Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-0726 PECPLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL GOMMfSS1ON t~ PUBLIC MEETING ~~ ~ Monday, July 26, 2Q04 • PROJECT ORIENTATION -Community Development Dept. PUBLIC WELCOME 12:00 pm MEMBERS PRESENT Doug Cahill Ghas Bernhardt George Lamb Rollie Kjesbo David Viele Bill Jewitt MEMBERS ABSENT Ann Gunion Site Visits 1. Tyrolean - 4p0 East Meadow Drive, Unit 9 2. Manor Vail - 596 VaiC Valley Drive 3. Vail Amoco - 934 South Frontage Road 4. Residences at Briar Patch Condos - 139© Buffehr Creek Road Driver: Warren NOTE: ff the PEC hearing extends until 6:OE} p.m., the Commission may break for dinner from 6:00 - 6:30 p.m. Public liearinq -Town Counciil Chambers 2:00 pm A request for a final review of a miner subdivision, pursuant to Chapter 13-4, Minor Subdivisions, Vail Town Cvde, to amend the locations of the existing building envelopes, located at 139(} Buffehr Creek RoadlLots A, B, C, Residences at Briar Patch Cvndvs and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Residences of Briar Patch Flomeowner Association, represented by Zehren and Associates Planner: Bill Gibson ACTION: Tabled to August 9, 2004 MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Viele VQTE: 6-0-0 Warren Campbell made a presentation per the staff memorandum. Tirn Losa of Zehren & Associates made a brief presentation based upon the application materials submitted. The Commission asked the applicant for clarification on the details of the proposal. There was same concern expressed about the height of the buildings as they moved south. Staff stated that the height maximum is thirty-three feet in the Residential Cluster zone district. Bill Jewitt stated he has no issues with the GRFA or site coverage, taut is concerned about pushing the envelopes so close to the ridge south). There was also concern expressed over the exact shape of building envelopes B and C due to the possibilities of owners changing or the DRB does not approve the conceptual designs then it would be necessary to return before the PEC to re-plat 2. A request for a final review of a variance, pursuant to Chapter 12, Variances, Vail Tawn Cade, from ' Section 12-6H-6, Setbacks, Vail Town Code, to allow far a minor alteration, located at 440 East Meadow Drive, Unit 9, (Tyrolean Inn)ILot ~ D, Block 5, Vail Village Filing 1 and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Tyrolean Chalet, LLC., represented by Mauriello Planning Group, LLC Planner: Matt Gennett ACTION: Approved IVIOTION: I~jesbo SECOND: Lamb VOTE: 5-1-4 (Cahill opposed') Staff gave a presentation per the staff memorandum. Dominic Mauriello of the Mauriello Planning Group, LLC, representing the applicant, detailed the project through a presentation. He discussed the architectural goals they are trying to achieve by using an existing building. Bill Jewitt asked the applicant the reason for the variance request. The applicant said it will help with several architectural features they wish to create. Rollie Kjesbo asked staff about the history of the site in terms of its legal non-conforming status and previous variance granted to properties which are legally non-conforming. Several commissioners stated that the design aspect must be viewed in conjunction with the variance request on the existing building. 3. A request for a recommendation to the Vaii Town Council for the establishment of Special Development District No. 38, Manor Vail Lodge, to allow tar the redevelopment of the Manor Va! Lodge, and a request far a conditional use permit to allow for the construction of Type III Employee Housing Units, pursuant to Section 12-6H-3, Vail Town Code, and a request for a conditional use permit, pursuant to Chapter 12-6H-3, Public or Commercial Parking Facilities or Structures, Vail Tawn Code, to allow for the sale of 30 parking spaces, located at 595 Vail Valley DrivelLots A, B, & C, Vail Village 7th Filing, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Manor Vail, represented by Zehren and Associates Planner: Warren Campbell ACTION: Tabled to August 9, 2Q04 IUIOTION: Rollie SECOND: Viele VOTE: 6-0-0 Staff gave a presentation per the staff memorandum for a work session and noted changes in the project. Chuck Madison of East West Partners gave an introduction tv the project, an overview of comments from a previous meeting, an overview of entire project, and a summary of public benefits. Brian Sipes of Zehren Associates presented the proposed plans and discussed issues, such as building height, proposed parking, and architecture. Jim Lamaist, representing Vail Village Homeowners, detailed the neighborhood concerns regarding pedestrian access and tennis courts. He suggested a public benefit could be to upgrade the streetscape along East Gore Creek Drive and Vail Valley Drive and linking with pathway into Ford Park. Jan Board, representing All Seasons Cvndomiisium Association, stated that the bulk and mass of the project was out of character with the neighborhood. He asked that the project be treated under the requirements of the High Density Multi-family District. Mr. Kemmer, resident of All Seasons, spoke of the view corridor in the building and stated that the public benefits should extend to the entire neighborhood. Commissioner Viele how many mezzanine levels were in the buildings and asked if the roof height could be lowered. He stated that the bulk and mass as seen similarly in Lionshead and other areas in Vail. Commissioner Bernhardt stated that bulk and mass has always been a problem and feels it has not been addressed with the revised plans. He could also not support the selling of parking spaces i# there is parking in the setbacks. Commissioner Jewitt would like to see a traffic study because he believes that the redevelopment will greatly increase the traffic. He suggested a bigger structure and thinks for-sale parking should be open to the general public. He s#ated that he would like more flexibility and creativity in the project. He stated that the Town of Vail should be paying for public development projects, but feels streetscape improvements would be in line with the project. He concluded by stating that the height blocks too much of the Gore Range from the immediate area. Commissioner Kjesbo stated that height. has always been his concern, but agreed that the roof should not change and the mezzanine level should be removed. He did not have a problem with additional GRFA in the setback due to the pre-existing condition of the building. Commissioner Lamb would like to see artful streetscape in conjunction for the project and would like to see the tennis courts maintained. Bulk and mass are sail! issues that need to be resolved for the project. Tum around feature is a positive aspect of the project Commissioner Cahill would like the project to be a part of the neighborhood and to be developed with a 48 toot building height maximum. The infill development is out of character and would like the buildings to be separate and would like to see a traffic study to see if the turnaround helps the increased traffic. 4. A request for a final review of variance, pursuant to Chapter 11-1fl, Variances and Appeals, Vail Town Code, fora variance from Chapter 11-6-4, Building Identification Signs, to allowfora newfree standing building identification sign, located at 934 South Frontage Road/unplatted and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: George Brodin, represented by Mauriello Planning Group, LLC Planner: Warren CampbellfClare Sloan ACTION: Approved MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Bernhardt VOTE: 6-0-0 Staff gave a presentation per the staff memorandum. Dominic Mauriello of Mauriello Planning Group, representing George Brodin owner of Lionshead Amoco, described the proposed sign noting the reduction in height, size and the elimination of the internal illumination. Peter Knobel from the public stated his opinion that the sign size needs to remain as it is existing. The Commission felt that this business is different than others in Sign District 1 as it is more vehicle oriented. in addition, the existing sign has been there for many years and the new one is slightly smaller. The Commission was in favor of the proposed sign as presented based on the criteria for a variance an page 8 of the memo. 5. A request for a final review of a major exterior alteration or modification, pursuant to Secfivn 12- 7H-7, Vail Town Code, and a request for a final review of a conditional use permit, pursuant to Chapter 12-16, Vail Town Code, to allow for the construction of the Lionshead Core Site Hotel and the operation on a new private skier club, new lodge dwelling units and conference facilities and meeting rooms on the first floor or street level floor of a structure, located at Fi75 Lionshead Place/(a complete legal description is available for inspection at the Town of Vail Community Development Department upon request}. Applicant: Vail Corporation Planner: George Rather ACTION: Recommendation of approval, with modifications, of the proposed taxi amendment MOTION: Viele SECOND: Lamb VOTE: G-O-0 Staff presented the project per the memo and asked for direction regarding the amendments to the Lionshead Master Redevelopment Plan, The Commission requested that staff strike the words "dull compliance". Dave Viele would like to see Tvwn Council included in any review of these proposals believing that cheeks and balances are necessary. The Design Review Board would be just a recommendation in the early stages of a request under these proposed changes. ,lay Peterson spoke to the fact that Town Council gave clear direction in 1099 that the PEC would have final say on all major exterior alterations. fi. A request for a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 12-6H-3, Conditional Uses; High Density Multiple Family, Vail Town Code, to allow for a public utility and public services use, located at 5Q1 North Fron#age Road {Solar Vail Condominiums)1 Lot 8, Block 2„ Vail Patata Patch Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard to. Applicant: Verizan Wireless, represented by Kelley Harrison, Clvsser Consulting Planner: Clare Sloan ACTION: Tabled to August 23, 2004 MOTION: Viele SECOND: Lamb VOTE: 6-0-0 7. A request for a variance from Section 12-21-14, Restrictions in Specific Zones On Excessive Slopes, Vail Town Code, to allow for the construction of driveways and surface parking in excess of 10% of the total site area, located at 2388 Garmisch Drive/Lot 9, Block G, Vail dos Schone Filing ~, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Snow Now, LLC Planner: Warren Campbell ACTION: Tabled to August 9, 200 MOTION: Viele SECOND: Lamb VOTE: fi-0-0 8. Approval of minutes ACTION: Approved MOTION: Lamb SECOND: Kjesbo VOTE: 5-0-1 (Bernhardt abstained) 9. Information Update • Joint meeting: DRB, PEC and Council on. August 3, 2004, at 8:30 a.m. Donovan Park 10. Adjournment MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Viele VOTE: 6-0-0 The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend the project orientation and the site visits that precede the public hearing in the Town of Vail Community Development Department. Please call (970} 479-2138 for additional information. Sign language interpretation is available upon request with 24-hour notification. Please call (970} 479- 2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. Community Development Department Published, July 23, 2004 in the Vail Daily. PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION -- - ~f PUBLIC MEETING ''~~~~, . Monday, July 26, 2004 PUBLISHED PROJECT ORIENTATION -Community Development Dept. PUBLIC VIIELCOME 12:00 pm MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Site Visits 1. Tyrolean - 400 East Meadow Drive, Unit 9 2. Manor Vail - 595 Vail Valley Drive 3. Vail Amoco - 934 Sauth Frontage Road 4. Residences at Briar Patch Condos - 1390 Buffeter Creek Road Driver: George NOTE: If the PEC hearing extends until 6:l)0 p.m., the Commission may break for dinner from G:00 - 6:30 p.m. Public Hearinq -Town Council Chambers 2:00 pm 1. A reques# for a final review of a minor subdivision, pursuant to Chapter 13-4, Minor Subdivisions, Vail Town Code, to amend the Locations of the existing building envelopes, located at 1390 Buffeter Creek Roadfl_ots A, B, C, Residences at Briar Patch Condos and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Residences of Briar Patch Homeowner Association, represented by Zehren and Planner: MOTION: Associates Bill Gibson SECOND: VOTE: 2. A request for a final review of a variance, pursuant to Chapter 12, Variances, Vail Tawn Cade, from Section 12-6H-6, Setbacks, Vail Town Code, to allow for a minor alteration, located a# 400 East Meadow Drive, Unit 9, (Tyrolean Inn}lLot 5 D, Block 5, Vail Village Filing 1 and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Tyrolean Chalet, LLC., represented by Mauriello Planning Group, LLC Planner: Matt Gennett MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: 3. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Tawn Council for the establishment of Special Development District Na, 30, Manor Vail Lodge, to allow for the redevelopment of the Manor Vail Lodge, 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 Code, and a request for a conditional use permit, pursuant to Chapter 12-6H-3, Public or Commercial Parking 1=acilities ar Structures, Vail Town Code, to allow far the sale of 30 parking spaces, located at 595 Vail Valley DrivelLats A, B, & C, Vail Village 7th Filing, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Manor Vail, represented by Zehren and Associates Planner: Warren Campbell MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: • 4. A request for a final review of variance, pursuant to Chapter 11-10, Variances and Appeals, Vail Town Code, for a variance from Chapter 11-6-4, Building Identifcation Signs, to allowfora newfree standing building identification sign, located at 934 South Frontage Roadlunplatted and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: George Brodie, represented by Mauriello Planning Group, LLC Planner: Warren CampbelllClare Sloan MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: 5. A request for a final review of a major exterior alteration or modification, pursuant to Section 12- 7H-7, Vail Town Code, and a request for a final review of a conditional use permit, pursuant to Chapter 12-16, Vail Town Code, to allow for the construction of the Lionshead Core Site Hotel and the operation on a new private skier club, new lodge dwelling units and conference facilities and meeting rooms on the first floor or street level floor of a structure, located at 675 Lionshead Place!{a complete legal description is available far inspection at the Town of Vail Community Development Department upon request). Applicant: Vail Corporation Planner: George Ruttier MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: 6. A request for a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 12-6H-3, Conditional Uses; High Density Multiple Family, Vail Town Code, to allow for a public utility and public services use, located at 501 North Frontage Road {Solar Vail Condominiums}I Lot 8, Block 2, Vail Potato Patch Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard to. Applicant: Verizon Wireless, represented by Kelley Harrison, Closser Consulting Planner: Clare Sloan MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: TABLED TO August 23, 2U04 7. A request for a variance from Section 12-21-14, Restrictions In Specific Zones ©n Excessive 8. Approval of minutes MOTION; SECOND: VOTE: Slopes, Vail Town Code, to allow for the construction of driveways and surface parking in excess of 10% of the total site area, located at 2388 Garmisch Drive/Lot 9, Block G, Vail dos Schone Filing 2, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Snow Now, LLC Planner: Warren Campbell MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: TABLED TO August 9, 2004 9. Information Update 10. Adjournment MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: The applications and information about the proposals are available far public inspection during regular office hours at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend the project orientation anal the site visits that precede the public hearing in the Town of Vail Community Development Department. Please call {970} 479-2138 for additional information. Sign language interpretation is available upon request with 24-hour notification, Please call {970) 479- 2356, Telephone for the Hearing impaired, far information. Community Development Department 'Published, July 23, 2004 in the Vail Daily. THIfi ITEM MAY AFFECT YQUR PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail will hold a public hearing in accordance with Section 12-3-6, Vail Town Code, on July 26, 2004, at 2:00 PM in the Town of Vail Municipal Building, in consideration of: A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for the establishment of Special Development District No. 38, Manor Vail Lodge, to allow for the redevelopment of the Manor Vail Lodge, and a request for a conditional use permit to allow far the construction of Type I I I Employee Housing Units, pursuant to Section 12-6H-3, Vail Town Code, and a request for a final review of a conditional use permit, pursuant to Chapter 12-6H-3, Private Clubs and Givic, Cultural and Fraternal Organizations, Vail Town Code, to allow for the sale of 30 parking spaces, located at 595 Vail Valley DrivelLots A, B, & C, Vail Village Filing 7, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Manor Vail, represented by Zehren and Associates Planner: Warren Campbell A request for a final review of variance, pursuant to Chapter 11-10, Variances and Appeals, Vail Town Code, for a variance from Chapter 11-6-4, Building Identification Signs, to allowfor a newfree standing building identification sign, located at 934 South Frontage Roadlunplatted and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: George Brodie, represented by Mauriello Planning Group, LLC Planner: Warren CampbelUClare Sloan A request far a final review of a minor subdivision, pursuant to Chapter 13-4, Minor Subdivisions, Vail Town Code, to amend the locations of the existing building envelopes, located at 1394 Buffeter Creek RoadlLots A, B, C, Residences at Briar Patch Condos and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Residences of Briar Patch Homeowner Association, represented by Zehren and Associates Planner: Bill Gibson A request for a final review of a variance, pursuant to Chapter 12, Variances, Vail Town Code, from Section 12-6H-6, Setbacks, Vail Town Code, to allow for a minor alteration, located at 400 East Meadow Drive, Unit 9, (Tyrolean Inn)lLot 5 D, Block 5, Vail Village Filing 1 and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Tyrolean Chalet, LLC., represented by Mauriello Planning Group, LLC Planner: Matt Gennett The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend project orientation and the site visits that precede the public hearing in the Town of Vail Community Development Department. Please call (970} 479-2138 for additional information. Sign language interpretation is available upon request with 24-hour notification. Please call (970} 479-2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. Published July 9, 2004, in the Vail Daily. ~~_ ~~~ PROPERTY ~~~~~~'~ • J h 2 ~ pppp ~N ~~~'~ ~Z~c~v Z fA W >, ~ U 0~ ~~ (7 V ~ O Z Z Q2 a c~7~v ~ ~ z m ~° ` ~ _ ~~ ^m o ®a o w 4 0 ' U » o o =T? W ~'n ~ ¢ (n ~ ~^ 6 N ~_° .., C c`oG ~._ ~ ~ A coin eev 6'_ dL p^ m ~` } ~ C Ea ~ Da ~i9 N d ~9 ~ ip~ U Z ~ tpq yLL~ m- R my ca~~ '~ m` m ~ 49 E ~B V+C G7 m~ o~ ~ ~ ~jw~ cm. H a w~ a rn °cn c ~ zJ Z vwi mm(1]~~ wo~~m Wis. ~E ~ E a' p =U f0o @ ~m aiu a@~~ ~~ acso'= w~ ¢ ~N.~45atG ~ wC ° Q C~+ ~'"' ~~ ~~ OGm p ~ _" w ~ o}Emm ~ C7 YE `EE z ~~ ' ~~ mom"'N cO ~ m ~4 Wp QQ m ? ooet m h~ - a1Oi C5 ~ll~j d v ~ n rn Q j c c t}~~¢ ~ m0 tiE ~ vl Mc~i ~`~ o` Zf ~i ~~ ~-voi, N m~ 4 z .~,~.~ o ~ ~, ~ ~ O ~' ~ ~ E~ ~ ~ C1y v~ +..? ~n3oOdY Qp pV Nrj C 3 ? N ~. ~ ~"p, y ~~ V=C1 N 7avoczy ~3DCp~j W J o WQQa ~~, ~~~m}~ d`CCp ~~~ NJ R m L a II mSN~c"coo ~C~3 =w~01~@~31M o®~Tioc=_~vi-TCa p,N ~7 t9 .. m~ UU11 C in qF _~. ~~Q ~~ ~a~"~3°.Z ~o o ~,~ a'c ~O do ~~ Ea'a ~b WEa H~h ~- ctiw~UUlm,~ nTfL'tr 4i F- 4. Q 4-+ C] ~ ~ ~ p ~ ~ Q ~ ~^ ~ ~' C N ~ O ~a, U V ~ ~ X ~ '-' Q N v, ~ i ~ ~ ' ~ O . ~ Q ~ a L ~ v , ~ . r..o Or E-/ ~~ Q] 4.-i ~ Q ~ . y Vl ~ ~> 3 ~ •~ ai p u ~ :a ~ -~ ~ ~ _ •~ ' •~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ W ~ ?; -~ ~ y ~° ~ o °o ~ a -c 3, ~ ~ .~ • ~ c,a ~U;~z`" ~ ~ a ~~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ c~ w. w, ~ O ~ L ~ CL ~ ~ ~ ~ =, A+ " ~ ~ o ~ "7 ~, ~ ~ o ~ ~ "~ a ~ .c "~ ~ ~ c y 3 ~ m ~ „ Q, a ~ -°_ G v ~ ~. b ~" ~ ~ ~ -a ~° ~ ~ ~ ^ ~ ~ ~u-a^ ~ ~ fl- ~ 3 a~ ~. ,~ ~~ -rs ~ ~ o~:a~,~?~ W ~ ,~ :~ ~ ~, ° G b ,~ ~ . a~ v ~ ~ ~ ~'~~ o ~ ~ ~ a a~ i , . o~Qb°~~a ~ c a~ te ` ~`" ~ ~ {S v b r . . ~ ~a~~~~qx ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~-~- a o Ca ~ ~ ° a E~ V N ~ 4 'LS t~# a~ ay C~ a O [~i >, 0 ~-, r c~3 v; ° co 3 c m e' ~ ~'' .~ r ~ ~ - ~ a a ~a ~ ~o u i N o .~+ C ~ oui >'~ U ° ~ .ma m° m4 y b~ mm Ef° 0 0 "~ 0 ~s °' S U ~® dvi ~ C Fc ~~ o d., mJLO ~ ZO 7 ~ ~= f17 ~ C ffi ~¢ ~ ® Q m ~W Q c o oo N gm o.k 'o m s a ~_'-? O_ a t aV ~ a cci oa Uo+ a o ~ ~ ~ c 2 NasmO ~ c ~ ~ <.~. 3'a F' ~ m o m~ T F m 4 m m mO a~ a m ~ ro- aNJ rt~ T~ ~ .V. „Q ~ ~ c~ Cf] ~ O ~ iti C N L 0 .~ x a~ 0 .~ ,~ 0 U T <_ v °- c ° 9ymaa ~ ~ R O U ~ m N GD 9Q~~d:V OwN C m N~,C N ~'Y~+C ~fn v 4 ~J N ~ O jp V'gi4 UC Np '° ° N 60LJ am ~RO,a O`CN Z1 C N ~a,~~dcm°ao~ ~4~~~~c<"Eo~ .~~; D~Lt~C pad j~ o "a o~~°€+~c: E o~ d p C'd ti V ~.o~BaE~ammEo~m ~Gn LNa Oda OG ~o=oU pC ro~mpa Q ~f+~ U a m d N td ~ ~ C m ~`:' -' ~ ~: g ~ :~ ~; ~ ~ `~ ~~d6.'. C4 ~ .~ ,C . : ~q' C.7N ~~~.~~. • ~~ m ~~ m t ~Z~~ < ~, ~ i:l M ~~ a ~ -nC~§'g c°' 3' J ~ ~ ~ , ' ~ 9p. A. Wm~.Ll1 p Q)072~=. ;~$Sa ~L.ND Z~..3~ v .~~yp w._Q P w ~ o °rnm '~ 13 ~9 ;i3 Q.~~g7w G mrv~."-^c ~Sv7a ~$~. Nmo~n~ m w o ~;n `-pTw~~~C7 °+ (J1 Gry?d ~C a w.e.N ~N~ lrim +Am~a+.C4 ~.~d ~0a[3 ~y/y~ N @ W y C 29 p~ ior,. C/ C N 6 2x~ [[S6 ~'J "~ QJ C d 7,~ p @ ~"' O J N~~°NO ~Z 7N~ ~Sl ~'j~°~NT C Sp-f ~~~m v_p3 d am~G m~'~~ . rs- N~ { m~a viv a °19 r ~' `~a~f ~ m ~ , W O wp Z ~z V W ~ ~ J m d ~ as H [~ • • C/.' Q ~~~ b ~ E~ ~ U ~ ,~.~ ~ O ~ ~ W 0. ~ ~ ~, ~ C~ ~ o ~ w a, c/a U dCQr~' P]~ N ~ R~Ymp~ C o 9 N m~ j 'aim N` U ^~ _ ~ y-~mW ~ ~ Sm6h ..~0 m m ~.~¢mc~m, E $~QQ~q ^ ~~mpy aq ~ m yy£ ~0. m 2~ C~~9 vOC ~ [Ij C?mp~~ mC c°'®m W ~ ES E~~~,~yrn am A¢a~c~ E ~ m~~--ME m`m °~U3~f0 m ~ ~ ~ 'cN oc~ ~ rm~m o.n !W md~c `$ Q7JU ¢t c~ w~ry~C 7•$~QW ~~~tlVO 'g~ ~~ W O ~~~CpJ~2i 06 =sC~~ ~ G~tl~ NCO n5~~y°.•C CC L: 4G"-"mU'~C! ~ Ip ~- ~W m a~~un¢.C ~~3.-om np~ m d Cd ~Uv ~Na4 a~ d ~9da~ 44 a ~ ~ ~~. ° O ~ ~ ~ C €~ C~~-j C ~ O O ~ ~ ~ dQ a .Vi S.] L"` . U c+Y >! ~ 6? ~ ~ ~ cC L vii p., ...~ ~ U ~ ~ ~ ~ p ~ ~ •. - -, coo ~ ~ ~3 ~ s -o -~ ~ ~ s. c ~'W•~ ~ vi ~ ~ ~ rs ° ~ ~ +~ C? m7 © O b ~ ~N N ~ C ~ ~ C ~ ~~ rte. C L IL? ~ va '" O ~BJ •~ t~J ~ ~ vl 4J ~' ~ ti r C3 ~ .D ~ ° '4., N ~ ~ O r.S ~ ~'43 ~j C 3 r-i ;~ b ~` y ~ "' i ~ ° n '-' 01.'43 ~ ~~ ~ •~ ~' L ,~ ~ ~ ~ C Cd > ~ ~ ao .~ 3 o r~ ~ m. C c u c c~ i~ u Q •Y a. a.~ ~~_ br, ~ ° ~ ~ a~ ~ cr >, ~ a~ 'C3 • GQ yr G ~ 3 N O'm`t~~ C ~ O ~ ~ ~ en .~ ."'-- .D ~ e3 ~ 'r3 a-i Q .~ ~ ~° CL E`n V H ~ `~EfOb~~ C7i'G ~~dO C a dt~v_~.g' m CF W R m ~ ~ W p77 ~.r 3 c~ ~ ~~~~_ m C ~~ W ~ W N ~ C ? 7 « O dN ~Oy~ fl uj ~L pUUO~yC ~V 0 i m © m ~~'~ mLmW aU_ ~n= u E ~ `ci. ~~€moa~o a~~ ~4O ~~dO~ ~~Cn oUu.'o m m.- sd c W m~ nrOcv w W UJ ~~',7 apm~~ wc~ y~ ~C Cq~~~~~ ~~« mg as~tr~.aapEpm mc~ UAm ~af.,~_mU3 nCm 0 a ~, 0 T `~ (`1 .~ ^^a /W to O ti a N O~ 3 4 O N L 6F .L: O .~ X ~I O ~G .... •'...C~~ ~ti• •. ~~ a: ~ ~ :$ r~ W = :U (,} ~~ a =,~, Y/-1 ~~• ,tP • MEMORANDUM T©: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: July ~6, 2004 SUBJECT: A request for a final review of a minor subdivision, pursuant to Chapter 13-4, Minor Subdivisions, Vail Town Code, to amend the locations of the existing building envelopes, located at 1390 Buffehr Creek RoadlLots A, B, C, and D, Residences at Briar Patch and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant. Residences of Briar Patch Homeowner Association, represented by Zehren and Associates Planner: Bill Gibson I. SUMMARY The purpose of the meeting is for a worksessian discussion afa minor subdivision to amend the existing bui[ding envelopes and development standards for envelopes A, B, C, and D of the Residences at Briar Patch, 1390 Buffehr Creek Raad. [I. DESCRIRTI4N 4F REQUEST The applicant, Residences of Briar Patch Homeowner Assaciatian, represented by Zehren and Associates,. is requesting to amend the locations of the existing building envelopes, located at 1390 Buffehr Creek RaadlLats A, B, C, and D, Residences at Briar Patch. A vicinity map of the site has been attached for reference (attachment A). These proposed amendments include changes to building envelope sizes, building envelope locations, site coverage limits, and grass residential floor area (GRFA} limits. A more complete description of the applicant's request has been attached for reference (attachment B}. A copy of a Residences of Briar Patch Homeowner Assaciatian letter has been attached for reference (attachment B}. Please note that of the items listed in the HOA's letter, only the amendments to the building envelopes are being addressed as part of this application. A proposed site plan has also been attached for reference (attachment C }. The applicant is scheduled to return to the Planning and Environmental Commission on August 9, 2004, far the final review of a separate variance request to allow for construction on slopes of 40% or greater; and for the final review of the specific amendments to the plat for the Residences and Briar Patch. r C] 1 III, BACKGROUND The Residences at Briar Patch were originally approved as a Planned Unit Development (PUD) under Eagle County jurisdiction. In 1981 the Residences at Briar Patch were annexed into the Town of Vail and zoned Residential Cluster (RC}. A copy of the Residences at Briar Patch Annexation Agreement has been attached for reference (attachment D}. The Residences at Briar Patch project has been modified through a series of amendments and currently consists of five single-family home building envelopes and one tri-piex building envelope. Currently, the tri-plea building and structures on building envelopes D and E have been constructed. Building envelopes A, B, and C are currently undeveloped. Many of the development standards for the Residences at Briar Patch project are prescribed by the plat of the property rather than by the Residential Cluster (RC} zoning regulations (i.e. building envelopes, open space, density, employee housing, GRFA, site coverage, landscaping, building height, parking, etc.}. Many of the development standards recorded on the plat are more restrictive than the standards originally approved by Eagle County and the provisions of the Residential Cluster zoning. A copy of the Third Amendment to the Residences at Briar Patch Plat has been attached for reference (attachment E), IV. ROLES OF REVIEWING BC}DIES Planning and Environmental Commission: Action: The Planning and Environmental Commission is responsible for final approval, approval with conditions, or denial of a minor subdivision. Design Review Board: Action: The Design Review Board has NO review authority of a minor subdivision, but must review any accompanying Design Review application. Town Council; Actions of Design Review Board or Planning and Environmental Commission may be appealed to the Town Council or by the Town Council. Town Council evaluates whether or not the Design Review Board or Planning and Environmental Commission erred with approvals or denials and can uphold, uphold with modifications, or overturn the board's decision. Staff: The staff is responsible for ensuring that all submittal requirements are provided and plans conform to the technical requirements of the Zoning Regulations. The staff also advises the applicant as to compliance with the design guidelines. Staff provides a staff memo containing background on the property and provides a staff evafuatlon of the project with respect to the required criteria and findings, and a recommendation on approval, approval with conditions, or denial. Staff also facilitates the review process. 2 V. APPLICABLE PLANNING f3C1CUMENTS Town of Vail Zoning Regulations Article 12-6E: Residential Clusfer (RC) fit-&E-fi: PURP©SE: The residential cluster district is intended to provide sites forsingle-family, two-family, and multiple-family dwellings at a density not exceeding six (6J dwelling units peracre, together with such public facilities as may appropriately be located in the same districf. The residential cluster district is intended to ensure adequate light, air, privacy and open space for each dwelling,. commensurate with residential occupancy, and to maintain the desirable residential qualities of the district by establishing appropriate site development standards. Chapter 12-21: Hazard Regulations 12-Zfi-70: DEVELOPMEAIT RESTRICTED: A. No structure steal! be built in any flood hazard zone or red avalanche hazard area. No structure shall be built on a slope of forty percent (4(1'%J or greater except in Single-Family Residential, Two-Family Residential, or Two-Family Primary/Secondary Residential Zone Districts. The term "structure'° as used in this Section does not include recreational structures that are intended for seasonal use, not including residential use, Town of Vail Subdivision Regulations fi3-1-2: PURPUSE: C. Specific Purposes: These regulations are furtherintended to serve the following specific purposes: ~. To inform each subdivider of the standards and criteria by which development proposals wit! be evaluated, and to provide information as to the type and extent of improvements required. 2. To provide far the subdivision of property in the future without conflict with development on adjacent land. 3. To protect and conserve the value. of land throughout the Municipality and the value of buildings and improvements on the land. 4. To ensure that subdivision of properly is in compliance with the Town°s zoning ordinances, to achieve a harmonious, convenient, workable refatr'onship among land uses, consistent with Town development objectives. 5. To guide public and private policy and action in order to pravr'de adequate and efficient transportation, water, sewage, schools, parks, playgrounds, recreation, and other public requirements and facilities and generally to provide that public facilities will have sufficient capacity to serve the proposed subdivision. 6. To provide for accurate legal descriptions of newly subdivided land and to establish reasonable and desirable construction design standards and procedures. ?. To prevent the pollution of air, streams and ponds, to assure adequacy of drainage facilities, fo safeguard the water table and to encourage the wise use and management of natural resources throughout the Town in order to preserve the integrity, stability and beauty of the community and the value of the land. 3 13-3~4: CC)IVfMISS10N REVIEW OF APPLICATIQIV; CRITERIA: The burden of proof shall rest with the applicant to shave thaf the application is in compliance with the intent and purposes of this Chapter', the Zoning C3rdinance and other pertinent regulations that the Planning and Environmental Commission deems applicable. Due consideration shall be given to the recommendatiansmadc by public agencies, utility companies and other agencies consulted under subsection 93-3-3C above. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall review the application and consider its appropriateness in regard to Town policies relating to subdivision control, densities proposed, regulations, ordinances and resolutions and other applicable documents, environmental integrity and compatibility with the surrounding land uses and other applicable documents, effects an the aesthetics of the Town. Town of Vail Land Use Plan The Town of Vail Land Use Plan designates this site a Medium Density Residential (MDR). This land use designation is described by the Tawn of Vail Land Use Plan as fa1lows: The medium density residential category includes housing which would typically be designed as attached units with common walls. Densities in this category would range tram 3 to 74 dwelfing units per buildable acre. Additional types of uses in this category would r`nclude private recreational facilities, private parking facilities and institutional/public uses such as parks and open space, churches, and fire stations. VI. SITE ANALYSIS Site size: Buifdable site area; Zoning; Land Use Plan Designation; Current Land Use; Hazards: C-evelaoment Standards Building Envelope A B C D E Existing Triplex. Total 353,030 sq. ft. (8.10 acres} 105,130 sq. ft. (2.41 acres) Residential Cluster {RC) Medium Density Residential Residential Rockfall and Slopes >_40°!0 Unit Type Single Family Single Family Single Family Single Family Single Family Three Family Eight Units Plat Allowed Envelope Area 3,844 sq.ft. 4,(}61 sq.ft. 4,786 sq.ft. 2,388 sq,ft. 2,380 sq.ft. 6,300 sq.ft. 23,759 sq.ft. ~Propased Envelope Area. 4,015 sq.ft. 5,804 sq.ft. 5,601 sq.ft. 2,501 sq_ft. No change Na change 28,781 sq.ft. • 4 • • • Building Envelope A B C Q E Existing Triplex T©tal Buiiding Envelope A B C D E Existing Triplex Tota I Residential Cluster Allowed GRFA nla nla nla Na nfa n/a 26,283 sq.ft. t.+1,125 (27,402 sq.ft.) Residential Cluster Allowed Site Coverage nfa nla nfa n/a nfa n/a 88,25$ sq. ft. Plat Allowed GRFA 3,470 sq.ft. +225 (3,695 sq,ft.) 3,470 sq. ft. +225 (3,695 sq.ft.) 3,470 sq. ft. +225 (3,695 sq.ft..) 2,790 sq.ft. +225 (3,015 sq.ft.) 2,790 sq.ft. +225 {3,015 sq.ft.) 5,650 sq.ft. 21,640 sq,ft. +1,125 (22,765 sq.ft,) Plat Allowed Site Coverage 3,844 sq.ft. 3,572 sq.ft. 3,675 sq.ft. 2,388 sq.ft. 2,380 sq.ft. 6,300 sq.ft. Proposed GRFA (current GRFA rules) 4,379 sq.ft. 4,379 sq.ft. 4,379 sq.ft. 3,549 sq.ft. 3,549 sq.ft. 7,167 sq.ft. 27,402 sq.ft. Protosed Site Coverage 4,015 sq.ft. 5,575 sq.ft. 5,399 sq.ft. 2,801 sq.ft. No change No change 22,110 sq.ft. ~ 26„470 sq.ft. 5 VII VIII. