Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2004-0308 PEC
PLANNING AND ENVIRiDNMENTAL COMMISSION ~ PUBLIC MEETING Monday, March 8, 2004 PROJECT ORIEMTATION - Community Development Dept. PUBLrC WELC4ME 12:00 pm MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Jahn Schofiefd Gary Hartman Erickson Shirley Chas Bernhardt Rollie Kjesbo DQUg Gahill George Lamb Site Visits : `I . Slifier - 230 Bridge Street 2. HughES - 303 Gore Creek Drive, #7 3. Shirfey -303 Gore Creek Drive, #8 4. Yare - 2434 Chamonix Lane 5. Vail Resorts Development Campany - Tract K, Glen Lyon Driver: Gearge NOTE: If the PEC hearing extends until 6:00 p.m., the board may break for dinner from 6:00 - 6:30 ~ Public Hearinct - Tawn Council Chambers 2:80 pm 1. A request for a reeommendafion to #he Vail Town Council for the establishment of Special Development District No. 38, Manor Vail Lodge, to a{low for the redevelopmenf of the Manoc Vail Lodge, and a request for a conditional use permit tfl allaw for the construction af Type III Employee Hvusing Units, pursuant to Section 12-611-3, Vail Town Code, located at 595 Vail Valley DrivelLots A, B, & C, Vaif Village 7th Filing, and setting forth details in regard #hereto. Applicant: AAanor Vail, represented byMefick and Assaciates Plarener; Warren Campbell MDTION: Lamb SECOND: Bernhardt VDTE: 6-0 Tab1ed ta Aprif 12, 2004 Staff reviewed the memarandum and a letter provided by Jim Lamont, Vail Village Nomeowner's Assaciation, from Frecirick Wyman lII, President of All Seasans Condorniniurn Association. The applicant reuiewed the goals of the praject and displayed multiple +risual simulations of the praposal and how it affected different views. Jim Lamont compfimented the visual simulations and then expressed concern about the proposed parking structure within the requcred setback fronn Mill Creek. Mr. Lamont alsa expressed concern about the parking lot access and asked why the Ipading and delivery was not covered. He aslced about ernplayee housing in the parking structure and whether it could be moWed. He suggested putting it over the koading and de4ivery area. Mr. Lamont asked about pubie improwements and whether there vuere other pubic improvements that could be required or should be reqUired. Jim ~ Laman# indicated that improving access to Frard Park could be pursued. The Commission commented lhat the setback from IVlill Creek was a concern and the prposed ~ 1 Tvm' OF YAIL % parking structure should be pulied away. There was alsa general concern over the access to the proposed parking strueture. The new floor on Building "C° was identified as a concern as the height would block a large portion af the view to the Gore Range. The new floor increased the height by ~ appraximately 22 feet. It was suggested that Building "G°" should taper down to Vail Vailey Road. There needs ta be sorne planfing packets located on top of the parking structure to provide winter interest. The existing trees along the bike path should remain. The reloca#ian of the access gate further not the property frvm its current lacation will help circulation on'Jail Vailey Road, There was some indifference about covered laading and deli+rery and its value as a public benefit. The proposed new units should not be required ta be piaced ira a rental paol. The Commission asked the appficant why they wantetf so much floor area and questioned where the public benefits were in the project which would warrant such a large increase over the maximum GRFA permitted. The Commissian liked the turn-around area provided off of Vaii Valley Drive on the sauth lot and the proposed garden on top of the parking structure. The Commission stated that they liked the plan from a year ago when a variance for GRFA to be located within a setback was being requested. The applicant was directed to remave all improvements from the I 00-year ffaaciplain, Impravements #o f1Ail1 Creek could be a significan# public improvement. The Commissian concluded by requesting a complete application with no more work sessions. Staff was directed to rewievu the next submittal for completeness very thoroughly. The Gommissi4n acknowfedged that the photagraphy simulation used in the presentation worked better than a model. However, the photos need to be realistie about landseaping and what is impacted with develvpment. 2. A request for finaf revievw of a variance from Section 12-61H-6, Setbacks, SeGtipn 12-61-1-1 Q; Landsea,ping and 5ate Development, and Sectpon 12-6FI-1 I : Parking and Loading, Vail Town Code, to alCow far a residential addition, located at 303 Gare Creek DrivelLat 7, Block 5, Vail Village 1St Filing, and setting forth details in regard thereto. ~ Applicant: Ron Hughes, repre5ented by Shepherd Resources, Inc. RNanner: Bill Gibson MQTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Bernhardt VOTE: 5-0-1 (Shirley abs#ained) AF'pROVED WITH [3NE CONDITION: 1. This variance request approval shall be contingent upon the applicant receiving Town af Vai1 design review approvai for this proposed residentia1 addition. Due ta the similar nature of the applications, items #2 and #3 (Hughes Residence and Shirley Residence) were reviewed concurrenfly. Staff presentect an ouerview af the request and the staff memorandum. The applicant's architect, Shepard Resvurces, lnc., had no additional commen#. The applicant's attarney, Murray Franke Greenhause List & Lippitt LLP, stated their objection to Staff's recvmmended condition #2 for the Hugh's proposal. Virginia Wells, adjacent property owner Rowhouse #6, stated that they did nv# suppark #he Hugh Residence varianee reques# and did nat suppart the final design of the proposal. Ms. Wells requested that the PEG adopted and broaden the language of Staff's recommended condition #2 for #he bugh's proposal, Cammfssioner Shirley stated his objection to Staff's recommended conditivn #2 for his proposa!_ ~ 1`he PEC noted the special circumstances and hardships related to the Hughes and Shirley variance requests. The PEC noteti that Staff s reeomrrtended conditian #2 was not necessary as any risk af construcfion impacting neighbaring properties would be acidressed by the existing private party-wall agreernents. 2 3. A request for final review of a variance from Sectian 12-6H-6, Setbacks, Sectian 12-61-1-9, Site Coverage, and Section 12-6H-10: Landscaping and Site Qevelopment Vail Tawn Code, to allflw for ~ a residential addition, located at 303 Gore Creek Drive/La# 8, Block 5, Vail Village 15' Filing, and setting forth details in regard there#o. Applicant: Erickson 5hirley, represented by K.H. Webb Architects P.G. Planner; Bill Gibsan MOTIQN; Kjesbo SEC4AID: Bernhardt VOTE: 5-0-1 (Shiriey abstained) APPROVED W1TH ONE CONDITIaN: 1. This variance reyuest approval shall be contingent upon the applicant receiving Town of Vail design review appraval for this proposed residential additian. 4. A request for final review of a variance from Sectian 12-6D-6, setbacks, Vail Town Code, #o alla+ru for encroachments inta the setback, located at 2434 Chamvnix LanelLot 11, Block B, Vail das Schone Filing 1, and settFng forth de#ails in regard thereto. Applicanf: Mark Yare, represented by VAG, Inc. Planner: Bill Gibsorr MOTION: Gahill SECOND: Bernhardt VOTE: 6-0 QEfVIED Staff presented an oWerview of the request and the staff rnemorandurn. The applicant's architect, VAg, Inc., summarized the applicant's request and noted their wellingness to decrease the amoun# deviation from the setback being requested. ~ Karen Scheideger, adjacent property awner, stated that they did nat support the Yare's variance request. The Commission commented that the existing aspen stand did eonstitute a hardship, fihe PEG nated that design alternatives camplying with the setback requirements exist and the trees can be removed or relocated_ 5. A request fflr firaal review af a variance from Title 14, Development Standards Handbaok, Vail Town Code, to allow for retaining waQls in excess of six (6) feet in height, located at Tract K, Glen Lyon 5ubdiwisian and Unpfatted Parcels, a mare complete legal description is on file at the Community Develnpment Department, setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Vail Resorts Development Gompany, represented by Braun Associates, Inc. Planner: Bill Gibson IVlQTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Lamb VOTE: 6-0 APPROVED WITH CDNDITIONS•. 1. This variance request approval shall be contingent upon the applicant receiving Tavun of Vail design review approval of #he assaciated design review applica#ion. 2. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall enter into a lease, license, or easement agreemen# with the Town af Vail for the use of Town property. ~ 3. Prior ta the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall prepare a construction staging plan far reviernr and approval by the Town of Vaif. 4. Prior td #he issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall survey and then 3 instail all I%mits of distur6ance fencing and all erosion control methods far review and appravai by the Town of Vail. ~ 5. The applicant shall praperly maintain the limits of disturbance fencing and erosion control methods throughout the construction of this propQSal. Any modificatian to the location or configuration of the limits af dis#urbance area shall require review and approval by the Town of Vaii. Staff presented an overview of the request and the staff memarandum. The applicant's representative, Jay F'eterson, summarized the applican#'s propasaN and requested minar changes ta S#af#'s recommended conditions. Staff was agreeable to the requested changes to the eonditions. The PEC commented on the special circumstances and hardship af this request and noted that if the proposed walls were canstructed in a Tawn right-of-way, rather than in a Town granted easement, that this variance request would not be necessary. 6. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a#ext amendment to Section 12- 71-11-3, Permitted and Canditional Uses; First Floar or Street Lev^el and Sectian 12-71-3, Permitted and Conditional Uses; First Floer and Street Level, pursuant ta Section 12-3-7, Ameradment, Vail Town Cods, fo allow for temporary real estate sales offices on the first floor or street Ievel af a building, in the LiQnshead Mixad Use I& 2 zone districts, and setting forth details in rcgard thereto. Applicant: Vail Resorts Developrrtent CamQany, represented by Braun Assaciates, Inc. Plaroner: Gearge Ruther ~ IVIOTI4N: SECONIJ; VOTE: WITHDRAWN 7. A request far a site coverage variance fram Sec#ic?n 12-78-15, Site Coverage, Vaii Town Code, to allow for a cammercial stare front addition, located at 230 Bridge StreetlLat B, Bbck 5-C, Vail Viilage 1S` Filing, and setting farth details in regard thereto. Applican#: Rodney E. Slifer Planner; Warren Campbell MOTION: Lamb SECOND: Kiesba VQTE: 5-1 (Cahill vpposed) APPRQVED WITH ONE CQNDITIQN: 1. That the applicant reduces the size of the proposed awning to ext+end no more than four feet from the face of the building. Staff gave apresentation per the memarandum. The applicant and the owner of the business which will be accupying the tenant space, Tom Yoder, gave a presentation explaining the need ta remove the architectural "notch" from the building due to the way it breaks-Up the in#erior retail space which is the reason previaus tenants have not be able to "make-it" in the space. They continued by describing the notch as a health hazards as people late at night urinate and vomit in the "notch'". Rod Slifer reviewed #he applicatiQn and haw the applieation would comply with the goals of the Master Plan and how the proposal is not a special privilege. ~ The Commission was in faWVr of granting the variance as the notch does not serve a pasitive purpase. They agreed strvngly about the negative health issues associated wi#h tfie unintended consequences of the notch being there (i,e. public urinatian and vami#ing). Many of the Commissianers believed this was a special case which had a hardship due to fhe age of the building and it's existence prior to Tawn af Vail zaning. 4 Commissioner, Doug Cahill asked how this will help the retail space and achieve the gaals the applicant stated at the autset. The applicant replced that he is primarily interested in the exterior modificatians and will work out the interior remodel issues after getting the uariance. ~ Staff asked for a point af clarification regarding the awning and whether the PEC agrees with the additional site coverage it creates. The Commission+ers, except for Chas Bernhardt, stated that the awning should not extend any further from the face of the building than four feet sv as to not count towards site Gaverage. 8. A request for afinal rerriew of a propased amendment to the Town of Vail afficial Zoning Map to change the zoneng of the 111ffesk Vail Ladge Prapertaes fram Commerciai Core 3(CG3) ta High Density Multiple FamiPy (HDMF), located at 2278, 2288, 2298 Chamanix Lane and 2211 Norkh Frontage Roadl Lots 1, 2, 3, and Tract C Vail aas Schone Fiiing 1 and Inn at'West Vail Lot 1, Block p, Vail Das Schnne Fiiing 3, in accordance with Section 12-3-7, Vail Town Code, and setting forth de#a1s in regard thereto. Applicant: Vanquish V'aif, LLC, t`epresented by Allison Ochs Planner: Matt Gennett MOfiICDN: Bernhardt SECC}ND: Lamb VQTE: 6-0 TABLED TQ MARCH 22, 2004. The Corrartiission unanimously agreed that this shall be the last tabling ta be granted for this item. 9. A request for a wark session to cfiscuss an appGcation for amajor amendmeni to Special Development District #4, Cascade Village, pursuant to Section 12-9A-10, Vail Tawn Code #a ~ aClow for the a;doption of a Uevelnpment E'lan for the developmerrt of a new multiple-family structure, located at 1000 W. Frontage Rd./Cascade Vrllage, Develapment Area A, and setting fiorth detaols in regard thereto. Applicant: Ramsey FRowwer and C,reg Walton Planner: iGeorge Ruther WITHDRAWN 10. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Cauncil of a major amendrnent to Special Development EDistrict No. 36, Fflur Seasons Resort, pursuant to Sectivn 12-9A-10, Vail Tawn Code, to allow fior a mixed-USe hotel; a request far a final review of a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 12-7A-3, Vail Town Code, to allow for Type 9lf Empfoyee Housing Units and a fractional fee c{ub; and a request for a recomrnendation to the Vail Town Council afi a propased rezoning of Lvts 9A & 9C, Vail Village 2nd Filqng from Public Accommodation (PA) zorte ciistrict to High Density Multiple Famify (HDMF) zone district, located at 28 S. Frontage Rd. anci 13 Vail RoadlLots 9,A& 9C, Vail Village 2nd Filing, and setting forth details in regard thereta. Applicant: Nicollet Island Development Company Inc. Planner: George Ruther WITHDRAWN 11. Approval of minutes MOTIUN: Kjesbo SECOND: Lamb VOTE. 6-0 ~ 12, Information Update . 13. ,Adjournment MOTION: Bernhardt SECONd: Lamb N'OTE: 6-0 5 The applicatians and information abaut xhe prapc,sals are available fnr public inspection durrng i regular affice hours in the praject planner's office located at the Town of Vail Cammunity Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. Please call 479-2138 far infarmation. Sign language interpretation available upvn request with 24 hour notification. Pfease caPl 479- 2356, TeEephone fc,r the Hearing ImpairerJ, for information. Cammunity Development Department iPublished, March 5, 2004 in the Vail Daily. ~ ~ 6 Y ' .z. E r = m- w ~ c ~ ~n m rn m ,n aa ~ m 7ot°?Ei.7c- o°°-~'~'- Em`6m4 C7 H''~`~,m=E~ c gg Z ~ ac°~ U G~j~a-o.m~G ~ mUm.o ~ `"~~o[j 5 Y a-°m~m > E~~C9EUt o, ESy.~ S~~~mm;' mQi~om v Oa ~ec,m~ ox~YW~` E H m cflo q,nzam~tu~d~ ~ ~ °o}$=c`u a me m ~ .L,oac a ~c -L~ U Z C c o-> L 'p A a c o ~c ~s U c- W W ~ CA ~b~ivW 9 m W' ~ ~J20C~ 2 C ~ 2 YQ'a= 43 F c 0 avi[uN".C ~y Q E 0 ao. ..~mm` c r ~ cm u°'i > i=~xm m O Z C5o W E o,E o~~ m > muem ~ ~fJ 9u p. m c > ~c u ~ m ma~c? ~ e,~ ao ,p?t_ ~ y.gs>=Nm ~ > °°m°z'+ ~ U pz m za+ ~ mm o .a~, r ¢ QdM.L 7 Uue ~ U y= Eao~.`c+ecm `or~~6rsi? c c1 °u2m m m o~ m~ca c-% `3 w w 9~m~ e E~~ oo,~?° 0a 3 ac~~,j m o~ mm mm.' ~ a~mgio~ p ~ Z Z O 3 ~ yxmm cc gc~p6~nLL ~ m m~tyO~' y~~a m [3 aa>r am ? W R ZU 6a J C7aC O a 4" _ 6~ - aO }~j~ ~~YO N F- ` O 3vCp.N ~V C9 ~C H G N S ~ p m 0S N`~ Z ?ttlt O.- C r5 ~TO C O U ' f~.r c'o caF ~n_ m n~._ m p e -u>t c a- m Z 93 c J Z~ r cf~UC° >E2 Ga+o=o m eQ OZ.v)8.~_`~ Ci ~ 4'0 Ca w q~ z ca o m • - o°~nm ~'.m ` Uo `m m~e-L g c0 o~ ~y~ oU m~ i cU ~ ~ n° ~ cZ U v~U w ° 9~E r" r m mZ~r~c ~na'm W . ViU1m~.~Cci 2UoU e~roe 7~s ~iUB~ ~v~rc -x n9 c d~mm u~o 0 4 • r ~ l1 ~c Z- oti~ m a s '~o ma° ~ o m ~ a uJ ~~tl1 maui_ ~2 c W asc a Z a4 wm !~L tUx~9 a ao€~~uacpi.,7... [r' a~a~'m>~ ~cC7t11 a.oyt a (5 c - E+a nar` _~~7VWD Z ~ (L (moe`rU" o a N N ~nrx - ~ _ a o a~ ?o] Z ~2 d omop ~ rn ~a ` mE- 12 Rm ~m~s m p@ . a+- mo oo - }-43 C m ~t] C C tT Sf3 y~~ r-' _.p ~m = `b~ C ~ i6 jN'O>Q ~s4R C~~ N'(z6N ~ •l~q ~G ~ C07~ N Z Q C 00 ~.:Z mN~,4 ~NU EC ~ „Z mm~i~1? @61E C~ a t~ut~ u'' .ytm ¢o C7 mUW mU: n~c4 m n'~mv~ c F- 4 P~ai~c.. ~ a~4 a=s~i `O ~Q-o.-.a q'3...`~ dl a~ E 3 °mac m5w-°.~= czF m a~~ m fjcOV~a+ n~ d-0 Qo =a a¢ m 0 `o~ aAo j c~ ~r~c c a a - ~~p Qna ¢'o q3.6 Q ~~Lm 4 a~ a.~,y ¢ mbM ~ mU12US>>n ~ 's~~ a~ummc cb ~-m~5°~ m _ 4~c c ° nm . m3 m ci 4 ~ o E~~ a ,cm c m~v m ~ a E ~ inrcvvidiriC7 Ci Z... 2~' rN'~S?~ Q=i-ca rt~ tvt~i~.-BC7ii ~ c*~ua[S m m0= o ~cn owfn~ u E~ m i.. O O ~ 6L] f ~-~j .n R• p ,,1 ty p ~ N tM•~i `O ~p v O ~ cy _ G. 0. L' u r ~ > Lr • ~ C ~ fY y L . r/~ = cl ~ r-.'•' ~ J r1U s^ O o^ ~ `n O d` ~ a~ y, ^ :.J C pa y ~ p rq ~ O . S-~. .~C ~ v ~ N i .Y R cJ ~ 4j" p, r ~ ~ . n Q" • ~ ~ ~2". Q p ~ `+r I r~Jf~.. un O ti+ ~ • w CD ~ ~ I '~o y I CC3 N r~~ d~J ~ ' a) cC ~ 0+'O > r..^ 6) i ~ ~ h+~t ~ U C c6 ~i D'" p~ Q F. v ~j ~ y y ~ J J ~ U ~ L ~ r ~ ~ ~ C ~ • ~ Q ~ cn ~ o ~ ~ ` 3 r • o a c-i Q) ~ p'3' C' c ° ~ Aca a.~~c~~ 3 3 3 v) = ~ C~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 3 a o 1.1 ~ ri~ `r H U 'N!Va iTn atU W eaoa •s 40-w 'pavs}wnd ~ luadulJede(] tuFjwdolowfl Aiiunwuaoo uailLuvoI -w ial. •peitedwl 6uueaH a4l ioj auoydaylql-'S9EZ-ei 4u~odn aqq~jieneu uo el~a d~a4u~e6enB~ure~ isanb ufiig 'uct"uwaajul iolflE lZ-8L4 Ipea aspald -peod 46eluaij 43nog SL 'luawDedDa luawdo[anep A1iunwwoa I~e/y Jo ux~ol e41 Ip Pa -leDoa eaiµo s,iauuUld lj efo~d aµ; w sinoy ezpi;{o iel -n6w 6uimp uailoedsvl agqnd joj olqeliene 3.1e sle -sodajd ay; Snoqe uoileWaoLui pue suoileoqdda ayl :310A :ON0339 :N011c~7W wwnaptl 'EL elePdn uo!yewUoiul 'Zt :310A :9N003S :NOIlOW . se3huiw ya Ienoiddy ~ NMVaC1N.LIM iaylnH aBaaeo :.iauuVld oue du -edwoo luawdolanaa puelsi IeHo3iN '.1ueo!IdnE' •ozweyl We6ei uI slintap yuol 6uiuas pue 'fSugy puy afielllh I!eh 'O6 ~BV6 $lo~'ARod I~Hh 6l Pue p{~ a6eluolj -g 9Z le paleioi '3DiJlsip auaz (JWQHI .itl;we-i aId+:pnjq tiqsUap 011-1 ol IQ!ilsIp auoa {ydl uopepowwoooy Dikqn,j woij Suilrj PuZ aBEll!.h IiyA '06 8 tl6 slol lo fiuiuasas pasodoid e{o liounno iAnnoY IieA 041 oy uoiIepuawtuo*ou e ioj lsanba.r e pue :qnIa aa} ieuoiyael; v pve siiun 6u1sr'oH eehoIdw~] VII adAl jo~ mollff ol 'apoO urnoi I!Eh 'E'VL-Z6 uoI1DaS b] luensmd '11wied esn lpuoiqpuoa e{o Meinai Ieup. e jo; Isan4ai E:lsloy asn-pexrw 'e io) mope ol '0000 LIµDl I!p/i 64-b6'ZI u0!]78S 0l jUE'ItSJfld 'lJOS -ed suaseas mozi 'gE o~ lo+jyspa juawdmlanap Ig~BdS QI luawpuawe joletu e{o p*unoo umw; I!ep, ay, al uopepuau,wonai ejol Isanhai y'p; NMVti4H11M iaytny~ a6~oep yauueld uol~gM 6ei9 Pue ieMq j~iasusey :1uaDIKU1tl oF3~6yi pJe6ei w spelaP 4001 6ua71es pus 'y eaJy 4u0w ~ -dolenep 'a6e111q apeOsel,'Pti 06eluoij ',iy OOOL Le peleaol •einlanits Fpwel-a~dplnw &+au e yo ;uaw -dolanep eW1 jo{ usid juewdqanafl eLo u014d4pe ayi 104 Molle 01 epoO uM,ol I!eA '41-tl6-Zl uofPOS ol luvrtsmd '06elllq aPeOs"p. 'bN 1131Aeip luawdo -OmO lenadS nl lueuhRuaLue jofew e io4 uopeoild -de ue senosip ol uoissas raosn eiol wanbei y g 31-M :ON003S t40I.1Qiry UeUU90 UgW :aetweb Aq faluaseida ' s4~ ~IIV ~Z~ 'Ir~q ysmhueA :queogddy 'olajaul Pie6ai ui s11e4eP 4UO) 6uilkas pue 'opoO umo}, I!p11'L-E-Z4 uo+J3oS ylim ~aauepaoaoe ui 'E 6uiIiJ auoyog seq IrEfl 'V H-IH ' l lol V.Ph isa,M ;e uuI pue I 6uiIij auoyas se(I I1O/1 0 Laaal Pve •E 'Z ' l siol /pQO)j a6Y -]uoaJ yUaN tq.ZZ puu auel xiuawe40 9fi~'4 'R43ZZ 'BLZZ ie paysaol 'f~WC3Hl hIiwe=l 91ditinyy kIi5tiaa 4b!H a6 (£oa) E0ao0 ~epaawwoo waa saiuatltud 05Pal PHA lsaM ayl, 10 Busuoz eyy e6uey3 at c?eyu 6wu0Z M04,10 I!IIA Iv uma,L eyl oa Wou,kpuawg pasodaad ¢)o eneinaa le,Aq e aoj asontaaa y-g :310l1 QN003S 'NQIl04'4 IlaqdwsJ us)aeM :iauueIa asyqg AauPoa :aua~iiddy "a40JaUl pJg68i ua spelap 14110; Buglas pue'8uil~~ lsl. ubei -EIA.I!eA '~-5 h`~o18 '9 la'7rSaa~iS a6piafl (ft;e le Pa -leDoI 'uoiliRwIR luoal eioas IeiaRawwaD eJop Mp{le pl 'apoO uru,o-L ~i2/y 'e68JanoD BI!S 'Sl'g[-Zt uopa" wosJ anueragn aBni~D elis a aoj lsanfie.jy 3IOn 0140338 niOi.i0w ieylnd a6ia0!~ :iauueld ~ouj 'sa}eioossV uneiEl nq paluasardej Iuedwuo IuawdoIenap slaasey JiUh :Jueai,IddH '01eieWl peufiaa ui s{ie}sp yyo} 6ui~,es pue 'sIaiusqp auoz z 8 I~Il pexlW Peaysuoil syp ui '6wpIinq e1o 19npl laOqs io taoB IsAy ayl uo saa -140 sOI2s akElss ivai Rietodwal jo; molle oa 'egoo unwl Rq 'IuetuPuauiq 'G-£-Zl wailcIag ol luens -ind 1ene1 '"AS f~re yooy ysi.ysasn ieuolirpuoo PUe peliPwsad '£-IL•Zl uouDeS pua I8AOl lOOisS jm =H asn-i :%asn ieuoeupuoo puepauiwJad 'E-HL -Zl UonDF)S ol luawpuaius izel p jol Ipursoo umo,L 1!en a4D ol uOiyepuawwoasj e iol isanbgj yg ~ PLANNING AND ENVfRONMENTAL COMMIlSSION ~ PUBLIC MEETING Monday, A!?arch 8, 2004 PROJECT OFtIENTATIQN - Comrnunity Development Dept. PUBI.I'C WELC4ME 12:00 pm MElUBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Site Visits ; 1 . Slifer - 230 Bridge Street Z, Fiughes - 303 Gore Creek [7rive, #7 3. Shirfey - 303 Gore Creek Drive, #8 4. Yare - 2434 Chamonix Lane 5. Vail Resorts Deaelopment Company - Trac# kG, Glen L.yvn Driver: George NOrE: If the PEC hearing extends until 6:0(} p.m., the board may break for dinner from 6.00 - 6:30 Public Hearinq - Town Council Chambers 2:00 pm 1. A request for a recommencEation to the Vail Town CQUnccl for the establisnment af Special Developmerat Dis#ric# No. 38, Manor Vail Lodge, ta allow for the redevelopment of the IWlanor Vail Lodge, and a request for a conditional use permit to allow for the construction of Type I!I Employree Housing Units, pursuan't to Section 12-61-1-3, Vaif Town Cade, located at 595 Vail ~ Valfey ariveJLots A, B, & C, Vaii ViIlage 7th Filing, and setting fvrth details in regard thereto. Applicanfi: Nlanar Vail, represented by Melick and Associates Planner: Warren Campbell M4TION: SECOND: VC3TE: 2. A request for finaY review af a rrariance from Section 12-61-1-6, Setbacks, Section 12-6H-10: Lantiscapirag and Site Development, and Section 12-6H-11: Parking and Loading, 1/ail Tpwn Code, ta allaw for a residential acfdi#ion, Ivcated at 303 Gore Creek DrivelLot 7, Block 5, Vail l/illage 1s' Filing, and setting forkh details in regard thereto. Applicant: Ron Hughes, represen#ed by Shepherd Resaurces, inc. Planner: Bill Gibson MQTION; SECOND: VOTE: 3. A reques# for final review of a variance frorvi Section 12-6H-6, Setbacks, Section 12-6H-9, Site CQVerage, and Section 12-6H-14: Landscaping and Site Development Vail Town Code, to alEow for aresidential addctian, loca#ed at 303 Gare Creek Driae/Lot 8, Block 5, VaiM Village 15t Filing, and setting forth details in regard thereta. Applicarat Erickson Shirley, represented by K.H. Webb Arehiteets P.C. Planner: Bila Gibson MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: 4. A request for final review of a varEance from Section 12-6D-6, setbacks, Vail Ta?+vn Code, to allow for ~ encroachments into the setback, located a# 2434 Chamonix LanelLot 11, BAock B, Vail das Schone Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. 1 TawN aF vnIL Applicant: Mark Yare, represented by uAG, Inc. Planner: Bill Gibson ~ MOTION: SEGQND: VOTE: 5. A request for final review af a variance from Titfe 14, Development Standards Handbook, Uail Town Code, to allow for retaining walls in excess af six {6} feet in height, located at Tract K, Glen Lyon Suadivisian and Unplatted Parcels, a mare complete Iegal dEscriptron is on file at the Camrrtuni4y Develapmen# Department, setting forth detaifs in regard thereto. Applicant: Vaif Resor#s Development Company, represented by Braun Associates, Inc. Planner: Bill Gibson MOTION: SECDhID: ViQTE: 6. A request for a recdmrmendation to the Vaii Town Cauncil for a text amendment to Section 12- 7H-3, Permitted and Canditional Uses; Firsi Floor or Street Level and Section 12-71-3, Permitted and Conditiona! Uses; First Floor and Street Level, pursuan# tca Sectian 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Cade, to aIlouv for terraporary real estate saies offices an #he first floor or streef level of a building, in the Lionsheati Mixed Use I& 2 zone destricts, and set#ing forth details in regard thereta. Applicant: Vail Resorts Qevelapment Company, represented by Braun Associates, lnc. Planner: George Ruther MOTION: SECONa: VOTE: 7_ A request for a site coverage variance from Section 12-713-15, Site Coverage, Vail Town Cotie, to aElow far a commercial store front addition, located at 230 Bridge StreetlLot B, Block 5-C, Vail Uillage ~ 1$t Filing, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Rodney E. Slifer , Planner: Warren Campbel3 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: 8. A request fior a final review of a proposed amendment to the Tawn of Vail Official Zoning Map to change the zoning of the West Vail Ladge Properties from Camrrtercial Core 3(CC3) to High Density Muftiple Family (HDNfF), located at 2278, 2288, 2298 Chamonix Lane and 2211 North Frontage Road! Lats 1, 2, 3, and Tract C Vaif Das Schone Filing 1 and Inn at West Vail Lot 1, Block A, Vail Das Schone Fifing 3, in accordance wi#h Sectian 12-3-7, Vail Town Code, and setting forth details in regard fherefo. Applicant: Vanquish Vail, LLC, represented by Allison Qchs Planner: Matt Gennett MOTION: SECQND: VC3TE: 9. A request for a work session to discuss an application far a majar amendment to Special ~ Deve6opmen# District #4, Cascade Village, pursuant to Section 12-9A-1 0, Vail Town Code to allow for #he adoption of a Development Plan for the development af a new muitiple-family structure, located at 1000 W. Frontage Rd./Cascade Viilage, Qevelopment Area A, and setting forth detaias in regard thereto. ~ Applicant: Ramsey Flower and Greg Walton Flanner; Gearge Ruther WITHDRAWN 10. A request for a recammendation to the Vail Tawn Council ofi a majar amendment to Special 2 Development District No. 36, Four Seasvns Resort, pursuant ta Section 12-9A-10, Vail 7own Code, #a allow for a mixed-use hotel; a reques# for a final review af a conditianal use permit, pursuant to Section 12-7A-3, Vail Town Cvde, to aIlaw far Type III Employee Housing Units and ~ a fractional fee club; and a request for a recommendatian to the Vail Town Gouncil of a prppased rezoning of Lots 9A & 9C, Vail Villaga 2nd Filing from Public Accommodation (PA) zane cEistrict to High Density NVultiple Family (HDNIF) zone distriet, located a# 28 S. Frantage Rd. and 13 Vail RaadlLots 9A& 9C, Vail Village 2nd FiGng, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Nicollet fsland Development Company Inc. Planner: George Ruther WITFIDRAWN 11. Approvaf of minutes MOTlON: SECQND: VOTE: 12. Information Update . 13. Adjaurnment MQTIOM: SECOND: VOTE: The applications and informatian about #he proposals are available for pubQic inspection during regular office hvurs in tfie project planner's office located at the Town ofi Vail Community Qevelopment Department, 75 South Fron#age Road. Please call 479-2138 for information. Sign Ianguage interpretatian available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479- ~ 2356, Telephone for the HearEng fmpaired, for information. Community Development Departrnent Published, March 5, 2003 in the Vail Daily. ~ 3 PLA'NNlNG AND ENViRONMENTAL COMM1S51C)N ~ PUBLIC M€ETING Manday, February 23, 2004 PROJECT ORIENTJ4TION - Community Develaprnen# Dept. Pl9BL.lC WELCOME 12:00 pm MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT John Schofield Erickson Shirley George Lamb Rollie Kjesbo Doug Cahill Gary Hartman Chas Bernhardt . 5ite Visits : 1. The Ruins - 1000W. Frantage Road 2. VRDIVaiI Gymrtastics Facility - 551 N. Frontage Road Wes# Driver: George NOTE: ff the PEC hearing ex#ends until 6:00 p.m., the baard may break for dinroer from 6:00 - 6:30 Public Hearina - Town Council Chambers 2:00 pm ~ 1. A request for a final reaiew of a prvposed amendment to the Town of Vail Official Zaning Map to change the zoning of the West Vaif Lodge Praperties fram CommerciaF Gore 3(CC3) to High Qensity MultipEe Family (HDMF), Eocated af 2278, 2288, 2298 Chamonix Lane and 2211 Nor#h Frontage Road/ Lot$ 1, 2, 3, and Tract C Vail Das Schane Filing 1 and lnn at Wesf Vail Lot 1, Block A, Vail Das Schone Filing 3, in accardance with Section 12-3-7, Vai[ Town Gode, and sefting forth details in regard thereta. Applicant: Vanquish Vail, LLC, represented by Allisan Ochs Planner: Matt Gennett MOTIC7N; Cahill SECOND: Kjesbo VOTE: 7-0 TABLEQ Ta MARCH 8, 2004 Matt Gennett stated that in order for this praposal to proceed farwarci in any form ather than that which is proposed, the appiicant shall be required to submit a new applicatian to the Community aevelopment Department. The Commission requested that a uery direct letter be forwarded to the applicant stating such requirement. 2. A request for a work ses5ion ta discuss an applica#ion for a major amendment to Special Develapment Qfstrict #4, Cascade Vilfage, pursuant to SectiQn 92-9A-10, Vail Town Code ta allvw for the adaption of a Development Plan for the develoRment of a new multiple-family structure, Located at 1000 W. Frontage Rd.ICascade Village, Devel4pment Area A, and setting forth detaols in regard thereto. Applicant: Rarnsey Flower and Greg Walton Planner: George Ruther ~ MOTIQN: Cahifl SEC(7ND: Kjesbo VOTE:7-0 TABl.ED TQ MARCH 8, 20Q~ 1 r~~vc~~ v,~r~'' 3. A rec{uest for a final reuiew af a conditional use permit, pursuant to section 12-9C-3, Vail Town Code, to aliow for a public indovr community facility, located at 551 N. Frontage Road West/Vail Patato Patch, Red Sandstone Elernentary School, and set#ing farth details in regard thereto. ~ Applicant: VRQ - Vail Gymnastics Facility, represented by Fritzlen Pierce ArchEtects Planner: Ma#t Gennett MQTION: Cahill SECONa: Hartman VOTE: 7-0 APPROVED WITH THREE AMENDED CONDITiUNS OF APPRUVAL: 1. This conditianai use permit apprvval is cantingent uporo the applicant receiving Tcrwn of VaiE desigrt revaew appro+ra9 foe this proposal. • , parkiRg, and .±n4ivi4ien 2. Na parking of vehicles associated with the use of the gymnastic facilifiy shall be allawed 4n the North Frontage Road. Faiiure to cornply with this condition shalf be grounds far revacation of the ccandi#ianal use permit for the gymnastic facility 3. The hours of operation for the use af the gymnastic facility shall not interfere with school programs, parking, and activities. The terms for the use of the gymnastic faeilifiy shall be documented in an adopted lntergvvernmental Agreement (tGA) by and between the Eagie County School Qistrict, Vai[ Recreation Distric#, and Town of Vail. Said Agreement shall be in place prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the facility. ~ Maft Gennet# made a presentatian per the staff memorandum autlining the request. Staff recamrnended appraval of the request with three conditions as outlined in #he staff inemorandum. The Commission expressed cancem with three issues 1) hours of operation and conflicts with the school hours, 2} traffic circulation and parking, and 3) location of bus stap. Greg Maffat, speaking for the applicant, responded to the Commissians Goncerns. The Gornrraission continued to investigate answers to their expressed concerns. Fallowing discussion vn the request, the Commissaan agreed that amendments to the proposed conditians were required. CJpan discussion off the conditians, a motion for appraual with amendments to the conditions was made. 4. A request for a recommendatian #o the VaFI Tawn Council to approve, approve with modification, or deny the Lionshead Publrc Facilities Devel4prnent Plan. The specific description and area for the Lionshead Public Facilities Developmerat Plan are in the Corr7munity Devefopment Departrnent. The general descriptian includes that area north of Gore Creek, west of Middle Creek, east of Red SanclStane Greek and south af Interstate 70 in the Town of Vail. Russell Forrest made a presentation to #he Commission describing the need for the Plan per the staff memorandum. Staff recomrnended that tfie Comrnissian fQrwaeds arecommendation of appraval af the Plan to the Vail Tov,?n Council. IJnder public camment, .firai Lamant questioned uses of the TIF dollars and inconsistencies between zoning and covenants. Mr. Lamont expressed his support for the use af an urban renewal district to remnve sucl°i inconsistencies uvhen used to ensure compliance with community goa1s. The Commission questianed how the determination was to be made on which covenants are "offending" and in need of remaval. 5everal Gommission members expressed reservatians wath regard to horv the condemnation proceedings will affiect the development future af L.icanshead with the main concern being the ~ ability to condemn mare "recently" established covenan#s_ The Commission indicated fhat criteria for remoual or cansiderations for evaluation be established tv address which covenants should be eligible for cansideration far remava1. It was determined that if the removal of the couenan#s furthered the goals of the town as documented in the adopted master plans, then 2 • temoval shvufd be allowed. The process of remaval mus# include a public process far consideratiQn. ~ The Commissivn recammended that the use of condemnation powers of the Authority shall be limited to the rerrtioval of defunct, canflicting and obsalete cavenants that inhibit the ability to implement the goals antf objectives af the Town's master plan and adopted planning documents. Applicant: Vail Reinvestment Autharity Planner: Russell Forrest MOTION: K}esbo SECUND. Lamb 1/OTE: 6-0-1{Shirley} 5. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council to approve, approve with mvdificatian, or cfeny the P3&J Reinuestment Plan located at Lats P3 & J, Biock 5A, Vail Viilage 5' Filing. Russei6 Forrest made a presentatian to the Commission describing the need for the Plan per the staff memorandum. Staff recomrnended that fhe Cflmmission forwards a recommendation of appraval of the Plan ta the Vail Town Cauncil. The CommissFOn discussed both Items 4 and 5 on the agenda concurrently. Applicant; Vail Reinvestmen# Authority Planner: Russell Forrest MOTIQN: Kjesbo SECOND: Cahill VGTE: 7-0 6. A request for a recomrnendation to the Vail Town Council af a major amendment to Speciaf Development Dis#rict Na. 36, Four Seasons Resork, pursuant tv Sectian 12-9A-1 0, Vail Town Cflde, to allaw for a Enixed-use hQtel; a request #or a final rerriew of a conditianal use perm%#, pursuant ta Section 12-7A-3, Vail Town Code, to aUow for Type III Emp8oyee Housing lJnits and ~ a fractianal fee club; and a request for a recommendation to the Vail Torrvn Council of a propased rezaning of Lots 9A & 9C, Vail Village 2nd Filing frvm Pubiic Accammodation (PA) zone dis#rict to High Density Multiple FamiEy (Ht3MF) zone district, located at 2$ S. Frontage Rd. and 13 Vail RoadfLots 9A& 9C, Vail Vil@age 2nd Filing, and setting forth detaifs in regard thereto. Applicant: Nseolfet Island Development Company Inc. PEanner: George Ruther MOTION: Cahill SECON!]: Kjesbo VOTE: 7-0 TABLED TQ MARCH 8, 2004 7. A reques# for a recommendation to #he Vail Town Council far #he establishment of Special Development Districf Na. 3$, Manor Vail Locige, to aPlow for the redeueloprnent of the Manor Vail Lodge, and a request for a canditional use perrnit to allaw for the construction of Type III Emplayee Housing Units, pursuant to Sectian 12-61-1-3, Vail Tawn Code, located at 595 Vail Valley DrivelLots A, B, & C, Vail Village 7th Filing, and setting forth details in regard fihereta. Applicant: Manor Vail, represented by Melick and Assflciates Planner: Warren Campbell M4TIOEV: Cahill SECC?ND: Kqesbo VQTE; 7-0 TABLED TQ MARCH 2004 11. Approva[ of minutes MOTION: Cahilt SECOND: Hartman VOTE: 7-0 ~ 12. Information LJpdate 0 Irwin Variance Appeal 13. Adjournment 3 M4TION: Kjesbo SECONQ: Lamb VQTE: 7-0 The applicatians and information abaut the proposals are available for public inspection during ~ reguler ofFice hours in the Froject planner's office located at the Town of Vail Gornmunity Development Departmenf, 75 5outh Frontage Road. Ffease cail 479-2138 for information. Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour natification. Please call 479- 2356, Telephone far #he Hearing Impaired, f4r infvrrriataon. Gommunity Developmerrf Deparkment Published, February 20, 2004 in the Vail Daily. ~ ~ 4 , ~ MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Gommission FROM: Departrnent of Community Development DATE: March 8, 2004 SUBJEC7: A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for the establishrnent of Special Devefopment District No. 38, Manor Vail Lodge, to allaw far the redevelapment of the Manor Vail Ladge, and a request for a conditional use Permit to allow far the construction of Type III Employee Housing Units, pursuant to Section 12-6H-3, Vail Town Cade, lacated at 595 Vail Valley DriveJLots A, B, & G, Vail Village 7th Filing, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Manor Vail Lodge, represertted by Melick and Associates P[anner: Warren Campbell 1. SUMMARY The purpase of this meeting is to allow the applicant an apportunity to present revised plans for the praposed cedevelopmen# far Manor Vaif Lodge to the ~ Planning and Environrraental Commission. Stafif has included multiple questians in this memarandum for which the staff and applicant wou9d like feedback. Through the Fdentified questiaros staff wauld request that the Commission identify issues which need to be addressed prior to return for a finaC review of the propased Special Devefoprraent District (SDD). The Gommission is not 6eing asked to take any formal action on this appl'ication ai this time. As such, staff will not be providing a formaY recommendation at this time. II. DESCRIPTION 4F THE REQUEST The appiicant, IVEanor Vail Lodge Condominium Association, represented by Melick and Associates, has requested a work sessian meeting with the Planning and Environmental Comrnission to present revised plans for a propased develapment applicatiorr and request far the estabfishment oi a new special deuelapment district intended to facilitate the redeWekopment of Manvr Vail Ladge, focated at 595 Vail Valley Drive/ Lots A, B, & C, Vail Village 7th Filing. A. . vicinity map has been attached for reference (attachment A). The key elemer+ts of the proposal include: • Expansion and upgrading of cane af Vail's High Density Multiple-Family zoned properties, • A deviatian fram the maximum allowable number of dwelling units (7 acEditional units) • A deviation from the allowable amount of Gross Residentia[ Floor Area ~ (20,446 square feet additional) 1 * A deviatson from the allowable building height (68.6' proposed at warst ~ case on Building F) • Eliminatian of surface parking an the north portion of the site and t'he creation of one iwo-level partially below grade parking structure and a reduction in surface parking along Vail Va91ey Drive. The proposed plan includes parking far the project with no additional parking. + Provisian of two employee housing units to accommodate seven ernployees witnin ihe Town of Vail. • The addition of a fourfh flaor to a portion of Buildings A and B and full fourth fioor added to buiFdings C, D, E, and F and the additiora of third floor connections between Buildings D and E, E and F, B and D, and B and C. • The exterior remodel of all the buildings located on the site. • The cleanup and improvement of both Mill CreEk and Gore Creek. • The encraachment of several buildings and the parking structures into required setbacks. A copy of a fetter from the applicant dated February 27, 2004, has been attached for reference {attachment B}. A reduced copy of the floor plans and elevations have been attached for refierence (attachment C). lII. BACKGR4UND • On July 14, 2003, the applicant, Manor Vail, was before the Planning and ~ Environmentaf Commission ta request a height and setback encroachment variance for the construction o# an additional floor on top of Buildings D, E, and F. That application was tabled as staffi was recommending denial of the height variance and the Commission couRd nat make a fMnding of a hardship. The applicani requested the tabfing in order to redesign the proposal sa as ta efiminate the need for a height variance. ]n association with this applicatian the applicant held a work session with the Torrvn of Vail Design Review Board where the BQard generally expressed that the proposal was an impravement. The variance application was later withdrawn as the applicant was planning to submit an application for a Special Deve[capment District. • On December 3, 2003, the applicant met with Tawn of Vail Design Reuiew Board far a conceptual review discussion on the Special Development District prapasal. The Board's review at that meeting facused primarily on building rnass and the architectural form of the ~ propasal. A copy of the Design Review Board's comments has been aftached for referenee (attacnment D). • Qn Decernber 8, 2003, the applicant met with the Yown of I/ail Planning I and Environmental Cornmissaon far a work session on the Speeial ~ Development aisirict propasal. The Commissian's revpew at that rneeting ~ focused on building mass, deviations frorrE #he High-Densi4y Multiple f Family District, and public benefit. A copy of the December 8, 2403, ~ P[anning and Environmenta9 Commission minutes has been attached far reference (attachment E). ~ • C3n December 17, 2003, the applicant met with Town of Vafl Design Review Board for a conceptual review discussion on revisions made to 2 ~ the Special Development District proposal. The goard's review at that meeting focused primaraly on building mass and the architectural farm af the proposal. A copy of the Design Review Board's comments has been attached for reference (attachment F). ~ On January 12, 2004, the applicant met with the Town af Vail Planning and Enviranmental Commission for a work session on the Special Development District proposal. The Commission's review at that meeting focused on building mass, deviations from the High-Qensity Multiple Family District, and public benefit. A copy of the January 12, 2004, Planning and Environmental Cammission minutes has been attached far reference (attachment G). • On March 3, 2004, the applicant met with Tawn of Vail Design Review Board for a conceptual review discussion on revisions made to the Special Development District proposal. The Board's review at that meeting focused primariiy on building mass and the architecturaC forrn of the propasal. A copy of the Desi:gn Review Board's comments has been attached for reference (attachmerrt H). IV. S1TE ANALYSIS Accarding to the app{ication infiormatian provided by the appiican# staff has performed an analysis of the proposal in relatian to the requirements of the Vai( Code. The deviations to the prescribed devedopment standards are shQwn in bQld text in the table below. Zoning: High Densety Multiple-Family Land Use Plan Designation; VaiO Vbllage Mas#er Plan Study Area Current Land Use: Mixed Use1Residential Development Sfiandarc! Allowed Existinq Proposed Lot Area; 10,000 sq.ft. 236,966.4 sq,ft. 236,966.4 sq.ft. Buildable Area: 232,932.4 sq.ft, 232,932.4 sq.ft. Setbacks: FrQnt: 20' 8' No Change Sides: 20' 207100' Na Change Rear: 20' 1' Na Change Mill Creek: guilding F 30" 5' Na Change Parking Structure 30' 11' 8' Building Herght: 4$' 32' 68.6' Densify: 25 units/acre 23.2 unitslacre 26.4 units {acre 133.5 D.U.s 123 D.U,s 140 D.U.s GRFA: 139,650.53 sq. ft. 121,365.4 sq. ft. 160,205 sq. ft. Site Goverage; 130,331.5 sq.ft. 56>995 sq.ft. 100,615 sq.ft. ~ (55°lo) (23.'~J%) (30.5%) 3 f Landscape Area: 70,959.2 sq.ft. 77,146 sq.ft. 148,712 sq.fE. ~ (30%) (32.6°l0) (42.5%) Parking; 223 spaces 178 spaces 223 spaces V. DISCUSSlON ISSUES The purpose of this work session meeting is to allow the applicant an apportunity to present the redeuelopment plans far Manor Vail to the PlannEng and Enwironmental Commission and to pravide the applicant, public, staff, and the Commissian an opportunity to identify issues for discussion at a future meeting. The Commission is ncrt being asked to take any farmal positions an this appiication at this time. However, staff has identified several issues at this time that we believe should be discussed. The fssues are: Comqlete DeveEopment Applica#ion The Town af Vail has reviewed the development applicatian submilted by the applicant's representative for completion and compliance with the prescribed submittal requirerr-ments. Upon completian af our (Community Develapment, Public Works, and Fire Department) review, it has been deterraiined that additional informat6on is required ta be submitted and reviewed before any finaf decisions may be made by the reviewing bnards. Nlany of these issues ; have already been communicated to the applicant. Others have not. Far ` reference purposes, the follawing information is needed: • A sunfshade analysis needs to be completed per the requirements in order to identify the impacts of the additional height on neighboring properties. The submifted sunlshade analysis daes not show , potential impact on the neighboring Texas TawnhQmes prcaperty. It appears that #here may be some negative impact to the eastern most unit. ~ • A Wicinity plan which includes at mirrimum the Texas Townhomes, E Golden Peak, Ski Club Vail, The Wren, ApQllo Park, and Pinas Del Norts_ • A cflmplete and accurate roaf plan with existing and praposed grades shown undemeath to be used in the determination of building height. The submitted plan displays the height above interpalated grade in muftiple locations. These plans should be revised to pravide staff with ridge and eave elevations with interpolated histaric grades and proposed grades shown ore the site inciuding #hraugh the footprints of the buildings. , ~ Address the comments provided by the Town of Vail Public 1Norks Depa:rtment in the memo dated February 20, 2004 (attachment I) , • Submit an applicant for a conditiorral use permit to allow for a Type III ~ Emplayee Housing to bs constructed an the development si#e. This cart be dane at a ia#er date. ' • AIl pfans need to be check and updated to match each ather as the praposal nas recently cnanged and some ofi ihe corresponding ~ 4 ~ documents have not been updated. For example the landscape plan still includes the enclosed laading and delivery area. Pursuant to Sectean 12-7A-12 (A,)(2)0) of the Vail To+nrn Code, „any addr`fional informatron or materral as deerrred necessary by the .4dmfnistrafQr or the Town Pfanraing and Envfrarrmental Carr,rrrission may be requested': 1s there any add'€tional information or materiats tfaat the Planning and Environmental Commission finds is necessary to be submit#ed for review and consideratian prior to acting upan the requests of the applicant? Does the Commissiara need a traditionaC massing model to aid in the review of this project or da the digital renderings taken from multiple ang[es satisfy the need to see ianpaets and massing of the proposal? Does the Cnmmission uvant any additional photo renderings which will provide a different perspective on the potential impacts? Praposed Setback Encraachments The proposal incaudes the construction of approximately 11,414 square feet of addition Gross Square Footage of which 3,094 square feet is ~ Gross Residentiaf Floor Area within the required setbacks of the High aensity Multiple-Fami6y District. AIl of the proposed encroachments occur within the rear setback which abuts the Ford Park parcel. There is currenfly 12,170 square feet af Grass Square Footage of which 9,521 square feet is Gross F3esidential Floor Area wit'hin the required setbacks of the High Density fVlultiple-Famiky Disirict. Does the Commission believe this to be acceptable or in excess af what is apprapriate? lf the CommissiQn believes the encraachments are excessive what changes are suggested? In a previous submittal the appiicant proposed to enclase the loading and deGvery at the rear af Building B. That proposal has been removed for the mnst recen# submittal. Dves the Gommission believe that the reincorporation of an enclosed loading anti deiivery bay is a public benefit? Proposed Under_qround ParkincStructures and Traffic Qrnpac#s As a part of this proposal the applicant would Iike to construct one partiaily underground parking structure on the north portion of the site and reduce the amount of surface parking along Vail Valley Driue. The proposed parking structure wauld elimznate a majority af the surface parking with 11 parking spaces remain on grade on the north porlion of ~ the site. The praposed parking structure and surface parking would meet the minimum requirernents af the Gode for maintaining the existing 5 number of parking spaces while adding parking to meet the propased ~ new uses. Does the Commission believe the parking propasal is accep#alale? If i the parking structure is nat acceptable whaf chartgES should be made to make it acceptable? R Uoes the Commission value the partially belvw grade parking If structure as a public benefit? 'The west socfa of the proposed parking structure and pathway encroaches ' into the 30-foot Mill Creek setback 22 feet. The resuit is that the structure is right on the bank of Mi11 Greek w;th an exposed wall of the structure running the distance of tkae structure. Sta# believes the structure needs to be pulled bacSc frorn MilE Creek and should generally meet the 30-fioat setback requirement. Does tMe Commission befieve the parking structure is properfy loca#ed or should it be pulled back from Mill Creek? If the Gammissivn agrees +with staff tha4 the structure should be moved to the east out a# the setback is there a recommendation as to how far away frvm the creek it should be at a minimum? Staff previously identified the need a need for an extensiue traffie study to ~ examine the irripacts along Vaif Valley Druve from the Frontage Road to ~ Manor Vail with each intersec#ion examined closefy for impacts. After the applicant reduced the number of parking spaces and is curren3iy praposing fo provide additional parkang to service their proposed used sofely as required by Code, staff has determined tha:t a traffic study wilV no longer be needed. Does the Cammission believe a traffie study is needed to evaluate this praposal? Proposed Creafion of Covered Pedestrian Walkwav and the Relocation af the ~ Existinq Path The proposal ineludes the construction of a one story efement which wcruld bridge Bui4dings B and D and create a covered pedes#rian way Eeading to Ford Park. The height of the opening would be 14 fee# to accommodate the access of delivery trucks and fire equipment. Staff has concerns over the enclasure of the pedestrian way leading frarn Vail , Valley Drdve to Ford Park. Staff's concerns are that the heavily utilized I pedestrian way will take on the appearance of being a private feature. In ' addition, one a# the great amenities afi the pedestrian way is the view of ~ the Gore Range in the distance as yQu are heading east into Ford Park ; which would be obstructed from view if a an addition was insta9led to bridge Buildings B and D. To address this cpncern tne application is prQpasing the connection to be 6.5' wide v+rith large glass windows which ~ will make the connsction more transparent. 