1000 S. FRONTAGE RD. WEST I? •,^•?°:,WCr GRG[:° y ( I ?f11MIf4MIMOtt' All. VAIL, COLORADO ..... ., ......?? - ..a.b .r=r r°?r. rw - Ann aa? wr u+rrw us rwc;w"nacr r.+«E°n n . r _ - _ ..._. _ •-•!°w^ .C? :. ., .... °a' d'^f7--. t tA.k COdN ~i? lm~i`w ° ( W ws w roar r ou cw x+w.xn I A y f tt w.r.. All ( s.e..fr>aw All A? M Mi YL°W Mf.MIrM All + f! ! W 4 ? m Lt- ur-Rx 2=- 9t x ?-^ was LLJ A y LL_ + i;rz ?. ?. te ? .... . . ?? ».=ti• .... S °» ?: ;? ^7. .7..?...-. ? ? ...... ? "` f .. Z ..... .= - r 1 2mg W sr 4 Z. ?. 1. sot- w.. tx : _ ..»... ...,.. M .. ? ...,.. ? ,....M. ? . ,'a--" ?-- .?.. --t.? .... sas ? .y?..,. ....,.? t ? ? ' . h r _ 41, All ?. .rarr»..r ..+r w. .?.._.. f... °' . rr t--?'•?w .w rw.... ?? .w ? ?????i. we..rr. w •? I , t ?y ?. Wt.St..?.. +L33'3?U?!w. ?rr. i l ._ _. - .... .... rw Mr =try. r A1 0 + AlI- I I I I I I . I i I = '../~ mow"" ?? ? ? ? ''??y?, ? ?--" ? .,...• .a l?l a J-? F ? I? I ,I I II II III Y II I I . II ?iI . .. .Id III BITE PLAN «wa?w Yrrawrr..... y ?M ?r.• F II I II III li I. I I Y . ,I II I .I.wF Arcbkn% I# r+ t0 I R Y - Y11FIl? . ? ? ? NEI\? - INIIYwI?LYI?wYF - I - I IMw,Yllr. II - ..[ or A2.0 0 ?t•c to e s t«u SOeAtif r t ;tt MM W*LP#"WXM I- ?,,, ? ?,,. ? rras ? as i = TIE - Uri f ••.r m.nr ,..r,. I rr sruaw s? uc.r,...e.a ••?e^ 4 C? E p Q q q p q CL f //..?? I f I I I I I I I. I I I ! f ? _? i l? r y 1p M? f ? - I d C_LLJJ Sa =? ? LA- u O _ _ C-33 C? U ? NI Est ? ? fJ ?tJ ? ? tJ f3 ? ? C? LO )'c`;F2??A aLE /5_" CND " ? DAL 7tMl.•17K !>rsrw+rrt?+K: 4 f { I I I I .?_ i I to I ! I? ? I ... ?? ?,- e`c-t c c%c=c?.ci e!c?c?e, e'e.c i- s uu s i , .:.ccr?rt.c• sscu, qk _ d- -?' - •. a1 o xs'ti • s • • • - -„?"---``}? '}t;' ro.r<. es tts., - Y 4 C C .. C C C C 40?tIW ?- i i C r K V. F ?! ?+411Ma `t+?C6:,.-. V ?. ? .-.- ? ? ?•L?lJwir .-?. r. r?nR f t { k 't f Y f t k ? i ? 1 (}'? A3.0 I Pit tPtitt ttt74- E?.} 01 G n . 1 t6Pla t•lkY lT! ANC H11W no L _ t;J ON- vra nr k ??? us.as.x tr. wr rac....aex wwr . i ?? I.MY? p IMR YM4J4rY ? 'i I ? I - V 0. oa ? AA lY h ? " f »J' i..Y Y I Y? _ f 5 i PEI FX Z - .SECON= F; OCR 41 L&j I- II I t ? oownuK i ' f D1L11.11MM.lTlit ;USfM1kL t4FM1TM: 0 ®R /!? /^? 1 qq 4 te..t.m. e ...... . a .e.. .vo. ? Y r ? rt -- 1x _ ?et tr Cr- c ?>A.s _r A3.1 i i ? i II IIIr ILA .?. r ? tt? _`ii ? ¦ 4 •. airrrvc EAST ELEVATION -LAI If l? WEST D"ATM _ AMllearw ..rxrtax - n+nu?iw f A ` i Q CL Yiww.Ee..rrw 1Me?C itt low= 0- d "4 4aft . #; L M me* Now ow am MK "wfllor= ONa w :MNwvuFf tr?t?rfa?c4?e1 c?i+?e ?c? a, !?b AlkOf-I&A J14 VIIII, SOUTH. ELEVATION Y.le ?iv-ra < -T. .. _I- W. a A4.0 NORTH U"ATWN ht .h1w., Prwwe.a I j trb * (t) Aiio brr .{srk tor..;k .err 11tit' ?''.! y r i t4n`d 70 f J- -•' f/111/ 1 '^----?ST1NG S? • `: E PLAN 0 0 s ^ Ga • p t: r fa'•p [a'•o f? -r' tp'•O' rt 6 _<.... .mow-.....d? w.....a ._w...._ "'". _•] ?--•-s._.-•s--°? 'r•--_ w? .___ ?_? LOWER LEVEL PLAN tf>r-r-o' t 7-1 ( i -t( MtN l f' ±-7 FBI OF. o"m f or"m MAIM LEVEL PLAN ` tfer-r-m E r(fteq E. Aaocl? . ArehRecls }tt,y}t/t4.C .tA.?M6 Y.iCtNM. rw?'r.?.?w C.sr r trr.wn.v 1NVMwn ex.w. .rw z v d atrlow : ytpw P.t.E. VjLwrwL M1•ct r: fN.•. IIJ% lo-w w. awl or A5.1 Cx) h o ROOF MAN 1/8'-P-O" f Y I •I UPPER LEVEL PLAN t1r«"•ty-a $ete%t6?ett A Anotitttx, ArtAtletts P.C.- A.LA. •n nrtrrtan oeeswli..?.,.? 'M ?u.u..u 14. auY, ITIr Nrn M Hf iYTYf\, MAWd)If I?1 lie O Q r.? M .4w.: *vw"rse. Kowrmt ow.: M e ?tTStM W. ?.a . I inch 30 tk 7? 6, e A ' L?Xk 4? f -- tom., .u 1 77 __ - 1 tl .yf._ f ,w C1 ( rc oo? G??+rr. •.r •,p?a rr+.rp.r+aw. PREUMMARY LANDSCAPE PLAN l i F .,.t c a,A.?bY sr`v, ?y/x'yv 4CAU 1" 10' [)ArE OF SURVEY: 5/11/94 .. +.x • . a .... ? ' gyp. ? ?G'/""'. :.. 647.5 s?\ ... ? y7•tS h 40T 54. Q c I µtGiiWP? An ; if ,- -. . INS-?S?Al E iit 1 ?? M ?/+`^, R ? ?l, t w' x.i r., x t•?. ?? _irr!?ewi"??'"" ? ~ .. ; !- .:,obi. i . ? 4 ° ? ? ? r' '?••- .?' 4 t?`, A ., 1 j ! + GORE ? =' f • .. ., Not ., act ..«-..r'` i 1 ..- .11 4-i EAGLE°VKCEY SuIRVEYING, Mt :«. r .. a-,.. „„ +` ?' , • y wx..., .ne >:.w .w TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY LOT 54 XMENDED PLAT GLEN LYON SUBDIMSION TO4t7+t OF VAIL, EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO *--I" 7 7 og,r mRwlfln.R .R.rar fxR Ir 5'` Y f? / ? q?(;?1, }?. ¢}?l ? _ LLz P .- •- ? 1 ?? 8V {PF?? ?AAJi ; ifi i ? O I irtcir - [SO IE. r, S i? SYr' ??"fir ?• a ? ?i1.9( j?? Y • ?d ?' ?/? I ? f ?A y ?, r t e F ? 4 v ?' ?ti ? ?f 5s?^1 ? , ... ? ? . , ??(? 4 ?; ? i rs t +?? ..!C? ,,,.?`-- ?,?,? K ' ?` h ...- ,.. ? ?.i ,r ..- -^ ! . R.t R •efe alai Y GRADING AND DRAINAGE NOTES. t Po C 1 ftt n N! IMl <fnM<R WR1 W q IMyy rk S NI. frlR N wffRNMq H ? YC lon. ! Cw4Klr x.M 1 t M rglfN.n wlj f•roaa b fnlletHlo. IN r..• ? NLHI ./. / "` / _ 4FY` (NPudry fNW) Mr wnf .xn xN R.fafaf 4 nn if Mrfp.M^ M tiwt4. H h ' ? ._ ._-._ •' ? ?„? Gd?? II ie w.a 1 nal e..b k'oW w r.u.Y H«w ? .w-nexrn Nr a ,wka tw t.?..4u?++w - . _....__. a.:wwr u.e. .w.aNlx•..a iW». wl .nw.<w:.•r r.4fR •Ia.fWa•wnH N rsn.,N•r IMGn4f<RR. _ ' J .i n.WC?w la .wN Mf rah RMhfr k <fNl 1+0. ff•.faw.w M} nYq rnr.••IIIn.. If<fff..fw• i.Hfwt "?""""'???? Mw WR .'IFwHf1rr ?M ? Cf? b• Mph N< Nlf?rixn M <M [ngnNr, C Nw GnbwtfR pirt<wN WM _ /?? 1M /nfr. M. b.r Llxf fN 4w - //"''' <. YbY w'imY H.p. n frNaPfN Nw an-Mf. wWf o. MI tiR f. <anH,wx ff. q.p.N{N M wanly wr We ?? ?ly _ tM. <w4 , 4o.?d.