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING Land Use North: Residential South: Residential West: Open Space East: Residential DISCUSSION ITEMS_ Zoning Residential Cluster, Single-Family Residential, and Two-Family PrimaryiSecondary Residential Special Development District #10 Natural Area Preservation Residential Cluster Should the buildino envelopes be enlaraed? Should the building envelopes be reconfiaured? Should a variance be granted to allow a buildina envelope to be reconfiaured? The Planning and Environmental Commission must evaluate the appropriateness of the proposed enlargement of building envelopes A, B, C, and D. The applicant is proposing to straighten an envelope boundary line and enlarge envelope A by encompassing a previously excluded ,portion of land with 40% yr greater slopes. Within the Residential Cluster zone district, construction is not allowed on slopes of 40% or greater; therefore, this specific proposal will require Planning and Environmental Commission approval of a variance. In 1993, a similar variance to allow construction on stapes of 40% or greater was granted for envelopes B, D, and E; however, building envelope A continued to avoid the 4t~% slopes. The 40% stapes on envelopes D and E resulted from construction of the Sandstone Drive road cut. The applicant is proposing to enlarge both envelopes B and C to accommodate future homes. A significant portion of the expansion of these envelopes is located to the south of the existing envelopes. In 1993, the location and configuration of envelopes B and C was discussed during a previous amendment to the Residence at Briar Patch. At that time, the Planning and Environmental Commission required that envelopes l3 and C be relocated 5 feet further away from the south ridge line to their currently approved location. The Planning and Environmental Commission noted concerns about maintaining a "buffer befween the edge of the ridge and the buildings in order to limit the visual impacfofthe buildings from the valleyfloar."Additionally, Staff has concerns if the modifcations to the existing building envelopes will accommodate construction access and staging to the sites without disturbing the 40% or greater slopes adjacent to the building envelopes. The Planning and Environmental Camrnissian should also evaluate the proposed configuration of the envelopes A, B, C, and D. The applicant has not submitted a design review applications for any new structures or building additions on envelopes A, B, C, or D. Therefore, the Planning and Environmental Commission should evaluate the appropriateness of platting building envelopes that so closely follow the configuration of building designs that has root been reviewed or approved by the Tawn of Vail. C] 6 + Should the allowable GRFA be increased? The Planning and Environmental Commission must evaluate the appropriateness of the proposed increases to the allowable GRFA for the Residences a# Briar Patch. While the proposed GRFA limits are within the limits prescribed by the Residential Cluster zoning, they do exceed the limits previously approved by the plat. ©n July ~©, 2004, the Vail Town Council adopted Qrdinance No. 14, Series of 2004, to amend the Town's GRFA regulations. These regulations will become effective on August 2, 2004. Staff wilC be working with the applicant to evaluate the impacts of the GRFA amendments on this proposal. + Should the allowable site coverage be increased'? The Planning and Environmental Commission must evaluate the appropriateness of the proposed increases to the allowable site coverage for the Residences at Briar Patch. While the proposed site coverage limits are within the limits prescribed by the Residential Cluster zoning, they do exceed the limits previously approved by the plat. • Other QroQOSed amendments The Staff recommends that minor `°hause keeping" type amendments be made to the Residences at Briar Patch 'Plat as part of any approval of the applicants proposed amendments. Since the adoption of the Third Amendment to the plat, the Town of Vail zoning regulations have been re-codified and the plat notes are no longer accurately cross-referenced to the appropriate Vail Town Code section numbers. These plat notes should be corrected as part of this plat amendment. IX. APPLICATION CRITERIA The purpose of Title 13, Subdivision Regulations, is intended to ensure that the subdivision is promoting the health, safety and welfare of the community. Pursuant to Section 13-1-2 C, Vail Town Code, the Planning and Environmental Commission will be evaluating this proposal based upon the following criteria: 1. Ta iinform each subdivider of the standards and criteria by which development proposals will be evaluated and to provide information as to the type and extent of improvements required. Staff Response: The subdivider is aware of the standards and criteria by which this proposal is to be evaluated. 2. To provide for the subdivision of property in the future without con#lict with development on adjacent land. Staff Response: As the proposed minor subdivision is an amendment to an existing subdivision, staff does not believe this proposal will create a direc# future conflict with development of adjacent lands. 7 3. To protect and conserve the value of land throughout the Municipality and the value of buildings and improvements on the land. Staff Response: Based upon the 1993 Planning and Environmental Commission's concerns about maintaining a "buffer between the edge of the ridge and the buildings in order to limit fhe visual impact of the buildings from the valley floor; Staff does question if the proposed expansion of the building envelopes to the south may have a negative effect upon the "beauty of the community". 4. Ta ensure that subdivision of property is in compliance with the Town's zoning ordinances, to achieve a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land uses, consistent with Town development objectives. Staff Response: Staff believes the proposed minor subdivision is generally in compliance with the Town's zoning ordinances, with the exception of the proposed construction on slopes of 40% or greater. Based upon the adopted annexation agreements and plat restrictions which limit the development potential of this site to less than that allowed by Residential Cluster zoning, Staff does question if the proposed increases in development potential continue to maintain a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land uses, consistent with Town development objectives. 5. To guide public and private policy and action in order to provide adequate and efficient transportation, water, sewage, schools, parks, playgrounds, recreation, and other public requirements and facilities and generally to provide that public facilities will have sufficient capacity to serve the proposed subdivision. Staff Response: Staff does not believe this proposed minor subdivision will have a significant negative impact on this criterion. 6. To provide far accurate legal descriptions of newly subdivided land and to establish reasonable and desirable construction design standards and procedures. Staff Response: Staff believes this proposed minor subdivision will continue to provide accurate legal descriptions. Based upon the adopted annexation agreements and plat restrictions which limit the development potential of this site to less than that allowed by Residential Cluster zoning; Staff does question if the proposed amendments continue to maintain desirable construction design standards. 7. To prevent the pollution of air, streams and ponds, to assure adequacy of drainage facilities, to safeguard the water table and to encourage the wise use and management of natural resources throughout the Town in order to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the community and the value of the land. • 8 Staff Response: Staff does not believe this proposed minor subdivision will have significant impact on pollution or natural resources. Based upon the 1993 Planning and Environmental Commission's concerns of maintaining a "buffer between the edge of the ridge and the buildings r'n order to limit the visual impact of the buildings from the valley float°, Staff does question if this proposal will have a negative effect upon the beauty of the community. X. ATTACMMEiVTS A. Vicinity map B. Applicant's requests C. Architectural plans D. Residences at Briar Patch Annexation Agreement E. Third Amendment to the Residences at Briar Pa#ch Plat F. Public Notice • c 9 ~: m a E r E B Y- Ca N I e- m m b 4] ~1 D O 11'1 Bil Gibson - C?4Q721'~etferBlGibsanPECMeetg.doc~~~ In reference to The Residences at Briar Patch -Minor Subdivision Application 1. It is proposed to change the existing building envelopes of Parcel A, Parcel B, Parcel C and Parcel D from existing Amendment No. 3. 2. in considering the overall views and aesthetics of the site, the Briar Patch homeowners feel that enlargement of the existing building envelopes wi[I allow for more horizontal massing of the residences within each envelope. That is, the masses of the residences will expand out and along the slope of the site, rather than up vertically, thus preserving views for all Briar Patch homeowners and allowing the homes to "engage" the hillside. With the addition of added landscaping, water features, and rock retaining walls where needed, the homes will. connect further to the site and take on a more aesthetic appeal, which will in turn enhance the homes and surrounding areas, while still allowing for the view corridors down the Valley. 3. Parcel A The proposed change to Parcel A is located on the south side of the building envelope. Tile area in question is the small triangular area of 40°l0+ slope to the south that extends into the existing building envelope. The owner has requested that this triangular area be granted into the new proposed building envelope, so the design of his future home will be more practical and aesthetically pleasing_ 4. Parcel B The proposed change to Parcel B involves enlarging the existing building envelope slightly to the east and west, and somewhat more to the south. This change is proposed due to the preliminary conceptual design of the owner's home and in keeping with the overall aesthetics of the site and neighboring homes (specifically relative to massing) as described above. Parcel C The proposed change to Parcel C involves enlarging the cxisting building envelope to the east and south. This change is proposed due to the preliminary conceptual design of the owner's home anal in keeping with the overall aesthetics of the site and neighboring homes as described above (specifically relative to massing}. It should be noted that, the area which extends to the south is primarily patio and deck. In addition, if the home were to follow the existing building envelope to the east, access to the home would become more difficult. Taking this into consideration, the garage has been located at the top of the building envelope, nearest to the access drive.. Attachment: B 6. Parcel D The proposed change to Parcel D involves enlarging the existing building envelope slightly (five feet) to the west. This change is proposed due to the preliminary conceptual addition that the owner is considering. far his home. It would be in keeping with the overall aesthetics of the site and neighboring homes as described above. Z:12UQ3Y0315791II. Project hifomtatioia103. Regulations and Cadesl(14U721[.etterBilGibsonPEtivMeei~.doc un. zsi~uv~ lc:ua r~s u a:l.s ~r 1 t.J.:'J'~. i iS ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ A554tiE~~'ES= lNC, ,.. ui,,c ° 'rw+++iitiL, :Iki al0ii5 • IJ~NCY1i:bJ'E RIlC}i91'ECi::.E Pro- 6Dx tB76 Awxr. Co~~da BtE36 t970j 5~9i7257 FAY ~J 945.109.7 lti~ ~C5ld~i1C~$ ~Y ~l.11Y0T11CQWIIE['S ~~ThG J . t!1~ n' YY3r ~Sl~.~il} 1 ~o~rd} znd Toy to li~ab4e ~~-acc ~i d4~1 ~L]VL ~_ TLte QK~ner of Farce! ?~~a?~asc~d water fe~atct P3tCl1 at Briar Patch agrc~ 'ta file foIlnv~rin~: ~, o. Q 313 P. 3 Frata:l~~~9 ~~~ ~ ~~ ~~*! gb c ko FLn'tllit the ChG~e~ ?fTn,,..,~.~,,~sc Unit ~ ~C~ ,~. r r.~. ? ~'_~avad Lezch, to : arzvect il:e~~ eat crae4l~-=---- the in;er.'cr cariv~rsion c.~`==-°~. ern The Town Di Vail Ct~dc~ ~" Web Atwell} agrees to elinniuate the ~~~ ngrt~ii~t due to safet}r c~„c~:r.~ ~-zisnd by ~e d*~xzer ref Tw r,;tz~use 3. As pare rsf the single- dy taag con~structtan at FarecEs 'B" and `•C,,, the dcsi~ of tEze near swaIc at a south eud of the existing Townhouses wil! be car!efu31_v Cui~idered with resa~t to vehicle _.. `,:-4C drounc3 [rie e,~iSS'113g T4tivi~iouse5 grid h3vG pu~~~ re drainage frog the exi~tis~.g Tnurr.~crsse Unit_ 1, 2, >_*+~ 3 ~ ?'~.*eel "C " I 4. Tree Owners of Parcel ~i3- (~ .1r.4:_ f'r4perties Ir. L.C. j and Farrei '~C'' (Web Atwell agree is construct Ltivt~ parkiu~, spaces with ~ 9ryF+*ing for Commoa pa~ur~g_ 3. ~~ ~+i18I3 O f FdI"v~ LLy" !r r r. r. ~• ~ g$a Panel ~`C" e~ c'i~+v eii j \J .Jr.ir. i IY~.Ari Ll~ 1L.r. i.r.Lv.~ 1 '" wee to add a ;Iat ar ~e~r cane sauEhern end ai ~-~ sung Townhouse units r"ar iiuw 6iurag~. 6. The {)caner ~sf l~a~ei `P" f,!}avwd S£eeber) will ~ ?~~?~ ti.~W ~~~~.tisible fvr the r^airstetiasice or rep ~ of the ex?sti.u~ drivewa.~ for TE?~ ?~esideuc~, at ~~~: ?'=-r~= 7.. A11 C}wners agree the C?umer ofParcei "A" {David Stetrber} cmt locate ~e drivcvKa_y for Parcel " r llLV VL.i L~ at the t.op o#'the S,itC by the cIcctric box ia~tea,d of b-~ilding a t~ridgc, 8. The Qwncr cif Townh use Unit ~ (David ieacn} will be permitted to build iae prapc~scd aocs osi of - -s enit aiang the saUth ens east sides, alarcb tivi~ as ass,~ciaxed access window for crawl space cc-nversion. ~. .4;i C?wacr agree tp - - :; ~~:;;;~;.;~-~; ;; ;d: gt$er Oavnelx tQ ttse an,y aciditianai Gross .@cssderttiai FEdar Ares {GK~'Aj :hat ~a~ be ailocatcxi uisi~i:, u.e rs~~bornadd, as detcnYxi.AE:u ilt'ui~c[ ~r~to «vrr- {?lhQ C',... ~.j. ~...:rnLYit}Y]fi~!~ ~i~-ti icct liang~_d:; ~~~~ • • t1D:"Lti/LU(14 1G:l1tr Y'A11 •~~~,, ~TUn+. ~~. ~~C~ 7:a~Pr~ Z~E:~EN play ~Sw~Ci~ :'~. C~~~ ~'. ";' r~~m:1~7A • 1.4_ The darner ttztvugh his i i. Efrecbivc the date of office on Iviay i$, iu pay a grura,ted sizare sne~$c j~v vrith rcc~ Sri~t Patch. which w additional A, ae spreadsheen entitled ` a Concepta2l Sifie PZi pay $~~~ ;.ach to#ar~ L~,~„~vL~CI by the Tow property awn;,xs Qf 7 sr ong them. is the f a_ The Owner of Tc ~ciehtxrrhLxr~. ~a ~,~, ur~cssed ?ocatiol fhe existing to+~n request is feasyibl~ ~P'1~4.1 {ilsl.~ tl;~ auu uuusi+.~c:e 4`~" aad "~,'~ tl1C COI~*stI11GtI0A a~ l3_ The fallowing The Rcsidcnces e The ~t~..i'~.~i-~° dated b~28J~4 .David ~` `~:: ~C~eorge Sarate; has a cOnCe~ ~$ard~g peugle trawling A-11 other Qwners as, ~., ttpt to access a lvw~ oEL~ is ~il~ zaariel "D" pro 3e homec~w ers' co11e~VC mC'Ct'1IIg ~ Gcnrect and ASSf}C!~-t~.S' ~, all owners Z e~ccpt David Leach an„d Tort $agard) agree to fall architectural desig.~ aitri ertguZeering fees associated yin~z aunroval for:~ia~ai Plus A,mendmeat 4 tc The Kesidences at 1 include pmpasals to cr~large Bui3d;.n~ ~nvcl.~~:.a, guest assdc±ated design tl~±c+~s as ?~~'+L? ~Qd ,N:±i~;,, *?t;~ 1~~} 8 ~x R~:den;.e~ : ~ri.:ar Faseh Wining ~P~nalysis (6/1104}," aad dated 3~.A= ? S, Zw".~. :a~::d;.,:a:.h aad I'am Bogard agree tc~ dLsi~cl and 2ngtneering ices ~ if the a3dltianal Cs12.FA is of y ail. ae _~. n:er~.lT.il1°'HV,~,t,[. 5~t i! at 7 1 4 ~ n pj r+ P .- ~ ~~ ,. an ha,.h ail the c Resir~~ea zt 3:yzs Fatch will disc{ags ::Lpc~=.~ =~_~.~. vnhoslse Unit 2 Tom Bogard) has requsstnd that a o.~;,.~~ed be located at the et~d a f BufCehr Creek ~~ad. The coy[ of this will ~ compered to the cast of ~~~rng }fir ~ ~ ~t r~,~ .tea .~,~ o~.:ses .c~ :he eu~ ~f P~eLs "E3" and ''C," to d~,l~..,~.~c ~' ~s LF.~. .,_...: ~._ ~_ , ~-n•~ ,s ~ ~a- rye E-.eck Rya '1 a.S~ ~::v~u,:.ei 6.:.:G .a. i'"vw~a+w ar Liaa~ii a.a (~ $li airy ~e will be equalty re~unsioie for the aesign, cy„a;~sction ~f [~c gafc. Tf the proposed gat;; is located at foe entry ~ Parcels only these Owners wil! ~ responsible far the for the deign, iaiat^»-~^ce of the gate.. ara herby made port Qf this l,.:ti~~. Agreement: $n2r Patch, ?~ning ~,~~<.~:r c_~.,.~tt~.,<.. ,r,._..r cna~,~ .. . wa ~~_ ors -°~__ -- ,.. ~r ~.:1 ~:»~';;la', ~',~ld:rg ri n ti`:u~ p~ +../~:SS.OAa v~'11~+T ~ ~+u~ SY. ~~~~ ~ ' Dates ' • "~'~.CJ3 till I;+~ J~J..t~LO)GCL C7Lhcr Cairespvmdcoec~lw~iGlal.>u-~asat~.nges lac fBJE;;ttB/2aJ0_4 (r1~~~`L_09 _F~ ~~rr 1JUL. C!, rUz ~j.J~~~l; ca v N ca C ~_ ~~ ~ ~, ~ ~~_ ~ ~ ~~ ® N r- aQo ~~~a r+. ~ ~ ~ ihrtT m C L TV s v ~ m m 1I ffJ m .Q ~. mN=`a ~ ~-- m ~ G~t~RE~I :,~1D ~S~C~I; a v~ ~ ~~~ ~~~_~ ~ ~ R Sti t7. nn• ~ r i i~ o ~QOOO~~,~ v~+r~ra~nu7wm +l - vao 0 .. n n _, - - - ~ ~, ~ ~. r. s~oooao~oa~o ~ N N N Q G O G r r Y' 4'° CS® CJ'QC3 ~n3c*J~ .1~'SI e+~ t~ era tai tr m tD S~ ~ rTr' v $ .7 ~~a r ~~ Ni u C L9 ~C7CSOCaQOOG '7707000 C~CJ~ ~iaoc~vnov u~ ~oo~oo~~~~o eio~voc~ chest Q ~ ~ 47 7J3 is t7 [V (V N '~j ~fi~"~ Ni ~ oc~ ao m a~,~ _-. ~ ~ O - ~ °~ n Cti. ©O O O O ~4 o 0 0 0 o c o o° ~I -mss v ~ c a cn ~~~ ~ ~~ ~~v t~l ~ ~a P 3~ a n ~~ ~ ~ .C ? mew LC~ L7 f~ i ~~~ '~`mia .. ~] ~ ~ ~ F Q O ~ ~ ~P `'' c~ C1 +~ . ~ ~ v ~ - °' ~ C~ U ~ a~ c ~ ~ ~ ~b ~S}OGdO~'7 c'S R3f e-I 00[[77ooc-ye ~j .ri ~ ~ II ~ .~.-,. ,-, .-. p.~.I_. i ~ N ~ y ~ 4 ~ ~ ~ r r'- ~ ~. ~ ~ ~~ C O ~~~ N C~I 47 ~ X ~ X ~~ ~ C7~ W !L W . ~ . . ~ , , _ ,C ~ c ~®UO~ n ,'22n n an d m~ ~ ~ r ~ C~ I ~l _ .~ O Qr fl ~" !~ ~ia d G O d~t~~ [r~ C7 O !A J ~ m~i1CJ W W W UJ F h4- tom- }~- lQ 0 0 Q _ x ui w C 6 T ~ s v i~,0 C'*i m a "7 O • df~r~. Lc. ~C~~ r:~~P'~ ~rcnLu ~lti~ ~SS~CI~, a _~ Q L7 A ---- ~ ~ m ~ ~ a .. ~ ~` '~ m s ~ ~~~m 9 ~ ~ ~ ~ l9 S9 t0 i$ .~ .~ ~ ~ ~~ v v ~ u O O C 4 ' Z Z Z Z avvoavov~ ovooe~c5ca a ~? J IL7~rr O"C1Qe'S ^~+P~C7 ~C7C?'...? O 43 SE9 f7 r - r ~ t l 1 r ~ _ `7 ~ 4'a C1[ CY N iY ~ c~ _ ~ ~~~1 4 ~ b c - :~ c.¢dagagg zzzzzzzz ~ ~ ~ ~ p z ~eaoovooa~ a c;aovvov~ ~+ ~~~cocomaooi"~• t'3 d' d' N ik1' (V [V CV~ ~ U In O C? :S YJ ~~ ~$ ro rn ~iA il7 0? e ~ 47 ~ ltj L11 '~ ~ CV C~3 3 ~ ~~~~~ W QmUi]kL W ~ 'm ~~~ ~~~:~ ~>> T~~alm m m ng,+> ~~ 3.~ 331 ~ r F- w- r r n ._+ ~ t~ C]I ml to ui LL1 Lid Uu ~ ~ ~ ~ } d ts.l ~. n G N `vs ~1 '~ 4 z w .~ Q !~rcta:l~?~ 0 c N w a G C G :v N ~:. m m 0 b a i3il(Gibsor - 044722SiteCaweragsDistribution.doc : ~~ ~ __~..__~..._„~_.._ ~ Page 1 • The Residences at Briar Patch SITE COVERAGE DISTRIBUTI©N Building Envelope Site Coverage Existing Site Coverage Proposed Envelope A 3,$44 4,015 Envelope B 3,572 5,575 I~nvelope C 3,675 5,399 Envelope D 2,388 2,841 Envelope E 2,380 2,3$0 Existine'i'ri~le;c 6.300 6,300 26,470 ~~ 1 ~~ - - / x saint c - zmm f / ~ _ ~, .i O 4 %% Y~ ~~ r~a° W Q ~ J ~~ • r v: e ;n ~~ ! `[ ,' i cS1 4 ~ p~~ ~ 17 Ir1~~~..1 n~ b n ~~ ~ N , 4 lyi k I~~ ~r~ yII^~ F:~~~~I ~'I to z r .~ r a ,~ f wf r! i r r ~~ F~}E i {t{t~E 4z'~ ~, ,:~~~ ~: ~t :' is ,,~:f~i i163 •~ I t~~ .I L ~~ ~ a .~ Ii :~~ o ~~~ ~ a ~ s=e Q ~' N 8 y~ ~ N i~2~~ E ` a 0 + a m A ~ w 1 O~ ~~z 0~0~ ~ ~im~w v ~~~ y.s_~a ~~ 1 0 on ~~ ~, w a (] 1J ~ d p ? 0.~~ y 2 O i Introduction The original development plan for Briar Patch was approved July 15th, 19$1 by_the Town of Vail after previous approval under Eagle County's jurisdiction. This previously approved Development Plan is still valid under Town of Vail Ordinance 13, series of 1981. The and°inance stipulates that Briar Patch and other specific Development plans approved by Eagle County prior to annexation shall remain in effect as approved unless major modifications are made. Major amendments such as site re-design, use changes, etc. will require a Planning and Environmental ' Commission review. The proposed. development plan amendment will dawn-zone the previous proposal from 14 units to 9.66 units. Instead of multi-family structures as previously approved, five single family residences with the potent'raC~ for 5 caretaker units (1 required caretaker unitl will be constructed, in addition to the existing triplex. Concept The Residences at Briar Patch will be a series of three single-family homesites with 3 potential (1 requiredD caretaker units adjacent to an existing triplex, and two smaller single-family homesites with potential caretaker units on Sandstone Drive. The sites are defined by specific building envelopes which are oriented to place homes into the hillside, not on it. Siting parallel to land contours reduces the need fior retaining walls and lessens cuts into the steep hillsides. The siting plan will also minimize the need far roadways and road cuts, and will minimize disturbance of the remainder of the site. Architectural Design Every home at The Residences at Briar Patch will be designed on an individual basis, and each home design will be submitted to the Town of Vail for Design Review approval. Architectural Control Committee Each member of the Homeowners Association shall have the opportunity to review all proposed home designs at Briar Patch. Building Envelopes Building Envelopes will be prescribed per the attached site plan. The building envelopes will prescribe the limits of buildable area, and only "'an grade" terraces will be permitted to project beyond building envelopes. ~ { ^i aq<~1t n [!~~ e 1l ~+wmry, •r~ •r +~~~ r5~ -: ~_ :.; .......:.. .> .:.. .. .... ..... . .... .n ... ~..; ..,. ....1 - 1. .i. .~.:......... ....., 'x.. .. ...+... ... ~ . r....v..Y ~....f ..s ..... ..... d..s... v.x "Yip ~ ' ~ ,~ r:r Building Envelope Square Footages Building Envelope Unit A Single Family B Single Family C Single Family D Single Family E Single Family Existing Triplex Three Family Square Footage 3,950 sq. ft. 3,750 sq. ft. 3,750 sq. ft. 2,380 sq. ft. 2,380_ sq. ft. - -hl. A. Note: The above numbers were developed so that each envelape has similar buildable areas. These numbers are approximate pending final plat of parcel Clpen Space Large areas of open space will remain as part of The Residences at Briar Patch. The majority of the site as is 40% slope or high roclcfall hazard areas insuring open space will forever be an amenity. These areas along with the areas surrounding the building envelopes will be considered homeowner association maintained open space. Density Each building envelope wi[I have a GRFA allowance and a permitted number of units assigned. Each allowable dwelling unit, in addition to the assigned GRFA, will have an additional 225 square feet of GRFA. Additional GRFA shalt be available under Town ofi Vail Zoning Ordinances Chapter 18.71 "Additional Gross Residential Floor Area." Employee Housing Employee Housing Units will remain a conditional use for homesites A, B, D & E and will be mandatary for homesite C at The Residences at Briar Patch. Consistent with the Town of Vail's Zoning Ordinances chapter 1$.57, Type IV Employee Housing Units will be permitted at the individual owner's discretion. Gross Residential Fl+ Building Envelope A B C D E Existing Triplex Proposed GRFA Annexation GRFA nor Area Distribution Unit GRFA Single Family 3,470 sq. ft. Single Family 3,470 sq. ft. Single Family 3,470 sq. ft. Single Family 2,790 sq. ft. Single Family 2,790 sq. ft. Three Family 5,650 sq. ft. Eight Elnits 22,640 sq. ft. 2'i .640 sq. ft. ~. ~ _ e_ s r c r ,e k. ~a {'~" t t yeti. y a; ~. ~ .~ Site Coverage Each building envelope wilE be assigned a maximum square footage of allowable "site coverage" per Tawn of Vail definition. The total site coverage in all building envelopes 'and the existing triplex shall not exceed previously approved allowable site coverage. Site Coverage Distri bcltion Building Envelope Unit Site Coverage Permitted A Single Family 3,950 sq. ft. • B Sing{e Family I _ 3,750 sq. ft. C Single l=amity 3,750 sq, ft. I] Single Family 2,380 sq. ft. E Single Family 2,380 sq. ft. Existing Triplex Three Family 6,300 sq. ft. Proposed Eight Units 22,510 sq. ft. Annexation not specified Note: These numbers are approximate pending final plat of parcel Landscaping Additional landscape plantings are proposed in addition to existing plantings in common areas along roadways. Individual owners will be responsible for the plantings within and surrounding their building envelopes with designs subject to the approval of the Town of Vaif design Review Board. Neigh is For a flat roof, the heights of buildings shall not exceed 30 feet. For sloping roofs, the heights of buildings shall not exceed 33 feet. Specifically, Building Envelopes D & E will not be permitted to exceed the elevation 8327'-0" in height. Parking Town of 'n'ail Zoning Ordinances Chapter 18.52 "Off-Street Parking and Loading" shall serve as the guideline for parking standards. Each home design far The Residences at Briar Patch will be required to include a minimum of two enclosed parking spaces, or three at unit A & C. Remaining required parking spaces wit! not be required to be Located within building envelopes and may be located in common paved areas. n .....:.s. v.}n}.... •..t.. .. .:.~.:.r. y...~ .1. ~..\.n ...:.M1._4 ..~r.:r.. .. .. r5.i.... .....~ .:.:. ..........hv~!/!/w,\n't\.v:.,....,°~.°a,:~w..ai~.1%ii ~....~:;3::i!\"~l:I~RY,r^sn&".K~Le~;;:Ca`«w :d.+:X:`~.,w".#r., h.n... r, ~~. k.. r...,>.,. .a:., Q.sedS,? `~~~V. ~ t a-1~~ =J+~- • Tha Residences a t Briar Pa t~h Proposed Annexation Devalapmant Plan Amendment: Lot Size: 353,030 sq, ft. Buildable Area: 105,130 sq, ft. (less than 40% slope} Issue Annexation Pro asal Residential Gloster 2onina Pr ~osed Amendment _ Setbacks Meets all current front guidelines. 20 ft. 20 ft. min. sides 15 ft. 15 ft. min. rear 15 ft. 7 5 ft. min. Height 35 ft. average 33 ft. Max. 33 ft. Max. Envelopes [~ & E Restricted GRFA 21,640 sq. ft. 26,283 sq. ft. 21,640 sq. ft. Max. + 225 sq. ft. per unit Garage credit per TOV 250 addition per T~V ~` of Units 14 total Units 6 units per buildable acre 9.66 to#aE units (1 } 4-plex 14 total units 1 existing Triplex (2} triplex 5 single family (13 duplex 5 EHU = 1.66 units Site Coverage No# Specified 88,258 sq. ft. 22,910 sq. ft. Parking 35 spaces Based on Gi~FA of units 2 or 3 interior spaces (28 interior) 1 interior space min. min, per. unit in building envelope 1 ar 2 exterior spaces min. per unit in or out of building envelope Building Separation 30 ft. min. NfA 15 ft. min. @ lower units. 30' min, ~ upper units Building Envelopes RP/A hllA Sixe varies see attached r d ^~:nr - sx ~ e .. ,z:o o... '-^+ ~~.: x:w^ ......::m ~ .......:.: ...$...w,: .....: ' ...... -::, k. ... ,,..a:;c u.~en.r. r:'..,..x... s*.~avinhv.. ..~.., , vx<•:• ;.;v:~v:.,,.,..,...~.v,:oxoio-::r.:.~zoo« ~"i P-i e'~'~ H ~ ~i W° Yi w w ~~" W ~ ~ ~ ~i W ~-~ E-°+ Q r'~ Q W '~j ~~ li t~ 3 Y -~ ~.;, ~ au ~ S~V ~ q ~a ~ _~ '~°~}}: tfY } p~ ~N? P3 ~~~Er ,~ s ~ a 5c ~~ h ~ `w ~ ~i ei} g; S 3 Ep ~i~a ~~ ! ~ ! }e~i rr° ;,.~ ~ xA ~~ ~~ C ~' i~ {~{4 ¢a y ~ ~ a~ d3E ~ ' i 'YY.L ~ ~~t& {g ~f e~~)~~~r..~~~ .. A ~a~d Ys.bE ~ ~S ~ i g C! 4~' ~ °~ g?~f~E~3as E~iia1 it ~ ~ iea iE'~as 6esFE3sa 6 ~~ 9 }} ~~, ,. ~Ws: ~~ y 6 K f 3 --~ B} RAY L ~'~ S k:~~?~ a''~ r,,~ ~Fe,Y:3~ ~'',"RI ~4 pF }saps ~~E F }x~i E€~ ~ r i '.}e}a [ 5 ss~°3 [:$ ~ be~~a ' ~jt5~ ~Egia[zgF4~'p~ '~ o~ +~~2 kgi Ba L t 3 ~^ e ~di ~~ ° Y~~ r ~~ _' ~~ ~ ;+~f r 1 F SF t EL d E~ E~ bT { ~° ~' ' V ~r y~ ~r ~r Y ! s~ g s~ ~ ~~ a ~~ :E e ~ eF e e ar ® at lp ~ F3 ~a Ep ~ :s ~~c ~ _ti ~~ i'.S K 9 ~6 f'r: k ~ r1 A: ~K ~ ~~ C: Attachment: E 5~ 1 34 ~~l } € i; eZ~~ I ~~ ~ %fi `} - F 7 g~4 u i I E a r t~~ I1 ~E sus a $'i ~ ~ .~~ ~ s. ~F~3 ~ S Fr ~ $ 3~ ~ ~aa !~3 i i~ ~ 5 p 3 FEi ' ~ e41' ~ ~ is'~I s ~ 'E _ eg i i. ~ '~ ~ Y III - e~~.. i"~ ~~~ is r j ~e _ ~~ ix c 0 3.`Ek ~3 F ~ E s~ ~ "sr r ~ ~ ~ ~ a~ ~~ !!~~F la 3 ~~ ~k 1 ~ 6 ~ i yy 9 I2? ru 0 c 0 ~u F43 ~_ I~~~ ~~:~~ ~ ~'~ ~~ ~'ia C~i~ii l^ ~ ~ ~ -~° g ~ y ' 3 2t5~~ P' z f ~ I S" 1 f ~~ ~ 1 S +~ I E.« ~ ~ ~ ' 8 E. ~. [: ;~ ~4 ~r 2 ~ I }~ ~' ~ ~r ~ -- p _ p ~ r8 ~r R .; ~r .J ~F /~ ~ ~~ ~ R! 1 ~~ ~ ~ yC ~ I lY C ~ g~ ~ f fi € # fi d 3 t3, ~~ ~ f e R3 ~ ~S eat Sa a e~ , _ e~ ~y. F~ +a G ~ ~f is ~ ~ ~j rr k ~ ~~ ~i F ~ X11 MY 1~~~~~ ~~ ~ €e A r } ~t{S~c k~~6 ai; i s ~ iF ~ ~ 9 ~L fs.sE9 ~~~ E3i ~a ~e~r ~in. s i ~ sp ~,~ j[ -E e,. ~}yes .€'= f - "" s I ~ a "S~i:t ~~ 5 8e Y~ :Efts .S ~ Y( ~~ _ d. a °rS irF ~_ .,~~~_ ~;!E3EE~~F s ~ . Zlj ~ i, ~'. s °L~aEk?; € 9•EAF~~:9.~Eai~E I .d ~. ya = ~ e~ 2 .FSj1 '] 5 e ¢ ~~ S a Eekc.p' s'€4 8 ~~ ~~ ~~.. b ~~- re ax sti Fe: .~ xaa s E 3^ ,~° ~sj" x ¢ 3ni~ ~= ~ ss..,~.ei ~3 : F_s;`,F~3_!°€_~n_er 3 ~ ~ s 3~ ~ spa !s 8 ?::~ r a4x3 €ti~ • • • • • • Fs-1 s arr r ~ ° x ~.~: ~~~¢ ~ra~Ra' ~A3$e €~~~8 [s~get ~ y~:.... fame C Y ~~ a $ ~~_' t Ets .~-..,... ka§~~ [iiF3 §~F~ § gtireeerrei ~Se~ .rrerrt~ .si~ ~'d ~ ~ _ €; : ~ff 5_=~' s,~_ A €Eo~~raii py; :C614;r 1cc FF r § e~ ~ -r =r=_-: I•= ~ ~is.:r~ c~ss•e 3 ~ ~s3 e ~ ~gt~ d7r~ a~F~[i }imp aarg€%3~ ~=~~i ~s .•' ez=4;~ {irsssES~ ~~~! isstss~s d i;° ,xis b~=~~ Ft,a ~ '" ~.- ~ x~~tE.~ r 3~i~ .°ge qE€ al;e =-- .F~ 4~Aia E; F ~A~frF E -1 LY~S ~[i€~ e~a $!rS ~ a-~»« ~~ a as».:~- ~t:i € e~ Ya- EY~ © +x t§ g fs.- gnL s~ rx § ~ i i eiet set ~~ q i~r k~ ~: ~ is~$ z _ a t =' € s: E~ s § ~iA sr s..,_a ¢' d ka;, 53 i •~ ~s~ Ea;~&; r +~ 6 =~ ~~ t ~ A k~ ~~i1t ~r a SdL~~=~ ~~-t ss..."-..i 91s~ Fi F3ab~;~ ~~F ~'Q ~~~~--- ~ del. ~ -..."~ ~ r'k~ ra [`k~ c~~FSffe az~ - `~ oy o 8 x-5n n C ~-s ` f ;~, (E{[[ } Sc ~ga is~a~i a 5sN P~3's I~~iaC~ 5846.;:r dg ~~~ ~,~tfi~ ::' ~iL~If i.~Ci t~~'s'~~f~~ ~..) ~ W ~. ~ o ~~ ~ zw~ ~ w o p aFj r - d ~5 # as ~ EE ~' zd; ri sa's A 3~i;~e sr S t - x' f }~ ;~ii.rza$ar'4Ff-im ~a 5 ,t F` fq~q ~,,~¢ ~~ ~~~ aA&;~~&~f3 arrsr~a`srfr ad ~ Fa r~ Art JsF~H~~jF~YS~3'~j~F%=F F~ Yi~t'- is ~~[d[dfEL2 ~~~c~€ac~e~~ fA js-~ € rri ~ssri~~~ireeri §€x§'s~d~ ~f gAd56~ L5 A'a l~. ~~tS~~~g~~~~irSS~ sit= 9 &2s e ? 5 ? $ a h y a ~~:~ii Y~~t 5 ~_ gi5 . 55 r5~iFFbL.' fa. ' S £' l~tkst#~. i~~aa~s'S z •YA r = 3663h2h..1S`.i zAF;sg~: apt t^ ~E ~ SFRAA;P ~p - tEtB+p'[~ Alf S. 5 s.~ ~ icAiic[i~ 2~ s;sFga'~~ y~y isa~ [. h = f 5 r;r rp a• a xr: ~3 ra ~aa i~ a ; E ?k; ~,~~g~@~~~k +! aai~r~e;"ss psi€9~ Aj ~- ~~ a ~g ~rge .a~ ~ .. JE7 sEea~"~~Aii.~ c~a:~; ~ ass_...,.,,.~ easy - +a -"e5r t': sF ttl~... i a t3A§sxs _ s~~isY~~,as`' jE :,=~3d~§sF~ n j J g?S~t bf r6 's3ar a;s= d +Aa Ai r4~.sgJ€ a ~~..f Esd~#ird~i ~€[i r•1P N nn nz Rr ~ l~j! ~~ ~'°' ;it~ t~~~{! ~li~i t i .e~r ~At's F aA^ :ia8 Z 0 s Qd m m ~ o r~~ U l+l Qz to z 0 :~ ~ ~~~ + ~~ ~{ ~ ~ ~ :, ~ Z M _ O_ w c N l+t p ~S° a` w O N ._ m ,. ~ ~ y Z i'~ /~ ./ ~ __~ .~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ a ~ ~ I~ 1~ ~ ~ ~ ~4 ~ N =o ~~Z W °~~ in a 0 °w ~~ Q ~ ! ~~~ ., r O 9 O N a® vv'~ w a~ 0 7 ~3a ~~- g ~ ~ a ~ ~' ~ iii ~ .~ .• ~ i x ~~ ~~ ~ h~-~3 •~ Ep _ wy! kr ~ ~ _r ~ ~ ~ ~ ti ~ ~~ f\ r d• .!'~ ` r ~"f~ w 'J U~ a ~7 ~2;~~ e a ~; ~a~ ~ ~ $ _ v - ~ ., `~ ~ ~ ~ e ~ ~L ~~~~~~ ~ a~ r ~ 4 ~' Y S ~ % ~ f' ~, }. ~' •1 N ~~ I o ~-,- f efi ~~_ ° 1 ~ ~ o~ ~ 5l yy L w. _._~ ~ ~ f yil ~~ ~ x xe~w w .. n7gaf ' :~y~ ~ - - ~ ~ _ A A K K 6~ A K 6- B R?~~? p :' x S y~~ 9 Y T k. W A N ~P.L--ra=ear: wN~ .k and i ~~k -~'sa5`k' - 2~e z~ ~n _y- 9353~9353535~Z a J ~~ ~~ wn ~, Y tr lilt r{~! r~{6 t ~~;~~ F~3 31s~ A a~;~;~ :! ~' e t,;~ "Rd3 _e • • Attachment: F THiS ITEM MAY AFFECT YQUR PROPERTY ~~~''~ PUBLIC NQTICE ~~~ `~ NC}TICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail will hold a public hearing in accordance with Section 12-3-6, Vail Town Code, on July 26, 2004, at 2:00 PM in the Town of Vail Municipal Building, in consideration of: A request for a recommendation to the Vaii Tawn Council for the establishment of Special Development. District No_ 38, Manor Vail Lodge, to allow far the redevelopment of the Manor Vail Lodge, and a request for a conditional use permit to allow for the construction of Type III Employee Housing Units, pursuant to Section 12-6H-3, Vail Town. Code, and a request for a final review of a conditional use permit, pursuant to Chapter 12-fiH-3, Private Clubs and Civic, Cultural and Fraternal ©rganizations, Vail Town Code, to allow for the sale of 30 parking spaces, located at 595 Vail Valley DrivelLots A, B, ~ C, Vail Village Filing 7, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Manor Vail, represented by Zehren and Associates Planner: Warren Campbell A request for a final review of variance, pursuant to Chapter 11-10, Variances and Appeals, Vail Town Code, for a variance from Chapter 11-6-4, Building ]dentifcation Signs, to allow for a new free standing building identification sign, located at 934 South Frontage Roadlunplatted and setting forth detains in regard thereto. Applicant: George Brodin, represented by Mauriello Planning Group, LLC Planner: Warren Campbell/Clare Sloan A request for a final review of a minor subdivision, pursuant to Chapter 13-4, Minor Subdivisions, Vail Town Code, to amend the locations of the existing building envelopes, located at 1390 Buffehr Creek RaadlLots A, B, C, Residences at Briar Patch Condos and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Residences of Briar Patch Homeowner Association, represented by Zehren and Associates Planner: Bill Gibson A request for a fnai review of a variance, pursuant to Chapter 12, Variances, Vail Town Code, from Section 12-6H-6, Setbacks, Vail Town Gode, to allow for a minor alteration, located at 400 East Meadow Drive, Unit 9, (Tyrolean lnn)ILot 5 D, Block 5, Vail Village Filing 1 and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Tyrolean Chalet, LLC., represented by Mauriello Planning Group, LLC Planner: Matt Gennett The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office haute at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend project orientation and the site visits that precede the public hearing in the Town of Vaii Communi#y Devenaprnent Department. Please call (970) 479-2138 for additional information. Sign language interpretation is available upon request with 24-hour notification, Please call (970) 479-2356, Telephone far the Hearing Impaired, for information. Published July 9, 2004, in the Vail Daily. • "Adjacent Homeowners" to The Residences ~ Briarpatch Leroy Schmidt PO Box 407 Monument, CO 80132 Property: 1410 Buffehr Creek Road # 1 B Vail, CO 81657 Subdivision: Lionsridge, Tiling 2, Lot G-1B, parcel #210312102024 ------------------------------------------------------------ -4-------------------------------_--_------------ Rick Rainwater PO Box 430 Florence, SC 29503 Property: 1410 Buffehr Creek Road #1B Vail, CO 81657 Subdivision: Lionsridge, Filing 2, Lot G-lA, parcel #210312102023 Victoria Ann Mclntyre 7374 Romero Drive La Jalla, CA 92037 Property: 1462 Aspen Grove Lanc Vail, CO 81657 Subdivision: Lionsridge, Filing 4, Block 2, Lot 11, parcel #210341415013 Alycia & Carl M. Williams 2 Vista Road Cherry Hills Village, CO 80113 Property: 1425 Buffehr Creek Road Vail, CO 81657 Subdivision: Cliffside, Lot 4, parcel #2103121020 l 7 S.1I.S. Property LLC Clo Silvana Facchini 35 NE 38`" Street Miami, FL 33137 Property: 1445 Buffehr Creek Road Vail, CO 81657 Subdivision: Cliffside, Lot 3, parcel #210312102008 "Adiscent Homeowners" to The Residences ~ Br~,~r;~~tch Dennis Gartner Qualified Personal Residence Trust 26286 County Road #1 Nisswa, MN 56468 Property: 1179 Sandstone Drive Vail, CO $1657 Subdivision: Lionsridge, Filing 4, BIock 1, Lot 3, parcel #210301415014 Mary & Donald M. Elliman Jr. 8 Mockingbird Lane Englewood, CO 80110 Property: 1475 Aspen Ridge Road Vail, CO 81657 Subdivision: Lionsridge, Filing 3, Block 4, Lot 1, parcel #210312202011 Eiger Chalets, Units 1-14 clo Bruce Yankee 1370 Sandstone Drive Vail, C© $9I657 Property: Eiger Chalets, Units 1-14 1350 &1370 Sandstone Drive Vail CO 81657 Overlook at Vail Homeowners Association lnc. Units 1-6 clo Slifer Management Company 143 E. Meadow Drive Vail, CO 81657 Property: Overlook at Vail, Unit 1-6 1330 Sandstone Drive Vail, CO 81657 • MEMORANDUM T4: Planning and Environmental Commission ,} FROM: Community Development Department DATE: July 26, 2(304 SUBJECT: A request for a final review of a variance, pursuant to Chapter 12, Variances, Vail Town Code, from Section 12-6H-6, Setbacks, Vail Tawn Gode, to allow for a minor alteration, located at 4Q01=ast Meadow drive, Unit 9, (Tyrolean Inn}lLot 5 I?, Black 5, Vail Village Filing 1 and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Tyrolean Chalet, LLG, represented by MPG, LLC Planner: Matt Gennett SUMMARY The applicant is requesting a variance from the required minimum side setback standard in the High Density Multiple Family (HOME} district of twenty feet (20'} in order to reconfigure the grass residential floor area (GRFA} and site coverage of the existing. structure. The Tyrolean Condominiums site, in which the "Tyrolean Chalet" is located, is presently in a state of pre-existing nonconformity with respect to the side and rear setbacks (Attachments B & C}. Based upon the criteria and findings in Section VII of this memorandum, staff is recommending denial of the applicant's variance request. II. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST The applicant is making a request to remove floor area and site coverage from places within and around the existing building and add floor area and site coverage in other areas. The variance being requested would allow approximately 83.1 square feet of reallocated GRFA to be constructed within the side setback (south property line along the stream tract}. The majority of the existing building is constructed within 7' of the south property line. The proposed addition, located on the west side of the building, will extend the existing wall plane six to nine feet, but will not encroach any further to the south than the existing building, although more bulk and mass will be added to the southwes# corner of the building. The proposed setback encroachment occurs on the main level of the building (Attachments B & G}. In order to offset the impact of the proposed addition, the applicant is proposing to remove approximately 315.5 square feet of floor area that is currently located within the 2Q' setbacks on the south and east sides of the building. Additionally, the applicant is proposing to modify the bulk and mass of the structure's architectural design, remove some small pieces of site coverage and improve the landscaping around the site (Attachments B & C}. III. BACKGROUND In 1968, the Blue Caw Restaurant was constructed on the southern portion of the subject 1 TOWN OF YAii~ ~ property. In 1969, the property was zoned High Density Multiple Family (HOME) which allowed restaurants as an accessary use within a multiple-family building. In 1973, the Town of Vail re-adopted the zoning regulations {ordinance No. 8, 1973j and removed restaurants as an accessory use in the HDMF zone district, thereby making the Tyrolean Restaurant (then the Biue Cow Restaurant) a nonconforming use. In 1980, the Tyrolean Condominiums were constructed and attached to the existing "Blue Cow" restaurant structure. The subject property currently contains 8 individual dwelling units, the Tyrolean Restaurant, which includes fins additional dwelling units, 20 enclosed parking spaces, and three surface parking spaces. C)n May 10, 2004, a variance was approved, with one condition, to allow the floor area that was once the Tyrolean Restaurant to be converted into gross residential floor area (GRFAj (Attachment Dj. IV. REVIEVIfING B©ARD RQLES A. The Planning and Environmental Commission is responsible for evaluating a proposal for: 1. The relationship ofthe requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specifed regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity, or to attain the objectives of this Title without grant of special privilege. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. 4. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. B. The DRB has NO review authority on a variance, but must review any accompanying DRB application. C. Town Council Actions of Design Review Board or Planning and Environmental Commission maybe appealed to the Town Council or by the Town Council. Town Council evaluates whether or not the Planning and Environmental Commission or Design Review Board erred with approvals or denials and can uphold, uphold with modifications, or overturn the board's decision. D. Staff • The staff is responsible for ensuring that all submittal requirements are provided and plans conform to the technical requirements of the Zoning Regulations. The staff also advises the applicant as to compliance with the design guidelines. y Staff provides a staff memorandum containing background on the property and provides a staff evaluation of the project with respect to the required criteria and findings, and a recommendation on apprarral, approval with conditions, or denial. Staff also facilitates the review process. V. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS TITLE 12, ZONING REGULATIONS ARTICLE H. HIGH DENSITY MULTIPLE-FAMILY (HDMF~ DISTRICT {excerpted) 12-6H-1: PURPOSE: The high density multiple-family district is intended to provide sites f©rmultiple-family dwellings at densities to a maximum of twenty five (25) dwelling units per acre, together with such public and semipublic facilities and lodges, private recreation facilities and related visitor oriented uses as may appropriately be located in the same district. The high density multiple-family district is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space, and other amenities commensurate with high density apartment, condominium and lodge uses, and to maintain the desirable residential and resort qualities of the district by establishing appropriate site development standards. Certain nonresidential uses are permitted as conditional uses, which relate to the nature of Vail as a winter and summer recreation and vacation community and, where permitted, are intended to blend harmoniously with the residential character of the district. 12-6H-2: PERMITTED USES: The following uses shall be permitted in the ,HDMF district: Lodges, including accessory eating, drinking, recreational or retail establishments, located within the principal use and not occupying more than ten percent (101) of the total gross residential floor area (GRFA) of fhe main structure or sfructures on the site; additional accessory dining areas maybe located on an outdoor deck, porch, ar terrace. Multiple-family residential dwellings, Including attached or row dwellings and condomr`nium dwellings. CHAPTER 17, VARIANCES (excerpted} 12-17-1: PURPOSE: A. reasons Far Seeking Variance: In order to prevent or to lessen such practical difficulties and unnecessary physical hardships inconsisfent with the objectives of this title as would result from strict or literal interpretation and enforcement, variances from certain regulations maybe granted. A practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship may result from the size, shape, or dimensions of a site or the location of existing structures thereon; from topographic or physical conditions on the site or in the immediafe vicinity, or from other physicaf limitations, Street locations or conditions m the immediate vicinity. Cost or inconvenience to the applicant of strict or literal compliance with a regulation shall not be a reason for granting a variance. B. Development Standards Excepted: Variances maybe granted only with respect fa the development standards prescribed for each district, including lot area and sife dimensions, setbacks, distances between buildings, height, density control, building bulk contra!, site coverage, usable open space, landscaping and sife development, and parking and loading requirements; or with respect to the provisions of chapter 11 of this ' title, governing physical development on a site. C. Use Regulations Alot Affected: The power fo grant variances does not extend to the use regulafians prescribed for each district because the flexibility necessary to avoid results inconsistent with the objectives of this title is provided by chapter 16, "'Conditional Use Permits'; and by section ~2-3-7. "Amendment" of this title. 12-17-6: CRITERIA AND FINDINGS: A. Factors Lnumerafed: Before acting on a variance application, the planning and environmental commission shall consider the following factors with respect to the requested variance: 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. 2. Tare degree fo which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity, or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. 3. The effect of the requested variance an light and air, distribution of population, fransporfation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. 4. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable fa the proposed uariance. B. Necessary Findings: The planning and environmental commission shall make the following findings before granting a variance: 7. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. 2. That the granting of the variance will not be defrr'mental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. Thal the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: a. The strict or literal interpretafion and enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty ar unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. • • b. There are excepfianal or extraordinary circumstances ar conditions applicable to the site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. c. The strict ar literal inferpretatian and enforcement of the §pecilied regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enfayed by the owners of other properties in the same district. VI. SITE ANALYSIS Lot Size: 16,039 square feet f .368 acres Hazards: None Standard Allowed/Required Existinc{ Proposed Setbacks: Front: 20 ft. 54' no change Sides: 20 ft. 1-2' no change Rear: 20 ft. 4' no change (setbacks not changing as encroac hment already exists to same extent) Height; 48' 48° no change GRFA: 5,597 sq. ft. 5,597 sq. ft 5,464 sq. ft. Site Coverage: 55% (8,821sq. ft.} 56% (9,058 sq. ft.} no change Density: 9 DUs 9 DUs na change Landscape Area: 30% (4,812 sq. ft.} 43% (6,981 sq. ft.} no change Parking: 19 spaces 23 spaces no change Surrounding land uses and Zoning: Land Use North: COOT ROW South: Open Space East: Residential West: Transportation Center Zoning Not Applicable Natural Area Preservation (NAP) High Density Multiple Family (HOME) General Use (GU} Vll. CRITERIA AIVD FINDINGS A. Consideration of Factors Regarding the Variances: 1. The relationship of tare requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. • Staff has determined that the requested variance may not result in a harmonious relationship between the modified new residential dwelling unit and the eight other residential condominium units already existent within the structure (Attachment B}. While the minor exterior alteration that will be 5 possible as a result afi granting this variance could enhance the aesthetic values and architectural character exhibited by the structure, it will also cause the new Unit 9 to be more out of character with the rest of the Tyrolean Condominiums. The proposed remodeling of the new residence will also make it less compatible with the existing and potential uses, and structures, in the vicinity of the Tyrolean. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without a grant of special privilege. Staff believes the request is not the only option with respect to the proposed remodel as the 83.1 square fee# to be located in the side setback could be placed elsewhere on the site without requiring a variance. Reconfiguring the proposed remodel so that the entry courtyard becomes the area wherein the 83.1 square feet of GRFA to be moved is located would render the minor exterior alteration application in conformance with zoning standards. Forthis reason, staff believes that a grant of special privilege would be made if this proposal was approved as there are other alternatives for redesigning this new residential unit without the need for another variance. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public faci[itiies and utilities, and public safety. Staff believes the effects upon light, air., and other public interests in comparison to existing conditions would be exacerbated with the approval of this proposal as additional bulk and mass would be located along the stream tract and Vail Valley Drive. The existing Tyrolean building is currently nonconforming with respect to the required minimum setbacks of twenty feet {2®') on all four sides and the approval of this proposal would cause further encroachment into an already greatly encroached upon setback. E_ocating the proposed 83.1 square feet of reconfigured GRFA into the western most portion of the southern setback would render nearly the entire southern side of the building as an encroachment aver twelve feet {12') into the twenty fioot {20') setback. 4. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. Given the extent of the GRFA variance granted an May 10 of this year {Attachment E), the current proposal does appear excessive considering the many alternatives to situating 83 square ofi GRFA, out of 8,646 square feet, in a side setback. As stated above in Criterion 2, there are other ways of configuring this new residential space that da not include the necessity ofi locating the space in question in the side setback. Considering the condition of approva[ made with the previously granted variance request, this proposal may be construed as a grant of special privilege as no "hardship" exists. s • Is a variance truly necessary in order to achieve the results contemplated by the applicant? 5,597 square feet of GRFA is already allowed for this new residence, so the question remains: are there not other ways of configuring the space without going into the setback in question? The purpose of a variance is listed as follows: Reasons For Seeking Variance: In order to prevent or to lessen such practical diffrculfies and unnecessary physical hardships inconsistent with the objecfives of Phis fide as would result from strict or literal interpretafion and enforcement, variances from certain regulations may be granted. A practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship may result from the size, shape, or dimensions of a site or the location of existing structures thereon; from fopographic or physical conditions on the site or in the immediate vicinity; or from other physical limitations, street locations or condition in the immediate vicinity.. Cost orinconvenience to the applicant oisfrict or literal compliance with a regulation shalt not be a reason for granting a variance. B. The F'Panning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before grantino a variance: 1. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with 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 ar welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the variance is warranted far one or more of the following reasons: a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generaAy to other properties in the same zone, The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. ~~ 7 Vlll. STAFF RECOMMEIVDATI~IV The Community Development Department recommends denial of the request far final review of a variance from Section 12-6H-8, Density Control, Vail Town Code, fo allow for a conversion of the existing Tyrolean Restaurant space, Unit 9, into a dwelling unit located at 400 East Meadow Drivel Lot 5D, flock 5, Vail Village Filing 1, subject to the criteria outlined in Section VII of this memorandum and the following findings: 1. That the granting of the variance will constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. 2. That the granting of the variance will be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the variance is not warranted far one or more of the following reasons: a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specifed regulation would result in practical difficulty ar unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. c, The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district.. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to deny the variance request, the following findings and conditions must be made: That the strict, literal interpretation or enforcement. of the setback regulation does not result in a practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the development objectives of the Town Code or the PrimarylSecondary Residential Zone District. ~. That the strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would not deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. 3. That the requested variance deviates from the provisions of the PrimarylSecondary Residential Zone District regulations more than is necessary to achieve a practical solution to the applicant's objectives. 4. There are no exceptions nor extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the site that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. 5. That the granting of the variance would be detrimental to the public health, safety or a • welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. IX. ATTACHMENTS A. Vicinity Map B. Applicant's F~equest C. Reduced Plans Q. Public Notice E. Staff Memorandum to the PEC, May 1©, 2004 • g Attachment: B Tyrolea n Chalet Variance Application For S+de Setback Applicant: Tyra{ean Chalet, LLC June 28, ~2UO~- Maurello Planning Group I. Intraduct~an anal Summary of Request On Ma l i y O, 2004 a variance was granted to allow the floor area of the then ex stjng ` Tyrolean Restaurant to be converted to residential floor area. The variance allowed the removal of a nonconforming use +n favor of a perm9tted residential use on the property. In developing floor plans for th4s new residence (known as the "Tyrolean Ohalet"}, the applicant has discovered a need to remove floor area from areas of the build+ng and add floor area to other areas. The variance bung requested will allow approximately 83. I sq. ft. of Gl2~A to be constructed within the s+de setback (south property line along the stream tract). The ma~}ority of the exlsting bulldinr~ Is c©nstructed w~thln 7' of the south property Itne. The proposed addition, located on the west side of the building, will extend the existing walE plane F' - 9' but will not encroach any further to the south than the existing building. The proposed Setback encroachment only occurs on the main level of the building. In order to offset the gmpact of the proposed addition, the applicant ~s proposing to remove approximately 3 15.5 sq. ft. of floor area that is currently located within the 20' setbacks on the South and east sides of the bu~ld~ng, Additionally, the applicant ~s propo5~ng to s~gn~ficantly improve the arch+tecture (bulk and mass} of the structure as well as 9mprove the landscaping around the existing bu~1ding. ~.-;a,. ~ti • 7yrodean chalet Maur~ello Planning Group, LLc ~'\i T,'RDLEAM CHALET DERlNG • ll. Detailed Analyses of Proposal Floor Area f~emoved from Setbacks: ', The proposed plans for the Tyrolean Chalet include a total of 5,464 sr~. ft. of GRFA (5,597 sc~. ft. allowed). There is floor area bung removed ~n four areas of the budding. All of the floor area being removed from the existing building ~s located within setback areas. The removal of these portions of the bu~ld~ng will reduce impacts to ad'acent properties and reduce the actual and, perceuved rnass of the building. The areas bung removed include: ~ 48.3 5q. ft, of floor area located 2.5, from the south property line (lowest level of building) • 17.2 sc~. ft. of floor area located 2.5' from the south property line (lowest level of building} 153.8 sa. ft. of floor area located 7' from the south property lane (main level of bu~ld~ng} • 96.2 sq. ft. of floor area located 2.5' from the east property Irne (main level of bu~ldsng} • Proposed Ad~i~tion 267.2 sq. ft. Tyrolean Chalet Mauriello Planning Group, Lt,C :.: _I Floor Area 'Removed from _ .. t : Setback LgJ a ~. ~ i 153.8 sa. ft./96, 2 s~,. ft. ..~ €~. 2 .~.,~,.~.r . , . aF,~am. ~:y,.+a+ O PNO~sED MAIN LEVEL PLAN ~ROLEAN L01NER PLAN ..H $l11M1~ L ~ , _~ ~va we~u a Floor Area Removed from •Setback 4~.3 5q. ft.l l 7.2 sq. ft. Site Coverar~e: The existing Tyrolean Candorriiniums structure, including the Tyrolean Chalet, is developed in excess of the site coverage lim~tatian of the high Density 1~lultiple Family zone district (55°Io of lot area}. Chapter 18, Nonconforming Sites, Uses, Structures and Site Improvements, aklows expansions of busldings that exceed the site coverage limitation as long as the proposed expansion does not increase the site coverage. The applicant ss proposing a 26.2 sr~. ft. (site coverage) addition to the west side of the Tyrolean Chalet on the main level of the budding in an area currently occupied by a large patio. Only 95.4 sq. ft. (site coverage) of this addition is located withon the setback area. In order to accommodate the new footprint of the building, the applicant is proposing to remove 3 16. I sg. ft. of existing site coverage (most of which is located in the setbacks} as detailed below C Tyrolean Chalet 3 Mauriello Planning Group, LLG • • 48,3 sg. ft. of slte coverage located on the south slde of the bullding. Thls area Is an exlsting enclosed entryway to the lowest level of the bulldmg. • 17,2 sc~. ft. of site coverage located on the south slde of the bullding. Thls area 15 another exlsting enclosed entryway to the lowest level of the bullding. • 9E.2 sg, ft. of site coverage located on the east slde of the bullding. Thls area Is an exlsting storage area utlllzed by the restaurant located on the maln level of the bullding. • 9~ sc~. ft. of slte coverage located on the west slde of the bullding. Thls Is the entry canopy to the pre-exlsting restaurant. • 60.4 sq. ft. of sste coverage located on the west and south skies of the bullding. Thls slte coverage Is an exlsting roof overhang that extends greater than 4' beyond the face of the bullding. The proposed plan results In a net decrease of 48.9 sc~. ft. of slte coverage. TYROIEAN E:...a, ~eVG MAIN PLAN • ~clstmg Canopy f~emowed _-~ BAR ... .._ ... .,. ....1_. .._ ... _.. ....~. ... __ . .._~ ._ 1,,... . .-... A.. ... -.~~~lD ._. - __ -. - i 11 { .. ` ExlStmg Roof Removed SEATING STAGE ~~ ~~ ,~.~ u~ i L_ __ .,.a Sl!liANl rorhn+[x~ow~. .::' ~~,m oo.•m +~s~~m~ e Tyrolean Chalet Mauriello Planning Croup, LLC SEATING 111 ,. II .uarr _.... .. _ . _ .~ _ ... [1,,~'_!~ ,. _. Exlsting Storage Removed ~XlSting ~ntrle5 Removed 4 .__ ,~ Proposed Landscar~e Imrrovement5: The overall r~uantity and c~ual~ty of landscaping is being improved as part of the renovation. Landscape areas are being created in the area of the ex~st~ng deck and in the area of the existing dumpster on the west side of the building. The existing improvements are being removed and replaced with trees and other landscape materials. Additionally, the ex:sting stars to the Power level of the bu~ld~ng and surface drainage improvements on the south side of the buiidmg are being removed and replaced with trees and other vegetation. The walkway to Vail Valley Dreve is being removed and the mailboxes are bung relocated in order to create large landscape area to help soften the feel of the area. below ~s a photo of the existing cond~t~ons and a landscape plan, which details the proposed improvements. C • Tyrolean Chalet 5 Mauriello Planning Group, LLC Dumpster EnclaSUre Railings Removed - I Walkway and Removed and Area New Stone Wads Maolbaxes Removed Landscaped Added • • Stars and Entry Space to be Removed Deck tc be Mod.}fled and LandSCaped 7yrdlean Chalet Mauriello Planning gaup, LLC Stairs, Pavement, and Entry Space to be ,Removed Stag Ra~is to be Replaced 6 ~ iortanrni ~~~ ~. Ykl V,IM.l IYB11U16 uni.~+~u~.rr }} ____. _...._.._ 1 New Landscape Areas .~ ~.n.~ ..__.__.1r._~ __. .---- pavement lZemoved - New Landscape Area New Landscape Screening P'ttQ~SEL LA!lOSCAPEICiR,ADINia1 P1.A?1 Tyrolean Chalet ~ Maurie64o Pfann~ng Group, LLC Architectural Enhancements: The most significant qualitative enhancements to thss site occur with rev~s~ons to the architecture. Great lengths were taken to update and improve the architecture of the south portion of the budding while staying true to the architecture on the remainder of the site. The enhancements +nclude adding dormers to the roof on the south side of the buildmg, removal o€ building mass from the center of the south elevation (new deck on mom level), new high quality windows and doors, new stone elements on the west elevation and within the landscape elements, and the removal of mechanical eau~pment associated with the previous restaurant. Below are photos showing the existing cond~t~ons and rendering showing the proposed elevations of the bu9lding. Tyrolean Chalet 8 Mauriello Planning Group, LLC ~~_ ~_` ~~//. . fa,- _. . '~. ~~'~ ~, . ~~T _ ~- r r} 7ti'IiOLEAN PROAOSEp WFB~ ELE{/r1,TION M 9W~MWG~d Lf f 1Rwla +xw~z,,p ~~ • ri e -' , . - ~_~ / ~~ ~ F ~ ,~ ~ TYROLE0.IJ ?ROPOSED 3fliLITN ~LE~/A71AN ~nr S MAMI`> awidwtwx ae~m *w~ Tyrolean Chalet 9 Mauriello Planning Group, LLC .,~. M ~+rtf' ~R •l~'6~IW hRwla Tyrolean Chalet Mauriello ~lanninc~ Group, ~~C IQ ~i'~ TYROLE4H CHa~E7 RENGERIN6 `ti,J I South EleVatlOn III. Zoning Analysis Zonong: l1DMl^ Lot area: 0.3682 acres or ! 6,038.79 ~s.f. Standard AllowedlRe~. Exostonca GRFA {unit 9): 5,597 s.f. 5,597 s.f. Density: 9 dus`~ dus Parkong: 19 spaces 23 spaces {20 enclosed) Site Coverage: 8,82 P .3 s.f_ l 0,707.8 s.f. Proposed 5,~4G4 s.f. 9dus 23 10,658.9 s.f. 111. l~pproval Criteria Before actong on a variance applicatoon, the plannong and envoronmental commo5sion shall consider the followong factors woth respect to the requested variance: l . The relatoonshop of the requested variance to other existong or potentoal uses and structures on the viconoty. Our Analvsos: The Tyralean Restaurant was origonally constructed m the 19G0's. 1n the early 1 980's the Tyrolean Condomonoums were added to the exosting restaurant structure. The buoldong os developed within the cede setbacks on the east {next to Apollo Park) and to the south {along the Town's stream tract). The proposed varoance wall allow the new Tyrolean Chalet to be expanded to the west an addotoonal 6.4' in one area and 9' on another. The. proposed encroachment onto the side setback {along the stream tract) well not encroach any further to the south than the exostong buoldong does today. The proposed expan5oon will have Pottle impact to adjacent propertoes, as the closest bu~ldongs are over l 00' to the south and west. The requested variance os somolar to other varoances that have been granted on the area. The proposed variance will allow this structure to be treated the same as other Structures within the voconoty, such as the Vaol lVlountaon Lodge, Apollo Park, the Town's Parkong Structure, and the Cornice buoldmg Tyrolean Cha[ef^ dv}auriello Pianninc~ Group, LLG • • all of which are constructed within setback areas (same built to the praperty line). 2. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a Specified regulation ~s necessary to achieve campat~b~lity and uniformity of treatment among Sites in the vicinity, or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of Special privilege. C?ur Analysis: • The proposed variance will allow the main level of the building to be expanded without the need far a Site coverage variance. The building addition is in a lacatipn an the site that has the least impact to development Standards and IeaSt impact to neighboring properties and structures. The proposed addition ~ncludeS apprax~mately 83. I sq. ft. within the side setback and at the closest paint the add~t~on s5 7' from the south praperty line (in line with the existsng building). The applicant is removong other Structural elements and Haar area currently located within the setbacks to help reduce the overall effect of the proposed addition. Areas being removed include= X8.3 SGT. ft. of GRFA located 2.5' from the south property line {lowest level of building) • 17.2 sc~. ft. of GRFA located 2.5' frarn the south property line (lowest level of building} • 153.8 5q. ft. of GRFA located 7' from the south property line (maEn level of bu}Iding) • 9~.2 scl. ft. of G1ZFA located 2.5' from the east property line (main level of budding) Therefore, there ~s approximately 3 15.5 sa. ft. of the building being removed from within the setbacks. This is nearly trsple the area being added to the budding located within the Side Setback { I X5.5 sq. ft.). The proposed variance is not a grant of speaal privilege given the nonconformsng location of the existing building, the measures bung taken to offset the ompact of the requested variance, and to need to create uniformity of treatment with other properties in the area. ;t ung Group, LLC 12 3. The effect of the requested variance on light. and air, d~str~bution of population, transportation and traffic facslit~es, public fac~l~tses and utilities, and public safety. Our Analysis: The pr©posed variance will have no negative impacts tc~ these issues. • ~J Tyrolean Chalet 13 Maurieilo Planning Group, LLC -- e a ~ OOYtlQl7J'l1YA DNI'll! lOtlld'! rA'Itl1 d ~ ~ V Wi ~ ~I O J O 2" J V j z~ Z ~~ ~~ o~ am U F- ~' z„ cr-~ i5~ ~ a= w~a ~ ¢ z~ d S U 6~~ Z °oFa~3 ei ~ ~~A~S!c~` ~ s a W J aw~aa ~~ y~ 2 a Z W W ''L J~ ~ N F g p O~ W ~y Wy J W~ ( a(+~~ N S~ 4fW J W T a O 'Q F O a ~c~~oao~~~Q~a V}Q V J ~ Kt~.C1 O~ W W =~¢ly ("1' [~fWq SWl1 H J W J p z a ; W Zl~r=a¢F~~aaal-Z~ 'arp u_Inm °~~00 O~ 7 N a UWd(7W W W0.0. 4 N W ¢ O b O r r N lry7 ryry Nry ry r~ ~y 1+~ D d ¢ J ¢ T~ K % ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ • ~ :;uaua~~e}~y I oaraa~w~ ~rvn oHn~ ~w •aiavai ° ~ i I p w~wns : ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~~ :_ _ _ _.. _ ,. _ I I _ M_,OO,B4.6(, N _ - - _ _ j .W'SL ~ _ __ IY g ~d -- I A N c° 0 u +t I ~1 E ~ Z ~,~ ~~ `*' z s $ r ~ 6_' ~ P ~ 5 ~~~ =f 1 ,~ _ ~ ` ~ ~ ~ .90'01 IV .o0.9~aC H I. _ _ 1' ~~ i ~ ; ~ i ~~ ~5 76 6~"- ~ 4 e t~ z C a v V ~ C ~ s 4 4 9 a ~~ ~. M Y 1~ [R i E F ~. `` i 1 rt I a oareo~a~-lrve aWnu iem~'a t3rai a 3 ~ Q a~: ~ ~ ~ d Nvwns~ M_ VG,9Y,6i N --y3--- i ms's: i-___ 7 y~ 1 '~ 1 ~ ~~ B ~ ~ ~ ~ a S 31x5 a7gf _ ,00'Gt k. ,OQ,9r.61 N ~ l }~ r_____________________,,,.~.~__________~ _ I IE ~ I I I I ~ 1 I e I I 1 I f I I I I I ~, 1 1 ~ I I L_ 1 I I I E E ;' I E i! E E E E I, m~ - i E ~I ~~ ' E i ~ ~, i ,1 s ~ ~ bl J~ E eI_a =~ NI I a n E ~~~ 1 E ~ z I ; Ig gad I E ~ E e ~€ 1 I E - ~ rr '~ E E it a~ E E I 4L'1 U ' E i 1 ~< E ;i ~ ~> ~Y r 1; U I `~ 3y ~ s ~ ~~ ~ ~° I ~``~ F P ~ a, ~ .`~ ."~ .-a ~,,, ~~ ~ d ~ ~ ~ 4 E ~ ~i ~ ~ ~~- ~ ~y ,/ 4 x. _'l ~ ~../ a S ~ ,, 3' - r I". y~ ~ .~;~' r ~~ ~ ~ ~ a a ~ r^J >3~ ~ ~~ 1 6Y ~ ~t _ _. _- _„_.-~.~ E>y ~ a ^~° 2e~ L ~~5 Pfd ~ ~ ~' ~~ ~~~~ I ~j'I.._ V`e, ~~ ~ ~i~ ~ ~ 'I ~ ~'"~ i -:e ti area r / !-',~ ~:. ;\\~F'^;~_ '. ` // ~ .k i ~ _~ _ 'I. ~~ ~ e ~` ~' v ,ff~'S6 M . 4.9Y.61 N ~:~ ~ G ~ Qt <_ /Q r ~ ~ %~ ~~~ w ~~~ ~ <~ ~~5 ~~~ a a~ m X69 G ~gu ~'. i !~5 O ° ~sp ~ ~d \ Z w r `- ` ~ ~_ - i• oavamo~•~irn oMnuisa~ e~wau a ° p e ~ ~.. 13~I~'"H~ N'~'~'~ ~~l ~ i ~ ,~ ~ ~ a~ Hywns_y~ . . . ~ ' ~~ ! ~~ Q I I ~ LL Q" J W 7 W J Z Q d W O~ 0. . Q~ ~ti ~x n ~~ ~~~~ i~a~ ~ .. ~, ~~ ~`. ego' ~`' g ~ o va~~ "z ~„,, oarato~w~~'Il~j~ivn^~y~r^HI'7lJ L8a1J'Y J..?Y;•MA~] /I~ ^^^ ~ a reel„u IkiJldli~y~i ~Yr2z 4.~R,Y.JF~::M-1.~ ~~~~H'\/ /. ~~~~~I'~+>rl~l y '~ y ~ 4 ~p ~~ d~ ~~i pfl 'y~~ ~~ a, ~, W3° ~~ ~~ ill I-- --I ~~} ~ ~ 1~ y ti O• u ~ ~ ~~ o ~~ ~~ ~~ ,_ ~a D ~ _ (o_~__ ,~ ~ m W g~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ `, Q ~Q~ I ~ F --- - - I ~. -~- - - ~_ ~ - -- -~ - ~o ~~ W e~ I'll ~~ ~ ~ xs --~ -ti-- - o - - ~ ._.~,. W. ,~ _ i ~ I ~~ ~1 i ~u - ~~ I. ae ~ u: I rr r W R ! t e., ..v °71Yh 9NflL•i 15tl13'917va1 h ° {1 d _ . awns 1a;3`7~H~ hi~'3`i~~I~.L ~ ~ R~ ~ ~ ~~ ~_ s: 13~~'c I 7I W I .~ I A I~ I I 1 ~ tl kss i"s h I I ~ l I I 1 - I - --- -L~ --_-- ' ~ I I I E E ~ I E Z I I I I ~I I ~~ d I ~ ~ I I ~ I _l I I f I ~ I I I W -' -_ ~ _ - - C3 1-~_-~-r --- -- ~-~ w i ~ ~ ~1 I 13~ ~ I I Z I ~ ~^ ~ xl I I I I Q I ~I I I `~ I ~ I I I I I Z6 I I ~: - --- ~---~}- - - - - - -- -y--- Vii ~,a ~ W~ I ~ I J I ~ ~~ I I I I 1 I ,{ ~y I E i I _~~ . I 1 I I ~ ~ I 1 ~I I I { JJ - Ix ~ ' = ~~e I I I .-.-{-.-. I~~~ '~~BQ i~ ` E E ~ °" ~J ~`~ ~ I e I - ~ .. 'I ~ ry I I. ~ry',7 I ~~ c,_:. ~~ -_ I ;,' ooveoio~•~rcn nNn~isais'ei~reu z HYWi1S a ~ es~~'I~~ • ~.. ~; C~ ^~~ _i '.Ili ` i-. ~ ; ~~ I ~; ~, ~~ ~I :rater ~ . ~' ~~a ' ~ L__~____._________~~ r i i ~ d ~ f i i i i I I I I I ~! ~ I I I _~_ ~ ~ ' _~_. 1. I 1 I I I I .p ....____~_-~_~~-_-~_______i-_____~ ~~'f~ II L 1.. -._ _ _TT.__-. ~~-- ,,. _..~.~.~. ...-... ~~yyg - Ei R- Q J a 0 O z~ ~_ w~ p • „ .~.w_..,.._ .. II 41 VIb I 14 11~iJJ:: _i L ~ ~ ill ~~ 1 Hvw~s 1 I I~^^ OUVaQ'103'71VA,~l'yJ*^NPIIl l,Btlld"®17YM1 ~ ` ~~ 1~~~ A R~~~~~A r^~ ~ k d ---~ I ~ ~ ~-----------~ ~a_J L=---- ©~ n~ Y ~~~ ~~ ~- h k 4 ~~ i n ~~ a~ ~i -~~ {{ ~ L 4 a~§ff a~ ~~~a~~~ y~ i i g ~ ~~'~ ~~ ~ ~ ~+~ ~~~ ~~~ • - i w r aarao~oatiivn 9Hrgu.~ai^^auvni a ~° ~ ~ ~ N ~' ~ s ~ r~ ' ~~~ ~~ Q a~ ~o ~ ~~^ ~~~a ~~~ a J J W lu 1 z a G W U} ~§ a~ ~~ b %q ~~~ g ~ ~?: ~W~~s o~~ ~a~a • ---~-------_ __ ~~_ _E~ I -^~--r-_-.. 11 ~~ ~~ ~I ~~~ ~ I~ ~~~~ ~' ~ ~ I a~~ I! E li I ~ ~~~~~~ I x ~~ I II I I I ~II I I g I Iq g~ ,. ~ I I Y5~ ~_ e? ~ I$ a ~ ~ t' ~ ~ I I I ~a~ ~`~, ~s f ~r I ~ is a ~fl p~~. y -_ i ' I I I I I ~_ ! ~~ .~ .~ I I i I I ~ Ji_-W _ .mss ~`- I I ~ I - ~ ?Q - ® - ' I I i^ - - I I I € -I-- _ x - II ~ J ~~ ~~ 0 ~~ ~ A ~ r rk _ II^ ~ ~ ~ ~_I ui,, .~ r ~; :.~, ~ ,~ ~`~ e g 'i: g~~ _..~ ... .no'~rvn ownu xs~e+~'e x~vux a 5 . :_ _ ~~ iili~~l~ ,~, I~ i~ .. I ~~' f ~ I. ,~ { 1~ 0 ~ ~ I i i 1 1 ~ ~ Ir or I 1 ;l i t ~ ~ i ~~ f r' ~J ~~ / ~s f ~ ~ ~ ~~ l r 1 ~ r l l I l I ~, l 1 ,- ~~ I 1 r ~~.. ~~ 1 I J -~`--- ~g ~' ^ ~~~~ ®~ N aa~a ~~ ~ ~ ~ r r J J l f o~ ' 1. ~I I 1 . ~~ f l 1 .PZ ~ J ~ Jr ~ J! rr~ ~ J J J J' J J J ~ ~ ~ ~ J J ,.. ~ ~ ~ ~ J ~ J J 4 ~~ ~~---;r_.~---- of ~ ~ a~ ~ ,~.~ . ~.. ~;J J -; ~ J l r f ~~ ~~ Jf ~f J J r I~ ~i J ~~~ J ~ ~~ J ~ ~~ f------- ~ -- ^ J J J 1~ ~ ~ of J~J~~ ~~ ~_ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,~ j_~ J r 1 J r J ~ - ~- ~r---~--~ _ 4 1 ~ f. ~ t N f ~ 1 ~ ~t ,t g~~~ 1 ~ r r ! J ~ 8 1/I ~ ~a~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ! ~ ~ J 1 J 1 1J J I l 1 1 1 l l f l l J f 1 JI I JJ 1 ! l ~ !' l rf rf r l l l IJ 1J JJ 1 ~ f m ~, x A' R ! ~~ ^7[.,O~CY2l01OD °11YA DKTIIi lShcl.~'81'Ytll ~r I ~ q 8 .,. , ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ v ~ ~ ~s r,€ G t °~~~~ ~~L7[]CI~ ~, I ~55~ g ~~ ~Q W ..! i' W ~- W ~~ S I ~ I I I --~. ~ ~ X11 ~ -.~,.', ~ i i i I~ i ~ i ~ ~, 1 .'"• I~ -----~ ' 1 ,: . r I I _ I I I I i I 1 i 1 I I I I I // I r { ` ~~ ~I~~ ~ III ~T ' ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ I 6 ~ 9 I ^1 r ~ I I I I ~ I I I `~ f r-, ~ __~~$~ I I €~ ; I I s3= I r~~----J -1~ ~~ ~ i a; .W J 11 W W o !. W 0.~ N ~ pq~i S k • •i 4 ~ .o.,_..--- -•,_...,. ~;`, earao~o~7rcn ~Hnuicui.'ei3va.~ a ,~ I +a~ ~ ¢~¢ T~ S ~ ~ o~ ~~~ ~~e~ r ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~3~~~ Y ~' YP 1. ! Y ~~~ s ~ ~ ~ - ~~ ~t ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ s ~ ~ a ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ '' ~ II ii I ~ I I~-~'. } , ~ ~I ~I I I I A ~ - -- rn . ~ _ ~ ~f ; ~ ~ w~ _ - _ ~- - - - ~-~ - i ~ _ , 1 _. ~_ ~ ~ = ~~. -- if ~~~. - =~~ fir- - -_ - _ _ __ ~~ - a' - _ _ I - ~_- ~ i i ': _ - ~ _ ~ _ ~ s - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~. _ _ __ ~~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~i I ~ - =_ ~ ~ ~_ ~, _~ ~ l ~ . ~~ ~ ~_ _ I _ - ' i - ~ - = i _ _. - ~ ~ - -;~ , ~ I - a_- - r~ i - 'I 4 A ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ Z a w w a v w a~ a~ ~ 3 ~~ I ~ ;~_ ~~e ~~ ~~a a;~ ~~~ '~ ~~ &k' E~ vp 4 tRg 7 ~ , __._ a,R it i ...ao nnn nNnw asa:e •a iavai I _ ~ f '~ ~ ~~ ~ ~# ~~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ QQ44' ~ i } Y ~9 ~ ~ og ~ 6Y B $ ~b~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ s ! ~'~~~ ~aQOOo ~a e~~ i ~ ~ ~~ I ~~ ~~ 5~r ----~ I I O I I ~ I 3 ~ I ~ i ~~ ~ I y~ i q 6 ~~ ~ I ~ f ~§ . Ns W~ '~ t __ . I I I I I I I I I I I h1 - ~ 1 I 5 i ~ i i ~ 5 -~ z i 0 ~ i ? I u~ ~ w I i ~ I I ~ I ~ I ~ ~' I Q i I ~, ,~, ,4~ ,,. , .~,,,, , Q _, ~ ` I ,. ---LL- 4 , -` .- _ i - _-_ _ '~ a { J ~f. ~" 1 ~~ I I ~ I ~~~ 3 e N w ~ ~ ~d~ ~ Yd $ $ 0.~ 3 a~,. L~.; i 1 ---~~Qp d ,~ T i e • Attachment; D, 1~`~ ~. THIS ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY ~~,~~:, PUBLEC NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail will hold a public Rearing in accordance with Section 12-3-6, Vail Town Code, on July 26, 2004, at 2:00 PM in the Town of Vail Municipal Building, in consideration of: A request far a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for the establishment of Special Development District No. 38, Manor Vail Lodge, to allow far the redevelopment of the Manor Vail Lodge, and a request for a conditional use permit to allow for the construction of Type III Employee Housing Units, pursuant #o Section 12-5H-3, Vail Town Cade, and a request for a final review of a conditional use permit, pursuant to Chapter 12-6H-3, Privake Clubs and Civic, Cultural and Fraternal ©rgani~ations, Vail Town Code, to allow for the safe of 30 parking spaces, located at 595 Vail Valley DrivelLots A, B, & C, Vail Village Filing 7, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Manor Vail, represented by Zehren and Associates Planner: Warren Campbell A request for a final review of variance, pursuant to Chapter 11-10, Variances and Appeals, Vail Town Code, far a variance from Chapter 11-6-4, Building Identification Signs, to allow for a new free standing building identification sign, located at 934 South Frontage Roadlunplattedjand setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: George Brodin, represented by Mauriello Planning Group, LLC Planner, Warren CampbelllClare Sloan A request for a final review of a rrminorsubdivision, pursuant to Ghapter 13-4, Minor Subdivisions, Vail Town Code, to amend the locations of the existing building envelopes, located at 1390 Buffehr Creek Road/Lots A, B, C, Residences at Briar Patch Condos and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Residences of Briar Patch Homeowner Association, represented by Zehren and Associates Planner: Bill Gibson A request for a final review of a variance, pursuant to Chapter 12, Variances, Vail Town Code, from Section 12-6H-6, Setbacks, Vail Town Code, to allow for a minor alteration, located at 400 East Meadow Drive, Unit 9, (Tyrolean Inn}/Lot 5 D, Black 5, Vail Village Filing 1 and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Tyrolean Chalet, LLC., represented by Mauriello Planning Group, LLC Planner: Matt Gennett The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend project orientation and the site visits that precede the public Rearing in the Town of Vail Community Development Department. Please call (970} 479-2138 for additional information. Sign language interpretation is available upon request with 24-hour notification. Please call (970} 479-2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. Published July 9, 2004, in the Vail Daily. ~. Attachment: E MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community C-evelopment Department DATE: May 10, 2004 ,~ SUBJECT: A request for final review of a variance from Section 12-6H-8, Density Control, Vail Town Cade, to allow for a conversion of the existing Tyrolean Restaurant space, Unit 9, into a dwelling unit located at 4017 East Meadow Drivel Lot 5D, Black 5, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Josef Langegger, represented by MPG, LI_C Planner: Matt Gennett I. SUMMARY The applicant is requesting to convert the existing Tyrolean Restaurant, Unit 9 of the Tyrolean Condominiums, into a residential dwelling unit (Attachment A}. The Tyrolean Condominiums site is presently in a state of pre-existing nonconformity with respect to both the restaurant use and the current amount of Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA}. The proposed new residence is to encompass the entire restaurant space that exists today, which is 4,685 square feet. Under the proposed plan, the conversion of the restaurant space into a residence will result in a new total GRFA of 16,985 square feet of GRFA. As the subject space is already existent in the building, there will be no net increase of bulk and mass an the subject property. Based upon the criteria and findings in Section VIII of this memorandum, staff is recommending approval with conditions of the applicant°s variance request. II. DESCR[PTION OF REQUEST The applicant is requesting to convert an existing restaurant space into a residential unit, thereby necessitating a variance to further exceed the allowable GRFA onste, Currently, the existing structure is in a state of nonconformity in terms of the restaurant use itself, as it is not a permitted or conditional use in the High Density Multiple Family (HDMF} zone district, and in regard to the amount of GRFA in excess of what is presently allowed. Today, the Tyrolean Condominiums have 12,300 square feet of GRFA, or 2,617 square feet in excess of the allowed 9,623 square feet of GRFA allowed far the site Attachment B}. The proposed residence will not require the construction or establishment of any new parking spaces and will actually reduce the number of spaces required onsite as a result of removing the more intensive restaurant use. Otherzaning standards including, but not limited to, site coverage, building height, setbacks, and landscape area will remain unchanged with this proposal. 