6 ~ What if any cancerns does the Commissivn harre regarding the covering of the public pedestrian way ieading from Vail Valley Drive to Ford Park? What suggestians does the Cammission have regarding mitigatian of any foreseen impacts? The applicant has also proposed to relocate 1he existing path north af its current 9ocatian which would aIfow at to be incorporated inta the proposed landscaped gardsns on the surface af the parking structure. The applicanf relocated the path to be on the surface of the parking structure to address statf's concern that there may be a conflicf betnreen vehicles and pedestrians with the path in its current location and the praposed enfry to ihe parking structure. The applicant also moved the path intn the proposed landscaped garden to address a concem from a previaus meeting that the propo$ed garden would appear too "private" and not "public°. Staff believes these are valid reasons ta move the path. Hawever, the proposed confoguratuan is circuitous and staff believes that many pedestrians wili choose to wvalk down the entry road to Manor Vail. The relocation of the pat'h and installation of 11 surface parking spaees will eliminate the mature trees which fine the currenf path. Does the Comrrtission believe that the relocated pedestrian path is apprapriate? ls.their any public krenefi3 to routing the path through the proposed landscaped garden area? ~ PUlitiqation of Development Impacts Pursuant tv Section 12-7A-14, Mitigation of Development Impacts, Vail Tawn Code, "Property owners/developers shall also be responsibfe for mrtigatirrg direct impacts of their development on pubiic anfrastructure and in aJI cases mitigation shafl bear a reasonable relation to fhe develapment impacts. Irnpacts rrray be derermined 6ased on reports pre,pared by qualified cansultants. The extent n# mitigatiQn and public amenlty im,provements shall6e balanceci wifh the goafs af redevelvpment and will 6e determined by the Plannr"ng and E'nvironmental Cammission in review of development prvjects and condifional use perrnifs. Substanfial aff-site lmpacts may irrclude, but are nat limired to, ihe fallowing: deed restricted employee hausing, roadvvay rmprovements, pedestrian walkway r`mpravemenis, streetscape improuemenfs, stream tract/barrk restoratian, fcaadrng/delivery, public art improvements, and similar impravements. The intertf of this Secfion is fo only require mitigatron for large-scale redevelopment/developmenf projects which produce substantial vff-srfe 1mpacts. " The applicant is proposing to add buJk, mass, and height t4 all the buildings on the site. A partiQn of the proposed bulk and mass exceeds the maximum allowed Gross Residential Floor Area by 20,446 square ~ feet with 3,094 square feet of that being witFain the setbacks on the site. The heights af the buildings exceed the maximum permitted heigh# in dhe HDl+JiF zone tiistrict of 48 feet with proposed heights of 58.6 feet in it's 7 worst case. The propased floor additians ta the buildings measure ~ approximately 22 feet from the floar plate to the taClest interior ridge. The height can be seen on the proposed fcaurth floar plans which identify a poterrtial mezzanine measuring 450 square feet. 5taff believes as well as the Design Review Board that the proposed bulk, mass, and height can be reduced which would greatly mitigate the irnpacts. Daes the Commissiart believe the proposed bulk, mass, and height ! are acceptable? Should the bulk, mass, and height be reduceci to mitiga#e some of #he impacts? P Are there any other specific mitigating measures that the appricant shvuid be pursuing at this time as part of this development application? Public Benefits Pursuant to Sect4an 12-9A-1, Purpose, in part, of the Vail Town Code, "The purpase af the Special Development Distrlct is to encourage flexibility and creativity irr the development of Iand in order to promote its mosr apprapriate use; to rmprove the design character and quality of the new development with fhe Town; to facr"litafe the acfequate arrd i econamical provrsion of sireets and utilities; to prese,rve the raatural and ~ scenic features of open space areas; and to further the overall goals af ~ the communrty as stated in the Vai! Comprehensive Plan. ,4n approved development plan for a Speeia! Developmerrf District, in conjunefion witft the property's uncFerlyfng zane district, shall establrsh fhe requirements for guidirag development and uses Of ptOpE!"ty/ rncluded in the Special Development Drstrict. The Special Qeveloprraent District does not apply fo and is naf available in the following zane districts: Hillside Resideniial, Singte-Family, Duplex, PrimarylSecondary. The elements of the , development plarr shall be as outlirred in Section 12-9A-6 of this Article. " I Furtherrnore, Sections 12-9A-8, Design Criteria, and 12-9A-9, Deve6oprnent Standards, of the Vai{ 7'own Code, states, in part, 'Yt shall be the burden of the applicanf to dernonstrate that submittal material and the propQSed development plarr campty with ihe development siandards and design criterra, or demanstrate that one or mare of them is not applfcable, or that a practlcal salution consistent wdth the public inferesf has been achieved." And, "Development standards lncluding !ot area, site dimensions, sefbaeks, height, density cantrol, site coverage, landscaping and parkrng shall be determined by rhe Town Council as part af fhe appraved development plan winc consrderation of the recommendatlons of the Plannr'ng and ~ Environmenial Commrssran. Before the 7ouvn Councrl approves ~ development standards that deviate from the underlyrng zone disfrrct, it should be defermined that such deviatron provides berreirts ta the 7°awn 8 ~ that outweigh the adverse effects of such deviation. This determrnation is to be made based on evaluation of the proposed speciaJ development district"s campliance with the design crfteria nutlined in Section 12-9A-8 of this Articfe. „ The applicant has prQpaset3 deviations to the maximum allowable building height limitation of 48 feet, the maximum aflowablE Gross Residential FiQOr Area, the maxicnum number of dwelling units, and mvEtiple encroachments into the requared setbacks. The addition of a fourth floor to a porfion of Buildings A and B and full fourth floor added to bvildings C, Q, E, and F arad the addition of third floor connectians between Builc4ings D artd E, E and F, B and D, and B and C. The maximum height of the structures is approximately 68.5 feet in height at its worst case arad porkdons of the proposal extend inta the required setbacks. The propased additions would create 7 units and 20,446 square feet of Gross Residential Floor Area in excess of zhat perrnitted by the existing zoning. The proposed parking structure is Iocated approximately 8 feet frorra the center line of Mil[ Creek which has a 30-foot setback by Cvde. Prior to the request for deviations frorn ihe develapment standartls, the Cammiss6on and Council must make a findFng that the said deuiations provide benefits fo the Town that ovtweEghs the adverse effects of such deviations. Staff wauld recommend that the applicant and Commission discuss the magnitude of the requested deviations and ihe public benefits that may ar may not exist with the request. Historically, the Tawn has recognized such benefits as off-site ~ streetscape improvements, heated surfaces, landscaping, employee housing, etc. as possible public benefits. Daes the Gommission betieve that the requested deviations are appropriate given the prescribed criteria? Does #he project have significant public benefits proposed which bafance the increased development potential? What additional information may the Commission need #o respond to the questEVns of aduerse effec#s versvs public bene#its? Vlihat ideas does the Commission have on what they vuoulcf like to see occur along Mill Creek and Gare Creek in #erms of improvements to be vaiued as a pubtic benefit? Wou4d the creation of apool of water and the addi#ian of landscaping alang Mi1t Greek be a pubfic benefit? V4lould the creation of a walking path aCong the Gore Creek with pockets for bench@s be a public benefit? The Town has identified the need to maintain and increase aur stock of accammodation units as wvell as increase the quality of existing accommodatian units. Manor Vai! As a wholly owned condominium project that has operated fQr years as a lodgelho#el. The applicant vvill be retra-fitting all the units and buildings with a monifored fire alarm system along with this proposaL ~ Does the Cammission see the improvements propcased to Manor Vail as a public benefit as it vncrease the quaiity o# #he units which are rented as if 9 they vurere accommoda#ion units? ~ Does the addition of GRF'A in excess of that permit#ed which will be included in the rental pool represent a public benefit? Does the Cammission view the proposed fire sprinkler system as a public i benefiit as it will make an existing property safer for gues#s? ~ The applicant has proposed a turn-around area for vehicles in the propased ' parking area aff of Vail Valley Drive. The applicanf has proposed this design as ' they believe it may help with the traffic cangestion an VaiE Vafley Drive which has i been identified as a significant probfern. ~ Does the Commission view the traffic #urn-araund an 11ai1 Vailey drive as a I public bene'fit? ~ VI. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS The foliowing section of this memorandum is inclucled to provicEe the appfpcant, cammunity, staff, and Gommission with an advanced understanding of the ~ criteria and findings that will be used by the reviewing boards in making a final ~ decisian on the proposed appCicatiflns. Conditional Use Fermit Criteria and Findings r ' A. Consideration of Factors ReQardinq Gonditianal Use Permits: 1. Relationship and impact of the use on the development objectives af the Town. 2. The effect of the use an light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schoaEs, parks and reereation ; facilities, and other public faciiities needs. E 3. Effect upon traffic with particular reference ta eongestion, automatiWe and pedestrian safety and eonvenience, traffic flow ' and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and parking areas. 4. Effect upan the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be lacated, including the scale and bulk af the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. ! ~ B. The Planninq and Enviranrnental Commission shall make the ~ followinq findinqs before grantinq a conditional use permit: ~ ' ~ 1. That the propesed lacatian of the use is in accordance with the purposes of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code and the purpases of the Public ~ Accommodation zone district. 10 ~ 2. Thaf the proposed location af the use and the conditions under which it will be operated or maintained wial not be detramental to the public hea6fh, safety, or vwelfare or materially injurious to praperkies or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed use wilV comp{y with each of the applicable provisions of the conditional use permit section of the zon6ng code_ Special Develapmenf Dfstrrct 12-9A-8: DESfGN GRJTERfA: The fo1lowing design criteria shall be used as the principal criteria fn evaluating the merits of the proposed special develca}ament districL It sha1l be the batrderr of the a,pplr`cant ta demonstrate that submittal material and the proposed develop,meni plan compiy with each of the following starrdards, or d'emonstrate that ane or rrrore of them is no# ap,olicable, ar fhat a practical solution consisfent with the public interest has been achieved: A. Compatibilify: Design compatibility and sensitivity to the rrnmedr'afe environment, neighborhood and adjacent properties relative fo architectural design, scafe, bulk, ~ burlding height, buffer zorres, id'entity, character, visual rntegrity and orientation. B. Relationship: Uses, activity and densfty which provr'de a eompatible, efiicient and worka,ble relationship wlth surrounding uses and activrty. C. Parking And Loading: Compliance with parking and loading requiremenfs as otrtlrned rn Ghapter 10 of this Title. D. Corrrprehensive Plan. Canformrty with applicable elements of the Vai! Comprehensive Plan, Town policies and urban d'esign plans. - E. Naturaf And/C3r Geolagic Hazard: Identificarion and mifigation of natural and/or geologic ha,zards that affect flae property orr whlch the speciat developmerrt distrrct is praposed. F. Desr`gn Features: Sife plan, building design arrd locafion and open space provisioras desrgned to produce a functional develaprnent resporrsive and sensftive tQ natural features, vegetation and overall aesthetic qualfty of the community. G. Traffic: A circufation sysfem designed for bpth vehicles and pedestrians addressing on arrd off site traffic circulatian. H. Landscaping: Furrctronal and aesthetic landscaprng and oper? space in order to optimize and preserve natural features, recreation, views and function. ~ I. Workable Plan: Phasing plan or su6division plan that wi!l marntaan a workable, functiorral and efficienf relatr`onship thraughout the development of the speGral development ~1 _j I drs trict. ~ VII. STAFF REC4MMENDATIUN As this is a work session, staff will noi be pre+viding a staff recommendation at I this time. Staff will pravide a staff recommendation a# the time of a final review of this application. For future referenee purposes only, pursuant to Section 12-7A-13, Vail Town ; Code, the applicant shall be required to meet a compliance burden and ; demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the proposed application conforms tQ the requirements prescribed far such application. Section 12-7A-13 ~ states, "COMPLIANGE BURDEIU.• !t shall be the burden of the applicant fo prove by a preponderaRCe of the evrdence before the Plannrng and Environmentaf Commission and the Design Revrew Baard that the praposed exterlor alteration or new developrrrent is in compliarrce with the purposes of the Publie Accommodation Zone aisfrict, that the pra,posal is conslstent wrth ap,alicable elemenfs af the Vail Village Master Plan, fhe Vai! Village Uraan Design Guide Pfan and fhe Vai! Streetscape Master Plan, and that the proposal does nof Qfherwise have a srgnrficant negatrve effect on the ~ character of the neigh6orhoQd, and that the proposal substantia!!y ~ camplies with other applicable elements of fhe Vail Gomprehensive Plan." I XI. ATTACHMENTS ~ A. Vicinity Map ~ B. Letter fram the applicant dated February 27, 2004 ~ C. Proposed elevations and floor plans dated February 27, 2404 ~ D. December 3, 2003, Design Review Board comments E. December 2003, Planning and Environmental Commission minutes ; F. December 17, 2003, Design Review Board camments 1 G. January 12, 2004, Planning and Environmental Commissian minutes H. March 3, 2004, Design Review Board comments 1. Public Works comrnents dated December 2$, 2003 and February 20, 2004 ` J. Public Notice ~ [ ~ ! v ~ 3 ~ 12 _ j 1 - - &A f ~ ~ m~ ,re~y.~e~'eL • s ~N 't Da ~ x a ` ~ r `'t tr~ . KN ~`wwY~ a rm-~. t ~a,a`[."ds : ~ .y "N . i _q `*t ' r S 9 k V ~ ~ 3 ~~k~,~ n NO,~ lf ~ /A cI Y/ 5~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i M{ Y 3~ a ; ~ ~ 7E`i r~rJ ~ ~~d` ~"z. 73 ~ . ~ ~ ' 4., ?i,~`1h ~y'~,. ~ F~ar~P k ~1 t ~ .t N ~ •'~a~"r~A~ ~ i~~,e ~ c ~~.a~«~ .~bs4': .q q i ^ ~5 C) ~ ~ T~ 'S rv ~p dr~ •Y Y p ~ -3-.z ' sk"n. = W 7 ~ ~ ~ ~ t5su . ~ ~ '~~~""j ~ . ~-„.,.a~'~ . p~~.~E;' ~'s '~a ~";~~t , Rk 3 . kw ~s ~`++'s' - t 4 i'Sit'' f ~ •11 . ' `'~c$. ~JF . .x a.~ y ~ 1~ t t ~ j # ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ d 6 ~~q~ T ~ 2' ~ a _ ~ O..,.~ ; . - ~ . ~ : .d gw V { *a a'; -k z l~ M * { r ` r ,C r . t A A ..•Y~' 4.,.--s ~ ~ . .f"' ^bkd' 7 7,1 M r > M~r'~r~ ~ " x# 4,~"` ~ "`s ~ .g, ~y~, ~ . Q ~^`l.x .ya~ ~ 5 ~ ? 'i~- ~ o a . . ~ .~.'``x. 44 -^s ~,,,L~'• OF ~fb h-1 '.0 ~a+v4 ~.k", M . ~ d `~~!Y ~ i~ y~+ • 4 _ a?, ~ "'ka~a,)~ ~~.?~q All; S'~~~ ` # 1'~ ~`4~ ~~yw,•'.~ ~ 1 ~N~ : 1b S °w`! C,y :y py ~M~ i ''iie l 9 f ~ ~k ~•F' X'^~ Jf . ~.u4 yxr Ah i~ ~ N~ a'°3 Sa'$. 74 Afitachment; A . • ~°5 'a' 9 r"~ : * .v r~ 3 .r : --W~c L Y? , . :Ay,~y+".'-." ~ MANOR VAIL LC3DGE STUDID AND MANC?R HOUSE RENQVATION AhJD ADQITIQN Development Plan , February 27, 2004 ~ RROJEC'i' GOALS f BENEF'IT5 TO THE TOWIV OF VAIL RESPQNSIVEMESS TO THE VAIL VILLAGE MA57ER PLAN The goals of this project respand to #he Vail Village Master Plan's objective to enhance the exterior by praposing ~ the fallowing: ' Remodeling the exterior of all buildings Praviding underground parking at the Studio Buildings ~ Expanding the Open Space ' Expanding the landscape area Enclosing the back-of-house at Building B Enhancing the Ford Park Access Cleaning up Mill Creek Cleanirag up Gore Creek =XTERIOR REMODEL Fhe g021s for Buiidings A, B, C, D, E and F ara to remode] the exterior to a mounfain lodge theme while rr?aintaining ~ .he aesthetic sameness thaf they currently enjoy. It is essentiaf ihat the buildings provide a uniformity due to the fact that his is an existing property wi#h an existing ownership group. One building cannot be pereeived as having an advantage n appearance over another. Each building has snme subtle dif#erences to provide some individualiry, yet each rerrzains 3art of one whole that defines the north edge of the property. These differences include changes in dormer efements, gable •oof forms, and differeni railing treatments. In addition to the aesthetics af these buildings, Manor Vail Lodge is upgrading ~ he egress stairs and providing ADA accessible e[evators. ~ i ~ JNdERGROUND PARKING t is proposed to reioeate alf af the surFace parking the 5tudia portian of the praject to two below grade parking levels. 'arking for the Manor Hause partion of the project will be achieved through surface parking. ~ I j =XPAND 4N C1PEN SPACE I ; Fhe goaE for the site is to expand the amount of open space. 1# is praposed to add .74 acres of land to apen space ~ i landscaped area. This is being accomplished 6y replacing the surface parking with below grade skruetured parking, 3dding gardens ancf siane walls #o encapsulate the entire parking structure, and relocating the maintenance sheds hat are attached to buildings D and E to the underground parking structure. .ANDSGAPING .aatdscaping an additionai .74 acres will be dane over the tops of the below grade parking struckure at khe Studio iuildings and araund the reduced surface parking area at the Manor Hause Buildings. ~ 3ACK OF HC}USE ENCLQSURE A7 BUILDING B -he back af house is proposed to be enclased within the new Bui6ding B footprint, ~ kDDITIC}NAL UNITS 1 GRFA ~ t toEai of 17 units are being requested, 7 of which exceed what is allawed by HDMF zoning. 4f these urtits, 6 are being equested over Building S at the 3rd and 4th lewels, and one over Building A a# the 4th level. Ten units are being requested ~ rver Built9ings D, Eand F at the 4th I+evel, and between Buiidings D/E and EIF at the 3rd level allQwing a tvvo story high lassageway befween buildings D, E and F at grade. 1 I i Prepared by, Me[ick Assaciates Anachment: B I', MANOR VAIL LODGE _ STUDIO fiND MANOR HOUSE RENC}VATION AND ADDITION Development Plan February 27, 2004 EONCED FORD PARK ACCESS The Ford Park Access is being maantained and eombined with the addikion of the gardens directly to the n+orth. Pavirag rnaterials will link the existing access point to the west with the existing walkway in the TCDV property alarag the Gore Creek. Yhe bridge link between Buildings B and D will act as a welcoming portal to Ford Park. PARKUNG A two IeveI 134 space underground parkirag structure is being proposed along wi3h 11 surface spaces on the Studio portion af the project in front of Buildings D, E artd F. Surface parking accornmodating 77 parking spaces is praposed for the lulanvr House partion of the project. This wilB accommodate parking spaces fiar the existing units as well as the new units plus employee hausing. A turn around is proposed a# the entry ta this surface parking area to salve what the TOV has pointed out as a problem aiong East Vail Valley arive. EMPLOYEE HQUS[NG UNITS New Employee Housing Uni#s are proposed to aecomrriodate 7 beds. This represents 87% of the 8 new ernployees #hat will be requiTed ta opera#e this property+. CLEAINUP OF MILL CFfEEK It is praposed thak the Mill Creek be cleaned to enhance ihe natural beauty of khis waEer feature and its interaction within the Manor Vail Lodge property. CLEANUP OF GORE CREEK it is prapased that the Gore Creek be cleaned up to enhance the natural beauty of this water Feature and to open up the views to the creek and to the Gtire Range beyond. Further stucGy is required to determine the scope of this work on TOV property. PIOPt3SED SPECIAL dEVELOPMENT DISTRICT ENTI7LEfYIENTS SDD PROPOSAL AS COIVIPARED TC1 HDMF ZON[NG REQUIREMENTS SITE AREA Exisking Site Area {acres} 5.44 ACRES Exisling Site Area (square feet) 236,966.4 SF gUILDABI.E SfTE AREA Flaod Plain Along Gore and MiII Creeks 4,034 SF Buildable Site Area -(square feet) 232,932.4 SF Buildable 5ide Area -(acres) 5.3 ACRES DENSIT'Y 1 #IJNITS ALLOWABLE - HDMF RATIO 25 Units per Buildable Acre # UN1TS 133.68 Units PROPdSEQ-SDD # UiVITS Existing Units 923 New Unats 17 Total Units 140 VARiANCE -6.32 - 7 104.72% over HaMF al9owatale ~ Prepared by: Melick Associa#es "l MANQR VAIL LODGE STUDIO AND MAN+QR HOUSE RENC?VATION fi,Nm AbDITlON DevelQpment Plan February 27, 2004 ~ GRFA - Existing and New Unit Calculations , Remain Existin xo Remain Existrn to Rerriain Exist6n to Remain Pro osed a Gnit GFR,A Unit GFRA Urtit GFRA lJnit GFRA Unit GFRA BuiBding A Building C Buidding D Building E Building A 1 1,340.00 202 1,376.00 316 652.32 425 652.32 4A 2,893.00 2 1,340.00 203 1,376.00 317 652.32 426 652.32 Building B 3 1,380.00 204 1,373.00 410 652.32 427 652.32 4B 3,956.04 ~ 4 1,380.00 205 1,512.00 411 652.32 Buelding F 4C 3,140.00 ~ 5 1,380.00 206 1,512,00 412 652.32 110 652.32 Building C 6 1,380.00 207 1,373.00 413 652.32111 652.32 4D 4,280.00 " 7 1,380.00' 208 1,376.00 414 652.32 112 652.32 4E 2,951.00 ~ 8 1,380.00 209 1,373.00 415 652.32 113 652.32 4F 2,963.00 9 1,380,00 301 1,369.00 416 652,32 230 652,32 4G 2,876.00 10 1,380.00 342 1,376.00 417 652.32 231 652.32 EHUs 11 1,380.00 303 1,376.00 Building E 232 652.32 Link Between E&F 12 1,380.00 304 1,373,00 220 652.32 233 652.32 3A 582.00 13 1,380.00 305 1,512.00 221 652.32 234 652.32 3B 530.00 14 1,384.00 306 1,512,00 222 652.32 235 652.32 Link Between D&E 15 1,340_00 307 1,373A0 223 652.32 236 652.32 3C 886.00 16 1,340.00 308 1,376.00 224 652.32 237 652.32 3D 657A0 Building B 309 1,373,00 225 652.32 330 652.32 4th Floor D, E, F 47 1,338.00 Buifding D 226 652.32 331 652.32 4A 3,287.00 18 1,336.00 210 652.32 227 652.32 332 652.32 aB 3,287.00 ; 19 1,368.00 211 652.32 320 652.32 333 652.32 4E 3,288.00 20 1,368.00 212 852.32 321 552.32 334 652.32 4F 3,288.00 30ding C 213 652.32 322 852.32 335 652.32 4J 3,257.00 ~ 103 1,369_00 214 652,32 323 652.32 336 652.32 4K 3,260.00 1 2 1,376.00 215 652.32 324 652.32 337 652.32 03 1,376.00 216 652.32 325 652,32 430 652.32 104 1,373.04 217 652.32 326 652.32 431 652.32 105 1,59 2,00 310 652.32 327 652.32 432 652.32 106 1,512.00 311 652.32 420 652.32 433 852.32 { 107 1,373.00 312 652.32 421 652.32 434 652.32 ~ 108 1,376.00 313 652.32 422 652.32 435 652.32 i 109 1,373,00 314 652.32 423 652.32 436 652,32 ~ 201 1,369.00 315 652.32 424 652.32 437 652.32 3T 41,337.04 ST 33,043.48 ST 20,221.92 ST 20,221.92 ST 45,381.00 sRFA ACLaWABLE - HDMF RATIO 60°10 60 sf of GRFA per 100 sf af buifdable site area GRFp 139,759 GRFA i PROPC7SED - SDD Existing GRFA 114,824 New GRFA 45,381 Total GRFA 160,205 ' VARIANCE -20,446 -14,63% over HDMF ailowable ' P Prepared by: 9Vlelick Associales NIANOR VAI1. LODGE - STUDIO AND MANQR HQUSE RENOVATION AND ADDITION Development P6an February 27, 20D4 ~COVERAGE ALLOWABLE - HDtUIF RATIC7 55°/a SITE COVERAGE 130,332 Total Site Coverage PROP05ED-SDD Building A 15,327 Building B 17,500 Building C 14,128 Building D 7,123 Building E 7,143 Building F 7,143 Su6Total 68,364 Head Houses 641 Stairs, elevators Air Rights 3,846 Links @G/C, BID, DfE, E1F TotaE 72,$51 VARIANCE 57,481 44% under HDMF allowable SETBACKS The above ground decfcs do not exceed the lesser af 5' pr % the required setback. 7he ground fevel patios da not exceed the lesser of 10' or'/a the required setback. 7he architectural projectians do nat exceed 4' into #he required setback. FROCJT ALLOWABLE - HDMF 20 • PROPQSED-SDD 20 VARIANCE 0 SfDE ALLOWABLE - HDMF 2(} PROPQSED - SDD 20 VARIANCE 0 REAR ALLOWABLE - HDMF 20 PROPOSED - SDD 0 (CLOSEST POIEVT, SEE PLAN) VARIANCE 20 100% ower HDNCF 0% over Lionshead EXISTING F3UILDINGS IN TME SETBACK GRFA GSF Existing Building A at first floor (front setback) - 589 Existing Building A at second and third fEoars (front setback) 684 $80 Existing Building B at first floor - 521 Existing Building B at second and third floors 170 222 Existing Building C at first - third floors 8,643 9,890 Existing Building p at basement - 17 Existing Building D at first - third floors 24 51 S U BTQTAL 9,521 12,170 PROPOSE[] BIJILDINGS IN THE SETBACK Building B ak first floar - - Building B at secorad floor - - ~ Building B at third floor - - Building B at fourth flaor 85 287 Link beh+veen Building B and C at first fl4or - 256 Building C at second floor - 146 Prepared by: Melick Associates MANOFi VAIL LODGE STUDIO AND MANOR HOUSE RENC7VATIUN AND ADDITIQN Development Plan I February 27, 20~4 ~ Building C at third floor - 147 Building C at faurth floor (in Building B) - - Building C at fifth flaar 2,881 3,441 Buildings D-F at basement - 26 Buildings D-F at firs# floor - 64 Buildings D-F at secand floor - 64 Buildings D-F at th°rrti floor 126 175 SuiEdings D-F at fQUrth #loor 2 41 E3uildings D-F at fif#h floor - - SUBTOTAL 3,094 4,647 ~ i E?CfSYING ROOF OVERHANGS MORE THAN FQUR FEET 1N THE SEl"BACK ; Existing raof overhang at existing Building A - 32 €xisting roof overlnartg at existing Building C - 860 7UQTOTAL - 892 s PRC}POSED RC?OF C3VERHANGS MQRE THAN FQUR FEET IN THE SETBACK Roof overhang a# Building 6 - 40 RQof overhang at Building C - 947 Roof averhang af Buildings D-F - gg SUBTOTAL - 1,C) $6 E7CISTlNG BALCONIES MOR'E THAN FIVE FEET 1N THE SETBRCK Palcony et Building A at second and thurd tloors (frcant setback) - 48 ~ Balcony at Building B at second floor - 68 Balcony at Building B at third floor - 80 ~ Balcony at Building C at secQnd and third floors - 2,870 Balcony at Building D at first - third floors - 57 ~ 7UB7O7AL - 3,123 PRbPQSED B.ALCONIES MORE THAN FlVE FEET CN THE SETBACK ~ Balcany at Building B at third floor - - ~ Balcony at Building B at fourth floor - - I Balcany at Building C at fourth flaor - 1,637 ~ Balcony at Building D at fourth floor - - ~ 8alconies at Buiidings D-F at third floor - 26 ~ Balconies at Buildings a-F at fourth flaar - 3 I Ba6conies at Buildings D-F at fifth fl4or - - j SUBTOTA.L - 1,666 ~ T4TALS 12,615 23,584 ; % aF ALL GRFA 1N SETBAGK VS. T"C}TAL GRFA 7.87% % 4F EXISfiING GRFA IN SETBACK V5.1'OTAL GRFA 5.94% ~ % OF NEW GRFA IN SETBACK VS. T07AL GRFA 1.93% ~ i MILL. CREEK , ALLOWABLE - HDMF 30 firom cenEerline af Milpcresk I PRC)PaSED - SD97 14 (CLOSEST POINT, SEE PLAN) VARIANCE 16 Studio parking structure, mechanical and maintenance 9s partiafky in setback, 1900 sf ~ I 4 Prepared by: Melick Associates ~ ~ MANOR VAIL LODGE . STUD14 AND MANOR HOUSE RENOVATI4N AND ADDITION Devefapment Plan February 27, 2004 B&ING HEIGHTS ALI.OWABLE - HDfvIF 48 BUILDING A PROPOSED - SDD Main Ridge 47.83 based on interpolated grade VARlANCE - HDMF 0.17 under F'ROPOSEf7 - SDD Gable Ridge 52.3 based on interpalated grade 56.16 at north face of building VA,REANCE - HUMF -8.16 over BUILDING B PRQF'OSED - SDD Main Ridge 47.83 based on interpalated grade VARIANCE - Hi]MF 0.17 under PROPOSED - SDD Gable Ridge 52.83 based an interpolated grade 57.12 af north face af building VARIANCE -9.12 aver PRQPOSED- SDD Lord Gore Ridge 55.3 based on interpolated grade 57.83 at north face of building VARIANCE - HDMF -9.83 over PROPOSED - SDD Labby Ridge 32 UARIANCE - HDMF 18 under LINK S/C PRQPQSED - SDD 40.75 VARIANCE - HDMF 7.25 under LINK B1D PRQPOSED - SDD 49 ~ VARlANCE - HDMF -1 aver BUILaWG C PROPOSED - SDD Main Radge 53.54 VARIANCE - HC3IViF -5.54 over PROPOSED - SDD Gable Ridge 54.62 VARIANCE- HDMF -6.62 over BUILDING D PROPOSED - 5DD Main Ridge 55.8 VARIANCE- H17MF -7.6 over PROPOSED - SD[7 Gabie Ridge 5$.66 VARIANCE- HDMF -10.66 avar LINK D/E PROPOSEd - SDD 45 VARIANCE - HDMF 3 under BUiLDING E PRdPOSED - SDD Main Ridge 55.6 . VARlANCE - HDMF -7.6 over PROPOSED- SDQ Gable Ridge 58.66 VARIANGE - HDMF -10.66 over L]NK EIF PROP4SED - SDD 45 VARIANCE - HDMF 3 under ~ BUILDING F PROPC7SED - SDD Main Ridge 80.75 based an interpoEated grade 85.91 at north face 4f building VARIANGE- HaMF -17.91 aver, worst case at north builtiing face PROPOSED-SDD Gable Ridge 63.92 based on interpofated grade 68.66 at north face of building Prepared by: Mefick Associates - MANOR VAIL LOC3GE STUDIO AND MANUR NQUSE RENOVATION ANQ ADaITION Development Plan ' February 27, 2004 VARlANCE- HDMF -20.66 aver, worst case at north building face f AVERAGE MIAJCIhJIUM HEIGHT 52.8 VARIANCE - HDMF -4.8 over RaOF AREAS OVER 48 FOOT MDMF HEIGHT LIMETATION totaY roof area roof area over 48' BUILDINGS D, E, F ROOF AREA 27,9$0 21,710 BUfLDI'NGS A, B, C ROOF AREA 46,310 19,392 TO7ALS 74,294 41,102 , VARiANCE - FiDMF 55°l0 over i PARIClNG ' Surfaee Parking - All parking is below grade with the exceptiaro of three surface spaees on paved grade at the main entrance to the building and four surface spaces on paved grade on the Manar Hmuse side. ~ F'arking Decks - The decks of the underground parking are flat exce,pt to accorramodate surFace drainage. * Parking Spaces - The enclossd parking spaces are 90 degrees to the tirive aistle and 9' x 18', wEth 8' x 16' compact parking spaces not exceeding 25% of the to#af of the total required parking spaces. ! Height Clearance - The height clearance of the parking structure wiff be a minimurri ef 7" clear. ` Drive Aisles - The drive aiskes are two way and 24' wide. ` Ramps - The ramps betvveen levels are 24' wide wi#h 8%o slope. ' Street Entries - Both exis#ing curb cuts and entry drop aff at main lobby tfl remain. ` Curbs - Rolling curbs +rvill be provided to accommodate fire d@par#ment vehicles per Pub(ic Works. ~ e ' Drive Aisles - 24' wide two-way drive aisles accommodate 90 degree parking sta[Is. ` Turning Radius - 24' turraing radius to centerline is utilized at vehiGUlar traffic patterns per Public Works. ' Structural Columns - Structural coBumns approxirnately 14" w. x 22" d. will be locaQed on same parkang stripes. i REQl11RED STUDlO - PHASE 1 ~ Existcng Spaces 73 ' ~ New Un9# Spaces 23 (2 @ < 2000lunit, 2.5 @> 19991unit) Saleable Parking Spaces 0 ; EHU Spaces 4 {7 beds @ .57 spaces per bed} ~ Sub Totaf 100 ' I i REQl11F2ED MANOR HOUSE - PHASE 2 ~ Exis#ing Spaces 105 j New Unit Spaces 18 {2 @< 2000lunit, 2.5 @> 19991unit) ~ Saleable Parking Spaees 0 ~ Sub Total 123 . TOTAL PARKING SPACES 223 PARKING STRIDCTURE GROSS FLOOR AREA ~ Studiq Parking Structure 55,786 total af both levels ~ SURFpCE PARKI{VG ~ Sturlio 5urfaee Parking and Paved 13,623 Manor HQUSe Surface Parking and Paved 27,027 ~ TOTAL SURFACE PARKING AND PAVEQ 40,650 PROVIDED PARKIlVG SUNIMARY Studio SEructured Parking 134 Studio Surface Parking 11 Prepared by: Melick Associates - ~ MANOR VAIL LODGE _ STlJQlO AND MANOR HOUSE RENQVATION AND ADDITION Developrnent Plan ~ February 27, 2004 Manor House Surface Parking 77 TOTAL PARKING SPACES 222 UPEN SPAGE TOTAL LANDSCAPE AREA AIVD PA7HS 123,465 LANDSCAPE AREA % OF TOTAL S1TE AREA 52% EMPLOYEE HOUSING BEDS EXISTING 0 FROPOSED 7 7 beds in townhome style unit FUTURE UNDERGROUND IMPROVEMENTS FUTURE SPA 1,250 FUTURE BALLROOM 3,250 TOTAL 4,500 GRApING * Maximum Finished Grade - The maximum finished grade does not exeeed a 2:1 slope. The natural slope of ihe site is relakively flat. New grading ko accommodate drainage will be blended into the natural topography. The elevated portions af #he parking structure above natural grade will be treated with stone walls and terraced landseape areas to saften the difference in grade and create a natural appearance. " Existing Vegetation, Natural Features - The extent af the parking structure wikh surface gardens is being constructed within the existed surface parking Iot in front of Buildings D, E, and F. The existing poal will be reloca#ed to the narth and reconfigured. i"he access ta Fard Park will be maintained, Construciion Fence - The constructian site will be properly surrounded by a non-removable construction fence during #he construction process. Erosion Gantroi - Erosion control measures will be utiiized using the best managemen# practices. The erosion control plan will be prepared by a regis#ered Calorado Professional Engineer. FLOOD PLAIN Approxirnately 500 square feet 4fi 100 year fioorf plain encroaches over the property Eine to the northwest of Building F. There are no plans to grade within this aeea. RETAINING WALLS - * The parking s#ructure retaining wa[Is will be designed and stamped by a licensed P.E. Terrace walls will be within the 4' - 6' maxirr?um heaght range. Due to the relatively flat nature of the site retaining walls will not exist on slopes exceeding 30°fo. There are no retaining walls p9anned with the front setback or along the right-of-way. * Boulder retaining wa[Is will meet the standards of retaining walls, with a P.E. stamp if the slope exceeds 1:1. GEOLOGlC f ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARI3S * The site does not contain snow ava[anche, debns flow, rock fall, unstable soils or slopes or wetlands. FIRE DEPARTMENT ACCESS _ The design keam has agreed in concept to a design solution ta provide fire department aceess fram the en#ry drive at the hotel entry a0ong the front of Buildings D, E and F with a harrimer head tum araund. Fire Department access for the Manor House will occur in the sur{ace parking lot. UVe are currently finalizing details to these schemas. It is the intent of the design team to have this solution finalized prior to formaliy su6mitting to the DRS and PEG. ~ Prepared by: Melick Associates ' 2.27.44 MArJOR HaUSE +OPTlO1V W/ REQUCEa S.F. ` # oF (N) ~ NEW UNITS _ NSA # QF (N) UNITS G.R.F.A. GSF PARKING _ SPACES ; FIRST FLOOR _ Q fl 0 1468 0 TC7TAL CORES / LOBBY 1084 , EN7RIES 903 I MECHANICAL 384 SECQNO FLOOR 0 0' 0 986 tl TOTAL CaRES 986 3RD FLQOR TQTAL 0 0 904 ' 0 ~ CORES 904 4TH FLOGR @ 'A, : and 'B' BLbG, . ; 7bTAL 10346 3 9989 11447 7.5 - i i 4A 3008 2893 2.5 ' 46 40$5 3956 2.5 4C 3253 3140 2.5 ~ , 4TH FLOOR @'C' BLDG.TOTAL 13558 4 1W70 14284 10 ~ 1 4D 4437 4280 2.5 4E 3057 2951 2.5 ~ ~ 4F 3071 2983 2.5 i 4G 2993 2876 2.5 ~ I BUILDING TOTAL 23904 7 23059 29089 17.5 TARG ET 27500 11 32353 ADDITf014 SF -3596 -3264 ~ EFFICIENCY $2.18%o II PARKING REGlUIREMEN"TS EX6STING U6VIT SPACES 105 ~ NEW UNIT SPACES 18 7 UNITS TOTAL REQUfRED SPACES 122.5 SUEiFACE PARKlNG 77 24,588 PARKiNG PI E} 29,679 incl. head hauses TUTAL PROVIDED SPACES 77 SALEABLE SPACES ' . 0 I ~ . ~ i I a ' . ~ e~tl W v . .:.+I ' ' I Z , ~ 6 I ~ f I ~ W ~ m I Q OZL C9 w R j 2 ~ vf 4zp d.m'.'. i W W ~a E IV m ~ . ' . . ' ~ _ ~i ~ O O N N O o q~ Q h a tl ~ J . Y . . . . . . m X ~-m W ? W ~i n I C7 y - I Z t' L ~ t 1Im xm i I I - o i i ~ . • a 0 ~n o00 a~a~oooa I I v~ ~ I ~ a ~ O ~a ~ . _ _ ~Y z o N ~Z Q a7 4 , J 0 ~ . ' ~ Z 2 a 2 2 a LL ~ fC K iu1 j . cn r rc~ u w Z V F°< U t5 U U~ ~ ~ O U 3~ ~ ~ 'J. ? O C, F W t- LL li F r 2 w ~ .e F ' O` O w u~ J O d fC a . y, . y . w~ rcu1 Q d r~ p¢ a ry @ n ~ t, ~r r ~ ui ~~S] LL v~l j O k . Z V. " w N ~ O ~ w Design Rerriew Baard Comments ~ From DecembEr 3, 2003 Me+e#ing • The proposap is "tremenc{ous6y huge" and the impact on rteighboring properties will be "enormous", • Views frQm the Betty Fard Gardens and Ford Park wilE be negatiuely impacted. The view of seeing the praposed roaf of the Manor Vaif will be detrimental to the ambiance of Ford Park. • The propased links between the buildings v+rifl take away views to the Gare Range. • This proposal creates an 800-foQt plus long building with little change in the ridge line wnich creates the appearance of an unbraken wall. Massive structure awer a block Iong. • The balconies are very linear. Linear architeeture dorr+inates the facades. • The proposed additian appears to dauble the mass of the buildings which is far aiid above what is acceptable. The vaiume is too much. • The design looks very "city-like". • The benefits af the project come at a great sacrifice. • The previous plan for the addition of ane aevel to Buildings D, E, and F was mare in scale and character with the surrounding uses. It was an exciting proposal. ~ aon't see any public benefit other than underground parking. ~ • This site is tQO serve as the transition of the Vail Vi{lage into the residential neighbornaod. • Understand the di#ficulties of working with a large homeawners association in order ta achieve a project af this magnitude. * The design of the Austria Haus and Sannenalp Hotel are mare like the scale and architecture which shauld be proposed. • The trees afong Vail Valiey Drive are °sacred" and need to be saved as they heip to break up the mass of the buildings. There needs to be mare than ornamental trees planted on top of the parking structures to help break up the mass of the tauildings. May need ta put same tree we11s into the design of the parking structure. • Upgrade the facadas does not have the impact it should when old raQf forms such as the "saw-tooth" roof remain, , • This is a ftne piece of property and it deserves fine architecture. • The proposed height is too much to ask. • While the adaitioiial open area is gaod, it is Manor Vai1°s not the Town's. • Zhis is avery large project which will take several mee#ings to completely grasp and understand. ~ Attachmen#: a i PLAhlNING ANE} ENVIRONMENTAL CpMM1SSIQN ; PUBLiC MEETING ~ Monday, December 8, 2003 PR4JECT ORIENTATIDN f- Community Develoqment Dept. PUBLIC WELCOME 12:00 pm MENIBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT John Schofield Gary Hartman George Lamb Doug Cahill Roliie Kjesba Chas Bernhard# I Erickson Shirley ' Site Visits; 1. Vail Resorts Tennis CourCs-615 Vllest Fores# Road 2. David Irwin residence- 1955 Wes4 Gore Creek Drive 3. Michael and Iris Srnith- 44 West Meadow Drive 4. Ladge Tawer South- 164 Gore Creek Drive 5. Manor Vail Lodge- 595 Vail Valley Drive Driver; George NOTE: If the PEG hearing ex#ends until 6:00 p.m., the board may break far dinner from 6:00 - ~ 6:30 Public Hearinp - Tawn CoUncil Chambers 2:00 pm 5. A request for a recommendation to the Vail 7own Council for ihe establi$hment of Speciai Develapment District hJo. 38, Manor Vail Lodge, to allow for the redeveiopment of the Manor Wail Lodge, and a request for a conditiona] use permit to allow for the construction af Type III Employee Hausing Units, pursuan# to 5ection 12-6H-3, Vail Town Code, Iacated at 595 Vail Valley DrivelLots A, B, & C, Vail Village 7th Filing, and setting forth detaiis in regard thereto. Applicant: Manor Vail, represented by Melick and Associates Planner: Vllarren Campbell 1Narren Campbell gave a presentation per the memorarodum. The applicant Manor Vail, represented by Chip Melick with Melick and Associates, stated #hat this praposaf was a work in progress and that many benefits ta the Town wvuld resul# from the appraval af this project. He added that by enhancing the exterior Df the buildings, the proposal was in accordance with #he Vail Village Master Plan. He detaiied the plan to rerrhove the parking fram the surface of #he sfte arrd repiace it with underground parking, in fhe farm of a two level parking structure. Approximately 109 additianal parking spaces would be proposed, in accortfance with the need oudiined in the Lionshead Master Pfan far additianal parking within the Town. Efforts would be taken to visually enhance the access to Ford Fark and a clean-up of Mill Creek would be undertaken as well. He coniinued by detaiCing the proposal to add G new Employee Housing beds between Buildings B and C. ~ Thtirteen more units than were Gurrently aliowed uncier HDMF zoning uvere being requestecf. Attachment: E _ *VAII. ~'l~~'Az f~ I Site coverage would not be exceeded Under the new propasal. 1"he front and side setbacks would not change at ail. The rear setbacks would be reduced. He made seueral ~ cornparisflns between the proposed praject and buildings in the Lionshead areas. Regarding building height, he stated fihat 45% of the proposed roof area would be over the 4$' height limit for that zoning district. He again stated that compared with buildirrgs in the LiQnshead area, nQ percentage of the roofs would be aver the height requirernent. The additicanai 109 parking spaces would be for sale. Mr. Melick finished by stating that the amount of open space being added with the proposal iotafed to he over ane acre. Jim Lamont, Vail Village Hameawners Association, commented on the iack of comparisons between the Vail Viilage Master F'lan and this proposal. Warren Campbell responded #ha# in the Uai! Village Master Plan, an6y height requirements vwere coEnpared currErttly. No eomparisons had been made +nrith the Lionshead Masier Plan, as that area is entire4y different than the site in questions. One of the criteria in the Lionshead Master Plan regulated the total redevelopment af a property as opposed to a piecemeal approach. Jim Lam4nt asked if a pEan existed that assured architectural consistency of the buildings that were no# currently proposed to be remodeled. He noted that the 1960's roaf forms would not be carnpatible with the new roof farms being proposed. Roliie Kjesba mentioned his surprise at the changes that had taken plaee within the proposal since the last time the plan had besn submitted. The amount and the height of the proposed building was excessive, he felt. Gomparisons shouid not be made between Lianshead and the `Jillags since the areas are so drastically different. The cfiange in height from forty-eight ~ to seventy feet was substantial. Mr. Kjesbo stated that the increase in #raffic would be notable, though the proposed open space was nice. George Lamb agreed #ha# the new praposal was vastly different from the original proposal. The increase in bulk and mass was significant and the Lionshead guidelines should not be appfied tn the Manor Vai1 redevelopment. Substantial landscaping, not simpiy srnall shrubs, should replace the parking Eot that currently existed and was being relocated underground. He mentioned that the connection from the Village to the amphitheater should he maintained as it currently is and not fur#her narrowed. Erickson Shirley commenied that Vail Vil#age must remain unique. Any reason that would justify amending height restrictions must be "rrery compeHing°, he continued. He mentianed that a recent traffic analysis identified the area as handling traffic poorly: an increase in parking spaces at this site would further that problem. The public that enjoys Ford Park would be affected by the visual intrusion of increased height. The original proposal was more accepiable tharr the eurrent proposal. Chas Bernhardt liked the idea of putting the parking underground, but suggested #hat the applicant attempt ta drive on Vai] Valley Drive during a peak traffic #ime. Further cmngesiion was simp[y not needed, he cammented. The eharacter af the neighborhood would be . substantially aFtered with the increases in heigh# that were praposed. Mr. Bernhardt felt that this praperty was a#ransitianal area to a residential area, and the bulk and neight propnsals were nof appropriate. ~ John Schofield agreed that cpmparisaras w9th the Lianshead area should nat be made. 7'he plan previously submitted uvas rnore feasibEe. llnderground parking was definitely preferred. However, nothing would be approved that would result in an increase in traffic. The proposed neight af 71 feet was unacceptable. The recommendations of the Design Review Board were quite applicable. Mr. Schofieid felt that the pedesirian access to Fard Park ~should be enhanced, at the very least, as it was highiy used during the summer season. Chip Melick responded tfiat a link between builddngs Q, E anci F was stili desired, even if thaE ~ link anly consisted of one story. Would a proposal includ+ng those minimai connections be ~ acceptable? John Schofiield stated that the linear mass of the building was the most important issue, in the minds of the Comrnission. Eriksan Shiriey was interested in knowing how drastically the zoning regu9ations were being affected by the new propasal Mr. Melick was now suggesting. The applicant, Chip Melick, respanded #hat only a minimal height variance was formerly requested, which was eventually deemed unnecessary afiter further study. Jirn Lamont asked if an elevator woufd be required to serve the buildings, even under the revised proposal. John Schofield asked if the building was constructed under County regulations. Jim Lamont responded in the affirmative. Jahn Schafield commented that that cou[d partially justify the setback variances in question. . Chip Melwck asked if the scenario he suggested wauld be worthwhile to pursue ar not. Erickson Shiriey responded that he uvas still unsure af the public benefit that would resukt from tne propasal and compared ihis prapQSal with the Tivoli development, which pubGc benefit was extensively critiqued. Chip Melick respQnded that mare of a"Vilfage feeE" uvould be warked toward. John Schofield finished by encouraging the applicant ta proceed with positive ideas for ; redevelopment of the site. E . Jim Lamont stated his famiiiarity with the site and the complications that surrounded the redevelopment of the area. The skier drop ofif functions of Golden Peak would need to be ~ analyzed again, he commented. 1f the parlting Gould be designated to twa different areas, ~ the impacts upon through traffic could possibly be iewer. The efforts that had been undertaken to imprave the site were substantial, and applauded, he finished. Erikson Shirley restated the irriportance of public benefit in proposals simifar to this ane. The Tivali was granted a height variance to allow for proper constructian. The applicant requested that the project be tabled until January 12`h 2004. ; Motion: Rol(ie Kjesbo Second: GeorgeLamb Vote: 5-0-0 TABLED TO .lANUARY 12, 2D04. ~ i Design Review Board Comments ~ From December 17, 2403 Meeting • Questioned the height of each fiaor. The aciditional floor on Buildings D, E, and F is approximately 20 feet in height. This excess ceiling height could be used to hef pstep the roof forms. • The current proposal looks like ane long linear building. The projec# should look Eike a series of buildings as you travel dawn the street by u#i1izing different colors and ma#erials. ~ A;AOId th8 Ncamp1ex" appearance. There shauld be some cammon elements but alsa some differences in the building structures. ~ Cancerned abmut the tap of the parking deck. There needs to be some ful] size trees planted on the large open area created by the suEa-surface parking structure. Shrubs and ornamental trees are not going to be accep#able. • The Board appreciated the applicant making such dramatic changes in the eurrent praposal from tne initial proposaL • There is still a problem with the "saw-tovth" raof farms which are not propased to be changed. • Flat roaf on Building B not acceptable. Looks like a"Riverwalk" development building in EcfwarcEs. • The proposal stiil resembles a large cruise ship. • Height is still and issue in terms of the vievus which will be obstructed and the impact on Ford Par3C. ~ Bu6ldings D, E, and F appear "top heavy" because the proposed additional floar is so much taller than the exisiing floors. ~ Severak members expressed tha:t they didn't like #he links between buildings. The links block views of park and creek behNnd Buildings D, E, and F. The new[y proposed building links are less obstructive tnan previausly oppQSed. • The park on top of the parking structure should nat be flat. There should be more undulatian and a weN develaped landscape pian. • AskecE how the garage structure was to be vented and how it wauld be scraened. • The railings c?n the decks of the buildings create a cruise ship appearance. + The landscaping leading to Ford Park needs to be °dressed up°. • Suggested adding units on tQp of guildings A and B and eCimdnate the "saw toath" roof. • This proposal has came a long way, hawever, there is a lat more ta do. ~ Attachment: F PLANNING AND EN1fIRONMENTAl. COMMISSION PUBLlC MEETING ~ Monday, January 12, 2004 ' PROJECT ORIENTATIDN - Community Development Dept. PUBLIC WELCOME 12:00 pm MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT George Lamb Erikson Shirley Doug Cahilf Gary Har#man Chas Berhardt ~ John Schofield ~ RoIlie Kjesbo , i Site Visits • ~ 1. Viilage Center Commercial Candominiums-122 East Meadow Drive Driver: George NOTE: If the PEC hearing extends until 6:00 p.m., the board may break for dinner fram 6:00 - 6:30 Public Hearinq - Town CouRCil Chambers 2:00 pim 5. A request for a recornmendation to the Vail Town Council for the establishment of Speciaf Development District No, 38, Manor Vail Lodge, to allaw for the redevelopment of the Manor Vail Lodge, and a request for a conditional use permit to aIlaw for the construction af Type ll! ~ Employee Housing Units, pursuant to Seciion 12-61-1-3, Uail Town Code, located at 595 Vail ; Ualley Drive/Lots A, B, & C, Vail Village 7th Filing, and setting forth details in regard thereto. i Appficant: Manor Vail, represented by Melick and Assaciates Planner: Warren CampbelE TABLED TO FEBRUARY 23, 2004 MflTION: George Lamb SECOND: Doug Cahill VQTE: 5-0 Warren Campbell gave a presentation of fhe staff rrremgrandum. Rabert MeCleary presented the revisions made to the plans and respanded to quesiions af the Comrnission. The Cammission's questions focused on pedestrian access in and around the development site and the connectivity of the praposed buildings. Chip Melick discussed the proposed develapment and the standard from which the project deviated. John Schofield asked for pubfic comment. I There was no public comment. ' Gearge Lamb expressed his appreciation to the applicant for breaking up the proposed ridgeline. ~ He suggested that the applicant communica#e their plans with the residential owners in Golden Peak ` and other neighboring property ownews to avaid last minute conce+`ns abQUt irripacts to views to the i east. George stated that traffic impacts on Vail Valley Drive could be a Goncern_ Doug Cahill expressed a suggestion ta create the connectivity between build6ngs on the first fitaor i Attachment: G *VA" ' instead af the third iioQr. He suggested further research into the use of ths starplus parking spaces to avoid further cQngestirog Vail Valley Qrive. He questioraed the applicant's intent to "cEean up" the Gore Creek and Mill Creek riparian corridors. ~ Chas Bernhardt indicated that he liked this proposal better than the previous plan. He felt that landscaping should be considered to help visually break mass the horizontal mass of #he buiidings. Chas suggested that the applicant conceptually explors the possibi6ity Qf farge trees in the landscape pEan. John Schofield stated his concern that the redevelopment of residenttal candam6raiums can not rely sofely upvn deviations from the cfevelopment regulatians to "fund" renovation pro}ects. That saad, he suggested the applicant now submdt a complete application and proceed tQwards a decision ofi the Cornmassion. He expressed ihat building bulk and mass and building he%ght were the twa mast irnportant concerns of the Gommission and needed to be addressed. He further stated that parkirag and impacts to traifiic an Vail Valley Drive. Roliie Kjesba arrived. (2:50 pm) John Schofield s3ated that if the negative impacts of parking could be addressed, then surplus parking on the Manoc Vabl Lodge devePopment site could be acceptable. Lloyd Bishop responded to the Commissioner"s comments. ~ ~ 2 Design Review Board Camments ~ From March 3, 2004 Meeting • Recagnize difficult working with such a large ownership, however, at some point decisions based on gaod design need to occur versus always evaluating an idea based on haw the ownership wilk react. • Landscape pEan has came along way for the positive. Still concerned that na large trees can be planted on top of the structure and that trees along the existing walkway and en the southern parking lot along Vaif ValEey Drive are being removed. • Do not befieve many peaple wwll choose to walk on the relocated path to Ford Park. The mast direct route is to head down the driveway to Manor Vail. • The proposed new floor on Buildir+g G needs to be revised. The height is excessive and it should be reduced dramatically. In addition, the new floor should be pulled back so that it does not extend out aII the way to Vail Valley Drive. A new flaar on top of Building C creates a large wall. + The new flaor levels are extremely taller than the ex%sting floor plates. The propased new floors are approximately 22 feet from the fipar plate to the ridge on the interior. This should be reduced dramatically to be 12-15 feet in height to match the leveis belaw. Such a tall new flaor makes the buildings Ioak "tvp heavy". ~ • The ridge line is too high in some places as it blocks taa rnuch of the Gore Range. This is especially true wikh Building C. • The proposal frarn the summer of 2003 seemed less imposing. The heights an that proposal did nvt exceed the 48-faot maximum. The heights of the new floors shauld be reduced to be as close to 48 feet as possible. • There needs to be some variation in colors and architectural features. Too mono-tone. The current plan carries forward the repfetion that exists I in the current project. The new roof is toa repetitive just like the existing roof is tao repetitive. The project is nnt mare interesting, just a larger ' versian of what exists, except this proposal is clad in more wood. i • The project gets bigger and more "aut of cor+trol" every time i# cames ? be#ore the Board. E * The parking structure needs to be more under ground. There is toa much exposed. It appears that it is "shoe-box" just pushed in#o the existing grades with most of it exposed. The linear wall which is created along Mill Creek is awful. • Suggested relocating the entry to the parking structure to the east side of the structure. They understand the concern af not wanting to put it in front of sc?me af the units but it is a kaetter design. • The mass is overwhelming, • Are the trusses on the gable ends structuraR or ornamental? They seem ~ tao busy. Attachment: hl . -e ~ . I i 0 I ~ i1 ~ ~f1WN 0F Y,AIL Dept. of Public WarkslTranspartation 1309 Elkhnrn Drive Vail, Colarado 81657 9701479-215$ 970/479-2166 Fax www.vailgav.com ~ Project: Manor Vail Reviewed By: Chad Salli, P.E. Project Engineer Public Works Date: 02J20104 After reviewing the latest revisian ta the Manor V'ail project, Public Works comrnents are as follows: ~ 1. Show turzaiang naovements for ingressfegress to loading dock 2. Fpnal Drainage study required prior tQ building department submittal 3. Sandloil intercegt reyuired for parking garage 4. P.E. designed Erosian and sediment control pPan required prior to building department submittal 5_ Traffic impact fee $5004 per PM peak trnp increase +6. Mill Creek slope restoratgon and stabilization required along property frantage I ~ 7. Although the realigned pazh to Ford Park eliminates the confliccs with vehicles enteringlexiting the garage, it daes not give a stzang visual presence as a public aceess. The direct mavement ta the Park is eliminated and along with the tunnel effect of the path with the connection beEween buildings it agpears more like a pz-ivate sidevvalk for the development than a public path to tlae park. The first option shauld be to keep the current alignment of the path and relocate the entrance to the garage to the east side witli a 90 degree turn vs. the proposed west access with a 180 degree turn. The 90 degee turn allovvs far be[ter line of sight for both the pedsfbikes and the vehicles exiting the garage. ~ 8_ Please show snow sEoragG locations for the site. Attachment; I ~ ~ TUWN f~~' YAIL ~ 0 Dept. of Fublic WorksFTransportation 1309 Elktiom Drive ~ I Vaii, Calorado 81657 ~ 9761479-2158 ~ I 4761479-2166 Fa3c i i www.vailgov.com Praject: Manor Vail ~ Reviewed By: Chacl Salli, F.E. ~ Project Engiiteer ~ ~ Public Works Date: 12f26103 After reviewing the latest revisaon to the Manoa Vail project, Public Works comments aa'e as follows: Shova new curb line to accomn3odate i-equired turriing radius for the garage access ~ Show turriing rnovernents foa- ingress/egress to parking garage and loading dack Area required for fre dept turn around far bldgs D, E, F appears to encroach into the parking garage, how is tllis gaing to work? Rernove surfaee parking froin setback ~ Al1 parking stalls must have eapability for veliicies to tum arouiYd/exit in a 3-point turn, ~ The west side of the sui-face lot appears tiiat 3-5 sCalJs will nat be able to accommadate ~ this_ Drainage study i•equired Sancl/oi1 intercept req-Liired far parkinb garabe Grading plan reguired Erasian control plan required Traffic impact fee $5000 per PM peak trip increase . _ . P MilI Creek slope restoration and stabilization requirecd along property frantage ~ Sight distance for peds at garage insufficient, vehieles exiting garage have limited visibility ofpeds heading east to Ford Park Traffic study of Vail Valley Br at each intersection (BEue Cow Cir, Nfill Cxeek Cir, Gold Peak, Hazxsan Ranch Rd, Gore Creek Dr, ali curb-cuts) Relacate handicap parking iii the garage nearer to the elevators What is the grade of the aceess to the garage before the 8% slape ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ TFiIS ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY PUBLCC NOTICE - NOTICE IS HEREBY GfVEN that #he Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of ~ Vail will hold a puhlic hearing in accardance with Section 12-3-6 af the Vail Town +Code on, i December 8, 2003, at 2:00 P.M. in the Vail Tawn Counci! Chambers_ In cortsideratian of: ~ A request for a setback variance, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for a patia in the rear yard setback, located at 44'u`V'est Meadow DrivelLoR 1, Vail Viilage 12' Filing, arad sEtting forth details in regard there#o. Appfieant: Michael and iris Smith Planner: Bifl Gibsan A request for a recommendation ta the Vail Town Council far the establishrnent of Special Deve[opment aistrict No. 38, Manor Vail Lodge, to alla?nr far the redeveloprnent of the Manor Vail Ladge, and a request #ar a canditional use perrnit ta allow #or the constructian of Type ill Ernployee Housing Units, pursuant to Section 12-61-1-3, Vail Town Gode, located at 595 Vail ValEey Drive/Lots A, B, & G, Vail Village 7th Filing, and setting forth details in regard thereta. Applicant: Manar Vail, represented by Melick and Associates Planner: Warren Carnphelf A request for a recommentlatian to the Vail Town Council af a major amendment ta Special Development [3istric# No. 36, Faur Seasons Rasart, pursufint to Sectiort 12-9A-1 0, Vail Tawn Cade, ta allow for a mixed-use hotel; a request for a final review of a conditional use permit, pursuani to Section 12-7A-3, Vail Town Cade, ta allow for Type 1I1 Employee Housing Units and a frac#ionai fee club; and a request for a recomrnendation to the Vail Town Cauncil of a proposed rezoning of Lots 9A & 9C, Vail Village 2"" Fi1ing from Pubiic Accommodation (PA) zone distrsct to High Density Multiple family (HDMF) zane distrECt, located at 28 S. Frontage Rd. and 13 Vaii Road/Lots 9A& 9C, ~ Vail Village 2"d F71ing, and setting torth details in regard thereta. Applieant: Nicollet lsland Develapment Campany Inc. Planner: Gearge Ruther 7his natice published in the Vail Daily an November 21, 2003. I ~ TOMU OF YAIL ~i Attachment: J z ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ d ~ ~ ~ ~ w v~' ~ ~ ~ ~ zw ~ ~ o +t w cr Q ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . i ~ f ~ . . . i - Mul ; Li I f • ~7 ~ 4T f , ! it,tt'~.: 4 - ~ I ~~,I - -`i ~ ~ r ~ '`3-•~,?