< 1 r.Na+rO 4+<. a. Nwt?•w ..n« - 3 CeF o aGt» at 4. NNN H o« t • e•• k ...akn r N.Wr NNtf••f Nl ftafsww a, .c-.. «.......«. ue,:Y aed..w IMI. Rnn .war wl«.x a. - t, GaN fiyn<y..l.dwq<N M.MY f?•??'^. - o ., wam .Iq<If... f?M!/? `.. -. a aaw fv+.. . t fa:.<N MaNwfiw Rfxarr. w.re - `99 - N In.. aw.w R.cYaa .frN<.wfn __ 3'76 • n rq-b pw Nr..iawnt s rxRq uN.an. w 4.ASe..q !?[f..w'..vAxr? - 10. tA. C.n+.H CW.4atRa. k YsMN w <+p•r W. N..<w.Ma<tNS Nil:xr Hw .t pR Wr?R N xmN tt. w.(,., h 1ff.N!?f«ilw. flan.b W Mn w3a.<fpa w+INac - IS Fwr 7w•?^l #nwn M 14nr.N ryW. SWMw+yf hM?aYN aawwa Yo na <analiw<fM r IwN {<?. far _ {MIE, Yu1.T]. 1lSf. InlW,Mr: fls•sJb Mw WHfcww.Mat la'NR ' t3. Cs+U.<Ir N brw.N.w.. HasMM. .?flcr M NtedN R W:f?f tafrM _ { iw sv.?r n 4N N .•wir H IM Cfn4•eir ff Wp.1;Y rr ..w.f .WS.•nq .an «x raWw. n<•xn. SHEET I Nw wM 4niRN tfaf .nNl CSMk NNkwq?alf /a* t3. x pmnHe<r n RYIf<Y wfCIN knGM.[fRMt i1C <n?w<gNMF cl 4!. C.r hwwltr fkN Yf <T?ww• to !wf 1,,, rf <rt+•:^• N n. tfff(( S- frmx. 11 r F ? o ,- Iff{ Iti? i,? 6 r n 5 t a1 ° 3 ? r , n IM, 1 inch = 30 fl. r r ?a col' E SEWER AND WATER NOTES r. N,. u•„• • .t f nw .» ,..pnxa +IW?a aw+ } r <mu?uc fuat ?ux <onlvwla.+.tnp` •um?p tLLf, sa Eo?r u n,'N tHUNI.f Pa?'W LtGnana inr O fr y ala• 3 Er.< t?•.?•u<fu oar fe•f a fr.n gnaw. wcaaa?ea •rM Ica4Mr •fmaaw n „n .nw+.inMe•m•q<f,» • wtnx.?+,. Yq r,e.tln,N, ,wt ,an lan..,,t ,„ rMr era.,.t,..• e, .,<.a f..,.. n i 6.rf1<iwlnr lµyuynp LLC »a•v..f na r nm•a.MTkv atNf? Yaan!..e•C•I H H IN 4ml.xla 1 •,uwn y a e a a whfas o•ra fa .awn ca of wl x. aCifrC i. IIH 4 f mi aerat«a P ton CN a 0i N• p fbu a? ? b 1 H ?tl C f1 rXeCCmfeaeYn A A bha pl• Y t. r N' f a 4 o w•na as feb 4a:+<a qN-ut< rata Or ww y kmre tp la Mr wtwrMiwe u! Ltr tqm d Vq+ ' e ?v ..< Ekpfa wt•,. aa. tr avf<:?rwawnwe. .apt +de*C< ao+iw Cl?a M6 M k f 9a r pLLG wmksK. P t H N • .> Pam Ma f» h ra..w d kqd 1N Irf kqm. Mr?<tl wrrfu?aAa to dr M1tlbw, Nwl ntmngh+, a. •rwcr•. rtl. fmfewla trial m.. rdCw 0u.g1?• brbfa?lMrf Nr?rgfa w •Ir M•teu1MH Ee •nu? Pgq/C wkrr? to Yr mr %^??/sr H M<anfr , < act O,nr N aPk fnar^•hh9 YCC rbinfaafuY rg. M e. a ntan}an •'. f..pfaa.Hw <amntlr, eda.e+. ;na asalar.ew ae. np <o• Iwo of r e o .oea. q o•»..p , 11. tAa fonawlp .• anM IM1ef weEnp alt?fi •^•',t mqi ••hf. prbe le Npra+p a mshpslen. 1M frn w NM•wWa f n W Mr 1 1. W.fMa Ixan kcor+ as uA+ (Orauybp a•al } M •. ? aeP t« aaa 1 balupM [PfM1a If flgad Yb fnpm•r NM MIH Y M ?prr qaa i a M •aa •,bley alkl e1Ma ?N 4 M 1+a e« ab fear waaw bi M• •mr•aela rOMnr •nM W ••PerN RY Inb C+HI•aela of a,fb W u 0 oa W +. •.t M Eaa fr n <wmr, ma h.n d. v.,+ dagrxt as w<olHdme. a s ?<rfo , t •. r r:.nfaL.f Gqo er uaE• crrrfi. ma . 0- snaY onr fY Msr d M. aowgaml. me Mr a r irc 1 Y Mr fml•xlr ( IS. art«aquenrse mr r,.... rtYny,xt me en-•?ro .w• >< n., «.•u.,+a as « ?,>..e«. o .m i s. Mq fnaa,r-d Mr. cwlrwta• <aVq<luu teto«.•aa.la• Yb. Sgl•tf w In wenW+ar ae fee fanfrgefa n. m. a nbwf Inc a ye<t v to ar fa crrof?akC br Na gpyrgnrotr. aa=!r ..M non rrgaafaw• .u<imp r,r?aM? 1 •4E f Y tuYbY tp preh.f una pdrw as Ir•w? W+M1w, fYn.M. ana awN eCae n q IAe aH4kf fr,•da'aw IM r •^'lu ww 4r r.e«Y fo In•owYbn k/ IM1a 1M1r n•ner eMfla fMNI to-fum to fN p.l Is ac<w! a +N<E mr fu<R aHtrf?tl M •a•mmwa Irtd w Nnu dmPbM p. W<•fk•itao 1.. uq.a• q. t+.. «rae. Ir... ra nr v ove wrt is on r.r rM.f.«r .mNlw 1V . <. « fert'• •kM new q mnr+.•n eY 5 Hef ? mm >r rl .qfa rn•• •nw a me+nwn r a.v a cn.r• s• ,dr :r.«., rtl n.,a . mr wm, a k.f d <e.r F7 Mx fmlrwta as ndM MtwE sHCb• ur w •oYa+ W bwea ma fr+• fiY. 4tlrfCrCnOwaY MM p gaMM1 E bd mlaunn E.aifmttl f•pralkn bd•,rn •dr ra waa 1nw x wrew 'tl rwC Y fia ?KKC?a,r•fs ? !W R aC mtE ?' M b nai Own kMENabY 6mrctbnN. t5 ' fbta <a.ke fr•a f<. aC yfJT ip p<. tapp,f NNU etlw,Ha nw•a >? Ma a IW MaHwn• ndH ar kem ral t d maM1•k Y. F•nrx,ne er »mnuk. zr egmbogfkR /w R.rfena• ws bWaap r?w.e q.,« w a+< fa«w<af»n 15 Mr fmMw'.ta- WM mat d t•/Ma ant coat uM fww. aqd N1nfN w as prgabh C•m..at Mwn m fd a<•1 14 Iw 4mM1wfa flea N aq,Ca bar wMaf:un. <f wt rnaC fn?r. !Gi er enawldcia+e C wpprNM wa•<1fit• M Iw CwhpCla Wd arrfi atHlvla Ya• r maa<h a.+••N d M N ? f. <wst paten. 5f 1 fmuwta for Ni W N+M NMww <tabr I.w: •.r efMa M< .•r tla?a M, edrr Nau f+w 1. froCx •r< aMl }. nab iati fda aN ? ?.6a to _Wwa rnC 4wNwfa as fM pae ea fb Sp fx adr<M•+a MM N M1rHrasiautaY Yw4a Cnb Mfa«Ye hub« as N aa.• bwtaCaH•. w fnaa5o Nl paC?Ykdkna 53 Nb ei+H 1M N wf of an aaadiaN rids to +Na (swam N Kaaaawr <rfM1 CatNkt r h r N}r•rrYfy ? NrtY ee wN Ys MWE eeq q<ronar fe W f'far. Nk 1nwMmYf Ce<YEPW rtca NMrhnar a fa 0 a n? h 8 0 W Pa ° x° O W m? n {} U 0, Z p a °> < a 2 r 3 0 J a I /iz'ex roN..vAFT o-art: la.N Sf, IHf ''... SHEET Cz a i ittch - 30 M • t • /, t a V n z ff° t o H a a a ar 9 r pU o i ? 