1 ~. ti ro~~o~ ~g~L '~ Ell. BACKGROUND In 1968, the Blue Cow Restaurant was constructed on the southern portion of the subject property. , In 1969, the property was zoned High Density Multiple Family {H1=?MF} which alEowed restaurants as an accessory use within amultiple-family building. In 1973, the Town of Vail re-adopted the zoning regulations (Ordinance No. 8, 1973) and removed restaurants as an accessory use in the HpMF zone district, thereby making the Tyrolean Restaurant {then the Blue Gow Restaurant) a nonconforming use. In 198D, the Tyrolean Condominiums were constructed and attached to the existing "Blue Cow„ restaurant structure. The subject property currently contains $ individual dwelling units, the Tyrolean Restaurant, which includes two additional dwelling units, 20 enclosed parking spaces, and three surface parking spaces- lV. REVIEWING B(]ARD ROLES A. The Planning and Environmental Commission is responsible for evaluating a proposal for: 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicini#y, or to attain the objectives of this Title without grant of special privilege. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. . 4. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. B. The DRB has NU review authority on a variance, but must review any accompanying DRB application. C. Town Council Actions of Design Review Board or Planning and Environmental Commission maybe appealed to the Town Council or by the Town Council. Town Council evaluates whether or not the Planning and Environmental Commission or Design Review Board erred with approvals or denials and can uphold, uphold with modifications, or overturn the board's decision. 2 D. Staff The staff is responsible far ensuring that all submittal requirements are provided and plans conform to the technical requirements of the Zoning Regulations. The staff also advises the applicant as to compliance with the design guidelines. Staff provides a staff memorandum containing background an the property and provides a staff evaluation of the project with respect to the required criteria and findings, and a recommendation an approval, approval with conditions, ar denial. Staff also facilitates the review process. V. APPLICABLE. PLANNING DQCUMENTS TITLE 12, ZONING REGULATIONS ARTICLE H. HIGH DENSITY MULTIPLE-FAhIIILY (HDMF) DISTRICT (excerpted) 12-6H-1: PURPOSE: The high density multiple-family district is Intended to provide sifes far multiple-family dwellings at densities fo a maximum of twenty five (25) dwelling units per acre, together with such public and semipublic facilities and lodges, private recreation facilities and related visitor oriented uses as may appropriately be Located in the same district. The high density multiple-family district is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space, and other amenities commensurate with high density apartment, condominium and lodge uses, and to maintain the desirable residential and resort qualities of the district by establishing appropriate site development standards. Certain nonresidential uses are permitted as condiflonal uses, which relate to the nature of Vail as a winter and summer recreation and vacation community and, where permitted, are Intended fa blend harmoniously with the residential character of the district. 12-6H-2: PERMITTED USES: The following uses shall be permitted In the HDMF district: Lodges, including accessary eating, drinking, recreational or retail establishments, located within the principal use and not occupying more than ten percent (9C1%) of the total gross residential floor area (GRFA) of the main structure or structures an the site; additional accessory dining areas maybe located an art outdoor deck, porch, or terrace. Multiple-family residential dwellings, including attached . or raw dwellings and condominium dwellings.. 12-6H-3: CONDITIONAL USES: The following conditional uses shall be permifted in the HDMF district, subject to Issuance of a eondifianal use permit in accprdance with the provisions of chaoter 16 of this title: Bed and breakfast as further regulated by section 72-74-i8 of this title; Churches; Dog kennel; Nome child daycare facility as further regulated by section 72-14-12 of this title; Private clubs and civic, cultural and fraternal organizations, Public buildings, 3 grounds and facilities; Public or commercial parking facilities or structures; Public or private schools; Public park and recreation facilities; Public fransportation terminals; Public utility and public service uses; Ski lifts and tows; Time share estate units, fractional fee units and time share license units, Type Ill employee housing units (EHU) as provided in cha,~ter 73 of fhis title. 12-6H-4: ACCESSORY USES: The following accessary uses steal! be permitted in the HDMF district: Home occupations, subject fo issuance of a home occupation permit in accordance with fhe provisions of secfian 72-94-12 of this title; Private greenhouses, fool sheds, playhouses, attached garages or carports, swimming pools, ar recreation facilities customarily incidental to permitted residential and ]odge uses; Other uses customarrly incidental and accessory fo permitted or conditional uses, and necessary for the operation thereof. 12-6H-8: DENSITY CONTROL: Nof more than sixty (6Q) square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA) shall be permitted for each one hundred (904j square feet of buildable site area. Nat more fhan sixfy (60) square feet of gross resr'dential floor area shall be permitted far each one hundred (1 QQ) square feet of buildable sife area for any conditional use listed in section 72-6h-3 of this article. Total density shall not exceed Twenty Itve (25) dwelling units per acre of buildable site area. Each accommodation unit shall be counted as one-half (?/2) of a dwelling unit far purposes of calculating allowable units per acre. A dwelling unit in amultiple-family building may include ane atfached accommodation unit no larger than one-third (9f3) of the total floor area of the dwelling. 12-6H-11: PARKING AND LOADING: Off street parking and loading shall be provided in accordance with cha,eter 90 of this title. At least seventy five percent (75r) of the required parking shall be located within the main building or buildings and hidden from public view or shall be completely hidden from public view from adjoining properties within a landscaped berm. No parking shall be lacafed in any required (rant setback area. CHAPTER 13. EMPLOYEE HOUSING 12-13-4: REQUIREMENTS BY EMPLOYEE HOUSING UNIT (EHU) TYPE: Per section 12-15-3 of this title, type ll{ employee housing units are excluded from the calculation of GRFA and do not count toward density. CHAPTER 15, GROSS RESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA (GRFA) (excerpted) 12-15-3: DEFINITION, CALCULATION, AND EXCLUSIONS: 2. Multiple-Family Structures: Within buildings canfar`ning mare than two (2) allowable dwellings ar accommodation units, the faNowing additional areas shall be excluded from calculation as GRFA. GRL=A shall be calculated by measuring the Tots! square footage of a building as set forth herein. Excluded areas as set forth shall then be deducted from the total square footage: (8j Floor area to be used in a type III "employee housing unit (EL-IU)" as defined and restricted by chanter 13 of this Title. CHAPTER 17, VARIANCES (excerpted) 12-17-1: PURPUSE: A. Reasons For Seeking Variance: In order to prevent or to Lessen such practical difficulties and unnecessary physical hardships inconsistent with the objectives of this Title as would result from strict or Literal interpretation and enforcement, variances from certain regulations maybe granted. A practical difficufty or unnecessary physical hardship may resulf from the size, shape, or dimensions of a site or fhe location of existing structures thereon; from topographic or physical conditions on The site or in the immediate vicinity; or from other physical limitations, street locations or conditions in the immediate vicinity. Cosf or inconvenience to the applicant of strict or lifers! compliance with a regulation shall not be a reason for granting a variance. B. ^evelopment Standards Excepted: Variances may be granted only with respect to the development standards prescribed for each district, including lot area and life dimensions, setbacks, distances between buildings, height, density control, building bulk control, site coverage, usable open space, landscaping and site development, and parking and Loading requirements; or with respecf fo the provisions of chapter 7 ? of this title, governing physical development on a site. C. Use Regulafions Not Affected: The power to grant variances does not extend to the use regulations prescribed for each district because the flexibility necessary to avoid results inconsistent wifh the objectives of This title is provided by chapter 96, "Conditional Use Permits" and by section 12-3-7. "Amendment" of fhis title. 12-17-6: CRITERIA AND FINDINGS: A. Factors Enumerated.' Before acting on a variance application, the planning and environmental commission shall consider the following factors with respect to the requested variance: 7. The relationship of fire requested variance fo other exisfing or potential uses and structures in The vicinity. 2. The degree to which relief from The strict or literal interprefafion and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary fo achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity, or to attain the objectives of this fide without grant of special privilege. 3. The eff~cf of the requested variance an light and air, distribution of population, transportation and Traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. 5 4. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the prapased variance. B. !Necessary Findings: The planning and environmenfa! commission shall make fhe faNawing Endings before granting a variance: ~. That fhe granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in fhe 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 far one or mare of the following reasons: a. The strict or lifers! interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with fhe objectives of this title. b. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable fo fhe site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. c. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive fhe applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in fhe same district. VI. SITE ANALYSIS Lot Size: 16,(739 square feet / .368 acres Hazards: None Standard Allowed/Required Existing Proposed Setbacks: Front: 20 ft. 54' na change Sides: 20 ft. 1-2' no change Rear: 2[3 ft. 4` no change Height: 48' ~~18' nq change GRFA: 9,623 sq. ft. 12,390 sq. ft. 16,988 sq. ft. Site Coverage: 55% (8,821 sq. ft.} 56°!° (9,0758 sq. ft,} no change Density: 9 DUs 10 DUs 9 DUs Landscape Area: 30)°!0 {4,812 sq, ft.} 43°!° (6,981 Sq. ft.) no change Parking: 19 spaces 23 spaces no change s • Surroundina land uses and Zanina; Land Use North: CDOT RC~W South: Qpen Space East: Residential West: Transportation Center VII CRITERIA AIVD FIh1DINGS Zaninq Not Applicable Natural Area Preservation (NAP} High Density Multiple Family (HDMF} General Use (GU) A. Consideration of Factors Reaardina the Variances: 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. • Staff has determined that the requested variance will result in a harmonious relationship between the new residential dwelling unit and the eight other residential condominium units already existent within the structure (Attachment B}. The new residence will also be compatible with the existing and potential uses, and structures, in the vicinity of the Tyrolean. The restaurant use, which is not a permitted, conditional, or accessory use in the HDMF zone district, is far less compatible with the residential uses in the area due to its concomitant externalities such as noise, odor, and traffic congestion. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and. enforcement. of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility anti uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without a grant of special privilege. • Staff believes the request may be excessive with respect to the proposed amount of GRFA to be converted from restaurant use, the exisfing amount of GRFA that is presently out of conformance, and the other alternatives far mitigating the extent of the desired GRFA variance. The applicant has not demonstrated an exhaustive approach to this variance request in terms of establishing the degree to which relief from the strict and literal inferpretation of the GRFA standard attains the objectives of Title 12 without a grant of special privilege. There are other options to achieve a change in use for the restaurant, and opportunities to lessen the extent of the variance being sought, such as incorporating a Type III employee housing unit into the plan, which would be staff's suggestion. One Type I I I employee housing unit of 1,2DC1 square feet, the allowable maximum, would not count toward density or GRFA, would require only two parking spaces, and would serve a specific community need, thereby constituting a community benefit. Creating the new 1,204 square foot Type 111 employee housing unit would reduce the new amount of GRFA being requested from 4,685 square feet to 3,485 square feet. The 7 applicant could propose mare than ane Type !II employee hauling unit onsite, but incorporating only ane would result in conformance with parking requirements and still leave the property with one surplus parking space. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. Since the s#ructure and site will remain mostly unchanged in association with this proposal, the variance will not have any effect upon light, air, distribution of population, transportation, traffic facilities, public facilities, utilities, or public safety in comparison to existing conditions. However, pursuant to the parking requirements of the HDMF zone district (Section 12-6H-11, Vail Town Cade} the three surface parking spaces must be completely screened from the view of any adjacent properties using appropriate landscaping and planting of vegetation (Attachment D). Obviously, since these spaces can currently be viewed from the South Frontage Road, this criterion must be met in association with any proposal for the Tyrolean property. Staff recommends that the applicant be directed tca provide adequate landscaping to screen these surface spaces from the view of passing vehicles along the South Frontage Road, as well as from neighboring properties. 4. Such other factors and criteria as the comrniissian deems applicable to the proposed variance. It has not been established how the Tyrolean reached its present state of nonconformity in terms of the excessive GRFA as there is nothing in the Town of Vail legal files which verifies the processes by which the condominiums amassed 2,677 square feet of GRFA in excess of their allowable maximum. The Tyrolean Condominiums were constructed in 1980 and apparently have not changed in size ar configuration since originally developed. The restaurant is apre-existing, nonconforming use that has existed as such for 35 years and has evidently become obsolete by virtue of its location in town. A fundamental question could be asked about which is the greater nonconformity, the restaurant use or the zoning standard being exceeded, GRFA? From a planning perspective, the permitted uses are the primary elements in the hierarchy of a zone district from which there never can be granted a variance. Zoning standards can be modified through the granting of a variance, and so from this perspective the applicant's proposal is more desirable because it eliminates a use that is not permitted in the HDMF zone district. However, there are other allowable uses, permitted and conditional in the HDMF zone district, which are plausible in the Tyrolean Condominiums structure. Examples of these uses include Type Ili Employee Housing Units and Bed &~ Breakfast uses that would be conditional uses compatible with the surrounding uses in the vicinity, Additionally, a portion of the 4,685 square foot space in question could be used for association amenities, such as a spa, gym, office, or meeting room and not count toward GRFA as they would be common area. The purpose of a variance is listed as follows: ,4easons For Seeking Variance: !n order to prevent or to lessen such practical difficulties and unnecessary physical hardships r`nconsistent with the objectives of this title as would result from strict or literal interpretation and enforcement, variances from certain regulations may be granted. A practical di~culfy or unnecessary physica! hardship may result from the size, shape, or dimensions of a site or the location of existing structures thereon; from topographic or physical conditions on the site or in the immediate vicinity; or from other physical limitations, street locations or condition in the immediate vicinity. Cost orinconvenience fo the applicant ofstrict or literal compliance with a regulation shat! not be a reason forgranting a variance. Another factor to be considered with this variance proposal is the mechanism l,y which the applicant is proposing to increase the allowable GRFA onsite, The application being considered does not exhibit any practical difficulties ar unnecessary physical hardships that require a variance as stated in section 12-17-6, Variances, Vail Town Code, excerpted above. Perhaps another mechanism, such as the formation of a Special Development District (SDD), would be better suited to the needs of the applicant. An SDD would allow the applicant to customize zoning standards, such as the allowed GRFA maximum, according to the Approved Development Plan for the SDD. Another advantage to this approach is that the Approved Development Plan could Then be amended, through the MajorAmendmentto and SDD process, as was done with the Alpenrose Restaurant last year. The Alpenrose received approval for a Major Amendment to SDD No. 6 to convert a portion of their restaurant space into GRFA for a dwelling unit. B, The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before arantinq a variance; 9. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with 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, That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. 9 c. The s#rict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. VI19. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends approval with conditions of the request for final review of a variance from Section 12-fiH-8, Density Control, Vail Tawn Cade, to allow for a conversion of the existing Tyrolean Restaurant space, Unit 9, into a dwelling unit located at 400 East Meadow Drive! Lot 5D, Block 5, Vail Village Filing 1, subject to the criteria outlined in Section VII of this memorandum and the following findings: 1. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with 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 ar improvements in the vicinity. 8. That the variance is warranted far one ar more of the following reasons: a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regula#ion would result in practical difficulty ar unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances orcanditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. c. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve the variance request, the Community Development Department recommends the following condition of approval: 1. The applicant provides a revised landscape plan, as part of a Design Review Application, depicting adequate landscape screening of the three surface parking spaces, pursuant to section 12-6H-11, Vail Town Code, and performs said landscaping concurrently with the conversion of the restaurant space in order to be in compliance with zoning. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to deny the variance request, the fallowing findings and conditions must be made: That the strict, literal interpretation or enforcement of the setback regulation does not result in a practical difficulty ar unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the development objectives of the Town Cade or the Primary/Secondary Residen#ial Zone District. 1d • 2. That the strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would not deprive the applican# of privileges enroyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. 3. That the requested variance deviates from the provisions of the F'rirnarylSecondary Residential Zone District regulations more than is necessary to achieve a practical solution to the applicant's objectives. 4. There are no exceptions nor extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the site that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. 5. That the granting of the variance would be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. • • IX. ATTACHMENTS N. Vicinity Allap B. Applicant`s Request C. Reduced Plans D. 'Photos of surface parking E, List of adjacent property owners F. Public Notice 31 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commissian FROlU1: Department of Community Development DATE: June 26, 20Q4 SUBJECT: A request far a recommendation to the Vail Town Cauncili far the establishment of Special Development District No. 38, Manor Vail Lodge, to allow for the redevelopment of the Manor Vail Lodge, and a request far a conditional use permit to allow for the construction of Type III Employee Housing Units, pursuant to Section 12-6H-3, Vail Town Code, and a request for a final review of a conditional use permit, pursuant to Chapter 12-6H-3, Private Clubs and' Civic, Cultural and Fraternal Qrganizations, Vail Town Code, to allow for the sale of 3f} parking spaces, located at 595 Vail Valley Drive/Lots A, B, & C, Vail Village Filing 7, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Manor Vail, represented by Zehren and Associates Planner: Warren Campbell I. SUMMARY The purpose of this meeting is to allow the applicant an opportunity to present revised plans for the proposed redevelopment for Manor Vail Lodge to the Planning and Environmental Commission. Staff has included multiple questions in this memorandum for which the staff and applicant would like feedback. Through the identified questions staff would request that the Commission identify issues which need to be addressed prior to return far a final review of the proposed Special Development District (SDD}. This proposal differs from that previously seen by the Commission on March $, 20Q4, in that there has been an additional below grade level on the perking structure added and a request for a conditional use permit to establish a parking club to allow for the sale of 30 parking spaces. The Commission is not being asked to take any formal action on this application at this time. As such, staff will not be providing a formal recommendation at this time. II. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant, Manor Vail Lodge Condominium Association, represented by Zehren and Associates, has requested a work session meeting with the Planning and Environmental Commissian to present revised plans for a proposed development application and request for the establishment of a new special development district intended to facilitate the redevelopment of Manor Vail Lodge, located at 595 Vail Valley Drivel Lots A, B, & C, Vail Village 7th Filing. A vicinity map has been attached far reference (attadhment A~. The key elements of the proposal include: 1 • Expansion and upgrading of one of Vall's High Density Multiple-Family zoned properties, • A deviation from the maximum allowable number of dwelling units X7.4 additional units] A deviation from the allowable amount of Gross Residential Floor Area ~~1,$55 square feet additional] A deviation from the allowable building height (64.5' proposed at worst case on Building Fj. I.n mast case the building heights on the portions of the buildings proposed far new storey additions range between 52 and 6fl i feet. ~ • Elimination of surface parking on the north portion of the site and the creation of one three-level partially below grade parking structure and continuance of the existing surface parking along Vail Valley Drive. The proposed plan includes parking for the project with additional parking which would be proposed to be far sale. • Provision of one employee housing units to accommodate four ~4j employees within the Town of Vail. • The addition of a fourth floor to a portion of Buildings A and B and full fourth floor added to buildings C, D, E, and F, the addition of third floor connections between Buildings D and B and B and C, and the addition of a third and fourth floor connection between Buildings D and E and E and F. • • The exterior remodel of all the buildings located on the site. The cleanup and improvement of both Mill Creek and Gore Creek. • The encroachment of several buildings and the existing parking into ~; required setbacks. • The proposal to establish a parking club to allow for the sale of 30 parking spaces within the proposed parking structure. A copy of a letter from the applicant dated June 28, 2504, has been attached for reference (attachment >3j. A reduced copy of the floor plans and elevations have been attached far reference (attachment Cj. III. BACKCR4UND On July t4, 20Q3, the applicant, Manor Vail, was before the Planning and Environmental Commission to request a height and setback encroachment variance for the construction of an additional floor on tap of Buildings D, E, and F. That application was tabled as staff was p recommending denial of the height variance and the Commission could not make a finding of a hardship. The applicant requested the tabling in order to redesign the proposal so as to eliminate the need for a height variance. In association with this application the applicant held a work session with the Town of Vail Design Review Board where the Board generally expressed that the proposal was an improvement. The ', variance application was later withdrawn as the applicant was planning to submit an application for a Special Development District. C)n December 3, 20Q3, the applicant met with Town of Vail Design ~ ~ Review Board, for a conceptual review discussion on the Special Development District proposal. The Board's review at that meeting 2 focused primarily on building mass and the architectural farm of the proposal. A copy of the Design Review Board's comments has been attached for reference (attachment D}. + On December 8, 2003, the applicant met with the Tawn of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission for a work session on the Special Develapment District proposal. The Commission's review at that meeting focused on building mass, deviations from the High-Density Multiple Family District, and public benefit. A copy of the December $, 2043, Planning and Environmental Commission minutes has been attached for reference attachment E). ~ On Qecember 17, 2003, the applicant met with Town 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 primarily on building mass and the architectural form of the proposal A copy of the Design Review Board's comments has been attached for reference (attachment F}. • Un January 12, 2004, the applicant met with the Town of Vail Planning and Environmental 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-Density Multiple Family District, and public benefit. A copy of the January 12, 2044, Planning and Environmental Commission minutes has been attached for reference (attachment G). • Qn March 3, 2004, the applicant met with Town of Vail Design Review Board for a conceptual review discussion on revisions made to the Special Develapment District proposal The Board's review at that meeting focused primarily on building mass and the architectural form of the proposal. A copy of the Design Review Board's comments has been attached for reference (attachment fi). • ©n March 8, 2004, the applicant met with the Tawn of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission far a work session on the Special Development District proposal. The Commission's review at that meeting focused on building mass, deviations from the High-Density Multiple Family District, and public benefit. A copy of the March 8, 2004, Planning and Environmental Commission minutes has been attached for reference (attachment I). • On April 6, 2004, the applicant met with the Town Council and proposed to improve the existing tennis court site and Mill Creek with landscaping and stream bank improvements as part of their public benefits associated with this project. The applicant proposed to repair the tennis courts as they are currently in need of repair. This repair would occur after their use as a staging area for the proposed Manor Vail improvements. In addition, the applicant is proposed to relocate the pedestrian path leading from Vaif Valley Drive to Ford Park. The applicant also proposed the construction of a portion of the walkways and decks on the rear of Building C within Town stream tract land. In general, the Council was not favorable towards the elimination of the tennis courts for the creation of a new park, the relocation of the Ford Park path onto Town property south of Vai! Valley Drive, nor the use of Town land far private improvements. 3 IV. V. SITE ANALYSIS According to the application information provided by the applicant staff has performed an analysis of the proposal in relation to the requirements of the Vaii Code. The deviations to the prescribed development standards are shown in bold text in the table below. The analysis performed by s#aff took. into account the reduction in lot area created by the current proposal to exchange 430 square feet of Manor Vail property for 215 square feet of Town owned stream tract property to accommodate the proposed elevators on the rear of Building G. Zoning: High Density Multiple-Family Land Use Plan Designation: Vail Village Master Plan Study Area Current Land Use: Mixed Use/Residential Development Standard Allowed Fxistina Praoosed Lot Area: 14,400 sq.ft. 238,965.4 sq.ft. 236,751.4 sq.ft. Buildable Area: 232,932.4 sq.ft. 232,717.4 sq.ft. Setbacks: Front: 20' 8' No Ghange Sides: 20' 20'1100' Na Change Rear: 24' 1' No Ghange Mill Greek: Building F 30" 5' No Ghange Parking Structure 34' 11' 30' ' ' ' Building Height: 48 32 64.5 Density: 25 units/acre 23.2 unitslacre 25.9 units !acre 133.5 D.U.s 123 D.U.s 141 D.U.s CaRFA; 139,834.53 sq. ft. 121,365.4 sq. ft, 161,486 sq. ft. Site Coverage: 134,213.27 sq.ft. 68,995 sq.ft. 95,744 sq.ft. (55~r°) (23.5°ro} (4a.4%) Landscape Area; 71,025.42 sq.ft. 77,146 sq,ft. 95,979 sq.ft. (34%~ (32.6°~0~ (44.5°Ir°~ Parking; 223 spaces 178 spaces 221 spades DISCUSSION ISSUES The purpose of this work session meeting is to allow the applicant an opportunity to present the redevelopment plans for Manor Vail to the Planning and Environmental Commission and to provide the applicant, public, staff, and the Commission an opportunity to identify issues for discussion at a future meeting. The Commission is not being asked to take any formal positions on this application at this time. However, staff has identified severai issues at this time that we believe should be discussed. The issues are: 4 A. Complete Development Application The Town of Vail has reviewed the development application submitted by the applicants representative far completion and compliance with the prescribed submittal requirements. Upon completion of our (Community Development, Public Works, and l=ire Department} review, it has been determined that additional information is required to be submitted and reviewed before any final decisions may be made by the reviewing boards. Many of these issues have already been communicated to the applicant. C+thers have not. For reference purposes, the following information is needed: • A sun/shade analysis needs to be completed per the requirements in order to identify the impacts of the additional height on neighboring properkies. The submitted sunlshade analysis does pat show potential impact on the neighboring Texas Townhomes property. It appears that there may be same negative impact to the eastern mast unit. • ~ Address the comments provided by the Town of Vail Public Works Department in the mema dated. ,July 15, 2004 (attachment J} • Submit an applicant for a conditional use permit to allow far a Type III Employee Housing to be constructed on the development site. This can be done at a later date. • Provide greater detail on the proposed Mill Greek stream bank stabilization proposal for inclusion as a public benefit. • All plans need to be check and updated to match each other as the proposal has recently changed and some of the corresponding documents have not been updated. The plans submitted on June 28, 2004, need to be checked as there were multiple drafting errors found. Pursuant to Section ~ 2-7A-12 (A}(2)~j} of the Vail Town Code, 'Any additional information or material as deemed necessary by the Administrator or the Town Planning and Environmenfai Commission may be requested': Is #here any additi©nal information or materials that the Planning and Environmental Commission finds is necessary to be submitted for review and consideration prior to acting upon the requests of the applicant? does the Commission want any additional photo renderings which will provide a different perspective on the potential impacts? Included with this memo are several photo renderings which will substitute for a more traditional massing model. The applicant currently has only submitted renderings showing the after design of the project. Staff has directed the applicant that in order for a final hearing to be conducted. that both before and after renderings will need to be submitted. B. Proposed Setback Encroachments The proposal includes the construction of approximately 4,~8$ square feet of addition Gross Square Footage of which 2,78(} square feet is Gross Residential Floor Area within the required setbacks of the High Density Multiple-Family District. All of the proposed encroachments occur within the rear setback which abuts the Ford Park parcel. There is currently 12,17fl square feet of Gross Square Footage of which 9,521 square feet is Gross Residential Floor Area within the required setbacks of the High Density Multiple-Family District. Does the Commission believe this to be acceptable or in excess of what is appropriate? If the Commission believes the encroachments are excessive what changes are suggested? In the previous submittal the applicant proposed to not enclose the loading and delivery at the rear of Building B. The current proposal has been revised to include an enclosed loading and delivery area. The proposed enclosed loading and delivery area is located within the required setbacks. C. Prooosed llnderaround Parkins Structures and Traffic IrnDacts As a part of this proposal the applicant would like to construct one partially underground parking structure on the north portion of