%S ~ .2* t x r 7"N~ Lr ~ 41~. 7 1' ~ ~e~~ { . . ~1 r { ~ l ~ ~ ~ ~ Li 0 co (D ~ ~xs ~ h , . , Q _ ~ `-Y~~ ~y ~ ~011~~}~ N f t Tj iZ +9 4 i ' 4 1 ; ~ i » r !j ~ ~ ~ ~ , r .~f;k y ~ " ~ ~ r e < ~ 1 ~ 1/ ~ r f ~ ~x ~ v;;;, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' f~'^^, ~ ~~e; ~ 1 ti i ~~z i - I , , i ~j I ~ ~ ~ x~ i r~,~ ' ~ I << ~ > ~ . f . p' ~ / ~ Yf ~1;, ~ d`~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ` ~ x r ~ ~ i y ~I t , \ r ~ J Y a~pP #I ~~f~ \7~ /F ~ .S ~ ~ 1 ,J - fil~ .r I ~ . ~ J ~ ~ f ~ a _ j,/ ~ ~ li~ ~ ~ ~ s ~ / ~ , -1P ~ ~ ~ ~ : il _ ~.y~. ~ . n ~ ; J ~r • , ; 1 f/ f f~ ~ r j'r / ~ , . ' f~.~ ~ ! ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , f ti f~ rs'"~~+'~ , , i(~~, ~ ~ } f ~i ~~e 1 f~ ~ ~ f r` r~/ ~ ~ i ~ ~ , r , f ~ ~ t~~ r' i'a'~ i ~ ~ r ~ ~ c? > w h { \ \ >~~i % ~ ' ~ ~ . ~ r F ~ ~ - % / ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ \ ~ i , / ~ ~ ' ~ , ~ ~i~xry ' ~ ~ : 5 ~ ~ X ` j ~~Y ~ ~ ~ ~~f yg~ ~ ~ N~`~~ 7/b lr~.,` ~ O - /~r-. 3 ~ ~ ~ A ~`;I.. ~ ~ ~ ~ I~~'~ ~ I\V" IS1 ~ ~ .u~ 1 lL~ { Y~ / ~ _ . ~~I ~ j ~ ~ ,~,r ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , J ~ i+~l~~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ; , ~ f~x I, ;,i ~ ~ ~ r r ~ ` ~ r i ! ~ ' `.~~I ' i ' x i ~G~~~'' ~ ~ 5 \ ` •v ~ . 4+v ~aS` \ , ! 5 1 { i~• ~ 1 l 1 ~ _ - . ~ 4 ^ 1 , ` I ~ ` . y 4 ~ 1'~`''', ,y~~ ~ ~ 1 11 t4 ~ ~ . } k M ' I 4 y l 1 Aft 1~ . , ' $?x~' , A I „ . r kq ~ti ti ~ ~ ~ ; • :r~ti + r ~ ~ ~ w. ~ ~ 'r ' } ~ t 41 r' i•'~ y , ~ 'Q'° y. i f~ Fr ~ 1~ t1`I' } r~~~-~ 4 ~L d~~s } ~ +~,r~i' M1 l 1 1 5 ~ I 4 f a.r_ ~ I~ ~ ~1 p 1 "S' r ~ 1 1 5 . ~ s4 1 :I X4''P ~ Y ~Y 1 . ~ A. i • ~ . f d ~ ' ` s'^~~ \,Ae\` ~ 1 ~ ~ P , \.j.~ ~ ~ , ~ 4 `~~;Jg~, 'R. / "`"~.i A~'~•, ~ r 1 ~ ti ~ _ . ~ t~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ q Gy w ~r~ ~ i 1 -r ? ` ` ' ti • ~ ~ ~ " ~ } ~ : \ ~ ••`1 ?rr ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ F~ ti s •r ~ ,4~ ` ` ,~~r ~ ` ,t . 1 1 i - M,~ : : ` 4 • I / ~ 4 I , 1 ~ ~ ~ , ~ • ~ ti ~r~ i 717 ~ yi i 1~~,~~' ~f ; ~ ~ f , I 1 •I , V 1 ~ ! 1 ~'i ~i~ ~ :d I ~ Y•; r~""•''°~°,M ~ ~~-F w . , ~ ' j ~t ~t 1 " t ~ , • 5 . , . 0 ~ - . .;m.. . ~ ' . _ , ~ . \ f` E < +I~ ~ f ~ : \ ~r r ; ~ ~ ~ ~r ~ - ~ , . ~ . ~ , ~1 ~1 ~ I _ w' ` ~ _ ~~M J 4 ` ~ ~a. ~ N '!rr ~ `,L7 ¦ ° ~ r ~ ~ e~i~~h _.A~ ~ ~ I' ~ ~ ~ \ ~ " f ~ , ~ ~ a \ b ~1- ~a ~ \ ' ~ ~ ~ l EE~ ~ Oi~'pT j~ @AA@ a 6aoa ~ ~ ~ ~ ^ 0 ~ ~ w ' Y ~ b5qp f q ° ~ • L~ }r.. q y r `a k , ~ a ~REEK ~ , i ~ 5~ ;~6 ° ~ ] / • ~ 6'I6 / / 1 ~h 1~ ! J?'.~ ~n • d ~ J ~ ~ 1t ~ ,r' J' ~ , ~ ARL . / b~11 i7: ~ x rr - eIMlsr . 4 - 4 ~ ti ai `3 e ~ ~q ~ x ~ •.t ~ !,1 ~ 9 B ,p 1P~ 7.7 I V~ C /r ml ~ ' I ~ I # ~ ~ 1. o a ¦ ~ ~ ~ ltBIN - ~ ~ ~ _ GQRE CRfEK ~ p `y y g DING y + l 1 CREEK i 1 ~ _ RPNV'G R ~ `i 1 •p j ~ ~r ~znu~ ti ~ E~EY~TOMA.'F , 47uY7 .:~fwYM ~ ~ ~ ti 1 F,p(t(} PARK PATH F~.ESt C3 jj ~ ! ~ 't 1 w.~ " , . ...e t O w } 57A ~PAINIOFSIMPAW \ 1 PfAqNGGTMM1C3EeEl~ri' '"'w ' \ \ ~ TOBEtO'N 1 gU1lDtNC3 A ~ acrxnxEO 1 i I I ..lf1:E Sn P6CA FSNfEf~4f7"L.Nf'FF1NU5 1 k . ~ ~ . - .e . ' - - - I i BU3LOId'3G 6 ~ - z~.o• setaaa eos?r* ! 3'PlIhNh1NG / M RFOF"TY lM1E %''l \ ~ ! I ~39 C c 7716TAL BL}ILDINC7 C \ ` p!RYJNG ' 1 . \ SFACES ( F~ ~ 11 ~ c c ~ ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - tiJ ! f f f / ~ 't , / f 1 'i• ~ l f ~ ~ f~ A~ 1 I r ~ e - ~ ° ~ ~ • ° ~ ~ r - ~ ~ - ~ ' l ~ ! ~ ~ f! r ( 41P.1i-_ - ` /I 'r I rQ 1 - - - - / 1 ~ I r $ ; 1 r - r ! r ' r r i - ~ - rrr 1 1 I 1 ~ r ! - ! ~ r r r ~ i r - - - - ~ ~ % ~ ~ ~ r~ ~ ~ , ~ r.. V ~ i t A f `aI, f / j/ CFf S Q ~ > ~ fJ f ~ 'P ? f a 0 1 f ~ , ~ rr C4 Cl` 0G / I r! i ; 1 f x ~ 10 f~ f~ C~ ~1 f . ; ~ . a. r J M f , ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O 1 r#` ~ / / .01 ~ y AJ " J ~ V dr F a et ~ ~ y ~~~p / ~4 ~ f S' rf ~ ~ l ; r ~ r 4 f i ~ O r ! • g fif f i ~ i /t ~ r 's ! f 8 ~ 1 I f r i 4 „ C4 ~ 4c r~: r i;~r 1 ~ r ~ f CD J { ~ ;r~ { +..:d ~ f r ! r r ~ f / CQ ~ 1 ~ ~ -.1 ~ f t r R } ~ ' r1 I ~ f1 ~ A1 I 6 }JGII I ~ ~ TIT- -r7r ~ 1 I ~ 1 ~ .1J ~ w~r. "a' ^I I f I 1 : .41 ` ? ~ ,,,f' ~ : . P ~ C=D ! < • n~~ ~ I ~ ! ~ wn "A ~ ~ 7! ~ i b~ p q~q 1 r ~ : % • I 1 i ~ ! J - I ! 1 ! I ~KV I ! ~ I ~I ~I I l1 i~O~ I 1 I ~ 1 ~ r ~ f / l I I ^ ~ ~ . ' ~ Y~ . ~ I a::aa au. ~ ~I I ! I ~ / / ~ ~ r ~ r ~ n / ~S~ ? i s / CQ ' f ~i2 OT ~ ~ ~ ? ~ .r, • ' ~ ~ , ~ ~ ~ ~ j ~ JIS ~ ~j ~ y ~oll I -~d =t x j ! s = ~ ~ , ~ i : i ~ ~r ~ r ' y v b ~ fff))) I I k ~ ~ « I ~ ; . ~ t I ~ f L A 3 l ~ ~F = ~ 1- L;;J l>.:~] LJ ~ U ~ ~ . r` ~r - ' } ~,r `~~~'~v~j~``~,..,,~ ~1 4y ~ V MD, ~i I.~i ~ ~I.: p• ' ~ ~ ~ ~`~~\~~-0''Z ~ `4 ~ + ~ ~ ~ ? ~ ~ y ~ ~r ! , ! r 1 W - L--- - - T q~q P .o•, i ea ~rLN~ t a - ~ ,r k ~ y -\,7- / 7 ~ z ~ { . ; E R Rj-~f~~ { / ' D V ' : ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . k x ~tA*Z r p_ f $ ~s ~ •~~.d : ~ r g W o~ ~R + ~ . ~ ~ f ~s ~,t ? ~ E l N ~ ` lV ~ I \ ~ _ * j' ~ ? ~ / ; . I - oo r~ m ~ ~ ! ~ ~ i ~ ` J ! 711 p. . I 3 ..9 f & ~ ~ { ~ ' ~ ~ ~ t ~I • V' v: ~ I~ ~1~1 * . ~ ` ~ a f~ 9: ~t\ • ~ `r'~ ~ ~ 1 I ~ ~ `~"xt' _ j~,,~~' ? ~ • ~ ~ i ' ~ ~ ~ ~:3 ~ ~ ~ . ~ ` ` ~ ~ j g 6 n; i gm ~ 10" 559 y r° ~ VTIK r r ~ i ,rt ~ r1r L - ~ r - ~ - _ ZL4 1r ' r ~ _ ~ r r ~ a F ~ f. ~ ~ / ~ \'y r i t ' t Y ,,T ~ 1 E ? ~ ~ ~ / f } ~ ~ l~~ •h • zg QO , „ a• / ~ y o y ~ ~ ~ X ~ ~ m rr I ' al-t ! El'! LI ` u5. LI~6 ~ ~ ~ ~ - I 1 r 1 ziT F 3 ~ Ll~r it Y y I ~I ~ S ' ~ ~ ~rII I { I . ' ff11 + " L LI'1 LI~1 I 1 r L1J ~ r ~ , oa r~~ ~ f ~~~f r I I t~ ~ ~ ~ 1 ! I ~ 1 I I I 6 ~ 1 I r I I I , ~ I ,~'f I 1 ~ ~ vgm ~ I 4 1 e7`a ~ ~ ~ E ~~~t'i ~ ~4;t t: k,~f? ~ i zl 3 y ~ " ! k 0S ~ ~o/ t T c1 ( r . l r e, ~ I am d^ 1 ~.L'y { :.r 3~~~..a•„(.~ ~y ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ ~K ~"W T y'°~~ "E~ • ~ 5` E' ~ ~.j?wu ~ (.z, l~ ' Y§ Y a ~ ~ , t7 t,n F -..v.~-k ) 1 l G aT tV ~ j. 'Ll t S ~ p `~f~y1 .3 Pp`rd` I ~ I ~ 1 5 C, 0 € ~ ~o t~~ r; ? s f F s~ r ~ r~ r ~ ~ ~ ~ - I Ur %t CH 7,w rj ~o~a ~ IX~ T i I ~ C,~ ~ :-F-~^Ts ;J~`i ~ 34~ ~L~"•~ ~ . / ~ ~ ~ ! ~ ~ i, r~ 1F e 0 1 ` ~.t r ( p` ' t { } ~ ~ I - S..f ~ 3 4£ S r~ . . Y f . I u a ry~ . ' ~ ~rY E . F4 ~ ! 1 } f ~ ~ J ~~V ~ a~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ t / { !7~~, \ ~ ~ b j ~q 4 . m t~ lf l ( J YZ. \ ~ ~ ~ g ~ § ~ y ~ ~8 T f ! p I p' 1 a :''7 I 1 ! t b ~ t ? ~y Q9 1 I Y• ~ ~ t ~ s~ ~ ~-r I r ck M t I ~ I r ~ t ( y A o ~ ~s t~/ ~ f~ r pw ~N C),I! f , ! Q~~o ~oa a o~o ~ o a o o ~ ' LIJ 0M. : ~T E t kL I ; I ~I I I I , I! I I - ~4 I I Z+ I ~ I ! f m ` E=1 ~ 19 a i~.- ~ V ~ p~ I I I m,~ ~11 ~ ~ - ~ I II R ~ . _ I - cc I ' - pt . . ` . ' I li P V = _ ' 1 A~. .j V _ _ - ^~I I I 1 - co . w - - - ~ ' - ~ - -I~8 ° II 1 ` , ~ ~ ro~ ~ - - I I , . ~ ~ _ ~ _ •l N~.~ ~ `~2F~ F'~3~ fin-~ ~ 1 Q3 ~ ?G ~ii i I ~ Q I ~ Yl l ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~i I I 11II. I i r~ r~. I I I - - I ~ LL__ I I i l` ~y ~ ~ m ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ I 1I ~ ~ IfI , ~ INo-6 I 1 k I I I ~ - - -UTII f I I i ~ - i~ = m I F~L I I II I I ~ II I I ~ I I ~ I ~ , - II I I tj I I I I ~~„:Y I i I I1 I E3 , . . ~ ~ I - - I ; II i - I ~ - - ~ - - I - I l J I I I m I ~ I ! ~ ~ j , , ! _~f• , ~ ~ I 4 I ! - - ~ I - - ~ ~ - - J I ~ _ , ~ I I m I ~ ~i - - - L . g< < _ ~ = , ~ P~ ~r~ . m ~ ~ W T - r iY , - - i - ~ • ~ ~ - - W ~ _ •s; ~ ~ - ~ _ _ - - i - ~ L . , m I - ! _ I ~i . - , - d Q I ~ E ~ ~ ~ ~ p ~ I I ~ a 1- ~ 00 ~ ~ I ~ - ~ ~ I- ~ , , - - ~ , ~ ~ I ~ ~aw ~ ~ I ~ PT7 I 7TIq I ~ _ 4 ~ I b W 1 'T•~ • '_^'Q _ _ l~ S~ . _ - - - ~ - - - - - - - - ` ~ - - - - ~ - - - - - - - - _ - - - - _ - - - - _ _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , f~ . ~`m ~ . ~~f ~ . ~f:~~ { ~ ~ ` ~ ~ ~ . ..~.y-- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ n~ ~~4 ~ s ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ a r - s ~ ~ i u ~ 5 ~ ~ ~ rf' f ~ s ; >`~Q ~ E~~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~e~ ~ ~ ~ ,f . ~ ~ a ~ $ ~ ~ ~ • . ~ ~ ` j f il ~ ~m~'T ~ . ' ` ~ ~ ~ ~S 5lfl " , sl-- . • .u IJ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ „~a, : V ~ z `s ~ > ~ _ ~ ~ ~ - ~f~ ~ , ? ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 't ~M1~ ~ 3 ~M1~ ~ , 4~~~ - ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ ' i • ~ ~I~ ~S=Q ~ Z i z~ , ~ Q ~ - . f a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~t:' 1 ~ ~ F~. . ~ ~J ~ _ ~ r ~ 9 o ~ '~I ~ ~ Y. ~ • . , ~ • ' 5 ~`m~ + ~ . : ~ , 5 F C ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . . : t ~ ~ ~ ~ • ' ~ ~d ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ . g~ % :i~ ~ ~w ~ ~ . ~ t ~ . 5 ? ~i~ x • , ~ , < < ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~I • ` - , . . ~ y ~ ' { ~ a S{ry WU' O O 1 • k. ' ( ~ ~ ~ F,~ 1, . . ~ _ . . f'~`~ . ~ - f~ `J I~ ' Z ~ / I c~ t ° I ~ - ~ ~ 3 X 3 S'' y ~F / ~ y5 5 ~ j^.0 jNC] Y 4 ~ y ~ a { y ~ ~ t ` a s a ~ ~ ~ .~~uO f' cz~ / ~ ~ R ~ ~ } q 5• f ad ~ ~~r ~ ~ y E d ~ t 5 ~ 8y R a0~ / J ~ m F~ ~ I ~ - ; 1 ~ ~ 1 / / - -~..,---_-~_-_f' ~ s= ~ ll ~ ~sg ~ ~ ~ ~e r ~ r ~ ~ ir r Cl U4 i ~ i r _ t I 4 ~ ~ f ~ I i ~ r S r ~ \ I \ x ~ ~ f t-•__ _ p4 ~ ~ ~ O f v J J ~ l ' / / / ! ~ I I / f I f z f ~J ~ F w~ ?M / I I I / ~ y I I N ~ ~ I S I Fr i- , f m ~ ~ ~ . - . W a Li.l ~ ~a,~ ` a, -@--~--- - - - w I m ~3 V ~ k z. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I I _ - d _ _ _ - - _ - •q~:k ° - ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ ' _ - - _ ~ ~ - - ~ J Z ; O " zf5 1~ ~ ~ f p ~WI 5 ~5~x ~ J I - - - - ~ 1- - r~ s V I r I LU QQ , c__ . r M L~ ~ L _ ; - _ f ~ - , ~ , ~ / ~ _ E ~ / ?r~~ ~ ~ . . - ' O ~I~ ~ -t ~ ! I q ry ,7 A V 7 ~ r LLJ r ' ~t, Mp ~ i•~ i T ~ I a i d 1~•.~ ~ , ~ a' ~ 'L I ~ y rf h ~ ~ ~5 ~ I \ ~ ~ ~V l~' `~Y ~ • I I I I` +I ~ ~ ~ I~ y ^~T , w' I k- 1 1 1 1 i I la k j~~ I 1 ~ ~ t....~. Irf . -_I~ ~ I 8 -2T ¢ i PA i ~ , , .r' _ - ~ ~ - ~ ~ A j~ h ' - _ - _ 7 ~t ~nnrcr - -y ti~ Q v L9 , ~ ` ~ I r~ Ee f~~' gs ~ ~o . ~ - - - - ~ q'~ 4 . , t ~ / ' ~ - - _ Ln n i= a ~ ~ ~1 e = 1 - ~ _ r loor f Q '-r~ ft r 'a 3 3_~ ~ S ~ t . ~ ~ ~ N f7_. ~ 1~ ~ # ~ Rr /y Z i I fj((+ ~E ' ~l Y . ¢ . J f L~ ~ k - - - - - - - - - - - - ,~P,.---- ~ - - _ - - ~ v ~ - - a§ -,4 ~ j ~CQ~ ~ Z ` ~ . u+ , - f ~ CCI ~ ~ - - _ - _ - - ~ jI f v ~ s I - ~~p I I 1 ~IRI~ 4-__ A I<J I I f , ~1 G~1 ';?I I I ~ x ~ m 'I ~ - • ~ I - ~ _ ~ - ~ - - - 1 ~ ~ t J ! i I i a ~ I f ' ~II cx ? / f' m~ ~ ~ ~ I II m E 6 ~ Yt' ~P - ' - -1 9 --f - k ~ ` I ~ ~ I~ - S7~ r sd I ~ 5 O• ~ ~ ~d~"ae I aa , , , L . ' I !A t'' ' CI i 4j I ~sQs« 'r r I Irv 2 1 . I ~ I~ Iri z ~ I U + P77 i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ D.lf I 1 ~ ~ i I !5 J Li,~~~ ~ I I 1 ~1 Ir + ~ZC~ j I' ~ r ' I f ~ ~ao~~ ~ 'y' t~~ 'J r I , ~ I I W P ~ ~ I ~ - _ _ - - _ - - _ - 1I - ~ , - ~ ~ti . . . y i • ~~l l.. ' 4 _ W S ~ ` _ r i tS , \ ~ ~ ' = 7 ».~-~`r`3 ~4 JT~,L Y x z`C1`~ ~t ~t~, ~~?5^ tx:~ sf " ~Z 44 ~ ~ / O , ~ ~ • r ~ r ~ ' " ~ I i i 1 . -Y g • - ~ . ~ f ~ :t r 7 x ~a ~ ~ -5 J Y~~> ~r ' .l ~ ~ i ~"~'s ,k`; ~ I + t"yyr^ ~"w'""y . + W~ ~r~ t € ~ ~'1 I r~~ ~ ?`a ki ,ti y~ ~ nl ~ ~l~~ ~A'''• ~ ' . ~~~m, I V77 I w 1 1- - w 'v ~ Y d ' C T I I ; T f ~ I I 11 1 7 ?~i~ ~t ' 4 ~ t' I I r ~ h { i ? ? 4 r' 4 I Y I {s I CQ ~Yf ^ ~t} ~r S ~ I ) t r I 1 _ - - _ _ - - - - - - - , - - _a - - _ - - - _ - ~ . - - _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ - - \ ~ ~ - ~ - ~ . , ~ 3z! ~ ~ - m r. ~ ~ . W I ~ r~e wF gx n 6 W§ i h P~ 4~ t h ~.r wl I (h R R' 5 <o _ - n _ _ _ a.-..-- ~ - - + ~ ~t5 ~ I T 1' ---r yt, z, • ' c'41 _ _ - . I _ a p b ,~'S ~ ~ h o rS 5 I I -,--a."x - ~ 9 i pi8lS 3 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I t a .m F ~ o I 8189~ C 5$ a~ ~ I . ~ b p190 i I gt91 ? } i r b I L ~ 8186- * ~ I /p N / ~ I r l r i ~ zp'o i ZO~m ' Z6 11 p~ iQ~y 8~8~1 ~ r g a_ ~ i r J ~ ~ I " e f ~'m S I ~ "OppSEp I r~ ~ a ~ . m r ,~ENCri ~ ~ y f ~ ~pN1t I ~ sm . ~ ~ ~ a e~az bW * r ~ d ~16 ~o nti~ ~ , ; - ~r - - - - ~ - ~ - - - - W Wf i, z. z°i N~O zQ z, z a~y i - ag 3 w ~ o~oa ooa ~ c~~ Qo ~~~o ~ o~ ~ ~ I~r ~ . J ~ 6vJ1 ~ Z Jt (D - j - ~ _ - , . . 3_ . . ~ . . I - . . ~ - . : - . i . . W ~ Z ~ \J k j LLI l; I IW ~rt ~ I J v ~ N I I - ~ LL. ``l r Z ~ i - - a I ~ I' Y i.. ? ~~r cr'- r ~ ' f HHd m , z - - - I ~I ~ - ' - W - r~a y R ~ ~Y ~ . Y ' . . P r. . . o . w x. r. 0000 0- 0- o 0 ao 0 8 -0 Q 0 -6 o o®r . 3411N1IW1 A~it-2E .ii~s~ 1F I 1e I u'D~ I ~r ~ ~i>~~ ~ ~ ~ rt p I ~ " ~ - pA~ J I~ 1 f f ~ 1°~ cc, ~ I ~ `'r s o~ _ +4 _ - I _ ~ - _ o t - v 1 -e~ Z ~ I I I - - c~ ~ - , s. - ~ IP ~ - ? ~ 111 ~ ~ +J~LL- - ~ I MI _ ~ ! o .~•f==,..~~ ~ - W qFi lry ~ ~ I ~I 1 v. - - - - I - ~ ? 'Ii.. J L~ ' I o' l ~ . . J - - ~ - - - . " ~L l > > ca ~ - . , . - - - - - - - ~ 7 _ L•.~ ~q W C1 ? _ I` ''•."k~ ~n~ ~ ; w I f p / - ~ ~ - I f ~ I I I I I I ~ ~ I C £ I I - ~I /l I { ~ _ m I I I ~ a m.n R I I i I 1 I I R f I g I I I I I I I I I i I I Al.i('LC .ii.si 1n 1e I I I i~ I 1 ~ I ~ I I w ~ I f I I I I~ I I i I I I I' I I M I i . i I I ~ I I I I I I I z I I 9 ~ I k I I I F I I 1 z ~ I I I ~ 1 . I { P " J + ~ _ ~ ~ Io l ~ W~t ~ f I O n r , t` i: 1 a• ~'.~7~ , ~ ~ Y.., . 6m ~ E Z z 5 I p Q ~ 9 ~ n~ I~'~11~1 I a,W c G^ p ~ a- u'W 3n~ -°w . 3 i 1 l \ ~ :~w" " w~~ ~r<--i. zz " ~1~ - I I 1 m> m ~ 6E ~ I I 1 I . I ~ ~ ~ < I I i I I i cv ° 1 ~ 1 I I I r Fo ~ E I I 1 I I I ~a~ W ti z o '.1 020( I I I I I I I I I I I ° ~ I I I I I ~ ~ I I I I I I ~ I I p ~ I I i I I I I I { ~ UO ~ I I f A~~ g o ~ V ZZ 2 ~ ~u Z a t QQ i 4i 4 1. f I k. ~ ~ ~ - m'n~ ~ ! ~ ~ - -{-1 I ~ n~ ~ ~~s,~ ~ I ~ ! 1 I ~ ~ ~ ~,y l ~ ~ ~ I ~ l~ i ~ 7~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , r o ~1~~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I~i ~I 3~ ~ i ~~I~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1~~ ~ ; I ~ ~ i ~y ~ ~ 1 1~~ ~ ~ ~1 `1 I ~ ~ ~ ~ 1' ~z I ~ ~ W~ ~ li ~ ~ ° J a ~ ~I ~ / ~y ~ ~ ~ o Q § 4 ~ Q ~ ~ ~ ~ t ~ ~a - , >~4~ ~ ~ _ ~ A ~ 6 p ~ ~ ~ .adl` n ~ ~ ~4 y ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ; ~ ~ ~ fi~~ t ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ x~~~ r ~ ~ ' ~ { G 4~ I I r_ ~ i ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ , ' ~ ` I ~ ~ ~ I ~ I ~ =I I I ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ 1 ~ : ~ i ~ I ~ I ~ I ~ 1 0 ~1 I ~ ~ ~I I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ `p I x? .~~li • . ,j ' " _ 1 ~ it 4w r . . , . ~ , . . ` ' . _ , ~ _ . . ~ ' . . . : . . . ~ . . . . 4C ~ ' . . ' - . . ~ ~ . . . ~ 1 4 . . . _ . ~ ~ . ¦ ~ . . ~ . ~ < . , . 3 . • , ~ , - . , ~ : ~ ' . . . _ . ~ - " . . v ~ , . . . . . . . , . , , . ~ - ~ ,.:W' ~ r . . ...i . . , . , : . - .y . . . . : . . . ' . ~ - , - ~ . . . ~k ,y ~ ~ aT ,qh ~ . i . . ~ . . . . , . , ~ . , ~ . ~ ~ : . ~t ~ ~..1 ~ ~ - ~ : ~ e ~ ~ ~ > . ~ . ~ ~ . _ _ ~ ~ v : ~ - : a . . ~ ~ , . . : . . ~Tn . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . t~~•i Oal, r . ~ ; td, +t"'Y~ . . . ~ J . , . . - ~i x: ~ .1~ a cw~+.~a~~.~ . ,-ek , 1 `'~Y;,{++ ~ - . a~ . . . . . . - , . . _ . _ . . ~ ~ ~ 2 . v ~ t. r 't~ rr'~x ; ~ , . :~e - ~ , A . . j y~,.; . , . . . . . . _ , . . . . . . . ` ; " . . . . . ~ - , , x_ . e . . ' ' _ . _ . . ~ w. . J~. , - , . , ~ r . Y ~ i - . _ „ ~`i-- , ; ~ • _ ~ ~b - , , _ # _ , : . ~ ~ , . : ~ ir~A . e . . .v . . : . ~ . ~ . i . ~ . . - . . . . . 3r { d l v n : . . . . . . . . ~ . ' . . ~ . ~ , . . . : ~ . . ~ rv ~ . . ....w _ . , . " . ~ . . ; a i . . ~ ~ - ~ s v~ . ~ r ry . . . F . ~ ~ . . , . . . , , . , > „ ; . . . . ' . . ~ r ~ ~ , . . ~ . . , , ~ , . ' ~ . r_. ~ . . . ~ . , . ' . - : ` . r ~.t* ` . . . . . . ~ . ~ ' , 1. _ ~ I,_ ` I ~ ' C. _ I lt < ~C ~ , < - . - I ~ - I . I . . , . - : = . : _ - .F:~,. ~ , . . } , ~ rt . t r~ n. , ~ ~ I : , - rr - . ~-r ~ _ _ I_ , . _ ; ~ ~ ~ : I . , _ . i~~ T , , : r ~ ~ ~ ~~I - . _ r F _ V' ~ ~ ~ C - . , ~i?., - _ ; , s , - . , ~ ~ . ~ ~ - ~ - s , , a ~ , . 8 - s ~ : ~ r. ~ ~ ~ , 11 ~ ~ R : ~ 4rv~. ' , j ~ ~ n. ~ . ` - ' ' , _ ~ , ; I y -i : I ~ . ~ ~ r . , , ~ , . ~ ~ ' ; ~n _ ~ ~Y ~ . . ' 0 f :~a ; _ . ~ > -i. , - . ; , _ . . . , . . _ . , _ - i~ . - . . . . - ..,.4 . I . . . . . - . . - _ ...._,w_ ~ - , _ ; ~ 1 l . . . . . _ , . ; ^ ' .s . , . f~y . . . D~* ~ 4 . . : _ . . , . . . , . . . , , rA• . . ~ , A $ ' . . . . . , , . Y. 6 ~ , ~ ~ : : -x , ~ • . - ~ _ . . , . . . , ; . . , . . „ . . : t . , , ~ . . . . : : . . ~ ; . - ~ . . ~ . . .i . <a-:•. , . ~ . . . . I PON ~°r`~' a" ~ _ '~aFE ! ~r ' r ~ ~ _ k.. ta- -r*~P Y . ~ ,a 7 ~ -rq k • ~ ~ z : ' ~ r ,~"L r 'a 1~,~;} •s w ~ ( "i'r k' ' ~ a x.~~4 . nd~}'~1~.~1~~1,~i k~F. ~.i.-., • , . - , , ~ , 3 i . . „ . _ - . ~xaN„u A 5 b ~ . . ~ . _ ~ . . . , a,. . ~ • . ~ ~ ' ~ ' +r:~~, s_ . . TL ~ , , . . . . , ~ ; . k~ rtr9~ . - ~ . ~ a s ~ . . ' ~ ' . . ' 3• ~ . _ J 2 , . ~ ~ . i..w . ~ r"*~ ~'~i ~ ~i'a~- q.5 - 4' , . _ , . ' . 4 ~ r t f ; 4 ' h y ~ ~ ~ . , = ` , ~ A"i~ -:c +y~ t r r~ ~ ~ gft `j ~ ~ . ~ ~ . , ' ~ . . , t . . _ - - ~ ~ . ~ ;w ~ . i . y , ~w- L~ i ~ Y E . . ~ . ~ . . . . . , . , y . ~ ~ ' . _ . . , . , . ' d ~ ~ ~ • ~ ! N~ I 71~ `v R I I ! ~ w p. ~ Rrs , ~ . . ...;:K , ~ ~Y R ~ ~ ~Na. . : . _ . : . F . . . ~ . . . - ~ . ~ . . . . ~ , . . . ; , . . . ' ~ . , . . _ . , . . . . _ . . ~ . . . - . . , . . . . , . . R~ . . . . . . . " . - . . . , , ~ ~ . ~ MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Enviranmental Cammission FRONI; Cammunity Development Depar'tment I DATE: March 8, 2004 SUBJECT: A request far final review of a variance from Section 12-6H-6, Setbacks, Vail Town Code, to al8ow for a residential addition, located at 303 Gore Creek DrivefLot 7, Block 5, Vail Village 15t Filing, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Appiicant: Ron Hughes, represented by Shepherd Resoueces, 0nc. Planner: Bill Gibson 1. SUMIVIARY The applicant, Ron Hughes, is requesting a Wariance fram Section 12-6H-6, Setbacks, Vai1 Tawn Gode, to allaw far an addition in the setback, locafed 303 Gore Greelc Drive, Vail F2awhouse #7. The propased addition in #he setback consists of an increase in the amaunk of bulk and mass of the exist+ng home in the setbacEc. Based upon Staff's review of ~ the criteria in Section VIII of this memorandum and the evidence and tes#imany present+ed, the Community Development Department recommends approWal, wifh conditions, 4# a variance to allow the cans#ruction of an addition in the setback subject to the findings and conditions r+ated in Sectian iX of this memorandum. IL DESCRIPTION C}F REQIJEST The applicant is prapasing a signifcant renevation to an existing residence, originally CprtStruCted in 1963, located at 303 Gore Creek Drave, Vail Rawhouse #7. The praposed renovation includes an addition of appraximately 431 sq. ft. of gross residen#ial ffoor area (GRFA) and a substantial exterior alteration to the property. The applicant's request and prapased archikectural plans have been attaehed for reference (see Attachments B anci C). The provisions of Section 12-17 (Variance), Vail Tawn Code, determine the review criteria and review procedures for a wariance request. III. BACKGROUND The Vail Rowhauses were originally constructed in 1963, The Vail F2owhouses were constructed as a single structure, however, RQwhouses #2 through 6 are a single horneawner association, and Rowhouses #7 thraugn 14 are subdivided as 0 individual lats of recard. Therefore the Vail Rowhouses (i.e. all unifs) are legally non-eonforming 9n regard to numerous requirernents of the Nigh Density Multiple 1 Family district. Furthermcrre, as individual lots of record the Rovuhouses #7 ~ through 14 deviate greatly from #he Town's currenfi zoning regulations. aue ta the non-conforming nature of the 1,rail Rowhouses, several variances have previously been cansidered for the other individUally subdivided units (i.e. #7 through 14): • Unit 8: Density control variances denied in 1984 arad 1999 Setback variance approved in 1984 • Unit 11: Density control and setback variances a,pproved 1984 * Unit 12: Density control and setback variances denied 1984 Density control and setback varuances appro+red 1985 • Unit 13: Setback wariances approved 1981 and 1993 The applicant's prmposal was concep#ually reviewed by the Desfgn Review Board at its February 18, 2004, pubEic hEaring. The Design Review Board commented ort seweral aspects of the prapasal, and responded very favorably to the proposed architecture and aesthetics, _ IV. ROLES OF REVIEWING BODIES Order of Revie+w: Generally, appl6cations will be reviewed first by the Planning and Environmenta6 Commission for acceptability of use and then by the Design Review Board far compliance of proposed buildings and site planning. ! PEanning and Envirc,nmental Commission: ~ Actpon: The Planning and Environmental Commissian is responsible #ar final appravalldeniaVa,pproval with conditians of a variance. The Planning and Environrnental Commissian is respansible for I evafuating a proposal for: I 1. Relationship and impact of the use crn develvpment objectives af the ~ Town. 2. Effec# of the use on light and air, distribution of population, ~ transpartation facilities, utili#ies, schools, parks and recreaiian faciGties, and other public facilities and public facifi#ies needs. 3. Effect upan traffic, wi#h particular reference to cangestion, autarno#ive ~ and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuuerability, and remowal of snow from the streets and parking areas. 4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is ta be located, inciuding the scale and bulk af #he proposed use in relation ta , surrounding uses. 5. Such ather factors and criteeia as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed use. ~ ~ 2 1 ~ 6_ The environmental impact report ccanceming the prflposed use, if an environmental impaci report is required by Chapter 12 of this Title. Confoemance weth devePQpment standards of zone distrFCt Lat area Setbacks Building Height Density GRFA Site coverage Landscape area Parking and loading Mitigation of development impacts Design Review Board: Action: The aesign Review Board has h10 review authority on a variance, but mus# review any accompanying aesign Review Board applicatian. Town Council: Actions of Design Review Board or Planning and Environmental Gammissian may be appealed to the Town Cauncil or by the Town Council. Town CQUncil. ewaluates whether or nnt #he Planning and EnWironmental Gommission or Design Review Board erred with approvals or denials and can uphold, uphoid with rnadifications, or Qwerturn fhe board's decision. ~ Staff: The staff is respansible far ensuring tha# all submittal requiremen#s are provided and plans conform to #he #echnical requirements of the Zoning Regulatiorts, The staff also advises the applicant as ta compliance with the design guidelines. Staff provides a staff memorandum containing background on the prerperty and provides a staff evaluation af the projecf with respecd #o the required eriteria and findings, and a recommendation on approval, approval with conditions, or denial. Staff alsa facilitates the review process. V. APPLICABLE PLANN2NG DOCl9MENTS Staff befieves that the fallowing prouisians of the Uail Town Code are relevant to the eeview of #his proposal: TITLE 12: ZONING REGULATIONS Chapter 12-6H: High Density Multipfe Family District 12-6H-1: Pur,pose: The high derrsify multiple-farnrly district is intended to provide sites far rrruJtiple-famrly dwellrngs at denslties ta a maxirnurrt of twenty ffve (25) dwelling units per acre, together wifh such pu,blic arrd semr'publrc facilities and lodges, prrvate recreatlan facilifies and relafed visitor orrenfed Uses as rrray appropriately be bcated rn the same districf. 7he high density multrple-family district is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open s,pace, and Qther amenities cvmmensurate vvifh hfgh d'ensity apartment, corrdominium and lodge uses, and to ~ mainfain the desirable residerrtial and resort qualrties of fhe district by establishrng apprcpriate sife deveIoprnent sfancfards. Gertain nonrssidential uses 3 are permitted as conditional uses, which relate to the nature of Vail as a winter ~ ancl surnmer recreatron and vacation camrnunity and, where permifted, are inten!ded to blend harmaniously with the residentral character of the distriet. 12-6N-6: 5etbaeks. The minimum front setback sha!l be twenty feet (20), the rninlmUm side setback shall be tvventy feet (20), and the minirnum rear sefback shaN be twenfy feet (20'). Chapter 1 2-17: 1Jariances 7 2-17-1: Purpose: f A. Reasons For Seeking Variance: In order ta prevenf or to lessen such practical ' diffrculfies and unnecessary physical hardships inconsistenf with the objectives of this title as vvoulaf result frorrr sfrict or literal interprefation and enforcement, variances from certain regulatians may +be granfed. A practical difficulfy or unneeessary physical hardship may resulf from tfre size, shape, or dimensions of i a site ar the location of exisfing structures thereon; fram topographic or physieaf condifions an the site or in the imrnediafe vicinity; or from other physrcal limitafions, streef lacatrons or cona'itions in the immediafe vicinity. Gost or inconvenience to the applicant of strict or literal corrr,pliance wlth a regulatron shall rrot be a reasoR for granUng a variance. VAIL VILLAGE NiASTER PLAN Staff believes that the fallowing goals vf the Vail Viilage Master Plan are refevant ~ to the revGew of this proposal: ~ i #1 Encourage high quality redeveloprnent while preserving the unique ' architectural scale of the Village in arder tv sustain its sense of ' community and identity. #3 Ta recognize as a top priority the enhancement of the walking experience throughout the Village. VI. SITE ANALYSIS Address: 303 Gore Creek Drive, Vail Rowhouse #7 Legal Description: Lot 7, Block 5, Vail Village 1" Filing Zoning: High Density Multiple Family Land Use Plart Designation: Village Master Plan Current Land Use: Residential Lot Area: 2,674.6 sq. ft. (2,524.6 sq. ft buildable area) Devefo ment Standard Allowed/Required Proposed 5etbacks (min): ~ Fron#: 20 fE. 20 ft. V'dest Sitle: 20 ft. 0 ft. ~ East Side: 20 ft. U fk. Rear: 20 ft. 20 ft. Density (max): 1 unuts + 1 EHU 1 unit GRFA (max): 1,515 sq. ft. 2,734 sq. ft." Bui{ding Neight (max): 48 ft. 38 T#. ~ Site Coverage (max): 1,471 sq. ft. (55°Jo) 1,347 sq. ft. (51 4 ~ ~ i ~ Landscape Area (min) 802 sq. ft. (30%) 874 sq. ft. (33°/a) Parking (min): 3 spaces 2 spaces''` '(irrcludes existing GRFA plus 250 GRFA bonus & interior conversion GRFA bonus) I (existing non-confgrming in terrns oF hardscape ! softscape rat4o) ~ (existing non-canforming) ~ i VIt. SURROUN[]ING LAND US€S AND ZOM1lING Land Use Zoninq North: Gore Creek Outdoor Recreatian South; Commercial Camrnercia! Core 1, Parking, and Public Accomadation East: Residential High Qensity MUltrple Family West: Residential High nensity Multiple Famiky 1/111. GR[TERIA AND €INDI'NGS The review criterEa for a request of this nature are establishred by Chapter 'f 2-16, Vail Town Code. A. Consideration of Factors Regardinq the Setback Variances: 1. The relationship of #he requested aariance tv other existing ar potential uses and structures in the vicinity. ~ ~ The applicant has received writien approval from Vail Rowhouse #6 and 8 for this proposed renovaiaon and variance request. The applicant has indicated that they will address any construc#iorr impacts to the adjoining Vail Rowhouses. Rowhause ##8 is also currently propasing an addition and renovatian, and Rowhouses #7 and 8 haWe agreed to coordinate construction methods and schedules to reduce impacts to the other Rowhouses. Staff does nat believe this proposal will negatively affeet the exis#ing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity in comparisan ta the existing conditians. 2. The degree ta which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulatian is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment amvng sites in the vicinity ar to attain #he objectives of this title without a grant of special priuilege. Given #he previaus approval crf setback variances far ather individually subdiwided Rowhauses, Staff beiieves this proposal requests the apprapriate degree af relEef from the strict and literal interpre#ation and enfQrcement of a specified reguEation and is necessary to achieve compatibility and unifarmity of treatment among sites in the vicinity and to attain the objectives of the ~ Town's deveiopment objectives without a grant of special privilege. 5 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, ~ distributinn of population, fransportation and traffic facilities, pubEic facili#ies and utilities, and public safety. Staff does not believe the proposed setback encroachment will have a significant negative impact on light and air, distributian of pcpulation, transportation and trafFic facilities, public facikities and utildties, and public safety. 4. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems appCicable to the praposed variance. The applicant's proposal was conceptual{y reviewed by the Design Review Board at its February 18, 2004, publ9c hearing. The Design Review Board comrnented on several aspects af the propasal, and responded very favorably to the proposed architecture anci aesthetics. The applicant has represented tQ the Tawn af Vail that #his proposal will nat alter the structures or grounds of the adjoining Lat ~ 6, BIaGk 5, Vail VilEage 15t Filing (i.e, Rowhause #6) and will not necessita#e the Use any partion of Lot 6 for consfruetion access or ~ stagirag. Based upon this representation, the Town of Vail does nat consider the owner of Lot 6 to be a join# property owner" and ' therefare is not required to be a co-applicamt for this proposal. ~ 8. The Planning and Environmental Gommission shalG make the fallowinq findin s before rantin a variance: 1. That the granting of the variance will nat constitute a grant of special privilege incansistent with the limitations on other I properties classifed in the same district. 2. That the granting af the variance will not be detriTnental ta the public health, safety or welfare, or materialiy injurious to proper#ies or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the fallawing reasons: a. The strict fiteral interpretation or enforcement of the ~ specifed regulatian would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary phySical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title, b. There are exeeptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generaliy to other properties in the same zone. ~ 6 ~ c. The strict interpretation ar enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applican# of privileges enjoyed by the awners of ather properties in the sarne district. ~ IX. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community DeVelopment Department recomrE°iends approvai, with conditians, of a variance frorn Section 12-6N-6, Setbacks, Vail Town Code, to al4ow for a residential addition, lacated at 303 Gore Creek C7rivelLot 7, Bfock 5, Vail Village 15t Fifing. Staff's recomrrEendation is based upon the review of the criteria in Section Vfll of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented, subject to the fiollowing findings: I 1. Thaf the gran#ing ofi the variance will nat constitute a granting of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations an ather properties classified in the same district. 2. That the granting of the variance wrll not be ttetrimentai ta the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity, 3. The strict literal interpretatMon ar enforcement of the specifed regulation waufd result in practical difficulty or uranecessary physical hardship ~ incansistent with the objec#ives of this title. 4. The strict interpretation ar enf4rcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privi{eges enjoyed by the owners of other prpperties in the same district. Shoufd the Planning and Environmental Commission ehoose to approve this variance request, the Community Development Departrnen# recommends the failawing condition: 1. This variance request apprcaval shali be contingent upon the applicant receiving Town of Vaii design review approval for this propased residen#ial addition. 2. This. variance request approval shal9 be contingent upon the applicant, in association with this proposed residential additian, not altering the structures or grounds of the adjoining properky, Lot fi, Bloek 5, Vail Village 15C Fifing (i.e, Rowhouse #6), and not using Lot 6 for can5trucfion access or staging. X. ATTACHMENTS A. Vicinity Map B. Applicant's 5tatemerrt C. Architectural Plans ~ D. Public Hearing Notice 7 77 Attachrnent: A r • , „ ~ ~ ~ ''w -ip ^ ~ ~ , ~ = ~ • t . 4 u. ~'~``h`t~;~`,~e~'~F~ o ~ ~ j ~ h.° .•sw~ ~ ~ j ~y ~~id , t ~ ~ ~ ~ , s ? ~ :i ~ w f ~,6" ~ . e a~ r ? ^k ~ r A"c» .~q'~ c= .:6 n4•r1 Y^" h g~ r a L 3 tif ~ 'wt t ¢ ~ °,~"p€A ~ t n ti ~ ~,s"•"~ , t ~ ' 4 # ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ . ~ ~a ~ ie~.,~ t• ~ r < $'SYd "~-a" ~'~~s .'~'S.7,~ '5'+ ~x ~ k ~rr 'o. ~ k s + r ~ ~ ~i ri[ ~'~s ~~w' . y2 ~ ~ : 3{ '~A -F "A"$~~.~ ~ bF 1~P' ~ ~ ~,sp, Y~ ! ~y9 iw "0. c ~ a x` % ~ 'r. ~ a'~ hw. y . ~ ri y~, p l 1 k"'~ ~ f 9 ~ 1 . ~ ~ ~ "~~'a• ~ ~ r = - ~d . • a ti'S; ~r . r . , RL . t ~ '44 G I ~ ' ' } Y`. C m I ~ ~ dV AP Z, `i ,y yr t t [ . . w .tE, }yf i ` T ~yF' , 01 IDS'~ •~f-` f ~t~.: ~ ~ i~;.. ,"~"'R. r' r ~ ~w e ~ z ~q~ae3.0 w~°.~ Y~ .J' ~~i~.** ~~p~~C;•7~~,1~ . ta py~'~.. { '~.aY.3 t o 4a7..'.i't s •sk°Y'41'Ax. ..,+x..= ..^Y~" «~i 1.wrrr.iii:~"Q .~e+rr ~ Attachment: B ~ SHEPHERD RESOURCES Ii+1C ! AIA AOST OFFECE SOX 1621 AVON COLC3RAD0 81620 T970 449 3302 F970 944 5121 January26, 2004 www.sai a,RCHiTECT.coM Town of Vail, Ppanning and Environmental Commission 1Narrert Campbefl, Planner Vail, Ca RE: HUGHES RE5IDENCE, UAIL ROWHQUSE #7 sWDGE STREETASSOCIATES, LLC 343 GORE CREEK DR3VE PRQJEC7 # 0305 VARIANCE REQUE51' Dear Warren and PEC, This proyect is a remodel/additian of the existing Vail Rowhouse #7A and #713. The attached package and information is submitted for Planndng and Enviranmental Commissiora meeting of February 23, 2004. ~ The zoning regulafion variance request is presented for the foaEowing areas: ~ 1 The lot 7 area is 2674.625 square feet with a frontage of 25.05'. Refer ro Improvement Lacation Certificate included within this package. This is an existing site confined,and bounded by adjaeent. properties not allowing the 10,000 square feet minirnum buildable area or the 10' minimum frontage. (Lot Area and Si-te pimensrons I 2-6H-5) 2 The proposed rernodel and addition is within the exist'sng fc>atprint ar srnaller than the existing footprint, except for the new skr closet on the entry terrace along the west, Unit 6, party wall south of the residence, the south entry terrace, stone veneer site walls, mechanical crawlspace and a par#ion of the lower leuel ski roorn and therefore a variance from the 20'-0" side yard set'back is required. The side setback of 0'-0" is an existing condition because of the existing rowhouse type of construction. The residence is not propased to expand nor't'h or south of the existing footprint except as noted above and the existing buiEding is nat encroaching into the front or rear setbacks of 20'-0". (Setbacks 12-6H-6) The stone veneer site walls at the south, in front of parking, and side stone veneer walls sha41 campfy with the requirements for architectural projeckions of terraces in the front yard setback. . 3 The ex'ssting 2 parking stalls are proposed to remain in use with same layout revisians and adeiing a walkway between the parking stalls. The requirement of 75°fo of parking to be hidden from public view and not within the front setback is nat achievable on this property, parking shall be located as far north as prattical and to allow landscape requirements of zaning regulations and to preserve twa ~ existing large aspen trees. (Parking and Loading 12-6H- I I) { ~ i The other units at 303 Gore Creek drive are rawhouses with similar needs and existing conditions. The above corrzrnents address the degree in which t}je variances are necessary to achieve campatibiiity and uniformity with the neighborhood. The parking area Icxated on the south side of this property is proposed to be treated in a ~ manner ta blend with the in process Town of Vail streetscape plans Piease call if yQU have any questions. JefFrey P. Manley PJA ProjectArchitect, $hepherd Resources, Inc. cc Ron Hughes I ~ I I ~ ' 11 ~ ~4~c g g ~ 's l7~ 3:U ua ~n7 Q(. a al a ~ 1t? W ~ L) Q ~ m W UJ~ ~ a#~~o c,~? t1~ww~cc p04 U L ~ ~ p~ J?- 4 kt ~ -1 ~,`'Q~ ~ 1~ tx ~ 7 u.. o 4 ~ . ~ l ~ ~ a $ u z N a g a ~W 02Q :3 ~ L a ia I g W C7~ 3~3 ~ ~ F 9 f a p~ w I ~ i I I I~~I I 4 - 1 I , g ~ I~ fll5 i~l Ij L__-ji I { ' ~~o fllf i~l I~ ~I I ¦ ~p ~ j ~ ~________I I 1 d ' I I l~t. ~ l r~l. 4 I ~ 1 I 1 {l Q 1 ~ k ~ ~ 'll i ~ f g , I I 1 1 ~ I ~ ~ Y t 1 d ~ ~ jf II y - LJI ~ ' ; ~ ~u t SR. ~~1i ~ ~ W~ . ~ 1 • _ ~ ~ - - - - - - - i I I i i ~ f ~ a F- ~~y w -----------TT ~ l I I I 1 4 I 4 I I ^ ~ 1 7r~T 1 ~r--'til r~ ~ II1 + e i I Iy r 1 p ~ w ~ I 111 6 1 II GO LS~' F~_'_.! l 6 ~1 Ilt LJIr~ J: Yt ~ 1~~ 1 .,j I I I Iil ~ll{ ? ~I ~ / I~ ` ` i r k I, Li -_---------~==r:L~ I I E~ ~ i . II y I I I1~t I 1 ~ I~ I IBI~ ~ I ! M 11 1 r-l f__~ j I~yFI; L 1~ ~RR~5~e~5RYYr-'•.F" ff11 _ ~ 1 R II ~ 4 1 I I I I I INI 1 y II I 1 I 1 I 1~1r~~ I Itl~ _L^ IL------------- I ' ~ i I ~e I 1r ~1 i~ ~ G ~ a y o ~ V w Z ~ V' O t7. p p ~w ~ - : = d x Q asa I ~ ~ ~ LD ui ~u1 F ; s a a a~ w ~ Sc[ ~ r i a ~ ~D z ~ E z 5 ~ !Z 0 1~ ~ ~ 1w W ~ - * ~ . ~ _ . . ~ M ~ 7 ~ ~ 1 ~ I . ~ ~ ~ i~ 3 5 °c = 6 } a Li u+~0 z LL laa,s ~ 3~: c,' a I ~.z w ~ oo"g 2'ze~~ N j z I \ i ~ . . ~ ~ .n ' - ~ I ----~s 4,L ~ 9 10 7 ZYl 9 LU ~ a aaracsd i i cncnm a..u~ 107 ~I C3 I ~ e, airvic ~ i~ . r•• _ t, s , lLlb' I ~i ~ o-« •6~,~ ~ I ~ - ~ 5uaplinq ~apun l r F A ~ ~L ~ . I aPOA Pai.afo ,QLIB I_ I f I L - - - - - - - I ~ 1 or ` I cKr~.iF I I.rsrmc..xa . I .n ~~tan,vrs - 6vninq 1apun I K o s"y~~' I I apoa6 pay~ato.~~ I ,0918 i~ { ~ TB +Y~ y KO ~I . f ' fiwplirvq iapun apoj6 paanjfoid ~ I ~B A~ r I E 3~ ~o ~i Q ~ 1 1$ rq ! 6wpEmq iapun ~ I y ~ apoj6 pal3a(oid i 6uip~~nq ~apun i - I ap0a6 papa, - ~ ~ I L I - I 1 _ \ ~I g -~~.ewaa.~..~.a~s ~ ~ wT...,ro wuwr~a. I v` ~ I aw ~+o-~ ~ v...w~ ~ar~ao.osi.s+ ~ ' - I _Uf i ~ Mit~~ oo~~0,91&' ~v3x~ro~- 7 7 . ~ ~ , X0P 83110 V3H M ~~~1 LU w a~ d Z - Y~ V LU F E S ~ i I ~ ` p :D uj I 1 I I ~--r--pW.---1 - - - - - - 1 ~ F V ~d4~t ~ q C Ryi~iBZ I I I [7 ~ zEE) !O ~ I ~ s' u~54t»~~ Z itu- ~ `I ~~:~~~~r4 ~ J i b ~ ~ i,, a~~ W + -.cwr, i ~r Pf k yr U .I r_~ F. I J qy - lA p..3=4- _~'o ' r~,\U,f I#~ ~ . ~ i ~ I.1 1~ l7 w ~ ~ ~I 02 I ~ 1~ F ` I } w ! ~G ° ~ F c~ ~ ~ b F 1 r is U ~ 6Y ~~4Ca 6 0 / r ~ yQ.. y; ~ s ~ I r 5~ 1 I I~ ~ t ~ 4 i . 1~ ~ 1011 y-~ x~ o 9 ~ 4 e p w w w LUw ~ ~ p1 ° ~ = ° U ~ o I _ g 20~ ` It I ~ N ~ 9I 1 , . ~A-9T ~N ><Z, 11j ~ 'I eLlb' m! g ~ ~ { • j ~ G ~ 4 f ~ ______-_r___________.._ ~ .,7«p;~, 107 ~~~~i N I c ~ •~~~5` 1 ~1~ . 1r~ ~ 4 ~ ~ il Z ` g 4J ~ I I B 1 I; ~ ' ~j I I - 07 - , LLlB ~ _ = A ~ JI L ' 6u!pl!nq ~apun ! ~ ~T - - - - - ~ ~ . i + apoi8 pa;.fo .OLl8 1 l- V 1ll A ` 6TIY-lfBl = iR1Y9W.P3H + ~ ! i~Shltltlw~9 I Al~LtlO'O'1 ~ bu,P„rq ,2pvn ap015 papafo ~ -------J _ m1 fiwplinq japun CO ~ ~s ~ A"••, I apLfi pa;oafoid : ` I ~ fiwplinq iapun ~ I - - ~ 31)aJ6 paiDa.ra.jd L9 l8 I ~ ~E tl ~ 4u!PI!n4 japun i.. poi6 papa. ~ L - ~ ;I 41 wnwatiawmr`~'u` ~ / - - - - - ~ - ------------,..,J ~ cV~~Dli _ _7 - r n~ ~ '%~7b :~LP0 d3&Y _ _ v - - ~ _ • , ~ _ ~ ~:_=a w INPO Ir ~ no ~9~~~ ? ~ U CVII ~w oc1 o u F i , ~ E'C7~ r Q s Z ,---r------- I ' i W N6-' 1 ~ ;F 1 a f ~ ~ ~ ~s W ~ig~ ¢ ~i Y vy .oyra~_.~_--`--- ~i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ I 4•_ ~ ~ ~ ~ Y ~i s Y e - _ y I PI q- ~ q I ~ ` t ! I !j 3 ~ s iE ~ 5 y ~ f g r ~ P ~ P f O 1 ~ ~ • ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ n` K ~ ~ N~~~~•~ ~ t~ ~ ~ ~ / L---, t 1 . ~ 1 r, ~ ?4i~~ ~ i - 1 i ~ ~ A R $ g e p q x p O uJ W w q 1 ~ o Tw O d ~ g O =0u w~ 0 ° i ~ E _ Li w ~ k• `h~ ~~?~~..~~.1~'~+ ~ 5 G, ~ . . _ . _ _ 1 - ~---,t'~ ~ - ~ .nu.w.. - - - i ~ j ~'.o.. . " 'T ••fi ~ ~ 1,~ ,,wr r• .w. ,q,~ ,~.r ~ ~ ~ w f f ~ ~ I p 6 `l,J ~ 4p ° ~ ry wra i i ~ , ~ .;~ti 9 i _ - ~ j ~ ~ _ _ _ ~ ~ ; I ~ - ~ I T ~ I i ~ 4 Y ~I~ l'~ ~ ~ .~i 1 r ' .~.p . _ ' - .~n1. p.P .rl .II4R .~(V~Z ~tp1 -K G-a I Z ryF I ] I I il ~ I ~ e ~ I I I ~ r ~ ~ ~ ' o G > R ~ ° o 0 ul ? W'+e 4 4 o ~g N U 62d I 0 ~ i h f W o '1 •G . f - - r . k , -0_ - -I--ri - ~ir- i - 1E !p~ S 1 fl I _ j~y. ~ 7 Y 1 i ~ _ , . , Ai ~ ~fs n ~ .r~? .k~ •4~ ~ .~o,. ! .fr,n ~ J~+•,a ' .;e..a .~e,.~ H , Z ~ ~ ~ \ I ~1/ L ~ ~ p W 1. 141 z i a I • - , ~ - .K~~.,Y1SJ(1ry I { " y ~I ~ I aM~y ~ I ~j ~ S ~ 9f r -11 aa W T ' ~ ~ « 1 L___ I J I 39BIY ~ yI I' I i ~ r- -awmn~n..~~ wawsm un : C , _ . . _ . . ~ . ~ . . . ~e . I 4 - . . ~ ~ ~ c ~ W ik w d CC) a w W ~ Nu °iaQ u 4 I =4 1 ~ F ~ . 3:-- ° Sd o~ea~7 w - a r ~ •a-, ~ r O 1 ~3ry ~ ~ ~ I 1 ~ F-------------------- ' ~ r I , • ~ ~ ii ~n y ua ~ ~ 1 I I ~ .t[ v e,G LI L1Ll I~ SLCrJ~LC' I I I } " - ~1LUJ1L~i I QZ g5 g a_~ i LL, I 11 iI W W r i I ~ I ^ F . ~ ~ 3~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ In L.S,,: ~ I I I 1 I I i l I I~ I Illlli i 1 _ lJJ~11L~ ~~J 9 3 ,P~• D ~p y oc 7 w Z II , o i Q~10..,~,~ ~ J w I ~ Zaa F h I Z 0 A i z- ~ ~ ~T 1:0111 pi'. El ~ Q I ~ ~ ~ ~a ~ R Q y ~l~ P~•. Z ~ ~ ~ _ ~ d ~ x t 4 Z ~ • ~ c 4~5 t-~' ~ ~ 4 d - 4 Y 15 o 1 ~ i I 5z ~ J' p¢ , "j 'A ~I Y~ s ' 3 1I ( , , ~ , . ~ ~ o ~ ~ _ t7:~ W ~ e e S,7 E,- ~..1~ 1~ rre. 4 r' ~ j - ~ ~ ~a 34= 93 ~ L Attachment; D THIS ITEIUI MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY PUBLIC NQTICE NC7TICE IS HEREBY G1VEN that the Planning and Environmental Gornmissian of the Town of Vail will hold a public hearang in accflrdance with Section 12-3-6 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Uail fln March 8, 2004, a# 2:00 P.M. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. In considerafion of: A request for final review of a variance fram Section 12-6H-6, Setbaclcs, Section 12-61-1-10: I Landscaping and Site Development, and Section 12-6H-1 1: Parking and Loading Vail Town ~ Cade, to allow for a residential addition, lacated at 303 Gore Greek DriuefLot 7, Block 5, VaiM Village 15' Filing, and setting farth details in Tegard thereta. Applicant: Ron Hughes, represented by Shepherd Resources, Inc. Planner: Bill Gibson I A request for final revievv of a variance from Section 12-6D-6, 5etbaclcs, Vail Town Code, to ailow for A residential addition, lacated at 2434 Chamonix LarrelLot 11, Block B, Vail das Schone Fiking 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Mark Yare, representecE by VAg, 1nc. Planner: Bili Gibson A eequest for final review of a variance from Section 12-6H-6, 5etbacks, Section 12-6H-9, site coverage, and Section 12-6H-10. Lanc#scaping and Site Development Vail Town Code, to allow for ~ A residential additian, 6ocated at 303 Gore Greek DrivelLot 8, BCoek 5, Vail Village I 151 Filing, and setting forth de#ails in regard thereto. Appiicant: Ericksan Shirley, represented by K.H. V'Jebb Architects P.C. Planner: Biil Gibson A request far fnal review of a variance from Chapter 14-6, Grading Stant{ards, Vail Town Code, to ~ allow for retaining walis in excess of six (6) feet in height, located at Tract K, Glen Lyon Subdivision ! and Unplatted Parcels, a more camplete metes and bounds descrip#ion is available at #he ~ Community Development Departement and setting farth defails in regard thereto. ; ; Applicant: Vaii Resorts Development, eepresented by Braun and Associates ! I Planner: Bill Gib$on A request for a recornmendation to the Vail Town Cauncil for a text amendrrient to Section 12- ~ 7H-3, Permitted and Coraditional Uses; First Floar or Street Level and Section 92-71-3, t Pe6mitted and Conditional Uses; First FIQOr and Street Level, pursuan# to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to allow for temporary real estate sales offices on the first floor or s#reet Ievel af a building, in the Lionshead I & 2, Mixec4 Use zone district, and setting forth ~ ; cietails in regard thereto. ~ i Applicant: Vail Resorts Development Company, represented by Braun and Associates Pianner. Gearge Ruther ~ A request for fir,al review of a variance from Section CC1,12-78-15, Si#e Goverage, Vail Tovun Code, ~ to allow for additional site coverage, Eocated at 230 Bridge Str€:eULot B, Block 5-C, Vail Uillage 1" ' Filing, and setting farth details in regard thereto. ~ f Applicant: Rodney E. 5lifer - Planner; Warren Campbell I ~ The appfications and information abovt the proppsals are avaifabie for pub{ic inspection during regular ofifice hours in the project planner's office, located at the Tawn of Vail Communit}+ Deveiopment Department, 75 South Frantage Road. The public is invited to attend project arientation and the site visits that precetfe the public hearing in the Town of Vail Cornmunity Developrnent Department. Please call 479-2138 for information. Sign IanguagE interpretatian available upon request with 24-hour notifiicatian. Pfease +cali 479- 2356, Telephone far the Hearing lmpaired, for infarmafion. This notiee pubEished in fhe Vail DaiCy on February 20, 2004. ~ t ~ ~ . I ~ . Vz; ' I ~ ~ . , I I V~IL cx~ 8i~7 . . . , . ~ V~ AW V4 N - - ~ ~ ~CiU- Lo g l (c~3~7 ~ . ~ 1 _ uNLTB G~o ~5~~ MFa3r~f-t~r.Ylr C~rh~+~ , J43 V)-CL t~ 8l43~7 : M lu-- • ~ 1 ~.h°41?- ~°~-s i3-7 ~..vorS c~ B t (v2~ C p~ ~1 I ~ MEMQRANDUM TC): Planning and Enuironmental Commission FROM. Gommunity Develapment Department DATE: March 8, 2004 SUBJECT: A request for finai review of a variance from Section 12-6H-6, Setbacks, Vail Town Code, to allow for a residential addition, located et 303 Gare Creek DrivelLot 8, Black 5, Vail Village lSt Fifing, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Erickson Shirley, represented by K.H. Webb Architects Planner: Bill Gibson L SlJMMARY The applicant, Erickson Shirley, is requesting a variance frarn Sec#ian 12-61-1-6, Setbacks, Vail Town Code, to allow for an addition in the setback, located 303 Gore Creek Drive, Vail Rowhouse #8. The proposed acfdition in the setback consists of an increase in the amount of bulk and mass of the existing home in the setback. Sased upon Staffs review of ~ #he criteria in Section VII1 of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented, the Community Development Departrnent recommends approval, wi#h condi#ions, of a variance to allow the construc#ion of an addition in the setbaclc subjec# to the fndings and c4nditions noted in Section IX of this memarandum, IL [7ESCRIPTION OF REQUEST The applicant is propasing a significant renovation to an existing residence, ariginally constructed in 1963, Incated at 303 Gare Creek Drive, Vail Rawhouse #8. 7he proposed renovatiQn ineludes an addition of approxirnately 507 sq. ft. of grass residential flaar area (GRFA) and a substantial exferior alteration to the property. The applicant's request and proposecf architectural plans have been attached for reference (see Attachments B and C). The prowisions of Sectian 12-17 (Variance), Vail Town Code, determine the review criteria and review procedures for a variance request. III, BACKGRDlJNQ The Vail Rowhouses were originally constructed in 1963. The Vai! Rawhauses were constructed as a single skTUCture; however, Rowhouses #2 through 6 are a single homeawner assaciation, and Rowhouses #7 through 14 are subdivided as ~ individuaC lots of record. 7herefore the Vail Rowhvuses (i.e. a!I uniks) are legally non-conforming in regard to numerous requirements af the High Density Multiple 1 Family district. Furthermore, as individual lats of record the Rowhouses 47 ~ through 14 deviate greatly feom the Town's current zaning regulations. Due to the non-conforming nature of the Vail Rowhouses, se+reral variances have previausly been cansidered for this site and ather individual{y subdivided units (i.e. #7 through 14): • Unit S: Density cantrol variances denied in 1984 and 9999 Setback varfance approved in 1984 • Unit 11: Density control and setback variances approved 1984 • Unit 12: Density control and setback variances denied 1984 Density cantrol and setback variances approved 1985 • Unit 13: Setback Variances approved 7981 and 1993 The applieant's proposal was conceptually reviewed by the Design Review Board at its February 18, 2004, public hearing. 7he Design Review Board commented an severaf aspects af the praposal, and responded +rery favorably to the prvpased architecture and aesthetics. IV. RQLES OF REVaEWING BQDIES Order of Review: Generally, applications wiCl be revie+nrecC frst by the Pianning and Environmen#al Gommission far acceptability of use and then by the Design Review Board fior compliance of proposed buildings and sote planning. i Planning and Enviranmental Commission: ~ I Action: The Planning and Environmental Commission is responsible for fina! ' approvalldeniallapproval with conditions af a variance. ~ ( The Planning and Enviranmental Commission is responsible for ~ evaluating a proposal far: ~ ~ ~ 1. ReEationship and impact of the use on cievelopment objectives of the I Town. ~ 2. Effeck of the use on Iight and air, distribution af Ropulation, ` transportatiQn faealities, utilities schools, € , parks and recreation facifities, and o#her public facilities and public facilities needs. ~ 3. Effect upan traffic, v+ri#h partacu6ar reference to eonges#ian, automative ~ and pedestrian safety and eonvenience, traffic flow and control, aceess, ~ maneuverability, and remoual of snow from the streets and parking areas. 4. Effect upon the character of the area in whieh #he proposed use is to Ii be loeated, inciuefing the scale and bulk af the proposed use in relation ta I surrounding uses. ~ ~ 5. Such o#her factors and criteria as the Cammission deems applicable to ; the propased use. ~ - . k 2 - ~ ~ t ~ I ~ 6. The environmental impact report concerning the proposed use, if an environmental fmpact report is required by Chapter 12 of tnis Title. Canformance with development siandards of zone district Lot area Setbacks BuFlcfing Height Density G RFA Si#e cnverage Landscape area Parking and loading Mitigation af development impacts Design Review Board: Action: The Design Review Board has MO review authority on a variance, but must review any accompanying Design Fteview Board application. Town Council: Actions of Design Review Baard or Planning and Environmental Comrr7ission may be appeased to ihe Town Councii or by the Town Council. Town Cauncil evaluates wheiher or not the P(anning and Environmental Comrnissian or Design Review Board erred with approvals or denials and can uphold, uphoid with modifications, or averturn the board's decision, ~ Staff: The staff is responsible for ensuring that all submittal requirements are providEd and plans canfvrm to the technica] requirements of the Zaning Regulafions. The staff also advises the appiicant as to compliance with the design guidelines. Staff provides a staff memarandum containing background on the property and provides a staff evaluatian of the project widh respect to the required criteria and findings, and a recommendation on approval, approval with conclitions, or denial. Staff also facilitates the rev`ew process. V. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS StafF believes #hat the following pravisions of the Vail Town Code are relevant to the review nf th'rs proprsal: Ti7LE 12: ZONING REGULATIONS Chapter 12-6H: Nigh Density Multiple Famify Dis#rict 92-6H-1: Purpose: The high density rnultiple-family district is r'ntended to provide sites for multiple-family dwellings at densities to a maximum of fweraty frue (25) dwelling unrts per acre, together with such public and semipu,blic facilrtres and ladges, privafe recreation facilities and related visifor orrented uses as may appro,priatefy be located rn the same district The high density mulfiple-family district rs irttended ta ensure adequate 1r`ght, air, open space, and other amenfties commensurafe wifh hfgh density apartment, condomrnium and fodge uses, and ta ~ marntain fhe desirabfe resrdential and resort qualitres of the district by establishrng appropriafe srte deUefopment standards. Certain nonresidential uses 3 are ,permrtteci as conditional uses, which relate to the nature oi Vaif as a winter ~ and sumrrrer recreatron and vacafiarr cflmmunity and, vvhere permittecl, are fntended to blend harmoniously with the residentiaf character of the district. 