2 0 } V,1 3-» _ SHEET G3 Sp?Q?o DemeTlvetopmeaL dment D??,ct #4 Request I' AICT -PORT i Special Development Dish ict #4 Major Amendment Request,, ENtr ONMEN'TAL IMPACT REPORT Prepared for: Glen Lyon Office Building Partnership 1000 South Frontage Road West Vail, Colorado 81657 Prepared by: Peter Jamar Associates, Inc. PO Drawer 4727 Vail, Colorado 81658 April 23, 1999 The purpose of this report is to provide information relative to a request for a major amendment to Special Development District #4. Specifically, this report addresses the range of information required under chapter 18.56 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code. Information provided within this report and other accompanying application information outlines existing environmental conditions of the site, describes the proposed development plan, identifies potential impacts that may result from the proposed development and provides recommendations for measures that may be implemented to mitigate potentially adverse impacts. Special Development District #4 was established in 1977 and since that time has been evolving into a high quality mixed use resort complex involving residential, recreational, educational, and commercial land uses and activities that serve both the Vail local population and the destination visitor. The evolution of the SDD has required periodic amendments to the SDD to maintain: market competitiveness and to respond to the changing dynamics of land use within the Town of Vail. The Glen Lyon Office Building, a Colorado Partnership, proposes to make amendments to the existing provisions of a portion of SDD #4. These amendments are intended to provide for a proper balance of land uses as well as to provide first class professional office opportunities to the residents and guests of Vail. Specifically, the requested amendments to SDD #4 are proposed for Development Area D, the Glen Lyon Office Building. The proposed addition will result in two levels of underground parking accommodating 127 parking stalls, with an additional 24 surface parking stalls at the east end of the site. The parking structure represents 42,304 square feet of new construction. The office expansion portion of the project will consist of a maximum of three stories of leasable space representing a total of 37,088 gross square feet and 25,241 leasable square feet. The new construction will also include two Employee Housing Units, totalling 1,865 square feet. The construction will include upgrading the existing building with a connecting hallway to the new addition. This will allow handicap access of both new and existing building via an elevator located in the new construction. Additionally, the siding on the existing building will be removed to allow new construction to blend with old by using a combination of stucco elements and new wood siding. A mansard roof will be used to top both the new and existing space. This will facilitate the screening of new and existing rooftop mechanical units. The refurbishing of the existing building and the new construction will provide site improvements that include a raised bike path for the length of property adjacent to the Frontage Road. The overhead utilities are scheduled to be placed underground in this construction scheme. Development Area D, originally described as Lot 54 of the Glen Lyon Subdivision, is a 1.7977 acre parcel located between the South Frontage Road and Gore Creek. The parcel is bordered on the east side by Red Sandstone Creek at its confluence with Gore Creek and on the west side by the I-70 right of way, which includes the South Frontage Road. Existing development on the site currently consists of a 10,800 square foot, three story office building with 56 surface parking spaces which was built in 1982. The Town of Vail bicycle/pedestrian path crosses Gore Creek to bisect the western end of the site and then parallels the frontage road to the east for the length of the property. The proposed expansion will not impact the existing bicycle/pedestrian path where it bisects the site. An additional leg of the bicycle/pedestrian path parallels the property on the south side of Gore Creek. Page 1 Adjacent and neighboring land uses include a Glen Lyon open space tract across the creek to the south and the Frontage Road and 1-70 to the west. Between the Frontage Read and I-70 to the north is a mixed use commercial development, an office cv L.LFlex and the Vail Associates shop and equipment maintenance facility. To the east of Red Sandstone Creek there is a gasoline service station, the old Town of Vail public works facility and a sewer treatment plant. Linvediately downstream of Development Area D are the other properties that comprise SDI -#4 including the Cascade Club, the Cascade Hotel and several residential projects. In 1988, Development Area D of SDD #4 was amended to allow for the addition of an office and residential building at the east end of the site and a micro brewery, beer hall, brew pub, beer museum and retail store as an addition to the western end of the existing professional building. These improvements were never implemented and will be superseded by approval of the currently proposed amendment to SDD #4. In accordance with Section 18.56.040 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code the following environmental conditions have been reviewed: Hvdrologic Conditions The construction of-1-70 and the South Frontage Road has essentially isolated local drainage to the site itself with minor contributions from the Frontage Road. Existing site runoff flows across the site via