the site and keep the surface parking along Vail Valley Drive as it exists today. The proposed parking structure would eliminate a majority of the surface parking. Staff and the applicant are currently in the process of determining the amount of parking provided as there are several spaces in the structure which need to be adjusted in order to meet Code requirements. In addition, staff and the applicant are working on some adjustments and reconfigurations to the existing parking lot along Vail Valley Drive as some of the current spaces are unusable. Does the Commission believe the parking proposal is acceptable? if the parking structure is not acceptable what changes should be made to make it acceptable? Does the Commission value the partially below grade parking structure as a public benefit? Staff previously identified the need a need for an extensive traffic study to examine the impacts along Vail Valley Drive from the Frontage Road to Manor Vail with each intersection examined closely for impacts. After the applicant reduced the number of parking spaces and was proposing to provide no additional parking to service other properties, staff determined that a traffic study will no longer be needed. The current proposal includes a conditions! use permit application to allow for the establishment of a parking club in order to sell 31) parking spaces within the parkir}g structure, Does the Gommission believe a traffic study is needed to evaluate this proposal? I 5 The current proposal proposes to leave the existing parking !ot along Vail Valley Driwe in its current configuration with the exception of the addition of aturn-around, a loading and delivery area, and pavement imprawements to support a fire truck. D. Proposed creation of a oarkino club to allow for the sale of 30 oarkina SgaCes The proposal by Manor Vaif now includes a request for a conditional use permit to allow for the creation of a parking club which would contain 30 for sale parking spaces within the proposed parking structure. Prior to final submittal details regarding the for sale parking spaces in conjunction with a parking club need to be provided. For example whom will be eligible to purchase the spaces and how future sales of the parking spaces wilt occur. Staff has identified that there may be a conflict in supporting the creation of a parking club. The first being that the existing parking lot along Vaii Valley Drive has multiple parking spaces within the required setback. Parking in this zone district is not permitted to be within a required setback. Staff believes that before any parking is made available for sale that the parking in the setback along Vail Valley Drive should be eliminated. Staff has also requested that the applicant identify which parking spaces are proposed to be for sale. Any parking spaces offered for sale in conjunction with the proposed parking club shall not be included in the calculations determining the appropriate combination of full size, valet, handicapped, and compact parking spaces under the Code. Does the ~Cammission feel that the creation of a parking club is appropria#e? Does the Commission agree with staff that the parking within the setback along Vail Valley Drive should be addressed prior to ©ffering any parking spaces up for sale? I# a parkiing club is found to be acceptable what if any restrictions should be placed upon its operation? For example only owners of units within Manor Vail can on spaces? Only property owners within a certain distance of Manor Vail can be owners? E. Proposed Creation of Covered Pedestrian Walkway and the Relocation of the ITxistina Path The proposal includes the construction of a one story element which would bridge Buildings B and D and create a covered pedestrian way leading to Ford Park. The height of the opening would be 14 feet to accommodate the access of delivery trucks and fire equipment. Staff has concerns over the enclosure of the pedestrian way leading from Vail Valley Drive to Ford Park. Staff's concerns are that the heavily utilized 7 pedestrian way will take an the appearance of being a private feature. In addition, one of the great amenities of the pedestrian way is the view of the Gore Range in the distance as you are heading east into Ford Park which would be obstructed from view if a an additian was installed to bridge Buildings B and D. To address this concern the application is proposing the connection to be 6.5' wide with large glass windows which will make the connection mare transparent. What if any concerns does the Commission have regarding the cornering of the public pedestrian way leading from Vail Valley Drive to Ford Park? What suggestions does the Commission have regarding mitigation of any foreseen impacts? The applicant has also proposed to relocate the existing path north of its current location which would allow it to be incorporated into the proposed landscaped gardens an the surface of the parking structure. The applicant relocated the path to be an the surface of the parking structure to address staff's concern that there may be a conflict between vehicles and pedestrians with the path in its current location and the proposed entry to the parking structure. The applicant also moved the path into the proposed landscaped garden to address a concern from a previous meeting that the proposed garden would appear too "private" and not "public". Staff believes these are valid reasons to move the path.. However, the proposed configuration is circuitous and staff believes that many pedestrians will choose to walk down the entry road to Manor Vail. Does the Commission belieue that the relocated pedestrian path is appropriate? [s their any public benefit to routing the path through the proposed landscaped garden area? F. Mitiaation of Develooment Impacts Pursuan# to Section 12-7A-14, Mitigation of Development Impacts, Vail Town Cade, "Property owners/developers shall also be responsible for mitigating direct impacts of their development on public infrastructure and in all cases mitigation shall bear a reasonable relation to the development impacts. Impacts may be determined based an reports prepared by qualified consultants. The extent of mitigation and public amenity improvements shall be balanced with the goals of redevelopment and will be determined by the Planning and Environmental Commission in review of development projects and conditional use permits. Substantial aff--site impacts may include, but are not limited to, the following: deed restricted employee housing, roadway improvements, pedestrian walkway improvements, streetscape improvements, stream tract/bank restoration, loading/delivery, public art improvements, and similar improvements. The intent of this Section is to only require mitigation for large-scale redeveiopment/develapment projects which produce substantial off-site ~ i impacts. " 8 The applicant is proposing tv add bulk, mass, and height to all the buildings on the site. A portion of the proposed bulk and mass exceeds the maximum allowed Gross Residential f=loor Area by 21,855 square feet with 2,780 square feet of that being within the setbacks an the site. The heights of the buildings exceed the maximum permitted height in the HDM1= zone district of 48 feet with proposed heights of $4.5 feet in it's worst case. The proposed flour additions to the buildings measure approximately 22 feet from the floor plate to the tallest interior ridge. The height can be seen on the proposed fourth flour plans which identify a potential mezzanine measuring 450 square feet. Staff believes as well as the Design Review Board that the proposed bulk, mass, and height can be reduced which would greatly mitigate the impacts. Dogs the Commission believe the are acceptable? Should the bulk, mitigate some of the impacts? proposed bulk, mass, and height mass, and height be reduced to Are there any other specific mitigating measures that the applicant should be pursuing at this time as part of this development application? G. Public Benefits Pursuant to Section 12-9A-1, Purpose, in part, of the Vail Town Code, "The purpose of the Special Development District is to encourage flexibility and creativity in the development of land in order to promote its most appropriate use; to Improve the design character and quality of the new development with the Town; to facilitate the adequate and economical provision of streets and utilities; to preserve the natural and scenic features of open space areas; and to further the overall goals of the community as stated In the Vail Comprehensive Plan. An approved development plan for a Special Development Disfrict, in conjunction with the property's underlying zone district, shall establish the requirements for guiding development and uses of property Included in the Special Development District. The Special Development District does not apply to and is not available in the following zone districts: Hillside Residential, Single-Family, Duplex, PrimaryfSecondary. The elements of the development plan shat! be as outlined in Section 12-9A-6 of this Article." Furthermore, Sections 12-9A-8, Design Criteria, and 12-9A-~, Development Standards, of the Vail Town Code, states, in part, "lt shall be the burden of the applicant to demonstrate that submittal maferial and the proposed development plan comply with the development standards and design criteria, or demonstrate that one or more of them is not applicable, or that a practical solution consistent with the public interest has been achieved." r And, "Development standards including lot area, site dimensions, setbacks, 9 height, density control, sife coverage, Jandscaping and parking shelf be determined by the Town Council as part of the approved development plan with consideration of the recommendations of the Planning and Environmental Commission. Before the Town Council approves development standards that deviate from the underlyr'ng zone district, it should be determined that such deviation provides benefits to the Tawn that outweigh the adverse effects of such deviation. This determination is fo be made based on evaluation of the proposed special development district's compliance with the design criteria outlined in Section ]2-9A-8 of this Article. " The applicant has proposed deviations to the maximum allowable building height limitation flf 48 feet, the maximum allowable Gross Residential Floor Area, the maximum number of dwelling units, and multiple encroachments into the required setbacks. The addition of a fourth floor to a portion of Buildings A and B and full fourth floor added to buildings C, D, E, and F and the addition of third and fourth floor connections between Buildings D and E, E and F, B and D, and B and C. The maximum height of the structures is approximately 64.5 feet in height at its worst case and portions of the proposal extend into the required setbacks. The proposed additions would create 7 units and 21,855 square feet of Gross Residential Floor Area in excess of that permitted by the existing zoning. Prior to the request for deviations from the development standards, the Commission and Council must make a finding that the said deviations provide benefits to the Town that outweighs the adverse effects of such deviations. Staff would recommend that the applicant and Commission discuss the magnitude of the requested deviations and the public benefits that may or 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.. Does the Commission believe that the requested deviations are appropriate given the prescribed criteria? Does the project have significant public benefits proposed which balance the increased development potential? What additional information may the Commission need to respond to the questions of adverse effects versus public benefits? What ideas does the Commission have on what they would like to see occur along Mill Creek and Gore Creek in terms of improvements to be valued as a public benefit? Would the creation of a pool of water and the addition of landscaping along Mill Creek be a public benefit? Does the Commission believe the is public benefit in a contribution of $$D,DDO to fill the funding gap in funding the reconstruction of the "Artist Shack" in Ford Park, which is located just north of the cowered bridge crossing the Gore Creek? The Public Works Department has identified a potential need for the addition of io raised pedestrian walks across Vail Valley Drive after attending a neighborhood meeting. Does the Gommission believe this is a potential public benefit? What level of value is perceived with this type of improvement? The Town has identified the need to maintain and increase our stock of accommodation units as well as increase the quality of existing accammodation units. Manor Vail is a wholly owned condominium project that has operated for years as a lodgefhotel. The applicant will be retro-fitting all the units and buildings with a monitored fire alarm system slang with this proposal. Does the Commission see the improvements proposed #o Manor Vail as a public benefit as it increase the duality a# the units which are rented as if they were accammodation units? Does the addition of GRFA fn excess of that permitted which will be included in the rental pool represent a public benefit? Does the Commission view the proposed fire sprinkler system as a public benefit as it will make an existing property safer for guests? The applicant has proposed aturn-around area fior vehicles in the proposed parking area off of Vail Valley Drive. The applicant has proposed this design as they and the Police Department believe may help with the traffic congestion an Vail Valley Drive which has been identified as a significant problem. Does the Gommission view the traffic turn-around on Vaii Valley drive as a public benefit? Vh CRITERIA AMD FINDINGS The following section of this memorandum is included to provide the applicant, community, staff, and Commission with an advanced understanding of the criteria and findings that will be used by the reviewing boards in making a final decision on the proposed applications. Conditional Use Permit Criteria and Findings far the creation of a Parking Club to allow far the sale of 3g parking spaces and the proposed Employee Housing Unit. A. Consideration of Factors Reaardino Conditional Use Permits: 1. Relationship and impact of the use an the development objectives of the Tawn. 2. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities needs. 3.1 3. Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and parking areas. 4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses.. B. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a conditional use aermit: 1. That the proposed location of the use is in accordance with the purposes of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code and the purposes of the Public Accommodation zone district. ~. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it will be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3, That the proposed use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of the conditional use permit sectian of the zoning code. Special ,development Disfrict 1 ~-9A-8: DESIGN CRITERIA: The following design criteria shall be used as fhe principaf criferia in evaluating the merits of the proposed special development district. !t shall be the burden of fhe applicant to demonstrate that submittal material and fhe proposed development plan comply with each cif fhe following standards, or demonstrate fhaf one or rrrore of Them is not applicable, or fhaf a practical salufian consistent wifh the public interest has been achieved: A. Compatibility: Design compatibility and sensitivity fo the immediate environment, neighborhood and adjacent properties relatr've to architectural design, scale, bufk, building height, buffer zones, identity, character, visual integrity and orientation. B. Relationship: Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. G. Parking And Loading: Compliance with parking and l©ading requirements as outlined in Chapter fQ of this Title. D. Comprehensive Plan: Conformity with applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, Town policies and urban design plans. 12 E. Natural And/Dr Geologic Hazard: ldentlfication and mitigation of natural and/or geQlagic hazards That affect the property an which the special development district is proposed. F. Design Features: Site plan, building design and location and open space provisions designed to produce a functional development responsive and sensitive tv natural features, vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the community. G. Traffic: A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and off-site traffic circulation. H. Landscaping: Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and preserve natural features, recreation, views and function. 1. Workable Plan: Phasing plan ar subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional and efficient relafionship throughout the development of the special development district. VII. STAFF RECQMMENDATIQN As this is a work session, staff will not be providing a staff recommendation at this time. Staff will provide a staff recommendation at the time of a final review of this application. • Far future reference purposes only, pursuant to Section 12-7A-13, Vail Town Code, the applicant shall be required tv meet a compliance burden and demonstrate by a preoonderance of the evidence that the proposed application conforms to the requirements prescribed for such application. Section 12-7A-13 states, "COMPLIANCE BURDEN: It shall be the burden of the applicant to prove by a preponderance of the evidence before the Planning and Environmental Commission and the Design Review Board that the proposed exterior alteration or new development is in compliance with the purposes of the Public Accommodation bane District, that the proposal is consistent with applicable elements of the Vail Village Master Plan, the Uail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and the Vail Streetscape Master Plan, and that the proposal does not otherwise have a significant negative effect on the character of the neighborhood, and That the proposal substantially complies with ether applicable elements of the Vai! Comprehensive Plan." XI. ATTACHMENTS A. Vicinity Map B_ Letter from the applicant dated June 28, 2004 C. Proposed elevations and floor plans dated June 28, 2004 D. fecember 3, 2003, Design Review Board comments E, December 8, 2003, Planning and Environmental Commission minutes F. December 17, 2003, Design Review Board comments 13 G. ,anuary 12, 2x04, Planning and Environmental Commission minutes H. March 3, 2004, Design Review Board comments 1. March 8, 2004, Planning and Environmental Commission minutes J. Public Warks comments dated December 26, 2003, February 20, 20(}4, and July 15, 2004 K. Photo Renderings of the proposed project and Vicinity Map L. Public Notice • 14 Manor Vail Gonditional Use Permit Application June 28, 2{}04 Written Statement: a. Description of the proposed use and measures proposed to make the use compatible with other properties in the vicinity: The prapased use under this Conditional Use Permit application is to build 30 for-sale parking spaces in a new garage on the Manar Vail property. These parking spaces will be built in conjunction with additional garage spaces to be built for new and existing residences in Manor Vail under a current SD[? application. The prapased parking garage will be underground, and it wild replace an existing on- grade parking lot that is located to the southwest of Manor Vail Buildings D, E, and F. The top of the new garage will be landscaped as a park and garden with public access from a newly aligned Ford Park Path. The landscaping on top of the garage will interface with a proposed improvement to stabilize and beautify the Mill Creek corridor that lies immediately to the west of the proposed garage and adjacent to the Ford Park Path as it enters the Manar Vail area. The prapased use will be compatible with the ,privately awned parking spaces that are located in the Gold Peak complex immediately west of Manor Vail. Since the praposed parking will be totally underground, there wilt be no negative visual impacts to adjacent properties, and the general area will benefit aesthetically from the replacement of surface parking with a park and garden. Another important improvement to existing conditions, that will help make the use compatible with other properties in the vicinity such as the skier drop-off at Gold Peak, is the relocation of the driveway gate and card reader. These control items will be relocated so that the potential for #raffic congestion on Vail Valley Drive due to cars stacking from the gate onto the roadway will be eliminated. b. Qescribe the relationship and impact of the proposed use an development objectives of the Town: ©ne of the development objectives of the Tawn is to assure that adequate off-street parking exists within the Village area, especially during peak skier periods. !t is anticipated that the primary use of the parking will be for local residents who currently drive to the skier drop-off point at Gald Peak and then park in the public parking garage. This use will provide private parking for these skiers in lieu of using the public garage, thus freeing up additional spaces in the garage.. Because of the location of the praposed parking it will also provide convenient parking for activities at Ford Park and the Ford Amphitheater. This convenience wil[ encourage support of these public activities by the owners of the parking. Attachment: Q c, Describe the effect of the proposed use on light and air, distribu#ion of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools,. parks and recreation, and other publiic facilities. Since the parking will be totally underground it will have no impact on Light and air due to building mass. It may offer same improvement in air quality by reducing traffic at the Gold Peak skier drop-off since it is anticipated that the future owners of the new parking are most likely currently using the Gold Peak drop-off and making multiple trips to the facility. It is anticipated that the future parking owners are already residents of the community, and therefore there will be little, if any, impact on schools or distribution of population. Since the proposed use will be done in conjunction with other improvements to Manor Vail there will be little impact on utilities. The transportation facilities of the Town will have a positive influence since the proposed private parking will reduce the demand on public parking. It will also reduce the bus demand for shuttling skiers from the public parking garage to the Goid Peak facility. Parks and recreation will have a signifiicant benefit. This benefit will include the stabilization and enhancement of Mill Creek coupled with the realignment and improvement of the Ford Park Path Reading to the recreation amenities of Ford Park. In addition, the Ford Park Path will have contact with and access to the proposed park and garden area to be constructed above the parking...thus enhancing the pedestrian experience vn the Fvrd Park Path. d. Describe the effect on traffic, congestion, auto and pedestrian safety, access, traffic flow and maneuverability, and removal of snow. There will be an increase in the trips to and from the Manor Vail generated by the 3a private parking spaces. However, it is anticipated that some of these trips will be offset by a reduction in trips to the Gold Peak skier drop-off currently being used by potential buyers of the parking. The relocation of the control point at the main entry to Manor Vail sa that it is separated from Vail Valley Drive, coupled with the proposed improvement to the Manor Vail south parking lot entry, including a new turn-around circle within the Manor Vail property, will help reduce the existing congestion near the Gold Peak skier drop-off. These improvements should help the traffic flow and maneuverability in the area. Pedestrian safety will be enhanced by separating the Ford Park Path from vehicle traffic entering and departing from the Manor Vail parking. Currently the Ford Park Path crosses the Manor Vail parking entry. In addition, the relocation of the control gates and the construction of aturn-around within the existing Manor Vail south parking lot will improve pedestrian safety near the existing Gold Peak skier drop-off. Since the proposed parking will be located in an underground garage there will be a reduction in the need far snow removal from the existing north Manor Vail surface parking lot. e. describe the effect upon the character of the area includiing bulk and scale in relation to surrounding uses. Since the proposed parking will be located totally underground there will be essentially no effect. on the character of the surrounding area due to the bulk and mass of the proposed structure. There will be a significant improvement to the character afi the area by converting the existing surface parking to a park and garden and by enhancing the adjacent Mill Creek. Any required site or structural walls necessary for the garage will be of minimal height, will be terraced and landscaped, and will be surfaced with stone or stucco. The configuration of the park and associated walls are indicated on the Site Plan and Landscape Plan. f • Manor Vail Special Development District SDD) Application SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT MANOR VAIL CONDOMINIUMS (AKATHE MANORVAIL LODGE), PURSUANT TO ARTICLE A, SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT (SDI) DISTRICT, CHAPTER 9, TITLE 12, ZONING TITLE, TOWN CODE OF VAIL Submittal Requirement -Written Statement Description of the iPropased Project Through this application, a Special Development District (SDD) is being requested for the Manor Vail Lodge. The SDD is being requested for improvements to existing buildings and new development on one parcel of land, legally described as Lot A, Vail Village Filing No. 7, which comprise a total of 235,998 square feet (5.44 acres) in the Vail Village area of the Town of Vail. The underlying zoning far the proposed SDD is High Density Multi-Family (HDMF). The Development Plan for the SDD shall be comprised of materials submitted in accordance with Section 12-9A-5 of the Town Code of Vail and those plans prepared by Zehren and Associates, Inter-Mountain Engineering, Lunceford Landscape, and Melick Associates, entitled "Manor Vail Ladae. Studio and Manor House Renovation and Addition", dated June 28, 2004. . The existing development on the site consists of 123 residential condominiums with a total GRFA of 114,824 square feet. In addition there is an existing restaurant (the Lord Gore}, conference facilities, franc desk and administrative offices, a swimming pool with deck area, and surface parking for 178 cars. The existing development is located in six buildings entitled A, B, C, D, E, and F as indicated on the Existing Conditions map. The proposed improvements include the following: 1. ADDITIONAL RESIDENTIAL UNITS / GRFA ,4 total of 18 new residential units are being added: 1 over Building A at the fourth level, 2 over Building B at the fourth level, 5 over Building C at the fourth level, fi over Buildings D, E and F at the fourth level, and 4 between Buildings D and E as well as Buildings E and F at the third and fourth levels. A total of 47,242 square feet of new GRFA is being proposed within the 18 residences. A summary of the residential units and GRFA is provided in the Zoning Analysis. 2. REMODEL- OF EXISTING BUILDING EXTERIORS r The exteriors of Buildings A, B, C, D, E and F will be remodeled to a mountain lodge theme while maintaining an aesthetic consistency within the SDD. The remodeling will Page 1 of 5 provide uniformity due to the fact that the Manor Vail Ladge is an existing property with an existing ownership group. Each building will have some subtle differences to provide individuality, yet each will remain identified with the overall character of entire property. These differences will include changes in dormer detailing, gable roof farms,. cladding materials and railing treatments. In addition to the aesthetics of these buildings, Manor Vail Ladge will upgrade the egress stairs and add ADA accessible elevators. ~. ADDITIONAL EMPi-QYEE HOUSING UNIT The new development will provide one new deed-restricted housing unit in Building C that complies with the Town of Vail Employee Housing requirements (Chapter 12-13) for a minimum of four (4} employees. The deed-restricted employee housing will be made available for occupancy, and the deed restrictions will be recorded with the Eagle County Clerk & Recorder. The required Type III deed-restricted employee housing unit will not be eligible for resale and the unit will be owned and operated ay the Manor Vail Condominium Association. 4. UNDERGROUND PARKING STRUCTt1RE. SURFACE PARKING. AND FQR-SALE -- PARKI N G Anew two-level underground parking structure accommodating approximately 153 spaces will be located in front of Buildings D, E and F on the northwest portion of the project in place of the existing surface parking lat. The parking structure wiH be buried, and the land abowe the structure will be reclaimed as a landscaped park. 1Nithin the parking structure 30 spaces will be for-sale spaces, and it is intended that these spaces will be sold to third parties for their private use. Surface parking near the entry area at Building B will accommodate 5 parking spaces. The existing surface parking area to the south of Buildings A, B, and C shall be retained in their current configuration with the exception that a loading dock space will be designated and aturn-around circle will be provided at the entry. The south Cat surface parking will accommodate 103 cars. The combined total parking spaces within the SDD will therefore be 261 cars, including the 3Q far-sale spaces. 5. LANDSCAPE PARK AND EXPANDED OPEN SPACE An additional 32,20 Square feet (0.74 acres} of landscaped park will be added to the open space of the property. This will be accomplished by replacing the surface parking with a below grade parking structure, adding gardens and stone walls to encapsulate the entire parking structure, and relocating the maintenance sheds that are attached to buildings D and E to the underground parking structure. 6. ENHANCED FORD PARK PATH Ford Park Path will be realigned and improved from its entry auto the west side of the property near Mill Creek until it joins the existing pathway to the east of the property. Through paving, signing and landscaping Ford Park Path will present. an inviting accessway to the public. The pathway will interface with the new landscape park over the parking garage. This new alignment will eliminate cross over conflicts between Page 2 of 5 pedestrians and vehicular traffic and will provide an aesthetically pleasing experience far pedestrians using the path. 7. STABILZATION AND BEAUTIFICATION OF MILL CREEK The developer will cooperate with the Town of Vail to acquire the necessary approvals and provide landscape enhancement and stream bank stabilization for the section of Mill Creek that passes between the proposed parking structure and the existing tennis courts to the west of the property. This new landscaping will help to visually 'integrate Mill Creek, the newly aligned Ford Park Path, and the new park and gardens to be built aver the parking garage in front of Buildings D, E and F. 8. LOADING AND SERVICE The existing [oading dark at the east side of Building B will be screened with landscaping to reduce its exposure to the Ford Park Path. An additional loading Dock will be designated within the existing surface parking lot to the southwest of Building B. 9. ACCESS GATES RELOCATED WITH A NEW TURNAROUND The existing card access gates are located just inside two curb cuts off Vail Valley Drive. One accesses Buildings A, 13 and C and the other accesses Buildings D, E and F. At Buildings A, B, and C the gates will be relocated to provide access to two separate surface parking areas while providing a new turn around to alleviate congestion along Vail Valley Drive at Golden Peak during peak weekend hours. At Buildings D, E and F the gates will be relocated to the entry ramp location to the underground parking structure. The relocation of these gates will allow public access to the existing turn around at the front door to the Manor Vail Lodge. 10. FIRE DEPARTMENT ACCESS Fire department access will be provided from the entry drive at the hotel entry along the front of Buildings D, E and F with a hammerhead turn around. Fire Department access for Buildings A, B, and C will occur at the surface parking lot to the south of the buildings. 11. LAND SWAP As park of this proposal, The Manor Vail Lodge will donate 430 square feet of land to the Town of Vail at the east end of the property directly adjacent to a secondary access to Ford Park off East Vail Valley Drive in exchange for 215 square feet of land on the north side of Building C so that a walkway and handicapped access, with cantilevered balconies, can be constructed wrapping around the new elevators of Building C. Page 3 of 5 Deviations from the Development Standards of Underlying Zoning The proposed development deviates from the development standards of the properties underlying zoning in the following manner: 1. SETBACKS Portions of the existing structures and portions of the proposed new improvements fall within the 20-foot setbacks called for in the underlying zoning. Those portions of existing and proposed buildings, roofs, and balconies that will be located within the setbacks are described in detail in the Zoning Analysis. 2. GRFA AND RESIDENTIAL DENSITY The GRFA of the proposed development will exceed the allowable Gross Residential Floor Area {GRFA) of the underlying zoning 6y 22,307 square feet, or 16%. The allowable GRFA is 139,759 square feet, and the proposed GRFA is 182,066 square feet (including the 581 square foot Employee Housing Unit}. The Residential Unit density of the proposed development will exceed the allowable density of the underlying zoning by 7 units. The proposed development wilC have 141. dwelling units (plus 1 Employee Housing Unit}. The allowable density of the underlying zoning is 134 units. 3. BUILDING FtEIGHT The maximum allowable building height of the underlying zoning is 4$ feet. The building height of the proposed development will exceed this maximum allowable height. In general, the height limit is exceeded by approximately 2 to 10 feet. The exact deviations are indicated in the Zoning Analysis and on the Height Analysis Plans. Benefits of the proposed Development to the Town of Vail The fallowing attributes of the praposed development will bring a public benefit to the Town of Vail: 1. ADDITIONAL EMPLQYEE HOUSING UNIT The development will provide one additional Employee Housing unit within the Town. 2. STA'BILZATION AND BEAUTIFICATION OF MILL CREEK The development will provide an opportunity to stabilize the existing erosion and scouring of the Mill Creek stream banks. When coupled with new landscaping this will provide a visually and environmentally improved creek corridor that will be seen from the Ford Park Pathway. Page 4 of 5 3. LANDSCAPE PARK AND EXPANDED OPEN SPACE, A new landscaped park and garden area will be added over the below-grade parking structure. This park will be accessible and visible from the realigned Ford Park Pathway making it an amenity to the public as they access Ford Park. 4. GORE CREEK FRONTAGE AND CLEANUP OF GORE CREEK As part of the proposal, the developer will trade 430 square feet Gore Greek frontage along Vail Valley Drive for 215 square feet of area behind Building C for three cantilevered walkways that allow access around new elevators. The proposed swap area will allow the Town to create a new (or upgrade the existing} pathway access along the Gore Creek Corridor. The land to be acquired by the development in exchange for the creek frontage is located immediately adjacent to the existing residences in Building C and is of marginal public benefit, but the new elevators will allow the existing units and new units on building C to be accessible and adaptable. 5. NEW TI IRNAI~~UND TO REDUCE AUTO CONJESTION ON VAIL VALLEY DRIVE The proposed turnaround circle to be located within the existing south parking lot and the relocation of the card access gates that are now located just inside two curb cuts off Val! Valley Drive will help alleviate congestion along Vail Valley Drive at Golden Peak during peak weekend hours 6. ART SHACK RENOVATION As part of this proposal the Manor Vail Lodge will provide $80,004 in funds to the Town of Vail to be used to renovate the `°Art Shack" located in Ford Park just east of the bridge from the Manor Vail Lodge. 