92-61-1-6: Setbacks: The rrunirrlum front sei`back shall be fwerrty feet (20'), the mrrrimum side setback shall be #wenty fest (20'), and the minimum rear sefback shall be fwenty feet (20'). Chapter 12-17: Variances 12- 9 7- 9: PUrpose: A. Reasorrs For Seekrng VariancE: ln order to prevent or fa lessen such practrcal difficultr'es and urrnecessary physical hardships rnconsistent with the objectives of this tr"tle as wpuld resuJt from strict or literal rnterpretation and enfarcernent, uarlanees frorn cerfain regulafions may be granted. A practical difficulty or urrnecessary physrcal hardship may result fram the size, shape, or dlmensrons o{ a srte or the location of existing structures therean; frorn topographic or physical conditians on the site or in the irrrmediate vicinity; or from ofher physical fimitations, sfreet locations or cvnditions in the immed'iafe vicrnify. Cost ar inconvenience to #he applicant af strict or literal campliance with a regulation shall not be a reasorr fvrgranting a variance. VAIL VILLAGE MASTER PLAN ~ Staff believe5 thaf the following goals of the Vail Village Master Plan are relewant ~ to the review of this proposal: ; #1 EncQUrage high quality redevelopment whike preserving the unique i architectural scale of the Uillage in order to sustain its sense of i cammunity arad identity. i #3 To recognize as a top priority the enhancement of the walking experience throughout #he Village. ~ ~ VI. SITE ANALYSIS i r Address: 303 Gore Creek Driue, Vail Rvwhouse #8 ' Legal Description: Lot 8, Block 5, Vail Village 15` Filing 'Zoning: High Density Mult9ple Family Land Use plan Designation: Village Master Plan , Current Land Use: Residential ~ Lot Area: 2,659 sq, ft. (2,496 sq. ft. buildable area) 1 Deuelopmerat Standard Allowed/Reguired Praposed 5etbacks (min); ~ Front: 20 ft. 31 ft. i West Side: 20 ft. 0 ft. ~ ~ East Side: 20 ft. D ft. I Rear: 20 ft. 21 ft. Density (rnax): 1 units + 1 EHU 1 unit ~ GRFA (max): 1,498 sq. ft. . 2,939 sq, ft," Building Neight (max) 48 ft. 38 ft. ! I 4 ~ i I I ~ Site C4verage (max): 1,462 sq. ft. (55%) 9,463 sq. ft. (55%0) Lanciscape Area (min) 798 sq, ft, (30%) 938 sq. ft. (33%0)*'` Parking (min): 3 spaces 2 spaces*«'` *(includes existeng GRFA plus 250 GRFA bonus & interiar canversion GRFA bonus) (existirog non-cvnforming in terms of hardscape 1 softscape ra#io) (existing nan-conforming) VII, SIJFZRC3UNDING LANa USES AND ZONCNG Land Use Zoning Nar#h: Gore Creek Outdoor Recreatiora Sauth; Carnmercial Commercial Care 1, Parking, and Public Accornodatian East: Residential High Density Multiple Family V'Uest: Residential High Density Multiple Family Vlll. CRITERfA AND FINQINGS The review criteria for a request at this nature are established by Chapter 12-16, Vail Town Code. A. Gonsideration of Factors Regarding the Setback Variances: 1. The relationship of #he requested variance to other existing or patential uses and structures in the vicinity. ~ The applicant has rec@ived uvratten approval from Vail Rowhouse ~ #7 for this proposed renovation and variance request. The ° applicant has indicated that fhey will not in anyway fae impacting Rowhouse #9. Rowhouse #7 is afso currently proposing an addikian and renovation, and Rowhauses #7 and 8 hawe agreed ta caordinafe construction rnethoeis and schedules to reduce impacfs ta the ofher Rowhouses. Staff does not believe this proposal will negatively affec# the existirtg ar pa4ential uses and s#ructures in the vicinity in comparison to the existtng conditions. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal rnterpretation and enforcement of a specifed regulation is necessary ta achieve compatibifity and uniformity of treatmen# arnong sifes in thte vicinity ar to attain the objectives vf this title without a grant of special privilege. Given the previous approval of setback varaances for other individually subdivided Rcawhouses, Staff believes this proposal requests the appropriate degree of relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement afi a specified regulatian and is necessary to achieve Compa#ibility and unifcarmity of treatment among si#es in the vicinity and to attain the Qbjectives of the ~ Town's development abjectives without a grant of special privi{ege. 5 3. The effect of the requested variance orr light and air, distributian of population, transportation and traffic €acilities, public facifities and utFlities, and public safety. i ~ i S#aff does not believe the propased setback encroachment will a' have a significant negative impact on laght and air, distributiora of ! population, transpartatian and traffic facilities, pubRic facilities and ~ utilities, and public safety. ~ 4. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicabfe to the proposed variance. The appficant`s proposal was conceptually reviewed by the [7esrgn Review 8oard at its February 18, 2004, public hearing. The Qesign Review Board commented on several aspects of the proposal, and responded Wery favarably to the pr9posed architecture and aesthefics. The applicant has represented to the Town of Vail that this proposal wi11 not alter the structures or grounds af the adjoining Lat 9, Block 5, Vail Village 1 Si Filing (i,e. Rowhouse #9) and will not necessitate the use of Lot 6 far construction access or staging. Based upan this representation, the Town of Vail does nat consider ~ the owner af Lot 9 to be a"joint property owner" and therefore is not required to be a ca-applicant far this propasal. ~ B. The Planninq and Environmenta! Comrnission shall make the follor,vinq ¢ findin s before rantin a variance: e 1. That the granting of the variance will not coras#itute a grant of ~ special privilege inconsistent with the limi#a#ions on other praperties 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 ar more af the fallawing reasons: I a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the ~ specified regulation wouid result in practical difficuety or ~ unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the ~ - objectives of this title, ~ b. lhere are exCeptioras ar exkraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that da not app6y generaliy to ather properties in #he same zone. ~ 6 _ ~ ~ c. The strict interpretation ar enforcement of the specifed regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same d istricf. IX. STAFF RECQMMENDATION The Cammunity Develo,pmenf Departmenfi recQmmends approval, with conditions, of a variance from Section 12-6H-6, Setbacks, Vail Tawn Code, fo allow for a residenteal addition, Qocated at 343 Gare Creek Drive/Lo# 8, Block 5, Vail Vil9age 1S` Filing. Staffs reeommendation is based vpon the review of the crikeria in Section Vlll of fhis memorandum and the evidence and tcstimony presented, subject to the follawing findings: 1. That #he granting of the variance will nat canstatute a granting of special priviiege iracansistent with the lirnitations on other properfies classified in the same district. 2. That the granting of khe rrariance will not be detrirnental to the public , hea9th, safety, or welfare, Qr ma#erially injuriaus to properties or irnpravements in the vicinity. 3. The strict ]iteral interpretation or enforcement of fhe specifieci regulafian would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physicaf hardship ineansistent with the objectives of this title. ~ 4. The strict in#erpretation or enforcernent of the specified regulation wauld deprive the applicant of privileges enjDyed by the owners of other properties in the same ciistrict. Shaulcf the Planning and Environmental Gommission choose to approve this variamce request, the Ccrmmunity Development Departmen# recommends the tollawing condation: 1. This variance request approval shall be contingen# upon the appiicant receiving Town of Vail design reuiew approval for this propased residen#ial addition. 2. This variance request approval shall be contingent upon the applicant, in assaciation with this proposed residentaal addition, nat altering the strucfures or grounds of the adjoining properfy, l.ot 9, Block 5, Vai1 Uillage 15f Filing (i.e. Rowhouse #9) and nat using !Lot 9 fior construetion access or staging. X. ATTACHMENTS A. Vgcinity Map B. Applicant's Statement C. Architecturab Plans ~ D. Pvbaic Hearing Notice 7 I 3. The effect of the requested variance on light arrd air, ! distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. ' Staff daes raot believe the proposed setback encroachment will G have a significant negative impact on light and a%r, distributi+on of p papulatian, transportation and traffic facifities, public facflities and utilities, and public safety. ~ 4. Such vther factors aRd criteria as tlae cammission deems ~ applicable to the proposed variance. ~ ~ The applicant's proposaf was conceptualfy reviewed by the Design Review Board at its Febnxary 18, 2004, public hearing. The Design Review Baard comrnented on several aspects of the proposal, and responded very favorably to the proposed architecture and aesihetics. The applicant has represented to the Town of Vail that this proposal wall not alter the structures ar grounds of the adjoining Lvt 6, Block 5, Va61 L'illage 15t Filing (i.e. Rowhouse #6) and will nat necessitate the use of Lat 6 for construction access or staging. Based upon this representation, the Town of Vaol does not eonsider the owner of Lot 6 to be a"joint property owner" and therefore is nat required to be a co-applacant for this propasal. ~ The Planning and Enuiranrrrenfal Cornmission shall make the following fndings befare qranting a variance: 1. That the granting of #he variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the ilimitatians on other properties elassified in the same district. 2. Tha# the granting of the variance will not be de#rirnental to the ` public health, safety ar welfare, or materially injurious to properties or impravements in the aicinity. 3. That the variance is warranted #or one or more of the following reasons: a The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specifiied regu(atian would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. ~ I b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances ar j conditions applicable to the same site of the varianee that do not apply generally to other praperties in the same ; Zfln2. I 6 ~ c. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation wovld deprive tne applicanf of privileges enjoyed by the owners of athee proper#ies in the same district. IX. STAFF RECOMMENDATIOIV The Cam€nunify Developmen# Department recommends approval, wifh canditions, of a variance from Section 12-61-1-6, Setfaacks, Vail Town Cade, to allow for a residential addition, located at 343 Gnre Creek DrivelLot 8, Block 5, Vail Village 1" Filing. StafF's recommendation is based upon the review of the criteria in Sec#ion UIII of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented, subject to #he follawing findings: 1. That the granfing of the variance will not canstitute a granting of special _ provilege inconsistent with the fimitations 4n ather properties eWassified in the same district. 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrirnental to the public taealth, safety, ar welfare, ar materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. The strict literal interpretakion or enforcernent of the specified regulation wou6d resulf in practical difficuJty or unnecessary ,physical hardship ~ inconsistent with the objectives of this title. 4. The striet interpcefation or enforcement of the specified regulation woulti deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of ather properties in the same district. Should the Planning and Environmental Gammissian choQSe to approve this variance request, the Community DEVekopm+ent Department recommerads the fol9owing condition: i. This variance request appraval shall be contingent upon the appiicant receiving Town af Vail design review approval for this proposed residential addition. 2. This variance request appraval shall be contingent upon the applicant, in association with this proposed residen#ial addition, not altering the skructures ar grounds af the adjoining property, Lot 9, Block 5, Vail Village 15' Filing (i.e. Rawhouse #9) and not using Lat 9 for canstructirn access or staging. X. ATTACH1VIENTS A. Vieinity Map B. AppCicant's Staternent C. Arehitectural Plans ~ Q. Public Hearing Natice 7 i w,. Attachment. A r~'~~ ~y'x,,~,W;~ . ,'fi'" . ~ i. ~,.~'7F`"~y~sy'•. . ~ A '~fNA- Z,t ,,,~r,p 3 f ~ i 44 En"w ~ ~ • r ~ ~tnk "~4.D ~'4 M~d 5 R T~ • . . } ~ ~ 'p' ~ i ~ , „s~ ~s : ~ n ~ . - LL O Lf] a ~ A ~ 3 ~ ~d p' a , , ~ ~ ~ ;w t , „~a ~~a . . . . "r,y 4~ 0~#~!i ItYp~ °1b;F ,f°~o-. e.N"% ,y. r ~ ~ .4~"t ~ ~ ~ , ~ • ~ 4kl ~-."t'-r '~-'r. ,.~J.'~y.ro4y'~ l'~..-~ 3' Z y,C~'^ .'i~ r r~ d a ~ ~,9 ro ~,•~S . ~ + ~t~ ~ fi ~ , i ~ ~ ~ .x.s t ~ "•c.-s.,,.r~ ~ lT . ,y, t 'L i . , '+r~ r,+pg . y y ~ i ~ ~ ~ f~ Y ~ • L~ ~ t ~ ~4. _ ~ ~ P ~ . ~ ' ' . ~:tl' . ~ a( '$~w"M`ffa... ' , . f ~ ' S ,3:i'V"'~.~' ~ f. .r~~.. '_-s •.~M~~y ~ ~ ~ ~y' ~ } : 1 ~h l a . 3L ~ } ~ ~•~'1:,~ ^k . ..FV. ~ uA4 5 n,~• K, w "•~7.1.. l • ' ~ . S, Mb'.T`. R .4. ~ -M (1 ~yI a ~ . p~ ¢C , Q °el 4g~ ~ ,G ' & : - .f. ~ 4~~ ~^R. ~i'~ Y"y 4"~4 ~ ~ m , ~ . ; ~ ja ~ ~ •~r: ~ ,r°-"= ~ m x ~ ~ ,1z . . ~ G^ : , `a ~ ~ W ~ '0.'4 ~.s: w'~ _ „ y+ e . 7 ~ 4 ~r .S.~•q~ ~ „ , wN'~`°`..~ r.,."~ '+'R.'er'' ~x': . 9r ~ ~ . A z M~ f?'~• r F- At#achment: B . ` 2.9.04 Shirley Residence RenQVation Vail Rawhouse #8, 303 Gore Lreek Drive ~ Lot 8, a Resubdivisian oi Bfack 5, Yail Village first filirig, Yail Rowhouse5 Suhdivision E55F?t'flAl DATA: Lat Area; 2,659 sq. ft. Street Frontage: 74.43' Front Sethack: Currentfy 31' (to storage shed) proposed: 32'-3" Side Sethacks: Currer+tly 0' Praposed: Ho Change Rear Setbaek Currently 2I'-I" Peopased No Charnges with new 2"d Floor Deck +f- 3' into setback Height Currently 23' Proposed 31' matches height o( next door neighbor. Interpolated from survey. Site Coverage: Aflowa69e 1,462 Currently 1,169 Praposed 1,198 Landscaping. Ncr (hanges to Qxisting square footages, foar ,aspen trees to be replaced with like after construction complete to facilitate Lonstructian process. Parking Currentfy 2 spaces Proposed 2 Spaces Praposed shared access with as well a4 snow melted pavers to camplement Town of Vail Streetscape Plarrs Existing fences to be re-built in simi6ar lacatians in Frant Setback DESLRIPTI4N OF PROPOSED USE. The Owner presenkly owns Yail Rowhoase #8 as a primary residence. He wishes to renovaEe and add ~ square footage via fnterior Cnnversion and the 250 Addition as weif as redevelop his residence as desired 6y the Vail Village Master Plan thus requiring the proposed Variances. ~ Pursuant to paragraph 12-6H-S Lot Area and Site Dimension and 12-6M-6 Setbacks of the Munic':pal . Code af the Tawn af Vail. y Applicant addresses the matters set f4rth in the application as (ollows: ` A. The Relacions}oip af ihe requested Yariance to other existing or patential uses and structures in the v vicinity: ~ The R,owhouses Subdivision wat completed in the mid-1960's and is undergoing tubstantiai upgrades ~ to individual units in an on-going basis. All af the Rawhouses wnuld require the iame variances t (or additianal) to add to or modify their current canfigurations hased an tfie exasting lots being non-canforming to the overlying zone district. T'he proposed variance is an anamaly as the existing yt ~ strutture and the praposed structure are suhstantial9y sirnilar. Both adjacen# properties are in similar tanfigurations and like ufes. The net result of the proposed renavatian is a suhstantially ~ • upgraded praperty that will nat change or alter the nature or fabric in the neighbnring vicinity. ~ B. The degree to which relief (rorn the strict and literal interpretation and eniortement of a specified ~ regulatian is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment amang iites in the ~ vicinity ar to attain the ahjectives of this ti(ie without gran¢ of special priv1ege. 953 SOUTH fR0ATA6E RflAb Y4EST STE 2 16 YAIL [OLORA90 1I657 ' 910.431.2940 979.47 7 .2465 {f) wwx.khweti6.tam llFxera c~- Fxr AMfAlCAN 7xrr1 7 urF of Aaterf rrt t x. The relief requested will anly replace the existing strutture with a subatantially similar, yet ~ upgraded structure. Oniformity in all of the Rawhause's treatment is the only way redevelapment ~ can occur with these properties and this rarEante has been granted in the past and na special priwilege is apparent. C Effect of the use on light and air, di5tribution of papufatian, transpor4ation lacilities, utilities, I tchools, parlu and recreatian facifitiet, and ather pu6lic faeilities and public facilities needs. i The propased renovation will only improve aCl of the above factnrs D. Haw the requesc complies with the adopted Town of Vail planning palicies and development . objectivea. The praposed request is fuEly tampliant wiEh Town o-f Vail planning policies and is an encouraged pattern ta redevelop and upgrade Yail Village Core properties. ~ v ! E 4 V d ~ a..~ ~ I 453 SOUTH fAONTAGE ROAd WEi1 STE 2 id YAII COLORAnO 01657 479.41).2490 97 0.477.296 5(F) www.k hwebb.com a~uirtcrs ~ i7reara ar-Fxt A r:a~t~x Iri~rry~! Afi A C3 L+1 r4 W N . ~ N r`- ~ ~ O ~ n Q ~ Q W ~ ry ~y V r) C 0 ~ vy lL. } t L 6 7 ~ `0 o ~ ~ ~n r 2 i~ ° y Fi _ 4 Q~ ~ N 6• _ - ~1= _ s o < < K ti ~ < ~ G a r 0 ~ ~ al~ 1 ~ gi o a 1 3<l ; ~ - ~ g m - LO U Q z Q 3 I W W ra~p m 1 a o ~ .E ~ U 2 ra c ~ ~ V s ~ O ' J~ z i~ LD QL H <2 m r~.' rus U t -ZW W O d Yn9 MLL :aU~C Q Q V 0 J A1 ~ 4! } L.U 4c N gg a W 40 'g'~ egs ~;s ~ a ~ ~eg ~ ~ ~ =r ~ ~@ F~~~ g c?~ • 3 R, 1i 5~;5 ; ~ j~~d y ~ a' e y Y ~ g1 $ ca ij ss a ~ ~ Z 3 ~i c 3 r 3~y E, ~ ~ $ a ~ a ~E ns ~L~~~ ~3~e' ~g°'; ~7~ xyR Y~aS~ ~ • ~ IE ~7 . :~o _S: .y.~ E3. ~a~a g~~~ _a$c~ =~e _4 _7g~ ~a =~'s` '•3f _ e3i ` , . ^ . 0 C) 3 W o V z d C) W h" C? d` Q CL li F3.W 0 L, fa u- . o~ g ffl CO a ~ s ~ p5m U'~` ~ $ r. ¢~w~ i<2i~x d n ~ a ~t Y° r n^ .C6'rL 3 .StAB S sses ~ pcw Rl g r 2 ~S ~ R o e ~ 4 9 qd u5~oao g ~ g. 5 b o s' ~ g 9 ct~ E .t~ u ~ u o r ~i e~ r a ~ U . ~ ub~4u q~ 'L3E a 3 o£ `~+Yo~~d to ~ g'! Fj~a E~ do~ ~n ~'a§ Aa q 4 ~ Aft • ° . ~ ~ ~ rk^ R C y 4 i ~ ti ,£8'~Z M ,6S.iB N r iz Y=~ ~y6 F ~ ~ t's S$£~ ~ o `o ~~a~~ ~ {.Otr7 3niaa IOS+saans[i as etrrlt+ -5 ` _ , tsa:~ os'tiu tet wm uox Ta jmdwi x~aati isi QJ 11V14 - ' ° ` ' ' ' i ' 4 ' ' ° S3SOUNMOV 11t1A S# IINfl ejy ag~ a q qa"A, u~I 1 3a0 w3~k11 1 NS - °a~ - - I if ~ y ~ I A~'~ u L ~5 T~ ~i ue ~ ~ ~ ~ -----~------T----I1 ~ ~?~r-II IlIIIIII I r~ I ~ ii- - ~------~I u • ~y _L --~~~_44 ag~ ~3 ~ r L -3 - _-~.___~.L__u_ ~I C r -ri-rrrr-~ r~ . I77T E I LiLIL - I Ii s "9 ; i ; i o fl~P ~ i I I w G)1 + ~ 55~8~ ~ ~ I oc I I y~~ ~ ~j i j I w 4 ~ ~ 4 g f I IIII~ a; - ' i , ri J I i Gissucnei~ ou(iu~6ef ° ~-gr yj ~ LSifl W' iu' I~It I7~BI IIIM G~af H11r~Y611 i'%Of iSl . {V , 0) Ik4~lY ! : a ~ i r i a ~ s y ~ e m 3WUH1YMN IINfl S# 1111n I 13fl0 W3A A I I aiHS _ ~ ~ ~ LL 3i v Q v c.. i j+l i I ~ ~ I I p a I ~ d e { s~ I ~ ~ a ~ UP LEI] , r L ~ F ~e II 1 If1S971'lIMCW 9WI!117i1 ff9410]-7L 11I311m 113MQYp1191LM1lNIG8ifi1 q) 1IVh C:D ' d( 1 1 1 1 ~ o JMoI1111L1Y 1IVII S# dPllll q q 13a 6W3~ A 3 iaiH s ~T - - Ll~ "_A4A~~` L ~ . Z ~ j ~ ~ ~ ? Y ~ II ,`y . . I •'i I ' Y O ` , a • - . ~ e .~I.._.~ n; ~ I ~ F 1 ~ e . i I i ~ i ~ i i i i i i a ~ d ~ ? Ll _ . ~ 6 u}t I ~Y 3~~ i~ I V a i x 7~ ~ ~ J ~ a8 li-~ j ~--~--y Z I ~ 1 1 I I I I I 1 § 3 ~ ~f ~ _ ~ Ei~s98iito4 is aauYlpatl 5 a k i ~sue m~ erA - vn iun~ - ii3n no~ ~~ruari Nma~ ts~ 03 '1!'Vh m- 1 ~ n r,~ e,,~~ r 6 S~s~aHmQ~ ]oVn s# iiNP - ° q q a M ~ y 13a0 N 3a ~3111 INS ~ ; ~ i I I i P ~ 1 J ; I ;i' i . a a- ~ r- ' Z••~~~~. _~S ~ I ~ _ ~..~.,IrS~ ~ i { Q ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ I i ~ II II f~ - ~ - `15;m E I I I I I I f I I V l! J`1;;,~~~~~ ~ z~ 1 ~ II II ~ ,g ° ' II II u - ! II ~ 4 I a I ~ I ~z i I I I ~ ~ac i ryryryn ,t r111~ LI u ~ IdnlfuR~~ ~wtllr'u! lS111 O7" ~IA }ii 7M1 841M 7M1 F7PSN611 XNOS fN 1 IVI~ ^ ; A v ' ° ` ~ : • , , 4 ' , " 5351`101-IMN 1IVIt 8# .llNfl - ~ o q q ~I aaw3a x]I 7~iHS I II ~ I I i ~ (CH ? I I I I f I i - ' n I, m i „ ' o I t i ~~w I ~ ~ ozo ~ I 2 i r_~~ t.~~=1 w f I I~'~'~I E ~ I o I o I i - = ft F I r ~1i ' ox I o o; i 0on ~ AE~l I - ~ • I I 1 B I ~ " - n~ d w~Oy ~ ~I I ~ ~ qm / ~ I . 11 I II V~11 _ I I i i I I I I~'I I - ~I I ~ ~ LIJS_LI fTllli II i ~ A I l3 _ P ~ 0Z a ' u. ~ 1,777 ? ! I - 9 ~ ` I i ~ ~ tvu a~ ~ tm n t urn uiM aw~ »r~wnv ~u~ ts~ Q' '1 Iy 4 A . 1 i A r ~ ~ a ~ r y r i o 53S(laHMOa lE'dh 8# llNfl q q q ~I 1 3a0 wI u i I iaiHS - _e..------- - aJm c7m. ~ ~ ~I e - ~ _ ; _~;i 0r1?~-°~ ~ o~n i p J a~,z p - .~.I uLJ ~ Km ~ ~ ~ um ~ ~J ~ 0? I i 01 m i • i Z ~ i`~ ~ LQrv _ w - ~W ~ o ~ ~ F El . o~ . 6 cx ca f- ~ E. 'i. ~El Ei.- PP z pZa E r Z ~ I I 1 @' . Attachment: D t THIS iTEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PRQPEFtTY PUBLfC NOTICE NQTfCE 1S HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Enaironrnental Comrnissecsn of the Tawn af lfail will hald a public hearing in aceordance with Section 12-3-6 of the Municipal Corie af the 7own af Vail on March 8, 2004, at 2:00 P.M. in the Tawn 4f Vail Municipal Building. In cansideratian of: A request far final review of a variance fram Section 12-8H-6, Setbacks, Section 12-61-1-10: Landscaping and Site Develapment, and Sectian 12-6H-91: Parking and Loading Vail Tawn Cade, to allow for a residential additian, located at 303 Gore Creek DriveILot 7, Black 5, Vai1 Village 15t Filing, and setting forEh details in regard thereta, Applican#: F:on Hughes, represented by Shepherd Resources, Inc. Planner. Bill Gibson A request for final review af avariance fram S€;ction 12-6D-6, Setbacks, Vail Town Code, to allaw for A residenfial additian, located at 2434 Chamonix LanelLot 11, Black B, Vail das SchQne Filing 1, and setting forth details in regarcf thereto. Applicarrt: Mark Yare, represented by VAg, Inc. Planner: Bili Gibson A request for final review of a variance from Section 12-61-1-6, Setbacks, Section 12-61-1-9, site ~ coverage, and Section 12-61-1-1 Q: Landscaping and Site Develaprnent Vail Town Cade, to aIlow for A residential addition, lacated at 303 Gore Creek DrivelLot 8, Blocls 5, Vail Villaga 15' Filing, and setting forth detai[s in regard thereto. Applicant: Erickson Sh6rley, represen#ed by K.H. Webb Architects P.C. Pianner: BiIE Gibsan A request for final review of a variance fram Chapter 14-6, Gracfing Standards, Vail Town Cade, to aflaw for retaining walls in excess of six (6) feet in height, (ocated at Tract K, Glen Lyon Subciivisian and Unplatted Parcels, a rnore completE rrietes and bounds description is available at the Comrnunity Develapment Departement and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applican#: Vai! Resarts Development, represented by Braun and Associates Planner: Bill Gibsan A request for a recomrnendation to the 4lail Town Council for a text amendmen# ta 5ectian 12- 71-1-3, Permitted and Canditional Uses; First Floor or 5treet Level and Sectian 12-7E-3, Permitted and Conditianal Uses, First Floor and Street Level, pursuan# to Section 12-3-7, Amendrnent, Vail 7own Code, to allowr for temporary reai estate sales affices on the first flooT or street level of a building, in the Lionshead I& 2, Mixed Use zone dis#rict, and setting forth details in regard theretQ. Applicant: Vaii Resorfs Development Company, represented by Braun and Associafes Planner: George Ruther ~ A request forfnal reWiew af a variance from Section CC1,12-7B-15, Site Coverage, Vaif Town Code, to aflQw for additional site caverage, located at 230 Bridge StreeUL.ot B, Block 5-C, Vail Village 1s` Filing, and setting forth detaifs in regard thereto. Applicant: Rodney E. Slifer Planner: Warrers Campbell The applications and informatian about the proposals are available for public inspection during ~regular offce hours in the project planner's ofFice, located at tne Town of llail Community Develapment Departmenf, 75 South Frontage Road. 7he public is invited to attend projeet orientatEOn and the site visits that precede the public hearing in the Town of Vail Gommunity Qevelopmen# Department. Please call 479-2138 for information. Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24-hour no#ification. Please call 479- 2356, Telephone for the Hearing lrnpaieed, for infiormatifln. f This notice published in the Vail Daily an February 20, 2044. ~ ~ , o i , 3.4.04 Shirley Residence Renovatian Vail Rawhause #8 * lot 8, A Reauhdivision of Block 5, Vail Yiflage First Foling, Vail Rowhouses Subdivision ADJACENT PR4PERiY OWNERS NAMES & ADDRESSES: Right of Way/4pen Space: Tawn af Vail Deparcment of Public Works 75 Sfluth Frontage Rd. Yail, CO 81657 P3 & J: Cot P3 &J, Block 5A, Vail Village firat Fi{eng Vail Resorts Development Ca, Past Offce Box 959 Aron, CO $1670-0959 Creekside Court Building Millcreek Court Condominiums, B1ock 5A, Vail Yillage First Fiiong Creekside Court $uilding Associaticsn UO SEifer Management 143 E. Meadaw Dr. Vail, C0. 81651 ~ Vail Rowhauses #7: Lot 7, A Resubdivision of Bloclc S, Vail Yillage First Filing, Vail Rowhoaset $ubdiviaian ~ Bridge Street Associates LLC ° 315I00 Telegraph Rd. #220 . Bingham farms, Ml. 48025 ~ Vail Rowhouses #9; Lot 9, A ResuhdivGSion of Block 5, Vail Yillage First filing, Vail Rowhauses Su6divisian Narris irust & Savings Bank as Trustee " Christapher B. Galvin Revoc. Trust d E 0] W. Monroe St. E6W Chicaga, II. 60603 ..c5 ~ Mauntain Haus Condaminium:: Mountain Haus Condominiums, $lack 5, Vail Yillage first Filing Mountain HauS Candaminiums V Attn: Steve Nawkins 292 E. Meadow Dr. YaiR, CO 81657 ~ Vail Mauntain lodge: Vail kthfetic C1ublYail Mountain Lodge, SDD #30, $lack 5, Vail V311age first Foling ~ YML LLC • 352 E. Meadow Dr. ~ Yail, C0 81657 45) SOUTH fApitTAGE AOAU WEST STE Tld YAIL {OLORAPO 81851 47 0 .4 7 7.7990 570.471.2465( F) www,khwe6h.tom Nrna~a aF Txt Axfai rA N lasr+rurr oi Aacxrr ttrt , ~ MEMaRANDUM TO: Planning and Errvironmental Commission FROM: Cammunity Develapment Department DATE: March 8, 2004 SUBJEC7: A request for fnal review of a, variance from Sectian 12-6Q-6, Setbacks, Vail Ycawn CQCle, ta allflw for an addition in the setback, located at 2434 Chamonix LanelLot 1, Black B, Vail das Schone 15t Filing, and se#ting for#h details in regard thereta. Applicant: Mike Yare, represented by VAg, lnc. Planner: Bil! Gibson 1. SUMMARY The appficant, Mike Yare, is requesting a variance from Section 12-6D-6, Setbacks, Vail Town Code, to al(ow for an addition in the setback, Iocated at 796 Forest Road. The proposed addition in the setback cansists of an increase in the amount of bulk and mass in the required setback. Based upon StafFs review of the criteria in Sectian Vlfl of this memorandum and t:he evidence and testimony ~ presertted, the Communrty Development Deparfinent recornmends approval, with modifications, af a variance to allow the construction of an acfdition in the setback subject to the fndings and conditions noted in Section !X of this rriemorancium. tl. DESCRIPTIQN f]F REQUEST The applican# is proposing a renovation ta an exisfing single-family residence with a one-car garage, ortginalfy constructed in 1976, located a# 2434 Chamonix Lane. The existing residence is a legally non-confarming structure in regard to the setback requirements of the Twa-Family PrimarylSecondary Residential zone district, as ane corner af the structure currently er,croaches 2.7 feet into the 15- faot required west side setback. Architectural plans been attached for referertce (Attachment C). The propased renovation incfudes a tvwQ-story addition cansisting of a new twa- car garage and new bedroom both of which are parEiaCly located within the required side setback. This proposal will involve the construction of approximately 155 square feet of garage area and appraximately 155 square feet of grass residential fioar area (GRFA) wkthin the setback. The applicanf is propasirag to iocate the garage/bedroorn acidition in the setback due to the @xFSting configuration af the house on the lot and the presence of an existing stand of aspen trees located in the front yard. ~ 1 _ i ; The applicant's request and proposed architectural plans have been attached for ~ reference (Attachments Band C). The provisions 4f Sectican 12-17 (Variance), Vail Town Code, determine the review criteria and review procedures for a variance request. III. BACKGROUNQ The existing residence iocated at 2434 Ghamonix Lane was originally constructed in 1976 under Eagle Couraty jurisdictian and today is {egally non- canfarming in regard to the prQVisions of the Town's current setback regulations. The applicants' propasal was conceptually reviewed by the Design Review Board at its February 2, 2004, public hearing. In terms of architecture and aesthetics, the Design Review Board responded very favorably to the applicant's propasal. The C}esign Rerriew Board did no#e its concern abaut the amaunt ofbuilding bulk and mass being proposed within the side setback. The Design Review Board also noted its opinion that the existing stand of aspens in the frant yard are ~ replaceable and may not justify adding the amount o# propased bulk and mass in ~ the side setback. i 1V. ROL.ES OF REVIEWING BODIES Order of Review: Generally, applicatians will be revrewed firs# by the Planning and Environmental Commission fcar aeceptability of use and then by the Design Review Board far campliance of proposed buildings and site planning. ~ Planning and Environmental Cammission: Action: The Planning ancf EnWiranmental Corrrrnission is responsible for final approva[fdeniallapproval with conditions of a variance. The Planning and Envirorrmental Commission is responsible for eWaluatEng a propasal for: ~ 1. Relatianship and impact of the use an development objectives of the ~ Tawn. 2. Effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parkS and recreation facilities, and other pub1ic facilities and public facilities Reeds. 3. Effect upon traffic, with particular reference to eongestion, autornotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic f1ow and control, access, maneuverability, antl remova9 of snow fram the streets and parking areas. 4. Effect upan the character af the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk af the proposed use in relation to surrQUnding uses. 5. Sueh other factors and criteria as the Commissian deems applicable to ~ the proposed use. 2 f ~ 6. The en+rironmental impact repQrt cancerning the proposed use, if an environmental irnpact report is required by Chapter 12 of this Titie. Confarmance with development standards of zone district Lot area Setbacks Building Height Densify GRFA Site coverage Landscape area Parking and loading Mi#igation of development ampacts Design Review Board: Action: The Design Review Board has h10 review autharity on a variance, but must review any accompanying C]esign R:eview Board application. Town Council: Actians of Design Review Board or Pianning and Environmental Gommissian may be appealed to the Town Council or by the Town Council. Town Council evaluaies whether or not the pfanning and Environmental Comrnissian or Design Review Board erred with approvals or denials and can upho[d, uphald with modifwcativns, or overtum the board`s decision. ~ StafF: TFre stafE is responsible for ensuring that all submittal requsrements are provided and pians conform to fhe technical requirements of the Zoning Regulations. The staff also advises the applicant as to eornpliance with the design guidelines. Staff pravides a staff memorandurrr containing background on the property and provides a staff evaluation of the project with respect to khe required criteria and findings, and a recommendation on approval, approval with conditions, or deniaL StafiF also facilitates the review pracess. V. APPL3CABLE PLANNING DOGUMENTS Staff believes that the following provisions of the Vail Town Code are relevant to the review of this proposal: TITLE 12: ZONING REGULATIQNS Chapter 12-6D: Two-Farniky PrimaryfSeeondary Residential (P/S) District 72-6D-1: Purpose: The two-farnily primary/secondary reside,ntral district r`s intenafed to provide sites for single-family residential uses ar fwa-family residential uses in which one unit is a larger primary residence and the second unit is a smalfer caretaker apartment, together wifh such pUblic facilities as rrray appropraately be Iocated in the same drstrict. The two-family primary/secandary residential drstrict rs intended tv ensure adequate light, air, privacy and open space fflr each dvvelling, commensurate vvith single-family and two-family occupancy, arrd to maiRtain the desirable residential qualitres of sueh sites by ~ establishrng appropriate srfe development staradards. 3 12-6D-6: SETBACKS.° fn the primary/secondary residential drstrict, the minirrrum front setback shall be twenfy feet (20'), the mrrtimum side ~ setback shall be fifteen feet (15'J, and rhe rr7inimum rear setback shall 6e ' fifteen feet (15). Chapter 12-17: Variances 12-77-9: Purpose: A. Reasons For Seekrng Varianee: !n order to ,prevent or to lessen such practrcal drffr`culties and un»ecessary physicaf har'dships rnconsistent wrth the ob1ectives of thfs title as vvould result fram sfrict or llteral interpretation and enforcemenf, i variances from certarn regulatians ,may be gran#ed, A practical difficulty Qr unnecessary physical hardship may rescrlt fram the size, shape, or dimensions of i a site or the loeation df exisfing structures thereon; from fopographic or physieal GDI1CIIf10175 an the sife or in the rmmedfate vicinify; or from ofher physical limitafioras, streef locations or conditiorrs in the immedrate vrcirrity. Casf or inconvenrence to the applicant of strict or literal compllanee uwrth a regulation I shall not be a reason for granting a varrance. V1. SITE ANALYSIS . Address: 2434 Ghamanix Lane Legal Descriptian: Lot 11, Block B, Vail cfas SchQne 1" Filing Zoning: Two-Family PrirnarylSecondary Residential (PIS) Land Use Plan Designatian: Medium Density Residential Cureent Land Use: Residential Lot Area: 11,848 sq. ft./4.272 acres . DeveloRment Standard AllowedlRequired Propased I Setbacks: Front: 20" 40' West Side: 15' 7' East Side: 1 5' 27' Rear: 15' 21' Density: 2 units + 1 Type II EHU 1 unit GRFA: 3,637 sq. ft. 3,394 sq.ft. ° Site Coverage: 2,370 sq. ft. (20%) 2,135 sq. ft. (18°/a) Landscape Area: 7,109 sq. ft. (60%) 8,384 sq. ft. (65%) ~ ~ Parking: 3 spaces (1 enclosed) 3 spaces (2 enciosed) VII. SURRC)UNDIhlG LAND USES ANd ZQNING ~ i Current Land Use Zoning North: Residential TwQ-Family PrimarylSecondary Residential South: Frontage Roadl1-70 Unzaned, Road Right-of-Way East: Residential Tv+ro-Family Primary/Secondary Residential ~ West: Residential Two-Farnily PrimarylSecondary Residen#ia! 4 ~ Vlli. CR17ERIA AND FINDINGS The review criteria #or a request of this nature are established by Chapter 12-16, Vai6 Town Code. A. Gorrsideration of Factors Regarding the Setback Variances: 9. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses anci structures in the vicinity. This proposed garagelbedroorn addition in the side setbaek is associated with a remodel of an existing resicience originally construeted in 1976. The existing residence is a non-confarming struciure in regard to the provisions of the Town's current setback regulations. Althaugh the Planning and Environmental Gommission has preuiausly held that canstruction of a structure prior to the adoption of the current zaning regulatians may be a basis far granting a variance from the Town's current zoning regulations, StafF beliewes that desbgn alternatives are avaslable to the applican# to construc# a new twQ-car garage with less impact to the other existing or potentiai uses and struetures iru the vicinity. Staff believes that there wili be negative impacts associated with garagelbedroom addition as proposed, in comparison to current ~ conditions, to the other existing or potential uses and s#ruetures in the vicinity (specifically to the west). Staff believes the proposed impacts can be significantEy reduced by reducing the amount of the praposed encroachment and reducing the bulk and mass of the praposed addition to a single-stcary in height. Praposetl architectural plans have been attached for reference (Attachment D). 2. The degree to which relief fram the stric# and literal interpretation and enforcernent of a specifiad regulation is necessary ta achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment annong sites in the vicinity Qr to attain the objectives of this title without a grant of speciai privilege. Staff believes that atvvo-car garage addition to this residence is in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. Therefare, Staff believes the existing non-canfarming house location and existing vegetation on the site, a variance from the side setback requirements for a garage addition may be necessary to provide relief from the strict and fiteral interpretation and enforcement of the setback regulations necessary to achieve compatibility and unifarmity among sites in the vicinity and within the Two-Family PrimarylSecondary ResidentEal (P/S) District. ~ 5 _ However, Staff beGeves the proposed two-story garagelbedroom ~ addition encroachment of eigh# feet (8') into the required sefiback exceeds the minimum degree of re9ief necessary tv achieve compatibili#y and uniformity. Staff would be supportive of a variance for a modifed propflsal invo6ving a singfe-story garage addition, with no additional GRFA in the setback, which rrrould encroach no further inta the setback than fhe existing house (i.e. 2.7 fieet). 3. TMe effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of populatian, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. Staff daes not belie+re the proposed setback encroachment will have a significant irnpact on the public health, safety or welfare, public facilities, u#alities, or light and air in comparisQn to exisfing conditians on the site. 4. Such other factvrs and criteria as the commissian deems applicable to #he proposed aariarace. The applicants' proposal was conceptually reveewed by the L7esign Review Baard at its February 2, 2004 public hearing. The applicants' proposal was conceptually reviewetl by the Design Review Board a4 its February 2, 2004, public hearing. In terrns of ~ architecture and aesthetics, the Qesign Review Board responded very favorably to the applicant`s proposal. The Design Review ~ Board did note its concern about the amaunt of building bulk and mass being proposed within the side setback. The Design Review Board aIso noted its apinion that the existing stand of aspens in the front yard is not irreplaceabEe and may not justify adding bulk and mass in the side setback. B. The Planninq and Environrr+ental Comrrikssion shall make the followinp findings before grantinq a variance: 1. That the granting of the variance will nat canstitute a grant of special privilege ineonsistent with the iimitations on other praperties classified in the same district_ 2. That the granting of the aariance will nat be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfaTe, ar rr?aterially injurious to properties ~ ar imprQVemen#s in the vicinity. 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasans: a. The strict literal interpretation or enfarcernent of the speci#ied reguCation wou#d result in practical difficul#y or unnecessary physical hardship iroconsis#ent with the ob}ectiues of fihis title. 6 _ II , ~ b. There are excep#ions or ex#raordinary circumstances or conditions app6icable to the same site of the varianee that do not apply generally to other properties in #he same zone. c. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of priwiieges erajoyed by the awners of other properties in the sarne district. IX. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends denial of khe variance request as proposed or appraval, with modifications, of a variance frflm Section 12-6D-6, Setbacks, Vail Town Code, ta allow far an addition in the setback, located at 796 Forest RoadlLot 13, Block 1, Varl Viflage 6th Filing. S#aff's recomrnendation is based upon the review af the criteria in Section VIGI of this rnemorandum and the evidence and testimony presenfed, subject to the following findings: 1. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant6ng af special privilege inconsistent with the fimitations on other properties classified in the same district. 2. That the granting of the variance will nat be de#rimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially irtjurious #a properties or ~ irnprovements in the vieinity. 3. The strict literal interpretatian or enforcement of the specified reguEation would resvlt in practical difficulty ar unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives af this title. 4. The strict interpretation or enfiorceament of the specifiEd regulatian would deprive the applicant of priWileges enjayed by the awners of other properties in the same dastrict. Should the Planning ar,d Enwironmental Carrimissian choose to approve this variance request, the Community Development Qepartment recorrtmends #he foilowing conditions: 1. 7he applicant shall revise the proposal to reduce the buik and mass of the proposed iwc,-story garagelbedraorn addition to be a single-stary garage addition with a height of no greater than ten feet {10'} plus roof strueture, with no additional GRFA located in the required setback. 2. The applicant shall reaise the praposal to reduce the side setback encraachment of the singEe-s#nry garage addition to be na greater than the existing side se#back encraachment of the hause (2.7 feet). ~ 7 _ X. ATTACHMENTS ~ A. Vicinity Map B. Applicant's Statement C. Architectural PEans Public Hearing Natice ~ I ~ I ~ S _ - Attachment: ,~A ~ - ~ ~ . ' ~ 4 "U, % Z^~ ~ 4 4E V y k ~ ~ ~ ' ~r ~ ~ , ~ _ ~ ' . } k,pa:,~ ~`4,~: ~a ' - x`4 s. : a ~ ~ `r~ k z `^~"a , ' ~ ~ , e: F~'~ ~~+Zrs. ~~5. G*,.~.} _ ~*s~+~.,`; .1'~ ~ 0.,, y^~,.4 i" ~i 'i'+~'r ~ '~~`d: ~ j~# , ~ ! w. ` ,5' z y f : t ' s,~ h .r~ ~ - r 1' a ' 4 . * ' 4~ .a~ : '~b ~ t_ 9c ~ °~f ~ a , r~ ~ . ~ ~ ~3 4 `a?.°.~.c~.ta'°r'~«. ~+e'~~~+y~... ~ { ' "x i l e " 5'~ * ~ , 5 ~ ~1 ~ ~ 4 * "R ti. x ~ { ~ ~ h. ry 1 a 4 ~ ag p .4 s4'*~ i , 4~.~y -'~f ~ E : 'x r r ~ ~~u. x a gs~;.. _ f~! ~ ~ ~ w". a' ~'~K." - 'p~. Z. . ~k v r.~b ` = ~ 's ~ ~ , t ~ ~.,~j'. y ~i;Y . 'r+ 4 : ~s ~ p ' 11 ~ ~y I' nU~ : { S ' ~V ~Y h` . r r,4 ~ w~~ . ~F . , - l?`,•X „ h •~,~Y,., i _ ig ; ~ I ~ ~ir, ~a -~g t ~ yr ~ ~ ~ U~ J~ ti ~ ~ ~ ~h . - 3 ~~"~t~x ~ g ~''~F 1~ ~ } i w x ~ ~ ' r . . ~ ~~h,' . . ~ . : j [qy ~ ? , ~ c' ~r m r F t - " ' ~ ~ . ~ ~ ' ~ ' ti ~ - ~ ~ k Y a: ~ 1 ` ~,li ' ~ ~v ~ ~ ~s , ~ ~ I 4 " ~ - r g.yry~5 ' F ~Y~' #fy 3' ~~"°d!F", ~ 40~~0'4 ~ . f ~ ~ . ~ ~q. *yi; } f o ~ ~W #r_ ~ ~ 1 ~e . ~F ~ ~ ..c- ~ w`a'-+~" v`k d tiz '~,4 S`: : ~ ~ ~g , ~ ~,a .r . _ , a 5 ' a, _ a~r ~ a u~1 ; F . ~ '",1.:- . ' ~ • -r. r§ ~ +`~'4,~ ~ ~ ~ y" i 7 ~y 1 4 4 '4 t~ ~ ~r ~ ,;'4 ^nn~ . _ , ^s t I 34s I 1- ~ ~ ~ d ~ , -~i , ~ b Rr 'e 'i'~ Fi $ ~ ^4 x . ~ .0 c "1 ~ ,P s~ kI_ ti''~'~,y~ ~~k . , r , ''I . . f F 1 ~ . ti ~ ~.h Y~ ~ t -c~. yq . C 1 4 s _ ^IMw¢~v y i W j ' A ~ '.r V~ . ~Y . ~ . i % 'SE w, ` f.- _ ' ~ ~ ^ 'k ~ti'MS A t.. . Z ,it Y ~ 1 R ° y- ef "r,~. =t' ~ ,~4 p~ qy. 9Y F^T~ 6 _ . 4 i ~ ~ ~ ~ ! ~ - ~r~ _ W. `~"~}C , . ~ ~ ~ ~ 1tla~ : , r x .5 t •~4 ' i ~ ~,a! . ~ X - , w 2. 1 '435 ~~-r 1 * F' ~ ~ " s4 . d:~ - i R f ' f A4 X ft e f ! ~ t ~ t ' , ~1. , ' , . ~ z~ N li, ~ :z~ q ~ ~ s b ~ : 3 A' " cf ~ y c~ ~ ' . ~ ~ „ 3 4~ ~^r'[~ " ~ y~,w ; ~ y ~ ~ w y ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .a~ „ A,~ r a ~a ~ ~ a , i i • ek f _ r~ ~P~ "r ` ~ r~ ~ ~ ~ > - ~ s ~v,ti <.d . § s 44 ° ~ ~ 11 x~ r° a~ r t r . x~ ~.r ~ . na~', b-~~''~ ~ ' ~ e -e - ~ ~e ' ~ < r . ` ' ! . ~1s $ ~ '7 w ` baE ~yP . ~q , ~ g~ N f i l , ~f ~"T " p~ 'Y'~'~~w ~ + , ~ ~'M`~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ b b tE'~' : J i~' ~M 11 y { q~ir~ b L'~ ~ ~ k~ ~ . M gi .'i r> ~o x'a` i~" ",C.'~ ~~7,.~+.. a ~S ~ .F '~Y` -iwF ~ ` { / ~ °'"K e~ ~a ' ' . Tr4 , . ~k. s 3~.,. , h i b ~2+#~~ ; y - S ~ ~ " , I ~ ` x r'~• . ~ 'i i Y[. ` ~ i '~p~w " 1{f ~ ~ ~ F ~11 r ~ ~ I. ~ + ~ ` . ~ ~ q ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ y~ 0~~ - ~3 ~4 4 ~t,J_ ~,j ~ 44 . ~14 ~e {ks ~ . ~.M ~ ~,~'^I 9 ~ , ,4 5 ~ 11 .s~~~ ~ e 4. *""=.Y'r.aS: ''i.~A~-_r, r. k E ~ ~ ~~*^Ltl* r~ { ~v p ~ + ~s. - ~~/`$L Yi A~, - ~r~ ~ ~ L ~..~~~~.~t ~ e Y~ ~ { ~ ' ~ ,s 4 , _ " ' _ k . . A. . . ~ ~ ~ _ E ~ ~ ? f 6~ ' ~ . } A ~k 4 q ~ ~ ~'S + ~ ~ ~ xa r ~ ` ra g ~ + ~ ~ , ~ i ,~tX r ~ ~ ~ S 3 -,,er g~ .l "y'(+ . r i _ j ~ ~ 11 ~ ~ x , , 'f' ^f" I . w" ~ . ~ , x t<s x m~~ ,,y J' . y~ f 9g ; ti b..i 't l ..1Y" ~ ~ A ..d ~ - ' A ~ c1 ~yf F ~9 . / W t.~.k ~ ~ g . ~ - ~ A - ..t f ~ - ..r.~a~u~.-.' m..., A ~ Y• ~ " ' ~y T:~P ~ ~9~ ~ ' ~y ' ,a .w. ` . ' " .e. 11 f 9 ~ # ~ S ~ ~k ~ 3~-~ ; , H . V 4..~ d I y gfi- ~ic ~ ~`5 ! ~ C ~Ml+ f T ~ `i .R ~ y d yk~i {R ~ Y f1 y ? I . y ; - 4~ ` ~ a ~ x ~ , "a,~, 'F ~ k~:, ° ~ z ~ ' ' . . , i~ ,~.s, ,~I-.: { c„ ~ , ~z~ :a s o, x ~ : x. k.. ' ~ ~ . . v,~~ : ~ ~'A I Attachment: B ~ I • ~ VAg, Inc. Architects & Planners February OS, 2~1(i4 Town of Vail Depaartment of Cammunity Development -PEC Bonrd 75 Sauth Frontage Vai1, CO 81657 (970) 479-2128 RE: Lo# 11, Filling 1, Black B, 2434 Charnoniac Lane Vail, Eagle County, Colorado Varianee to move a proposetl new addition in a set'back. Project No. 2216.00 Members of the Board: We request a variance to allow a proposed new add9tion into a side se4back in order to preserve a graup of rnature aspens. These aspen have heen elassified from a certified Aborist as above averabe and the growth rate to be exceptional. Please find his report attached. The aspens in question are an assec to the property they sit on and also tlie surrounding properties. If [he ~ strict and Iitera] interpretation of regt?lations were followed it would result in the destruction of these aspen and, Hereby ' diminishing the nverait physical appearance of the property in questinn. Sincerel_y, VAg, Tnc„ Architects & Planners Anne Gunian, PrinGapal i i Physical Addcess: (970) 449-7034 Mailing Address: 90 Senchmark Rd., 5tr'tte 202 fax: (970) 949-8134 P.Q. Box 1734 Avon„ CO 5l620 email; general@vagarchitects.com - Vail, CO 81658-1734 I I - A~ , VAg, Izic. I Architecis & P9anners February 05, 2(304 Town of Vail Department af Carntnunity Devetapment - P'EC Board 75 Scwth Frontaoe Vail, CO 81657 (970) 479-2128 RE: Lot 11, Filling 1, Blnck B, 2434 Cham,nnix Lane Vail, Eagle County, Colorado Variance to movc a grogosed new additian in a setback. T'roject No. 22I6.00 Members of the Board: The othcr existing or potential uses and structures in the rricinity of this addition is ane neighboring structure ta the west. Our hame and additiern is appraximateiy 34 feet away frorn the existing neigtaboring structure. With the new addition in the setback this woula decrease by $ feet to approximately 22 feet. As several of these homes in Ehis neighborhood are ~ approximately the same distance away, we believe [his new distance to be in keeping with the character of the surroundinb area. 'vVe are requesting a variance of eight feet into the setback to achieve the goal of the awner. Tine addition does not impact negatively li~ht and air, dastrabutsc~n of population, transportaEion, traffi~;, facilities, utilities, and public safety. Tlie Town of Vail prdnnina policies [ry to include #he ability to preserve sigruficant natural features and vegettttion on a site. By allowing us a variance we are able to upllold this policy and integrate the new addition into the existing natural features. i Sincerely, I VAg, lnc., Architects & Planners Anne Gunioo, Principlc ~ T'hysical Address: (970) 949-7934 Mailing Address: 90 Benctunark Rd., Suite 202 fax: (970) 444-8134 - P.U. Ifvx 1734 Avon, CO 8 1620 email; generat@vagarchicecu.com - Vail, CO 81658-1734 incr- vvunKS 9709263584 02108104 1:35FM Job 902 Page 2J5 I . I ~ i . PTt'.CtSi "tl YV`i~rkS, 1t1C. Bax ~t~b ~ rf~ael, Cvtarndo 8.I65~4 ¦ (97(1) ,~26-.~~'3~i ~February 'ee 7, 2004 I Nlr. Mike Mascaros ' , VAg, Inc. [ , i 1 VGJ 1734 Vaii, CO 8165$ ~ RE: 2434 Chamonix Lane Trec PreservatiQn Repoct 'Fcsr proposed ho«se adciitian projcct QQar Mike, On Thursday, February 5, 2004, I met witl7 you at 2434 Cliamonix Lane to evaluate a clump of young asperr. Tlxis repc}ri wil[ suminarizc my finciings and provide yau with recommendations. Assumptions and L`,inliting Conditions I s AlI cotnments and recomniendations are co»tZngeni irpon the con}irmed accliracy ofthe surveyed location of all ste?ns in tiiis aspen cfump. ' • Each and evcry encrraachment upoii the lai_eral root zone has a cumulaiive impact u-pon tree healtli. Hence, the iinportance of protecting the residual r+ar[Ia, east ai-it# soutka facfiag stirface roots. • Appraved root zane diswrbance limits are cottfingent upon nat dislociging any large boujtlers dur'sng excavataan that result in undennining th.e aspen ctLmip. C)bservations This trce clum}a consists of eight smail aspen sterns with cnLnk diameters in the Z iizch to S-inc}z size cIass. For ease of reference, atl eight stems haue becn numtsered antl Flagged. The annual vertical growth ofthe dorninant stezns is apprQximately 3 feet. Thc five east stems are larger mid stand mQre upright. The tluee west steins are smalferlshorter, have suppressed eanopies, and havc a signifscant lean to the west. AlI sterns are free of trunk bar4c defects above siiotiv ievei (appeaxamateiy 3-foot height). The only defccts observed were a few inconsequential twig gails in the upper canapy. The overail conditipn of these slerns is abave average. Dzscussivn Ii is n7.y undetstanditzg (needs fo he recott(armed by a frallaw-up survey} fhe praposec3 ~ outside edge of the foundation watl witl bc lacaiet9 4,5 feet froin the ceiiter of the cliamp. Assuming a 2-faai over-excavatian, tl3e disiurbance 1zsYiit wEli 6e 2.5 feet from the ceiztec• of thc clunip (or 2 teet from stem # 8). T1je tree protection fence (speci fied in the nexi section) niEist be locateci no closcr iham 2 feet frorn tree Thts plan wi11 restilt in [lie ~ e1iniinatiott of the #}iree west sterrts (#1, #'?,and 43.). Due ta l1zeir canopy suppression and . ~ MF}ASER U'e 108104 1:35PM Jab 902 Page 315 Page 2 01' 3 pP recisi rt Tree Mr. Milce Ahas,caros, VAG, Inc. Warks. 1~~. 24:34 Chainoiiix Lane Project FeUruary 7, 2004 si~,'nificant lean, tliese tl-ff ee stertas woulti, irrespective of propvsed consfiruction, be recommended for removaf anywziy. Since all advci-se itnpacts to the lateral roat zane are cumalative, the rec'raaining quadrants aF the residuai iateral roots should be proiectcd durirtg coi-istruction. Tn addition, the surfaee roots between the large spruce anti tiie aspen stems shouZd be adeqtlately protecteci during ihe Greatidn of a proposed walktivay. Specif catictiis for tius walkway are p.rovided in the next section. Given a prapased 2-f4ot raoF overhang at a19-foot lieignt, it apFears d-iat the caiiopy of aspen stem #7 tvill be dangerously close. Recornrnendations are prese-nted in tlie next sectioai. Recoxnmendations 'Y'ree removal BcfQre excavafing machines airFve onsite, stems #1, #2, wad 43 should be removed and a proteccive Fence installed_ These trees s}iouid be removed witIi a cliainsaw or hand tnol to the ciepth of 9 inch below grade. Caution! Do rYOt remove stems wiih an excavaling rtiaclZine, as the critical roat systein of resitiital lrees wil1 be irreparably damaged. ~ Feneing Once these tlcrce stems are rernoved, tlte residtial cluinp of fve stems sFiauld be coliectiveiy encircled with a cvntinuous row of straw bales to a heighr af 3 feet. A protection fertce (minimum of 4 feet) should then be insta7led with T-posts. The southeast fence line shali be no claser than 2 feet h-om stet-n Fencing on the other three sides shall be not closer than a G-foot radius from taie stem. The area anside this fenced off reclangle (apprvximately 10 faot by 14 foot) should remain iree of both storage and traffic thraughoui construct,ion, ;Fencing should retnain thr.olighout tlle construction project. Ronflcatiapy canflict 1Jue to the close prvximzty of the prapased roof an.d the canapy of severa] srems, pruning and guying is recQn°imen+ded, Stem # 7 can be strapped to #8, then callectiwely ca6led to a ground anchor pvsitioned northeast of the ]arge sprtice. The remaining conflicling soutPteast branehes may be prunccl. A certified arborist should perfarrn both pruning and guyina. Excavati.an of faundation Whefi excavating within 6 feet af the aspen cluiiip, the inachine operator shoiild be facizig the aspen clump and eait sail segments ~vith a vertical "cliornping" action. Horizonial sCraping Of r4o#.s toward tile inaehine ShouCd be avOiCied, as this resalts in extraction oF residual roots from wsxhirz ttie root protection area. A1Z residual roots over 1 inch shauIci ~ ~.Ourin ovu ~Iuc Nage 415 -;I PBgC 3 of 3 I _ Precisz rr rec ~ lrir. Mii~e Mascaros, VAG, Ir~c_ `j/l~r~r,~s, Ir~c. 2434 Chamanix Lane Froject I Feiaruary 7, 2004 be raot pnined wi4h a sharp tool. A consulting arborist shoul4i manitor this segmen# of t.1le excavation process. ~ ~ Irrigatian j Comrnencing the day of excavation and cantinuing througl-iont consti-uctian, this aspen j cftimp should be ira`igated with SO !0 75 galidns per apptication twice per week. Vllaiering recorntnendatians casZ be bighIy variable based upan soi! #exturelstruature, gresence of mulch, methcsd of water delivery, and weather eonditions. 7"he anly sure way to optinai2e soil maisture znanagernent is to have a cansu3ti.ng arbarist monitar wcek]y. Bacicfill of foundatian wall Once the foundaiion wall has heen poured, the iree presmatian ferace wilI prcvent thc excavat4r fi4n7 perfanning the backfiiL Ttze bid prospectus for the excavating contractor stiauld reflect [ha.t all of fhe northeast foundation wall be backflled by hanci. WaEkway insfallation A?valkway that provides the smallest arnount of raot damage is one that irnposes lhe least disturbance to the upper six inches of topsoil. .AccordingI}!, one of the niost tree- ~ friendly walkways is loose sione applied over the existing grade. The firsi step is ta apply ~ landscape fabric on existing gradc. 1 f dense lurf is present, the grass may be kifled with a evntact herbicide such as Roundup. ~ Caution! The dixeet applicativn of cantaet hcrbicide to either sprauts ar exposed roots cail weakeri arkill the pareni tree. The appIication ofeontact lierbicides in the clase proximity of trees should be done by a licensed pz'ofessionat applicatar or supmised by a consul#Yng arborist. Unce the lazidscape fabric is in pface, a substantial barder (stone, brick, qr tirnbess) niay be installed. Lastly, 'li-inch io 1-inch stoi-ie may iae applied. f , CQnCl1,IS10I1 ~ Th+s is a healthy, fast-growing aspen clump. Preservation of 5 out of $ steins is possible, providing that recamrnendafions Listeci in this report are followed. As noted in this report there are severat iimes during tlzQ constructaon process that mQnitar'rng by a consultiFig arbarist is recommanded,. If you have questions ar wish far me ta schetlule further site visits, pIease give rtte a citll. ~ Sincerely, . ~ Marlc Stelle, ConsuIting Arborist ~ I ~ ~~.