several poorly defined drainage paths and discharges directly into Gore Creek. A complete drainage study and plan have been prepared for the proposed improvements to the site. The runoff from the proposed parking structure will be collected in a storm sewer system and discharged into a sand/ oil interceptor vault. The vault will capture sediment and other pollutants related to the vehicles in the parking structure and prevent their introduction into Core Creek. The remaining site runoff will flow through grass-lined swales and other landscape features that promote infiltration and natural filtering before discharge into Gore Creek. A complete copy of the drainage study is included with the submittal of this report. Atmosnheric Conditions The proposed addition of 25,241 square feet of leasable space along with 127 covered parking stalls and 24 surface parking stalls will present a negligible impact to current atmosphere conditions and will result in a positive improvement over potential future emissions: This proposal will supersede the existing SDD regulations which currently allow for microbrewery and brew pub uses on site. The elimination of potential brewery emissions and the short term traffic generation of a brewery and brew pub will result in a positive overall effect on our quality potential. The office building and residential housing units will comply with Town of Vail regulations and standards concerning woodburning and fireplace use. 0 Page 2 Geologic Conditions The office building and residential structure will be located on the flat to gently sloping riverine terrace above the Gore Creek banks. The National Cooperative Soil Survey, USDA, Soil Conservation Service mapping of the site has been consulted and copies are included in the appendix of this report. The mapping indicates that Development Area D lies within an area of soil type 45, the Forsey Cobbly Loam. This soil type is suitable for the type of development proposed. This geologic setting supports similar types of building structures all along the Gore Creek Valley. There have not been any geologic issues associated with the existing development on site or with any of the other development that has occurred on similar geologic terrain up or downstream of the site. The building sites are not located within the Gore Creek 100 year floodplain or within any defined georgic hazard or avalanche zones. Site specific geologic studies will be completed for footing and foundation design prior to building permit submittals. No impacts are expected to result from the proposed amendments with regard to land forms, slope and soil characteristics, or potential geological hazards. Biotic Conditions The native vegetation on the upper terrace of the site, including the building site for the expansion has been disturbed by previous human activities, including construction of 1-70 and the South Frontage Road, construction of the Town of Vail bicycle/pedestrian path and the development of the existing office building and parking lot. The vegetation at the proposed building site mainly consists of introduced grasses and invasive weed species. A well developed riparian corridor flanks Gore Creek and includes a multi-layer habitat which, despite high chronic hilmnn disturbances related to the existing and adjacent land uses and the Town of Vail pedestrian/bicycle path, can support a variety of native bird species. The proposed improvements have been carefully sited to minimize impact to these natural habitats. However, approximately five mature trees will be removed to facilitate the building expansion. A topographic map and tree survey indicating the presumed areas of disturbance of the site may be found accompanying this application. A complete landscape plan which provides for revegetation of all disturbed areas is also presented for review with this application. Noise and Odor There should not be any additional noise or odor impacts beyond the typical activities associated with office and residential uses that are found throughout the Town of Vail. The elimination of the microbrewery, brew pub and retail uses will substantially decrease activity on this site and will decrease the level of noise and odor that would have been associated with those uses. Visual Conditions Develvyuxent Area D of SDD #4 is located along a highly developed corridor of Interstate 70 and the South Frontage Road. The proposed development of an office building is compatible and harmonious with existing land uses and the overall visual conditions of this Page 3 portion of town. The building will be subject to-the Town of Vail design review process which will ensure that the proposed development will present a positive visual condition from an architectural and landscape perspective. The construction of the new office space and parking areas will include a complete exterior refurbishment of the existing office space. New siding and a mansard roof element will unify the old and new elements and present a positive visual image from adjacent public and private properties. Development Area ID of SDD #4 is not located within any designated view corridor of the Town of Vail. Land Use Conditions The characteristics of the