6. INCREASED OCCUPANCY AND TAX REVENUES It is expected that the occupancy of the rental units within the property will increase due to the improved aesthetics achieved by the exterior remodel and the new accessibility of all units. This increased occupancy will have a direct benefit to the Town through increased taxes, 7. IMPROVED VISUAL APPEARANCE OF AN IMPORTANT FACILITY WITHIN THE COMMUNITY The combined efforts of remodeling the exterior of the existing ageing buildings; the addition of new elevation images, materials, and roof lines; and the significant site and landscape improvements will present a much higher quality resork image for this important facility within the community. r Page 5 of 5 MAhl01~ VAIL LQDGE Zoning Analysis and Project Calculations June 28, 2004 The permitted, conditional„ and accessory uses allowed in the Manor Vail Lodge Special Development District by underlying zoning are be those uses listed in Sections 12-6H-2„ 12-fiH-3„ and 12-6H-4 of the Town Code of Vail. The following information is provided as a Zoning Analysis of the existing and proposed development: SDD PROPOSAL. AS COMPARED TO HDMF ZONING REQUIREMENTS SITE AREA Existing Site Area (acres} Existing Site Area (square feet) 5.44 ACRES 236,9f6.4 SF BUILDASLE SITE AREA Flood Plain Along Gore and Mill Creeks 4.034 SF Buildable Site Area - (square feet) 232,932.4 SF Buildable Site Area - (acres 5.3 ACRES DENSITY 1 # UNITS ALLOWABLE - HDMF fHiah Density Multi-Family) RATI O ## UNITS PROPOSED -SDD # UNITS Existing Units New Units Total Units VARIANCE 25 Units per Buildable Acre 134 Units 12.3 18 (plus 1 EHU) 141 +7 +5% over HDMF allowable • L~ GRFA -Existing and New Unit Calculations Bui{ding A Unit 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Existing GRFA 1,344.00 1,344.40 1,384,00 1,380,00 1,380.40 1,38x.44 1,380.40 1,380.40 1,380.40 1,380.40 1,380,00 1,380.40 1,380.00 1,384.4a 1,344.44 1,344.00 New GRFA 4A 2.8$8.00 Total Building A 17 Units 24,808.00 Building B Unit 17 18 19 20 Existin4 GRFA 1,336.00 1,336.ao 1,368.00 1,368.00 New GRFA 4B 3,444.40 4C 3.110.40 Total Building B 6 Units 11,962.00 Building C Unit Existing GRFA 101 1,369.D0 102 1, 378.00 103 1,376,00 104 1,373.00 105 1,512.OD 106 1,512.00 107 1,373.00 108 1,376.00 i D9 1,373.Do 201 1,369.00 202 1, 376.00 203 1,376.00 204 1,373.00 205 1,512.00 2D6 1,512.ao 207 1,373.00 208 1,376.00 209 1,373.OD 301 1,369.00 302 1,376A0 303 1, 376.00 304 1,373.00 305 1,512.00 306 1,512.00 307 1,373.OD 3D8 1,376.00 309 1, 373, 00 310 New GRFA 4f~ 2,095.00 4E 2,137.00 4F 2,925.00 4G 2,266.oa 4H 2.244.00 Total Build ing C 33 Units 49,587.00 • Building D Unit Existing GR'FA 213 652.32 213 652.32 212 652.32 213 652.32 214 652.32 215 652.32 216 652.32 217 652.32 311 652.32 312 (52.32 313 652.32 314 652.32 315 652.32 316 652.32 317 652.32 318 652.32 410 652.32 411 652.32 412 652.32 413 652..32 414 652.32 415 652.32 416 652.32 437 652.32 "foul Buildi ng D 24 Units '15,655.6$ Link. Between DB.E New GRFA 3C 1,742.00 r Building E Unit ExistinaGRFA 220 652.32 221 652.32 222 652.32 223 652.32 224 652.32 225 652.32 226 652.32 227 652.32 32.0 652.32 321 652.32 322 652.32 323 652.32 324 652.32 325 652.32 326 652.32 327 652.32 420 652.32 421 652.32 422 652.32 423 652.32 424 +652.32 425 652.32 426 652.32 427 652.32 Tota! Building E 24 Units 15,655.68 Link Between ELF New GRFA 3A 1,219.00 • • ~7 Building F Unit Existing GRFA 110 65232 111 652.32 112 652.32 113 652.32 230 652.32 231 652.32 232 652.32 233 652.32 234 652.32 235 652.32 236 652.32 237 652.32 330 652.32 331 625.32 332 625.32 430 652.32 431 652.32 432 652.32 433 652.32 434 652.32 435 652.32 436 652.32 437 652.32 Total Building F 28 Units 18,264.9fi 4t~' Floor D, E, F New GRFA 4A 3,284.00 4B 3,284.00 4C 1,219.00 4E 3,288.Ob 4F 3,288.00 4G 1,702.00 4J 3,283.00 4K 3.2$3.00 Total 4t" Floor D, E, F 8 Units 22,631.fl0 GRFA ALLOWABLE - HL IU1F RATIO 60% GRFA 139,759 PROPOSED -- SDD Existing GRFA New GRFA 114,824 46.661 TotaE GRFA 161,485 VARIANCE +21,726 60 sf of GRFA per 1bb sf of buildable site area GRFA +16% over HDMF ailawabie SITE COVERAGE The site coverage will be 31 % of the total lot area, and as indicated on the Manor Vail Lodge Site Plan. ALLOWABLE -HDMF RATIO) 55% SITE COVERAGE 130,332 Tota! Site Coverage SITE AREA 236,966 PROPOSED -SDD Building A 17,365 Building B 12,707 Building C 14,408 Building D 7,172 Building E 7,143 Building F 7.157 Sub Total 65.952 Additional 1,402 Stairs, Elevators Air Rights 3.563 Links @i31C, BID, DIE, EIF Total 70,917 30% site coverage VARIANCE -59,415 46% under HDMF allowable SETBACKS The above ground decks do not exceed the lesser of 5' or % the required setback. The ground level patios do not exceed the lesser of 10' or'l~ the required setback. The architectural projections do not exceed 4' into the required setback. FRONT ALLOWABLE -HDMF 20 PROPOSED -SDD 20 VARIANCE 0 S1DE ALLOWABLE -HDMF 20 PROPOSED -SDD 20 VARIANCE 0 REAR ALLOWABLE -HDMF 20 PROPOSED -SDD 0 VARIANCE 20 EXISTING BUILDINGS IN THE SETBACK GRFA GSF Existing Building A at first floor {front setback} - 589 Existing Building A at second and third floors (front setback}684 880 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 D at basement - 17 Existing Building D at fast -third floors -- 24 51 SUBTOTAL 9,521 12,170 :7 • • PROPOSED BUILDINGS IN TH_F_ SETBACK Building B at frst floor Building 8 at second floor Building B at third floor Building B at fourth floor Link between Building B and C at first floor Building C at second floor Building C at third floor Building C at fourth floor (in Building B) Building C at fifth floor Buildings D-F at basement Buildings D-F at first floor Buildings D-F at second floor Buildings D-F at third floor Buildings D-F at fourth floor Buildings D-F at fifth floor SUBTOTAL 60 90 - 256 - 25Q - 250 2,464 3,100 - 34 - 64 - 64 128 185 128 185 2,780 4,568 EXISTING ROOF OVERHANGS MORE THAN FOUR FEET IN THE SETBACK Existing roof overhang at existing Building A - 32 ..-- - SUBTOTAL - - 32 PROPOSED ROOF OVERHANGS MORE THAN FOUR FEET IN THE SETBACK Roof overhang at Building B - 40 Roof overhang at Building C - 885 Roof overhang at Buildings D-F - 84 SUBTOTAL - 1,QQ9 EXISTING BALCONIES MORE THAN FNE FEET IN THE SETBACK Balcony at Building A at second and third floors (front setback)- Balcony at Building B at second floor - Balcony at Building B at third floor - Balcany at Building C at second and third floors - BalconvlPatio at Building D&F at first -third floors - SUBTOTAL - PROPOSED BALCONIES MORE THAN FIVE FEET IN THE SETBACK Balcony at Building B at second floor - 313 Balcony at Building B at fourth floor - Balcony at Building C at second floor - 250 Balcony at Building C at third floor - Balcony at Building C at fourth floor - Balcony at Building D at fourth floor - Balcony at Buildings D-F at third floor - Balcony at Buildings D-F at fourkh floor - Balconv at Buildings D-F at fifth floor - - SUBTOTAL - TOTALS 12,301 OF ALL GRFA IN SETBACK VS. TOTAL GRFA 7.59°/0 °Io OF EXISTING GRFA IN SETBACK VS. TOTAL, GRFA 5.87% OF NEW GRFA IN SETBACK VS. TOTAL GRFA 1.72% 48 68 80 2,880 67 3,143 182 25Q 1,653 9 29 2.686 23,608 MILL CREEK ALLOWABLE--HDMF 30 from centerline of Millcreek PROPOSED -SDD 30 {closest point, see plan) VARIANCE p TOV GORE CREEK CORRIDOR AIR RIGHTS ENCROACHMENT BEHIND BUILDING C Walkways {some cantilevered) on Grade 0 215 Cantilevered Walkways at Second Level 0 215 Cantilevered Walkways at Third Level 0 215 CantilevPrPri Walkway at Fraurth I avpl - - - - _.. _ -- - -- - - 0 215 TOTALS 884 BUILDING HEIGHTS ALLOWABLE -HDMF BUILDING A PROPOSED -SDD VARIANCE -HDMF PROPOSED -SDD VARIANCE -HDMF PROPOSED -SDD VARIANCE -HDMF BUILDING B PROPOSED--SDD VARINACE -HDMF PROPOSED -SDD VARIANCE -HDMF PROP05ED -SDD VARIANCE -HDMF PROPOSED -SDD VARIANCE -HDMF LINK B!C PROPOSED - 5DD VARIANCE -HDMF LINK B!D PROPOSED -SDD VARIANCE -HDMF BUILDING C PROPOSED -SDD VARIANCE -HDMF PROPOSED -SDD VARIANCE -HDMF BUILDING D PROPOSED -SDD VARIANCE -HDMF PROPOSED -SDD VARIANCE -HDMF 48' Main Ridge 26.48' based on interpolated grade 21.52' under Gable Ridge 31.95' based on interpolated grade 16.05' under StairlElevator 29.48' from grade 18.52' under Main Ridge 49.96' based on interpolated grade 1.96' flVeP Gable Ridge 53.01' from grade at worst case 5.01' aver Lord Gore Ridge 54.13' based on interpolated grade at worst case 6.13' over Lobby Ridge 33.40' from grade 14.6' under 51' based on interpolated grade 3' over 32,99' from grade 15.01' under Main Ridge 56.52' based on interpolated grade 8.52' over Gable Ridge 57.61' at worst case 9.61 "over Main Ridge 55.68' based on interpolated grade 7.68' over Gable Ridge 57.12` at worst case 9.12' over • ,~ LINK D/E PROPOSED -SDD VARIANCE -HDMF BUILDING E PROPOSED -SDD VARIANCE -HDMF PROPOSED -SDD VARIANCE -HDMF LINK EIF PROPOSED -SDD VARIANCE -HDMF BUILDING F PROPOSED -SDD (worst case) (worst case) VARIANCE -HDMF PROPOSED -SDD VARIANCE -HDMF PARKING REQUIRED STUDIO -BUILDINGS D. E. F Existing Spaces New Unit Spaces 'nits) Sub Total 58.54' at north face of building 10.54' over, at north face 73 23 96 2.3 (avg. spaces per uni# for 10 REC~UIRED MANOR HOUSE -BUILDINGS A. B. C Existing Spaces 105 New Unit Spaces 20 EHU Spaces ~ Sub Total 126 TOTAL PARKING SPACES 222 PARKING STRUCTURE GROSS FLOOR AREA Studio Structured Parking /Out Buildings SURFACE PARKING Studio Surface Parking and Paved Manor House Surface Parking and Paved TOTAL SURFACE PARKING AND PAVED 2.5 (spaces per unit for 8 units) 27,811 total of parking structure & adjacent structures 13,433 43,190 56, 623 Parking Structure -The deck of the underground parking is sloped to minimize the profile of the parking structure above grade. Flat portions of the parking structure will be sloped to accommodate floor drains. Parking Spaces -The enclosed parking spaces are 90 degrees to the drive aisle and 9" x 18°, with 8" x 16' compact parking spaces not exceeding 25% of the total of the total required parking spaces. Valet spaces are 8' x 18' and do not exceed 50% of the total required parking spaces. Parallel valet parking spaces are 9' x 20' and standard spaces are 9' x 24'. 50.60' based on interpolated grade 2.6' over Main Ridge 57.28' based on interpolated grade 9.28' over Gable Ridge 58.71' at worst case 10.71' over 52.60' based on interpolated grade 4.6' over Main Ridge 59.10' based on interpolated grade 57.10' at north face of building 9.1' over, worst case at north face Gable Ridge 64.54' based on interpolated grade The height clearance of the parking structure will be a minimum of 7'-6" clear. The parking decks slope at a maximum caf 5%. The access ramp slpoes at a maximum of 12%. Street Entries -Both existing curb cuts and entry drop off at main lobby are to remain. Curbs -Rolling curbs will be provided to accommodate fire department vehicles per Public Works Drive Aisles - 24' wide two-way drive aisles accommodate 90 degree parking stalls. Turning Radius - 24' turning radius to centerline is utilized at vehicular traffic patterns per Public Works. Structural Calumny -Structural columns approximately 14" w. x 22" d, will be located on some parking stripes. OPEN SPACE TOTAL LANDSCAPE AREA AND PATHS 100,303 LANDSCAPE AREA %OF T©TAL SITE AREA 42% LANDSCAPING AND SITE DEVELOPMENT: Approximately 52°/© or 107,515 square feet of the total lot area will be landscaped. The landscaping and site development will be as indicated an the Landscape Plait. EMPLOYEE HOUSING BEDS EXISTING 0 PROPOSED 4 1 unit with 4 beds in Building B GRADING The maximum finished grade will not exceed a 2:1 slope. The natural slaps of the site is relatively flat. New grading to accommodate drainage will be blended into the natural topography. The elevated portions of the parking structure above natural grade wil[ be treated with stone walls and terraced landscape areas to soften the difference in grade and create a natural appearance. The erosion control plan will be prepared by a registered Coiarado Professional Engineer. FLOOD PLAIN Approximately 500 square feet of the Gore Creek 100 year flood plain encroaches over the properfiy line to the northwest of Building F. There are na plans to grade or build improvements within this area. RETAINING 1NALLS The parking structure retaining walls will be designed and stamped by a licensed P,E. Terrace walls will be within the 4' to 6' maximum height range. Due to the relative flat nature of the site, retaining walls will not exist on slopes exceeding 30°l°. There are no retaining walls planned within the front setback or along the right-of-way. Boulder retaining walls will meet the standards of retaining walls,. with a P.E. stamp if the slope exceeds 1:1. Design l~evtew Board Golmme~ts From December 3, 2003 Meet>Ing • The proposal is "tremendously huge" and the impact on neighboring properties wall be "enormous". • Views from the Betty Ford Gardens and Ford Park will be negatively impacted. The view of seeing the proposed roof of the Manor Vail will be detrimental to the ambiance of Ford Park. • The proposed links between the buildings will take away views to the Gore Range. • This proposal creates an 800-foot plus long building with little change in the ridge line which creates the appearance of an unbroken wall. Massive structure over a Mock long. • The balconies are very linear. Linear architecture dominates the facades. • The proposed addition appears to double the mass of the buildings which is far and above what is acceptable. The volume is too much. • The design looks very "city-like". • The benefits of tl~e project come at a great sacrifice. • The previous plan for the addition of one level to Buildings Q, F, and F was more in scale and character with the surrounding uses. It was an exciting proposal, • • ®an't see any public benefit other than underground parking. This site i t s oo serve as the transition of the Vail Village into the residential neighborhood. • Understand the difficulties of working with a large homeowners association in order to achieve a project of this magnitude, • The design of the Austria Haus and Sonnenalp Notel are more Uke the scale and architecture which should be proposed. • The trees along Vail Valley Drive are "sacred" and need to be saved as they help to break up the mass of the buildings. There needs to be mare than ornamental trees planted an top of the parking structures to help break up the mass of the buildings. May need to put some tree wells into the design of the parking structure. • Upgrade the facades does not have the impact it should when ofd roof farms such as the "saw-tooth" roof remain. • This is a fine piece of property and it deserves fine architecture. * The proposed height is too much to ask. • While the additional open area is goad, it is Manor Vail's not the Town's. • This is a very large project which will take several meetings to completely grasp and understand. • Attachment: D PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION PUSLIC MEETfNC Monday, December 8, 2003 PROJECT ORIENTATIC?N / - Community ipevelopment Dept. PUBLt+C WELCOME 12.Cra prn MEMBI=RS PRESENT John Schofield George Lamb Rollie Kjesbo Chas Bernhardt Erickson Shirley Site Visits: MEMBERS ABSENT, Gary Hartman Doug Cahil{ 1. Vail Resorts Tennis Courts-fi15 West Forest Road 2. David Irwin residence- fi956 West Gore Creek Drive 3. Michael and Iris Smith- 44 West Meadow Drive ~. Lodge Tower Souih- 16~ Gore Creek drive 5. Manor Vaii Lodge- 596 Vail Valley Drive Driver: George ~~ NOT1=. If the PEC hearing extends until fi:04 p.m., the board may break for dinner from 6:04 - s:3a Public Mearinq -Town Cauncit Chambers 2:Oa Pm 5. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for the establ'+shment of Special Development District No. 38, Manor Vail Lodge, to allow for the redevelopment of the Manor Vail Lodge, acrd a request for a conditional use permit to allow for the construction of Type 111 Employee Housing Units, pursuant to Section 12-6H-3, Vail Town Code, located at 595 Vail Valley DrivelLots A, B, & G, Vail Village 7th FiNng, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Manor Vail, represented by Melick and Associates Planner: Warren Campbell Warren Campbell gave a presentation per the memorandum. The applicant Manor Vail, represented by Chip Mel'sck with Melick and Associates, stated that this proposal was a work in progress and that many benefits io the Town would result from the apprvva1 of this project. He added that by enhancing the exterior of the buildings, the proposal was in accordance with the Vail Village Master Plan. He detailed the plan to remove the parking from the surface of the site and replace it with underground parking, in the form of a two level parking structure, Approximately 149 additional parking spaces would be proposed, in accordance with the need outlined in the Lionshead Master Plan for additional parking within the Town. Efforts would be taken to +risually enhance the access to Ford Park and aclean-up of Miil Creek would be undertaken as well, He continued by detailing the proposal to add 6 new Employee Housing beds between Buildings B and C. Thirteen more units than were currently allowed under HDMF zoning were being requested. ~~, Attachment: E ~ :Y - rnwnP nr u~ r~.l ~ • • Site coverage would not iae exceeded under the new proposal. The front and side setbacks would not change at all. The rear setbacks would be reduced. He made several comparisons between the proposed project and buildings in the Lionshead areas. Regarding building height, he stated that 45°/p of the proposed roof area would be aver the AFB" height limit for that zoning disfrict. He again stated that compared with buildings in the Lionshead area, na percentage of the roofs would be over the height requirement. The additional 109 parking spaces would be for sale. Mr. Melick finished by stating that the amount of open space being added with the propose! totaled to be over one acre. Jim Lamont, Vaii Village Homeowners Association, commented on the lack of comparisons between the Vail Village Master Plan and this proposal. Warren Campbell responded that in the Vail 'Village Master Pian, pnly height requirements were compared Curren#ly. No comparisons had been made with the Lionshead Master Plan, as that area is entirely different than the site in questions. one of the criteria in the Lionshead Master Plan regulated the total redevelopment of a property as opposed to a piecemeal approach. Jim Lamont asked if a plan existed that assured architectural consistency of the buildings that were not currently proposed to be remodeled. He noted that the i g60's roof farms would not be compatible with the new roof farms being proposed. Rollie Kjesba mentioned his surprise at the changes that had taken plane within the proposal since the last time the plan had been submitted. The amount and fihe height of the proposed building was excessive, he felt. Comparisons should not be made between Lionshead and the Village since the areas are so drastically different. The change in height from fatty-eight to seventy feet was substantial. Mr, Kjesbo stated that the increase in traffic would be notable, though the proposed open space was nice. George Lamb agreed that the new proposal was vastly different from the original proposal. The increase in bulk and mass was significant and the Lionshead guidelines should not be applied to the Manor Vail redevelopment. Substantial landscaping, not simply small shrubs, should replace the parking lot tha# currently existed and was being relocated underground. He mentioned that the connection from the Village to the amphitheater should be maintained as it currently is and not further narrowed. Erickson Shirley commented that Vail Village must remain unique. Any reason that would justify amending height restrictions must be °'very compelling", he continued. He mentioned 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 acceptable than the current proposal. Chas Bernhardt liked the idea of putting the parking underground, but suggested that the applicant attempt to drive an Vail Valley Drive during a peak traffic time. Further congestion was simply not needed, he commented. The character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered with the increases in height that were proposed. Mr. Bernhardt felt that this property was a transitional area to a residential area, and the bulk and height proposals were not appropria#e. Jahn Schofield agreed that comparisons with the Lionshead area should not be made. The plan previously submitted was more feasible. Underground parking was defin'rteiy preferred, However, nothing would be approved that would result in an increase in traffic. The proposed height of 71 feet was unacceptable. The recommendations of the Design Review Board were quite applicable. Mr. Schofield felt that the pedestrian access to Ford Park should be enhanced, at the very least, as it was highly used during the summer season. Chip Melick responded that a link between buildings D, E and F was still desired, even if ti~aat link only consisted of one story. V1lould a proposal including those minimal connections be acceptable? John Schofield stated that the linear mass of the building was the most important issue, in the minds of the Commission. Erikson Shirley was interested in knowing how drastically the zoning regulations were being affected by the new proposal Mr. Melick was haw suggesting. The applicant, Chip Melick, responded that only a minimal height variance was formerly requested, which was eventually deemed unnecessary after further study. ~I even under the i Jim Lamont asked if an elevator would be required to serve the buildings, revised proposal. i John Schofield asked if the building was constructed under County regulations, Jim Lamont responded in the affirmative. Jahn Schofield commented that that could partially justify the setback variances in question. Chip Melick asked if the scenario he suggested would be worthwhile to pursue ar nat. t ricksan Shirley responded #hat he was still unsure of the public benefit that would result from the proposa[ and compared this proposal with the Tivoli development, which public benefit was extensively critiqued. Chip Melick responded that more of a "Village feel" would be worked toward. John Schofield finished by encouraging the applicant to proceed with positive ideas for redevelopment of the site. Jim Lamont stated his familiarity with the site and the complications that surrounded the redevelopment of the area. The skier drop off functions of Golden Peak would need to be analyzed again, he commented. if the parking could be designated to two different areas, the impacts upon through traffic could possibly be fewer. The efforts that had been undertaken to improve the site were substantial, and applauded, he finished. Erikson Shirley restated the importance of public benefit in proposals similar to this one. The , Tivoli was granted a height variance to allow for proper construction. The applicant requested that the project be tabled until January # 2tn 2004 Mlotian: Rollie Kjesbo Second. George Lamb Vote: 5-0.0 TABLED TOE JANUARY 12, 2QU4 i]esign Review hoard Commends From f]ecember 1?, 2003 Mee#ing • Questioned the height of each floor. The additional floor on Buildings D, E, and F is approximately ~f) feet in height. This excess ceiling height could be used to help step the roof forms. • The current proposal looks like one long linear building. The project should look like a series of buildings as you travel dawn the street by utilizing different colors and materials. Avoid the "complex" appearance. There should be some common elements but also some differences in the building structures. • Concerned about the top of the parking deck. There needs to be some foil size trees planted in the large open area. created by the sub-surface parking structure, Shrubs and ornamental trees are not going to be acceptable. • The Board appreciated the applicant making such dramatic changes in the current proposal from the initial proposal. There is still a pr©blem with the "saw-toroth" roof forma which are not proposed to be changed. • Flat roof on Building B not acceptable. Looks like a "Riverwalk" development building in Edwards. • The proposal still resembles a large cruise ship. • Height is still and issue in terms of the views which will be obstructed and the impact on Ford Park. • Buildings ~, E, and F appear "top heavy" because the proposed additional floor is so much taller than the existing floors. ` • t fke the links between buildings. Several members expressed that They didn The links block views of park and creek behind Buildings Q, E, and F. The newly proposed building links are less obstructive than previously Apposed. • The park on top of the parking structure should not be flat. There should be more undulation and a well developed landscape plan. • Asked how the garage structure was to be vented and how it would be screened. • The railings on the decks of the buildings create a cruise ship appearance. • The landscaping leading to Ford Park needs to be "dressed up". • Suggested adding units ors top of Buildings A and B and eliminate the "saw tooth" roof. • This proposal has come a long Tway, however, there is a lot more to do. Attachment. F PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION PUBLIC MELTING Monday, January ~2, 20Q4 PROJECT ORIENTATION -Community De+veloprr~ent Dept. PUBLIC WELCOME 12:00 pm MEMBERS PRESENT George Lamb Doug Cahill Chas Gerhardt John Schofield Rollie Kjesb© MEMBERS ABSENT Erikson Shirley Gary Hartman Site Visits i . Village Center Commercial Condominiums -122 East Meadow Drive Driver: Gearge NOTE: If the PEC hearing extends un#il 6:Q0 p.m., the board may break for dinner from 8:00 - 6:30 Public Hearing - Tawn Council Chambers 2:00 pm ~. A request far a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for the establishment of Special Development District No. 38, Manor Vail Lodge, to allow for the redevelopment of the Manor Vail Lodge, and a request for a conditional use permit to allow for the construction of Type ilf Employee Housing Units, pursuant to Section 12-6H-3, Vail Town Code, located at 595 Vail Valley Drive/Lots A, B, & C, Vail Village 7th Filing, and setting faith details in regard thereto. Applicant: Manor Vail, represented by Melick and Associates Planner: Warren Campbell TABLED TO FEBRUARY 23, 2.004 MOTION: Gearge Lamb SECOND: DoueJ Cahill VOTE: 5-0 Warren Campbell gave a presentation of the staff memorandum. Robert McCleary presented the revisions made to the plans and responded to questions of the Commission. The Commission's questions focused an pedestrian access in and around the development site and the connectivity of the proposed buildings. Chip Me]ick discussed the proposed development and the standard from which the project deviated. John Schofield asked for public comment. There was na public comment. Gearge Lamb expressed his appreciation to the applicant far breaking up the proposed ridgeline. He suggested that the applicant communicate their plans with the residential owners in Golden Peak and other neighboring property owners to avoid Cast minute concerns about impacts to views to the east. George stated that traffic impacts an Vail Valley drive could be a concern. Qaug Cahill expressed a suggestion to create the connectivity between buildings on the first. floor Attachment; G - h;t ~rtwu n~ vn rr f - instead of the third floor. He suggested further research into the use of the surplus parking spaces to avoid further congesting Vail Valley Drive. He questioned the applicant's intent to "`clean up" the Gore Creek and Mill Greek 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 the buildings. Ghas suggested that the applicant conceptually explore the possibility of large trees in the landscape plan. John Schofield stated his concern that the redevelopment of residential condominiums can not rely solely upon deviations from the devebpment regulations to `fund" renovation projects. That said, he suggested the applicant now submit a complete application and proceed towards a decision of the C©mmission. He expressed that building bulk and mass and building height were the two most important concerns of the Commission and needed to be addressed. He further stated that parking and impacts to traffic on Vail Valley Drive. Rollie Kjeslao arrived, (2:50 pm} John Schofield slated that if the negative impacts of parking could be addressed, then surplus parking on the Manor Vail Lodge development site could be acceptable. L!©yd f3ishop responded to the Commissioner's comments. • assign Review Board Comments Fr©rn March 3, 2004 Meeting • Recognize difficult working with such a large ownership, however, at same point decisions based on good design need to occur versus always evaluating an idea based on how the ownership will react. • Landscape plan has come along way for the positive.. Still concerned that no large trees can be planted on top of the structure and that trees along the existing walkway and in the southern parking Ivt along Vail 1lalley Drive are being removed. • Do not believe many people will choose to walk on the relocated path to Ford Park. The most direct route is to head down the driveway to Manor Vail. • The proposed new floor on Building C needs to be revised. The height is excessive and it should be reduced dramatically. ]n addition, the new floor should be pulled back so that it does not extend out all the way to Vail Valley Drive. Anew floor on top of Building C creates a large wall. The new floor levels are extremely taller than the existing floor plates. The proposed new floors are approximately 22 feet from the floor plate to the ridge on the interior. This should be reduced dramatically to be 1 ~-15 feet in height to match the levels below.. Such a tall new floor makes the buildings look "top heavy°' . • The ridge line is too high in some places as it blocks too much of the Gore Range. This is especially true with Building C. • The proposal from the summer of 2003 seemed less imposing. The heights on that proposal did not exceed the 48-foot maximum. The heights of the new floors should 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 repletion that exists in the current project. The new roof is too repetitive just like the existing roof is too repetitive. The project is not more interesting, just a larger version of what exists, except this proposal is clad in more wood. • The project gets bigger and more "out of control" every time it comes before the Board. The parking structure needs to be more under ground. There is too much exposed. It appears that it is "shoe-box" just pushed into 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 of not wanting to put it in front of some of the units but it is a better design. • The mass is overwhelming. • Are the trusses an the gable ends structural or ornamental? They seem too busy. Attachment: H PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION • • • PUBLIC MEETING Monday, March 8, 2004 PROJECT ORIENTATION -Community Development Dept. PUBLIC WELCOME 12:00 pm MEMBERS PRESENT Jahn Schofield Erickson Shirley Chas Bernhardt Rollie Kjesbo Doug Cahill George Lamb MEMBERS ABSENT Gary Hartman Site Visits t . Slifer - 23Q Bridge Street 2, Hughes - 303 Gore Greek Drive, #T 3. Shirley - 303 Gore Greek Drive, #$ 4. Pare - 2434 Chamonix Lane 5. Vail Resorts Development Company - driver; George Tract l<, Glen Lyon NOTE: If the PEG hearing extends until 6:00 p.m., the board may break for dinner from 6:00 - 6:30 Public Hearing, - Tawn Council Chambers 2:00 prn 1. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council far the establishment of Special Development District No. 38, Manor Vail Lodge, to allow far the redevelopment of the Manor Vail Lodge, and a request for a conditional use permit to allow for the construction of Type III Employee Housing Units, pursuant to Section ~ 2-fiH-3, Vail Town Code, located at 595 Vail Valley Drive/Lots A, B, & C, Vail Village 7th Filing, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant; Manor Vail, represented by Melick and Associates Planner; Warren Campbell MOTION: Lamb SECOND: Bernhardt VOTE: 6-0 Tabled to April 12, 2004 Staff reviewed the memorandum and a letter provided by Jim Lamont, Vail Village Homeowner's Assac'ration, from l=redrick Wyman III, President of All Seasons Condominium Association. The applicant reviewed the goals of the project and displayed multiple visual simulations of the proposal and how it affected different views. Jim Lamont complimented the visual simulations and then expressed concern about the proposed parking structure within the required setback from Mill Creek. Mr. Lamont also expressed concern about the parking lot access and asked why the loading and delivery was not covered. He asked about employee housing %n the parking structure and whether it could be moved. He suggested putting it over the loading and delivery area.. Mr. Lamont asked about pubic improvements and whether there were other pubic improvements that could be required or should be required. Jirn Lamont indicated that improving access to l=ord Park could tae pursued. The Commission commented that the setback from Mill Creek was a concern and the prposed Attachment: I ;~ TOWN (}F VA TT, ~ parking structure should be pulled away. There was also general concern over the access to the proposed parking structure. The new floor on Building "C°' was identified as a concern as the height would block a large portion of the view to the Gore Range. The new floor increased the height by approximately 22 feet. It was suggested that Building "C" should taper down to Vail Valley Road. There needs to be some planting packets located on top of the parking structure to provide winter interest.. The existing trees along the bike path should remain. The relocation of the access gate further not the property from its current location will help circulation on Vail Valley Road. There was some indifference about covered loading and delivery and i#s value as a public benefit. The proposed new units should not be required to be placed in a rental pool. The Commission asked the applicant why they wanted so much floor area anal questioned where the public benefits were in the project which would warrant such a large increase over the maximum GRFA permitted. The Commission liked the turn-around area provided off of Vail Valley Drive on the south lot and the proposed garden on top of the parking structure. The Commissian 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 remove all improvements from the 100-year floodplain. Improvements to Mill Creek could be a significant public improvement. The Commission concluded by requesting a complete application with no more work sessions. Staff was directed to review the next submittal for completeness very thoroughly. The Commission acknowledged that the photography simulation used in the presentation worked better than a model. However, the photos need to be realistic about landscaping and what is impacted with development. 2. A request for final review of a variance from Section 12-6H-6, Setbacks, Section 12-6H-10: Landscaping and Site Development, and Section 12-6H-1 t :Parking and Loading, Vail Town Code, to allow for a residential addition, located at 303 Gore Creek DrivelLot 7, Black 5, Vail Village 151 Filing, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Ron Hughes, represented by Shepherd Resources, Inc. Planner: Bill Gibson MOTlQN: Kjesbo SECOND: Bernhardt VOTE: 5-{t-1 (Shirley abstained) APPROVED WITH ON1= CONDITION: 1. This variance request approval shall be contingent upon the applicant receiving Town of Vail design review approval for this proposed residential addition. Due to the similar nature of the applications, items #z and #3 (Hughes Residence and Shirley Residence? were reviewed concurrently. Staff presented an overview of the request and the staff memorandum. The applicant's architect, Shepard Resources, Inc., had no additional comment. The applicant's attorney, Murray 1=ranke Greenhouse List & Lippitt LLP, stated their objection to Staff's recommended condition #2 for the Hugh's proposal. Virginia Wells, adjacent property owner Rowhouse #6, stated that they did not support the Hugh Residence variance request and did not support the final design of the proposal. Ms. Wells requested that the PEC adopted and broaden the language of Staff's recommended condition #2 for the Hugh's proposal. Commissioner Shirley stated his obj~ctian to Staff's recommended condition #2 for his proposal. The PEC noted the special circumstances and hardships related to the Hughes and Shirley variance requests. The PEC noted that Staff's recommended condition #2 was not necessary as any risk of construction impacting neighboring properties would be addressed by the existing private party-wall agreements. ', 2 7{15/04 Pvbli~c Works Manor Vail Comments 1. Civils need to be submitted and approved prior to Building Permit submittal 2. Final Drainage study required prior to building department submittal, include talcs, outfall protection and any rewired permits from the Town, State or Feds 3. All inlets are to have 1 ~" sumps per TtJV standards 4. Provide sand/oil separator far the garage drainage 5. Provide center line profile for the realigned Fard Park path 6. Anew pedestrian/access easement is needed for the realigned Ford Park path. 7. Please provide cross-sections and. details for the Mill Creek improvements 8. Landscape plan shows trees in the middle of the access to the parking garage, please correct 9. The curb alignment for the driveway access to the parking garage off of Vail Valley Rd should remain as it exists today. 