~...r.._... ~L ,aoww... . . . . . 3NRS33maN3'6..IJ v 'LVdf1.LJfl'd3S AB 34vC NOSnJa 'Ore - s~arrmr.a ~axsnwrraa iC'lY-9if :0[LY av~ 'n -acc fw.c] 7'qrW lt 01 . Va9'I 5 n~f ~ 7cn w.zl ;+r w~m. wy an ar~a oa aNId2Yli 'JN~N~A3AKRS a.4Yi i:r.ap ~ry YY~~~ - . ~on ~u I Bidn ?Il 'S2'~ESJU6S~7 7~ S9lZ6t3 -raa~:~varv,~ i ja3jtan)E `uosUqop . 3lvos olxdvHD ~ Z% 0 ~ g86se 8~f4 a~M ~44 ~q,y5 1 C) Q ' ~~y.l~~•~~~ S~ 't; .--I . 1.. 3 ~a . ~ - , / • r~ ~ a ~',r • ~ ° ,~~~~i ~ ? , ~ i= / to ,g , ~ ~ i+*-1 i . • ~ 1 i ! ~ r'~ 1~ 1-~ J~`.('-'f`"- 1. y~ J al- ' . p fi ~h f j~f f ? ~ rr~~~ ^ / ~ ~r~ , E 1 r / r~ ~ j 44 r: ~ y~~~,'~'fl~,~~ . ~~L"` [0't.eW~ ~ 'i,~ -~ry /~r ? / - _ . , t-~~~.. ; ~ ~av~1 ~ ~ ~ ~ > , , $Np'a9j F \ ~ F.ew s ~ ~ ~ ~ Bfi Bs ~ ~ F' ~f S=y Y ,e6. ' . y^cf 'CEs~ i "a . . . _ . . - 4~F~ LS418C13A='"[=SaWzuI.?'4£VZ > W a,z-ex atl,L ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ p ti v U~ ~ ~ m u P.~ a ow. • ~ ~ m ~ ~ ~ ~ .4 y ~ ~ ~ ~;~r ~ b0~~3 ~3?7e 4 g~.~ ~ a ¢~~3~~~~~ ~j ~~ ~ ~;~ > ~~ i v S 04 ~E ~~~' :3 ~„ ~~ h° a~ au ~x `~ a Q ~~.+ W 0 U "~ Ql ~ 1~ ~ ~ rQ'l ~ I--i ('~ W ~LL MN~ ©l L- V 0 W Q QQ W ~ ~ Q Q Q ~ r C..~ 1 ~_ 4~~ y` i '-.~ E ~~ $ ~ ~ a~ r r ~. 4 -I •~ • / ~+ ~• ~~i "~~'. grv ~° Z~ s, 's I 3.~ ~ ( $ a s°~ =°s a sE° ~ ag€ .so s ~~~ _ ;~S 5. - E caa a°` ?e a ~ s CYe x iwe 8 s' S r' ~Si ai FnB v s. a eE: ea- ~~ .:;A ~ fi oy ~ e# ~g9 aR 6~'~ ~~ Q~~ _ ~ a. a fi ~4 _ g~ _ e x e ~ .-_ a W~ has .~ ,..a o- kR ~§ 9 _ ., M ., ~ .- o v Q.~ ~ L N 9 °P~O[°a'l?gA °~RI ~°~iJ trEEt ~u~Itd ° ~Q"I aaaapisa~ ales ay-~ .;a„1M ~~i, i,%` \Y + I f ~, f, ~ Yr ~1 $4 /~ ~$Y U ;~ 7 `~~, ~ ~~. ~ al ~? . `/ f{ l / - ~tN ~ t° f . ! jjaa ry~ ~~ ~ ~4d~~ r .. :r ~}!'~~ ~f~ __ _ o~~"'trr//Y f t L f 1 ~L. lr ..`~_ ....r' ~ a ! •, ,p~ ~ ~} I _ f ~ `,~f ~~ ~ ~, • _ $G 4& 4+ ~rf. ~' Q~0 5 ~ ~~ ~q~4 ~i ! j~ a . . ~' h r, 3 ~ " ~: r P~ ~ i~ I~ - .. _ nu~s,~~ • 15418 07'E?*A *M nuOU]9D 6fbZ ~ ~ ~ ~ 54% o • aouapisaa a.ieA aq.L ~ W I ~ VY ~ ~ 0 0 F- f0 W LL ~ ~ J N J ~ ~ y ~4 ` f- ~ Q ~ • ~ o ~ t~a vd ~~~Q LL' ~ fr~ ~ j muup LL r W~" m9 w a ~ e E lxxx ~n 0 ° A - [u LL,~3 " d 6 ? ~ . I L_ i": Q -3 J J LL IAI l ~1 ~ ~ - ' F°' I PL 1'~ II ill i (L $ = ~A LL i i F r r ~IJ v O ~ I LL 1 I ~ H ~i a ~ ~-id I ~ Q dd LLI w M 13~~~ ~ o1 • ~ L/ u~i • LS91803'[?&A Ww1 x!n*UtVU fi£YL E ea c~i, ~ ,y ~y~~B 4 .~E.~..~ ~ ~ ~~~~E3 ~•v''i'~1' 4 tdl ~ g 3 (y~ ~ f• E'~ ~'Jliapi53x 'ajux c7iLL ; b~ m, . ~ . • I - ~ - ~ ~ C7) ~ z a J t Q ~ a ~ Ldi I I J L 111i e [I~ ~~'3 ~ F L-1) o~ u I ~ x ~ W $ J ~ LL J J ~ ~ > iu lY _I O LU ~ ~ Z E , ~ ~ . . , . . . . ~ I ~ ' t'ss ci z 1 e i5939 00 'tRA -'I )quaunnO YE4Z aOuarisa-d a.reX aq,I, i . ~ ~ 1 r o r a ~Tl S9 y „a . ~ 2 ~ ! ~ ~f I I I I _i ~ ~ ~ a Y r ~,p ~ ~I .c~ r r I ~ ~ ~7 1$ ~~~t+ ' ~ ` L L~I , ~ I i 1' i I'. wa ~ • ' d ~ ~ t . ~ t 1' . ~--•~-1 Cu ~ ~ 1 ~ A~. ~ ~ I T I I I I I I I I r F N N x W W ~ ~4 y• LLJ' ~t J 4[I W. r • I ql ~ ~ Ufi 3 i (D Ll C54[8 C~'lnA a+ra~7 6£6L C.,~ QOLle3Pi5g d ~IEA 2L~ ~ s a W W " , ~ i ~ 7 ~ f ~ ~ , p~ . I C - I I t ~ ' I I r 9 ' 1T 'J I I i ~z~':~ a~~ ~ ; ry , • tli t.. y`:•ti ` ~ 1~ 5"[~ I i.- r ;f ~ Ii}.~i^' ! c ?0 } u t ' f~" I~J ~y i ~r` ~;".H f.~t"T. - _,,i ~ ~ 1.: i ~•.:R t~atia s c rf+`'Fh° : f ~v ~ ?Z ~ ]I. ~ ~ F ~ • : < < ~ - e ~'Y ' .P. 7 II r ~-r r t, ~ f , - - 'E ~ I { ~ ~ I ll I I II I N ~ x x w ~ ti r w ~ J ~ w W al- ~ ~ ~ L591$ 0:7 ~MA Oau'] x?uaere4D 464L € ~ an8~aa ~ aouapisa-d aJek aU s ~ ~ I r--°----- - - - - - z i r i i 9 L______ I I 1 a Y 1 Q I F g LU ~ ~ ~ ~ a j I ~ ' I i I il I `y ~i I +~U LL ~ - - > W y ~ . . . . J ~ ltl a ~ n (L : p~aJ•I jQ 7 a 7~0 ~ ~ - - I r ~ ~f I s.~ ` ~ ~ ~ • ~A ~L . ~ 70Y~ n 1kr ~1 ~i § i ~ ? '7 - ~ . ~ i'. I ~ b 1'ac ~I x ~~usd i ~ W . . ~ Y: ~ ' 401 8 03'f-A Dar[ %W&-4'J 9£4Z. 3F aoIIop.i5o-d 2.IL ~ ~ ~ ~ p~~,, j I q.Y. ~ 0 .S~ I f ~ I I I ~~J r~ I G R~I. ~ T ' ~ ~ II11 I.. ~ n . . I . . n ~ I.. I i~ I. b, ? ~ II vll I_ li 11 I I I 11 e i. _X II 9 IE 4r .a i~~ j~ I li f~Fl I I f ~ 1I I ~ I LJ f I ~ ~ ~ 11 LIt I. i 1 =F7~ ~ . 101 i i i I i u I ~ -J I Q iLE u'Z . ~ Q. ~ Q ~ ~ . . LL Q q {X 's ~ . LS918 Q3'MA 2(mi Y!u4°mqD 4tYL 5 ~ ah~ b C ~ ~ il ,s' d~i~~~a~~~ ] ~ ~ fa~~.9a ~ o 71 t~~ M~ amaprsad a.reA aLLI, t ~ ~ e` ~S s Ja I y 1 I~ f 5 f f~ s . . ~ ° • ~ ~ ~i 9 - y _ i 5. 1 Y f I ~ _ _ f y~3 ~ F P ~ I a" . . , ; ~ ~ i i - . L t u i ~ - I i W . ~i EL ~ J o~ W W J Lrj 2 . l I <IS W , ~ s./ L5948 OJ'[!HA 2u9'I XPOWMD 6£trb E ~ G ~ ~s:. • '0a~k~.~~;,31~.~~~~' a ~ ~ ~E~.~aa! ~ $ ~ ~ 9_ z_ r i • Q~: s Y a~ 9 o I a w9 I E• G a ~ J I I r o ~ 9 I i ; d.l. T~ I! ~ ~ ~ ~A• ~ ~ v I _ ~ ~ _ yi ~ _ f - ~ J t sl ~ ~ ~r t ~ ~ I ~ _ d R ;{J 1 ^ w':~,"• y I~ ~ "r II~M1:1~'~ I L ~F'.i'•y~; p {1 M21 ~ ~ > w ~I W J' S i H ~ ~ • Z = ~ ~ . IlayuuaeJ udaiem Jduueld Jan~ ~El Aaupa8 :IueoilddV °ojajeql PJU-6a1 ui sleelap U}ioj bullies pue 'BuiIiA 06e[I!I1 I!E/l '0-9 ~0018 `8 10-1/100aIS a6p!ae OEZ le paleDoI `a6eJan03 aIis 18uo;Iippe aO} nnalle 01 'apoO unnox HeA 'af)eaanOO aI!S `g 6-9L°Z l,' Loo uoiIOaS uroJ4 a0ueUen e10 nna[naa leuq jo};sanbai y ~ jaq;n~ja6jooq ;JOuueld i sale«ossy pue unea8 r(q paluasaadea 'Aueduaoo }uawd019naa s}-IoSa~:] HEA queoilddV ' -o}a.IaNl PJe6aJ uR sl!elap ~ ypo} 6uilias pue `ioaaisEp auoz asn paxpn `z '8 Ipeaysuoi-1 aql ui '6uopf9nq elo IanaI laaJis Jo ~ aaog isig ayl va saO!,40 sales alelsa leaa fjejadluaa aol nnolle Ql`2poo unnal HeA ''Iuacupueuay ! °L-£-Z6 uopaS ol luensind `Jana, laaJIS Pue jooij lsji=l `sasn peuompuo~ pu~ paIIiwaad '£-11-Z l- uoIIO@S pue lana-1 I@aaIS ao aoolJ IsarJ :sasn ieuaiiipuoo pue paii.iuaaad `~-HL -z G uoijoaS o} juewpuawe }xal e 10j Iiounoo umol HeA ayl 01 uorlepuawwoow e joj ;sanbai y uasq!J I[ig :aauueld salepossy pUe uneig Rq pa}uesajdaa `ju9wdojanap s}josa~j Iien :}ueaElddb , i •olajau} pie6aa ui sIpjaP ylja; 6eaillas pue jueuaa}aedqa juE)wdojanaQ rCliunwwoo ' ay} le alqejrenc si uoilduasap spunoq pue sa;aw alalduaoD a~ow e`slaoied pallejdun pue ~ uaisinipqnS uoA-1 uelE) 'A joe11 le paleoo9 `lq6iay ur laa} (9) xis jo ssaoxa ui slienn 6uiuie}ai ioj molle ? 01`apoO unnol HeA'spaepuels buipel!D`g-17l, aaldeyo Luaa4 a0ueiaen elo nnainaJ leu!jjoj}sanbaj y ~ i uosG!J II!g :jauuefd -O-d sjoajiyo.rb' Q9aM 'H`)I Aq Paluasaiciaj `Aalj7ys uos~oij~i :;ueoilddy .olaaayI pJe6ai ui sliejap u~ol 6uillas pue `6uili~ a~6 ~ a~~i~!n i~~n `5 ~I~olB `8 Jfl`llanIJ~ ~{aa1o GJo~ EO£ }e paI~aoi `uo[IiPpe ler;uapiSaa y ~ JoI nn011e 01 VoO unnol IieA juawdojanaa a}iS pue Buideospuel :01,-H9-Z6 u01108S pue '86eaan00 aIis '6-H9-Z LuoR oaS `sjoeqj9S `9-H9°Z 6 uoiloas WoJ} aoueuen e10 nnainaj leur} joj }sanbal y uosqjE) I1ig :1auu8ld 'oul '6d/1 Aq paluesaadaa 'aaeA Njeyl :Iueailddy -ojajayj Paefal ui splaR y:po} 6uslias pue 6uiIiJ auoyas seP E1e/1 '9 N3019 6}ol/aue-I xiuoweqo tetrZ le paleaol 'uoi}!ppe Jeijuap!saa y joj nnolle ol`apoo urnol lieA `qoeqjaS `9-Q9-~ uoiloaS uaoaj aoueuen e10 nnainaJ 12uU JoI Isanbai y ~ uosQ!J 11!9 :aouueld ~ 'oul `saojne,sa~j pjaydayS hq peluasaidaj `say6nH uo8 :#ueoilddy '01alaUI PJeOaJ ui sliL-IGP WlJoI 6ui~l9s pue '6uifiJ,S~ a6eal!11 I!12fl 'S ~00I9 `1. 10-1/anuC] )faa1O aJoE:) £0C 1e pa}Mol `uoijippe leiluapisai e joj nnolle Ql 'aPoo unnol VeA 6uipe0-1 pue 6uNed ; 4 6-H'9-ZL uoiloas pue `juawd4jan8a 91iS puL> 6uideospuel :0 6-W9-Z 6 uoiloa5 `sjoeQlaS `9-H9°Z L uoi}OaS LuoJ,} 90ueIl2n e Jo nnain,9J leug aol isanbaa y :ja uaijejaprsuoa ul °6uipain8 ledioiunV~oieAlo urnol Gylu! 'W"d 0(?:Z le`t40Z `8 4OaeLN uo VeA }o unno.g ayl lo apoo ledioiunA aL{} lv g-E-Z~ uor}oaS u}inn aouePavaoe ui 6uueay oifqnd e PI014 I[lm HeA 10 unnol 914110 uoissiwWcsO Je}uauauoainu3 pue 6uiuuefd a4l 3eul NEIh10 A~D~AAH Si ~10I1ON ~IOIlON on8f1d ~ Ai83dM1d mfIOA 133:1:1V A'diN W311 SiHI Q :;w8w4De74b ~ The applications and information about the prQposals are avaiiable for pu6lic inspeciion during reguiar ofFice hours 'rn #he praject planner's office, locafed at the Tovs+n of Vail Communi#y QeveIQprnent Department, 75 South Frontage RoacE. The public is invi#ed to attend projecf orientation and the site visifs that precede the pub3ic hearing in the 7own of Vaif CQmmunity Development Lepartrnent. PleasE call 479-2138 for information. Sign language interpre#ation available upon request with 24-hour natification. Please call 479- 2356, Telephone for the Hearing Irnpaired, for information. This natice published in the Vaii Daily on February 20, 2004. ~ ~ Karin Scheidegger ~ I2444 Chamanix Lane i Vail, GO 81657 ~ Thamas Carrigaer . . . 2447 Charnonix Lane, C-12 Vail, Cq 81658 Roger and Carol B[oom 1716 9ih Ave. Seci Francisco, CA 94722 ~ 1 Melinda Harrington 1295 Lupine Way Golden, CO $0401 Donald Hagaras ~ PO Bax 4504 Vail, CO 81658 - ~ Jessika Werchick ~ 2447 Ghamonix Lane, C-14 Vail,Cb 81658 Stelan Schmid 2447 Chamonix Lane, 13°C Wail, CO 81858 ° ~ Maria Ecela Gamez Garcia 147 Gutteberg Mexico, DF 11590 Lilla Asmund PO Box 5712 Vaid, CO 81658 Sheila Fitapatrick PO 8ox 5102 Vail, CQ 81658 ~ R4y WhiIE PO Box 5712 Vail, CO 6 1658 . ; ~ ~ Vrillyn Vukonach 701 Harlan Si. E56 Lakewood, CO 80214 Roberi Edteheek PQ $ax 1147 Avon, GO $1 620-1 147 ~ T yg dNichael James Weliman PO Bax 952 Vail. CC? 8165$ . ~ w MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Departmen# DATE: March S, 2004 SUBJECT: A request fQr final r€view of a variance fram Chapter 14-6, Grading Standards, Vaii Town Code, to alCow for retaining walls in excess af six (6) feet in height, located at Tract K, Glen Lyon Subdivisian and Unplatted Parcels, a more camplete rnetes and bounds description is available at the Cammunity C1evelopment Department and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Vai1 Resorts Development, represerated by Braun Associates Planner. Bill Gibson 1. SUMMARY The applicant, Vail Resort Development, is requesting avariance from Chapter 14-6, Grading Standards, Vail Town Cade, to allow for retaining walls in excess of six (6) feet in height, located at Tract K, Glen Lyon Subdivision and Unplatted ~ Parcels to facilitate the constructivn af a new snowcat access road generally located south of the Eagle River Wa#er and Sanitation District (ERUifSD) and Vail Amoea sites (846 West Forest Road and 934 South Frontage Road) to fhe Westin-Ha traillcatwalk. Based upan Staff's review of the criteria in Section VIII of thas rraemorandurrt and the evidence and testimony presented, the Comrrtunify Dewelopment DeparEment reeomrnends approval, with conditivns, of a variance to allow the cons#ruction of retaining walls in excess of six (6) feet in height subject to the findings and conditions noted in Section IX af this mernorandum. II. DESCRIPTIQN OF REQUEST The applicant is proposing to canstruct a new snowca# access road generaliy located sou#h of the ERWSD and Vail Ampco sites (846 1Nest Forest Road and 934 South FrQntage Road). This proposal will facilitate the re-routing of Vail Resarts' winter mountain maintenance traffic from West Farest Road tQ this new access road. This new access route will s#art frorn the western driveway of the Vail Resorts maintenance facifity, cross South Frontage Road and continue south afong the western ERWSD property line, bridge across Gore Greek, cantinue southwest across Town of Vail owned Tract K, and connecf fo the Westin-Ho #raillcatwaik. The proposed access road will be a 25-foot wide gravel road surFace. Due to the steepness of slapes on Tract K, the proposed access road will haWe finishecf ~ grades as steep as 16% and will require the cons#ructian of both cut and fiil retaining +nralls. At their tallest points, the cut walls will be approximately 14 feet 1 _ in height and the fi11 walls will approximately 12 feet in height. These proposed ~ retain9ng wall heights exceed the 6-foot height maximurn allawed by Chap#er 14- 6, Vail Town Code. The applicant is propasing to construct bath the cut and fill retaining walls with a Keystone Retaining Wal) System. Archi#ecturai plans and materiaf descriptions have been attached far reference (Attachment C). Additionally, a Geatechnica! Report for the propasal has a@so been attached for referenGe (Ai#achment D). III. BACKGROUNQ On July 15, 2003, the Vail Tawn Council granted Vaii Resorts permission to proceed through the TQwn's development review process for the proposed snowcat access raad which crosses Town of Vail properfiy. C?n Qecerr7ber 8, 2003, #he Ptanning and Environmentak Commission appraWed a Vail Resarts' applica4ian for Forest Place Subdivisian loca#ed at 615 West Farest Road. 4ne of tne Planning and Environmental Commission conditions of approval was that Vail Resorts discontinue the use of West Forest Road as snowcat access laetween its rnaintenance facilities on South Frontage Road and the ski mountain. The appficants' proposal was canceptually reviewed by the Design Review Board at its November 3, 2003, February 4 and March 3, 2004 public hearings. Ths snowcat access propasal was previflusly reviewed in association with a proposed addition to #he ERWSD facilities. The proposed construction af the ERWSD ~ addition has sinee been put an hold and the design review application withdrawn by ERWSD. At its March 3, 2004, hearing the Design Review Board focused sofely on the snowcat access proposal. The Design Review Board discussed the proposed access road design, retaining wall designs, bridge d@$Cgfl, and landscaping pfan design, and at the conclusion of these disGUSSions, the Design ReWiew Board was supportive of the applicant's propasal. IV. ROLES 4F REVIEV111NG BODIES Order af Review: Generally, applicatians will be reviewed first by the Planning and Environmental Commission for acceptability of use and then by the ~ Design Review Board for campliance af proposed buildings and site planning. Planning and Enwironmental Commission: Action:7he Planning and Enuironmental Commission is responsible for final approaalldenial/appraval wi#h conditions af a variance_ The Planning and Environmenfal Commission is responsobke for i evaluating a proposal for. ~ ~ 1. Relationship and impaet of the use on development objectives of the ~ Town. ~ 2. Effect of the use on light and air, distribution ofi popula#ian, transpartation facilities, utili#ies, schaols, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities and public facilities needs. ~ 2 I , _ . J- ~ 3. Effect upon traffic, with particular reference to congestian, autorrtative and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flaw ancE contral, access, maneuverability, and removal of snaw from the streets and parking areas. 4. Effect upan the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the propflsed use in relation ta surrounding uses. , 5. Such other factars and criteria as the Cammission deems appficable ta the proposed use, 6. The en+rironmental impact repart concerning the proposed use, if an environmental impact report is required by Chapter 72 of this Titfe. Conformance with developrnent standards af zone distric# Lat area Setbacks ~ BUilding Height Qensity G RFA Si#e cowerage Landscape area Parking and laading Mitigation of development impacts • Design Reviev+r Board: Action: The Design Review Board has NO rewiew authority an a variance, but must review any accompanying DesEgn Revierrv Board application_ Town Council: Actions of Design Review Board or I'lanning and Environrrrental Commissidn may be appealed to the Tawn Councsl or by the Town Council. Town Council evaluates uvhether or not the Planning and Environmental Gommissiora or Design Review Board erred with approvals ar denials and can uphaltl, uphold with madifications, or overturn the board's decisian. Staff: The staff is responsible for ensuring that all submittal requirements are prflvided and plans conform to the technical requirements of the Zoning Regulations. The staff alsa advises the applicant as to compliance with the design guidelines. Staff provides a staff memorandum corotaining background on the property anci provides a staff evaiuation of the project with respect to the required criteria and frndings, and a recQrnmendation Qn apprava0, approval with conditions, flr denial. Staff also facilitates the review process. V. APPLICABLE Pl.ANNING DOCUMEIVTS Staff believes that the fallowing provisions of the Vail Tawn Code are relevant to ~ the reWiew of this proposal: 3 _ l ~ TiTLE 12: ZQN{NG REGULATIONS ~ Chapter 12-17: Variances 7 2-17-1: Purpvse: A. Reasons For Seeking Variarrce; In ar'der ta prevent or to lessen such practical difficultres anaf unnecessary physical hardships inconsistent with the abjecrives crf this frfle as would result from stricf or fiteral interpretation and enforcernenf, variances from certain regulafions may be granted. A practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship may result from fhe size, shape, or dirnerrsrons of a site or the Iocafiorr af existing structures thereon; from tvpflgraphrc or physical corrdi#ipns Qn the sr`te or in the immediate vicinity, or fram other physical limitatrons, street locatrons or condr`tions in tlae immediate vicinity. Cosf or inconverrience fo the applicanf of sfrrcf or Iiferal compliance with a regufation sha!l nQt be a reasan forgranting a variance. Tl7LE 14: DEVELQPMEN7' S7`ANDARDS HANDBOUK Ghapter 14-6: Grading Location or 7ype Maximum Height Acfditional Review P.E. Stamp or Approval Required Regufar Wai1s 04' Staff Review or DRS No (Qetail 10) 4°-6' Staff ReView or DR8 Yes 6ench of comb9nation walls 4' or Yz the difference af Staff Review or DRB Yes , (aetail 10) exposed height Right-of-Way 0-3' Staff Review or DRB !Vo 3'-6' Staff Revie+rv or DRB Yes ~ 6" + Staff Review or DRB ~ Yes PEC 5etbaek (10' from pawed surFace NA Staff Review or DRB Yes and 2' from adjacent praperty IEnes) PEC In Front Setback 0-3' Staff Review or DRB iVa C7n slopes greater than 30% and 3'-6' Staff Review or DR8 Yes related to access E i VI. SITE ANALYSIS Legal Description: Lot K, Glen Lyan Subdivision ' Zoning: Two-Family PrimarylSecondary Residential (P1S) ~ Land Use Plan Designatian: Open Space ~ Current Land Use: Undeveloped i ~ Vll. SURRiOUNDING LAND USES AND ZC}NING I Land Use Zoninq Narth: Gore Creek Natural Area Preservation South: US Forest Service Eagle County East: Undeveloped fVatural Area Preservation & Outdoor Recreation West: Residential Two-Family Primary/Secandary ResidentiaE ~ 4 ~ Vlll. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS The review criteria far a request of this nature are established by Chapter 12-16, Vail Town Code. A. Considera#ion of Factars Reqardinq the Setback Variances: The relationship of the requested variance ta other existing or potential uses and s#ructures in the vicinity. Staff does not believe the granting of this variance will have signoficant negative impacts ta existing ar potential uses and struc#ures in the vicinity. Similar retaining walls have previously been constructed in association with other access projects such as the nearby pedestrian and skier bridges. Due to tne steepness of this site, the proposed addi#ional retaining wall height associa#ed with this snowcat access road design will reduce the amount of site disturbance to the hillside when compared to designs using tiered wralls in strict compluance with the wall height requirements. Furthermore, the ERWSD has granted forrnai easements for permanent access across its property batween Vail Resort's maintenance facilities and the proposed snowcat access road. ~ Additionally, 7ract K%s identified as "TOV Owned LandslOpen Space Use" by the Town of Vail Gomprehensive Qpen Lands Plan and no future develapment of the site is anticipa#ed. 2. The degree ta which relief from the stric# and fiteral interpretation and enforcement of a specified regula#ion is necessary to achieve compati'bility and uniformity af treatment amang sites in the vieinity or ta attain the abjectives of this title without a grant of special prrvilege. Staff believes this proposed variance reguest Fnvolves "excepfions ar extraordrnary circumstances ar conditions applreable ta the same site of fhe variance thaf do not apply generally to other properties in fhe same zone°" as this proposal is associated with the eonstruction of an access road to the ski mountain and not the construction ofi a residential ar comrnerciaE development project. Pursuant to Chapter 14-6, Vail Town Code, the propased retaining walls may r,ot exceed six feet (fi) in height unless the proposed walls are located within a street right-of-way. Within a street right- af-way, retaining wa11 heights may exceed six feet (6') in height without a variance. Examplss af retaining walls greater than six feet (6') in height can be found throughout the Town of Vail's right- of-ways. Tfie proposed snowcat access road wikl be located on ~ Town of Vail owned praper#y; however, it will not be located within a designated street right-of-way, and will therefore require a retaining wall height variance. 5 The applicant has exp6ored design alfernafives with retaining waP1s ~ nat exceeding six feet (6') in height. The appiicant has demonstrated that due ko the steepness of Tract K, in some locations a9ong the snowcat access road a seraes of tiered six foot walls may be feasible; however, the use of a series of walls creates significantly more disturbance to the existing hi4lside than single cut and fill wall. The applicant has also demanstrated that in some locations along the snowcat aecess raad, six foat tiered retaining walls may require terracing the entire hills9de to "catch grade." Therefore, Staff believes the proposed additiQna6 retaining wall height associated with this snowcat access road design will reduce the amount of necessary site disturbance when compared to designs using tiered wa1Cs in stdct compliance with the wall height requirements. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distributian of popula#ion, transportation and traffic #acilities, public facileties and utilities, and public safety. Staff believes the prtaposed retaining vvall height variance wi91 nok have a significanfi negat6ve impact ora the light and air, distribution of populatlon, pub1ic facilities and u#ilities. 5taff believes that the proposed re-routwng of llail Resor#s' snowcat access wil9 have a positive affect an transportation, traffc facilitiss, and public satety; sunce Vail Resart's rnaintenance vehicle fraffic will be no longer ~ occur on a public street (i,e. WVest Forest Road) through a residential ne`rghbflrhood. 4. Such ottaer fa+ctors and criteria as the commission deems appficable ta the proposed variance. At its March 3, 2004, hearing the Design Revievv Board & concep#ually reviewed th€: snowcat access proposal. The Design Review Board discussed the proposed access rQad design, ; retaining wall designs, bridge design, and Mandscaping plan design; and at the conclusion af these diseussions, the Gesign Review Baard was supportive o# the applicant's proposal, ~ ! B. The Pianninq and Enviranmental Cammission shall make the f_ollowinq ; findinqs before qrantinq a variance: ~ ~ ~ 1. TYtat the granting of the variance wilE not constitute a grant af special privilege incvnsis#ent with the limitatiorts on other praperties classifieti in the same district. , 2. That the granting of the variance will nat be detrimental to the ' public hoealth, safety or weEfare, or materially injurious ta praperfies or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more af the fallowing ~ reasons; 6 a. The strict literal interpretation or enfarcement of the specifed regula#ion wauld result in practicaC diffcculty or unneeessary physical hardship inconsistent wifh the objectives af this title. b. There are exceptians or extraordinary circumstances or canditions applicable to the same site of the variance that da not appEy generaEly to other properties in the same zone. c. The strict interpretation or enforcement 4f the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the Qwners of other praperties in the same district. IX. STAFF RECC)MMENDATION 7he Gommunit„r Development Department recomrnends approval, wi#h canditions, of a variance frorn Ghapter 14-E, Grading Standards, Vail TQwn Code, #o allaw for retaining walls in excess of six (6) feet in height, located at Tracf K, Glen Lyora Subdivision and Unplatted Parcels. Staff's recommendation is based upon the review of the criteria in Secticart Vlll of this rnemorandum and #he euicience and testimony preserttecl, subject to the following findings: ~ 1. That the granting of the variance will no# cons#itute a granting of special privilege incansistent witia the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. The strict literal interpretatian or enforcement af the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship incansistent with the objectives of this title. 4. The striet interpretation or enforcem€;nt of the specified reguiation would deprive the applicant of privileges erajayed by the owners of other praperties in the same dis#rict. ShQUId the Planning ancE Environmental Commission choose to apprave this variance request, tne Cammunity Development Department recommends the following conditaons: 1. This variance request approval shall be contingent Gpon the applicant receiwing Town of Vail design review approval af the associated design review applicatian. ~ 7 i 2. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall enter into a ~ lease or licerrse agreement with the Tawn of Vail for the use ofi Town property. 3. Prior to the issuance of gradirag permits, the applicant shall demonstrate compliance with the covenants of Tract K, Gien Lyan Subdivision. 4. Prior ta the issuance of a grading permit, the app{icant shall prepare a construc#ion staging plan far review and approval by the Town of Vail. 5. Prior ta the issuance af a grading perrnit, the applicant sha[I survey and then install all limits oi` disturbanee fencing and all erosion cantroi methods for rewiew and approval by the Town of Vail. 6. The applicant shall properiy maintain the lirnits of disturbance fencing and erosion contTal methods throughout the construction of this propasal. Any modificakian to the laca#ion or configuration of the limits of disturbance area shall require review and appraval by the Planning and Environmental Commission and the Design Revievv Board. X. ATTACWIVIENTS A. Vicinity Map B. Applicant's Statement C. Architec#ural Plans ~ D. Geotechnical Report E. Public Correspondence F. PublMC Hearing Notice ~ ~ $ ~ i I Attachment. A ~s w, ,°F~ zJ1 w r M,.~I~,y~A• 4 ~ a M1~~~{. u.. 4'Y _ . ,fi~~ t R l F l f . ~ Y iF'Afk'~ 4 a~ 4a ? . l an~ rG p [ . ~ : y . -h 1's M~ ~~,g U! "Ag ~i . ~ • ~ ~4~ m . k 6~ . ~ ~d~ ~ 's+t~s`..' ~ , K ~ • ~y-r;,~t .1 u" A,~ . t t I I A~ ~h b~.n{• J~ p1 irts ~y~, ~ 4 ~~Si^ ~ Y~7' YS 0 `sid . WX~ ~r $ ~ ~ Y~ ~ ~•s~~ r , r ~ ~w ~ ~~a >~a~. . xk'~ ~ ~t, ~A~~s~,~7" . 71 ? ..6 @ q~A ~ ~.'s r ~ ~,y~a . t i 4' t ~ d*~~' .w~ Y j . Y'r 4 ~ ~r. "A , ` r ~ 1~:• ~m`}p{ F d °~,~,p~ a` r x,~ ~,~a'~.,•} - ,t•'="'~''~t~ . ~r'." ,y.,;`~,. ~ ? t e ~ } ..r ~k ~ ' ; •e, z ,rfa' 4 ~ •z ~ * ,~s.;3' e'f(w.'+~ r M ~ r e1r'i~-^c'-' w`F w Z P'i~r- ~,z •+g~ 4. r~s.~ ,7 ~ h` ' " k 'c~' Y -1'v.'' ,(t -4''' et s , `wa. ,.r~4 'rts'3 : ~ df , ~ ~ ' '~r~"~,a.r ~ ; ~ t ,WAE 't' y r . ~ y ' :-a.. ^Sa'~-F~ ~r . t ~ s ~ 1 s, ~Q ~ :r ` t ~r-' r~ ~ ~ J C? 3~° t '~93cb , ,..y _ ' P{ .r +~~.rovl*~ ~ / ~ ,~iq s i Sr TF.' % .~.eyv~ 4 n .A • ~Y ~a4.~~ b ; . "~i(~ ~ ' a.p t , s~C . " ~"`s '~•,R t'~ r ` r yS~.~~YC.'~«. , g o4 77a ,777 .-7 ~TM ~og 4 , 1 k 41 Rw 21, v ,w"E a.9u ~ ` s E f ~ ~ ~ y, r~~g~° ~ t^ ~ [z- ~ ~ e• d . [ y y,,~ t "11 '12 I I Attachment: B ~ ~ . ~ i 1BAIVIBRAU N ASSC~~~AIFES, i NC. ~ I PLANNING and COMMUNITY aEVELOPMENT I February 24, 2004 Bill C;ribson Tawn of Vail 75 SQUth Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 RE: Resgonse to 2f17 Letter, re: snowcat access retainzng wall height variance Dear $ill, "Thank you for your letter of February 17th regarding the staff's review of the retaining wall vanance request. Enclosed you will find a revised set of gians. So you have a elear idea ofouz- response ta your questians, below I have capied your letter verbatim and provided a respanse to each issue you have raised. 1. Wntten Statements ~ 0 A"written clescription of the nuture of the variance reguested and tlze spec f c ~ regulation(s) involved, inclurlitag an explanation of why the variance is required artd why the stract or literal interpretatian of the specific re,gulation(s) 1vould result zn n physical hardship or practicctl difftctelty. " Response ! The spccific regulation involved is foun,d vn page 19 of the Develapment ~ Standards Handboak wvhich limits the height of retaining walls to 6'. The ~ retaining wall is needed in order to constrruct a new snowcat access road to Vail j Mountain. Proposed wa11 heights vary along the length ofthe cut and fi11 walls ' and are depicted on the wall elewations plans that have been provided under ~ separate cover. Given the existing grades of thc hillside surrounding the access j road, if rnaximurn 6' high walls were used it would req«ire three terraced walls on ; the cut side (upper) of the accessway and twQ terraced walls on the fill side ` (lower) of the accessway. This design would be much mare irnpactive, both ~ physically aiid visually an the hillstde and presEnt a practical difficulty. F , • A writtcii statement addressing: "cl. Hdtiv the request eomplies witlz nclo;vted Town of ' Yail planninc, policies ancl clevelopmertt objectives. ~ Edwards Vil'age Center, 5uite C-209 Ph. - 970.926.7575 C] 105 Edwards Vilfage Baulevard Fax - 970.926.7576 Fost Office Box 2658 tivww.6raunassfl6ates.cam Fdwards, Colarado 8 1632 ~ Response The T own h as i dcntified a g aal o f r emoving s nowcat a ccess from W est k' orest Road (i.e. Lionshead Master Plan). This new access raad will result in the removal of snowcats from West Forest Road. 2. Topagraphic Survex Response A tapographic survey has been provided in #he plan set. 3. All plans must also be submitted in 8.5" x 11" reduced format. Respouse Redticed plans will be provided pn'or ta distribukion Qf the PEC packet. , 4. Landscape Plan Response ~ A landscape plan is included in the plan set. 5, Site Plan • Show percent slape of the road and spot elevations as necessary along the centerline of the road to accurately refieet grade. + Show proposed surface drainage on and off-site. • Show location of limits of ciisturbance fencing. Response I Limits of disturbance is depicted on the site plan. Drainage improvernents are depicted on the site plan. Arraws have bcen added indicating where water is 6eing directed_ The site pIan depicts 2' contours the entire length of the access way, we assume that this should satisfy your request for spat elevations. Road grades are depicted on the profile of the access way (see sheet 4) 6. Architectural EIevations • AIl elevatians of the proposed development drawn to scale and fully dimensioned. The elevation drawings zriust show both existing and finished grades. • Path profiles must be drawn at the same vertical and honzontal scale. ~ All exterior materials and colors shall be specif ed on the elevativns. ~ Response ~ GVall elevations are drawn to scale and with the same vertical and horizontal scale. Profile information is provided on the elevations in order to provide dimensinn infoxmation. The material proposed is Keystone Block. Color of the block will be provided via material sarnple at the PEC rzxeeting. It should be npted that we are current evaluating ari altemative wall material and should have a decision on this material in the next few days. As you lcnow, we are in the pracess ofputting together a DRB application for this project. If a change to wall material is made, it will be defined in our DRB applicatian. Thazxks BiII, I hvpe this takes care of the questions regsrding this application. Sincerely, . ~ Thpmas A. $raun, AICP CG: 8111 Kerii1edy Gaury Brvoks i i i i ~ i ~ I ~ i i i ~ ~ ~ ~ Review Crrteria-Variauce to 6' RetainingWall Hei;ht Befflre acting on a vdriance application, the Planning and EnvironmenEal Cammissian shall consicler the following factors wit17 a-espect to the requestcd variauice: a. The relataonship of the zequested variance to other existing or potential uses and stnictures in the vicanity. Applicnnt's A.nalysis: The proposed variance to wall height will provide a more sensitive design solution for the site and in doing so provide an improved relationship to surrounding uses arid struetures. Givean the existing grades of the hilTside surrounding the access road, if maximum 6' high walls were used it would require three terraced walls on the cut side (upper) af'the accessway and two terraced walls on the fill side {lower} of the accessway. This design would be nluch more impactive, bath ghysically and visually on t4ie hillside, b. The degree to which relief frorn the strict ar literal intezpretatian and ~ enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatznent arnong sites in the vicinity, or to attain the objeetives of this title withaut grant of special privilege. A licant's Anal sis: The existing grade of the hillside and the s,vidth of #he proposed snowcat access road are the two factors most directly influencing the heigh'C of the propased retaining walls. The width of the road has been minimized to the extent feasible while still allowing for adequate drainage and safe passage. The desagn of the walls has hecn done in arder to badance the degree of cut and fiIl slopes. . c. Tlxe effect of the requested variance an light and air, distributian of populatian, transportatic+n and traffic facilities, gublic facilities and utilities, and public safety. A licant's Anal sis: Tlae proposed variance will have little, if any, affect an any of the above criteria. The vvaIl variance will, however, allow for a land use (the new snowcat access) that will iinprove public safety by reniovialg snowcat traff c fram West Forest Raad. ~ i . . y;e....~... i,nv ~ . ~ , 133H5 '~:13nPO . • ~ ONI `JNIN331MJN3 .lti`dR2-js33 C1(Ib'80-100 °71dA -40NMQ1 =0dVlfl2ib'A 1H:0I:3F3 'i'l'dM .JNlN'l'd13L1 Y' SSbdAB 1'dOMOhES Qb'O2i 1S3230A d"i ; s.~~,3~' , , . . ~ /l1 ~-c~.~ x,~, J'~:~ i~ ' , , ~ t . . . ~ ~ < 0 . . . . . . . f rr , ¦ . ~ ~ r~ ~ C t~`~-~~T ~ 4 ~ • ~ ° `i _ `L~ ' ~ f. . T 0 0 0 w ~ t•>. \ `a° • . ~ ~ ' j t,: 0 W ~ . . ~ LL a A: z; C f ~ 4 ' ~ . ' 0 0 a! # M a 9, ~ ' f ~ ~ :~U~uty~~~'d d p ~ s NOEiVW2iOANI :3e~1 ~ ~ . : : . . . W ~NE ~Nf2~?~Ni~~Y3 _ bJC1Z J:29b'f1~193~ . . " OQV~)0-100 '11dn.;.JO NMOl,-. 74 Cl 36h!'d18tYr1 1.H`JIW I7V'M `1hlINIV1301 ~N[d'3w7': sstr&.e lyryMONs a^rOa As~)ao.A ~a _ _~Sf ~~g - Sly ~ ~ ~1•~~ ~ ~~~i~~~r~~ ~~,~1 ~If~ 'Ifk:l~1~',1~ i. . rEllffit4lr!lI~111441~J1~'~1\11ti . ; lIldr)~l~ ~ ~ ~~~lIIINI{fVllf~l~ll°lilf`r1i.11~, . ~ - . o ~ - , ' i !r'~~ t~~.'i ~Iirlftlll~t•f ~ + litfftll~ , ~ j 1lr~] ~ ifli~l~~fl1~f(r:ll' / u z N - ~r~;~t • . t ~lil~~4~k , ~~t'}~ ~k IG31111~iE!{''llo . • ~ 1{~M1l;f~ly ~ ~,4~~~ ~'`st~4i1 ~t~;,~`~~1~~1 ,\~,`~~111~.111 ~ ~ 4`q tti , ~ `111~t11 ~ ~ Y. O111 I1\~~~;~Cj~~~` 1 1 ~tii\0 i.xti~ a . • ~~,~,1f1~~~1,. ~Iral~'~11111~~titl~~\'1111~1~•~\ti11111ti 4jp . N,~', 1111r1f;+lr;ff~i,ti111{11 • .~~~'I~ 1`',yil` 14. . ~~~1'tl~`IS.~ ti~~ I tt \tii i'~ 1 \ ~4• 11 ; _d ir; / ~~~'s~~ - Gt~ ~=1~ ~r. `!~i\~~~41~tis ~ 1` ~'S4l ~ I i :3Nr r. . . \1 ~1~ ~~~15 ~ ~l1 ~ ' 1. ~,~1~,+~1 It11.till~,~i~~~5~~~4~~~~~11~~5~`S`~11~- . . v!tit,~~~';~~~`i~~~~„~~~~~1~ ~~I1~1111Yy4~~~1j4~ti0 iti~i}`1~~~tll~'~~~i~~~~`~'if`1~1Y~~ti1~'~~~511~~~a~}~,ti`t Oli,, t yti, t~t~ 1` a~ ^~'~~~~t,!',~ti~ti~,a•A114~~~~~.4ti~t't'~.~~ ' ~ r~r,r 11 ~y ~ t~ t 1 tit1 I~Il;ii , 4, ` '~~r~~l ~fp+•f~~!11~~1~\1 14~~1'I Il~'~~I~i . jk1.1\\v~~;1~~1~i, I . . V\ ~4j~ ~ 1. ~ . . rri rjt ~ I L ~ C ! 4 1 mti\kl~t}il~y` ~ 1.t ~ ~~j1`~ oi~ . . 1 ~~y 1'I~S 11 11~ Sti i4 l ti 1 ! 1A ~ . j 1~ r ~~1 T~1 i 11~~ ~41ti4 ily 11~i1111~~t41SS~11~1~1 . 1 I l', 1 ~ ! { ~ l 1 l ti ~ \ ~1s1 jl~tt~"~l'~1~ l~r~y~~i1111~~`slallll1;1~}I~~tilti~l~~tif~1~l~~ . 14t~ O~lti ~ I I ~ I ~FJf1;~i~ti1j1.1,1~1 , ' ~`1'~1~,~ ~#:zfl r ~~1~'I f ~I {1k~1~~ti~lEl ~Li~ ~\~~~t~\1~~ I~~~i~~~~~;~{~I~~f~~~lrl~r~t`~~'~C~ti~~~1~~'!~A 1~~1:\ ti4~,x ~ ~%~`'1~~ 11114}.~~~4`l "til~i ~~,til~~ l+,r ~~~~~1 \k~~~~~1\~~•\~~~~~~'~~ ~ l~ .,e ~ %i x~?~~~~`~~~`'',~,~`•~.t`~"~~`~i~~j~~~17~ ' ti+}~i~'Gti1~1~\'1'A~}F;A:A~1'^~i1~~0a!~~li~l~{{~~:~d~~~y~~ \4O1~ Li~~1t4l1^t~14~4 IN . - . \~Lrs11~i~.\- t .-i--s 1i:.,'\ f \ . - ;w~:r " - . . DNI N, ~3NISN= aaVW-ro0 'Ten Ja Nnno-L 30N4!!L'Vt` •.d.HO13H `l"fFlM ONINIb'1321 3M1d~~17 SSad.lB lVOMONS .a'd08 15380-J „s s,~,~, a,~ 6~„ ~-~~nx • , r,+r~lila~a~pifrr,lf+ ~ ~ •t ,r~t1i ~ ~ 9 i ~rJia~ a ti iJ. 7 J11{IlfJl! 111`~ O I s3~ ~ a tA~i n ~ ~ u w ~ + Y¢I s ~ z l ~ "~yf•.~ ',a i,u~~~~i~i~~ r + ~ ~ ~ rs.r ~ r i w , ~ ~ . ~ ~ t! I .:'w tt+ 9~ ~l ' I# ,r ~I~I?'•'r !'s ~ ! 1 ~ ~;i ~ ~ ~ S ~ $s ~3 ~ Y , I,~~ft lr~ I~ ti~i~Rdl'tit~' 1~ti~ . e ~s ~ ~ ~ •a ,=I'I ;f ) bf~ TV, 3~SS ; ~ S~ '~~o ~ ~1_ ~ I ~z- k~'~ 1~•,1~ ~ s ~ 11'i 7 ~ ~ a e ~ ~ ~s ~ ~ ~ ; c s ~ ~ b ~ ; ~ ~ r~ 1~ ~ 1111 ~ l} 1 ~S . F I b.,~ ~~T;~~i i, ' i(1'~4 ~3~1F ~`.~i.`~~~~1'ill~~ Il 1 S~~~~ Y~~'•~ r T ~ ~t 1 11 a 111 ti aa<13 111 ~.`ll~ 1 [ { t_ . i _ 1k ~ I u q ~ i • iBP~ye 3 ~ l.;Si~3~~1'~ ~~L11~' 1`~s~y~}il~{i ` ' , ~ i • ~g ~ e~~~'~,~'~~~~Yl:~ t~ll~f'1~~~"~I~t I 1ia~1,WttiaNy, ~ "0 t . ~~~~rkti, j~# y~i ' ~~Y e~"; Il . ~ . : . , 1 1`~ r j~`4 t'` 114,11 `~6 i f 1' ,,~1\ ~ 5\~ x ~ "k t."~~~'~~~~~~ I 1~ la:E J~1~,~ If t~ rts '~~~1•y 1y' 9 y j ~ I:~~ 1' 1' ~ j r-,_4 i 9~~,1~ r~~i",' r1 r.~t~ , if~,~ rt,! ' w , . r~~ti ~1M \ ~'~~,'~1?1,1-\~y,ti.~ ~~j ~ ~ ` 1a ~.vti 1\ 1 r~ f 5I \1~1'}1t,V4~1 tit~~~~'t 4,x ~ ` 111`~}~ 1! G':~, \.V~Sr~ °t. ~`~1'~~111''~~~~Ol~~~~~ttit•~1~`~~\1, V,I1~~1fil~:\ ,~~~t~,11~'~F1 1. ~4y4~t14i141~t'14~x~~Ati1141~1;t1y, ~ ~ ~ • . - 'y`,~1~.~4,~ ~ty~ y, 4~,~ ~ 1~k; ,tM,~ sti ~ ~ ; ~ } ~ - SPJ(?11`v!ti313 _`f-7`dM ONI ^ti'fh3:'VIJV~3 ~OC]Z ~.~~ViY2~JH3~. .9 o^ta, F:~: OCb'84-100 1IlII\ JCJ .NMG11 u,r '331*I+JINb'h, 1HO13H 71'd1N" `JNINIb'13cJ . ~~~~-1-V SSadie J.b'OMJNS QE'ON 153HOJ . ~ y a F . G~],~~~ . , , . . . . mp . ' • . .x~ a~ . . . . . r ~ . F rt . A d 4 . . - . . . ~p 5µ~ ? oa . ~ Q A . . - . . _ ~ i~r a i . . ~ a ~ . ~ ~ . s s ~ . ~ . . . ~ ~ . ~ ~ _ . i I ~ i ~ i _ , . ~ . . _ . ~ ! ~~~1i~ya- ~-I' .e O~ sno , ; ~ ~ ' r~4 ~ . , ~ ~ •.~L - y . " . .Z . . ~ ~ n 5 x . F~~~ . bf It I ~ i . L . ..3,... . . , i _ I Yj~ ? n4~- ~f ~ Q ,4~~ ~ J. _ I. 4!t s 3 shy z t. . S' 0 • ; E ~ 3'~ ' ~ ar ~ . j . . ' ' ~~i ~ , 9 `m . , i , - . _ _ . . _ a i ` _ . . ~ - . . , ~ , . . :i...._._ ~ . - . . . , . . . ' . ~ . ~ . N611h'n313 11t/731 1d3MON5W'S11H134 `JNIQh!8`J ~rti'a n:a : ~ 7N1 `JNIrJ3-~9V1`JN3. 1'+OOZ: 1+.8'7'f1Z,~93j ' . me~ . ecr " 1- . C'1C]'d~0-SC7O "-II'd/t At7 NMOI -'w~r. ~ 30NHIb'd!1 1HO13N T1bN1 SNINI'd13J in - . . . . . ~ . -4 SS'ddJlH .LdOMQNS C3H08 153210J ~a ~ v.a on -5"'^-'•'" ~+~aKaa . ~ ¢ d z ~ . W ¢ d I t ~ r . ~ ~'•Y . ~ 3 ; t°I t M , t , ~9e: y !~s ?j ~ ~r, ~..I . ! . , ~ . . . - . . ~ . ' . ' . - E.- 1 I' r I ~ ~~f1! ~ ~ 3 f f } 5 • . :]g g'•~~ . t t . ~ ZS l~ 1.} 1 T ti r . } • ~ r ~~C~~ ~ y ~ . . . 3~ ~ , i . m Xb' ~ _ = ~ ~ I . . ~ . . ~ ~ ¦~y 0 a~t ~ . c~ .I. e.. ~ . I ~ o w~Q N ~ m ~ Ci v ~ W ~ tA ~ Q U1 ~ d L, ~ z V ~ O f ~ a ~ NJ ; z~r~, / V 0 ~ Q 9~'4l l8 ! ~ + o W ~ l~ll8 iC1 J ! (j) a°3: ~ o - av ~ ~ ~ a ' 0 ~ VJ ~ / 0 d I ~ ~ C7 N 119~Jll1'Wb lZ:SV:6 tr00Z/6IZ'15nnp'SSVdA8°lb"OIv1CJNS1Ja1seN\axiSJani~{aI6e31BmP1~00~0/1O1~:< - - i I ~aR an~ o tn J h tlg~ co m ~ ~ v o w f O I a ~ (/f ~ ~ ? a ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ Q ao ~ O ~ V/ a0 z 0 0 ~ ~ 0 )Z"0618 Q ~ + 4'0$l8 Vo 0 / a f Q n- ~ i ~d ~ wU ~ J 0 rA z V.I ~ a v I ~ a ~ m ~ Q r lIJ8111'Wb' iS:9b=5 17Q0~16lZ `6nnp'SS'ddh8-1dC)N1ONS1aaIseW\aIpSaani~Ja16e3\6nnA160OZ0/1011: 'I II l~illl x `il9' ° o ~ a , ~ ~ d O nrn Cc 00 00 n x w~ i~l I JII~' I I~ a~ a N ~ Il,Illlll~f ~ 4 a I e°lr ¢ p ; `o (nCc: J J 00 d rl' ~ ~ C7 O o ~ o L " ~r' o N co ~ J Cn CLi ~ cWn / O LLi I,JJ o t co i C ~ ~ Q L-L i ~i o ~ Cd ~ 04 ~ W' ~ A / . r ~ i ~ (A i ~ ° ! a ~ ~ f , ~ zw x C ~ ~ o a C( CC ~ m °c~ °o C~ ~ 7 ~ i I i • I - _ _ - _ I - - - _ - - - - - , _ . _ _-___s - ~ ~ car-4-lu TM F - a ~ ~ 0vidz~- Tai~-j1 ;~..r-~;rig t 1a solidtians with the 4 ' 4.~aa ract~r a:n c, cita rrn of OId Wnrld s t r u rtures. , . ~ 5 . ~ ,i . ~ . p t . . . ~ . ~ - ~ : . . ~ - . . a° ; . ~ . , . . . : . _ ' • ~ ~ . ~~l~ • r f~~s . - ' ' , 41 , ~ ~ ~ f f ~ ~'i~~~ ~ e ~~~L . l ~r ~ _ y ; _ t~ _ F.. +'S +"1~~~ + ~ ~ } ~;~,sh.~ y, " t" '•f x i r ~nCi °:aJ, r ~ ;Y c{ 7 " 44 w a t ~~s ~F~ 'i ,s .i r R ~ TNE PINN€D 5Y57'EM , ' 9 ` ' 1 € r k ~ ~ W" U ° ~ t s ~ ~ Century 7777, T. _ ~ V~ t ;V~ IacyS,foneeta.ir7itig tlId S}5tcms ; ~ ~ ~ Prou r~ tn ~~.te.cilic~tgac~c~t jvaf1 ,Lc~r;~~ nat ~ , ~ f Y X Tl ri ~ b 2.kg) t systerr~ ..Cerzlz~~}~ ti1kas r} ~ 93 l {4 r , hxi,~~dxl8 w ~ ~ . ~ : ~ stac:kerl 1~e1 a~~ecfrc~~~zcc~Ily.ce~t7yrected (200rnmx3oomrnx450mm): J ~calt, ~vtikcs t~ae"odd ;v~P-fcl cfrcir 1r~:r1 f u a , . ° rltasc~l~`ct-~~ter~ str~lcftcr~ AllEd12itn Un1t 58.Ibs. (zb kg) ~ $"h x lz"d x ii"w ; (zoomm x 300inm x z8omm) ~ - ~ z v~ a:~t Sra~tall Unif M 3~lbs. (l7 ks) t n x'~~r 8"hx~.a~,dX7~~w f - z (2q m m Somm) 01T1 ?f jC70 fil X 2 t ~ f ~ . ~ ~ . ~ ~ • ~ ~ iS1 ~d` ` A. ~ 4 . ' . ~ n . . . ~ / "f d 2 1 4 ' t , . . ~ ' 'd ~ Cap Urxit Y (twa sides textu ed) ~ ~ 30 1b5. (14 kg) C}"h X 1f'd X 141$"w ~~xoomm x 300mm x 355mm/200mm) ~ t ~ t kn L7es~~rf~ed ti~cca f xr~ T1} fnr.'1 .FositiveMechanicalCannectzonwath ~ _ . - . Keystoaze Piberglass Piaas ~ cv.ridrtzoris, CerltZta~y trVc~ld' bl~.azrls ~ the '4~ertrcal ~r Battei-ed ~1~aI[ Ar7. iinierzt Options c~ts~ti~rrctzv~~ Ioak ` c~rtcl clzrrrctcl cr rt~ ~ ~ nc~tutc~t stotae ti4atli st1 u'c tcirrrt itttegrif}~ t SirtiplrGity of Constructiora iJ-tcet1 ets:you I3ui1dvvrt1rc' 0 rtfid c rrce WalT SoZutions fa°om Gravity to ~ ~ Saii Reinfvrced ~ ~ . . __r.r.. a . _ , I 'uni[ dkmensions, weight and colur may vary by regian '1 ` • THE P1NNED SYSTEM .v.,,.. a ~ . , A.... : y' ~ ti Features Benefits E ~~~w4 -.t ~ • ~ C2t7tu?y L7 st1"tiC.tZI! -o~ t"e~`t~I P11 ~7g 3nrra 11 5. .~s ri.'iP1 fo1" h Tc.~Th1h'~ ~M1.4i 1.,.. . . x.. . _ + . S ~h ~ ~ . CoYY1;1Ze Y~'IC~.~, l~?dZt5t1'iCtf, iZY1d ":IlStldtg~~ta7;"?G7~ Sd~C'.:12C'f'd5. ~ . P ' , ~'~~ese rligged aaad i-arac~oin sizec~ 1~i~rli 4trefi~~~~ c~~~cr~te modules . ° have tlie colar• and.tcxture of nata~i•ciI stone. ~ i ~ % R.~ Tile."Pinned S3Tstefn" iises the Keptone high str~ngtltfiber•glass • 7 ' . . - . ~ ~ ' , ~ ~ , ~ ~?i3l..~c 1~'~ .,L't~i' ~'~,~T.St~~tzcn v, a1i~1~~,Z~.'7~1t L~tIL~~~C)~1 C(?F1F2LCf1011. . : , ; . . • , ~ Trj~ c~ei-i Co;e desi,oa of C'entury Warl all~Avs.unit-drainagefil, Io 3 : . . . . . . _ ~1 _ ii,~fi;.s ~f~~~et~a~.~~, ~ir-aviclzr~;~'c~czaI st-nbility tcnd c~d~iyz,c~r~c~l ~ - at c~~~~~ez~rt~i icl ~°ei~~fo1'ce~r~~~tt ~ ~ ~ . . , ,`~;C~"r'~..~" ~-it~lt di~'fi~'ra~;~o-t1s L~Y~' t~1G R~7pl'~1~71`IC.t~"e SC4tl+~fa~" ~y . _ . . . . . ' y 4 . 7 > . ~ ` t-ald 1.stJall caalsiruction. j§ ~ , • . i ~ ~ 3 . rr ~ I -K.'.~ t y • i , ~ , r ~ a n e' + 5 - ~ ~ . . r xj • 'r ~i w~ ~,s r d '~T 1 . Fia Fiberglctss Pirxs ~ . ~ ~ s - 1/4" (130snm) lang ~1 - 1/4" (32rnm) shoulder ]eiigcli 1/2" (13nun) diameter at pin 4haft Fpr rrrnre cler7tanding strtrciuraf 3/4" (zgmm) dia,necer ae shouldrr ap,plicctrtorts, Centtcry Ivw'aI1 uses kcy r; High streiigch pultrudcd faberglass connectarsfor rtzecf2urticcfTfnstener5 ASTiWI 4475-85 5hort beam shear 6,400 psi (44 kPa) oJ`HDPE & PET geogrddS. THE P6h1NED SYSTEM _ u...~ _ ~ r~ ~ ~f'~~ib , 4 "j gA^"5ita~+.Te+ 4 Installation Steps i ~ ~F rt ~ ~ , ~ , I'rej~ctr-~: tF~ e Base I.c ti~el~:1i; f'.xc! fristadl tfie ~3asc C;ccsi•s ~ . Irrsei-t i)~e''zz~ea-~fr7sy ~rtz..'. ' ~ , . - • c - - Y c ? ~ ry.~. . ~ ~ ~ . . " h.~ 4~` +~q "9. n r~v~~ t , ~ i -71 4 r'f t ~`f°' ' ? ~ . ~~r 1 ~1wro ~1 ~ ~ ~ m r " ~ r ~ : o ~t;"~•~r~~~" ~ ~ ~C"~. } . ,,k T~ ~.t-~i . 7 ~ 4 ~ ~1, . 1 C 4 S i x• ' R~'f T f ~ ' t ,~ry . . ~ c . G w.....::~e. . r. . . _ ,,.s. ~ , , . _ . _ . _ . " . _ . w.~u,.. . . . nov4 aal sL:rlaLe vcgctauon amri rictaris. llu not Platr t4ae firat -Ourse uf Crntwj'Wai1 tmi[s en3 w Ylace llic. Sibergiass pins into ~lie ipju} i-iate use this nlaterial as k~acl.fil~. :~&cr seIectun~; tiie cn:3 (vritf~ frE~r~t cnr'ziers touc)iing) on the . hc~les to aehir.~e tl7e drsirea sett a~k ~~c~si i~n.~~t 6 ' Iocation ancl 1cngt1i uf dae walE, cxcauate tfie hasc prepareLi ba.sc. l lie side of the antit with khe lcing die C:cntury 'Wall units; T'1 ite pEm °in the iro:i t g: nrren[ or trenc3y to the dcsi,gneci widtli aszd depth. Star4 thc gttiove (receiving chunneo ncar the front,face crfmost hoIe(s) for near ver ticalaliq 'r leueiing pad at the- latiuest clevation ;tlong Ni^all Ehe tsnit should lv placed dotvn .3nd the open pin the hQ[es nearest the erribsn},ment Ic~r Ef' $:0 ~ ~ alip,nine:it. Stcp up zn 8' E}pmm,' incrcnh.nts " hc~1~5,shoul~3 face up, ac shr~cti•n.' 1ltakc sure each setback per coutse. : with che bace as reyailred at clcvation c3aangcs in unit is levcl - side [o side and fronC to back the foundation. Lxvel the pr2pareti basc 1vits 8". 7.evcling, Lhe fu'st coursc is critical fnr accurate and x (2Qf7rnm) of well-ccfmPattec3 c„'raraul:3r n"Il (grar•el> acceptable resu?Gs. For ali4;rutaent nf stnig#it wa31s, "road ae, ca ~ll ta~ 3;"4 t t3 E~tti~n) crushed czsea stringlyne posiLi~rned alaxrg thr isnii pin ~,~1es 2 £ ~ stonc _ Cc>m act tu 93`!u C nunui prnctpr or far acczirac-v rilrnimum embcc3ment of hase ,~r~ • ' 4F'~'~ i ` greatzr. T}o. not sr,e !'1:f1 GR,ilF:I. or 5.AVL) fur Ycquaseis 00mm) belov: grac4c. ~ ~ 7 7 1 1~„+ M,r 3 k~j's G; F- ¥ Instc~PZ I~r-aar~~;~c~'i[l, t?at~.~ill lristczll ~1cid;riorrcil Ce~zirsesl Cn pprn~T t.h c I~'~alP,,: f 5 ~ v ~ ~ ~ f • x` ~ .r,'*' T .~T> `i ~ ,'s~_ ~ 'x> ~ .^ti. ~ s~ X ' t ~~'~~_,ns'x ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ +~j t~ ~ ~ _ ~ d . j~ ; # ~4-. "~a,~ x : ~ va ~ i'~* . ~ r,".r,~-'~,S''e,~."`'^s~' l~ , V- f .I 1 . ! ~ - C t f^$ Y~ 7 ' y~ 7 ~t h '•t'+~ ~ E [ y ~ ~ -F v' ~ ' ~ #y~ ~ ' _ i R` 2 _ F 1u { ~ C7ncc u1_ puits .~.i «ii .ci:_1d!cc3, I'lacc z tcc~ aI., o,ucw u. i:.en;ur ta,: u:;i,, 4:icr Clcan utf tlae iasc cuu.se nf Cenw:y Wall in . 314" (1(1 - 20mm) crushed stone drainage Gll the fibecglass pins, fitting tlie pins inta thc long ;pregaration for the cap or copuig to finalize the ' s ~ hehind.the units to a minunusn dtptli uf 12" : recei4ruig channel reczss o; the. units above: ,,.•all. Wich un'sts clry and dean, vse KcystUne (300mm). Pill oEjcn spaces betw•een units antl oiicn :'~Yuska; pul! the' CentuIy NVall • carrits toWard. the KaFseal cqnstruction adhesive or equal far a catiitieslcvres with ti7e srime drainage maitei iwl. face e?f tlir i,°s11 un[sl the channe3 wall inakes full mechataicaI band. Install the Cencury I1'all 4" ~ Prooeed to ~lace batkfilI in niaxirnum 8" 'f.0ir~m' eontact zvich ihe z~s. . k 1 g~n (1flDnam) capping unit, archsteetura[ precc;t k ~ ]a}•ers and compad to 95p/o St-as;dard Presctor i,ith conerete or cut stone as a coping e2ement. ('ar t' , a the appropriate compactiun equip[nrnt dVotr. I)o may bc Elush or averhanging as requirL,,. i•nttt run hcauy ricle-on cnmpaction equipmen[ aeschetics and design. within 3"-0" { lm} of Vack pE wa41. ~ CyENERAL 41I6TE5: ~ Units may vary due to [cxturing, processcs anel unit ssees by region. Vecify • Cut or split u.raits as required (with a mason saw, hydraulic break or unit rype, size, we{ghc availability by region. Llnits may vary up to 1" t chise(and hammer) £or eornexs, caps or wherever units need to be altcred (25mm) duc to textt€re variations. tn allorv sanstruction to be finalized. ~f • Clean out pin holes and receiving channel as required to assemb3e waIl. • When cutting toncrete units, always weir safety gagglcs, gloves and ilcer Duria», manufsciuring, same toncrete crumbs may cieposit in these areas mask per manufacturer's recommendations. and should be remaveel to permit pins ta 6e placcd in the appropriate holes and reccfving channel. 4 ' THE PINIUED SY5TEN1 ;r , . r ,T~k i-...~ • Structural Features { 1 _ . . _ . , . .,,:r . , - _ 5 c~r PE75dtt vC -tlCChCt}1ZCLll CC7IZ72E'G:l } t 1Ce}'scc3nes patcnted pin 4yst ~d' cnn ~,ias°ic~e.s dcpcza~ja~ile su-etigth ~:~'d ~ ` ; ~ ; ~ ~u°Itese s needEd inost. lIi~ stren ~tli fibergPass p~ ins ~rc?~~ide ' ~ ~~r ~ : F* ~ 4 ~ ~ ~ F ; + 7 tv~4~a _ built-~i alignment for the C;enturu'~Va]] Systern and cnsures ; T T _ _ that each uait is securelv interlocked wishin the wmlI face. [n :4 addition, tlus unique pinncd sj'stem allows for a naechaiiical ~.cnnnection dvitli geagrid scail rcinfarcernent, seeuring its ~ t: PlacLnicnt bUwccn unats arsd allowing fctr proper tension F .~,cst tlie o ;rsc#. ? ~ Lp , ~ - ~ : ~t $C~` D£'sti{~~~ We" nrn n rti!r, F:' I " The Cutttir}~ 11"all txnit design provacfc~~ im>c,rtaiit featttr~ ~ needed buf ntr r „lwa}'s Eou«d in a scgmetital rciainingevttll. The V clunter r,ore area o1 C:entu,ryWill prcaW-idcs 1n apeti cell in which L ~ o M+S tilllll~.. -0 J i h, w ~ pJ.ti •'~'f unit draa~ia~etill is Iaeed addin ti+~ci~ht faesdl sta4nlztcand ~~x~y~ y~~~t~ adciitic~iial irntcrlock far eadi vvall znodule. Tf3is Qravel Fill prOvic£es a criiieal furiciicm as a draztuige tiitcr tivhich hel}as Walleriatc hyostatic prc;ssu:~c arxd ~.ti:~ists in locI~iti~'r t13e ~+ccjtaEarici 1ThlTS dle Wd~~ faCC... - . . * X, . . . . , 1 ~ P f, . i ' `p~ ~ y}rJ Yy f ~ w Wr 5~ ' ~ dM1Ss~ W~ ~'Y'~ x ~ • . ' ~ _ ~ ~ W ' : . . . . . . . . . . ..2 . ~ - ' > . . ..i . ' . . . ' . . . , . ] ryry'' Y f *4~ ~ ' RatLLZR!/IF VIZLL PL7L[{.iLYfiGILL Centziry VI'all's random face appearance provides the ]raok of ~ ~.c ~ ' , r1 ZZ~ • , 3 h1lSd 111d SfOII@ Wlt}1 CI1CdCS1gIt aIl{3 Ctli9StrUCt30R AdYaXICagLS ' •s'-;~- v ;it~ e f,~ '`1~ •t . ~ s~ :•r• : ~ -r, ~ `ti. ~ r .R~. . fvu.nd in a scgmental retaining wafl. Three facing elements 8" in height, witli Warying widths from 7" to 18" each ~ ~ rr~ ~'t?~Fi~-~-~•,~~ ~~`~f~1~-.`~ .yyi randomly placed within the wall, give Centiuy Wall the ~ ~ ~ eharacter of a iialural stone wall. AEl Gentury Wa1 units are 12°' deeF peoviding the siability required for constructing taller wall struetuees. ~r F~ 'm r THE PiNNED SYSTEM _ j i . Character t y Large scule units foa• tc~~l waIl apPlicntivns tivit-h appearance of nratui-a2 stane, ~ 4~+ ~ . -f-k ~t~ -~rs, ~~y~ ~ .~~~3 rv l '~'fi . 3 1-c , 3 1~J~~~S. '~,~•~.~i k~•~~ t~. ~"r`a~ yl',~~~.~-. ~ ',t~ . - . I ~ B~j xr~ ,~i .{~-~~c~~ ;S~,t0.~~Y~'~~~ ..w~^~+'~"`"q~"'."~^'•-~ w~ ` ~r 3r~,~`~S s-~ ~ a ~ ~ii y~:~, ~ .,~-,'1i , ,S d+'~ V PEA+~. s ~ ,e+ .y ~ F` ~ _ ~ i ~y~F~~,~t ~w ~ ~ ~ #~r?"* i i;r ~ *~TM~~°~:~) `g' y`~ k~ t St ° M1~ ~~irR'~q~,r . y:?R~@,* yef'„~ ,tr.<.-~. ~ ,'~.s~t ~ Y ~el 6/J. r"y~~'~ h,y' ~ ~ Y'~,iyq~ ~7,pS4'4C M nA ~~y ~i• ~~u a,' F ~d` A~ , . . YJ ty^ p 97 4& k ,k~ . $ f~,'y~ ~y! ! 1 A f~ rv+YC . }rs3 ' yl ' x}~, 5~~, s-. 1 4~~df ~7 d 'sh~-d ,~-~r ; `t~ d n pta~^`~~` ar-~ ~ i ~ ~ L ~ ~`~-~ir ~ .ir" ~ ~ ~w ~ b . ~ ~ • . , t~..-~ ~ ~;;a, ~ ; ~ t , ~ ? ~ r , , . "~4 ~"~""y"m'~ R~~ ~ ,y~~ g3. Y•~ y ~Y F_ ~'S~i j~„~~-r'~i~Y~ . . ' ` ~ . t ta. . ` ~ 1,a~ ~ ~.ti. ~ z ,y r ~„aw ia, ~-s~`~ ~ • r4 ~'~°s' at dA ~ a~~, ~ i A,rs.~-~, . •e~ ~ ~ ~ ,~5 { f ~q f~~r,a-~_~ ~ ~ t y; z ! ~ " m# 5~x~c .:r ' P : ~ n.-~i-.~~iy . ~ ~ p~ g .o ~ ~s ~r i. ~ ~~+t+r3~' ~L~"' ~ a. Si ~ ~ `c~' ~ay {3 a I~ p . ~ ~ ~ ~ T a a k,.v. ~ ; ~ ~ t,hi-~'7 ~ y f!~• a ~ ~,Y ~ ~ . ~ a 9 x P"5.5'J... k sM' . „•.s' k~r.,~~~~~vu~a.rau~ts''~" - ~{;:f ~ t : " 3 - ~ THE PlNNED SYSTEM ~ . . ;:..:'y Structural Intearity .State of the art geagrid reinfai-ced sazl solzitioras for lc;rg-e wall applicatiorls. 4T 4= ~ : . } ~ 4 ~ 5 N 7 ~ ~a tir ' 3ia a~ s*°. p w s~` ~ t ~ ~ ~t~ ~ k~ ~i~ x +`~s. r~, ` ~ x a i j.m5 A'° ~ ~~k~''. ~-~<~p~~ .,';,~•F ~t~~~'~~rl~tia,jtZ ~!'j}-r~~'w.`a'«s , + j}7 Of "T#a~~ ky;~tt`~]Jt~'.. . u . . y. _•~I d t"7~~~r - ~ ~ - - ~'k , ~ t1 lt s ;K;_ ! s ~,W ~d -~~y ~ ~1 aF • Ilfi ,kn 1,~ 1 ~R . . c+~" 'r.~ 4{f rf r..i 7 a ~ r~ ~ f a~+-~- .;,a~"'_ ` y c~ fic~ ~:,f,~a~ ~d~,: 1 i s ~W ~i y. ~ rm,;,- g ,a e .'Fy ~ `1 c ~R ~ ~ ~~'k ~e~ ' . r ~ - .10 ~ x ~r~,.~~.,~ ,~pys'~° ~ v,. r ~y,y, ~ r ...s i 1 y u ~t' •N,g,,, I ~~-~~rr Y' f~L ~6 '.~r ~ v '~~~°A° ti •7,~,~,. ~,a,~s '~4 5; .t ~1~ ~ 5 ~ ~ * ~ .,~~'•i~ ~sn_~d' n V ~~3~~ r'~'~_ ~~r~ a~~w,,,'4 t a ~ a~µ ~ ~y yr r ~ ~:~a'S ~F4-_„p~ Fy t, ~ ~}~k Z a~-X~P ~ ~ k ~ 5~ ~~.~i, ~ ~.j ~t ~ i ~ + ~,,ie? ;.Y- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~..a."~ d ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~x ~ f ~,.~;M , : ~ r, ~ a ~ [i o R ¦ r~ r ~ ~ ~y~ ' ~-=AA ` p~ '~`^~4' 4F.~y 'J. s. ~ "j~i`c~~S - 4T~~ ,~l!;~'.a.5~•~mde ' ;~`~4 °P-'`~6:.~~ xY ~ ~'t ~ r [ + ~ s ~ ~ , ti 04 iCk ~ . ] ~L ,th as..5• ~ y~y/ y.~ aR~ - ~ .f',. R~ ~ ~1 ~ ~ s, y f Yhri R ;t.. . ,~Y?-^ lo4.wr~ fn ~ o-y ~ 5.'~, ~ r,: r a +~a~~{ {{~}r '~I.~'ri' ,¢v`~+`"~ r'~- _:,x, i ~ ~ :..s. a. y Y .1 1,..~s - ~ ~ ~~~r. x'~G~ -b r ~•:$u.a~T,-~=~ti ~~i ~s~ ~k., 'S ~ ' ~ . v,k:~k , i 1 ~ t ~ . ~ ° ) a a~ t.:' ^ - es,~,,,.• r~,.. ~ ~ s4sa 'a ~ y ~'~.Tk'~'4~y`uw"~'r~y„w.~* • :+~8 a S? t .3j, A,.r , . " '~`v ( ~y ~ ~i'~;y kWl`Y~ ~ 116w~ •S""F""' 1. M1a . °-s' ~ 6.4,,3':.:~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ t~~ a y~ . es , ~ P . ..1 . ~ .kA~ t .a .a. r .r e ~_Y '4 ~r . • ~ , 7-1 a.. - TH~ ~~~~ED SYSTEM - . . ~w.... Attac~tment: D ~ 3 ~ a. F # i ` . . . . . t ir M.~'~ • ~ ~ ~,.k,~. R"'• r -F . ~ : . r}) ~ ...~M ~ P . fi t.~# A . fL.rs~ • ' ` , .k.. ~ 1y i l7 q ~.c r s, ~ .i. ~ - ~ ~ ~y ~ - p ~ ..t t ~ q a"2 • 1 §4w,~ 41 y~ ~~~y t 5 : ~ f 1 ~.w•,~s.,~` ~ GE(}T.ECfIYi IQ-AL REPORT ~ ry~ • s QREST R(?AD SNf)WCA;T BYPASS, VA.IL MOUNTAIN ~~.A , ~ 1 " ~ ~ ~ ~d~:T~•-~~, VAIL;-: ;,OL~.~RADO . P~ ~ 4 L,, -0 ll r ~ F'~e rR i • V ! a ~.S111J17l1&dtQ:I, '~''f ~ 0 e u", t F i~" T °a F ~ ~ • , . ',s R s . ' ~ { ~ yc ~ { A t . ~F RESUI'tS De1'C'f0h nient ComPa7t~7 yr., . a~ 3 7 Benchdrk Road,;, ~ ~ .r ~ a ~ +x•r'~ ~ •w n _:r , = § '~n" ~ ; ; E r a v, a ; . -P. 0T;B(1a 959:e. 44~` AvC'oluraclb 81b20-0959 {In r' Y _ i ~ t'' x ~ ~ ~ ' ' ~ . 1 ~ 3 ` Y` ~ ^Fa,'. t } 7'.. ~x~•j~ .ax ?~e.` y. ~.-.!a +q~~ ry~t~ i-~ i% Z,4 ~S1IbYIIllled b y: ; ~ z' ~Gr.~rde'rAssociates lnc.' .1~ F ~ . 44 Urtion Baulev'trrd, Suite iQO k:,La{cewond;'~Colar,ado 8022$ ,~i9 ~ J4`pt"x~`~ L ~ • t $ ~,V~ 'w^~ hA ~ t . ~ S 04~' r i. . Y +t ~~4 ~ . - Distz-ibutian-~.~ }6 Copies _ kVail Res'orts De.velopment Company (n bnund, X, unbound) - 1 Copy° !,Golder Associates inc. ~s ; ~ • ~ F ~ ~ ~ a.1( = # ° ~ d i j ~ " ~ . ~ • 4 x ~ ~1 ~~f3~ ~ `Y,~ t • ~ ~ s c J December 15, 2003 !033 2125 ~ r ~ ' ,a' ~ ~ • r ;e~~t~ t ' r -r Decem6er 2003 ~z- 033-2125 TABLE OF C+C)NTENTS ~ 1.0 INTKODUCTION I 2.0 PROJ°ECT BACKGRUUNC7 ..............................................................................................2 2.1 Backgound ...................................................,..,........,........................,............._...........2 2,2 Scope of Wark 2 2.3 Inforrnation from Previous Studies Z 3.0 SUBSLlRFACE GE4TECHNICA.L INVESTIGATION .................................................3 3.1 Subsurface Drilling Prob am ...............................................................................................3 3.2 Laboratary Testing ......................................................................................................