proposed uses are compatible with existing land uses on the site, with adjacent land uses and with the approved Town of Vail Master Plan The Town of Vail Master Plan of 1986 supports the development of these uses in a variety of ways. The land use plan designates Development Area D as appropriate for Community Office develup.nent. The definition of Cunnaunity Office within the Master Plan reads as follows: This area is to include primarily office uses of all types. Some limited commercial uses, such as retail businesses; including general merchandise, apparel and accessories and auto service facilities would also be permitted. This currently proposed amendment to SDD #4, Development Area D is to allow an expansion of the office use and to include two employee housing units integrated into the office building architecture. The amended SDD would be fully in conformance with the Town of Vail Master Plan and the Community Office designation. The currently approved SDD includes the ability to construct a mircrobrewery, a brew pub, a museum, residential and retail space, as well as an office use expansion. The approval of the current proposal will supersede the existing approvals and eliminate these non-office uses from this portion of the SDD. Circulation and Transportation TDA Colorado, Inc., a Denver based traffic and transportation consulting firm has completed an Access and Parking Analysis for the proposed amendments to Development Area D. The report describes existing conditions, the proposed project and calculates traffic volumes and trip generation demands created by the proposed improvements. The existing access point to the property will be eliminated and two new access points will be created. In order to maximize efficiency of the parking structure there is no circulation system between the two levels. Each entrance to the site will access a separate level of the parking structure. In order to present unnecessary entrance and exit movements as building patrons search for a parking space the entire lower level of 79 spaces will be assigned to employees within the building. Page 4 The TDA Colorado report addresses the requirements for turning movements and concludes that a restriping of the South Frontage Road to at,t wFriately define travel and turn lanes should be implemented. The complete TDA Colorado study is included with the submittal materials for this proposal. Population Characteristics The proposed amendments to Development Area D of SDD #4 will have a negligible impact upon residential densities and neighborhood patterns. The improvements will not result in the displacement of any existing residents or businesses. Based upon the current US Census figure for Eagle County of 2.63 people per dwelling unit it can be anticipated that the two residential units will increase the Town population by approximately 5 to 6 ,people. The 1984 Town of Vail Land Use Plan uses an assumption of 3.2 persons per dwelling unit for permanently occupied units. Using these figures the anticipated increase in the town population would be 6 to 7 people. The office expansion is intended to provide additional opportunities for the location or relocation of professional service and office businesses within the community and is not expected to have any measurable impact upon the town population base. Additional information which is included with this application for a major amendment to SDD #4 includes a detailed topographic survey that includes existing conditions and locates trees over 6" in diameter and detailed architectural and floorplan information including a quantitative analysis of the proposed improvements. The regulatory agencies which will have review jurisdiction over this project include the Colorado Department of Transportation for access issues and the Town of Vail for zoning and design review approvals. Summarv The improvements proposed within the major SDD Amendment for Development Area D of SDD #4 will not have a negative impact upon the physical characteristics of the site in terms of hydrologic, atmospheric, geologic, biotic, noise and odor, visual or land use conditions. The traffic and circulation demands can be provided for and the population characteristics of the proposal will not negatively impact the community. Gore Creek is recognized, both locally and regionally, as a gold medal trout stream and the water quality of the stream will be protected through an engineer designed system that includes the provision of state of the art sediment filtration systems. Biotic conditions of the riparian corridor are protected by minimizing disturbance of the corridor and by providing appropriate landscape revegetation. Circulation and transportation needs can be met through improvements to the existing roadway and the development of new access points to the site. Visual conditions of the site are substantially improved due to the elimination of certain uses, including the approved parking structure, and through the architectural compatibility of the proposed uses. Overall, the current proposal to amend Development Area D of SDD #4 represents a lesser impact to the overall environmental conditions of the site by substantially decreasing the