10. The southern surface parking lot needs to be brought up to current standards, parking stall widths/lengths, drive aisle width 11. Traffic impact fee $5000 per PM peak trip increase 12. P.E. designed Erosion and sediment control plan required prior to building department submittal Attachment: J TYIWNOFY9IL Dept. of Public WvrksrTranspor[ativn I3o9 Elkhorn Drive Vail, Colorado S 1 b57 9~or4~~-~ISs 9aara~~-z I ~~ Fay wu~w.vailgov.com Project; 1Vlanor Vail Reviewed By: Chad Sabi, P.E. Project Engineer Public Works Date: 02/20!04 After reviewing the latest revision to the Manor Vail project, Public Works comments are as follows: 1. Show turning movements for ingress/egress to loading dock 2. Final Drainage study required prior to building department submittal 3. Sandloil intercept required for parking garage 4. F.E. designed Erosion and sediment control plan required prior to building department submittal 5. Traffic impact fee $5000 per PM peak trip increase 6. Mill Creek slope restoration and stabil~atou required along property frontage 7. Although the realigned path to Ford Park elimi~3ates tlae conflicts with vehicles entering/exiting the garage, it does not give a Strang visual presence as a public access. The direct movement to the Park is eliminated and along with the tuiu~el effect of the path with the connection between buildings it appears more like a private sidewalk for the development than a public path to the park. The first option should be to keep the current alignment of the path and relocate the entrance to tl~e garage to the east side with a 90 degree turn vs, the proposed west access with a 180 degree turn. The 90 degree turn allows for better line of sight for both the pedslbikes and the vehicles exiting the garage. 8. Please show snow storage locations for the site. li ~ V {f~ I~Jlf Dept. of Public Worksff'ra~~portatian 13091;•-lclz©rn Drive Vail, Colorado $1557 974l~#79-2158 970!479-2166 Fax www. vail~ov. com Project: Manor Vail Reviewed By: Chad Salli, P.E. Project Engilieer Public V~Vor•ks I?ate: 1 Z/24103 After reviewing the latest revision to the Manor Vail project, PuU1ic Works comments are as follows: Show new curb line to accommodate required turning radius for the garage access Show turning rrlovements for ingress/egress to parking gat•age and loading daclc Area required for fie dept turn around for bldgs B, E, F appears to encroach into the parking garage, low is this going to work? Remove surface parking frotaa setback All parking stalls must have capability for vehicles to turn atrruncl/exit in a 3-poi~lt tt~i-t'. The west side of the surface lot appears that 3-5 stalls will not be able tea accommodate this. Drainage study required Sand/oil intercept required far parking garage Grading plan required Erosion control plan required. Traffic impact fee $SQOD per PM peals trip increase Mill Creek slope restoration and stabilization required along property frontage Sight distance f©r peels at garage insufficient, vehicles exiting garage have limited visibility of pads heading east to Ford Park Traffic study of Mail 'Valley Drat each intersection (Blue Cow Cir, Mill Creek Cir, Gold Peak, Hansen Ranch Rd, Gore Creek Dr, all curb-cuts) Relocate handicap parking itl the garage nearer to the elevators What is the grade of tl~e access to the garage before the 8~/o slope r • THIS ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY `- '~ PUBLIC NOTICE. ~~~~' !NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail will hold a public hearing in accordance with Section 12-3-8, Vail Town Gode, on Jetty 26, 2QD4, at 2:{t0 PM in the Town of Vail Municipal Building, in consideration of: A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for the establishment of Special Development District No. 38, Manor Vail Lodge, to allow for the redevelopment of the Manor Vail Lodge, and a request for a conditional use permit to allow for the construction of Type I11 Employee Housing Units, pursuant to Section 12-f3H-3, Vail Town Code, and a request for a final review of a conditional use permit, pursuant to Chapter 12-BH-3, Private Clubs and Civic, Cultural and Fraternal Organizations, Vail Town Code, to allow for the sale of 30 parking spaces, located at 595 Vail Valley DrivefLots A, B, & C, Vaii Village 1riling 7, and setting forth details in regard thereto, Applicant: Manor Vail, represented by Zehren and Associates Planner: Warren Campbell A request for a final review of variance, pursuant to Chapter 11-10, Variances and Appeals, Vail Town Code, for a variance from Chapter 11-6-4, Building Identification Signs, to allow far a new free standing building identification sign, located at 934 South Frontage Road/unplatted and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: George Brodin, represented by Mauriello Planning Group, LLC Planner: Warren Campbell/Clare Sloan A request for a final review of a minor subdivision, pursuant to Chapter 13-4, Minor Subdivisions, Vaii Town Gode, to amend the locations of the existing building envelopes, located at 1390 Buffehr Creek Roadfl.ots A, B, G, Residences at Briar Patch Condos and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Residences of Briar Patch Homeowner Association, represented by Zehren and Associates Planner: Bill Gibson A request for a final review of a variance, pursuant to Chapter 12, Variances, Vail Town Code, from Sectfan 12-fiH-6, Setbacks, Vail Town Code, to allow for a minor alferation, located at 400 East Meadow Drive, Unit 9, (Tyrolean Inn)/Lot 5 D, Bloclc 5, Vail Village Filing 3 and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Tyrolean Chalet, LLC,, represented by MaurieNo Planning Group, LLC Planner: Matt Gennett The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend project orientation and the site visits that precede the public hearing in the Town of Vail Community Development Department. Please call (970) 479-2138 for additional information. Sign language interpretation is available upon request wi#h 24-hour notification. Please call (970) 479-2358, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. Published July 9, 2004, in the Vail Daily. • Attachment: L Ski Club Vail Lee Edwards, Phd. Apollo Parr at Vail Timeshare 598 Vail Valley Drive Texas Townhouse Condo. Assn. 442 Frontage Rd., West Vail, CO 81657 P. O. Bax 489 Vail, CO 81657 '~ ' Locust Valley, I~IY 1156i} i Apalla Park Lodge 442 S. Frontage Rd., E Vail, CO 81657 Vail Resorts P. ©. Box 7 Vail, CO 81658 The Wren 500 S. Frantage Rd., East Vail, CO 81657 Pinos Del Norte 600 Vail Valley Drive Vail, CO 81657 The Tawn of Vail 75 S. Frontage Road, West Vail, CO 81657 Paul Jeppson Golden Peak Condo. Assn. P. O. Box 915 Avan, CO 81520 •I •I F~ -~,,. (j~ !~ i~` --~ ~ ~ M~~ ~ F~ ~ 1~1 -~ cla U N f~~+ ~~ z ~i U~ 4a C~ C] ~ Z~ d~ L1 ~_ a x x ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ a~ ~o~a'~a zzz ~ ~ s~~~~~~ a~a ~ o ~~~~~g w w w w w w ~ ~ of ~ ~i' ~ ~i uj, ui' ~ cal' ~i z ~ ~a~AAaAa pAd a~~~~~~~ ~~~ ~ ~~~~~~ ~~~ has acawaawwaaca aacow cnzA ~~ ~~~~~ daa ~~~ o ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~~~o~ S ~~ a~°~ w~ ~~v~~~ ~~ O o ~' ~~Q~~ ~~ n~~~~~ ~~a~~ ~~ ~. ~ ~~a ~~~~a z z z z ~ xw ~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ a ~~ ~ ~~~~~ ~ ~~~~~ 0 $c~a ~ ~ ~~~~~ ~ ~~~~~ w ~~ ~~~ ~ 4dd~ ~a ~ ~~~~~ 00~~ ~~a~a~ a as ru~ a a o ~ z z ~~~ c~aac~ara ^^ ~ ~~ t3c.~c~ ~~~ ww ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~a~~~ aaa c~c~a aa~ c~aaac~ca ~aaaaa°zc~aao~~a~ aaa~m ~ca~~~co ~'~~~~~= aaQ ~~~~~~ '~ n. vs a .. _ r ~ ~ y y ~.. ~. \ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ,~ ~ , 4 \\ ~° ~ ~_ 1 `. 'r ' 1 ` ~Y `. y l ~I 1` 1 t ~ i.. \ per ~ ~ + j ~ ` ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ \I - ~ ` ~1y ~ YW *~~ . ~ IDring , s t ~~` '~~:, \ ~ ~ ` ~ ~ 1 111 ` \ \ '. Y +I 1 ~ I \1 1 Y 1 @-0.1a~ 1 It I\ \ +` G 1 Y 1 ~ ~ ~. Y M '~~.' ~ ( BN~V ` ~ ST `` \ 1 1 '~ . Y I l 1 11 11 Y51 1 1 1 1 ~~~~c+.ra R r ~~ 1 1 ~ 1 1 I-_ i i \ 11 ~ ry w~a r+trsr ~ ~ ~ 111 '~ \ 1 i ` \Y _ ~ tl i > r f 1 _ , 1 \ \ \~ i 1 t 1 \ Ii `\ ~1 \ _ ,: `I 1 ' l ANib 1 ~~ ; _ . t $ _ '_1 1 1 \ 1 '1 i 1 I\ ' ~4 ~ ~II i^\ Il ~ 111 \ ~ 1 y ~ f£ 1 A61`d Qdbi 1 ~ 1 \ \ ~ ~ ~ ~ j r ,\\"\YII Ill ~ 1 \ ~ ~ ~ I 11 1 1 ~ --. ; ; II., ; ~ ~ . I . ~ ~- t a~ ~ I;~ ~ ,, ~ , .~1 11 \ \ - _ -_ - Y I ~ ~ ~ ~. ~ , 1 ~ ` 4 ~ ~~. 11 ~7 ~. ~` ~ ,~ :1 I ;, f( f - ,~f , ,< j ~ ~ .'1~'~ f ~ 11: ~ ~ ' ' / ~, ~ ~ ~ ~ vv vI ' . . : 4 . - , \ el 1 I \ .:~ A _ 7 1 ~ 1 I 1 ll e. ` 1 ~ ~ 1 1 te . ,~ 11 ~ ' 'It c ~ a } t ^4~t .,,( r ~ r LT ~' ~ ~ ± ~ .. _ j ,~ i r 7 ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 11 ~ ~ ,_ f ~ ~ \ ~ o - .t~ \ ~. '~ ti \ Y, ` i ~. \e '~~ ' .i r 1 E ~'.~ ,~ 1 r ~,~ ti ~. ~ ~ 1 ~° '~. Y+ ~~ i ~ ` ~ . ~ ~ ` /may Y ` , i Y Y ~ . _. ~ ~~ , ~ , 4 ,1 Y ,\ ~ ~~ a s i-~,,'= r , c''~ s Y! s- , Y CB .fir ~~~ ~ ` Y 1 1 i +~ \ ~ ~ ~~' y , \` Y~ \ 2~l M ~ ~ ~ ~ \ 'Ss ~' ~ ~~ ` tc:. {~ V d y~ ~ ~ ~ ~ F I 1 , s• 4 1 ~,,y~, .~ ,~ ~. I ` Y ' ~ ~ 1 C h ' ~ 1~r' J \ tiY.: ' ~I ~ Y 4 ; .., ~~; ~ ~. ~• r `I _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ;.. r,'t ~ ~~~, , 1 ~ i ~ \ j~ ri 4 ~ "" ~_ ~ ,~ ~, '~ ( \ ~ ~! `,'fir ~ Y. ic, ~ ~ ~;~ ` ~ ,, 4'Y.~. `~- \ ~~. ~ ~ x: '~. '- •~~r , .~ yy33 ~~~'sa iQSk~~= ~a S: ~5 ~Ar~ ~~ 6~L~ ~. ~~, 4a GS3~3 ~8A _ f~ ~ ae~ c tig ~' as Asa ~ skx ~e s& &b ~s ¢F~~ ~ x ~ a n$ e r ~ a r ~~3r~~ ~ 3 ~~z ;f i ~~ x z~~,~~ \~ ` m ~~n~ ~QS J ~,~~ / ~ r~~ ~~~ 7oa~e ~ '. ~ ~ ~ i1 ~~ ! .~~w .~.--:.' i. 1J t ~ ,.. ~ I ..~Y ~ ~ \ I ~~ __ r t ~ , x I ,~ ,, `I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ s r ~ ` } , _ ~ f .~,. ~ 4 Y 'Y ~ , ~4 ~. ~ fr f. hr 4 !• - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ + j r ~ l ~ l , V .~ " ~ r ti I i ~ ~ -' -'' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ t ~ ~ 1 1 ~' ~ ~~_ ! _~~ _`_ a ti " ~ ``~`_ '" I ~ ~ ~ ` l 4 ~ t + ~ ~I I Y I I l' { ~ ti i `,~ ~~ ~ t ~~., it . 1. JJar _--; ~ ~ ,~ . ~r ~~e~ t ~ ~ ~ ,,,, ~ `~ ~ i ~ ~ ' ~ ~1 ~, 1~ f'~ 1 ~x s, ~, ~ r `r ~ 1 ~, I' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i j. ~~ -- ~ ~, l~/~ f ~ ~ r ~~ ~ ~~ ~ fr ~ ~tr ~ ~~`' 1' I ~ ~~` ~ /~ 1 1 1 ~ r ' ~ ' ~ I ~ ~ ; J ~ ~, ~.I ~ ~ r` ~ ti ~ 1 ~! r 1 ~ ~ ~ rt `~ ~1 if ----~ £: ~ i 1 ~' ~ c r ~.- 1 ~ 1 1 ~ ~\ Y ~ ~ 1 r 11 l 1 \ rt y ! ~ ` `~ tr 1r r x Y M ^ G V ~ \ ~ } ~ 4~ • n ~ ~ ~ .r l \ Y rf I I ~ ~ t.\/~~ ""~ ~ ;~'. Y Y ~~ ~~~~.. r ~ ,,, h j ~ ~ti ~ ~. ~• i' \ -_' '~ - f ~~~ ~ ~ f! _; ~ ~ ~~_~ ~ ~ti - =r~~~~~s~t i`.~ ~ ~ ~ zn. ~ of k`-~'-2L ,` b ' ~ ~ °~+ ` ~ -- _k ~ rg `~ ~ - _ . -r ~ _ . ~ . te •^v, f Z ~ - ~-_ ~ ~ ~~ ~ . ~ ~ ~~ f ~ v \ '~ ~ rte- ' ~ ~ '@ - ~ l fa r ' b `_ /y ... ~ ~+~° Al i i 1 j ~ ~ ~~ _ ___ ~ ~. r + , , ~ ~ ~ Ly'* ~ 3 ~.r p Y Y ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~-~ ,~ Y Y ¢m~ ~ ~ ~ ''tea J z y ~- ti~~ ~, ~~ f~ . CL ~^.y, •~ -~ s ag 0 ~~ ~•~°W _ ... E~ s ~' 1 ~r~ ~~ i ~, ~~ ~ /'fir ..~ ~~firr If~'~r ~- ~/ I~ r``~ ,~,' / ~o ~ ~ ~~ , ', r11 rJ?~ff \X1y! ~ v f>e d Gltlrai Ftrroezones m the ~~ dues ~,.;~ ,Treeeend3hn~6m•iohe ~.~. I (8nF ... : C~.. .. Spnsa B N Ci ~~ F'itea purpsr: s' m 2r rn Irpld Grp anew m.as.r {14]f4 ., .. ... -..... ,FYro6 ~ Pkwe erfelsts 8'to t2' n hslQlrt ,~ - ':"' '... w u.s r aor. 2' iA tlle. (10' 70 7S Z~) ..~ ~ ~1 eb.. __ tom{ ~ MMgrVMbd•nip ~dI4~RwwL~bq 'Oj~'""~"r""' (iSi)F iu .. n~,. Cledduoue Twee y.. _ _ srr Me~w® ~'/ as..s.ara Verfetlee d rreple, eltlef, bYCtl, ~~ j 1 dr 1.5~~da{8'to~la'teY) LJ ~~ _ -', (ia} gwerr nPo.rm spns>! _ - ~ a~ r~ ~ ~ / ~ ~. r ~~ I F ... , J $ISUh Abases - ~f s Z~ !~~ ~+P~ I ./ r r{B87)il5 ... ~,~ rte 1 w.+.~ ' ~ ~ f ~.. .. ~~~ ~ ~ ~ APPnxc,. 8.17ti s~ Mt+ ~ {724} Flab of (18} 4' F'r~ 4 --4 f _ 5~ F . ~, ...... Turf Anses ~ ~~ ~` ~ BUILD NG U ~` /~vpox74,Oaast ~ esm~~eery ~(y}~[T'~ r i? ~~ jSk lFk +~ ~ i srsea~.r~ ~~ h if \ r '! ~° ~ I-- ~ ~ PAThi TO PORD PARK ' ~~ _ B~YnnM~P.~*0 ~ y ".~. - z , ., P~4AiY~mE .~ ~~ ~ Y ~ N11Irm1~Id _ ~F- r ~~ ~~~.~ao Fn 4d+a r~av.t rrnb -- ;- p ,u=~~ ~~ e ~ ''s-.:.~a~oe~~°•n _ bpYitl ~M1CCtln~ ~ 1 MPG -..__--.. ~!~MP~F~. -.. .. G.~......~..%~~ 7~ Z Y t Y rt~.. J/~/ I I ~. PROPEF'rr UwE ':) k f I I lJ wwr~rw 7 ~ ~ ue.ww.~u ~ r ~ UIL NG Q r..+w r.+w ~\ ~ R ~` '~ Bu +~IN ~' ~i~ u~ w - _ V "~ ~ i .~. I~ I 4 l E%i57iNG WIYIJING POO .' }. ~ ~ f ( ~: RuYn.Wbpfw ~ _ re wl w~~tMwc --_ ~~ ~ `~ wb~'°V'~a' i-. E ii.: (f . ...ie....ie ~ ... ~` t o...w.s~se a.eu.a.I.bp ~e - arenrarnsrss - esr~nearu%~.~ _ __ ~ , ~~~ - ~ -. r°~-~~ - NE~Y POOL _ A~~ ~I ~ ~RL STRU[]N~ MA °~ STAiRNEU TO LARGE I __- ---30'-0' uiL~CREEK SETBACK _NTERLINE OF CREEK '.0'-0' SETBACK ~ /fI 5•_0- .~~ ~.c 1 7r Tt TINE M FLOOD PLAIN ORD PARK. n6T+~ RaMP TO BELOW - -r ~ GRADE PARKirvG GARAGE f ! f .GATE ~ J~ ~ l~~~J '~ . I` ,~ ~UILQING .~ ~~ ~ \ ~\ - ~~ `~. --~ ~ ~, .,1 ~ .1 ~ .` ` 1 > > , °r I ~ .. ', +, ~~ 50'-0~ SETBACK FROM ~' l~OENTEfiL1NE CF GONE CRE2K ,, `~ ~\ ~ ^~ 4 ~ , y'., ~A ~i ``~ ` 0 1 ,,~ , I °~ ,_~ ~ 4 ~ ' ,~ h I~ It 1~ 1 1 '1~ 6 ~ I. °~ ~\ ~1 I 4 I 5t 5 t °~ , 2q 0' SETBA IL I~t ~ ~, 4 ti 1i PRURER~'Y LINE •5 1 r I ~ ~',~ 1 '~ ~II ~ ~~ r `t. '~ ~ 5 ~ ~1 ` ` I 1 ` 1 ~~ ~ `\ ~ ~` -_ - ~ 1 PATH TO FORD PARK ~ ;'1 1 1 "j ,,\ t 1 l ~t` .~T ~ 11 \ 4 ~' _~ 1. ~`s °° - - ~--- - ,~ ` 1 1k `1 ~I '1 ~ ~~ 1 ~ ~ ~ '~ , t ~, ~ 10 MIN LOPDINCNNLDAOING , °~• i } 14 SPALE$ I + IIIIII , ~ , , ~'t 1 p/`~ 1 Y ~'I~ItIr. ,'It,~r~ ~y.~f..~'~~11Ipi /I 'T'' 1 \ ~° 1 t ~1, ~ .. `- I ~~ ~ ~ ~ II I SKIS F©GL ~' E%ISTiNG PARKING TO W1NMMG P // REMAIN UNCMANGW `\` \ ~ ``t `\ ~~ t t I' NEW PUBLIC I RESTAU ~~ ,`~ '~' 4 TURN-ARDDND ~ ^FL YcR . t I ~-~. r \ ~ ~ /, GE OF ExiSTlNG PAIEM•~E!1T -~ - ~ ~A'F 0{pr ST af*'NG ~~ p ~ ~~ t _~"_` _ 1_ -' ~ -~~ ~~4 LANE PROPOSED LAND SWAP /NFw TOV STREAM TRACT AREA t30 SF. ~ >( \ t. 1 ,r ~ ~ } ',5 _ ~-- GORE CR'£DS t00 YF.f~R 1 '\ /' FLOOD BOUNDARY t ~ 1 •~` ~~ so.-o- sETBAcK FRokl CENTERLINE OF G(3RE'tCREEl( 1 ~`~ R :, , t ,,1 , t ~ ~ ~ t\ y °\ `` \, •~ ~` ~' ~ '.~ PROPERTY LIN~•. •` .~ ,\ `\ ~•\ ~ 1` ~~~, ~ \\~ \ ~ _ \ DECK ENOR ~JNE - TO ~~ '`.~ `\~v~ ,~ a ~ti "~-~ ~~ ~~. _ _ •. __~ .~ ~~ ~_ _.~ ~, _ _ ~ ,. ~~ ~' ~., _ ', ', ,4 ~ ~ ', 1 .5 -, `. `e , ~, ~ ,, ~ `' ~., `,, ~, - ~ f `, - i `~ h _._.....__.~._~_ .. - {~\f \/ 1 sEW CnRn{;E RAMP IS STEfP~R a nINIM12E5 vtSUAI Di51LRB0.NCE JEW PARK AREA Yeilik. ALSO 'RC14101rve ACCESS INAE>'ENDa. E xtpP OF/F CIRCLE. r 5 - -~ 1 ~ C I \1J .n f 1 / J ~~ ,~ 'f+ ~ ~ -.~ r !I~ `~ ~ I ! f ~~ ( -~ I~ ,~ ~~~ '~ ~ ~ 1 ~'~ ~ - ~r '. --__ -_. _~ ~~~~_ NESti PVBLiC TC1RNfNC AREA $OLVE$ ~~ TRAFFVC ISSUE vrttwu S(.IER DROR OFF -~ ANp LOST GUESTS SPACE FAGUTdTES MDVEMEN'• AND RARK'.iNG LOT deCES,. i ~1 ~4 ',~ I 15 } 1 _ 1 5 5 5 5 1 1 } 1 1 1 1 5 ^~ I 1 5 1 11 I ~1 5 .5 1 ,i ', ~ ~ ~.5 5 ~ l 5 ~ i 1 1 , 1 `~1 RECONFlGUREO OELIVERV AriiD TR0.5H 5 : ~', AREA MIMMIZES CONFLICT WITH ~. PEDESTR5AN5. FOOD DEuVEt{Y MOVED .`^s. ~V~' + 5 ~ 5 TO SOUTH L07. 5 ~~ ~ ~~ 5 5 5 ~ ,4 ~ ' , , -, SHORT TERM pROP OFF CES ~ t ~5 Ol T E `~j HI F' M U'fM ~aG~ aNI7 G~~";n Da IOE 1 .I LDAD SPACE ATE Y. 5 .5 I _, , 5 l I 5 .5 1 I , ~ .5 .5 A 5 1 1 '~` l 5. 1 L t 1 :5 1 +~ 5 t ~ ~`y -, .. ~ ~r ~, ~5. .5 ..~ ' ~ i'rt`t,V ~. ~1 1 11 ~ 1~~ ~, ~~ ~ 1 1 r i,; 1 ~~ µ } ~~ r ~ 1$ ~ `1 l3 1 1 1 ., 4 1 ,1 g '~ ~ ,~, ^,, 'r ~~ ~ ~1 I} ` 1 ~'~ 1 ~ '` 11 ~ r. ~~y"`. ~t ~ ~ I ' 1 ,k I ~ ° pll I~ I I ~~\ +! I ~ it \ I ~ I + +I V I i ''~ I ~ ~ ! I ~, ~~ I ~ ~ ' ~~ ~~' ~~ ~~ ~ ~ j~~ ~\~ 'I I I~1 M1 ` ! '~ I i ti '~ .~ ~ ~ ~~~ ', t ~ ~ ti I ~~ ~, , ', i ~ r ~ ~ ~~~'~, ~ ~ ~~ i, ! ~, z ~ fi a I '' '~ i ~ ~ ;~ ~~ s 1 ! ` I ',1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~. I v ~ .~ ~~l 1~ I 1 l5 .` ; 1 ~ l I l `_ 115 _,` .; ~ ~ 1 •,~ ~ 'ti, ¢~ .. ~4 .~\ .~~ ~ ~ ~, ~, ~ .` ._.~ `` : ~: I! [ ti ` ~Y. .l `~~~ ~~ I~`r / iil `I ~3 ~: ` - I Ff f ~ 1. I '? I - ~ ~ ,_ is -~. --~ -, - _ - ~~ 1 i ~_,I ' . _ ! q~ ~ _ 1~ ~~ ~. / 1 _ Y r r .y r ,~ ,~ ~ ~ '~ _ ~ ~. ~ I „ r --_ __ -~ ~, ,~ ~~__ _ ~_. . ~, / I (~} ._ ,~I \. ~.~ `may - ~.~ _ ~~/ ~~ 1 ~ /r L n 1 ~ `~~~~`~_ i 'ice ;~. ~" /~ I ~ y! i ^4 _ f ~~ ~~ r rf ~ '` ~: /%; ~` , `_ , ~ „ ~ ~~ I ~~~ _ . ~~ ,.` 'r!I' 1 '' ~ t , ~+. X r11 1 1 ~, 1 ~ y ~ ~` Ily``,11_J ~ ~ ~ .~ ~~ ` ,4 ,, ;~~ .1 y 1 -4 ~ .5 , , ~ ~ ~~ ~ t ~ ~ ` 'S ~ 4 ~, -, l •, ti ?`~ a '' i y ~y 1 \!~ ! 1~ 4 ~ ~ i ` ~~ y I ~ I I ` I ~ 1 l i ~~ ~~~;; , ~~ I ~ , ~ ~~ ti ``, ~ ~ ~ ~, ~ i ~ `~, ~ J 4 ~ i '~ 4 I ~ 'w I~.y ~~ ~ ° - ~ y ' -I~"` i y ~ ~ .~ i± W }~ ~~ r r W - 11 1 i ! ~j ~ i ~ ii ~ ~~' r i ~ ~ i 'rl l ~ ~ ,l ~,~ l I / ~ ~a ~~~ i, II 4~1 I~ ~ti Y ;I i ~ ,,,1 4 i ~ ~ ~' °~~ i ~ '~ ~. 1 i ~' 1 ' 1 .1 1 1~ ~~_ lit i 1 , 4 ~ ~ ~ +. _ ~ w,® 1 ` ~~ 1 \ ~, ~ ~~. -~ .` ..\ •1 ~~ 1;~ L4 . •~` . ~= .. _ ,~~ ~,1. ~r'~'' I I +`.~' Rb ~;; ~~ ~~ t . ~~-; ,; 1 3 , j ~• ~ -_ T ~ I ~'~ ~ r ~ _ - _~_~ ~i_ 1 ' r ~ ~ ~~;,` _ ,t~ ~~„ ~ ~ ~ ," _ _ ~ I ~ ~i j ~r/ ~ r i ~ ~ ~,. ~l 1 1'14- - ~ ~ 1 - \____ !11 ~ r . ~ °~ ;~r~ ~ I r~1, ~~ f ~: --- ~' ~~, r .j s ,,_ ~ ~ , - _, r !! `~ EY - l l~~r ~ r -' r ;T2-=___ s~ /mar' I r /~ n -- ,--~ ~~ -- r~ ~. ~~\. ` ~ r ~~ `i\e'~ ~ ... (', ~ ` ,~ ,! ~~.,,, ~ r',iA ~,i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ is ~ ~~. `~~ ~ "` .,-~_.~ -[i=~ ~ ~ ~ ~. ~ ,~ ~ ~~r ~ ,ti _ ~~ ,_, ~ , .,,~, ~-,,. ~~~ ~1 ~ f ~~ ~~\ a~ i ti~~,: ~,,,~~ ,'' ~ _ a-ll~ ~ ~ ~ ~~_ ~ ~ ~ _ ~ \ J ~~~ ~ ~ ~ \ ~ ~~ \~ ~ f "- s._,,, ~ _ _ 4 ti ._" i I ~ 1 _ ~ ~ f~ j i `.' ~ ~ ~ -- ~ t '#1 ~ r~ Jam/ a ~~'-,~ f ~~ ~ / "'~ f .' I ~ 1 „~,,s~ _ / : ^' fir- i/~"i ~ ~~"'+.._.."+...~ r Fi K -.~ ~ Y~ ~. ~ -.~.. ~ ~ 1~,~ ,~ ', ~~ ~ , ., ..,. I r~ ~ '~~ , i~ r ,: `i ~ ~~ ~~ ~~ is 11 :1 ~ 1j~ ~7 ` ; i ~ ~ ~~ `, f +~ t~~ ~~ ~f~~~ ~ 1 `~, ~ ~ ~~ ~~, ~, ~ '~, 1 1 1 ~ ~ } ~~ Sf~ 1 ~_ , ~ ' ' xw\~l 14 .' * ~ ~~ ~~ ~;. ~ \~ ~M \~~ 4® ~` ~~ ~1 .~ ~~~w _~. ~~ ~? -:z :r ~ /1 ~,' --~ t t~~~ ~ ~,~'~ ~~, __ i ,4 t`^~ J~ i ,-~. 4,~ t ~y d. " / ~ i I ~ ' , J ~~ , ; ~ {) t' , r f J ii I ti~ F / f 1 ,r ~ ~a ',' 1 ~ 't ~~ ~ r~ ~,, 1' r ~~t ~ 1 ? J r. ,. f ,,~ ~~ ~~ "s n .. n r ~ ~ ~ C ~ , / ! f r f ~ \ W / ~(w 'S~i' Y~ ~ ~m ~ ~ 1 ~ .., J i o m J f i ~ q { Fes`` ""a'y,` ~ ~ ~ ~ w~ ,r~ `~ ~ / f ~ ~ ~ ~ ~$ ~~ ~~ s 'x f m ~° ;~ .. ~ •-+al f~'~ -~~-- --.1 1~'`: 1 ¢ W ~~ ~ `I m 11 i _ ~ ~ ,~..- a ~ _ _ f f 1 1~ t d f~ r ' 1 J i r 1 1 I f t t ! t 1 ~ t t 1 ' I j ~ 1 ` 1 ffj+ 1 1 ~ j 1 ~ t 1 ~ ~ ~ 1 1 1 1 f f ~ ~ ~ ' 1 1 f ~ fJjj j ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ + +~ ((1 ++ t j 1 t / ~ i ~~ ~ ~ _ ~~ ~ ~ 9 R (~. ~l - o i ~~ ~ ~ .m~ ~ ~ _ ~ r ~ ~. ~ ~~ ~~~ :- ~ ~ ..~~~ ~' ~ ~ Q a --~ ~ r ;~ ~ :. ~ ~ ~' _ ~ ~' ~ t .$ 6 5 t m~ al I ~ a 4 y% r "^~ f ~ 1 ~ a _ .~ ---.. m j~.. ~ f ~~~ ~ a ~? ~ ,~ ~a ` ~., ~ ~. ~ f ~ ~ ,~ ~ J r 4 ' 1 1~ jj 1 I f t J r t t ~ t i ~ i + ~ fJ 1 + t ~ ~ ~ r t `'`----~,rt t ~ ~ r t 1 !J r , ~ ~` r .. ~ p , f \ ' 4 t ! \ `l r ~ ~ ~ ~f~~y \~~ W4~ ~~ 3iHn \\\ ~ ~ ~~ ~ i'~ r f i3TMn f f f r f r r f~ f f '~.~, ~, l r f ~ a ~% r ,~,w~ ! ~ y~ t ,~ r r~, ~ n ~ ~ r i ~ ~ If , C~ 1f r ~ ~ `~, -~. ~f, r ~++ ! V ~_4 Y~' .,l ~.. -F ~ `-~ ~` ~ ~ ,'i (~'~ ~~ 1 '~ ~ ` .~.,~j a ~~ r ~. ~ ~ .. ~~ i ~~ ~"" !tt n~~~ ~.{ ~3hk ~ 1 ~yt}' 1 ~ ~, •»T,. ~ ~ 1 hl ` 1~~ -y {31`Yrt r~S ~, all ~~ ~ fi f f ~ 4~~1 ~~ ~~ n~ ~~ _~..+ L~~ 1 ~ ~ .J' w 1 ran ~ ~ pa ~ ~ pw ' n1 ~~ ~~ tl1 '~ aY ' J i ~~~ ~ 1 I i'Y~yvA ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ w ~ ~ ~~ " 1 ~, "$ ~ C1 2}'4 ttK 1 J~a ~ 1 1 A~rWA 1 ~ tt'~ ~~ ~ k ~~ ~ ~ 1 ~' W l t 1 t t t I 7 +t 7 )~ t~ 1 r t t r r t 1 w ~ ~ f f t f 4. <m .~ f ~ `.~ ~ v /./^YJ ~ w ' ~ `'`° AMVe ~ t/ f~ ~ ~ A~ ~ !Jf / ~ r P ~5 d ~ J , a 1 "' / ., ~~~~., r f ~ ~a Jfl ~_ f ~ j f b~ I ~' J ~, i~r' „j ~ ~ ~jJ ~ C~ ~w ~ `,1 ~% '1 ~p //a~ ~.~ a+e _ 1 / / ~~ f 1 ~l i Jac ~ 1 y 11 ~ Ah1Y 1 ] ,N 1 1, _,:s 1 l 1 1 .~xn,,,, °~ `'~ l '1 ~~ ~° ~ it YS 1 ~~ -~~ ~ r_'r71 g Y 1 ~ ~___~ ~` 1 1 ~ ~.~~~ °~~ 1 1 "~" °~ 1 ! ~~„ .'4 l ~~ 'bra 1 a`` v 1 ~ 1 1 ~~~ 1 a~ { 1 ^~„~, ,,,A, 1 1 ,~~ ~" c~ 11 '~~f q r--"? 1 3 E-~' ill µ~ ~ II 1 <3try 1 gaw #~n.~ 11 ~_ 1 ~~ JAS [~ 1 v~ _~~~ y~4 r ~~` ~ 11 ~ Fxx~,~ a 1 1 ~~ 1 1 rnw urns I II p1 1w -~ F~ 4 `_n~Y i 1 'T ` ~ ._~ .J 1 ~ _ ~~i1'. r i 1 1 t 1 1 f t t t f J b ~ jJ ~ ~ r r r z z + -- ~ r o % r It / / o i3Y I t ~~ff"' ti ~•.. ~ ~1 ~I jl 4~ ~~~ ,~~ ~ ~ ~ ,~ ~ :, ~ } ',~ "~ r ~! j d 7, 'z. , ~ ~~ ~ f~~~~r~ fwd } 'd ~r '~.. - ~ ~'`"' -"`.~~ ~~ ~,~ ~ `~ , ~~ 1 ~: ~ ~~ ~. ~ .~' i S ~~~_ A ~~ ,~ ~-~ ~~ ~ ..~ ~ ~ ~, . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~, y.,F-tee ~`~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~, r ~ ,, j } ~ ~~~ 1 ~~ ~~~ ~k ~~'_,~ ~~-~ , . d~ ~ ~ ~ ` Y ^ ~ ~ { (. ~ '~ ~ ~ ~8 'S r ,a. '~ ~'°" ~ E~ ~ ~. 1~ ~~ ~ ,::lam #r. ~. CC}~ ~.h Cj J a Cls 1 I r i"""ce ~'~ ~ ~_~ -~ rf/ ~~ ~ f f fl f r ~ ~ ,~ r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~-- ~ f * "'_ l ^~. t ~.,V ~ (f ~,`. 1 1 I 1 1 1 t I '" -- ~ ---°1 ~. r' ~~' t / \ j 1 `^ ~ ~ ~ __ (t~ t~ ~( ~~ ' a` 1 f~ ~ ~-.. f 1 t r ~4`~`".raw~" ~R'`5` Zi > i~ ~ r~ g ~ ~ r~ a ~-'! r' j f _. . fi l C~ a a ~o .,>= ~. ~, ,., ~:. ,. ,~,, . ~ .~ ~,~: %1 '~ ' . ,. ~, ~¢ - ~. ~ `~ t I 1 r r r r i r r r r r i r 1 i 1 j i 7 r ~ r r ~ r j r (f f 1 r ~ r .~. - .~ ,' •~,,'>~ ~- ~% ~" ;~~'p !' `~ ~r j J i J=. ~ J A~'~ {,~ i ~ ~~ ~' ~ ~^~ ;.~'` j .( 1 // r J f t ,i ~ ~,_ =- i, .~~ vza ti~ ~ ~k z~'n ~w %~; ~® °n ~ { r 1 t I 1 r 1 i r f t t r i r r J ! _ ~l~"iN f j ~ ~// s ~ f~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~ t ~ ~kl .~ / f, ~~ ~ ry ~ ''~ ~~ j. 1 `' ~ ~ Q`y y ! `~. r~ 2'`~,~ `I1~ 1 'Z- __~~ Y~" ~Y '~ rl e ~~ :J 'f' a ~ 4 ~~ ~ ti 4~ ~> ~/ ~ z~. Zl4 r~ ~~ m~ ~~ ~~ r~ ~p ~ ~ ~'f i ~ _~ \~\" r~ {~ god' ~ ~ ~ `1\ \ r'/ .~ '~ ! t\ I ^~ 1 r f r E r 1 f 1 1 r r rr f 1 f I t 1 1 Q _^`~` - __ ~ is z g° Q= ~~ g ~~ i ~ " ~ o ~ a~ bwQ ry v ~ ~ o w n ~ in a xo Z~so va #~~y In I o ~ k' w z z z zcn Ino z ~~ za~ /~ ~ 3 a I I I I I~ I N I i 0 I Ca I I I I i I I ~~~~~Q ~ ~~ ~ Q~~~~~~ Z, F~ a ~ 7 UJ ~ `W ~~ ~ ~~ XS 7 W W IJi J 7 J_ J^ J 7 _Z ]v, ~a~; ~n p u 4 ~ 7 1 n W \ H ~~ IQ,t' W v~ m K 9 J 3 7 .,1"a `~:~ rtr 5 ~. 4qq~~~ ~qql+~ 9i: ~ T _ Z O J _ ~ ~ ~, '~ W ~ x oa~a~~ooa~ ooo~oo~o ~ o~o~o~o s ~ ~ ~ qq 6 E, WI g ~ li ~ ~ I II lI ~ ~ I ~ I 1I ~ ~I r li p I p i l .. m J CO 0 J~ ~~ `I ~: ~ ~_ R 3 E i I ~~JJ L O ~=; ~~~~ K 1y 2 r i i r r ~ r i r i i s r~ r l a ~ da r I r r r r i ~c oar W Qoaao ~ ~o ~ ~~~a~c~a ~ ~ ~ ~= ~ ~ g ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ 11 ~ II %: a~. ¢s o ~J ~w F r "' 4 a s w ~e ¢' h ~ ~ r 4 ~ -r-- i i i~ i I S m J m Q Z J_ z a a w w '~ o a ~~ F ~ r a _ J ~ j ~ Y ~ _ `py` ~ 4 I ~ '/ --- I J 4 ~~ i a ~ ~ k i I f.:J ~ ~_ 1 ~ _~" ~ I `~ ^ ~ ~ t tD ~ ZV 1 ~ ~ gipp' o~ r aY 4 y(~5 N ~ C~~~ ~~~ ~ i` .e-0 ~ _~ ~~ ~ < r yg ~ '+] % t ~~ ~} ~~- d f ~-- ~ ,~ m W { ~ ~-- w u ~~ $ o -~ v z __..+-._~_ - -" r ° ~ ~ _~ r _ ' v a / ~ ~ / / u ~ ~ 1 ~ f ~ I I _~ ~ ~ - - ~_ -0- _ q s.s _ ~ _~ -- a- a~ ~ ~~ _ v i ~ ~ s • . ~, v i -~ n ~ , .~ ~ _ a ' g '- ~ ' ~ x~d ~ ~- ~ ~ ~ _~~ _- r g ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~^~ l ~ ~=~ ~ ~~~ ~ - ~ ~ f ~ S $ ~~ V b _ ~ ~ ~ - ~ - ~ V ~- F V .. F ~~~ l~u N ~ ' ~ , _ ` ` 2h~ J^ / O •. v y ~ ' ~"~ .1 ~ ^# < ~q N _ Y ~ ~ ~'_,_ 4 t /_ ~ sl ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ J ~ 1 Y ~ -m~ ~ _~ - - ~ d _ ~ ^ ^. D ~ i s ~ ~ w ~ ~ ~' : W q a jw° n ~ . ~. ' ~ ~' ~ 'o _ l r. LJ ~ ~ U E y ~ .~ I d ~ .i ~ ~... ~:` _ m ~ ~ ~,~ - ~"~r~~-- Lr ^ ^ ^ - L3 ^ ~i . ~ . _ ``~ '~ ". _ Y ~WW L+ W W ffi J 5 .j ~ ~ ' .~ ~~ .rte ~ !' ~® ~ J~ ~ _ i ~_~ ~ _ ~ ~ f ~ s ~! r '~j r ~ j . z ~' ~ ~ '~ ~ - ~ a ~, ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ d ~~~ ~ d ,f ~f ~ f a~ 6 / 3 yp,5 ~'~~ N / ~ / g / ~ ~ /r / ~~ h• Y w ~ w g W ~ W Q- ~~ ~- ¢ .Q u~i b - a _ ~ _ f it 4 Y W K U J 3 c '~ 1 1~ ~II ., u ~ o~ __ ._..""----- 6 ~ - ~_ ~ ~ E~ ~_ ~ ~ 7~ yi j ,.- ~ ~ :, /l j W d[ 1 ~ i 6 m W W aK U 1 2 ~~ .7 >> l ' ' / i i / ~ ' ~ i~ / i' 444 ~~I (~ w i ~ _ _ _--- e ~~ ~ 7 - ~ I 1 / 1 ~Y I ~ ~ 1 ~ ~~ ~J ~ ~ ' Z ~ i ~- ~ _s ~ ~ ~ ~ ~-- / ~ --_1 f ~ ~ ~ ~ ___~ `x_> jn W V V S J g #~ ~ 4 6 ~ Z 7 7 y } 7 } 7 ~ } yt } J yp N V ~ ..' I 1 i f t t 1 1 t "-l. ~' ~ ' Q ~ ~ Q] r _ ~ ~ f m ~ i f t Y 7 i ay in w 1 1 ~ ~ ~ _.~.~ i 1 _~ ! d ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ ~~ l ~ ®-° ~_ f : ~" t ,~ - ....~~..r s _---~ ~, ~ ~ of Z~ ~ ~U n e A" ~ ~~~ /1 ~ ~' -~ ~ ~ ~'~ ~ p ~ ~ w " J r -.~- ~~ -~1 z `z' // m ! ` 1 °a y +,r= ~4 ,~ r r /~ ~ ~ r "~ rr f y sr ___._ t f \ rr `~ + rr •. r ~ ~ rr i ~ rr ~ j, ~~; ~~ aw j ~ Z s7 er 7 u in W ~~~ f/ i Y fr '~3 "'IDj4~ rI 'N!+ r }~4 ~ 4~ F ~ ~ (~`'+ ft Q p ""4•\~q~, ~~ e ~ srr S, r" V141 rl~ I ~/ ~ ~ Z 4 _ `.~ f ~f. r ~' //fJ:~ ff (jf1 ~`. wag'- r ~0. r ! \ ~ r J 'ff L ~ ~~ /f rrf ~ ~ W f I $ 9 j Vie` fr K J z pp.. N ?` m p ~~; p ~4 M y a n S ( ~ N .~ ~ _ ft ~ ~~ z ~ ~f ~ N ~ ~ ~~ , ., , ,_ o ~ s ti` ~,: ~- ~, ~.. .~ , ~. ~ '~~ 7 a tr t~j ~ ~ ~- t ~~ __ _ ~ ~ t ~ ~~ r ~ c> ' ~:~ iE + ~ ~° ~w ~~ 5j3 ~a ~ W V 1~ f ~' - -~-~ r .~ 4 ~~- ~ ca~ ~' ~ ~ f '~ ~ o ~ n„y a` -~ ~3 e~ o I o .-. l / ~ ` ~ ` ~i ~~ a~ oN ~~ ~y ~ ~ . ~ / - ~~ <O ~ e~ < ~O ~Oa a~ w °' ~ WO ~. ~ ~, ~ ~~ / ~ ' eo Q ~ I _ O ~ g 3 _ 'I.~.~a '"-~,'. _ ,_ Ste. . n ~'Z _ ~~ mss p y . ` _/ _ ~ ' ~ ,~ a k ;- ~ ~ i - ~ ti ~' ~ w : I~ I !a _ ~. f 3 e~ ~ / t L ~ ~ _.-_ _ r ~/,j I 1 ~' ORlq " 4 ~Wo ,~ 3d~ " zmU / s -,. > / r ~ ~f ~ } ~ ~~~ / a ~o ~,~ ~ ~ °h l y+ ~ t{ _ 'J ~ '~ ~ 3 ~ c , t/a, /~ ~~ ~x„ ~~ /' /i ~~ a ~ .~~ ~=~~ .:~ ~ ~I L~-J//~ _ ~ ~ ~ ~~- L - _.~ ` J < ~ Jn \~.J/ I ~ c r i ~ aQ ~m a~ ~~f 1 1~4 ~ ~ ^{) ~a y"°s-- -1~ ~ a ~d ~ n lI r,7 ~ ~' z ~' Y l~' I ~7 ~ ~ R ~ O~~ .~ ~ ~~ { L.F ~ 4 IY 0 4 I ~ Q D U _ 1 ~° v ~ ~ J !I J '~~ ~,. r l r !-^~ y j 0. r 3 i~. ~~~< ~1 = ~ -- 6 ~ r ~ W ~L~iY . p1 .7`3 ~ ` '' .mss, F:1 ~ F '° ~' ~ Lr ~Q li C7 3 -i ~ d {~ ~ ~ ' _f ~~ tix4r ~ ~ _'~ °~ a u ~ ; " f `~~ W~ ' I Q N ~ " ' ~ ' Y © ~ ~ _" ~ ` ~ ~ ~ ~a ~ ~ a ~ - 1 - h ~, ; ~ _ ~ g ~ y ~ F !~~ r ~ , ~ w o~ Z ~ o ~ w w ~ O 4 ~ ~ ~; - ~, '~' ~ < w Q 0 r i ' ~ I~ ..~~/j ~ ~ U W / . ~ +`- L --.._..~._ --- -=~---~ . --. +< Ntr. aNq. f~ ~~ ~r r ~ ~ ~ y S f O ~~ 6 ` "MVP ~ ~~ [ ., W ~ 4 ! ~ P ~~ L.+~ ,~' "~ ~a ~~'~'~ ~ i `~ _ s f' + l~ f ~ F- jj ~ s '~, ~ ~ ~ .~ 1 ~ ,, 7 .,„ '~ _fi .~ rte' r a ~ a °` a;, 3 '~' .p ,~ ' ~4 y - i~ ~y l ~, `~ / ~ ~ d fl r ~ ,' , j r ~ ~ r ~ x ~ . ~~ i V S ~~ ~ ' +.v F9 ~~ y V ~ ~ n 6 ~ i n+:' -~ it ~~ i[t ~ ~~~ E a m ~~ N Y ~' ~ ~~ ~ w ~ ~ t ~ t ~ ~~'~ ~ a~ ~ 1~~ v ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~~, r ~ .+~' ~~ ~....,a,,,,,h„~ ~ ~ i~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ _ j" a ~ ~ _ _ Z ~y ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~`J ~ I Tb m~ ~ ~ ~~ ' N ~' ~' _ ~ z, ~ i 1 ~F__ ~ -~ ~ f ~~ ~~ ! ~ ~ ~ ~ i r ~ r s ~ ~"y~'~ ~ N ~ £ 1 k~~ :4 h fJ' g ~f pZ ~m.3~~'~s ~y~d'. ~ "~~ ~~~~, f.. .pis f ~^ ,Y~ / N ,€ F, r f „.~. ~,~ .,~ yi.,4 ~ ,,. f ' 'tf ~ ~ro >> f r x~t s` 'c ~~ ~Z~ mac., };J iY f ~? 3 v ~. ~ ~, Q ~ ~~ ~~}} r 7Un r` ~ ~ A 4 ~ W { O „ 1}i1 ~ ~ ~ r~J ''~-;~> ~ E~ ~ t v ~~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~, _~, ~ ~=fir F ~'~ ~, . ~ ~~ i~,i ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ J arm ~ `~, ^,~.,~.,..~( '~ ~, i ~ ~ ~` W ~ Y ~ a1,C z ~ '2i ~ r+.f _ w ~"I 2 ~~ r w ° u t b ~ ~ "``----_ ~E ~ h f . a ,e. i It L d ~`~ 7 ' _ ~. ~ ~ f I f f , e / ~~ 9a ~ ~ ~ Z ~r ~ Zv ~ ~ ~ e _/ 5u ~Q~ 1 e ~` / m ~ c ~.+I m J ~- ~ e ~~ / zN.U fY, ~ 3~3 e ~U ~ M chi m ~ "~ ` ~ `" ° VVV e t` ~ ---~---`° , dZ ~ -_~ ~ - -.I '-___~-_ 1 I ~C dJ --__~_ - ~ LI~J I e a ~) `` tD ___~__- f~ I e K n~ / ~ ~'_ ____~__-_I I -___~- ~ I e ~ Q ~ J ~Y¢xl' _ ~S Illy e j~ u R ~ =o< ~?~'~ e ~ ~~ _ ' m I a~o~ <~U ~ rf° csx ' 1 I Wl~.~oO~ wHOO~p a I) , InE~ ''44,, L3. I-~~~N d3~~.1 ~ _- r J ~ i ~ I --__---°`------- 1 ~ ~. --#----- ----~--- ~ ' d W~4 4 j ~D I / d Z `¢~~ ~ VS l f ~~~~ C ~~ a=s~ ~ 1 4 0 4~n~ ~ ¢ <~~,aA1 ~ ~ ~ ` `___ ... I f f ~ w y _ ~,x < m o _= 0" I N rv 1 ' zm + ~ r i~TU ~ , ~ ` •+ y a UIZ K ! !` u L"-'m I Q ,.n ^.~N 1 G p `~ Ir m ~ 1~ ~ 1' I q 1~ 1 1 f 1 ~ 1 I II K f 1 1 ~ L ~ ~~ f j i W 7 _r I F Z 3 1 N~~ 1 ic2w 1 WUm ! W f 1 - J¢M I~1 f I f Ir t I ~ 1 ! L~M1 Jig Y ~ I ~Y fey ClgY f f ~"qf[~r I I I CY ~I _ ~NWO ! _ ~~ f i_ r-_~, ~s~~ ~ 1 1 - ' r < 1 f P ~` ~_r I t 1 A V r ~Q ~1 ~m~~ ~ ~ ~l I II ~ r f f f 1 I a~ f r t ~ f 1 I Y y _ _ 1 1 1! 4_ y__ I I ~ W ~ I I }}j W¢M l I l _J I WW ~ OZ~O¢ I f ~ UI Y ~i I JZ~5 r r Yr Z ~ ~ W 4f1 v, 'f Y ~ ~ M a~ r a w a ~ zK f ~ ~ JT ti~ f ~ [i Q y~y~ ! 0. ~ V 1 - 4 ~ r _~ 5 fw - J ~ Z J ~ ff ~ J + ^. ~ .~ ~ Q _ '- W Z '~. J ~_~.1 D Z ~~ ` ~ F, , em A`~ ~ T~ ~ ,, fi t. / ~` tt~ t ~~ ~ :~ :~ 1 ~. 'f f f '~ 'j / f r, {., j f ~ / , yti~ ~:4 . ~. , ~, ~~~ ~, ;; N N ' / ? I r z ~ $ t~D U ~Q I f ~ ___~ 1 '~ 1 1 1 ~ - Y 1 ~ ~ ~_ 3 O ~ M `1 ~ ~~~ -1 -'~ 1 ~ LL ~ ~` ~ 3 M. ~~ ; ~ t '~ ~ ~ z--~'J I' ~ 4 ~ { ~ ! ~ . ~. ! 1 . 1 i `-a-. i v ~ ~ u z ~ ~ ~ i '_"^- i s ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ i W r ~ ~ w ~ ~ O ' ~ ~ z ~+ a i ~ f i ~ J ~` W q i ~ ~ s ~~ r a I ~- ,-.' i 11 i I -~ ~ ~ F ~ ~ ~ ~ I '--' v ~ z g W { ` I1~-+!f 0 J ~ ~ ET5 W tl i o J Z ID LL V Q ~' W m I ~~ ~~_ J J L.L.. Z n y~ V m W V J C] J J C.~ z W9 m O m V Q °~ MJ W V d Z QZ W© o ®] I :;~ M C~~C~O~OC~~O 00~~~~~0 ~ 0~~~~0~ g 6 ~~ & ~ ~ ~ Q z -. W .~ 'W ryV L J M~ W W r~ V ,W V 1 (~ V f~ W `/ FW V I O ~_ 4g m } UW ~ 2~ ~ QW n JQ ~ ®W vii .~ ~Z W~ o aj _ W ~ r3J .n ~IU ~I II II II II f~ Lf ~ ~- Ilm_.II ~f~s ~W) I ~ 11 (w~ I ~~ I ~` ~ I I I ~~ II II I,I II II ~I II II II I II II 11 I ~I ~I ~ a z ~1..~ z 0 J m I~ I~ J m r-. W .,-:a~:.:~,:.~.~ aW I i ~~ ~o t~ ~ && ~~ ~w I i i i i i s r i i~ i as ~ i i i i i i aQOa~~~~ ~ oc~c~~~~o ~I a w ~N ~ z 3 \ m i N o p ' a ~ o ~ = a ~ ~ z m ~ m ~ w z ~ z ~ ~ ~ rc 3 ~s' a o r a a v o `" ~ 6 ~ ~ "' a o ~ z z~ z a 4 4 K Q V1 V1 N N N d d d d Q cf cs u c7 ~ v cs :~ ;~ z z z z z z~ z z ~ ~ ~ v+ u~i in ~n on wa %? w in w w w w w ~ ~ ~ 1 ~wl asl a w~ ~ I ~~~ ~m i~ U~ fSF Z 4 Q~ w I WJ . ~ I ~ C.YJ Y ~`O Or Q> W wJ d W nW I ~ ~ ~ U ~ 1- v bb 6 ° - z O ~ m `J l o ~ A I I I I I i ( I I I ~ I I I - ° I I I I I I ~ ~ I I I `~ I I I? I I I I I I a I I I 4 I I I I I I I I I I f I I I ! I I I I I I r I I I I I I o I m f c I ~~~. ...... ~ I ~. ~ I ou I O~ ~,' ~~ ~?i w~ 1 4~ ~ ~ ~ ~I I I I I I I 411 I I D I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~ I _ C] ~..1 Q f~ 7 a ~~, ~X, J 1 =~ W ^ lL u O La1 W~ ~ 4 7 [J W q'y W c ~ g =. z . vi ~ . ~J ~ ~a n f_l U Jd a m~~ ~n Z o O F ~¢ + 0 d W~ ~~ a oa - ~~ 4 ~ U 'M ZZ ~ ~~ J (f5 ~W s ! O II I 1.4 r J(/} Q 4 ~ ~ Q ¢ ~ Q m w (3 ~ O O j/} T ~ ¢ 4 W rn V t} p O Ti Z ~ a U 4 W D m q O Z N a~'z ~ w ? ~ In ,~ z c ~ c ~ ~ I- ¢ 3 I oua o n ~ ~' o 3 ~ ~ Z ~'~' I a is 3 ~ QwQ ~ wU = ~ z Q 3 N ~ ¢ § 4xr 20 r as I I I i I 0 00~~0{ U F N 4 4 F R 0. @ m I 4 a 3 K Z N t a~: 0 ~ o 0 a~ mow: ~ I., `~ Z x z °m ~ i C N a Z F r Dv ~ o z ,., O ~ o i gq ~\ I ~ M ., ~ ~ ~ sc i z~ 4`}i o ~ 3 cr F ~ S Z I Z Z N 1 2 vl M ; O ~ I I I N ~ // ~~ ~J1J~ ~~ 11 C1 N } r W W N J ~ ~ N ~ O U a G 2 U X W w o w 8 8 z ~ ~ ~ ~" a o 7 0 0 0 W w 9 O ~ p Z = _ a a a Ln on on to a a a i z z z z z z I I f .L/69-21 ~-e /_-f U ~ ~~ ~ ~ W~ vWi ;~ _ ;f ~~ w~ P r. G i v w m ~ V ~- # ~ O n 4 G 4 & ~+ Wr ~Irn b a ~;~ u: ~~ i • ~Z ~O 1°I- • VICINI I Y MAP i3 0 ~ AND RENDERING KEY 0 n 1 ~ i ~t ~.. 1 t,`,!J t ~ .~.~ _ ~ .~__ _~.. .. F' "~ I I +' ' ~ ~-'~~~ ^ '~'_ ~ ~ -- _~ ~. °` ~' " _~~ ~ 1 ~~R ~~ E -~~ -`~ -is ~~ ~.I 9~ ~ ~~ C ~+ 1 ~q~, k~ I..~ ,1 ~~ t'M, 1:~ t? "~ ti z .a 1 !~ f. ~' ~ ~ ~ R ~ +: s x ~.~ ~3 _ .. ~ , r ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~, et ~~~ rr ~! -.; ~_ ^ f "y, ~ ~~~i4 I( s ,k~ ~~ ~,. r ~:~ ~~ ~. ,' .., r .. MEnnoRANOUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: July 26, 2©Q4 SUBJECT; A request for a final review of variance, pursuant to Chapter 11-10, Variances and Appeals, Vail Town Code, for a variance from Chapter 11- 6-4, Building Identification Signs, to allow for a new freestanding building identification sign, located at 934 South Frontage Road/unplatted and setting fiorth details in regard thereto. Applicant: George Brodin, represented by Mauriello Planning Group, LLC Planner: Warren CampbelllClare Sloan SUMMARY The applicant, George Brodin, represented by Dominic Mauriello of Mauriello Planning Group L.L.C., is requesting a variance from Chapter 11-6-4 (Building Identification Signs) pursuant to Chapter 11-10 Variances and Appeals., Vail Town Code, located at 934 South Frontage Road Westlunplatted (Attachment A). The variance request is to allow the applicant to construct a new sign that exceeds the sign regulations for height and area. Based upon Staff's review of the criteria in Section VIII of this memorandum and the plans and documents presented, the Community Development department recommends denial of this request subject to the findings noted in Section IX of this memorandum. II. ®ESGRIPTION OI~ REQUEST The applicant is proposing a new building identification sign to reflect the corporate name change from Amoco to British Petroleum {BP}. The existing sign on the property is legal non-conforming due to changes in the sign code. The Town of Vail sign regulations state that anon-conforming sign must be brought into conformance if the sign is to be changed. The existing sign loses its legal non-conforming status once the corporate name changes, but granting a variance would bring the proposed sign into conformance, though exceeding sign regulations. Staff believes that a variance is not necessary and a sign that conforms to Title 1 ~, Sign Code, is sufficient for this use and site. The subject property is permitted to have a freestanding building identification sign, but is not eligible for a freestanding business identification sign as part of Sign District 1 {SD1). The applicant is proposing a 41.9 square foot freestanding sign, which is more than double the allowable 20 square feet far a building identification sign. The proposed sign is to be 11 feet from grade, which exceeds the maximum freestanding sign height of 8 feet. Please refer to attachments B and C for the existing and proposed sign specifications and the sign location. Ill. BACKGROUND • This property was annexed into the Tawn of Vail under Ordinance 2fi, Series of 1975 which became effective December 16, 1975. The property is currently zoned l_ionshead Mixed Use 2. • This site was deve1apecl under Eagle Gounty jurisdiction prior to annexation into the Tawn of Vail. There is no history of Design Review Board or Planning and Enviranrnental Commission review of any portion of the existing structure and site. • In April of 1999, the applicant inquired an the possibility of installing a car wash an the site. That proposal was not followed through with an application. • In June of 2x00, the Community Development Department informed the applicant of a potential zoning violation on the property in regards to the temporary service bay. • On January 14, 2002, the Gommunity Development Department sent a certified letter to the applicant informing him of an alleged unapproved illegal structure (temporary service bay). • Qn February 19, 2003, a Conditional Use Permit was granted for a new service bay an the south elevation of the existing building. The existing sign on the property is non-conforming due to changes in the sign regulations. The most recent amendments far Title 11 increased the allowable freestanding sign area from 7.5 square feet to 20 square feet for properties in Sign District 1 {SD1). Currently, there are corporate logos an the gas pumps that have not been approved by the Design Review Board or staff. IV. ROLES OF REVIEWING BODIES Order of Review: Generally applications will be reviewed last by the Planning and Environmental Commission for acceptabilr`ty of use and then by the Design Review Board for compliance of proposed buildings and site planning. Planning and Environmental Commission: Action: The Planning and Environmental Commission is responsible for final approvalfdenia!