--......3 4.0 ENG]NEERJNG GEaL4GY .......................................................................................•----5 4_1 Geologic Environment ........................................................................................................5 .......................................5 4.2 Site Reconnaissance Observatians ~ 5.0 GEOTECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIQNS ......................:...........................................7 5.1 Earthwark and Grading .......................................................................................................7 52 Siope Stabiiity Evaluation ...................................................................................................7 i 53 IZetaining Walls 8 5.4 Bridge Foundations and Related Geotechnical Issues .......................................................11 13 ~ 5.5 Future Gevtechnical Wark ~ i 6.0 cLaszNG .........................................................................................................................14 ~ E i 7.0 R.Ek'ERENCES ......15 ~ ~ ~l LIST C1F FIGU"RES , Figeire 1 Borehole Locations LIST OF APPENDICES I , ! Appendix A Borehole Logs ~ ,Appendix B Laborator,y Testing Results , Appendix C Phatographs AppendLx J.7 SIape Stability Analyses ~ LAM2 12sn4arna40 1o332125.040 i.u9350.00c Galder Associates Decernber 2003 -I- 033-2125 ~ 1.0 rNrRanucTZaN ~ Tkzis report presents the results of a geotechnical investiaation and en-ineering geology study for the ~ forest raad snowcat bypass for Vail Mountain, on behalf of Vaii Resarts Dievelopment Company ~ (VR.DC). VR.DC's current concept for the road is a cvt and fill construction with unpaved finished sur€ace, with cut and fill retaining walls as needed. In addition, a bridge will ba constructed to cross ~ over Gore Creek. The purpose of the study is to provide preliminary recommendations regardirig engineeeing geology and potential geologic hazard conditians af the praperty along with ~ recornrnendations for brid~e foundations, abutments, retaining wall design parameters, identification of potential wall types with a discussion of the applieability of each tyge, and recommendations for ~ final roadway desif'M: - ~ ~ ~ r ~ ~ I ~ ~ i ~ ~ iwMI 125w40uvoe0 ius312135.04,01.09350.goc GoIder ASSOCiateS , Uecember 2003 -2° 033-2125 2.0 PROJE+C'z" BACKGROUNA ~ 2.1 I3ac4cground The site is Iacated south of the towia of Vail, to th:e west of Forest Road in Ea4Ie Cotwty, CaIaracto. The snowcat raad, to be used by ski slape maintenance equipment, trends south over Csore Creek, then turns to the 5outhwest and gai:n5 elevation to interest an e:cis#inQ forest road at an elevation 140 feet above Gore Creek. The road vrill require construc#aon of a brid;e where it crosses aver Gore Creek. Retaining walls will a9so be used to construct the road and potentially parts of t]ae bridge abutments. . ~ 2.2 Scope of Work . The scape of work for.the study incZuded preliminary feld recoruraissance, a subsurface drillin; investigation witt~ instailation of piezometers and ir3clinometers, laboratory testin;, and a prelizz~inary repart of geotectuaicaI conditions including a workin~ stability mc~del of the sioge. T~ie pixrpvse of ¢k~e ~ report is to prQVide a preliminary evaluation of geotogic and geotechnical conditions for planning of the site Iayaut and brid~e design infozznatian. 2.3 Information from Previous Studies Previcaus studies have been completed for the snow cat road bridae siie 6y Koechlein ConsuZting Engirzeers {see Section 7.0, References}. Tkzis regort recammended the snowR cat bridge be constructed using either spxead footings or pilss for the founcEation, and that further investiga~tian of € I the fi11 materials on the north side af Gore Creek be done. Tkais graviflus study did not do any ~ subsurfaee investigation south of Goz'e Greek or provide any recommendations ather than thase ~ I associated with bridge construction. ~ ; . t:w~~~z~a~soaoaw33xass.aaai.a9aso.noc G[?{deC ASSUC«teS ~ . December 2403 -3- 033-2125 3.0 SUBSURFACE GEQTECHiVIC.Ai, ZNVE,STIGATION ~ 3.1 Subsurface Dz-illinb Prnbrazn ~ The drillinb program was conducted durirsg the weeic.s of fJctober 13 and October 20, 2043 by Golder Associates Ine. (Golder) and the drill3na suiacontz-actor, Spectrum EYploration Incarporated. Tbe ~ driiiing prograrn consisted of drilling a tcrtal flf fve boreholes at the locations shown on Figure 1, and installing ane piezometer artd #rvo inclinometers. The resu]#s [af the drilling program and laboratory ~ tests wer£ used ta determine the physical characteristics Qf.the subsurface materials at the sate. ~ The boreholes were drilled usi.nc, ODEX methocis in the averburden soils to depths ranging between 25 and 50 feet, foliowed by 2.5-in. ID HQ core drilling into bedrock. Standard penet7ratian test (SFT) ~ samples were collectedlattempted in the overburden, but the rocky subsurface conditions limited ' testing and recQVery. Contracfors and others reviewing this work should note that this ODEX drilling ~ method allaws peraetration of maerials that would frequently cause xefusal to auger rius. SPT 6Lowcounts in the ODEX b4rin-'s may also be influenced by the ODEX method. Contractars are urgecf to interpret data from #hese borings with caution. In general, ths borehales encountered gravelly calluvial soils ar landslide deposits aver sandsiQne, ~ siltstone, and shale of the Ivlinturn Formatian_ Thicknesses of colSuvial soils and landslxde deposits that may excavate as soiIs are expected to be quite variable. The calluvial deposits are eharacteri2ecl ~ as compact to very dense silty sand and silty gravel, with cobbles and boulders. LandsZide deposits have the same charater as the coliuvium, or may esist essentially as relatively intact bedrock. The bedrock eneountered below the colluvium in the boreholes was slightly to highly weathered, ~ extremeIy weaic to s 0 teona, tan ta gray sandstone rvith some shale and limestorze. Groundwater was en,counterecf near Gore Creek durinc, drilling of boreholes SCBI a.rzd SCB2 at 15 and 22 feet ~ respectively. Groundwater was not en,eountered in the boreholes drilled on the slope along the ~ praposed road alignment. The borehole iotrs are presented in Appendix A, with the borehole locations shown on Figure 1. ~ 3.2 Laboratory Testing ~ Samples obkained from the f eid prQgram were colIected, tested, and analyzed for index properties ~ (Atterber- limits and arain size distribution), and shear strEngth at Golder's [aboratory in Denver, l:1,03\212s,o4ano4o;'~0332123.040S 09350.DOC Galder Assaciates i December 2043 -4- 033-2125 cQiaraao in accordance yvith applicable ASTM st.andards. Selected samples were classzfied ~ accarding to ASTiM D24$7 based on the Unified Soil Classificatabn System (USGS). ~ The results of the laboratory testing are presented in Appendix B. Index testing was perfarmed on samples af the coliuvium overlying the bedrock. The insitu moisture content ranged frozn 2.6°/p to 6.1% on the borin'gs in the slope, wvith morsture contents up to 143°fo closer to Gore Creek xn the ~ $ridge foundation investigation borings. The liquid limits ranged frorn 20 to 23 and the plastic index ~ ranged from S to 11. The material tivas rneasured to have a pH from 7.7 to 7.47 3 i'e555t1Vit]I fCOIE ~ 5165.3 to 7215.0 ohm-cm, and a sQluble sulfate content from 0.001 °r'a tQ 0.002%. ' A suite af direct shear tests was performed on sampEes of the colluvial si3ty gr'avet - silty sand I rnaterial. The results of the direct shear testirzg i:ndicated a shear strength angle of 38 degrees with I low cohesian, ~ I ~ I ~ ~ C ! I ~ 6 ' 1 ~ I ~ I , f ~ ~ ~ ~ i , 1:~3121?310atl01040[10332125.040I.64~SO.DOC Golder AssoCiates , ~ Decarnber 2643 -5- 033-2225 ~ 4.0 ENGINEERT'~1 TG GEOLOGY ~ ~ . This sectian of the repart describes abserved engineering gealagic canditions aE the site that are pertinent to sate plarxnning and develaprnent. Appraxirnate locatians of some featvres obsexved are shown vn Figure 1. ~j 4,1 Gealogic Eravironmez?t In'conjunction vrxth the field reeonnaissance, we reviewed available published irtformation for the ~ area, incfudin; the U.S. Geological Survey's 2002 Geologic Map aftLte Vail West Quadrangle, Ea~le ~ County, Colarado (ScQtt, Lidlce, Ciruntivald 2002). Mast of the area is covered with €averburden soils avexlying Minturrr Formatian sedimentary bedrQCk ~ that dips approximately narth-northwest, in a sinrtilar direction and grade as the ground sfope. ~i The study area is characterized by dip sloge topogaphy, with the slope dippin; about 26 to ~ 30 degrees to the northwest. The USGS geologic map shows the siope eovered wzth calluvium, ~ below an area w•hich has been identified as a quaternary landslide feature_ iVlvst likeLy this Iarge feature has not been active in arecent tirne frame. Huwever, ttae slope with:in t.he area of interest also ~ has geomarphie features indicative of iandslide ac#ivifiy. Some conditions may exist ar c[autd develop which could resu3t in localized. stability cancems, either naturally or as a result of site modifications ~ associated with develaprnent. ~ The thickness of colluvial sail and landslide cCeposits overlying bedrock appears ta be variable. Irz many cases, Ia.ndslide deposit5 rnay exist as reiatively intact, but displaced bedrock. ~ 4.2 Site Recomnaissante Observations ~ A f eId recannaissance of the propert}r was made on October 14, 2403. The following seetion presents the results of field reconnaissance. In a few locatians, specific canditaQns vvere noted durirag ~ ~ the reconnaissan.ce'that could a.ffeci the proposed road alignment. These are sumznarizecf as fallows: ~ • Imrnediately above Che exssting purnp house, vvhcch is at the appxolximata location ~ of the proposed bridge, the slape was observed ta be humrnocky and showsng ~ evidence of several smaller lobes of lacaIized slope mavemants_ In addation, the ~ ; s [;11774".125104001040[143i2I25.0401.09]iO.DOC Golder Assoeiates - ~ i I?ecember 2003 -6- 033-2125 ~ aspen grawth patterns suggest soil creep is also occurring between the existing ~ ~ . ; pump hause and the existing forest road. The ex-isting sioPe, w'here the snowcat road will steePlY climb between the proposed bridQe and the eYistina forest road, was observed to have older large ~ landslide features, The tie in with the existing forest road appears to be loeated on a bench formed by the top of a stump block. There is another horizontal bench below this, where Borehale SGR-3 was driIled, which also appears ta be i~ the top of another slump block. These appear ta be part of the enechelon failure ~ black of the larger landslicEe feature mapped on the USGS tnaps. The exposed soils and drilling suggests these failures occurred within the caliuvial soils. ~ • The slope above the existing forest road is likely part of the older large sIumg block camplex, and is covered with mature trees. Exposures an the siflpe show ~ colluvial soils, possibly depasited through landslide movement judging by the ma#erial's randam orientatian. ~ ~ ~ ~ , I i I ~ I ~ i ~ ~ s i . ; l ' ~ , ~ I:i071212310ao010ao610332125.W101.49350DOC GOider AssoCiates December 2003 -7- _ 033-2125 5.0 GEUTEGHNTCAL RECOMlV1ENDATIONS ~ 5.1 Eartbwork and Grading . On-site soiZs are suitable for use as general fall,.although select granular fiZls may be needed for sonne construction. Some processin; wzIl be required to remove the larger material such ihat the soil can be placecE and worked in Iifts. ~ The large cobbles and boulders, landslide deposiis, and weathered bedrock in the on site soiEs may result in difficutt excavation. Cantraetacs reviewing this repart to evaluafe excavation difftculty should note that an OUEX driII rig was used, which rvill readily penetrate materials that usually cause refusal to an auger rig, or be difficuit tQ to exeavate with conventianal eartb.naoving equipment. The ! i ~ SPT blowcoants may alsa not be indicative af excavation diff-icul#y. Rock or dif~ieult excavation may be encou?atered at any depth along the 5nowcat raad alignment. We therefoxe recommend t}zat ~ the roadway constivction bid package cantain at least an itern for difficult or rock excavation. We are . available to assist Alpine Enaineering v?`rth quantity estimation af this item, and other aspeets af tte j ~ bid paekage. However, it should be noted [hat any attempE to estimate a quantity of difficult ~ exeavation is onIy a rough estimate, agad variations frorn this estirnate sEaoulcf be anticipated. ~ We recomrnend 2H:1 V or f'latter for all slapes. $urface watar should be drained away from alI structures. ~ 5.2 Slope StabiIiiy Evaluation ~ A prelimariary global slope stability evaltatian was performed for the snow cat soad. Using the ~ available topographic informatian and tentative grading pEans provided by Alpine En;ineering, Inc. the existin; slape aeometry was zn.odeled using the SLIDE (Rocscieuce 2000) sofiware. Surveyed ~ topographic information was not avaiIable for the complete slope, so some of the #opographic - infarmation generated by aerial survey was used to camplement the data. Some engin,cerizr,g ~ judgment was needed to aeveiop an averali siope aeometzy using the two data sets. The evaluation of the existing slope was cornpared to an additiona.l model rvhich included the modificatiaos required for canstruction of the snow cat road. The results of the two arzalyses shaw that eanstruction ~ modifications to the slope do not result in a decxease of the tavera7l slope stability and znay improve ~ A ~ I:\074.S25104M0A0110]32[23.040P.04750.DOC Golder Associates ~ ~ December 2003 -8- 033-2125 ~ stabi]ity slightly. This comparison is of vital interast ta the project, since the raadway and associated ~ ~ retaining walls are sited in landslide terrain. . , Vail Resorts and o#her consultants shouSd understand that this evaluation of glabal stability is not in ~ keeping with rrxoee canservative routine practice for roadway design, such as grescribed by AASHTO and others. AASHTO generaIly recamznends a global stabiliiy safety factor of 1.25 ta 1.5. ~ Catculated gXobal stability safety factors for this project, u5in; the approach outlined above, are iikely to be below 1.25 in sarne cases. We have employed this approach on other raadway projects with ~ performance expectatians highex than for this snow cat road, and so we beIieVe that this appraach is reasonable and viabte. ' The stability analyses are presented in Appendix D. Nlore detailed global stability analyses will be ~ ~ ~ required with final design of the re#airzing wa19s. ~ 5.3 RetainiDe Walls General ~ ~ Project retaining walls are likely to be either MSE walls for the fill side of the roadway, and soil nai] ~ for the cut side. Either side likely will have a rack masonry veneer, sirzailar ta other recent Vai1 ResQrts projects. Given the steeply sloping ground canditians, aur general recommendation is that ~ ttze road layout favor cut wa11s somewhat aver fll wal]s, fqr 1wo reasons: ~ i I • Providing adequate reinforceitxent length, far larger filI side 1V1SE walts may drive ~ the "heel" of the excavatian so far 'anto the hillside that the foundaEion of the cut side wall is undermined by the excavatiQn for the fil] sitle wall. We have , ~ discussed this issue with Alpine Enginee~ng aiready, and they are aware of zt, - 9 • Adequately stabilized cuts generally perfomZ hetter in this type of setting than the f ~ larger fill walls. # i Specific critena for design of either type of wall axe presented befow. E ~ ! ~ I I - ~ ~ 1:1,03\2 izsoaumoQ 10357. sa,Doc Goider Associates ~ December 2103 -9- 033-2125 MSE Walls MSE walls appear to be feasible for tize filI side retaining tivalls. iVear surface soils encountered in the borinbs are variable in consistency, but often very rocky. With pracessinb it appears that they cauld ~ be used for MSE f 11; they generally da not appear to be excessively plastic or to have hin-h clay con,tents. The primary consideration will be excavation difficulty, and :processing as needed to ~ remove oversized rocks from the MSE fills. An bzterna] drain systezn, at appra:cimately the back of the lowest reinforcing ]ayer (ar the "hee!" of the wall) should be provided. This dirain should consist of ak least a 4-inch stotted pipe embedded in cdean gavel, fabric wrapped, and slQped to a suitable outfall. Wall design parameters are recommended as follows; 4n-site P"a~kfil~. Fziction Angle 34 degrees ~ Cohesion 0 Uzzit i,Veight 125 pcf ° The faIIOwing criteria, which are independerat of backfiil type, may also be utiIized: • Minimurn Reizafnrcement Lengfih: 0.7 x Total WaII Height; • Minimum Footing Depth; 18 iraches; ~ • Factor af Safety for Sliding; 1.5; • k'actor of Safety for Overturninb: 2.0; ~ •Factor of Safety for Bearing Capacity: consider as par[ of alobal stabiliry analysis, ~ A,dditional criteria sueh as required geosyntizetic strengRh, interaetion coefficients, and maximum vertical spacing of reinforcin~ Iayers tivill be cletermined durin; rvall design. tiVall elevatians (prof les alona the roadway) with reinforcement Iayout should be provided with the design, as weu as specifications for the wa11 canstructian. ~ ~ - ianz5~i~5tnenrnruni5na~~i~cneninoainnnr rnir~ar AccnriatPc ~ December 2003 -10- 033-2I25 ~ Soil Nail Walls ~ ~ The cut walls far tha prQposed snowcat road are likely to be most economica] jf constr°ucted as sQi] nail walls. Soil nail walls can be constructed from the top down as excavatian proceeds and do nm# ~ require additiona3 excavatian for piacement of wall rean:forcement mernbers. Hawever, given the variable ground conditi4ns of the landslide deposits encauntered, attention to these ground conditions ~ will be required on the part of the designer to minimize construetion difficulties. ~ ~ Specifzcally, stana-up time for the excavations may not be very good, at least where bauIders or gravels are present with few or no fines in the soil matrix. The design a.nd specifications must ~ grovide guidanee to contractors for bidding and constructing in such conditions. Sla.t berms ar fsash. cvating of the excavation face may be required. 1 Similarly, drill hole stability may be poor, and cased hoies may he required. As was the case in the ~ soil nail walls at Arrowtread in 2001, communication between d,rill holes and/or large grout takes are likeiy. The design should consider ecther gr°out socks oz' ather meLhods to naaua-e grout takes, and 1ths specificatirns and contract documents should be developed with this possibility in rnind, so that ~ ~ contractors can bid on and build the walls rvith reasonable rzsk and direction. ~ The following soil nail design parameters are propased for this praject: Friction A nale 32 de ees ~ y Cohesian 25 sf ~ Unit Wei t 120 cf Unit Ultamake Bond Stress 12 si 11 The unit ultimate bond stress identified above is representative of dense sand ana silty sand/sandy silt ~ (FHWA 1998), A unit ultim.ate bond stress of 12 pounds per square inch (psi) results in an ultimate ! pullout resistance of greater than 2 kips per foot for a drilIhole diameter of 6 inches, as rvould iikely i ~ be recatnmended as a minimum drillhole diameter for this project. ~ i i i ~ Soil Nail designs shauld incorporate permanent drainabe to relieve hydrastatic pressures and provide ~ an outlet for groundrvater conditions or seepage that may develo p seasonally. Other c[esign measures i9 I zti03UT25%040M040 1,0332125,0401.09350.ooC Gt]fder AsS4ciateS l; t f December 2001 -11- 033_2125 40 for permanent soiI nail walis outlined isi the Federal Highway Administrativn's "1Vianual far Design & Constreiction Monitaring of Sasl ;.'`tail Walls" (FHWA, 1998) shQUld be foilowed in the design. I 5.4 Bz-idge Foundatians and Rela#ed Geotec}snicai Issues I Foundatzons ~ The conditions encountered in the borehales suggest that several alterriate faundation systems zzxay be N considered for stnictures an this site. FinaI selection of foundation type and desi;n para.meters will depend 4n a number of factors, including: • Sail ar rock conditians at the specafic structure incation, ~ • Elevatians, geometry, and bridge hydraul'res, and ~ • Performance expectations Ln discussions with the bridge designer, Mr. Bzll Rose, a subconsultant to Brotivn and Caldwell, we ~ have joizitly agreed that driven H-giles are appropriate for the narth abutment foundation, and a footing supported Qn an MSE wall is appropriate for the south abutment. ~ H-Piles. North Abutment ~ Steel H-niles, J driven ta substa.ntial refusal in the underlin- bec~rack ~naV be desiOp~"ed for full axial .C 6 J ~ structural capacities (AA8HT0 recommends 9 ksi). Such a foundation would be highly scour resistant, and could likely be designed to prorride good Iaterai restraint. A potential drawback to tIiis ~ fqundation #ype is that baulders in the overburden soiI types are lakely io lead to early refusal, unless the pile locations are pre-auggered. Pre-augering and drive shoes are recomrnended. Pile lengths of 25 ~ to 35 feet (vertically) would likely be requu'ed (based on eurrent gound surface elevation) to penetrate the bedrock surfaee and achieve full cagactiy. Driving criteria and capacites should be ~ eonfirmed by wave equation analysis. Wave equation analyses are also recommended to avoid overstressing piTes in hard driving. ~ 0 1:10352125504005040 150332125.0401.493i0DQC Golder Associates ~ December 2063 -12- 033-2125 ~ Pile spacings of greater than 5 effective pile diameters are recornmended to avoid group effects. If ~ closer spacin-s are neeessary, we recommend a 75 percen.t capacity reduction, for piles spaceti at 3 to ~ S d'zameters. ~ In discussions with Mr. Rose, we agreed that a row of battered piles would be preferable to resist the lateraI loads imposed on the abutment by the 8% bricige grade, rather than relyinb on lateral restraint ~ from vertical piles. This is due ta t,hhe saft, arganic clay Iayer below the north abutrnent; it is possible that the likely low strength of #his Iayer wauld affect the lateral restraint of the piles by the Qverlying ~ soils. By using a connbination af vertzcal and battered piles for this abutment, aIl pple loadings are axial. ~ Footing Soutit Abutment ~ Faoting5 are a viab[e option for suppart of a simple span bridge, especially if they can be located to ~ avoid scour issues_ We also have experience in the design af MSE abu#ments to support bridge faotings, and bave tliscussed this approach to the south abutment with Mr. Rase. Tentative]y, we agreed that this appears to be a viable and economicai alternative to constructian of this abutment_ ~ ~ We recornznend allowable aearing pressures far the bridge footin of no greater than 4 ksf, bearing on the MSE fill. The near edge af the bridge footin; shoujd be at least one foot behind the baclc, or ~ inside edge af the retaining wall face. Far a one faot thielc facinb block, this gtits the edge of th,e faoting 2 faet fram the front face of the wall. For thicker tiWall faces, a somewhat greater ofFset would ~ be indicated. We intend to coasrdinate this issue with Mr. Rose as MSE wall systenns are evaluated, ~ I I i ~ Abutmenf retaining walIs ~ ~ MSE walis as discussed above may be applicable for bri,d;e abutment retainina walls. Some consideration will have to be a ven to the bottom elevation of the walt type, the resistance to scour, ~ and tile design flood predieiecl elevation. If the abutments are located at a locaiion such that scouc is ' ~ not likely to be detrimental, a M5E wall system may provide the mast economical abutment wall. If ; the abutmen.ts are to be placed a# a location where there is a high risk of scour, a cantilevered deep ' ~ foundation wall type may pravide 6etter performance. ~ In discussion.s with 1f1r. Rose, it appears that an MSE abutment, in eombination with retaining wall ~ replacerszents along the existino bike path in this area, will be a viable and ecanomic altertzative, Ttae ~ ~ rtm~~~~c.rum,nnnnma~ory5 nani rw~gn nrr GC}ldP_r QSSnl'.1RtP_S Decernber 2003 -13- ' 033-2125 portion of the MSE wall suppor[in; the bndge fo4tin; zxxust be designed #o acconninodate the ` sipifcant surchar~e loads agpiied by the faotinj. Elements of the this design will include hr~tez ~ strength, closex spaced, and Ianger earth reinforcin~ elements; as weTl as more stringent compaction criteria or select granulax fi11, Also, it should be recotrnized #hat differential settlement is likely, ~ between the twa abutments, since one involves deep £oundation on rock, and #he other does nat. Based on our experience, and analyses conducted on other grojects, we eYpect that 1 to 2 iv.ches of ~ differential settlement are possible. ~ We expect t4 provide a follaw-up proposal to VRDC to add design of walls for the bike path and abutment in tiais Iocation to aur design scope of work for #liis project. &d Aproach Fi11s ~ The discussion presented in Seciion 5.1 is applieable to the approacb fijls for the praposed ioridae. Special attentican should be given to compaction of approach fills zf tha bridge does no# also resi on ~ f11, but uses a founciatian type bearin- on bedrock. If p,roject perforrnance eriteria includes szn.aeth ~ transitions from apporoach fiTls to the bridae structure for vehicular tralfic, compaction of the ~ approach fll to 98 tfl IOt}% standard proctor maximunrt density to reduce settIernent on the bridge approach could be considered. However, if use of this road is limited to snow eaxs and snow mobiles, ~ this is nat necessary, in our opinion, as these vehieles only use the road and bridgE when there is substantive snow cover, which would most likely mask the affects of any minor differential ~ settlement. ~ 5.5 Future Geateclauical Work ~ In accordance with VaiI Resarts' direction, we are prepared ta proceed with retainin; wall desipn. We are available as needed to meet rvith other desipers regarding this report and the pro}ect_ ~ Quality assurance testing of fill soils, pavement materia.ls, and concrete will he required. Qualified inspection of ernbankrnent construction, excavatzons, cuts, foundation installation, and retaining wall ~ construction is also recDmrnended. A., H. ~ ~r. o,sa oaC Golder Associates I3ecember 2003 -14- 033-2125 6.0 cLasINc ~ Golder appreciates the opportunity ta work with VRDC and we trust that this regort for the farest road snowcat bypass meets your cuarent needs. Please feel free to contact the undersigned if you have any questionso GOL R ASS A.T IN• ~'~3 • ~ f .rz ~ • ~ t~ ~ = r r• w Francis E. Harriso Associate • ^ . ~ rJ+ _ • ':r~ '~'G ~`-a• a ~ . ' :F1Il4lli1i1lt4\~`~ John A. Chapman, P.E. . pzoject Engineer I I ~ ! ~ EE i i , ~ f ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 7 I CSnldpr AssflciatF:S • - • 03I62/2004 15:59 3933219055 CANNQN OFFTCES Attachmenta E ~ Sue McCan Cannon 44'S 5herwan 5heef #4d8 Pf+yViER, COLOIG{DO A0203 i TEtfFHt7NE 3R3/3,2 k-7073 ~ ~ i ! I' F'Bt?tIPaI'y 26, 2004 Town of Vail DesigzX Revierar Board 75 South Frontag,e Road West Vail, Colo. 81657 e ~ Dear Siz/Madam: My late husbaxxd and I purchased the hvme an 616 Fc?rest Road in 1968. At the time it was one of thsee I houses on the road. Lionshead did not exist, and we loved the silence and the serensty of the area. Theze have been a lot of ehanges to the area since then but the one constant is that my George and I ,,zndersfiood hdw import,axtt skiing is to Vail. When Vsil Assocxates fixst v+ranted to use our raad for szaow operations, my husband mlet with other neighbozs to allow the use rather than take the cvmgany azad Tawn to caurt. He was a man of great integrity and wanted to tio what was best for the gevgle in VaiL ~ Sizace that time, West Forest Road ha..s, at times, became a Panzer divisian of snaw cats. But, we never regrectted oux staaad on the issue. We knew that Vail needed tk?e snow cats. As early residexzts of this gzeat tavvn we dad our paat_ Now, my undetst2nding is tYfat there's arA enormvus xerlaissaalce pla.nned foF Lionshead, and coupled with the new shaps, and buildings is a pz-oposal t,a mave the snow cat apex~atian away frorn our zaexghborhoad where very few if any peaple would see it - at no cost Yo the Town a#'''V`ail. I ask you #c? allow Vail Resorts #o proceed wxth this endeavor, if nothing else, as g thank you to those of us oD West Forest Road ~ who chaose to live with #he aperataan fo;r !'he goad of the commuru"ty. SincerelY, sue M. CumQn CC: Vail 1]epartment of Comm.una.ty Development Attention: F3i11 Gibson I 11 South Frvntage Raad'VV'est Vail, Cala. $1657 Mr. Jack Hunn Vai1 Resozfs, Inc. ~ Post f}f£ica Bax 7 Vail, Calv_ 81657 Attachment: F THIS ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY ~ PUBLIC NOTIGE NDTICE IS HEREBY GEVEN that the PEanning and Environmental Commission af the Town af Vail wi{I hald a public hearing in accordance with Sectian 12-3-6 af the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail on March 8, 2004, at 2:00 P.M. ir+ the Town of VaiE NCunicipa! Suilding. In consideratian o#: A request for final review of a variance fram Section 12-6H-5, Setbacks, Section 12-6H-1 Q: Landscaping and 5ite Developrnent, and Section 12-6H-11: Parking and Loading Vail 7awn Code, to allaw for a residential additian, iocated a# 303 Gore Creek DrivelLot 7, 86ock 5, Vaii Village 15' F'iling, and setting farth details in ragard thereta. Applicant: Ran Hughes, eepresented by Shepherd Resources, fnc. Planner. Bill Gibson A request for final review af a variance fram Section 12-6D-8, Setbacks, Vail Town Code, to allaw for ~ Aresidentia! addition, located at 2434 Charnanix Lane/L.trt 11, Bfock E3, Vail das Schone ~ Filing 1, and setting farth details in regard thereto. I Applicant: Mark Yare, representEd by VAg, Inc. Planner. 8i11 Gibson A reques# for fnal eevieuv of a variance from Section 'f 2-6H-6, Setbacks, Sectton 12-6H-9, site I coverage, and Section 12-6H-10: Landscaping anti Site aevelopment Vaif Town Code, to allaw for A residential additioR, located at 303 Gore Creek G6iwelLot 8, Blocic 5, Vail 1/i[]age ~ 1' F91ing, and setting far#h details in regard thereto. Applicant: Erickson Shirley, represented by K.H. Webb Architects P.C. Planner: Bill Gibson A request fdr final review of a variance from Chapter 14-6, Grading Standards, Vail Town Code, to ' allow for retaining wal{s in exeess of six (6) feet in height, located at Tract K, Glen Lyon Subdiwis9on and Unplatted Parcels, a more complete metes and bounds descriptican is available at tfie ~ Gammunity Development Deparkement and setting forth details in regard thereto. ~ ~ I Applicant. Vail Resorts Developmenk, represented by Braun and Associates " Plar?ner: Bill Gibson A request for a recommendation to the Uail Tawn Council for a #ext amendment to Section 12- 7FI-3, Permitted and Ganditianal Uses; First Floor ar Street L.evel and Section 12-71-3, ` Permitted and Conditional Uses; First Ffoor and Street Level, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to allow for temparary real estate sales affices an the first floor or s#reet kevel of a building, in the Lionshead I& 2, Mixed Use zone distric#, and setting farth details in regard thereto. App]icant: Vail Resorts Development Campany, represented by Braun anci Associates Planner~ George Ruther ~ A request for finaf review of a variance from Section CC1,12-713-15, Site Coverage, Vaii Town Code, ta allow for additional site coverage, IoGated at 230 Bridge Stree#lL.oi B, BIoCk 5-C, Vail ViIlage 15` Filing, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Rodney E. Slifer Planner. Warren Campbell i i ~ The applications and information about the proposals are availabfe far public inspection during regular office hours in #he project planner's o'ffice, located at the Town of Vail Cornmunity DeveEapment Departrnent, 75 South Frontage Raad. The public is invited to attend projec# orientation and the site visits that precede the public hearing in the Town of Vaii Community ~ Qevelopment Department. Please eall 479-2138 far information. Sign language interpretation available upmn request with 24-hour natification. Please call 479- 2356, Telephorae for the Hearing Impai6ed, for information. This natice published sn the Vail Daily on February 20, 2004. ~ I I i ~ - ~ 1'ail Resoi°ts Sjiowcat Access Adjacent l'ropea-ty Uwjiers List ~ Scpteiiibei- 2003 ) TOWNT C)F VAIL 75 SOUTI4 FRONTAGE RQAD VAIL, GC7 $1657 1 ADAM, NANCY SHAPIRO 4975 E PFLESERVE G' E-LNWOOD VILLAGE, CO 80124 1 SMITH, JUSTTI~TE H_ 43 SOUTH SHORE CT HILTON HEAI] ISLAND, SC 29928 I G. LOVLN LLC 934 S FRONTAGE RI] VA.IL, CO 8 1657 VAIL CORP • ~ ~ POBOX 7 , VAIL, CU 81658 1 WESTHAVEN REALTY LLC , a 1127 LAKE AVE ~ GREENWICH, CT 06831 ~ f ~ ~ GI.EN LYflN 0FFICE BLTTLDING CIO AIti,rDREW D. NORRSS ] OOQ S FRONTAGE FtD }N STE 200 VAIL, CO 81657 I ~ U.S. DEPa4RTMEI'1T OF AGRiCU'LTURE FORF-ST SE-RVICE 24747 U. S. H1GHWAY 24 I MIN°I'URN, CO 8] G45 1 ~ } r ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i - ~ , _ ; . ~ MEMORANDUM TQ: Planning and Enviranmental Commission FROM: Community Qevelapment Department DATE: March 8, 2004 SUBJECT: A request for final review o# a variance from Section CC1,12-7B-15, 5ite Coverage, Vail Town Cade, to allow for additionaf site coverage, located at 230 Bridge Street/Lot B, Block 5-C, Vail Village 15' Filing, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Rodney E. Slifier Planner: Warren CampbelE 1. SUMMARY The appficant, Rodney E. Slifer, is requesting a variance from Section 12-7B-15, Site Coverage, Vail Tovun Code, to allow for a cammerc6af s#ore front atiditi6n, located ai 230 Bridge StreetlLot B, Block 5-C, Vai! Village y" Filing. The variance is requested to allow the applicant to enclose an archifectural "notch°" in the west fagade of the Siifer Building and install an avrning which extends out rnore than four feet from the face of the building. The proposed enclosure ot the architectural notch ~ and that portion af the awning over faur #eet fram the face of the buikding will cQUnt towards the aElQwable site coverage an 4he site. As this site iS currently at 97.1 % site caverage, 80% maximum allawed by Cammercial Care 1 zone district, the proposal requires a variance in order ta be constructed. The proposed enclasure would increase site co+rerage to 97.5%. Staff is recommending denial af the requested variartce as a practical difficuety or harclship does not exist and would canstitute a.granting of special priviiege to this individual property. It. DESCRIPTiOM C?F REQUEST This request is to allow far the enclosure of an architectural "notch" in the west fagade af the Slifer Building so that it might became interior retail space and the addition of an awning over the entrance which extends out more than four feei form the face of the building. A vicinity map depicting the kocation of the Slifer Building in Vail ViNage is attached for reference (attachment A). The proposed enclosure measures 2 feet 7 inehes wide by 4 feet 2 iraches deep for a total of 10.76 square feet. The are of the proposed awning over iour feet from the face of the building measures 4 inches wide hy 12 feet long for a ta#a] area of 4 square feet. The combined additional site coverage included in this praposal is 14.76 sqUare fee#. Reduced copies of the praposa4 are attached far reference which depicts the atea to be enclosed (attachment B). 5ectian 12-78-1 5 Site Caverage, Vail Town Cade, lirnits site caverage in the Commercial Core 1 zone district to 80% of the total site area. This propasaE will increase the site coverage from 97.1 % to 97.5%a, and therefore requires a variance. A letter frorn the applicant dated February 9, 2004, has been provided (attachment C). ~ 1 TOK:+r'OF4'11L ~ Ill. BACKGROUND ~ ~ This property is a part af the ariginal Town of Vail which became effective by the election of August 23, 1966, and the court order of August 26, 1966. • Qn February 24, 1992, the Planning and Enviranmental Commission approved a major exterior akteration and a site coverage variance request for the Slifer Building. The 1992 propasal added apprgximately 57 sq. ft. of site coverage to #he Slifer BuRlding, in order io aliow for the cmnstruction of approximately 53 sq. ft. of additianal first floor retail area, arrd 54$ sq. ft. of new office space on the second fEoor of the buiiding, abave the retal space. The 1992 site caverage wariance approval allawed the applicant to increase the existing site caverage by 1.8%, from 92.1% to 93.9%. The Planning and Environmental Commission i approved the applicant's site coverage variance request, ffnding that the proposal was in compliance vwith the Variance Criteria and Findings prescribed in the Nlunicipa6 Cflde_ The ! PEC also found that the strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the site coverage ' regulation would result in a practical difficulty, as the site coverage regulation is iRCQnsistent with the goals and objectives outlined in the Vail ViUage Master Pkan and Urban Design Consideratians. • Qn AprEI 13, 1998 the Planning and EnvironmentaC Commission approved a major exteriar alteration and a site coverage variance, to allow #or a remacfel and expansion to the Slifer Building. Thatproposal added approximately 160 sq. ft. of rrew retail floor area to the lower ievel of the existing building, removed a#otal of 9 sq. ft. of real estate office floar area from the main level (Bridge Street) of the building, and added 135 sq. ft. af new office floor area to the upper Ievel of the building. The propQSal increased fhe total si#e caverage by 103 sq. #t. for a total of 3,129 sq. ft(97.1%0). The "reo#ch" was intrvduced to the design in order to reduce the amount of deviation required by the applicant for increased site coverage and to ~ comply with Design Review Baard guidelines. ~ • On March 3, 2004, the Design Review Baard (DRB) conducted a canceptual review af the ~ proposed exterior alteratian to the Slifer Building. In tha# meeting the DRB commen#ed on the awning, the mQVing of the front doar, and the enclasure of the "notch". The Board was I fine with the movement of the daor, but there was some cancern about a ane-faot wide awning over the new windaw which is praposed to replacE the existing door. On the Board there was general agreernent that the "notch" couCd be eneiased and stifl maintain the sense and feel which v+ras created by the bui{ding on the street. However, two members befieved that the prQposal as presented was acceptable and the remaining two believed it should be enclosed by approximately two feet. [V. ROLES OF REVIEW[NG BQDIES The PEC is rQS onsible for evaluatin a ro asal for: Actlon: The PEC rs responsible for frnal approvafi'tlenial of a variance. The PEC is responsible for evaluating a proposal far: ~ 1. The relatiQnship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. 2. The degree to which refief from the strict or Gteral interpretation and enfarcement af a specified regulation is necessary to achieve corrrpatibility and uniforrnity of treatrnent among sites in the vicinity, or to attain the objectives af this Title without grant of special privilege. ~ 2 ~ 3. The effect o# the requested variance on light and air, distributian of population, transportation and traffic faeilities, public facilitiies and utiiities, and pubfic safety. 4. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. Design Review Baard: Acffon: The flRB has ND rewiew authority on a variance, but must revie?v any accompanying flRB applicaiian. Town Council: Actions of DRB or PEG mayba appealed t4 the 7own Cauncil or by the Tawn Council. Town Council evaluates whether or nat the PEC or DRB erreci with appravals ar denia9s and can uphold, uphold with modifications, or overtum the baard's decision. Staff: The staff is responsible for ensuring that all subrnittal requirements are provitied and plans conform to the technicaE requirements of the Zaning Reguiations. The staff also advises the applicant as to compliance with the design guidelines. Staff provides a staff inema containing background an the property and prowides a staff evaluation of the praject with respect #o the required criteria and findings, and a recommendation on approva9, appraval with conditions, or deniaL Staff also faciiitates the review process. ~ V. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS Zoraing Regulatians Section 12-2 De€initions SITE COVERpGE: The ratio of the total builciing area an a site to the total area ot a site, expressed as a percentage. For the purpose af ealculating site caverage, "buifding area" shall mean the tatal horizontal area of any building, carport, porte cochere, arcade, and covered or roofed walkway as measured fram the exterior #ace of perirneter walls ar supporting cQiumns above grade or at ground level, whichever is the greater area. For the purposes of this defiinition, a balcony ar deck pt`ojecting frorn a Yrigher elevation may extend over a IQwer balcany, deck or walkway, and in such case the higher balcony or deck shall not be deerned a roof or covering far the fower balcony, deck or walkway. In addition to the abave, building area shall also inelude any pvrtian af a roof owerhang, eaves, or covered stair, cavered deck, covered porch, covered terrace or c4vered patio that extends more fhan four feet (4') fram the exterior face of the perime#er building uvafls or supporting columns. Section 12-713 Cammercial Core 1(CC1) District (in part) 12-713-1: PURPOSE: The Cflmmerciai Core 1 District is intended ta provide sites and to maintain the unique character of the Vai6 Village commercial area, with its mixture of lodges and commercial establishments in a predortiinantfy pedestrian environment. The Cammercial Care 1 District is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space, and other arnenities appropriate to #he permitted types of buildings ~ and uses. The District regu3ations in accordance with the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and 3 Design Gonsideratians prescribe si#e development standards that are intended to erasure the ~ maintenance and presenration of the tightly clustered arrangements of buildings fironting on pedestrianway5 and public greenways, and to ensure canfinuation of the buildirtg sca9e and architeetural qualities that distinguish the Village. 32-7B-35: S6TE COV'ERAGE: Site coverage shall not exceed eighty percent (80%0) of the total site area, unless otherwise specifieci in the Vail village urban design guide plan and design consideratians. In comrnercial core 1 district, ground level patios and decks shall be included in site coverage calculations. 12-78-20: VA1L VILLAGE URRAN DESIGN PLAN: A. Adaption: The Vail village urban ciesign guide plan and design considerations are adopted for the purposes of maintaining and preserving the character and vitality of the Vail village (CG1) and ta guide the fiuture alteration, change and 4mprovement in CC1 district. Copies of the Vail viflage design guide plan and design cansiderations shalf be on file in the departmerrt of comrnunity development. Section 12-17 Variances (in part) 12-17-1: PURPDSE: A. Fteasons For Seeking Variance: In arder to prevent or to lessen such practical difficulties and unnecessary physical hardships inconsastent with the objectives ot this titEe as would result from strict or literal interpretation anci enforcement, uar3ances fram certain regulations may be granted. A ~ practiGal difficulty ar unnecessary physicaf hardship may result from the size, shape, or dimensions nf a site ar the iacatian of existing structures therean, from topographic ar physica9 conditions on the site or in the imrnediate vicinity; or from other physicai limitations, streei lacatians or canditions in the immediate vicinity. Cost or incanuenience to the applicant of strict ar literal compliance with a regulation shall not be a reason for granting a variance. 12-17-5: PLANfVING AND ENVIRC7NMENTAL COMMISSlGN ACTIQN: Within twenty (20) days of the clasing of a public hearong on a variance appEication, the planning and ~ environmental cammission shall act on the applicatian. The cornmission rnay approwe the application as submitted or may approve the application subject to such rnadifications ar conditiQns as it deems necessary to accomplish the purposes of this titfe, or the commission may deny the appficatian. A variance rnay be revocable, may be granted for a Iimited time period, or rnay be granted subject ta such other conditions as the cornmission may prescribe. 12-17-7: PERMIT APPRC+VAL AND EFFECT: Approval ot the variance shall Papse and beeome void ifi a buifding permit is not obtained and construction not commenced and diligently pursued toward completion within two (2) years from vti+hen the approval becomes final. Vail Village Master Plan The Vail Village Master Plan is based on the premise that the Village can be p4anned and designed as a wnole. The Vaif Village Mas#er Plan is intended to be consistent with the Vail ViClage Urban ~ 4 ~ Qesign Guide Plan, and along with the Guide Plan, it underscares the impartance of the relationship betwEen the built environment and public spaces. Furthermore, the Master Plan provides a clearfy stated set of gaal$ and objectives outlining how the Viilage will grow in the future. Gpals for Vail Village are Summarized in six majar goal statement5. Whfle there i5 a certain amoun4 of overlap between these six goals, each focuses on a particular aspect of the Village and the cammunity as a whole. A series of objectives autline specific steps that can be taken toward achieving each stated goal. PoCicy statements have been deveioped to guide the Tawn's decision- making in achieving each of the stated objectives. 7he s#ated goals of the Vail Village Master Plan which pertain to this application are: Gaal #1: Encourage high quality develapment while preserving the unique architectural scale of the Village in order ta sustain its sense of community and identiry. 1.2 Qbjective: Encourage the upgrading and redevelopment of residential and commercial facilit9es. Gaal #2: To foster a strang tQUrist industry and pramote year-raund econorrric health and viability for the Village and for the community as a whofe. 2.2 4bjeetive: Recognize the "historic" commercial CDfE as the main activity center of the Viflage, ~ 2.2.9 Policy: The design criteria of the Vail Village Urban Design Guwde plan shalf be the primary guiding document ta preserve the existing architectural scale and character of #he core area of Vail Village. 2.5 Objective: Encourage the cantinued upgrading, renovation and maintenance of existing lodging and commereial facilities to better serve the needs of our guests. Goal #3: To recognize as a top priority the enhancement of the walking experience throughout the Village, 3.1 Objecti+re: Physieally improve the existing pedestrian ways by landscaping and other improvements. ~ 3.1.1 Policy: P'rivate development projects shall incorparate streetscape impravements (such as pawer ireaiments, landscaping, lighting and seating areas), along adjacent pedestrian ways. Vail Village iJrban Design Plan This Guide Pian represents eollective Fdeas about functional and aestFaetie abjectives for Vail Village. Diagramrnatic in natUre, the Guide Plan is intended to suggest the nature of improvements ~ desired. It is based on a number of urban design criteria determined to be appropriate fior guiding 5 i ~ change in the Vail Viklage. The Guide plan is intended to be a guide for current planning in both the ~ public and priva#e sectors, VL ZONING ANA,LYSIS Zoning: Commercial Core 1 District Land Use Plan Designation: Uillage Master Plan Current Land Use: Mixed Use Develapment Standard A_Ilowed/Required ExfstEna Proposed Lot Area: 5,000 sg. ft. 3,223 sq. ft. no change Setbacks: Front: i'er Vail Village 1ft. na change Sides: l7rban Design 0 ft./O ft. n4 change Rear. Guidelines D ft. no change Building Height: 60% at 33 ft. ar Iess 100% at 33 ft. or less na change 40% at 33 ft. to 43 ft. 0% at 33 ft, ta 43 ft. no change Site Couerage: 2,578 sq. ft. ($0%) 3,129 sq. ft. (97.1%) 3,143.8 sq. ft. (97.5%) Landscape Area: Per the Vail Village 51.5 sq. ft. no change Urban Design Guide Plan • Parking: per Section 12-1 D-1 Q per Section 12-1 0-10 .04 space (2.3 spaces11,000 square feet) VII. SUFiROUND[NG LAND USES AND ZONING Land Use Zo_ ninq North: Mixed Use Commercial Core 1?istrict South: Mixed Use Commercia! Core 1 District East: Open Space 4utdoar Reereation Dis#rict West: Mixed Use Commercial Cflre 1 Qistrict Vlll. CRITERlA AND FINDINGS A. Consideration of Factars Reqarding the Setback Variances: 1. The rela#ionship vf the reqtaested variance to ather existing or potential uses and structures in the vicini#y. Staffi believes that the proposed site caverage varianee is neither campatible with nor comparable to the surrounding development aFong Bridge Street. Many of the existing properties in the vicinity o# the appficant's property have site coverages in the range af $3°!fl ta $5%. With this propasal the enclosure ~ of the °natch" and the additian of the awning wou4d take the existing site 6 ~ eoverage of 97,1% tv 97.5% site coverage. Those sites with higher site coverages are the result of either Special Developmeni Districts or speeial circumstanees and physical hardships. Below is a list of sorne sites in the vicinity with their current site coverages listed and how they obtained that site coverage. A. A & Q Buildinq Qctober 8,19$4 - The PEC approved a CGI exterior alteration. No variances were requested. Site coverage was proposed at 79.0%. 7he exteriar alteration was approved with the condition tha# a floodplain modification request be approrred by the Town prior to canstruction. May 8, 1985 - The PEC approved a floodplain modification for #he A& D deveiopment. No stream setback variance v++as required. February, 1995 - Applicant proposes expansion ta Golden Bear. Prapased site coverage is 79.95%. I ~ B. Red Lion BuildinQ ~ April 9, 1990 - The PEC approved a view corridor encroachmen#, stream setback variance, site coverage variance, CCI exterior alteration, and conditional use permit (to allow an outdoor dining deck). Prior to ~ redeve9opment, the Red Lian Btailding encroached into the JVIiII Creek stream setback 1 to 18 feet. The propc,sed redevelapment requested' 5 additional feet of encraachment. Ttae staff inemo cited the lacation of the existing building and the A& D irnprovemen#s as significant issues that would not rrrnake the request a grant of special privilege_ The staff recommended denial of the requests, althaugh the PEC ultimately approved #he requests, Concerning site caverage for the Red Lion redevelapment, the proposal included 50 square feet of additional site coverage. However, as part of the redevelQpment, 27 square feet of existing site coverage was to be eliminated. As a result, there was net increase of 23 square feet of site coverage. At the time of the proposal, the existing Red Lian Building had a site coverage of 83%. Thaugh the staff recamrnendation far the site coverage variance request uvas denial, the PEC ultimately approved it. One of the canditions of the exterior alteration was an agreement between the Town and the Red Lion deWelopers that the GRFA approwed through that process be the cap. Language has been incorporated into ihe cnndaminium declarations that the existing 8,714 square feet of GRFA and three dwelling units are the maximum allowed for the property and #hat no ather GRFA or dwelling units may be added to the project in the future. The standards for ~ CCl zoning wauld have allowed approximately 11,200 square feet of GRFA and eight dwelling units. ~ On October 22, 1990, the PEC approved an exterior alteration and a site 7 ~ - coverage variance to allaw an airlock to be constructed far the Szechuan ~ Lian Ftestaurant. At the time of the request the buFlding had a site coverage ~ of 83.2 percen#. The prapnsed airlock was an additional 60 square feet. The approvat allowed the building to reach a site coverage of 83.6 percent. Staff recommencied appraual, primarily because the Zaning Code at the tirne emphasized the need far airlocks. C. Brid e Streef Lod eGolden Peak House November 2,1993 - Town Gouncil approved a Speeial Development District for the Colden Peak House. This included, among other things, a site coverage request whi'ch exceeded the 80% allowed in CGf. At the time of the proposal, the existing Galden Peak House oru the existing lot had a site coverage of 91.8%. UndEr the approved plans with the expanded lot, the Slte CaVer21gE Will be 94%. D. Curtin Flill Bualding , i March 8, 1993 - The PEC approved a CCl exteriar alteration for this bui{ding. . Site co+rerage at the time of this proposak was 71 °fo. The approved site i coverage is 71.6Qlo. E. Vista Bahn Buildinq an March 13, 1995, a request for a maJor exterior alteration in the ~ Commercial Core 1 zane district and site coverage, stream setback, and common area wariances and eonditiona1 use permits to allaw otfice space on the third floor and to allaw an outdaor dining deck, to provide for the redevelopment of Serrana's v+ras apprnWed by the Planning and Enviranmentaf Commission. This approval granted a site coverage variance of 83.9°IQ as several buildings in the vicinity hacf site coverages in the range of 83°fo. On August 24, 1998, #he Planning and Environmental Gommission approved a variance and minar exteriar aiteratEOn to allow far a new entry to the ~ building which increased the site coverage by 53.5 square feet to a total ofi 85.0%0. Tlne reason for the minimal increase in site coverage is that most of the aeidition accurred within the Town af Vail right-of-way whicn does not caunt agains# the site caverage calculation for the siie. On April 28, 2003, the Planning and Environmental Cammission denied a varianee request to increase site coverage from 85.0% to 87.2%0. ~ F. Clock Tower Buiidinq ~ August 12, 1991 - The PEC denied a request for a s%te coverage variance at the Superstars Studio within the Clock Tower Building. The PEC found that ihe property was not encurribered with a physicai hardship. The existing site coverage was 87°l0. The request for an additional 28 square feet would have ~ e 8 I ~ put site coverage at 87.2%0. 7he staff recommended d@nEal and the PEC concurred. G. Covered Bridge Buildina The Covered Beadge building was approved for redevelopment in 1993. The applicants originally requested five variances and a floQdpfain mQd'rfication, , but ultimately designeci a building which confarmed with alF zaning standards was approwed. 