intensity, scale and type of uses currently approved for the site. Page 5 Approved May 24, 1999 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION May 10, 1999 Minutes MEMBERS PRESENT: John Schofield Galen Aasiand Diane Golden Brian Doyon Tom Weber Chas Bernhardt Doug Cahill Public Hearinq MEMBERS ABSENT: John Schofield called the meeting to order at 2:00 p.m. 2:00 p.m. 1. A request for a final review of an amendment to Special Development District No. 4 (Cascade Village), revising the Glen Lyon Office Building site (Area D), located at 1000 S. Frontage Road West/Lot 54, Glen Lyon Subdivision. Applicant: Glen Lyon Office Building Partnership, represented by Kurt Segerberg Planner: Dominic Mauriello Dominic Mauriello gave an overview of the staff memo. John Schofield asked if the applicant had anything to add. Kurt Segerberg, the architect for the applicant from Resort Design Collaborative, explained that they had flipped the project around since the last time the PEC saw this in August and January. He said the entry to the building was now further to the east. He said the present building would function the same, with possibly some exterior corridors.,, He explained the architecture on the building would now blend better into the site. John Schofield asked what the maximum height would be. Kurt Segerberg said the height was about 60' to the top eave portion, or 72' from the lowest grade on the south side. He said that the existing road elevation between the garage and the building was ramped down to try to get enough dimension to fit in two levels of parking. He said they were trying to identify the entry with perhaps, a porte cochere. He stated the building on the creekside would be the tallest, but also the least visible. Dominic Mauriello said the DRB recommended different colors and bay windows to break up the building. Kurt Segerberg explained that a pedestrian would have to go up a flight of stairs to get to the suites and he didn't know if there would be an internal corridor to the existing building. Brian Doyon said it would need a pretty large ramp for ADA access. Chas Bernhardt asked where the snow storage would be, as he was concerned with car oil and debris going into the creek. STAFF PRESENT: Dominic Mauriello George Ruther Judy Rodriguez Planning and Environmental Commission 1 Minutes May 10, 1999 Approved May 24, 1999 Kurt Segerberg explained the snow storage. Doug Cahill asked about the distance between the street and the front of the building. Kurt Segerberg said 25' not including the bike path and 15' of landscaping. Doug Cahill said the 15' berm of landscaping doesn't allow much to offset the height of the building. Dominic Mauriello said that this was a narrow frontage and it was suggested at previous reviews with the PEC that additional landscaping be provided. Doug Cahill suggested landscaping as a buffer on the second floor. John Schofield asked for any public comments. There were no public comments. Tom Weber said the east entrance to the site would be better for visitors. Kurt Segerberg said he was trying to max parking to reflect the square footage. Brian Doyon disclosed for the record that he worked in the Glen Lyon Building and had given information to Henry Pratt, but saw no conflict. He asked about loading and delivery, since there was no room at the entry and there needed to be a solution for delivery. He stated his biggest concern was erosion caused by the building shedding water off the roofs onto a steep slope. He said there could be no retaining wall because it was in the stream setback. He felt the design was too wide, putting too much pressure on the stream corridor. He asked about deeel lanes for circulation. Kurt Segerberg said there were designated areas where a Fedex or delivery truck could come in, but that it would be a tight situation. Dominic Mauriello said the recommendation from the traffic study was to line up the entry access with the one across the street. He then said the 15' landscape or bike path would go away if decel lanes were added. Tom Weber stated with 7 stories on the backside, it became too tall on the creek side and suggested stepping the building down. Kurt Segerberg thought a dormer would help break up the mass. Brian Doyon said since all the tall evergreens would be lost along the stream corridor, scaling down would help. He said he was concerned with only one indoor/outdoor access for the EHU. He suggested putting the EHU at the other end, where there was a view. He said he felt traffic going through the building would impact the offices and vise versa. He also felt the EHU should have access directly to the street to haul bikes, skis,etc. Galen Aasland said the parking structure would work and that two EHU's were fair. He supported having offices in Town. He said the applicant needed to scale the elements to a pedestrian level, since it was not just a car entry, but was in a 25-mph zone and just off the bike path. He suggested adding a porte-cochere to the entry. He said there needed to be a significant commitment for trees on this plan and a significant gutter system on the south side. Dominic Mauriello said there was a drainage system for the entire site and roof