2. The degree to which relief fram the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a specifiect regufatian is necessary to achieve compatibility and unifc?rmity af treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the abjectives of this title without a grant of special privilege. Staff believes that this variance request should not be approvec# as it would be a grant af special privilege. This property received approval on February 24, 1992, for a major ex#erior alteration and a site coverage variance request which increased the existing site coverage by 1.8%, from 92.1 % ta 93,9%. On April 13, 1998 th+e Planning and Enviranmerrtal Gommission approved Majar CC1 Exterior Alteration and a site cauerage variance, to allaw #or a r2fnOd81 and expansian ta the Slifer Building. That praposal added approximately 160 sq. ft. of new retail floor area ta the lower level of the existing building, removed a tatal of 9 sq. ft. of real estate office filoor area ~ from the main level (Brbdge Street) of the building, and added 135 sq. ft. of new office floar area ta the upper level of the building. The proposal increased the totaE site coverage by 103 sq. ft. for a total of 3,129 sq. ft (97.1 In the proposal approved in 1998 the applicant initially requested more site coverage than was finally approved as it was the concern of the Planning and Environrnental Commrssion that while a site coverage variance was warranted it was nat warranted to the extent the applicant was propnsing and as a result the site coverage which was approved was a reduction in the initial submittaf's request. This reducti4n can be seen by comparing the contents of the March 23, 1998, wark session memorandum which detailed a 300 square faot addition and the April 13, 1998, final reView memorandum which was an approval of a 2$6 square foot addition. Staff feels that #he variances granted previously aIlowed the Slifer Building to enjoy tne same privifege given to other properties in the area. As listed in Criteria 1 abowe buildings in the vicinity meet the requirement, exceed ta the tune af approximately 83%a to 85%, or exceed due to the approval of a Specia6 Deveiopment District. The size, configuratian, exEsting structure, and location af this siie in the Uillage are similar to a11 the proper#ies. Stafif believes there are no physical hardships on this lot which warrants further increase to the site caverage allowances. Staff believes that this current request for a site covsrage variance is only a step in a series of incremental increase which have occurred on this property. ,4ppravaG af this variance woukd be granting a special privilege upan this site that no ather property in the vicinity can enjoy. ~ 9 • 3. The effect of the requested varianee on light and air, distribution af population, #ranspartatimn and traffic fiacilities, public facilities and utilities, and pubtic safety. The reques#ed variance will haue little, or no impact, on the above described criteria. , 4. Such pther factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to ~ the prapased variance. The Planninq and Environmental Commission 5hall rnake the fallawinn findings. before qran#inq a variance: 1. That the granting ot the varianee will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other praperties classified in the same district. 2. That the granting of the variartce wil] not be detrimental to the public health, safeiy or welfare, or materiaily injurious tp praperties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. T'hat the variance is warranted for ane or more a# the folfowing ~ reasons: a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcemen# of the specified regulation wou1d resuft in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsis#ent with the abjectives of this title. b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or ! canditions applicable to the same site af the variance that da not ~ apply generally #o other propertoes in the sarne zone. ~ i c. TFae strict inter,pretation or enforcement of the speeified regula#ion wauld deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of ather properties in the same distriet. IX. STAFF RECOMMENaATION The Community Development Department recammends denial of the request for a variance from Section 12-78-15, Site Coverage, to allow for 97.5% site eoverage. Staff's recommendation is taased upon the review of the criteria in Section Vlkl of this memorartdum and the evidence and testirnony presented. Should the Pianning and Environmental Commission choase to deny this variance, the Cammunity Develapment Departrrient recommends that the followving findings be made: ~ I a) That the granting of the variance will c4nstitute a granting of special privilege inconsistent ~ i with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. 10 i . ~ _ ~ ~ b} That the granting of the variance will be detrimenial to the public health, safety, ar welfare, or materially injurious to properties ar impravernents in the vicinity. c) The strict literal iroterpretation or enforcEment of the specified regulation does not result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship iracorrsisten# with the abjectives of this title. • d) The strict interpretation or enforcement af the specified regulation does nat deprive the applicant af priviEegss enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the sarne district. X. ATTACHMENTS A. Vicinity Map B. Reduceci Plans dated March 2, 2004 C. Letter form the app9icant dated February 9,-2004 D. Publication Notice ~ ~ 11 ~r. # r~ ° . . ~ ~•a ~ r k i~y~ ,y~ ~ ~ ' ~ f ~ 7 . ^5 4L r~• . . R ~5: LO 'x ! x ~ ~ c ~e 4 lL . i • ' ~ . «y ~ • 5 *,~.~°l~+e~.eos ~ Y ",y s.r~~v~ w r 1 ; ~ r d k . ~ , § " M~~~'"'.r`~ . m 09;~`~ 4~4 m _ t ;irc • . . r - -A ~ , ! ~'J ~ ~ • - ~ . ~ ~~~~r ~ ~ t,e~ , i ~ -.,.SJi `i'Lr . . •~~..w_..: Y .~~t ~ ~ ' ~R ,~,'js. '+i i ~ ~r y~ 6. ` "wnr+~r ~ • r~ ~ i . sn a~ ~ ` + t r 4 ~,~`;a p' ~ 5'"~~~"~1E ~~~,~d ~ a4 4 ~ F,~* ~ ~ ~ ~ •m~°T~'~ ~ ~~r: ~'F i NN . : ~ F a... ~d~ 1'" • ~ ~ „~v+a ~ ~ ~ £ y~ ~ ~ C b E ' 9~1~ d C ~ r 7a+xl 9i~ir Y5~ M r.~ 5 d. -w: IV E- `~k p7 H . U .,F kb A y m ~ U 5 • ~ ~ , "S„ qy ' ` P ~ Tn ~5~ ~4 ~~{a, f~ ~w.~ A fi'Y"aC11menL. M ~ I f ~ r ~ r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~.768 5f ~ ~ s J / J f' / / - s c ~ ~ t f ~ / i i J / ! I ~ l a ~ . ~ FI'RDP05ED 5Tf~~FRONT 56ALE \ \ i i ~ ~ PRDPUSED 57DREFR4NT 5HOWN DASHEI7 EX I ST I NC STOI~~RONT 5GALE 5/Vll=.lk'/yl~ V ~E~-I0SA5E VAIL, --OLOR,4DO Attachment: B . • C j . ~ II A JoiNr VxNrcnAE wirii VAII RE9ORT9 ~ F~bruaxy 9, 2004 'fomln of Vail Planning & Environxnent Coanmission 25 So. Frontage Road W. ' Vail, G+D 81657 Dear Conzmission :vlembers: I ajn requesting a variance to increase the site coverage of the retail space which is part af the Slifer Builcling. The ainount xequested is rni»imal. This space has been occupied bv at least four tenazits in xecent years anci none have ~ succecded finaiiciallv. The current tenans has hired a retail consultant, Carnmercial Arts; fronl Boulder. One conclusian thev have came to is that the entrance and fz-ont of the ' building needs to be modif ecl to make it tnore visible, appealing and functioiaal. The enclosed drawings depict what I view to be a huge imprflvement. I The portion I wish to enclose is tlse indentation show•n on the drawings. This area is af no functiQnal or aestlietic value to the farade of the building. From a retail standpoint, as pointed aut by° tiae consultants, this indentation is a barrier an Che sight as you enter the ~ existing daor by merely directing you to the stairs to the lower level. ln retail, there is a"rigIit kaand rule". When you cnter a retail store, the vast majorities of people tum or look to tht; right. The existing wall is a definite barrier ta good retail space. This street-level space woutd be greatly enhdnced hy iricc,rporatia7g the design we are submitting. In addition, this space is etltirely covered by roof. It isn't aa though it is a beautifully sunlit space. T feel the znability to rernodel as proposed would be a hardship and would ~ leacl to another retail buszness having a diicult #itne succeeding. Yaz1 Village Office ~ 230 Brrdge Street • l/ail Calorudo 81657 • Telepbane 970 4762421 • Facsamale 970 476 265$ Q a ~ ~ Attachment: C ~ Page 2 The impact will not affect light and air, distribution of populatian, transportation, traffic facilities, utilities, ar public safety. Ii wall actually eliminate an ugly and actual litter- filled portion of Bridge Street. I also feel it is compliant with the cutrent streetscape improvement efforts being irnplemented by the Town of Vail. Thank you for your consideratian. Best regards, adn~y E_ li Slifer Building, LLC ~ I ~ ~ TH15 ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY ~ PUBLIG NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commissian of the Town of Vail wil4 hald a pub6ic hearing in accordance with Section 12-3-6 of the A/lunicipal Code of th2 Town of Vail on March 8, 2004, at 2:00 P.M. in the Tawn of Vail Municipal Building. In cansideration af: A request for fina] review of a variance from 5eetinn 12-61-1-6, Setbacks„ Section 12-6H-10: Landscaping and Site Develapment, and Section 1MH-i 1: Rarking and Loading Vail Town Cade, to allaw for a residential addition, located at 303 Gare Creek Drive/Loi 7, Block 5, Vail Vilfage i$` FiEing, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Appficant: Ron Hughes, reprssented by Shepherd Resources, Inc. Planner: Bill Gibson A request for finaf review of a variance from Section 12-6D-6, Setbacks, Vail Town Cade, tfl allow for A residential addition, lacated at 2434 Chamonix Lane/Lot 11, Block B, Vail das 5chone Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereta, Applicant: Mark Yare, represented by VAg, Inc. Planner: Bill GibsQn A request far final review of a variance from Section 12-6H-6, Setbacks, Section 12-8H-9, site ~ coverage, and Section 12-61-1-1(}: Landscaping and SFte Develapment Vail Town Code, to allow for A residential add`tian, located at 303 Gore Greek Drive/Lot 8, Biock 5, Vail Villags i st Filing, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applieant: Erickson Shirley, represented by K.H. Webb Architec#s P.C. Planner: Bill Gibson A request for final review of a variance from Chapter 14-6, Grading Standards, Vail Tawn Code, to allc,w tor retaining walls in excess of six (6) feet in height, located at Tract K, Glen Lyon Subdivision and Unplatted Parcels, a more complete metes and bounds description is available at the Community Development Departement and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: 1/ail Resorts Devefopment, represented by Braun and Assaciates Planner: Bill Gibson A requsst for a recornmendation to the VaiF Town Council far a text amendment to Sectian 12- 71-1-3, Permitted and Conditianal Uses; First Floor or Street Level and Section i 2-71-3, Permitted and Canditional Uses; First Ffoor and Street L.eWef, pursuant to Sectian 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, ta allow for ternporary rEal estate sales o#fices on the first floor or street level of a building, in the Lianshead 2, Mixed Use zone disirict, and satting forth detaiis in regard thereto. Applicant: Vapl ResDrts DeveCopmerrt Company, represented by Braun ancf Associates Planner. George Ruther A request for final review of a variance from Section CC1,12-7B-15, Site Coverage, VaiE Town Cade, ~ to alfaw for additionaE site coverage, located at 230 Bridge StreetlLcat B, Black 5-C, Vail Vil@age 1 st FiEing, and setting forth details in regard thereto. App9icant: Rodney E. Slifer P1anner: Warren Campbell Attachrnent: D ~ I The applications and informatian abaut the propasals are available for public inspection during ~ regular office hours in the project planner's offiee, {ocated at the Town of Vail Cornmunbty Development Departrrtent, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend project orientation and the site visits that precede the public hearing in the Tawn af Vail Community Development Department. Please calf 479-2138 far information. Sign language interpretation available upQn request with 24-hour notification. P1ease cail 479- 2356, Te{ephone for the Hearing Empaired, for infarmation. This notice pubCished in the Uail Daily on February 20, 2004. I - • ~ ~ ~ i _ ~ -r \ (j ~ :A ~ ~ W +4}-~~ V L ~ 4. L Q Q ~ , 0 -Y Z ~ Q ~ w ~ rk~ o r-I O ui ck~ 3a) X [~3 ~I-_"__ c ~ ~ ~ ~ g ! i ; ~ • ~ ~ ~n ~ / ~ { - } ~ ~ a3 V Z7 C3 -(D f. W n C LLj c -5~ L O P....~..- _ ~ V) D ~ Q Lu '._..I ~;,•O d) Z w ' a) W , a--~ - ---------~~aA u'~R 'I ~Jn . ; - _ ~ ~ 119~~ ` 4 : ~ ~ ~ ~til' ; - ' ~ I ~ ~ -!I ~ ~ ;,~~~j~•~ i~„°.n.., ~r~ ~ . , ,I_.. '1~° , CL ~ ~ x.. C~? 3 -3 C) a -6 L X Q LL E (D ~ .~S_._ ~ y. i . _ { .O C) 0 . y -{~3 Q) C m'.~__..'.,..,~__.r fll 3: N rt~ ~ C a ~ Cu L ~ d > O C: O ' C ,~..O- (D O { • ~ N U a~ x Jt r" ~~n a ~ ' Z Q ~S 47 ~ I . ~ I'V~y ~ --•3 ~ Nt- . . . . .a ' ~h w _T ~ , - ~ . 4~ . , . . 'f•,..~.,.. ~ ~ '7+"' {4 . . . , I{ : •wGUV . ~r ~ ~ E~ '+va.r ~ ~'1~~+ ~ ' _Fr~ ~ F ~ af . ~r'~a ~ ° V~ ~ ~ 0 r~ ~ . LL _ ~ • LL ~ r ~ - P~, ~ r ~ . , .e ~ - , ~ O ~ 0 ~ `G7 ~ C 27 (D E E x ~ ~ .7 ~ C L1 73 c U a C) N ~ •X O ~ C 4 LU Q ~ CL ~ ~7] cfl_ _,r 1 ~ z Q LL. ~IA- - , _ LU LL] cL af Iv ~ ? ~ , Vl . ~ . ` J - ~ LU ~ . . s _ , . ~ . ~ ~ . ~ > cb ~ a o ; o o > axi 4 ~ p ,`i7 G?. ~-~~.,'rF ~ 06 C ~ .~.~..V L ~ af 0 ~ pr ~ ~ I ~ Q' °o ~ ~ ~~P~ ~ pQ'~ i~ o 5 c'~ i ~'r V (D'~ (D 0 'C . ,~I~ . N ~ ~j E55.. Q - ~ ~ . ' ~ • . . ~ ~j ~ L )C~ 'X ~ U3 ~~t•' ~ (Wf N# ~ ;'i • (U,~r ~ ~ w LL.I ~LL_ ~ _ 1 . s ` \ • ~J J , . i •v' ~ C C ~ O p.~ ~ Z7 W rl? U~ C3 C1 V? __T Z ,1 - - - ~ w -j[L=j I T-1 lJ_.f ~ ~ cn ~ ~ Q Q 4E, a- - Al Ll :D ~ ~ a D LE Q - ~ . . ~ - . , . ' . . - LU _ i . , . . . . ~ IE v7 ~ 7 ~ y~ E i . ~ . w - ~ ~ ~ ti v~ ~j w ~ .,'""'~`~1 " - ~ ~ ~ ~ LL_ 1 !1'J j ~ 0 ~ C!~ , C) L!J a ~ 0 CL_ Q ~ ~ ~ ~ } o ~ ~ t 3 a In 3 3- E - 5 = E (D _ ~ 3 N c Q~~ ~ v ~ . 3 o ~ O-0 o6 a) ~ p 06 CD O t"'~ t37 0- 0 p 0 dS . 0 e u~ C) a aQ a ~~a~ -"a~, -c ? c 3 0} aCL 0 > (D 4D ia a (L)~~ x.~ 172 ~ aU C~I } C ~ ~ ~ ` > a C] CO ~ ~ O ~ W Z ~06 V ~ N Z FD ~ ~ r f i i 1 ~ r ~ > \ C aEG uY-~C} ~ ~ . , ~ - ~10 ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ 1 0 ~ i LL: I ~ N + a) ~ C}7 CO ~ u ~ I IL I I U) ~ -C3 ~ ~3 I I . C ay I I ~ c3ef ~ E c (D a s ~ ~ - ~ ~ a)~ w . ~ 3 o~-a ~ ~I o a~~ ~ a3~ ~ ii I o wl ~ a' mQ-,$ x aa' ~ a ~ N I w Lc LL: c C~ a~ ~ ~ MEMQRANDUM ~ TO: Planning and Environmental Cammission 9 FROM: Community Developmen# Departrnent DATE: March 8, 2004 SUBJECT: A request for a final recommendativn to the Vail Town Cauncii of a prapased Zane Dis#rict Boundar}r amendment pursuant to 5ection 92-3-7, 1/ail Tawn Code, fio the Town of Vail C)fficiaf Zoning Map, to rezone the Wes# Vai1 Lodge Praperties, from Comrnereial Care III (CC3) to High Density Multiple Family (HDMF), located at 2278, 2288, 2298 Gharryonix Lane and 2211 North Frontage Road/lnn at West Vaif Lat 1 Block A, Vail Das Schone Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Vanquish Vail, LLC Planner: Matt Genneft SUMMARY On ,lanuary 26, 2004, the Pkanning and Environmental Commission (PEC) heard the applicant's reques#, as stated abave, and during the delibera#ion portion of ~ . the hearing, unanimously expressed that the ap}a[ican#"s proposal cauld not be supported as submitted. However, the PEC vated to table the application, at the applicant's rsquest, #a allow the applicant an opportuni#y to be more creative and submit revisions to the praposal which are in compliance with the Tvwn's devefopment abjectives. tl. S7AFF RECOMMENDATIC?N The Community Develapment Department recammends that the Planning and Envirpnmental Commissivn forwards a recammendation af denial to the Town CounciE of an amendment to the Qfficial Tawn af Vail Zoning N1ap, pursuant #o Chapter 3, Title 12, Zaning Regufatians, Vail Town Code, to rezone the West Uail Lodge Praperties, as described above. S#affs recommendation of deniaf is based upcan the review of the cdteria outlined in Section Vlfl of this memorandum and the eWidence and testimony presented, subject to the follovwing findirtgs: (1) That the amendment is not consistent with the adop#ed goa[s, objectives and poficies outiined in the Vail comprehensive plan and no# campatible with the deuelopment objectives of the Tawn; and (2) That the amendment is not compatibEe with and suitabke to adjacent uses anci nat appropriate for the surraunciing areas; and (3) That the amendrnent cioes not promate the health, safietyr FT10faE5, and ~ general welfare of the tQwn and does not promate the coardinated and I harmonious develapmen# af the tawn 9n a manner that conserves and 1 • enhances its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential ccammunity of the highest quality. Should the Planning and Envieonmental Cammissian choose to forward a recomrnendation af approval to the Town Council, the following findings must be I made: (1) That the amendment is consistent with the adopted goals, abjectives and palicies autlined in the Vail cornprehensive plan and cornpatible with the ' devefapment objectives of the Tawn; and (2) That the amendment is compatible with and suitabfe to adjacent uses and apprapriate far the surraunding areas; and (3) That the arriendment prarnotes the health, safety, morals, and general ' welfare af the town and promotes the caordinated and harmonidus development of the town in a manner that consenres and enhances its natural environment and its established charac#er as a rescaet and residential cammuraity of the highest guality. IIL ATTACHMENTS A. Staff memorandum from the January 25, 2004 PEC hearing I ~ ~S ~ i ~ ~ ~ I i 2 ~ i ~ ~ A#tachment: A ~ lUIEMORANDLJM TC]: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Devefopment Department DATE: January 26,2004 SUBJECT: A request far a final recommendativn to the Vail Town Counci[ Qf a proposed Zone Qistrict Boundary amendrnent pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Vail Town Code, to the Town of Vail Official 2oning Map, to reaone the 'JVest Vail Lodge Properties, from Gommercial Care fll (CC3) to High Density Multiple Family (HDMF), located at 2278, 2288, 2298 Chamonix Lane and 2211 North Frontage RoadlEnn at West Vail Lat 1 Block A, Vail Das Schone FiEing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant; Vanquish Vaii, LLC Planrrer: Matt Gennetk t. SUMMARY The applicant, Vanquish Vail, LLC, has requested a change in the zaning ~ designation of the West Vail Lodge properties, as described above, from Ccammercial CQre III (CC3) to High Rensi#y IVlul#iple Famiiy (HDMF). The West Vail Lodge is in a state of nanconformity with the standards of #he CC3 zone and is subject to the pravisions of Sections 12-8-4 and 12-$-5, Vail Town Code, which place restric#ians on nanconforming uses, and structures and site impravements, respectively. The current use as a hotellladge is no# a permitted, conditional, or accessary use in the CC3 zone district. It is staff's position that rezoning the suWect property wiil result in a significant lass of actual sales tax revenuss, and an even larger loss of #uture, potential sales tax revenues. Staff is recommending deniaf of tne applicant's prrpasal based upon the criteria and findings contained in Sec4ian VIII of this rnemarandum. 11. DESCR1PTfC7N DF 7HE REQUEST The applicant, Vanquish Vail, LLC, has praposed to rezone the "UVest Vail Ladge Properfies", which comprise 2298, 22$$, 2278 Ghamonix Lane and 2211 North Frontage Raad / lnn at West Vail, Lot 1 Black A, Vail Das Schone Filing 3, and La#s 1, 2, 3, and Tract C, Vail Das SchoRe Fifing 1, from Commereial Gore 3 (CC3) to High Density Multiple Family (WDNIF), pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Vail Tflwn Code. The applicant cancedes that Public Accommodation (PA) would a9sa be an appropriate zone dQStric#, but the long-term goals of the proper#y pvvner are more congruent with the standards and uses of the HDMF zone. What the applicant wishes to accomplish with the requested zone change is the establishment af fractional fee units in the existing structure and construction of a new Yrotel facility on the rtor#hwestern portion of the site. ~ 1 ~ IU. BACKGRQUNa {n 1978, the West Vail Lodge was constructed under the jurisdiction af Eagle County and ,contained 83 accommodatian units (hotel raams), 19 dwelling units, and substantial commercial aquare fovtage. In the ear4y 1980s, the West Vail Lodge Properties were annexed into the Town of Vail by C3rdinance No. 43, Series of 1980, and received the zoning designatian of Commerciai C4re III (CC3). In 2003, the new owners of the Wes# Vail Ladge, Vanquish Vail, LLC, received Design Reaiew Board approval for minor, exterior alterations, which entailed repainting and stone veneer work. IV. RQE.ES DF THE REVIEWING BOARDS Zoninq/Rezoninq Request Planning and Environrnental Commission: A,ction: The Planning and Enviranmental Gommission is adv€sory to the Tovvn Gouncil. The Pianning and Environmenfal Commission sFoall revievv ~ the proposal and make a recommendativn ta the Touwn Gouncil on the compatibility of the proposed zoning with surraunding uses, consistency with the Vail Comprehensive Plans, and impac# an the general welfare of the community. Design Review Baard: Action_ The Design Rerriew Board has no review authority on zoninglrezonings. Town Council: Action: The Town CounciP is responsible for final approva[/denial of a i zaninglrezoning. The Town Council shaCl review arrd approve the proposal based on the campatibility of the propased zoreirrg with surrnunding uses, consistency with the Vail Comprehensive Plans, and impact an the general welfare af the comrnunoty. Staff: The staff i:s responsible far ensuring that all submittal requirements are provided. The staff advises the applicant as to compliance with the Zoning Reguiations. Staff provides a s#aff inemo containing background on the property and qrovides a stafF evaluation of the project wi#h respect to the required criteria and findings, and a recornmendation on appraval, approval with conditions, or denial. Staff also facilitates the review process. ~ 2 _ ~ V. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUAlIENTS Ti#fe 72, Zanina Repulations,`Vaif Town Code 12-3 Administration (in part) 12-3-7 Amendment: A. Prescrrptipra: The regulations prescribed in fhis title and the boundaries of the disfrrcts shown on fhe official zoning ,map ma,y be amended, o,r repealed by the town council in accordance wifh fhe procedures prescribed in fhis cha,pter. B. lnitiation: 9. An amendmenf of fhe regulations Qf this title ar a change in dis#rict 6oundaries may be initiafed by the fown councfl ora rfs own motron, by the planning arrd environmenfal ccammrssion on rts own mofion, by petrtion of any residertt or properfy owner in the town, or by the adrnfiisfrafor. 2. A petifion for amendmerrf of the regulafions or a change in distrrcf boundaries shall be frled on a form fo be prescribed by the adrntnisfrator. The petrtion shaN rnclude a summary of the prappsed ~ revision of the regulations, or a complefe descriqtion of pr4posed changes in district boundaries and a map indicating fhe existing and proposed drstrict boundaries. If fhe pefition rs for a change in district boundarres, the petifion shall irrclude a Iist Qf the owners of all properties within the 6oundaries of the area to be rezoned or changed, and the property acljacent thereta The owners' Iist sha1l include the names of all owners, fheir marling arrd sfreef addresses, and fhe legat description of the properfy owned by each. Accompanying fhe lisf shall be stamped, addressed envelopes to each owner fa be used for fhe mailrng of fhe nafice of hearing. The petrtiora also shaJl include such additional information as prescrrbed 6y the adminisfrator. C. Crr'teria And Frndings: 1. Zone Disfrict Baundary Amendment: a. Factors, Enumerated: 8efore acting on arr applicafran for a zane district bounclary amendmenf, the plannrng and errvironmenfal comnnission and fown councll shall consider fhe foflpwing faetors with respecf to the requested zone disfrict boundary amendmeni: (1) 7he exferrt to uvhich the aone district amendment is cansistenf with aIl fhe applicable elements of the adopted gQals, o6jecfr'ves ~ and policies autlined in the Vail eomprehensive plan and is compatible wrth fhe development o6jecfives rf fhe town; and , ~ , (2) 7he extenf ta whr'eh the zane district amendment is suftable wrth the exisfing arrd potenfial land uses on the site and exrsting and pofential surrounding land uses as sef out in the town's adopted planning documents; and (3) The extent to whrch the zone district amendment presenfs a harmoniQus, convenienf, workabfe relafionship among Iand uses consisfent with municipaf developmenf objecrives; and (4) The extent to whrch the zane distriet amendment provides for , the growfh of an orderly viable community and does nof carrstitufe spaf zoning as the amendment serves the best inferests of the commUnity as a whoIe; and (5) The extenf fa which fhe zone distrrcE amendment results in ~ adverse or 6eneficial impacts on fhe natural environment ' including, 6ut not limited to, water qualrty, arr quality, noise, vegefatian, ri,parian corridors, hrllsides arrd other desira6le natural ieafures; arrd (6) The extent fo which the zone clrsfricf amendment is consistent wifh fhe pur,pose staternenf of the proposed zone distrrcf; and (T) The extent ra which the zone distrrct amendment demonsfrafes how condifions have changed srnce the zoning designatlon of the subjecf property was ado{afed and is no longer appropriate; and (8) Such ather facfors and crrteria as the cammission andlor council deem applicable to the proposed rezanrng. b. lVecessary Findings: BefQre recornmending and/or grantr'ng an ~ approvaJ of an applicatian for a zone district boundary amendment the ' planning and environmental commission and the fown council shall ~ make the forlawing firrdings wifh respecf to the requested amenofrnent: (1) That fhe amendment is consisfent with the adopted goals, abjectives and polieies outlined in the Vail comprehensive plan ~ and compati6le with the development objectives of fhe town; and ~ (2) That the amendment is compafible with and suifable to adjacenr uses and appropriate fpr the surrounciing areas; and ~ (3) 7°haf the amendment promotes fhe health, safety, rnorals, arrd general welfare of fhe town and pr'omotes the coordinafed and ~ harmonious development of the fown in a manner thaf corrserves and enhances ifs naturaf envfronmenf and its established eharacter as a resort and residenflal communriy of the highest qua1ify. F. Planning And Environmenta! Commission Recammendation: Within twenty (20) days of the closing of a publie hearing on a proposed amendmenf, the planning and enviranmental corrrmission shall act on the petition or proposaL The commission may recommend approval of the pefifion or proposal as ~ initiated, may recommend appraval with scrch modifications as it deems necessary fa accorrrplish the purposes af thrs tifle, or may recommend derrial of the pefitran or rejecfion of the proposal. The commrssion shall fransmrf its recornmendation, togefher with a report orr the pu6lrc hearrng and its ~ deJibErations arrd frndings, t4 the fawn council. 4 _ i ~ f ~ G. Hearing By Town Cvuncil: Upon receipt af fhe report and recommeradation of fhe planrring and environmental commissiorr, the town council shall sef a dafe for hearing in aceordance with suksecfion 12-3-6B of this chapter H. Acfion By 7own Cauncil Wr'thin twenty (20) days of the closing of a publie hearrng on a proposed amendmerrt, the fowrr council shall acf orr fhe pefrtron or proposal. The fowrr counerl shall consider buf shall not 6e bound by fhe recommendation of the plannirrg and environmenfal cammissron. The towrt council may cause an ordrnance to 6e intrQduced fo amend the regulatlons of this title or to charrge distrrcf boundaries, efther in aecordance vvifh the recommendatron of the planning and envrronmenfal commission or in modified forrrr, or the councr'1 may deny fhe petition. If the caurrcil elects to proceed with an ordinance amendrng the regulations or changing district boundaries, or both, the ordinance shall be considered as prescrrbed by the charter of fhe tawrt. Chapter 6 Residential Districts ARTIGLE H. HIGH DENSITY MULTIPLE-FAMILY (HDMF) DISTRICT SECTION: ~ 12-6H-1: Purpose The high c{enskty multiple-family district is intended to provide sites for multiple-family dwelfings at densities ta a maximum of twenty five (25) dwelling units per acre, tagether with such public and semipublic facilities and lodges, private recreatian facilities and related visitor oriented uses as may appropriately be IQCated in the sarne district. The high density muftiple-farnily district is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space, and other amenities cornmensurate with high density apartment, condaminium and lodge uses, and to maintain the desirable residential and resort qualifies of the district by establishing appropriate site deuelQpment standards. Certain nonresidential uses are ~ permitted as conditianal uses, which relate to the na4ure af Vail as a winter and summer recreation and vacation community and, where permitted, are intended to blend harmoniously with the residential character of fhe district. 12-6H-2: Perrnitted Uses The folfowing uses shall be permitted in the HDMF district: Lodges, including accessory eating, drinking, recreatianal or retail establishrnen#s, located within the prineipal Use and not occupying more tnan ten percent (1Q%o} 4f the total gross residentia] floor area (GRFA) Qf the main structure or structures on the si#e; additianal accessory dining areas may be located an an outdaar deck, porch, or terrace. Multiple-family residen#ial dwellings, including attached or row duwellings and eondominium dwellings. ~ 12-6H-3: Conditional Uses 5 ~ i The follawing conditiona6 uses shall be perrni#ted ifl #he HDMF district, subject to ~ issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions Qf chapter 16 of this title: Bed and breakfast as further regulated by section 12-14-18 ot this title. Churches. Qog kennel. i Home child daycare facility as furfher regufated by sectian 12-14-12 of this title. ~ Private clubs and civic, cultural and fraternal organizations. ; Public buildings, grounds and facilitEes. Public or comrnerciaC parking facilities ar structures. Pulal4c or priva#e schaols. Public park and recreation facilities. Public transportation termina9s. Pualic utility and public $ervice uses. Ski lifts and taws. ~ Tirna share estate units, fractianal fee units antl time share license units. Type I II employee housing units (Eh1U) as provided in chapter 13 of this title. 12-6H-4: Accessory Uses The folCowing accessory uses shall be permiftsd in the HDMF district: ; ~ Home oecupations, subject to issuance of a home accuPation permit in accordance with ~ the provisions af section 12-14-12 of this title. Private greenhouses, tool sheds, playhouses, attached garages or carpar#s, swimming ~ pools, or recreation facilities customarily incidental to permitted residential and lodge ! uses. ~ Other uses customarily incidental and accessory to permitted ar conditianal uses, and necassary for the operation thereof. 72-6H-5: Lot Area and Dimensions The rninimum Iot or site area shall be ten thousand (10,004) square feet of bui6dable ~ aeea, and each site shall have a rr3inimum frontage of thirtyfeet (30°). Each site shall be i of a size and shape capable of enclosing a square area eighty feet (80') an each side within its boundaries. 12-61-11-6: Setbacks ~ b _ ~ ~ The minimum front setback shall be twenty feet (20'), the minimum side setback shall be twenty feet (20'), and the minimum rear setback shall be twenty feet (20'). 12-6H-7: Height For a filat roof or rnansard roof, the height of buildings shall not exceed forty five feet (45'). For a slvping roaf, #he height of buiidings shall not exceed forty eighf feet (48°). 12-6H-8: Density Gon#rol Not more than sixty (60) square feet of gross residential floar area (GRFA) shall be permitted for each one hundred {100} square feet ot buildable site area. Not more than sixty (60) square feet of grass resideRtial f9oor area shall be permitted for each one hundred (100) square feef of buildable site area for any conditional u5e [isteci in section 12-61-1-3 caf this article. Total density shall not exceed twenty five (25) dwelling units per acre af buiidable site area. Each accommodation unit shall be counted as one-half (912) af a dwelling unit #ar purposes of calculating allowable units per acre. A dwe1ling unit in a multip6e-family building may include ane attached accommodation unit na larger than one-third (113) of the totai fioor area of the dwelling. 12-61-1-9: Site Caverage Site coverage shall nat exceed fifty five percent (55°l0) of the total site area. 12-6H-10: Landscaping and Site Dewelopment ~ At least thirty percent (30%) of the total site area shall be 9andscaped. The minimum width and length of any area qualifying as landscaping shall be fifteen feet {16} wath a minirnum area not less than three hundred (300) sguare feet. 12-61-i-11: Parking and Loading , OfF-street parking and loading shall be provided in accordance with chapter 10 Af this " title. At least seventy five percent (75%) of the required parking shall be located within the main buIlding or buildings and hidden from public view or shall be completeEy hidden from public view from adjoining properties within a landscaped berm. No parking shall be loca#ed in any required frant sstback area. Chapter 7 Commercial and Business Districts ARTICLE D. COMMERCIAL C(JRE Ill (GC3) D1S7RICT SECTIiON: 12-D-1: P'ermitted Uses 7he following uses shall be permitted in the commerciaf core 3 district: ~ Banks and fsnanciai institutions, 7 i Eating and drinking establishrnents, including the foilawrng: Cocktail Iounges, taverns and bars; Coffee shops; Fauntain and sandwich shops; Restauran#s. Health clubs Personal services and repair shops, including the following: Barbershops, Beauty shops; Business and officer services; Cleaning and laundry pick-up agencies without bulk cleaning or dyeing; Coin-operated or self-service laundries; Shoe repair; Small appliance repair shops, exciuding furniture repair; Taifors and dressmakers;Trave9 and ticket agencies. ' ~ Professional offices, business offices, and studios ~ Retail stores and esfablishments without limit as to floor area including the following: I Apparea stores; Art supply stores and galleries; Auta parts stores, Bakeries and canfectioneries, preparation of products for sa{e on the premises; BookStores; 6uilding ~ materiaks stores without outdoor storage; Camera stores and photographic studios; Candy stores; Chinaware and glassware stares; Delicatessens and speciafty food stores; Department and general merchandise stores; Drugstores and pharmacies; Florists; Faod stores; Fumiture stares; Gift stores; Hardware stores; Fiealth fo4d stores; Hobby stares; Household appliance stores; Jewelry stores; Leather gaods stores; Liquor stores; Music and record stores; Nev+rsstands and tobacca stores; Phatagraphic studios; Radio and teEevision broadcasting studios; Radio and television stares and repair shops; Sporting goods stares; Stationery stares; Supernnarkets; Tay stores; Variety stores; Yardage and dry goods stores. j ~ I Additianai offices, business, or services determined ta be similar to permitted uses in ~ accordance with the provisions af this sec#ion. ' E 12-713-2: Conditional Uses ~ The following conditional uses shall be permitted in the comrnercial core 3 district, sub}ect #o assuance of a c4nditional use permit in accord with the prouisions of chapter ~ 16 o'f this title: ; e Any use permitted by section 12-7D-1 af this article which is not conducted entirely E E within a building. ; Bed and breakfast as further regulated kay sectian 12-14-18 af this litle. ~ Brew pubs. ~ i Child daycare center. Comrnercial (aundry and cleaning services, bulk plant. Cammercial storage. Dag kennef. ~ I Drive up faciCities. Major arcade. ~ ~ I I ~ ~ Massage parlars. I Outside car wash. Pet shops. Public buifdings, grounds, and facilities. Public park and recreation facilities. Public utility and public service uses. Radia and tele+rision signal relay transmission facilities. Theaters, rneeting raoms, and con+rention facilities. Transpor#ation businesses. Type II I employee nousing units (EHU) as provided in chater 13 of this titie. 12-7D-3: Accessory Uses The follouving accessory uses shall be permitted in the commercial core 3 district: Home occupations, subject to issuance of a horrie oecupation permEt in accordance with the provisions of section 12-14-12 of this titfe. ~ Minar arcade. Swimming pools, tennis courts, patios, or other recreation facilities custamarily incidental #o conditional residential. Other uses customarily incidental anci aecessary to permitted or conditional uses, and ~ necessary for the operatian thereaf. ~ 12-710-4: Lot Area and Site Dimensions I The minirnum lat or site area shall be twenty five thousand (25,000) square feet of bui9dable area, and each site shall have a rninimum frantage of one hundred feet (100'). 1 Z-7D-5: Setbacks In the commercial eare 3 district, the setback shall be fiiventy feet (20') on all exterior boundaries of the zane district. 12-7113-6: Height ; Ferr a flat roof or mansard roaf, the height af buildings shall not exceed thirky five feet {35'}. For a sloping roofi, the height of buildings sha(I rtcrt exceed thirty eight feet (3$'). 12-7D-7: Density ControC Not mare than thirty (30) square feet af gross residential floar area (GRFA) sfnafl be permitted for each one hundred (100) square feet of buildable si#e area. Trtal density ~ shall not exceed twelve (12) dwelling units per acre of buildable site area I 9 - i 12-7D-8: Site Gaverage ~ Site coverage shall not exceed forty percent (40%) of the totaf site area. ~I 12-7D-9: Landscaping arad Site Development At least twenfy five percen# (25%) of the total site shall be landscaped. The minimum width and length of any area qualifying as landscaping shaol be fifteen feet (95') with a minimum area not less than three hundred (300) square feet. ~ 12-710-10: Parking and Loading Off-street parking and loading shal1 be provided in accordance with chapter 10 af this title. No parking ar loading area sha61 be located in any required front setback area. ; 12-7U-11: Lacation of Business Activity A. Limitatian; Exception: All permitted and conditional uses by sections 12-7D-1 and 12- 7D-2 of #his arkicle, shall be operated and eonducted en#irely within a building, except for perrnitted loading areas and such actavit'tes as may be specifucally au#horized ta be unenclosed by a conditional use permit and the outdaor dis,pEay of goads. B. Outdoor Display Areas: The area to be used fcrr autdoor display must be located dfreetEy in fron# of the es#ablishment displaying the gaods and entirefy upan the estabfishment's awn property. Sicfewalks, building entrances and exEts, drirreways ~ and streets shall nat be obstructed by outdoor display. i VI. P'OTENTIAL SITE ZONfIVG ANAYSfS ~ (Ndte: The subject property is comprised of five separate iots totaling 3.94 acres ~ or 172,018 sq ft.) j ~ Project sPte: Lots 1, 2, and 3, and Tract C, Vail Das Schone ~ Filing 1; and Lo# 1, Block A, lnn at Wes# Vail ~ Praposed Zoning: High density Muftiple-Family (HDMF) ~ ~ ~ ~ Land lJse Designatian: Community Commercial & Medium Density FZesidentiaC ! Current Land Use: LodgeIHotelfEating & Drinking Establishments i ~ Develoqment Standard Exi_ s#inq AI4owedlReq. (CC3) Allowed/Reg. (HDIVIF) ` Lot Area: 172,01$ sq ft 25,400 sq ft 10,000 sq ft Buildable Lot Area: 3.890 acres 25,000 sq ft 14,000 sq ft (169,448 sq ft) ~ ~ Setbacks= Front: 63' 20' 20' ~ Sides: 123'/49' 20' 20' Rear: 82' 20' 20' ~ Building Height: 10 _ I ~ ~ Flat roof: 35' 45` Slaped raof 56' 38' 48' Density: 19 DtJs & 46 DUs & 98 DUs & 83 AUs 0 AUs 49 AUs GRFA: 43,532 sq ft 51,800 sq ft 103,2(}0 sq ft Site Coverage: 16% 40°/a 55% (34,538 sq ft) (68,801 sq ft) (94,602 sq ft) Landscape Area: 14% 25°!0 30% (24,0$2 sq ft) {43,001 sq ft) (51,601 sq ft) VIl. SURRCIUNQING LAND USES AND ZONING Land Use Zonin Narth: Residential Two-Farni1y PrEmarylSecvndary Residential (PS) South: (I-70) NA East; Commercial Commercial Core III (CC3) West: Commercial & Commercial Core II1 (CC3) & Two-Family Residential PrimarylSecondary Residential (PS) ~ VIII. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS (1) The extent to which the zone district amendment is cansistent with all the applicahle elements o# the adapted goals, objectives and palicies outlined in the Vai1 comprehensi+re plan and is compatible with the development objectives af the town, and Of the total area of the si#e, approximately 86°/a is designated by the Town of Vail M Comprehensive Land Use Plan as Communrty CQmrxaercral, as is the remainder of the CC3 zone district, and 14% (Lots 1, 2, and 3, Vail Das Schone, Filing 1) as Medrum flensrty Residential. The Vail Larad Use Plan allocates 12.5% of the total land area in Vail toward the Medium Densify Residenfial designation, and 0.7% tovuard Comrnunlty Commercial. The plan also foreCasts a shortfall in "local related retail space" of 18,422 square feet and suggests intensifying the G`ommunity Commercial uses lacated exclusively in West Vail as the preferred remedy to this probiem_ The relevant portion of the Vai! Land Use Map has been attached tor reference (see Aftachment F). Under the "Preferred Plan" Land Use Patterrr sectian af the 11'ai! Land Use Plan, the following is stated (p. 36): ~ 8. Cammercial Uses 4. Community Commercial ]1 _ i This new category has faeen designated t'or the west Vail ~ I commercial area, which is prirnariJy orienfed to serve the needs of the perrnanerrt resident arrd the long-term visi#or. Because the eommunify expressed the desire to cancerrfrafe commercial uses vvrthin existing commercial nodes, no new I commercial areas have been designated. The CC land use area ~ contains 24 acres or 1% of the land area. ' FolEowirag this vision expressed by the community, it is n4t prudent #a recomimend approving a zone change request that wauld effective[y remowe a i substantial portion of the Communrty Gommercial land use area that will not and ~ cannot be replaced. Of the 24 acres that comprise the Cammunity Commercial area and CC3 zone district, ane-sixth (1!6), ar four acres, is made up of the West Vail Properties. Because of the way the plan is written, as demanstra#ed above, the Vail Land LJse Pfan would need to be amended t4 accamplish the proposeri zane change, which staff could not recomrnend approval for either. ~ The comrnunity specifically expressed the desire to concentrate community eommerciaf uses in the CC3 zane district, vuhich, again, exis#s only in this one area of West Vail. There is no other location in town zaned for community commercial use$, and many other locations zaned for high density muftiple family uses to locate. If the applicant proposes to amend the Vail Comprehensive Land Use Plan, then staff would recommend a reconwening of the citizenry in order ta reconsider the specific visian ariginally expressed by the community in the plan far the area in ~ question. As they stand today, the Comrnunity Commercial land use designation and the CC3 zone district work in concert together to serve the needs of the Town of Vail as a viable community. If this reletionship and scarce resaurce are allowed to be disrupted and severed by such an extreme sFrift in zoning and land use, the consequences will be detrimentaf ta the functionaEity of the entire Town ~ of Vail. ~ The Vail Land Use P'lan designates Lots 1, 2, and 3, Vail Das Schone, Filing 1, r as fNedium Density Residential, which is describetf as follows: ~ ! ~ Medlum Density Residerrfial I The medium density residentraJ category includes housing whfch would typically be designed as atfached units with evmmon walls. Densities in fhis category would range from 3 to 14 dwelling unrts per butldable acre. Additional types of uses in this category would include private recreafiQn facilities, pr'iuate parking facilities arrof rnstifutiorla!/"pubfic uses such as parks, apen space, churches, and fire sfafions. I The Vaii Land Use Plan designates Lot 1, Block A, Vail I3as Sch4ne, Filing 3, ' arad Tract C, Vail Das Schone Fifing 1, as Community CoTnmercial, which is described as follaws: Commurrity Gommercial This area is designed td meef canstrmer demands from comrnunity residents. ~ Prima,y uses wauld include supermarkets, dry cleanrng establishments, hardware stores, service stations, frnancial institutions, and medreal pfFices. 12 _ ~ The design of fhese facilities woufd be oriented faward vehicular access and parkirrg. (2) The extent to which the zone district amendment is suitable with the existing and potential land uses on the site and existing and patential surrounding land uses as set out in the town's adopted planning documents; and S#aff response: Ti he U'Vest Uail Lodge itself is in a state of nonconforrnity with the standards of the CC3 zone district in terms of its use as a hotelllodge, which is not a permitted, conditional, ar accessary use in the CC3 zone district. The Commercial Core 3(CC3) Zane District is unique in the Town of Vail as it alone provides the basic goods and services tha# a community needs in order to fUneticrn on a daily basis, as eiemonstrated in the list permitted uses (refer ta Section V of this rnemoranciurn). The applicant states there is a rationaf nexus far their proposal between the land use cfesignation for the three lots called out as Medium Density Residential and the requested zone change ta HDMF (See attachment D). itaff disagrees wi#h this stated cannection for numerous reasons. There are significant differences between a Medium aensity F2esidential land use designation, as s#ated in the Te,wn of Vail Cornprehensiue Land Use Plan, and the standards of the High Density RIIuItiple-Famify zone district, as stated in Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code. More fundamentally, there is a substantial difference between ~ what canstitutes regulation and that which canstitutes a guiding policy. Additionally, the existing zaning of the entire 3.9 acre subject property, and the properties on either side, is CC3_ Of the total area of the site, approximately 86°!0 is designatsd by the Land Use Plan as CQmmunity Commereial, as us tlae remainder of the CC3 zone district, and 14°Jo (Lots 1, 2, and 3, Vail Das Schane, Filing 1) as Medium Density Residentoal. While there is a strong eonnectivn between the standards of the CC3 zone disfrict and the details of the Cornmunity Commercial land use designation, the same cannat be said of the relatianship between the HaMF zone distric# and the Medium Density Residential Cand use designation. Also, fhere are no HDMF zane districts in #he West Vail area and the CC3 zone dis#rict exists nd place else except in the West Vail area. (3) The extent ta which the zane district amenc3merat presents a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land uses consistent vwith municipal development objectir?es; and Staff response: The small amount of land zoned CC3 is intended to senre the year-round residents, which include a sign'rficant porkian of the local labar force, living in the Town of Vail. Zoning, in general, was created and established to separate certain types of land uses and organize them in a logical, compatible manner. Separated zone districts pratect certain uses by keeping like uses in orre area, and not allowing dissimilar uses in the same area. L.ikewise, zoning ; ~ sets market expectations for land vafues and curbs speculation by specifying what is allowed and what is not allavued in a certain zane dis#rict. 13 I Far example, the uses in the CC3 zone district are protected by the fac# that a ~ property owner in CC3 wauld not expect to sell an acre of land for the same price as an acre in the High Density Multiple Family (HDMF) zone district. The reasan far fhis is that the "highest and best use" in HDMF might be fractional- ~ feeltimeshare, vwhich could be develaped and resold f4r a much larger profit than a grocery store, perhaps the "highest and best usE" in CC3. In this way, the ~ Garnmunity Commercial oriented uses in the CC3 zone district are protected ! from land value speculation because investors have a list of what uses are ~I permit#ed in the GC3 zone dis#rict. ; I I ~i (4) The extent to which the zone district amendment provides for the I grQwth of an orderly viable community and does not constltute spcrt zoning as #he amendment serwes the best interests of the community as a whale; and Staff respanse: How cauld the Planning and Environrnental Commission (PEC) justefy a radical shift in zoning for such a large parcel of lancf, and ncrt for any of the smaller lots in CC3? Defending the pasitian that the proposal would nat result in a spot zaning would be ethically impossible far a planner to do in this case. Gi+ren tkaat there are no other gaps in the GC3 zane district tacfay and the gaping disparity between the types of uses permitted in HDMF and CC3, there is , no context for this propasaE. Furthermore, the subject site constitutes one- i saxth (1/6), or fwenty percent (20%), of the entire CC3 zone district. Permitting ~ such a radical shift in zoning for such a large pieee af the already tiny CC3 zone ~ i district would not serve the best interests of the community that depends upon ! this zone district fnr their gaods and senrices. ~ Equally relevant are the economic Gansequences o# rezoning such a large ~ portion af the Wes# Vail commercial area. According to the Town of Vai1's ~ Finance Department, West Vail, Cascade Village, East Vail, and Sandstone I together generated $3,569,707 in sales tax revenues. Of this total, approximately 90%, or $3.2 m'rllion, came from the businesses in the CC3 zone ~ district_ Considering that the subject property eneompasses 20% af the CC3 ' zone district, a substantial amount af saEes tax revenues will be lost #o the ~ town. More importantly, a huge percentage af patentiai #uture sales tax 1 revenues wilE be lost to the opportunity cost of rezoning four acres of commercialfy zoned land to high density mulfiiple-family. If the faur acres in question were redeveloped ta fif the zoning, rather than rezoned to fit the developrnent, a significant amaunt of new sa[es tax reWenues could be realized by the Town af Vail. I i (5) The extent to which the zone distr'sct arriendment results in adverse vr beneficial impacts on the natural environment, including, but not limited to, i water quality, air quality, noise, vegetation, riparian corridors, hillsides and other desirable natural features; and Staff response: It is staff's belief that the proposed rezoning of the West Vail ~ Lodge Properties would be detrimen#al ta #he Town of Vail's future as a viable 14 ~ community because it will likely cause a"Dvmino Effect" for the rest of the CC3 zone district. If the 3.9 acre subject site is rezcaned to HaMF, the land ins#antly increases in value because its maxirnum potential, in terms af profitability, increases expanentially. Qnce this °`spot zoning" is accompfished, the surrounding landowners will observe the potentiaf being realized on a neighbaring property and expect the sarne can be accamplished on fheir own. Whife a rezoning daes not necessarily establish a legal precedence, it daes set up an exarnple where, 9n this instance, a radical shift in type and intensity of uses that are entirely outside the scape vfi the previous zone sudderrofy becomes reality. Wny waufd a neighboring property owner choase to retain his or her land in its capacity as a Leundromat or harcfware store if the awner knows that it is plausible to apply for a zane ehange which couid result in an exponential rise in property value? {6} The extent to which the zone district amendment is consistent with the purpose statement o# the proposed zone district; and StafF response: The Purpose Statement of the HDMF Zone DiStrict is stateci as follqws: The htgh derrsity multiple-family districf is irrtended fa provfde sifes for muliiple-family dwe!lings at densifies to a maximum of fwenty five (25) clwelfrng urtifs per aCre, together vvith such ,public and semrpublic facrlities ~ and lodges, private recreation facifities and relatecf vrsrtor orientec1 uses as may approprrately be lacafed in the same drsfricf. The high deRSity multiple-family district is intended to ensure adequate Iiglat, air, open space, and other amenities commensurate wifh high densaty apartrnent, condominium and lodge uses, and to marntain the desirable residenfial and resarf qualifies of the district 6y esta6lr'shirrg ap,prapriate sife developmenf sfandards. Certain narrresidenfiaf uses are permitted as corrdifional uses, which relafe to the nature of Vail as a winter and summer recreation and vacafron communify and, where per,mifted, are inferrded fa blend harmpniously with the residentiaf character of the district. The purpose statement af the HDMF zone district clearly contemplates resEdential t#wellings, hotellladges, and recreational faci3ities oriented #oward the visitar all blending togeiher in a harmonious pattern. Under the applicant's propasal, the envisioned, harmonious patterrr and con#ext of developrnent is not possible because ef the prea1ominantly Community Cammercial land uses already located in the immediate vicinity, Hardware stores, liquor stores, dry cleaners and superrnarkets do not bfend harmoniously with resort accamrnodatians and condominiums. It is staff's belief that the propased zane dis#rict amendment is ill canceiwecf as it is not cansistent with the purpose statement of the proposed zone distric#. (7) The extent to which the zone district amendment demonstrates how conditions have changed since the zoraing designation of the sutaject ~ property was adopted and is no langer apprQpriate; and 15 _ Staff respanse: Conditioros have not changed substantially since the zaning designation of the subject property was established, as can be discerned fram the uses that surround the West Vail Lodge in the CC3 zane district. Every other use present in the CC3 zone district beside the subject praperty is in ~ conformance with the comprehensive land use plan and the standards of CC3. The zoning designation of the site in question is still more than just apprapriate and remains vital, especially cansidering the size of the combined area of the West Vail Lodge Praperties. The fact that a preexistirag, nanconforming fand use and structure remain an the site does not grant an inherent justification for the nonconformities to continue and develop further_ The zoning designation for the I~ site is cruciai to the Tawn af VaiPs present and future sales tax revenues, and the ' site shouid be redeveloped to meet the standards of the CC3 zone district, rather than rezoned to better suit the needs of the developer and to fit the parameters of ; the preexisting noncanformitaes. ~ Such ather #actors and criteria as the commissivn andlar councif-deem applicable to the proposed rezoning. ' IX. SY'AFF RECOMMENDATION The Gammunity Development Department recommends that the PEanntng and ~ Environmental Camrnissian forwards a recommendatior+ of den%al to the Town ' Council of an aEnendrnent to the QfFicial Town of Vail Zaning Map, pursuant to ~ I Cha pter 3, Title 12, Zanin g Re gulation s, Vail T own C o d e, t o r e z o n e the West Vail j Lodge Properties, as described abvve. Staff's recommendatian of denial is based upon the eeview vf the criteria outlined ira Section Vill of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented, subject to the following findings: (1) That the amendment is not consistent with the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vai[ comprehensive pian and not campatible with ; the development objectives of the Tawn; and (2) That the amendment is not compatible with and suitable to adjacen# uses ~ and not appropr6ate far the surrounding areas; and ~ (3) That the amendrnent daes not promate the health, safety, morals, and ~ general welfare of the t4wn and does not promote the coardinated and harmoniaus c#evelopment of the town in a rnanner thaf conserves and enhances its natural environment and its established character as a resart and residentral community of the highest quali#y_ Should the Planning and Environmental Cammission choase to forward a recommendation of approva9 to the Town Council, the folCowing findings must be made: (1) That the amendment is consistent with the adopted goals, objectives and , palicies outiined in the Vail comprehensive plan and compatible with the development objectives of #he Town; and (2) That the amendment is compatible uvith and suitable to adjacent uses ~ and appropriate for the surrounding areas; and 16 _ ~ (3) That the amendment promo#es the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the town and promotes the coordinated and harmonious deve9opment of 4he tawn in a manner that cortserwes and enhances its natural environmerrt and its established character as a resart and residentia] cammunity af the highest quality. X. ATTACFiMENTS A. Vieinity Map B. Site & Flocar Plans C. Adjacent Property 4wnerslPublic Notice D. Applicant's Peopasal E. 2oning Map (excerpt) F. Land Use Map (excerpt) ~ ~ 17 At#achment: A F ""e~4 ; 4`-, a+e,~ ~i ~ x,, 'N;r r~ rr ~ „s,r s ax ~ ~a~ _ i_r~+ ' ' ' ~ fr . .q.. ~ r~4 t - ~ .C.'