drains could be tied in. Planning and Environmental Commission 2 Minutes May 10, 1999 Approved May 24, 1999 Doug Cahill was concerned with the height, size and bulk on the property. He too would like to save some of the trees and cut back on the erosion. He said he would like more of a setback welcoming entry. Chas Bernhardt liked the project. He said basically, he had the same concerns about the trees and the water shed. He stated that on page 5 #3 in the memo, the EHU proposal was only 10% of what the Town Council has required of other projects. He again mentioned the snow storage area draining into the creek and if the area was heated, it could drain into the main drainage area. Diane Golden asked if the EHU's had designated parking. Kurt Segerberg said, yes. Diane Golden asked about the EHU requirement in the overall SDD #4. Dominic Mauriello said that each area had been looked at independently, but that the number of EHU's in Cascade Village had increased over the years (i.e., Westhaven Condos). Diane Golden said the lack of EHU's was a legitimate concern. John Schofield said the PEC's direction for EHU's was 2 or more and the applicant was in compliance with an SDD. He said that the height was a DRB issue, but felt it reasonable in the recommendation to Council that a condition be added to tweak the height of the entry. He then said he assumed the 6 conditions in the staff memo were acceptable to the applicant, with the additional conditions of erosion control and to tie the roof snowshed into the drainage system. He also added that the EHU have street access or there be a storage space for tenants and he Y was hearing substantial landscaping be emphasized. He stated for the record, that this project would not conflict with the Frontage Road alignment. Dominic Mauriello said that was correct, according to Greg Hall, the Town's Engineer. John Schofield stated that this project complied with the required parking.. Tom Weber suggested designating 4-5 parking spaces for snow storage with a separate drain. Galen Aasland made a motion for approval, in accordance with the staff memo, with the additional conditions: 1. Lower the eve line of the roof over the center building form. 2. Move either the employee housing units to improve the indoor/outdoor access or improve the access to these units to make them easier to access by occupants. 3. Add a significant gutter system to the roof which ties into the drainage system for the site. 4. Provide a commitment to provide significant trees prior to being reviewed by the Town Council. 5. Provide a pedestrian scale element at the front entry (i.e., porte cochere). 6. Make improvements to breakup the overall fagade of the south elevation; such as massing and cantilevoring; not just paint. 7. In the drainage plans, provide adequate drainage for snow melt from surface parking area to prevent draining directly into creek. Brian Doyon seconded the motion. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes May 10, 1999 Approved May 24, 1999 The motion passed by a vote of 6-1, with Chas Bernhardt opposed, as he was not satisfied with the number of EHU's required. 2. A request for a worksession to discuss a conditional use permit to allow for the Vail to Mountain School to construct a temporary classroom on the site of the school for a ten- month period, located at 3160 Katsos Ranch Road/Part of Lot 12, Block 2, Vail Village 12th ding. Applicant; Vail Mountain School, represented by Pam Hopkins Planner: George Ruther George Ruther gave an overview of the staff memo. Pam Hopkins explained a 5-year plan and said the applicant wanted to stay at the East Vail Campus. She said that this year there was a problem with the 3rd grade class. She asked for a 2-year extension for the add on instead of the following summer. She said the modular structure would not be seen from the Frontage Road or from adjoining houses. She said that after 1 year, the need may go away. John Schofield disclosed for the record, that his wife was a Vail Mountain School Board Member, but that he saw no conflict. He also stated for the record, that there was no public present to comment. Doug Cahill said the maximum would be 2 years and asked if it would interfere with the main entry. Pam Hopkins explained that this location was the least used area, least conspicuous and most advantageous, as it would be close to the columns by the door and work well with the circulation of the school. Doug Cahill asked about the snow loads coming off the roof. Chas Bernhardt asked about any neighborhood input. Pam Hopkins said there had been no input. She stated that this was not beneficial for the school to keep this structure here. She said that she couldn't imagine that this bond was a Town procedure. Diane Golden said the structure seemed so obtrusive to the school. Pam Hopkins said the structure was away from all activity and it would be painted and shrouded in wood. Tom Weber said he was in favor of it as long as there was no loss of sidewalk, but he would have preferred it behind the building. Brian Doyon said he didn't see the school wanting to keep it, so he was not in favor of a bond. He said he would like to see the addition design within 