. I ~ z . ti ~ t F - ~ n r }~u k )t £ - ~4~, 4,s . . ~ ~t¢ t ~ ~ ~ ''Y = u -'q ~t e - k ~ C~ /~s. : . ` ~ : ~ i ~s . ~ ~ ' t li"`.. It'E`tt° a~,'. ~ ~.,~4' A• * - l"~ ~ , ~ i R . !v . 'a~ . <~e ° ' d ~ ~ "2` ~ ` `l ' ~ ' r' a~'~ ,x, ~ :4f ~4 f 6~+F~ S . ~ .A ~ ~t r` ay y°~ ~ ~ ~ "°h ~ . ' ' ~ S - n ' ,~'~„t~'.. fi. 4f pt ' s ~-t s:. G ,r' , s+ " y~"'_ .c`' ~ 'h a~ a .y~,h1' ~4 ~ ~ w 'e~lS~-, - t ~y~ W < s ~ ? 4 b d '±4 z`k 4y1+C` . tr~ ~ '~m~' ~m; r~` 1 ~~d, 1~Y1'~ x I ~ _4 ~ d~, ~ ~~4 ~r.,; 4 y , `r 'b1 . ~i . ' N ~F~ -'G.' C `S`~~u~~:t ~ t ~k~,. r.a ~ ~ % ;f~'' aes" ~ t I T ? 4 i 1 ~ ~ 1~t• !L1^ g?' ~ . " ~ ~ ~r y ~.~~ri ~ \ ~ ~ , I ~ . . ~ ~ - , , ~ ~ ~ , ~ c ~ r f df/ ~ "4Sr ' `i'L" A . .'yw+ k.r, ~ i xt~ r ~~'F ;rtb'r y .rt { , P n; ~ a t`' ~ i ~ f ~L L1 ? •m S,. y L.,~e•-, j~ y~%... ~ . \ Ir J(~^~ _ ~.°~L~V ~F d F ~ ~ ~ . r4t~si '~,a~~ ~ ~ .f. ed"t ..1 ?1 ) ~ 'L A'µ . . ~ - L a6.~ ~ ~'.~P~` ~ ~ i y i p -1 L 5 L !4. ~,.s Ft 9 ~ a/ , 1 p3 ~ . > er - ~ ~~d7 ~ ~Ti f eL ~ d ~ T f'gf~y+ Y ~ ~ ~ f',. u y~ T 'l~ ~4~,.YC "Xt°'~ ''7~~ ' r' r . a ~ ~r ti ~ a,~• ~ ~y, c .`;•q~ k,r~y~c T Fi. ' s r= Ls 'k ~ 4' aa5 li ; i ~ ~ E. , t 4 Y ~a*~ ~ y~ . ~ ".'h. ~ y ~ q ~ Y"~ .i-. i ~ , ~ ~ : I . ~ a -"`v '~'r ~ . ~a t u~ R ` . ~ i l F ~ a ~4 4 ~ . I ~r e*' ( ~ ,l ,,*s~ ~ . . 3t f ~ e '7 E. kE. . a' ~ ~f ~ . f ~r~ C~F ' , ,.r lc'ti,~ ~ ~ - F~4 ' . , ~ ,~°+c~r : c" ~rt . ~ ~ ,~Nt~.. ~ f~~~' ~ ~ ~ y~/'~ t , f~~ x ~ -a~ a~ ~ - +'q" it f c~''~'~'s s i i ,p: T, s' . . f , T s ~ t ~~Y'F ~.x+ t { 'Cr ~ s- ~ m . - , c~ ri~": ~ y0'~a,~{g''@~'' ~N ~~4 r; ~ `k ~3 Ciy,~ ~t"h~ ~y ~ ~ ~ ~ F ~ .-•w ! t`~ . ~ _.(ttC ~,:I~{~ + ' ~S'~ a r '~w ~ ~ ~ ~ ' , g ~ c~ , f, ' ~ .s 0 . .~i , e ~ ~ :1 " . K` ~ i ~ r ~ ^ °~._T ~ ` e r ~ ~ • a,.: ` g;:P'~ a.s~' '~d'~f i, _ ~9~~' ~~i~ t~ ' . r ~ i. . ~ ¢ ~WS;M za4 .L"' F ` ~ C~:I . N '~@ tx' -0 ' . . ~ _y ,ik . 's ~ ~ T . p: z e~ ~4 f+f ti 'i w ' , d f.°~ TE ~L Y, P Fy, '~,-~e~~.ii'.. F .f ~ 'i µ ,~y ~ E . 7 < 'N, I } .'E` _ °~w4.1 :ti . ~a ~ tP'e r y ' ~1 ~M1S: Sj- , ~ ~ I i ~ u 'c~+s ~ ~ ~ : ~ µS-(- , ~ e l3 _'t` ` ` ' § P T~~ ~ ' ~ K ' ~ . , ~i _ " a~ . . 3 Wi~~ 'i r i } F' ;:.,-5~ I,- ~ 51 . li~ . r' , ~ . ' c~ ~ : \ - ~ . ^~-F t~ ~ i { ~t'., s~-x~° ~ ++s ~ ~ . ~fi!~ t . . K ~ i l~ - . 9 _;e - ~ . i" . ~ C~C.~P. . ~ \ \ } ' ` ~ -.~rC . ~ ' c - k f~y ~ : ~ T \ ~fi~t ~ f r . I ~ `~w ~W r~ ~S ~,~f f F~%I ~ Y~~y-~ ~ 4t \ ' W V ~ ~ ~ ~tY~f r x~ _F V 1.!' , . ~ X 3 O ~ h ; kh, "~7 ' 89t t 1:, C ..i ~ . t~ ~ Z ~4 : I r+r.- , I . 1` ~ ~ _ ~F ~ ti , ~ I a ~r ,l -tiya s,. 'r . A r t~ X ;i yr, ' ft ° r h -s, y,~~, S '.,~",p _ ' :l '3. ~ . . ~ ' f.~ S I w Y I~ a ~ r ~ --i _ <:v q~'' d z,4 ~ 4 ~ ~ t" r~; i r r ~~¢3 ro5~. ~ ,~1 ~ ~ _ 11 ~ - ~ ,V~i , I'~ i'. 1~1- I ~ " - ~ i:~~ ,.r-i: i c~` S ' Q. .u t ~ a ~ e I : a ~ ~ s i rl, `F.. , ~ : ~ ~ ~ ~ k .f " . ~ ~ 5 s° ~ ~ dt g~ e ,~i' ~ . > .~"t1 _ w: r` ~°n~ ~ _,"~y_ 3" 'ti ~ h ; ~ ' ^ , . ' ' . [ . F " '1 ~ "S.'Y ~ _ ~ `y It 4 . \ f p ^'"e " ° e 1 ~ t u } t . . r~~a+'~' ~ ,'t ~ ~n'z. ~{r .,r ~a y r,.~~ .4 ~ ~ ~ j., { f 1. .~f~:~,Y~ { °A g, -z ` Ct~ ~ " l. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 7 ~~'+h r . 1 ~v- ~ J „ ~ Y ~i~~ 171- ^ ; -.eR~a wZ ] ~ 1 ~ t " .i ~ d ' - , .qy 'F t ~ . ~ ~ ~ - = - ~ 6f J 6 F Tp+ l 1,~ i~t~ ~ e' Y Y F. g ~ V. ~.,;'T. ~ ~ 1..' 1 . ~ ~ { b~~ F... Y +S " °-ne ~ S~ ~ ~S : Vl L'C . 6 l: _ , ~ ~ r , `~~,e...l" ~ ub- y t \ - ~ "f-'~ _ Es~ ~ } i L ~ ~ , ~ -•'t~" ~ - ~ ~ ~ - n ~ w ' s4~`~'~ - . j 6 ,i' . _ ~n ~ • ~ ~ f~ ~ ' - ~ ~ C-.= ~ < i ~ ~ C<~1~ r~ ' T_ R, h _ f . ~ ~ ~ k ~ s yY . 1 u q~ ' ' ~ +`y~ ? -,"R` s 4 " ''"k .'^7 ti `,C*. ~ ~ ' ~ S~r ~~~a ~ ~ r"` .e~ . a L" , 1 f, . . ; , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ : . a ~a ' . : ~s a" r . " '~yi~ , ~`S 7 ~ z ~ a . , . . . - . F . . ~a.- . . , .{C~~u 7cv. . . : _ : _ . . i Y~ dc ~IM1,.~ tik }V. r ~ ~~:r~ r~ ..3 ' 4~ L ~ c~ ~ L ~ , ~ t ~ ~ ~ _ x y ~ . +a'~g ~ ~ { t~~ ~ ~ . ~ h r ' a{ . ~ ~ f /'~~P9 ~s~,. ~i., w~~' ^s~ ~ ~ i f Y ey . T ~y;'W;: L ~ r J f X T - f `~u,:k c t N m . i. ~ t . 2~ 1 ,~s_ ~ k !9 'Y', ~ ~ ~ 1 . k n ~ ~ 5 ~e % t d ~ f y L_ : ~ $ u "M~~ a^~ I. , t t , ~ a wk 'K ~ { ,4 . 1• de'~ x ` ' 7 . ~ ~ 5~ Y ~ . F 1h ~ 2 ?~~e f~ f ~ `'t ~.'~r y`~a `,m.? ~ d . ~ i-~ , ~e . °r; ,p- ~ . e" ~ ~ ' S . ' /"f - ~ ' ~ ~ w , L " . f ~ " ° -.r $9 - t~ ~ . ts ~ - k r ~ f ~ . ; 3~ £ ~+e 4 ~ ti. / . r ~~[e'..-: 0 3 4~"G 'lL f'~'~ P " Y . ~*f i' , z' -i ~ ~tt 4 1 e f - . { ji . , S A w+t ~ ~ rA- L " ~ .1 r'~E-" . 'i° f ~ X . r '~~~r, S i+s a ~ , ~ r - ~ ` ~r a~A ' ~'~~~_.w. a I ° e c .+ye y . ~ !'~'j _ 1'~. ~ : " q~* i ~ : .~~,n: r ~ ci i - .._,'4` _~S ~ z s'~ V+" . "~-~:i~ ' Yi~r ~~fYSi~"...,: . S ' _ F H ~.t u f :.'t r xn~ rv d~t . rr .,.':at !S'~ r - ~ ~r . .,r. r.t 1 ; S. I tfi~ T YF - 3.:.- . .w.s °~e:~ _ . . ~ .S~ . _ . . ' , . . ; L~Y.;~ ' I ~ . - _ - ~ Attachrnen#: B w ~~~2 t t= I Cl- i{ g CL Stww.sa~' j$ I ~k`u'g3~i ~l~t~1{' y ~i- ~5E a gF B Y- - ~ f z 2] a B i R ~y\ + ~ IJY Q 0 ~~H!i~g3l~ ~ E 'I Q ~ ~ ~ 1~t ~ p ~ 1 ~ `~r~t#q~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ w 'a'•~. ~ ~ 1 ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ = C ~y ~ 1 1 I-k ~ ~ Q~ J r~ i• . ` ^..1•.,~.~ / f ~ ~ ba ~`x~~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ' '~h~~"d~ -,v~„ ~~Y ~ } F ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -',y;, ~,r'~ ! • V J _ ` Y ~ ~ ~ J •~,••~~i ~~~J 1r~r~~~~~1fr' ~G~ ~ rM1 ~Fa~ r ~ W a 1 ~ • ',p r~ F~~ ~ °~h ~ ~ _~Y a°°~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ! 4 r• i N ~ ~ z n ~~Z i ~ ~ ? ~Y ~ ~ ~ I ~ . ~ ` Om ti r _ ~ ~a F ' ~ e " ti,1 ~ ~ ` ~ sA . ~ y '71 1 Z ~ ~ orrvaaua3 ' ' . Tj[~}~llQ~~ 3~~~~~ A"~ ! ON 'JrM'719 3kOH:15 SYU lM1'A !0 Yq6Nld~3~ Y ~ q~ I ~ M MYYY y53N ~ ~ii1 ~~tl" tl~~ a e ~ 8 Aua~`~n ~ta n ~ ~ $~7qg a~ . . aM~e~~~'a~~~~ S~~' I ~~s~,~ . 10 ~a ~ ~ ~ ~ a[ k .r ~ ~ ~ ~a4 p b 4~~ Y¢eF e aj~?~~ 4~ k ° g~'~ r r:, ua ~ ~ _`G ta~~~l~kk : rs51~~~51~Y' ~ I :~5$~ ~ I E i ~ ~ . a f4 ~ k 4 ~~`r -~°`•9.s~.s' /4 ~ , ~ • ~ Y'fi k 1 Q. . y~ 'a~ ~1 l 4 6pi I . l~ hpt~ _ . ~ . e~ . ~v, ~`i. v e I ~ I' t "i d r ? t ~ d Y~ . ~j --,s • ~ v ;~i ~ ` ~~7 ° 7 ~ •C~ ~ _ 3 a~~ ~°(r % p 1 ~ E. r 4:.• r r' ~ ~ ` ~ staY (~l $ ~ t 42 IN ~-~--~r;_- ~ ~ r ae i dCd ~ ~ a. •r ~i', ~ ~~i ~ ~ C8 ~ ~1 '~t . ~ty, ~ Il~ 1 . I ~ l l ~ . ~ ~ vi k t 'S1 A- , ~q ~1'1 ~Q ' i~ p ~ ~ } riEa:'~~ ; 3Re~~t i i `i I ` I . , ~ L C . C ~ L t _ ~ . C7 ? a~ ~ ~ SY ' ~ W ~ - r ~ G LU LLJI U C: C) ~ j ~ o _j ~ 0 U . ~ rr, ZI > LJ J ~ ~ - I 1, ~ - I~ 0 ~ N C\j ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ i I A#tachrrient: C Fro ertMailin Address ~ McI7onalds MCDONALDS CC]RP 2172 N. Frontage Rd. PC} BOX 1329 21(}311415010 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO $1602-1329 West Wail Mall WEST VAIL MALL C4RP 2171 N. Frnntage Rd, 233 MILWAUKEE 210311415012 I]ENVER, CO 80206 ~ FiRST BANK +QF VAIL ~ First Bank Cl0 FIRSTBANK HOLDING CO 2271 N. Frantage Rcf, PO BOX 150097 2103 t1415020 LA KEVsJOOD, CO 84215 ~ TawN aF vArL ~ ' Town flf Vail 75 S FRONTAGE RD ~ 210311415018 VAIL, CO 81657 Lot S, Block A, Vail Das Schone Filing 1 AUGUST, CAREY Z. & BRET'I' A. -JT 2309 Chamonix Lane 399- FULLERTaN PARKWAY 210311401030 CHICAGO, 1L50614 Lot 7, VII`IEFERA INC 2299 Chamonix Lane F4 BOX 3819 210311401007 VAIL, CO 81658-3819 Lot 6 GARBE, DWIGHT S. & JULIE L. ~ 2289 Chamonix Rd. (Sunlight North) 220 CAMINC3 DE LAS COLINAS 2103114{)8001 RED4NDO BEA.CH, CA'90277 i I 210311408002 210311408003 BRQWN, ASHLEY C. 8z ELIZABETH M. 210311408004 COONEY 2289 CHAMONIX LN 2 V AIL, CO 81657 ~ GARBE, WARF.EN M., LAUR.A A_ & ~ CHRTSTOPHER S. ` 2289 CHAMONIX LN UNIT 3 WAIL, CO 81657 i GQLDEN, DAVID S. C/O GAIL MARG{]LIES REID CPA PC 4555 MANSELL RD STE 120 ALPHARETTA, GA 30022-827$ Lot 5 MOFFET, GREGORY J. & CHRiSTINE 2269 Chamonix 12d. P. ~ 21031 ] 4(}7001 2958 S FRQNTAGE RD B 15 ' 210311407002 vAIL, CO 81657 ' 210311407003 210311407004 sANDExs, .rAcKs. ~ 730 HOBBS RD J CFFERSON CITY, M4 651(}9 HOLDSTOCK, STEVE 8z ALEXANDRA -.iT PO B OX 1542 VAIL, CO 81658 TOBEY, GINA 1630 OGDEN ST nENVER, CC} 80218 Lot 4 CHAM(7NIX LANE PARTNERS 2249 Chamanix Rd. 2249 CHAMONIX LN 210311406001 V A 1 L, CO 81657 210311406002 210311406003 CHARLES H. STC7NE FAMILY LP 21031 f 4{)6004 PO BOX 1392 VAIL, CQ 81658 KLJRTZ, JERRY ~ 2249 CHAMONIX 3 VAIL, eO 81657 VAIL GEAR CORP INC ATTN STEVE MELZGR 641 LIaNSHEAD MALL VAIL, CO 81657 I.ot 2, Tall Pines ROLLAND, ROBERT D. &]ODI T. -JT 2239 Chamonix Rd. 6140 S POTOMAC WAY 21[?31 I4250(75 ENGLEWC]OD, CO 80111-6633 210311425006 STA NDAGE, KATHY - OLDHAM, MICHAEL L. 16131 VV ELLSWORTH AVE , GCILDEN, CO $440] 2199 Chamflnix Rd. PINE RIDGE TQWNHOUSE 210311404001- 32 HOMEQWNER5 ASSOC. PC} BOX 2135 VAIL, CO 81658 ~ TH1S ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY ~ PUBLIC NC}TICE NOl'ICE IS HER,ESY GEi/'EN that the Planning and Enviranmentaf Cammission of the Town of Vail wifi hold a public hearing in accordance with Sectian 12-3-6 of the Municipal Code of the Tawn of Vaif on January 12, 2004, a# 2:00 P.M. in the Tflwn of Vail Municipal Building. In consideration of: A request for a recommendatian to the Vail Town Council of a proposed text amendmen# to the Zoning Regulations, TitEe 12, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Vail Town Code, to allow for revisions to the develaprnent standards prescribed in Chapter 12-7A, Public Accammodation (PA) District, Vail Town Code and setting farth details in regard thereta. Applicant: Nicollet Island Devslopment Company 1nc. Planner_ George Ruther A request for final review of a conditiona3 use permi#, pursuant to Chapter 16-12, Vail Town Cade, ta alfow for changes to the previous[y approved canditionS of approval for the redevelopment ofthe Vail Mountain Schoal, Iocated at 3226 Katsos Ranch Roadl Lots 1 anc! 2 Vail Mountain Schoal - Filing. Appiicant: Braun Assaciates, Inc. Plannsr: Elisabeth Ecke! ~ A request for final review of a variance from Sectian 12-14-17, setbacfc from wa#ercaurse, Vail Tovun Cade, to allaw for improvements within the setback from Gore Creek, lacated at 680 ~ Wes# L'oons Head Place/Lot 3, Block 7, Vail Lianshead 3rd Filing, and setting for details in regard i there to. I Applicant: Antiers Gondominium Association Planner: Bili Gibson A request for a recamrr,endation to the Vail Town Gouncil of a proposed Zone District Boundary aE-nendment pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Vail Town CQde, to the Town af Vai! Official Zoning Map, to the zaning of the West Vail Lodge Prflperties, fram ComrnercEa! Core lll (CC3) ta High Density Multiple Family (HDMF), ]oca#ed a# 2278, 2288, 2298 Chamanix Lane ancl 2211 Narth Frontage Road/lnn at West Vail Lot 1B1ack A, Vail Das Schane FEiing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applican#: Vanquish Vail, LLC Planner: Matt Gennett A request for a conditional use permit, pursuant ta Section 12-71-1-5, Condaticanal Uses; Generally (on all levels of a bui{ding or autside a building), Vaii Town Code, and a request for a major exterior al#eration, pursuant to Section 12-71-1-7, Ex#erior Alterafions or Madificatians, 4lail ~ Town Code, to allow for the construction Qf new single-family and two-farrzily residential dwelling un'rts, located at 730, 724, and 714 West Lionshead CirclelTracts A, 8, C, & D, Marcus Subdivisiort and Lot 7, Marriott Subclivision, and setting forth details in regard thareto. (V1lest Day Lot) App{icant: Vail Resflrts Develapment Gompany, represented by Braun and Associa#es ~ , Attachment: p Allison Ochs Plann'sng Consulling 5ervices I 0 Navember 16, 2003 Department of Community Development Town af Vail 75 S. Frontage Rd. varl, ca $1657 RE: Rezaning Request forr the West Vail Lodge Dear Planning Staff: 1 am making this application c,n behalf of the current 4wne~~~ Y-anquish Vail, LLC, of the West Vail Lodge. We are proposin- tv rezone the West'~ i~ Lo~q- Properties, which includes 2298, 2288, 2278, Chamonix and 2211 N. Frontag4',?-d... / Inn.,at West Vail, Lot 1, Blc?ck A, Vail Das Scbone Filing 3 and Lots 1, 2, 3, and'TraCt C, Vail Das Schone Filing 1. We are currently proposing a rezoning frvm Commexcial Care III to High Density Multiple Family. While Public Accomznodation may also be an appropriate zone district for the site, High Density Multiple Family more clasely aligns wiCh the long-term goals of the property owners. 0 As you are aware, the current zonin; desibnation of Cammercial Core III presents obstacres to redeveloping the praperty because Qf its non-conforming status wich regards ko the praperty's current use as a hotel. While we are prapasing a rezoning, we wauld be open to other options tnat would allow for redeveloprnent of the site, while maintaining its current primary use as ahotel. Qptions that we have identified rnclude a a'ezoning to the High Density Muttiple Family zor?e district, the Pubiic Accommodatian zone district, text amendtnents ro-tle Cammercial Core 11I zone district, text amendinents to other zone districts, arld/or the application of a Special Development District. We are also looking for directian about whether amendrnents are necessary to the Vail Land Use Plan, or to other relevant code sections, including the definition of "lod;e." We are iooking for the guidance of the Community Development Department and the Plannin~ and Environmental Cvmmission to help in the redevelopment of an important property in the Town of Vail. We believe that the West Vail Lodge promates the Town's ability to offer a wide-rrariety of lodging choices to its guests. Horvever, the property alsa needs to be improved and upgraded to meek the desires of consumers. The raecessary improvements atid upgrades caniiot be made withaut the guidance of the Town of Vail. Sincerely, f Ailison C. Ochs, AICP ~ l 1116103 i 12eznning Iicyues[ far the Wesl Vail Lorlge Atlison [3chs i'{anning Consulting Scrvices A. A description of the 12roposed changes in distriet baundaries ~ The proposed request is a rezoning of the fallowin; West Vaii Lodge properties: 2298, 2288, and 2278 Chamonix and 2211 N. Frontage Rd., Inn at West Vail, Lat 1, Block A, Vail Das Schone Filing 3, and Lats 1, 2, 3, and Tract C, Vail Das Schone Filing 1. All af the properties are currently zc?ned Commercial Care III. The proposed change in district boundaries includes a rezoning from Commercial Core II1 (CC3) ta High Density Muftiple Fartiily (HDMF). ~ The West `v'ail Lodge praperty, cQnstructed in 1979 under Eagle County jurisdiction, includes $3 accomariodation units (hotel rooms), 19 dwelling units and significant commercial floor area. In the 1980's, the Town of Vail annexed ; the property and applied CC3 zoning. This zoning desibnatian does not allow dwelling units Qr accomnnodation units as a use and the property has been arendered non-conforming ever since its annexation into the town. L3nder tlie applicable CC3 zaning, the following n4n-canformities currently exist: ¦ Use (residential dwelling units) ¦ Use (accommodation units) ¦ Density (unitslacre) ~ ¦ Landscaping ¦ Parking located within reyuired setbaeks ¦ Height The propased rezaning wQUld allow for the property to colne into eonformance with the use and density regulations of the HUNIF zone district. Unfortunately, the Town does npt currently have a zone district that would render the property campletely conforming to the development regulations as outiined by the Zoning , Regulations. However, the current zaning designation does not allow any square ~ footage to be added ta the existing hatel rooms, and the owner would like to be ~ allovved to improve the pr4perty through minor additiQns in square footage to the ~ hote} rooms. B. How the proposed chan$e in district boundaries is cansistent with the adopted. goals, objectives and DOIicies ortClined in the Vail Comprehensive Flan and campatible with the Town of Vail's cievelop,ment abjectives 'Y'he following goals, objeetives, and palicies as identified in the Vail Land Use ~ Plan are applicable and eonsistent with the proposed rezaning. ~ l. Generael GrowthlDevelopment 1.1 Vail should eontinue to graw in a corttralled environment, maintaining a halanc.e between residential, commercial and recreational uses to serve 6oth the visitor and the permanen.t resident. ~ I 1 11l16/03 ~ Rczoning Request for the West Vail Lodge Allisvn dehs P6anniag Consulting Services ~ 1.3 The quality vf develvpment should be mainiained arad upgrctded whenever possible. 1.12 Vail should accomnaodate most o,f'the crddational grawth in existing develaped areas (infxll areas). 2. SkierlTourist Concerns 2.1 The community should emphasize its role as a destination resort while accorramadating day visitvrs. 2.2 The ski area owner, the business cQmmunity, and the Tawn lecrclers should work closely together to make existing facilities and the Town funetion more efficiently. 3. Cvmmercial 3.1 The hatel bed base should he Preserved and used more efficientdy. 3.3 Hotels are important tn lhe continued success of the 7'awn of Vaid, therefare canversion to cvndominiums should be dascouraged. 3.4 Commercial growlh should be eancentrated in existing commercaal areas to accQmmodate bnth locaf and visirar needs. 5. Residentiacl 5.1 Additional residential growth should cantinue to oceur prirnarily in existing, platted areQS and as apprvpriate in new areas where high hazczrds do not exi.rt. ~ 5.2 Quality time share units should be accammadated ta help keep occupancy rates up. The Vail Land Use Plan designates Lots 1, 2, and 3, Vail Das Schone Filing 1, as Medium Density Residential, wiiich is deseribed as foliaws: Medium Density Residenti,al The mediurra density residential categary includes housing which would typically be des•igned as attachecl units with common walls. Densaties in thi.s r.ategory wauld range from 3 to 14 dwelling units per buildable acre. Additional types o,f uses in this category would include private recreation ,facilities, priva.te parki,ag faci[ities and instixutional/public uses such as parks, open space, churehes, andfire stations. The Vail Land Use Plan designates Lot 1, BIOCIC A, Vail Das Schone Filing 3 and Tract C, Vail Das Schane Fiting I, as Community Carnmercial, which is described as follows: Community Cnmmerciud This carea is designed to rrieet cnnsurrxer demands from cammunity resident.s. Prirnary uses wauld inclurle supermarkets, dry cleaning ~ establishrnents, hardtiuare stores, servace stations, finaneial instilutions 2 1 Un6)oa 9 Rexoning Rcquestforthe West Vaal Lodge Alliscjo Ochs Planning Consulting Scrvices and medieal o~f`ices. The design of these facilities woulcl 6e oriented ~ toward vehicular access a?au' parking. The purpose of the HDMF zone district is stated as foljows: 12-6H-1: PURPQSE: The high density multiple family district is intend'ed tU provide sites far multiple;fanaily dwellings at densities to a mcracimum of twenty ftve (25) dwelling units per acre, £ogether wtth such public and semipubCac facilities and lodges, private reereaiian facalitie.s and related visitor oriented use,s as may apprapriately be loccrted in the same di.strict. The high density rnuliipCe fcamily district is intended to ensure adeguate Iight, air, open P space, arul vther amenities commensurate with high density apartment, can.domi:nium and ladge uses, and to maintain the desirable residential and resart qualities of the district by establishing appropriaie site developmerzt standarda. Gertain nonresidential uses are permitted as conditional uses, whic'h relate to the nature of Vccil as a winter and summer recreatlon and vacation cammunity and, where permitted, are intended to bdend harmanrously with the residenffal eharacter of the dtstrict. The proposed rezoning results in a praperty yn greater compliance with the zone I district it is groposed to be designated as, and is in compliance with the purpose statement of the proposed zone district. ; , I C. How the psoposed change in diatrict boundaries is compatible with and suitable to adjacent nses and apprapriate far the area. The combination of Iodge and comrnercial uses is suitable to the Vehicular- oriented nature of adjacent uses and residential uses. While adjacent properties are zo?aed CC3, there are higher density properties to the narth of the site. In ; addition, this site is unique in the fact that there is an existzng lodge an the site, a i use not allowed by the CC3 zane district. .As a result, irnprovements to the site harre been limited. By allvwing this site to come into conformance with the allowable uses of the proposed zone dzstrict, impravernents can be made to the property that will make the property more compatible and suitable far the area. D. How the ra osed chan4e in districE bovndaries i En the taest interest of the ublic health, safety, and welfare. f Because the property is Currently non-confoaming with regards to use, few, if any, ~ improvements have been completed in the past. As a result, the building is also ~ nonaconforming with regards to rnany life safety issues as provided by the Unifarrn Building Code. A rezoning of the property will allow the applicant to iFnprave the prQperty, creating a safer building. ~ I 3 1116103 ~ Fezoning Reyuesl for the West Vail Lodge Allison Ochs Ptanning Consulting Serr'ices i ~ Develapment Standacds; Lot Area; 3.5 acres ar 172,062 sq. ft. Suildable Lot Area: 3.890 acres or 169,448 sq. ft. ensi ; Allowed {GC3}; 46 d.u.'s Allowed (HDMF): 98 d.u.'s Existing; 19 d.u.'s and $3 a.u.'s = 60.5 equiv. d.u.'s GRFA: Allrawed (CC3): 50,834 sq. ft. Allowed (HDMF): 101,669 sq. €t. Existing: 43,532 sq. ft. Commercial Floor Are : A1Iowed (CC3): N0 limit Allowed (HDMF): 10,323 sq. ft. Existing: 17,252 sq_ ft. Setbacks: Requyred (CC3): 20' an all sides Allowed (HDMF): 20' an all sides Existing: 20' on ail sides ~ Site Coverage: Allowed (CC3): 40% or 6$,$07 sq. ft. Allowed (HDMF): 55% ar 94,634 sq. ft. Existing: 20.1% or 34,576 sq. ft. Parang: Required (CC3): 184 spaces Ailowed (HDMF): 184 spaces Existing: 191 spaces LandscaninQ: ~Required {CC3}: 25% af site area or 4$,395 sq. ft. Allowed (HDMF): 30% of site area or 51,61$ sq. ft. Existing. less trtan 15% (exack unknawn) ~ a itrtwaa i ~ 1ttachment: E ~i40?Q4 O 0006V /'y 00000' ~ . 00066 ^ Otr{ Ootr. Vt~~ 04 I.. [J.. I~ ~ fooao- o oa.~$,~~cnaao ty ,i ..aoc, ~o aoz}a+pa-uooo7 ci` ~ N ~.'i ooo.. a c ooaooo~ ,1n,l ~r ~I I o4a ( 4~C~ G4~U0606400 ~ I ~:-w OG<? CCOO C~fU JOLOQOOG046 ( IP-~ .I00 O- 6~ G OG06000UOOOdU00 p~ I + f:GfCp¢OOqD09004L9R040. I~1' lOt C 'MOU0U940?dOOOhCrObb ~ I ~ Ci.l ~ ' ~ O°noooou~ooooooooc~ zr 4} I C L Ot C r~ Qd00 ~JyO( ~ 7. L ~'I` ~ i 'i 04~hO~aGOG4~iOGG~ ~04OGOGOOOG04~0 (Q ~ N 1 ~ -OV4oC+p4G64 OGOGOeCSp4o40V0 'Q f11 ~ G960C)G900 pOOC30Uh{06COG0 ~ ~ ~~y5 I ~ CG004Q0 dU0066 C>SJGO~OU ~y ('V I~ \ tr4GU06 006GUOOU~OtOL~oo.~o Q U ~f I,~ \ Otl00flO4S3G O G0~iOOCOP~ p~i 006i-D600 GGhOC^~+064 00 (D r bpGG~iOC40000<)O 004 GO- ~ I G04GPQP4C004~0~ OG~ 0~ ` ~ I OOOGpC400400~.~C6G~060( C. ?n I~ I~ YI' 4" ~ AOG06Gd0066~UObEiriy 4V00G ~ V, I I , h404G48o4eO44~~i4G F+'OC.~J i. ~ C I I I I. ':.li-.r} 000004064G604Uy~i06~ Uf.~ ~ C L06d000610tlGf 4G400~~i C 0040G409~'ir,~p~t ~VP GoGnO ? C ~ ~ ~ 00606bOO80f~U6:G00000 ` ~ OOGOOOfi440 Ot~ 00400 ~ ~ II 4 00oooood:,o~iooa~` o~,oooo aooaooaocoocO aooaoo N GOOOOOOGOGPOGq U{*0 G 0640 ~ OOOOOOQB>6^~+ OOOG80b ~ 660G('bO+YbGyt]Gp(aQ04O ~ 400009!'~0~7 00(>OG04 ~ 4 n 0094600F' ~QOOOOao~c~ ~A jG46G60FS41[i6G+0~J60U ~ IIl - 'y { ooooon~coccoa~ aoo~ II' - I ~ , GGOG04. G+SGOOOL 00 ~ 4G IIf P Gc .U046G6C OO j ' y ~j OOP9~•-GOG609!'i N aoa 1Iy , o ooocoao oao~coaa0ooo GGqq~~' OPG0400 r'QnoOGO~oo - ,[V II I ~,r .Gi.4C,~ :ar~.3Gt.OG r~.rrGPO 2oaaoo~aaao00c0 0oa0A0 1 i i ~.'1 ~ I I ~I I',r' I 44GGGO.~9C~:>4G00*`i9f+~Jrt ~ ,I ~I 4,~ I I 0,i•~~ 090 6<O G~4r~r ~ O? ! ~ ~ I, ~ I i ~ ~90G GG•14G409.qOr ~ . N'~ N m cu f ~ 4' I 1 I:11~ J m I ~ i' ~ E a31 :-I Q . 04 (n 04 b tD ~ CN I^ <N ~ ~ T _ C: C4 N~_ ~ t`J II _ I~ I I. a S E o ° r~i) ~ ~ 04 ~ E i co _ r a ~ ~ 'n a0 ~'s~` r~r ~`~`ft ~ ry N - ~ N CC) rn ~ G [ F'~~+ C) N N "f ' ~ 4 M I ~F 1 V ~ O 0.: • > F- Lo ~ c+~~ \ r `-u " °a cli E ~ r. rr cn t c~ `o _ . ~ ~ ~T ~ 'f•, f ' ~ r' N N ~ M ~f 0)C) ' W a ~ z ~ n ~ . ~ ' r N/ ~ ~ O / ~ 1 ~C3 d ~ 0040G0 G+~ /1 040p0 ~ ~ . ~ OOk00 40 G4 .}a ~U40G0 ~ °O fy I o000 000 0 o~{ So'oncaoao im F. 006 Q ~OA'*'^~pqpo400444oP OOOG00000 ~ UO ~OC O GO 600O00 ~00 6G 3oGa64Q4J6060C4p7G0aq ~ , O 4 aoOnGOGO~I'JOO4poPOOOOo O 4 '900GGG04401tO1U0! ~ ~ P(~90 f0 CP09 G.+P ~ I ~hli ~Ti'~4~+~ II4~iG . LOUO I ~ IJ~. C7 00[90/OG~G OG p ,.,rpe}~ O 'y~ L' POOC90DOOD4GD J` 4G~Q0 ODUDO . (Q ~Y Q) 'JOS+4094 GW'~' lOG04000004t304J c~ '0 ~ - .pGOL147U04 OUG04044Q~600OQJC}4 I 030000 GC+504G9069400~^O y ~ ~ I i>400 6044h.6GOddC00024 F.40 4G4'~n+~o(rooG0o 0, 2a ~ h , a~~aooooc4~.o ~ ~ ~ oooocaclaoooaoo Cp o ~ ~ ' ~ N J'3GOC0 GO~C>OOC~p.OdO, OGG400000GOUGOG6G^~^G Q ~ ~ W ~ I i 40GOGJ6G046GC%0000 ~ ~ ~ C ~ ~ j I ~ 0980000 ~00 GO'yL~ C V~O . y.y C 4064.6 OQOOGO ~~~yyy... FC~O ~ E E M> Uooosoooo-o aa~3 ~ _ ~ ~ O N ~ 010409i_4C4~t.~ 4++ ~ _ I ~ GS~Or.OC.ObGr,~pCCb O I'~ c ooooaa ~ ~c~ o LD ' I i 0G7GM16 .GPaU 4 Q ~ OD'>OPG'JP ~J I! GOOJ04i40? n, O ~II I'I 40GOJOOr~`a~u W Or. ~ cocuoc .;7c C ono ~ L , "r coc~s N ~ao k r G~ad~G ~ ' ~ CG~~?O ~0406Q4o060000d644090 J.-. IG6d7GGO00dflOd0p4?0000~ ~GOOOOUOp6fOGO00G00 ~ OPOO(JGOOG00400400~ . i ~ 06~p~0)GGOGG40G' di30004G3UODGG C3' ,v t I'' OOh~4G~'J<iG~U Y ~ l' ~ OOUdGpGC-Qs, ~ GG9449U0 ' . . . ...~I ~ ' pPbq'. U7 I I 00 Q L, i i 45 ~ N j C', CO Q ~iF.?j~ j j co (A N ~ N N ~ ~ C,- ifa /I CN co F i ~ ~ ! t ~ .l ~ ~ 1 YI po C r C`' C C z~ i ~ ~ E co 9 C~ ~'r ~~~L- ~ a~ / c^i a) C'l - X N ~ Q} m ' ~ ~J ~ i~ N , c N O O ~ N J CQ W ~r coJ S'~7 ~ti 1~` . ? OU N~ . , I ~ a ~J W ry- f f i t!J ~ \ ~ l ~ ~ • ~ ~ Y/ ~ . . T M \ f' ~ aa ~ co m j~ t~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ a ...1 ~ ~ ~ ~ 04 ; 7~2 `4' i J-- i I 4ttachment: F i r C 2 _ . . , . . . . , . _ ~N < ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ G ~ ? ro CL 7 i~°,''xi 'd ~ ~ 0 C ~ O N , 0 0 ~ ~ - A~'~\ i~..;M ~ ;f/ 4• - . ~ ~ r~ , \.~.J , r-, ~ ~ . . ~ . . . ! • ~ . a \ . y s,a.., N e y. . : 0 ~ ~ ~ _ . . - . . \ N . . . . . . . . , . . '7 Y~1 ~ . ~ ~ la w > J ~ .ti . . i;[ N ~ J LJ5 [Y ~ r ~ ~ , ti i 6) d 1J f~,7 ~ ~ CV > L7 F ~ ~ ~ cv i ~ O \ z ~ ~ ~ i ..e ~ ? ~ ~ ~ M 1~ ~ ~ ~ J I N F- 0 ~Ln ti ~ c~v CX) c`~v F- O / IX3 4' M >f wk w ~ YI~/ ~ / ~ m . m l ay r r ~ ~ N • ~ f'? / r " . , ~ jN u ~ w . . / ~i V oO.. T ~ ~ . . C4 . a N / Nf ~ ~I ~ LV . ~ roCU ~r CV ~ r4 tj• .f~:. f. N _ M L.- ~ i ~l ~ ~ ~ LLI N % o ~ ' ~ _ ~n I I ~ an a ' rn (y I 10 - - - --J ~ ~ x[Ai~ae t0 z~4~ qf' A.:s I~i I; i! t I 7 1 ' ~ ~ I h x~ ~{~-•'~T~g~~'Tr~--~~4~ ! 1 ~ ~ E..~ Lj~ -;Ary~ ~ ~'~s ~ "t a 4• f Z VJ Q CO c}C C ~ S1 <D ~ (f) 7t-'~- L11 ? '6 E ^5sp~~~,~` ~ , Z::~ ? ~ N p ~ f ~ 5t.t cn' O' l::k C N / y - E [3 4O z N sI . ~ 10 CO ~-mx O7 C4 C.,~ ~ LU 2y~,x 1 SO' rc- CV ~ l ~ = ~ ~ • rn ~ l in rn r~ r cn: x[~ ffa. ~ ~ - -r Llr (p 3 ~ u C'i' } SI? (9+ ~ LL ~ I ~ * 'i I~ 4 r co - Iv{ s ~ > ~ , ` w Ls ~ ~ ~ . ~ I r [u -°~ix - `r t G~~.~ \ ~ (7 ~ } I 4'7 ° N ~ c~t/ ~ •j~ ~l\\ C f I ~ ! ~ iY~ - t ~ 01 L71 L co (y u~ ~~a+'' `r a5 s - V G, . Q f L[7 6l \ ~ 1- p {99,, ,cg~ ! t~i c'~ ~.7 N f 17, ~ ~ ~ ~ co -406" m ~wv I L1 Or} I Cry ~ '.4~~ ~ \ V ~_i+ ~ ~ ~ ~ r~ ~ ,~.r. i R J . ~ N N m \ ~ ~ ~ ~ U h. N h yf ~ > h'1 „ [°'7 CV W cp N ~ A' ~ ~ ~ '~Y ~ ' ~ N _ - ~ • p ~ ~ ti ` r r~i ~ti.` ° r~ [t7 ~,~j . Y ry 00 dl s z ~ ~.i.. ~ [~t ~ ~ _'4~7 N ~ Oy • ~ fl, _ . . , r,.,. . _ . . ~ . , :.f . . . ~ea. . . . . _ . . . . . . : 48 Ooo 04 j O,~y.~~.r~ r ~r 400P0 ~fj GOG4G ~O O6C"w: {rtG J4n9 •P O Q.G~POC.G ,f~~~, 6P ; 4 . eao ~or t C o4oooc oou : 04n Q~~02 Gt7 GB~i~S 1 i O[~r OL.OD4 { f L 604 }O 90 i ILS ~ GO nC ~`S <t C~iC OL f 00 04 14{~ j j ~ ~ Q VVt [t r6L h h 0400 ~ E + I~ O G SGG i4< G[ p(>O~UO~ C y I 1 G JU(>q U) G~i6r.(~rs7 ~ ! 1 I i ~I G ~~C O rs4Gd4 fiGGOGO~ ~ ~ ~ TS ff3T~`~ { ~ [s.UGO 1tl490~' cu 1 ~ .a, 4: 4F>UJ P ~ LL ~Qyy f ~I i I1' r~O ~VL 4~yC n~ . N LL h oawo<.,oca >oo~o n ~ s CL (*y I'~ ,~I ! f ~ 70+,0000CJ , . .G3 ± i-~ OY otbGOOG r ,r C.~.nG(. • N (D ~ill q .•ocoooonr ~oo oo~:o o ~ ~ u7 j 1` -~i7G04GOFJ p030G4t~pG400 4~ ~ ~ ~ Q R . I f' ~G G40G fG40V U48 74UP~~rG ~ ~ V 1 ! T•4G ~GGhG^i4 pGGJQG+60 ~ ~ . I . Gt Ua ~O6o0 ?coo~ C O>Coo tio O o2o ~ c~ ~ van aooopoan0ce o C UJ ~L45 ,aooounerooc.acoo~~o~c ~ ~.WOOOOOCOC.ooooooc. o N GG'J~iG004004dG)+}GO<>~~i L ~ ' er . .,GODOC=C O _ 00( i. >0~7 " I crs o ~y' ooooo.ocrcc -sfy~c~{r~~ ~ ' 6Q G.OC.FtO 6 d.r OnJ" C V ~ ~ QJ ~ 4LOf>T.pO o04~ 00.~( ~4.G i °aooaoGa~noi'~~o~a I, 0470. 004 O cL ~ .~6{.06n0{.`J6r~9C~~'v ~ ~ I ti4G+CrC0446~?O~fl' C OOUG^Gn00^Jt, G \ ~~I I . G~JC~~iU494 ry~ (C~ 4.. .rG ¢ 6G0480t p "(3 04 I I l ooooaac,a~.~ ovo I, I ~o~ac~.,~~~ p ~ o, i! onaoW oe ~VI~IIyI r o[or~~sN , I . I.i I ~ j_ . <YG00460UG~{~GG4G GvG4U ~ / I ~ I r• . I ~ C~, . S' ~ GGOOOOO~OG ~7GG...4r>~,~ ~ b ~ ' I I I I II ~II, ~ . i.~ i' 044440~P4uk o<,oi.o I . VI ~ 90~i0 GG44iJG GO(r 06 C0G6-* °ooni N ~ 4) . . ~ m ~ i II . ~ •r ~ a ' ~ I . ~ ' I 4IIi ' i ' I ; ' ~ ' I ~r 1 u' ~ • _ I I V, ; li' 1 I ' I ! I , , 1 . cn~ : CV cti ~ ~V .~Ce F n ~ n \ w ~ cu 'q° N N ~ ~ V7 a _ ..~1 _ ~ :4l7 ~c77 , 51~ CD • L /f ~ •II~I'~I!L ~ r cc frI- ,ryj -Yv C13 ~ ~ 2 _ ~ p ~ ry/ / l • ~ cm,,", N ~ N . u~7 ? ~`~'~~j / 00 S j ~ ~ ~ / _ . _ u , f ~ l ~ I II LU oo cq co ry_~ V/ > N . , ~ : N rn - 'C ~ M ~ a C', f ' L (4 r~ oo " ti ra , ~ CL " i ~ ~ • U3 , ~ ' ~7.' ,y / ~ ~ ~ N op <y J . N ~ . , . ='G:1 - ooo~or, ~ anoc~.~ro~ o~oco ap ' ~ ' GOtntl 1.00f'~i,~`G9CG~ ~r~rrr~~ 60 M1~_~ ~ l G : ~ JOP4 ~I I~ I I 4U66 1t G 07{ C~~ 47~ ~O!(1t3 C)G~fGG ~ ~ . I I I G` .C tSC GS~6 OJ (b 6 ir U) ~ ; ~ e ~<rc . b~ r 47 ' ~ I e ~y`~!, < r, ~~'--•~fci~~~ ~ , ` i•04GC.s~OGGbq?p DG6'JGir9G~>O:•O~'~O Q1 k ~I "v4t~09C.nor.oOr c.~C.<ic,r,;.n.iar~. ~G (q ~ SG<~'rO~iG~~~3~0` ~..QDOGOi'G?i-C4G4 " ~ I nr r , ,n • .croorior:: ~st ~o~o:~oc~c4~ .~oao ` C ~ D ~ I n '3r~Ob?O~riGOV'vr~<i"..Or, r N O 40-.c.G t O ~ YA ; ' i oe~ooaoc~veoo~ c.. : 1 q ~cocGO O ~ U ~ ~i ~ -~<:ryn ~7~4J?V70G'rfi ^dCp ~e~~ ~ . ~ ,,p CetGdUGOC•4~ t V~R)t ~JS' =G 0400006~0!Of~ GG~ G~O 4 ~ ~ ~ L GU 0404iG~] 49l OU •4 ~ ~ ~ Qa 46Ob}PG406UL~ C4~~CG `O- C (O ~ ' ~6pq40040AGOG00(f~G~Ot G~ ~ ~ oaGOOO rooUCi.e~~ Ct, ooC~O " f6 a E ~ I~ 4040RGf+ G4GOGLl(yYG ~ OS O ~ . ~y C~4~~VC99P04U <{~j'~OU~O~tOGG~U ~ ~ E ~ ~v ~ LL I. I I I ~iV6J 4 6i~0 fi ~J G~~ _ ~ J'O(s46e.9PfOG ~t~ti Gl~C_ ~ r470AtsOC~76 P( 6(O~ G~4 4,~640G4 03 '~tO0U4 i Q 1 ~~~I i ~.OG4€.GG74t~ o404t9 ~ I I ~ OOP4C4U0 ~OGJOGV CA~ ~ 60r~46 <4G :P t - ~ P.~ I p!.1}i 6p4G]G-~ G ~ ~~iy'. 08'~ ~J ~i/ppoOGtU ~ ~ ~ :r ~`,5! I I}i ~ I I ~ ~fI~ ~ .P4POAG4047~ C4 ~.c ~"1 I I . ' I ~I :I lr tL~OCOGG4`~GOA 9iiC~G4G~ I ooG~ioa~40o O^J II II . I Ili. } 'll I ~ P?U44n.00 GO,^G<. ~ i ~Ae~:>onlco p tf7 II ;II ~ r I 1 Il, ~ \ I eN 1 ~r^ a> > ' ; , I '1 . I r ~ co'_ . I I J ~~J' 4 . ' I . . . I k I' ~+i-.F-:=:' -~.--"'itf ~4 ~';r / ~ LV ~ • ' I I i ~~I 4 i \ ~ {1. N Q I-- ~E e i ~ ~ ~ rn 'i ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ j ~ ; . ; k ~ ' , ~ n ~X: LN C ~ (Cmn , 000- m ~ P7 ~ _ ~LP ~1 ~ f ~ ~ i ,4 r' ~ N ~ W ~ ~ ~ ' N 1I yJ , V f ~ ~~y t \ ¦fA ~ y i., ,.w (y ; N J. O N I` ~ C", N '~r' 1- ~ ~ U p ~ m W ~a'~~ j~ ~t fP I 11 I • ~ ' Ql C"7 ~ _ _ I y N : ¦ ~ ~ . ~ t" ~ ~ ~ rmr , f `~y m cn N LO r~ ca ~ i M1. cq/:° a W ~ W I'r co `'d'4 O ~ ! K PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMIS510N ~ PUBLIC MEETiNG MoncEay, March 2004 PROJECT ORIEh1TATlON - Cornmuni#y Deveiopment Dept. PUBLIC WELGOME 12:00 pFn MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT John Schafield Gary Hartman Ericlcson Shirley Chas Bernhardt Rallie Kjesbo Daug Cahill Gearge Larnb Site Visits : 1. Slifer - 230 Br6dge Stree# , 2. Hughes - 303 Gore Creek Drive, #7 3. 5hirley - 303 Gore Creek Drive, #8 4. Yare - 2434 Chamonix Lane 5. Vail Resorts aevefopment Company - Tract K, Glen Lyon Driver: Gearge NOTE: If the PEC hearing extends until 6;00 p.m., the board may break for dinner from 6:00 - 6:30 ~ Public Hearinq - 7own Gouncil Ghambers 2.00 pm 1. A request far a recammendation to the Vail Town Cauncil for the estabEishment of Spectal Developrnent Qistrict No. 38, Manor Vail Lodge, to allow for #he redevelopment of the Manor Vaii Lodge, and a request for a conciitional use permEt to allow for the eanstruction of Type III Employee Housing Units, pursuant to Section 12-6H-3, Vail Tc+wn Code, located at 595 Vail Valley DriveILots A, B, & C, Vail Vil[age 7th Filing, and setting forth details in regard thereta. Appiicant: Manor Vail, represented by Melick and Associates ' Planner: V11arren CamptaeH MQTIOhI: Larnb SEGOND: Bernhardt VOTE: 6-0 Tabled to Aprii 12, 2004 Staff reviewed the mernorandum and a fetter provided by Jim Lamont, Vaif Village Homeowner's Association, from Fredricic Wyman III, President flf All Seasons Candominium Association. The applicant reviewed the goals of the project and displayed multip1e visual simulations af the proposal and how it affected differerat views, Jim Lamon# compfimented the visual simulations and then expressed ccancem abou# the proposed parking structure within #he required setback from Mill Greek. N1r. Lamont aisa expressed cancern about the parking Iot access and asked why #he loading and delivery was not covered. He asked about employee housing in the parking structure and +ruhether it could be moved. He suggested putting it over the foading and delivery area. Mr. Lamont asked about pubic improvemenfs and whether there were other pubie impravements that eould be required or should be required. Jim ~ Lamon# indicafed that irnproving access to Ford Park could be pursued. The Commissian cornmented that the setback from Mill Creek was a concem and the prposed 1 - *VAIL TOWN ~ parking structure should be pulled away. There was also generaf concern over the access to the ' propased parking structure. The new floor on Building "C" was identified as a concern as the height wauld biock a Earge portion of the view to the Gore Range. The new floor increased the height by approximately 22 feet. It was sugges#ed that Building "C" should taper down to Vail Valley Road. ~ There needs to bs same planting pockets Iaca#ed on top of the parking structure ta provide winter interest. The existing trees along the bike path should remain. The relacatian of the access gafe further not the property from its current location will help circulation on Vail Valley Road. There was sorne indifference about covered loading and delivery and its value as a pubfic benefit. The proposed neuu units should not be required to be placed in a rental pooE. The Commissfan asked the applicant why they wanfed so much floor area and ques#ioned where the pubfic benefi#s were in the praject which would warrant such a large increase over the maximum GRFA perrriitted. The Cornmission liked the tum-around area provided aff of Vail Valley Drive on the south lot and the propased garden on top of the parking s#ructure, The Gommission stated that they liked the pEan from a year ago when a Waeiance for GRFA to be 6acated within a se#back was being requested. The applicant was directed to remave all improvements fram the 1 Clp-year flaodplain. lmprovements ter Mil) Creek could be a significant public improvement. The Comrnission concluded by requesting a complete application with no more work sessions. Staff was directed ta review the next submittal for cornpleteness very thoroughEy. The Commission acknowledged that the photography sirnulafion used in the presenta#ion worked better than a model. However, the ,phatos need to be rEafistic about fandscaping and wha# is impacted with development. ~ ~ 2. A request for final review of avariance from Section 12-61-1-6, Se#backs, SectFOn 12-61-1-10: Landscaping and 5ife De+re1opment, and Sectian 12-6H-11: Parking and Loading, Vail Town Ccade, to allow for a residential additaon, lacated at 303 Gore Creek DrivefLot 7e BEbCIC 5, Vail Viflage 1sz Filing, and setting forEh details in regard thereto. AppCicant: Ron Hughes, represen#ad by Shepherd Resources, Inc. ~ Planner: Bill Gibson MOTIQN: Kjesba SECOND: Bernhardt VOTE: 5-0-1 (S'hirley abstained) APPROVED WITH ONE CONDITlOiN: "E. This variance request approval shall be contingent +upan the appEicant receiving Town of Vai[ design review approva[ for this propnsed residential addition. Due to the similar nature of the app[icatians, items #2 and #3 (Hughes Resider,ce and Shirley Residence) were reviewed cancurrently. Staff presented an overview of the request and the stafF memorandum. The appGicant's architect, Shepard Resaurces, Inc., had no additional cflmment. The applicant's af#orney, Murray Franke Greenhause List & Lippitt LLP, stated their objection fo Staff's recommended condition #2 for the Hugh's proposal. Virginia 1Nel[s, adjacent property owner Rowhpuse #6, stated that ihey did not support the Hugh Residence variance request and did not support the final ciesign of the proposal. Ms. UVells requested that the PEC adopted and broaden the language af Staff's recommencied candition #2 for the Hugh's peoposal. Commissioner Shirley stated his objection to StafF's recommended candition #2 far his proposal. The PEC noted the special circumstances and hardships related fo the Hughes and Shirley ~ variance requests. The PEC noted tha# Staff's recomrnended cor?dition #2 was not necessary as any risk of construction impacting neighboring properties would be addressed by the existing private party-wall agreements. 2 - 3. A request for final raview of a variance from Section 12-6H-6, Setbacks, Sec#ion 12-6Ei-3, Site Coverage, and Section 12-6H-10: Landscaping and Site Development Vail Town Code, to allow fiar ~ a residential addition, Iocated at 303 GQre Creefc DrivefLot 8, Bfock 5, Vail Village 1Sr Filing, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Erickson Shiriey, representeci by K.H. 1Nebb Architects P.G. Planner: Bill +Gibson ~ MO71QN: Kjesbo SECOND: Bernhardt V(3TE: 5-0-7 (Shirley abstained) ApPROVEa WITH ONE CONDITIflN: 1. This variance request approval shall be contingen# upon the applicant receiving 7own of Vai1 design review approvaf for this proposed residential addition. 4. A request for f'rna1 review of a variance from Section 12-6D-6, setbacks, Vail Town Gode, to allow for encroachments into the setback, lacated at 2434 Ghamonix LanelLot 19, Block B, Vail das Schone Filing 1, and setting for#h details in regard thereto. Applicant: Mark Yare, represented by VAG, inc, Planner: Sill Gibson MOTION; Cahill SECOND: Bernhardt VOTE: fi-p DENIED ' Staff presented an overview of the request and the stafF memorandum. The applicant's architect, VAg, Inc., summarized the applicant's request and noted their willingness to ciecrease the amount deviation from the setback being requested. ~ Karen Scheideger, adjacent proper#y owner, stated that they dicf nat support the Yare°s variance request. The Commission commented that the exi5ting aspen stand did constE#ute a hardship. The PEC noted that design alternatives complying with the setbacic requirements exist and the trees can be rernoved or relocated. 5. A request for final review of avariance frorn Titae 14, Development Standards Handbaok, Vail Town Cade, to aIlaw for retaining walls in excess of six (6) feet in heaght, located at Tract K, Glen LyQn Subdivision and Unplatted Parcels, a more cornplete legal dESCrip#ian is on file at the Community DeWelopment Department, seiting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Vail Resorts Development Company, represented by Braun Associates, Inc. ~ P{anner. Bill Gibson l111C)TlON: Kjesbo SECOND: Lamb VC3TE: 6-0 APPROVED WITH CONQlT10NS: 1. This variance reques# approval sha11 be cantingent upon the applicant receiving Town of Vail design review approwal of fhe associated design reWiew application. 2. Rrior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant sha[I enter anta a lease, license, flr easerr3ent agreement with the Tawn of Vai1 for the use of Town property. ~ 3. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shali prepare a construction staging plan for review antf approval by the Town of Vail. 4. Priar to the issuance of a grading permit, the appficant shall survey and then 3 - instafl all limits of disturbance fencing and all erosion control methods for review and approval by the Town of Vail. 5. The applicant shall properEy maintain the [imits of disturbance fencing and ~ erosian control methods throughout the canstruction of this praposal. Any modificafion to the location or configuration of the limits of disturbance area shall require rerriew and approval by the Town of Vail. Staff presented an averview of the request and the staff mernoEandum. The applicant's representative, Jay Pe#erson, summarized the applicant's prapasal and requested minor changes to Staff's recommended condi#ions. Staff was agreeab6e to the requested changes to the conditions. 7he F'EC commented on the special circurnstances and hardship of this request and noted that ifi the proposed walls were carrstructed in a Town right-af-way, rather than in a Town gran#ed easement, that fhis variance request would not be necessary. fi. A request far a recomrnenda#ian to the Vaii Town Councol for a text amendment to Section 12- 7H-3, Permitted and Conditional Uses; First Flaor or Street Level and Sec#ion 12-7E-3, Perrnitted and Condi#ipna! Uses; First Floor and 5treet Level, pursuant #o Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail ~ Town Code, to allow for temporary reaf esfiate sales offces on the first ffaor or street level of a building, in the Lianshead Mixed Use I& 2 zone districts, and sefting farth details in regard ' thereto. ~ Applicant: Vail Resorts Qevelopmenf Garnpany, represented by Braun Associates, Inc. Planner: George Ruther IIJiOTION: SECONQ: VOTE: ~ WITHDRAWN 7. A request for a site coverage vareance from Section 12-7113-15, 5ite Coverage, Vai! Tawn Cade, to allow for a commercial store frant addition, located at 230 Bridge S#reetlLot B, Block 5-C, Vail Viilage '(St Filing, and setting forth de#ails in regard thereto. Applicant: Rodney E. Slifer Planner: Warren Campbell M071ON; Lamb SECONR. Kjesba VaTE: 5-1 (Cahill opposed) APPROVED WITH ONE COND[710N: 1. 7ha# the applicant reduces the size of the proposed awning to extend no more than four fee€ fram the face of the building. Staff gave a presentatian per the rnemorandum. The applicant and the owner of the business which wilC be occupyirag the tenant space, Tom Yoder, gave a presentation explaining the need to remave #he architectural "nofch° from #he building due to the way it breaks--up the interior retail ~ spacs which is the reasan previous tenants have not be able to "make-it'° in the space. They ~ continued by describing the notch as a health hazards as peaple late at night urinate and voTnit in the "notch". Rad Sliter reviewed the applicatiQn and how the application wauld camply with the goa{s of the Master Plan and hcaw the proposal is not a special pri+rilege, The Cammissian was in favar of granting the variance as the notch daes nat serue a ~ positive purpose. They agreed strongly abou# the negative health issGes assaciated with the unintended consequences of fhe notch being there (i.e. public urination and uomiting). Many of the Commissioners believed this was a special case which had a hardship due to the age of the building and it's existence prior to Town of Vail zoning. 4 - Commissioner, aoug Cahll as4ted how this will help the retaif sFace anci achieve the goals #he applicant stated at the outset. The appficant replEed that he is primarily in#erested in the exterior modifications and wilR work out #he interior remadel issues after getting the variance. ~ 5#aff asked for a point of clarifcation regarding the awnirrg and whether the PEC agrees with the additianal site coverage it creates. The Commissianers, except for Ghas Bemhardt, stated that the awning shoulcE not extend any further from the face of the building than four feet so as to not count towards site coverage. 8. A request for a final review of a proposed amendment ta the Town of Vail Official Zoning Map fo change #he zoning of the West Vail Lodge Properties from Commercial Core 3(GC3) to High Density Multaple Family (HDMF), lacated at 2278, 2288, 2298 Chamonix Lane and 2211 Nor#h Frontage Roadf Lots 1, 2, 3, and Tract C Vail Das Schone Filing 1 and Inn at West Vail Lot 1, Block A, Vail Das Schone Filing 3, in accordance with 5ection 12-3-7, Vail Tawn Code, ancf setting forth detaifs in regard thereto. Applicant: Vanquish Vail, LLC, represented by Allison Ochs Planner: Matt Genne#t MOTIQN: Bernhardt SECOND: Lamh VOTE: 6-0 TABLED TO MARCH 22, 2Q(14. The Commission unanirrtously agreed that this shall be the lasf tabling to be granted for this item. 9. A request for a work session to discuss an application for a major amendment ta Special Development District #4, Cascade Viliage, pursuant tm Seetion 12-9A-1 D, Vail Town Cade to allow for the adoption of a Devefopment Pfan for the development of a new rnultiple-family ~ structure, located at 1000 W. Frontage Rd.ICascacfe Village, Developrnent Arsa A, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Ramsey Flower and Greg Wal#on Planner: George Ruther WITHDRAWN 10. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council af a major amendment to Special Development Qistrict Na. 36, Faur Seasans Resort, pursuant to Sectian 12-9A-10, Vail Town Code, #o allow for a mixed-usa hotel; a request far a final review of a conditional use permif, pursuant to Section 2-7A-3, Vail Town Gode, to allaw for Type !II Emp9oyee Housing Units and a fractional fee club; and a request for a recomrriendation to the Vail Town Council of a proposed rezoning of Lots 9A & 9C, Vail Vil6age 2nd Filing firom Pubfc Accommodation (PA) zone district to High Density Multiple Family (HDMF) zone district, 9ocated at 28 S. Frantage Rd. and 13 Vail RoadlLots 9A& 9C, Vail Vfllags 2nd Fi[ing, and seiting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Nicoflet fsland Development Company 1ne. Planner: Gearge Ruther WITHDRAWM 11. Approval of rninutes MQTION: Kjesb4 SECOND: Lamb VOTE: 6-0 12. Information Update ~ • 13. Adjournment MOTI(3N: Bernhardt SECOND: Lamb VOTE: 6-0 5 - , 7he applications and inforrnatian about the proposals are available far pubfic inspection during regular office hours in the project p1anner's office located at the Tawn of Vail Community ~ Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. PEease call 479-2138 for information. Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479- 2356, 7elephane for the Hearing impaieed, for inforrnation. Community Develapment Departmant Published, March 5, 2004 irt the 1lai[ Daily. ~ a~ ~ ~ 6 - ~QR'~ Eocom~ ~3 x ~~o s m aoccu~ .c o°a.~c.cp E vm 3.:'umc m~~» Q~~ o~ oo tp a ~ omm ~ m = m omE-' ~~c~3z•-c p mu~ ~a40a~ W c'-`~~o`o s~oo~4. ~ E m ~ mm+y+ L~ 5 iC=Sm°mi~Uo ~ ~~~'~aW o~+1O a Eaa~~€ 4v~~mcca~e7g E acnmoy5m~ 2~ m U ~7cS~w ~'~`-'~l J . m =_p I nca t0n < S m m t o 4 ~ m ee ~ ~ m r} v rn c o E m o°~~ c~ @cep--~o p? m m~7L c Lo m 6~ ~ m~ u3 Ci~ N° ~-mu m"'ccfSmmmo L D O ~ UJ a~ C} ~ > Q 'q U'N ~ O L tp ~S i6 ~ ~91! C ~ ~ 4 d M h C iD Y_7S5 N ~ @O._ 6 01 ~ 10 ~ g t9 ' Cl ~ t f~6 a'Jaam~ ~1p2 Wc~~cm y~o~~ 'o 'm~m o. aw=~"R'n ~ ~~47E m ~m o m~' ¢`m 51 ~ U m tll 3 ~V d m ~ W=L d ~ N~ C N W 67L N ¢t] >NC'Voc m~o o_ N~+~t L v,cY ~a" u~m a~acoLe`oa~m =-o? p7~w~ WE o~oUti~'a~c oEo~HOiE`~~c , Uaa mEE.~ LL m°~~ ff~rn ^~~k$~~ ~m co`£°oo~a+c~ i m~~ya~Qaoon- V~ c ~ ~ iit ~ m P m m m._ ~ m 'n - m ~ m ~a 2S [`u u¢1 ro cv q v°~ ~ t0 v w u m ~~um = ~o m ~ ` mw `=c7E ~ ~ o~v m ~ ~~NV.~ >~U` r~ ~&myor`~vm Er- ~C-.cm ~,e;a~+,a~' .2 oco n~o mcpcq~me m q~~Y~ cv o~m-~a~o„m ~r,~ r 5 v ~m~._t~ J d0 ay Gl c t c'~ W C - V . c~~ O ~ U X.~ ~ m ~ lL ~ ~C ~ C C `A ~I' 0 C m N m` Q~ C~ ~ D¢~ ~3 C @_. J C 6 O L V~ 8 rY- C-, m O m~ C:p. ~ 0~ +7 ro c ~ O~ ~y0i e_. C Mm 0.WV~t m UOWlO~~-aj 402=4~[ 3~Do CoTV] vlYyy ~'V~ .O_.ai ~ h-~ach~°e u ~tai d~ ~c Om ._ac fi,..e c vc o-o-~d~c O-~c~ m~ac ~m3 ~'~~°1Ga~m a?- zuug.. om En~,- mc~ ro a ea crRa~u: aa ~n u+7Sao~ e `.~'~d a m m~ m~ F~o aFma ac)acnua iv Y~E ma ~ic~BBr« ~a ~~c m8u.~e> c~ ~ r q~j ~ . ~ ~ T~J] 4" s.~. .-i ~ ai c v G ti es a r:r L- y GXS ~ 3 ~ c c•~ A ~ ~ > . ~ ~ = ~ ~ • j Q ~„a ~ V a ~ j . ~ A, ~ ~ • ~ J ~ r ~ ~ ~ c~ rl R. > V3 ~ ? ~ = v J-- t^ C~ b qJ ~ Q C i i.. ~ T 3• y ~ C3„ c:: y G Q Q~ C '+y ~ t 4(] f1. J p w ~ p" f 3 ^ -0 .a c. r c r 3 3 Cl, C v ai~.= ,x C ~ f ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 3 a.- `~d, o ~ ci c~.~ ~ f.; ~ N~ A7 C ~ : p~ O m ~ O ~~7 7 ' ~ ~ ~~@ Q C 9-~ O A : i ~ THIS ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTIf PUBLIC NOTICE NCiTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Gommission 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 VaEI on IMMarch 8, 2004, at 2:00 P.M. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. In Gonsideration of: p reques# far final re+rfew af a variance fram Section 12-61-11-6, Setbacks, Section 12-6H-14: Landscaping and Site Development, and Section 12-6H-11: Parking and Loading Uail TQwn CodE, to allow far a residential addition, located at 303 Gore Creek DrivelLat 7, Black 5, Vail I Village 1$t FiPing, and setting forth detaifs in regard thereto. Applicant: Ron Hughes, represented by Shepherd Resources, Inc. Planner. Bill Gibsvn A request for final review of a variance from Section 12-6D-6, Setbacks, Vail Town Code, to allow for A residential addition, located at 2434 Charnonix LaneALat 11, Block B, Vail das Schone Filing 1, and setting fiorth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Mark Yare, represented by VAg, lnc. Planner: Bill Gibsan A request for final review of a variance frcam Section 12-6H-6, SetbackS, Section 12-61-1-9, site ~ coverage, and Section 12-61-1-10: L.andscaping and Site Development Vail Town Code, to allow for A residentiai addition, located at 303 Gore Creel€ Drive/Lo# 8, B9ock 5, Vail Village l5t Filing, and setting forth details in regard thereta. Applicant: Erickson Shirley, represented by K.H. Webb Architects P.C. Ptanner: Bill Gibson A request far final review of a variance from Chapter 14-6, Grading Standards, Vail Town Code, to allow for retaining walls in excess af six (fi) feet in height, lacated at Tract K, Glen Lyon Subcfivision and Unplatted ParceBs, a mare camplete metes and bounds description is available at the Community Develapment Departement and setting forth details in regard #hereta. Applicant: Vail Resorts Deve4opment, represented by Braun and Assoeiates Planner: Bill Gibson A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Councii for a text amendment to Section 12- 71-1-3, Permitfied and Gondit'rnnal Uses; First Floar or Street Level and Section 12-71-3, Permitted and Canditianal Uses; First Floer and Street Level, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Arnendment, Vail Town Code, to allorrv fioe temporary rEal estate sales offices on the fiirst flaor or stree# level of a building, in the Lianshead I & 2, Mixed Use zone district, and setting forth details in regard thereto. I Applicant: Vail Resorts Developmen# Campany, eepresented by Braun and Associates Planner. George Ruther ~ A request for final review of a variance from Section CG1,12-78-15, Site Coverage, Vail Town Code, ta allow for additiona4 site coverage, facated at 230 Bridge StreeULot B, Black 5-C, Vaii Village 1 St FiGing, and settsng fortFr details in regard thereto. Applicant: Rodrrey E. Slifer Planner; Warren Carnpbeli ~ The applications and informa#ion about the proposals are availabke for public inspection during regular office hours in the project planner's affice, lacated at the Town of Vail Community Develapment Qepartment, 75 South Frontage Raad. Th@ public is invited to attend praject orientation and the site +risits that precede the public hearing in the Town o# Vail Commuraity Development Department. Please call 479-2138 for information. Sign language interpretation available upon ret#uest with 24-hour notification. Please ca16 479- 2356, Telephane far the Hearing Impaired, for informatian. Thfs nfltice published in the Vail Daily on February 20, 2004. ~ i ~