6 months. Pam Hopkins said this was a non-profit organization; the same as Ski Club Vail'and if the PEC put a 6-month deadline, you might not get anything. Brian Doyon said he was seeing more and more Band-Aids and this would be easier than raising a bond. Planning and Environmental Commission 4 Minutes May 10, 1999 Approved May 24, 1999 Galen Aasland said he thought the PEC should be generous and flexible with this since it was for kids. He said the PEC hasn't required a bond of anybody else; it was not codified and felt a bond was mean-spirited. John Schofield said that 2 years was a practical time frame and a bond was not a practical solution. George Ruther summarized that the Board was favorable to a temporary structure for only 2 years. Brian Doyon brought up the Vail Associates "Band-Aid" and that neighbors were complaining that it was unsafe. . John Schofield said to bring the plans back in the next few months to get through the approval process . Tom Weber said the need will not go away and he couldn't see that they will build in 2 years. Pam Hopkins said this is more fluctuating than the public school and it works to have a whole family at one school, but want it to be absorbed into the whole school. John Schofield asked for a straw poll with a specific expiration removal date of a 2-year period. Doug, Chas, and Diane (with plans in) said yes. George Ruther said this was for clear direction with the straw poll to approve the concept and before the final review to give the PEG Commission reassurance to not have the structure be there over 2 years.. Tom Weber said he was in favor of 3 years with a plan on the boards or timelines. Brian Doyon said he had no problem with 2 years with assurance. Tom Weber asked for the Mountain School to come back saying this was a 2-year structure. Galen Aasland said, yes. John Schofield said, yes. George Ruther said he would put the 2-year requirement in a memo. Doug Cahill said he would like it utilized as a classroom in the memo and not for storage. 3. A request for a variance from Section 12-6C-6, to allow for the construction of a garage within a front setback and Section 12-10-8, to allow for the construction of are undersized garage, located at 5125 Black Bear Lane / Lot 11, Block 2, Gore Creek Subdivision. Applicant. Montogomery (Mike) Mathias Planner; Allison Ochs TABLED UNTIL MAY 24,1999 Planning and Environmental Commission 5 Minutes May 10, 1999 Approved May 24, 1999 4. A request for a variance from Section 12-6D-9 (Site Coverage) of the Town of Vail Municipal Code, to allow for site coverage in excess of 20% and a variance from Section 12-6D-6 (f=ront Setbacks) of the Town of Vail Municipal Code, to allow for an encroachment into the front setback on a Primary/Secondary Residential zoned lot, located at 362 Mill Creek Circle / Lot 9, Block 1, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: Walter Forbes, represented by Gwathmey-Pratt Architects Planner: Allison Ochs TABLED UNTIL MAY 24,1999 5. A request for a final review of a proposed locker room expansion to the Dobson Ice Arena, located at 321 E. Lionshead Circle/Lot 1, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 2"d Filing. Applicant: Mail Recreation District Planner: George Ruther TABLED UNTIL MAY 24,1999 6. A request for a variance from Section 12-6D-6, to allow for a building encroachment into a rear setback, located at 2657 Arosa Drive / Lot 8, Block D, Vail Ridge. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Allison Ochs TABLED UNTIL MAY 24, 1999 7. A request for a modification to a platted building envelope, located at 1647 Riva Glen/ Lot 6, Spraddle Creek Estates. Applicant: Franco D'Agostino, represented by Robert Mach Planner. Allison Ochs TABLED UNTIL MAY 24,1999 Brian Doyon made a motion to table items #347 until May 24,1999. Diane Golden seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 7-0. 8. A request for a variance from Section 12-6D-6 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code, to allow for an encroachment into the required side setbacks, located at 3003 Bellflower Drive / Lot 9, Block 6, Vail Intermountain. Applicant: Mr. Guillermo Huerta Planner: George Ruther WITHDRAWN 9. Information Update Planning and Environmental Commission 6 Minutes May 10, 1999 Approved May24,1999 George Ruther gave an overview of the DRB Marriott worksessions and he said that the DRB was 1-2 meetings away from the final vote. Brian Doyon asked if the Marriott would be coming back to the PEC, since there were so many changes. George Ruther said there was a good chance the PEC would see it. John Schofield gave an update on the EHU seminar and said a partnership was the one overriding theme and so it was useful from that standpoint. Doug Cahill said all the mountain towns were in the same boat. 10. Approval of April 26, 1999 minutes. Chas Bernhardt had changes. Diane Golden made a motion for approval of the minutes as amended. Brian Doyon seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 7-0. Chas Bernhardt made a motion to adjourn. Tom Weber seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 7-0. The meeting adjourned at 4 p.m. Planning and Environmental Commission 7 Minutes May 10, 1999