/approval with conditions of Sign Variances. The Punning and Environmental Commission is responsible for evaluating a proposal for: 1. Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town. 2. Effect of the use on fight and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities and public facilities needs.. 3. Effect upon traffic, with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the streets and parking areas. 4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. 2 5. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed use. 6. The environmental impact report concerning the proposed use, if an environmental impact report is required by Chapter 12 of this Title. Conformance with development standards of zone district Lot area Setbacks Building Height Density G RFA Site coverage Landscape area Parking and loading Mitigation of development impacts Design Review Board: Action: The Design Review Board has 1V0 review authority on a Sign Variance, but must review any accompanying Design Review Board application. The Design Review Board is responsible far evaluating the design Review Board proposal for: Architectural compatibility with other structures, the land and surroundings Fitting buildings into landscape Configuration of building and grading of a site which respects the topography RemovaVPreservation of trees and native vegetation Adequate provision for snow storage on-site Acceptability of building materials and colors Acceptability of roof elements, eaves, overhangs, and other building forms Provision of landscape and drainage Provision of fencing, walls, and accessory structures Circulation and access to a site including parking, and site distances Location and design of satellite dishes Provision of outdoor lighting The design of parks Town Council: Actions of Design Review Board or Planning and Environmental Commission may be appealed to the Town Council or by the Town Council. Town Council evaluates whe#her or not the Planning and Environmental Commission or Design Review Board erred with approvals or denials and can uphold, uphold with modifications, or overturn the board's decision. Staff: The staff is responsible far ensuring that alt submittal requirements are provided and plans conform to the technical requirements of the Zoning Regulations. The staff also advises the applicant as to compliance with the design guidelines. 3 Staff provides a staff memo containing background on the property ar~d provides a staff evaluation of the project with respect to the required criteria and findings, and a recommendation an approval, approval with conditions, ar denial. Staff also facilitates the review process. V. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS TOWN Ot= VAIL SIGN REGULATIONS 71-9-3 NQNC4NF~3RMlNG SIGNS 1. DEFlNlT1C}N: Any sign erected prior to the enactment of this Title and in accord with the Town of Vail approval process, that does not conform to the provisions set forth herein (as determined by the administrative procedure listed below, or is Located in newly annexed territory, shalf be designated as non-conforming. 2. QQNTINUATIQN OF A NON-CONFQRMING SIGN: Any sign which has been determined to 6e non-conforming may contr'nue in use and operation as a non- conforming sign pending the following provisions: a. Any non-conforming sign that is naf maintained, at the discretion of the Administrator and according to Secfian 19-2-9, shall be removed by the Administrator and shah be replaced as a conforming sign, in accordance with the regulations in this Tr'tle. b. All non-conforming signs shall be brought into conformance with the regulations in this Title at the time that the represented business changes ownership, provided that the business changes its name andl'or offered services, thereby requiring a new sign, or at fhe lime thaf the represented business changes i#s name and/or services offered, thereby required a new sign. 71-2-7: DFFINlTIONS BUILDING 1DENTIFICATIQN SIGN Any sign that displays the name of fhe building upon which sife it is located including any graphics and language that represent the buildings.. EtUS1NESS SIGN Any sign that displays the name of fhe business upon which sife if is located including any graphics and language that represent the business. 11-6-4: BUILDING I,pENTIFICATlON SIGNS Description: A building sign indicates the name of a building, which, in some cases, (such as a hotel ar lodge) may be the same as the primary business and building owner. All building signs shall comply with fhe regulations listed herein and shall also be subject t© review by the Design Review Board, which reviews signage based on the criteria in Chapter 5 of this Title. 4 The total area allowed far Building Identification signage in both Sign District 1 and Sign District 2 includes the Iota! number of its building signs, each measured differently, according to the type of building identification sign, and varies according to building frontage (see following tablesJ. BUILDING ERLNTAGE ALLOWED TDTAL SIGN AREA 14'-49.99" 24 sq. ft. 517'-74.99" 30 sq. ft. 75'99.99' 40 sq. ft. 100'-149.99' S© sq. ft. 15Q'-199.99' 5© sq. ft. 240'+ 60 sq. ft. Sign Dr'striefs 1 and 2: Types of Building Idea#ifrcation Signs a. Freestanding Signs !Number-one freestanding sign per building frontage on a major pedestrian or vehicular way, wifh a maximum of two freestanding signs per building. Area -freestanding Building ldentificafion Signs shall be subject to fhe total sign area requirements of fhe Building Frontage charts listed previously and shall be measured according to the fatal sign area, as shown in Figure, earlier in this chapter. Neiaht - no part of a freestanding Building ldentificafion Sign shall be higher than eight feet above existing grade. Special Previsions -Free-standing signs shall be placed on two separate facades facing pedestrian and vehicular ways and shall be subject to design review. A joint directory sign, though a type of freestanding sign, shall not count toward fhe total quantity of freestanding signs allowed. 99-7~0-7: VARIANCES A. Purpose ,4 variance for the Sign Regulations constitutes relief from the strict interpretation of the standards and maybe granted by fhe Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) in cases where there exists a physical Amitatr`on that prevents the existence, placement, ar operation of a sign in compliance with the standards of Title 7 9. B. Application Procedure An application far a variance from fhe Sign Regulations may be obtained from the Community Development Department. The variance application must include a sign permit application, the applicant's reason for requesting a variance, and a nonrefundable fee defermined by the Tawn Council as set forth by town ordinances. The Staff shall set a date for a hearing before fhe Planning and Environments! Commission once the complete application has been received. C. Criteria far Approval 7. Special circumstances or condr"tions must exist that apply to the land, buildings, topography, vegetation, sign structures, ar other matters on adjacent lets or within the adjacent right-of--way, that would substantially restrict the efiecfiveness of the sign in question. However, such circumstances must be unique to the subject site. 5 2. The applicant shall not have created the circumstances that have necessitated the variance request. 3. The applicant must demonstrate that the granting of the variance wiU be in genera! harmony with the purposes of this Title_ Llonshead Redevelopmen# Master Plan 3.2.5.2 Amoco Service Station This existing service station (see figure 3-1) is located on the western perimeter of the Lionshead study area east of Red Sandstone Creek. While there are no serious functional issues with the services station today, visual and access issues may become important as the western end of Lionshead develops. Vl. SITE ANALYSIS Zoning: Lionshead Mixed Use 2 Land Use Plan Designation: Community Office Current Land Use: Commercial Develoament Standard Allowed/Required Existing Proposed Building Identification Sign {Freestanding) Area 20 sq. ft. sign 44,6 sq. ft. 41.9 sq. ft. Height 8 fleet 12 feet 11 feet Lot Area: 14,OQ0 sq. ft. 39,696 sq. ft. 39,696 sq. ft. Setbacks; Front: 10' 4' No Change Sides: 10' 138'!6' No Change Rear: 10' 38' No Change Building Height: 71' average/ 19' No Change 82.5 fleet max. Site Coverage: (7Q%) 27,787 sq. ft. (7.5°/©) 2,968 sq. ft. (8.5%) 3,374 sq. ft. Landscape Area: {20%) 7,939.2 sq. ft. (54.6%) 21,685 sq. ft. Na Change Parking: 6 spaces No marked spaces Na Change VIE. Sl1RROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING Land Use Zoning Narth: Commercial LMU-2 District South: Open Space Natural Area Preservation District East: Commercial LMU-2 District West: Open Space Natural Area Preservation District 6 _ VIII. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS The review criteria for a request of this nature are established by the Town Code. The proposed sign is located within the Sign District 1 regulations and is subject to the issuance of a sign variance in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 11-10, Vail Town Code.. A. Consideration of Factors Reaardina Sian Variances: 1. Special circumstances or conditions must exist that apply to the land, buildings, topography, vegetation, sign structures, or other matters on adjacent lots or within the adjacent right-of-way, that would substantially restrict the effectiveness of the sign in question. However, such circumstances must be unique to the subject site. The subject site is located prominently on South Frontage Road, which is. a heavily traveled road. Although four of the five gasolinelservice stations are located closer to the I-70 exit ramps, the location of the Lionshead Amoco site is not unique to this specific property where it would restrict the effectiveness of the sign if built according to the sign regulations. The subject site has corporate logos on the gasoline pumps to identify the site, which have not received approval from staff or the Qesign Review Board. This particular land use, gasoline and services station, is afforded additional signage on the gasoline pumps and is eligible for a wall mounted Business Identification Sign. The existing sign was developed under different sign guidelines. The most recent changes in the sign code have allowed this property to increase the area of a freestanding sign from 7.5 square feet to 20 square feet based on the linear frontage of the building. 2. The applicant shall not have created the circumstances heat have necessitated the variance request.. The applicant has not demonstrated a hardship in requesting a variance from the sign regulations. The subject site is located on a main thoroughfare where the speed limit is 25 mph. A 20 square foot sign effectively identifies the business. Only two of the five gasoline stations display pricing on the signs (Lionshead Amoco and Conoco). The other gasoline and service stations in Vail have chosen not to display their prices in order to comply with the sign area regulations. The applicant's responses (Attachment D) to the variance criteria state that the property is permitted to have 40 square feet for a freestanding sign by combining the business identification sign and the building identification sign. Properties located in the Sign District 1 (SD1) are not permitted to combine the business and building identification sign area for a freestanding sign. The applicant could effectively advertise the use and the site within the regulations of 20 square feet for a freestanding building identification sign and reduce the overall height of the sign to ~ feet. The applicant is also eligible 7 fora 20 square foot Business Identification Sign, mounted to the building structure. 3. The applicant must demonstrate that the granting of the variance will be in general harmony with the purposes of this Title. Granting a variance from the sign regulations to allow far a taller and larger sign than neighboring properties contradicts the purposes of the non-conforming sign regulations. The non-conforming section of Title 11 states that any change to anon-conforming sign requires the sign to comply with all. applicable standards. B_ The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting variance from. the sign rec€ufations: 1. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with 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. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: a. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. b. There are exceptional ar extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. c. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. 1X. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends denial of a sign variance, to permit a sign that exceeds the regulations for area and height, located at 834 South Frontage Roadlunplatted. Staff's recommendation is based upon the review of the criteria in Section Vill of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented, subject to the following findings: 1. That the granting of the variance will constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. 2. That the granting of the variance will be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 8 3. That the variance is not warranted far vne ar mare of the fallowing reasons: a. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would not result in practical difficulty ar unnecessary hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title, b. There are no exceptional ar extraordinary circumstances ar conditions applicable to the site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. c. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would not deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. X. ATTACHMENTS A. Vicinity Map B. Sign Specifications (existing and proposed} C. Site Plan Q, Applicant Statement E. Publication Notice • • 9 r' F O `m ~~ a~ m. V r Y` l • 12' EX15T-NG SIGNS square footage - 42.1 sq. ft materials - aluminum cabinet acrylic faces colors - color Amoco Toga block text white background lighting - back lit qty - l double sided sign E 2'• 47" ~t ~. 6., ,; .. ~ ~ ~ m~ ~` PR4POSEL) SIGN Attachment: ~ square footage - top piece - 22.4 sq. ft. bottom piece - ! i.b sq. ft. total sq. ft - 40 sq. fc. materials - sandblasted Sign foam colors - color 8P & Amoco logos green text & border -t. beige background lighting - front lit 2.S" x 5" fixtures 20 - 35 watt, MR 16 bulb qty - I double sided sign Ali concepts & designs are the property o f IGS and cannot 6e used without written consent. • Attachment: B ~1 U square footage - top piece - bottom piece - total sq. ft - materlols - colors - lighting - ~Y- 5b.75" 6" 54" 23.4 sq. ft. 17. b sq. ft. 4p sq. ft. sandblasted Sign foam color 8P & Arnoco logos green text 8 harder !t. beige background front lit 2.3" x 5" frxtures 20 - .23 watt, MR 16 bulb 1 doable sided sign Al! concepts ~ designs ore the property o f 1GS and cannot be used without written consent. _;s M 2 ~ _~ U v~ ~~ ~c~ ~~ $ ~~ S I i e~~ ~~"w~ ~~~ ~e~ " ~ a ~j~ ~~~.~ ~~~ gn; 4 ~ Y = yP ~zy Z ~n~ ~~U~V~ ~~jCtyS S~~ Y, Q ~kyV ~~~_~~ a~~jaY O~a ~ y~ ytOV W 1~J~Lpr ~. .. w''_F~m ~r'~:.e:rv~ ~ N OyhO, 2V L]yt2 Wwi.~ww 4ww Sp{ Zi ~~~yu~~, ~, p~i~yW. '1~"~,w. ~iwip~lwi~0 d ~mi {~ jOt {e~~~6y ~~~O M~i10w~ ~F,~18i ~'R J bid Y~~,;~~•p~'rr~r~~~ l~~iit~$. ~ ffi J y uW ~INm ~.R v"i~~~w~~~izg~'~~~ JV ~ ~ ~S .7 4 r7 ~~ ~~ s~ ~~ ~~ 4 ~ ~ ~ /t 's ~e ~ ¢x Xr :+ 1 a ~ ~ f Q V4 5 Kg i l ui 9 ' RR ~,, 1C -"' 1 p- ~t ~ §. ~~S -i o W ,., r q - j" 14 }aA~s ~, ~_ ~~ s ~ pp01 ~~ ~ i y ~` ~ ~ W ~ ~. ~~ ,D ~ ~ ~ ~ ~' ~ ~ ~;~ 4 ~e; Y` I`z l' ~~ " ~ a '~ _, ,1 3 ,1 ~t .~ 1 ,1 ,~ ,~ ,~ sya`- - ~ ~~ ®~ Y 9 4}R ~ ti ~ ~: ~ ` `,~ r 1 ~~ ~ n ~ ` w i a tti `~ , ~ ~.,~ ..ter z11 ~ 1t~~ ,~ ~, t ~/~/ ,_~ 1~4-- ,~ i e' ~f 1 fk~k 9 ~/ 0 ~__ '~~ ~ c~ M~ ~~ -,,o ti~ b ~ ~ ' ~1 5 1~ ti ~+}~ , r ~. ~t ~ S~,` 1 ~3~ :~ 5 1 ~, i ~1 ~1':. ~ 3 ~~,~~ .ti ~ ~ 1~0 `~1~ 1~ .y ~~ ~' ~ ~ ~~ s Il~ ~ ~ ~ 144'„` ,' V 11 y ~~ '': ',~ 4~ 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ Ill ~' ~ ` ~ d" ~ ~l :t ~ +~,~ ~n ~ ~ ~ 1 1a .l o ~ ~3 ~~ 1 2~ ~ ~~ 1 N f ~ ~ t ~ ~~_~ ~ ~.._.._.._.._.._.._. ~''`~ j 1 ~ R£D S.tNSTON£ CR£ ~" Ex ati >, \\\ 9 ~_ \ ~. f ~~ ~~ &--1 _! ~ ~r Q U r :1 :' :~ :~ ~l Y r r i r r i i t t. Introdu~ctlon and Summary of IZeauest Amoco gas stat7ons across the country are being converted to BP (Br~t~sh Petroleum} 5tat~on5 due to the merger of these two petroleum companies. This change 7s also occurring in Eagle County and in Vail. George Brodm has awned the Amoco gas station in Lionshead for the ,past ~0 years and has been doing so with the existing freestanding Amoco Sign and. price board for that enure period of time. The existing sign was approved by the Tawn when the owner removed a large canopy sign (at the request of the Town). This s+gn has become nonconforming due to the changes ~n the Town's regulations over the years. The current sign is nonconforming with respect to its height, 1t5 512e, the use of changeable copy {gas paces}, the sign materials, and due to its internal illumination. The owner ~s now required to change the sign to a 6P logo due to the merger of Amoco and BP. The 5~gn regulat~on5 require that nonconforming sign be brought into compliance when "a bus,ness changes its name thus requiring a new sign." We believe that there are un,que circumstances that justify a variance to allow these nonconform~ties to continue. Despite the fact that we can ~ust~fy a variance to allow exactly what exists today on the site, the owner ~s proposing to lower the 53gn, reduce the Size of the 5~gn, upgrade the 57gn materials, and remove the internal ~Ilummat~on of the sign to make the sign mare conforming with the Town's regulations. Today the 57te ~s entitled to a bu~ldang ident,f~cat~on sggn of 20 sq. ft. and a business ~dent~frcat7on sign of 20 5q. ft. for a total of 4© sq. ft. of Sign area. The owner is proposing a business identification 5~gn of 23.4 sq, ft. and. a price board of 17.C sq. ft. for a total. of 4D sq. ft. The proposed s~gnage as substantially ~n compliance with the Town's 5~gn regulations. Section II of this report details the existing and proposed sign cond~tsons. fl. 5~gn l7eta~l5 A. Allowable Signage EreeStandmg Sign: Building Ident~f~cat~on Sign Total Allowable Sign Area: 20 s.f. {based on 38 of building frontage) ~0 s.f. 4C? s.f. {gin two signs) hle~ght: 8' (freestanding sign} Attachment: D Amoco/BP Sign Varroance Mauriello Planning Group, LLC • B. Existing Amara Sign Freestanding Amoco Sign Price Board: Total Existing 57gn Area: 24.5 s.f. f 7.~ s.f. 42.1 5.f. (~n two signs) fle~ght: f 5' (ta tap of fRame on torch) Design; Translucent plastic face Trimmed in Metal Internal fluorescent illum~nat~on IZaugh sawn t~m~er supports Stone Base • Amos©/BP ~~gn Varrance Maur+ello Plann,ng Group, LLG 2 • C. Proposed BP Sign Freestanding BP Sign: Price Board: Total Existing S,gn Area: 22.4 s,f. 1 7 . F; 44 s.f. (Gn two signs) I-ke4ght: Design: Appearance of Carved 'Wood Sign Face External and Directed IIIUminatian Rough sawn timber Supports Stone Base • Amaca/~F' ~~gn Variance M'aur~efio P{arming Graup, LLC 3 III. Appr©val Grfter~a I . Special c}rcumstances or cond~t~ons exist that apply to land, build'ngs, topography, vegetat~an, sign structures, ar other matters on adjacent lots or w~th~n the adjacent roght of way, that would substantially restrkct the effectiveness of the sign ~n question. However, such circumstances must be uneque to the subject site. Annlicant's Izesponse: The Amoco sign and price beard have existed an the property for more than 20 years. The sign was erected under a different set of regulations than exist today. The business 4s a gas station, which relies upon the matorong public to locate the business. The Town's sygn regulat~ans make no dist~nct~on between businesses lacated ~n pedestrian areas versus areas slang the frontage Road. in the pedestrian areas, signs can be smaller and lower as the intended audience ~s walking en close proximity and at very slaw rates of travel. Whereas, the proposed gas station is lacated on the S. Frontage Raad and the intended audeence for the ssgn are people in vehicles traveling at ~5 MPI1. The viewer is located farther away from the sign and ~s passing by the sign much mare quickly than that of a pedestrian. This presents a specsal circumstance based on the locataon and nature of the business. 2. The applwcant shall not have created the circumstances that have necessitated the variance request. Applicant's Resnonse: The owner has no option but to change the name and copy of the existing sign as tt is mandated by the recent merger of Amoco and BP. Had this merger net occurred there would be no reason the change the sign and no need for a variance. The applicant's proposed sign is more conforming to the Town's regulations than the existing sign as at is less tall, smaller in area, net internally illuminated, and made of more natural looking mater~ais. 3. The applicant must demonstrate that the granting of the variance will be in harmony with the purposes of th,s Title. Applicant's Izesnonse: The owner's proposal is rn harmony with the purposes of the sign regulations as the proposed sign is mare conforming to the sign regulations than the existing sign, The proposed sign ~s smaller, constructed of more natural appearing materials, is externally ~Iluminated, and is reduced in total heaght than the existing freestanding sign. Amocol~P s~~n Variaroce 4 Mauree€lo Funning Group, LLC THIS iTENi MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY ~,~,~~;'' PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail will hold a public hearing in accordance with Section 12-3-6, Vail Town Code, on July 26~ 2004, at 2:00 PM in the Town of Vail Municipal Building, in consideration of: A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for the establishment of Special Development District No. 38, Manor Vail Lodge, to allow far the redevelopment of the Manor Vail Lodge, and a request for a conditional use permit to allow for the construction of Type 111 Employee Housing Units, pursuant to Section 12-6H-3, Vail Town Code, and a request for a final review of a conditional use permit, pursuant to Chapter 12-6H-3, Private Clubs and Civic, Cultural and Fraternal Organizations, Vail Town Code, to allow far the sale of 30 parking spaces, located at X95 Vail Valley Drive/Lots A, B, & C, Vail Village Filing 7, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Manor Vail, represented by Zehren and Associates Planner: Warren Campbell A request for a final review of variance, pursuant to Chapter 11-10, Variances and Appeals, Vail Town Code, for a variance from Chapter 11-6-4, Building Identification Signs, #o allowfor a new free standing building identification sign, located at 934 South Frontage Roadlunplatted and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: George Brodin, represented by Mauriello Planning Group, LLC Planner: Warren CampbelllGlare Sloan A request for a final review of a minor subdivision, pursuant to Chapter 13-4, Minor Subdivisions, Vail Town Code, to amend the locations of the existing building envelopes, located at 1390 Buffeter Creek Road/Lots A, B, C, Residences at Briar Patch Condos and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Residences of Briar Patch Homeowner Association, represented by Zehren and Associates Planner: Bill Gibson A request for a final review of a variance, pursuant tv Chapter 12, Variances, Vail Town Cade, from Section 12-6H-fi, Setbacks, Vail Town Code, to aAow for a minor alteration, located at 400 Fast Meadow Drive, Unit 9, Tyrolean Inn)lLot 5 D, Block 5, Vail Village Filing 1 and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Tyrolean Chalet, LLC., represented by Mauriello Planning Group, LLC Planner: Matt Gennett The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular ofFce hours at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend project orientation and the site visits that precede the public hearing in the Town of Vail Community Development Department. Please call (970} 479-2138 for additional information. Sign language interpretation is available upon request with 24-hour notification. Please call (970) 479-2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. Published .tiny 9, 2004, in the Vail Daily. • t MEMORANDUM TC): Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE:. July 26, 2004 SUBJECT: A request for a final review of a major exterior alteration or modification, pursuant to Section 12~7H-7, Vail Town Code, and a request for a final review of a conditional use permit, pursuant to Chapter 12-16, Val! Town Gode, to allow for the construction of the Lionshead Core Site Hotel and the operation on a new private skier club, new lodge dwelling units and conference facilities and meeting rooms on the first floor or street level floor of a structure, located at 675 Lionshead Place/(a complete Legal description is available for inspection at the Town of Vail Community Development Department upon request). Applicant: Vail Resorts Development Company Planner: George Ruther 1. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The Community Development Department is requesting a public hearing with the Town of Vaii Planning & Environmental Commission to present a text amendment to the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. The text amendment proposes to amend the implementation policies of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan regarding the application of the Architectural Design Guidelines prescribed in Chapter 8 of the Master Plan, and further codified in Title 12, Zoning Regulations of the Vail Town Code, The purpose of the amendment is to clarify and afford all types of development projects, new or redevelopment, flexibility in the application of the Architectural Design Guidelines. The purpose of the amendment, however, is NOT to amend or otherwise alter the overall goals, objectives and policies as stated in the Master Plan. This amendment is being proposed and shall tae considered in accordance with Section 2.8. Adooffon anti Amendment of fhe rh/Jaster Plan. Lionshead Redevelopment Masfer Plan. II. BACKGRQUND an July 12, 2004, fhe Town of Vail Planning ~ Environmental Commission directed staff to prepare an amendment to the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan that would afford all types of development projects, new or redevelopment, flexibility in the application of the Architectural Design Guidelines (Chapter 8). Upon directing staff to prepare the amendment for the Commission's consideration and recommendation to the Vail Town Council, the Commission specifically stated that the degree of flexibility afforded to a development project shall bear proportionately t© the extent of the improvements proposed. For example, a development application that proposes the construction ofi a new structure which includes the demolition of an existing structure shall more fully comply with the prescribed architectural design guidelines outlined in Chapter 8 of the master plan than an application which proposes a renovation or addition to an existing building, as already contemplated in SecliQn 8.3. Exlslina Slruclures. Llorrshead Redeveloomenf Hasler Plan. The Commission was also clear in their intentions that if flexibility is to be afforded, compliance with the intent of the Guidelines and the tenets described in the master plan shall be considered. That said, it is understood that a development project, new or redevelopment, which requests deviations to the Guidelines that fails to meet the intent of the Guidelines shall be denied. It was further understood by the staff that when deviations to the Guidelines were granted, that a direct and discernible public benefit was achieved. Flexibility in the application of the Guidelines must be a "two-way" street and shall not only benefit the developer. III. PROPOSED TEXT AMt=NDMEMT The proposed amendments to the text of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan are indicated in BOLD ITALICS (additions} and ~ (deletions). CHAPHR $ Architectural Design Guidelines 8.1 Vision Statement The Lionshead neighborhood in Vai] presents the opportunity to establish a dynamic and exciting community within one of the premier resorts in the world. Lionshead's mountain location, proximity to the ski slopes, and ample residential base evokes the vision of a truly special place, full of vitality and interest. This vision can be achieved through redevelopment of the community by addressing site and architectural issues, and through consistent and effective transitions from existing to new buildings. The pedestrian experience of the public spaces within Lionshead is the most critical issue for redevelopment. Many of the existing spaces are static and uninteresting, due to a prevailing grid organization and lack of animation and architectural coherency within the spaces. One of the most effective ways to intensify this experience is through careful design of the architecture which defines the public spaces. Visually dynamic variation at the pedestrian level can help avoid a monotonous streetseape, and judicious use of ornament, detail, artwork, and color can reflect individuality and establish a variety of 2 experience. Tlae architecture of Lionshead is envisioned as a unified composition of buildings and public spaces based on the timeless design principles of form, scale, atld order, made responsive to their setting and environment. It is not envisioned as a strict dictation of a specific "style" or "theme." Many existing buildings within the community are built of monolithic concrete slabs and lack any sense of order or personality. The new image for Lionshead should move towards the future---using historical alpine references and Vail Village as antecedents. This design framework will allow individual property owmers freedom of expression within the personalities of their buildings while establishing and maintaining an overall unifying character and image for the entire community. In addition, it is paramount that the redevelopment effort address specific design considerations generated by the location, climate, and surrounding environment, such as addressing views, using indigenous. building materials, and reflecting the alpine heritage. Designing in response to our regional heritage, adhering to a consistent architectural order, and enhancing the public experience will enable Lionshead to define its own identity-making it a distinct and special place not just within the context of Vail, but within kindred mountain comm~u3ities around the world.. 8.2 Organization, Purpose and Scope • ki<<4-l: the atnagi n(i irsrt.r}tettelslt~~taftlcc;+Nrrbxrc ro its •'s•btrre r.~j~p~uc•e •~ The organization of the Lionshead Architectural Design Guidelines is based upon describing the "big picture" of the redevelopment effort first, and then studying the more detailed aspects. Sections 8.1 and 8.2 begin with the "big picture" and offer the "vision" for Lionshead, and provide explanatory information regarding organization, purpose, and scope. Section 8.3 contains special provisions for new and existing structures, including redevelopment priorities, triggers, and transition tools. This Section addresses how flexibility in the application of the Guidelines should be applied to development applications under consideration by the Town's .1i;oards and Commissions. Section 8.4 contains the Guidelines themselves, but begins first with the "big picture" of planning considerations which may overlap with the Lionshead Master Plan. Prospective developers and/or designers should study this portion of Section 8.4 carefully, to see what design criteria must be met if their project occupies a special site relative to building roles, pedestrian streets, or transition spaces. The latter portion of Section 8.4 deals with the architectural principles of the Design Guidelines, starting first with overall issues such as building form and massing, then moving into more detailed issues such as dimensional criteria for architectural components, materials, and colors. Section $.5 provides a "quick glimpse" of the quantitative values outlined in the Guidelines. The purpose of the Lionshead Architectural Design Guidelines (ADG) is to work in concert with the Lionshead Master Plan to enhance the existing experience within the community, improve the quality of life, focus direction for future growth, create visual harmony, and improve property values for businesses and homeowners. This document constitutes a design philosophy for the community, which when integrated with the Lionshead Master Flan, helps to establish Lionshead as a coherent, dynamic village with a true "sense of place." These Guidelines are intended to direct the growth of the community through distinct levels of perception, from views of the neighborhood from the mountain and the highway, to perceptions within its pedestrian streets, to the detail level of artistry and ornamentation on the structures themselves. • • The serape of the Design Guidelines includes all criteria related to the architectural design. of new and redevelopment ~l pra~ects within Lionshead, along with site and planning criteria which relate directly to architecture. Other site and planning criteria may be found in the Lionshead Master Plan, and should be reviewed concurrently with these Guidelines, Structures which have been reviewed and approved by regulatory agencies for Lionshead prior to the endorsement date of this document may present special circumstances with respect to the criteria cited. within these Guidelines, and will be handled per Section 8.3. $.3 New and Existing Structares 8.3.1 Special Provisions While these Guidelines offer a roadmap far the redevelopment of Lionshead, they are not intended to limit the efforts of developers andfar designers involved with new ar~d existing structures. It is understood that many of the buildings within the community or may be unable to comply with same of the criteria described in the ADG. Many existing buildings, far uistance, may already exceed the height criteria identified, Some existing roof pitches within the community may not meet the numerical values described, And many of the existing pedestrian streets may fall well short afthe "ideal" proportions depicted. These and similar issues will be handled on a case-by-case basis, with determination of compliance based upon whether the building meets the general intent of these Guidelines and the tenets described herein. Similar to existing structures, it is also understood thatfrom time to time the Town pray determine that it is desirable to afford flexibility in strict application of the Guidelines to new development projects. In these instances, the reviewing body shall rely upon the stated review criteria for deviations to the Architectural Design Guidelines outlined in sub- section 8.3.~.A contai~red herein. R Proposed renovations or additions which meet the general intent of the ADG will be offered mare latitude with respect to specific non-compliant items than those which stray from the overall vision. of Lionshead as described within-variances will be granted from the detail of the Guidelines if the overall intent is met. In addition, ~rny meaningful efforts to enhance existing structures will be recognized as positive progress, and strict compliance with the "letter"' of these Guidelines is riot meant to discourage potential improvements. 8.3.2 Development Master Plans Since many of the structures within Lianshead are pre-existing, Development Master Plans are highly encouraged to define long-range goals for buildings within individual parcels. These Plans should be presented to the Design Review Board (DRB) for review when applying far initial building design approval, and should include information such as: • overall architectural "vision" far all buildings within the site • Design strategies for maintaining consistent architectural language between renovations and new construction within the site • Proposed phasing plans 8,3.3 Redevelopment Prioritization and "Triggers" Consistent with Section 8.3.1 above, existing properties are encouraged to renovate and rehabilitate, to the greatest extent possible, the exterior of their buildings according to the parameters of the ADG. It is recognized, however, that a single, complete, and comprehensive exterior renovation may not be economically possible far all existing structures, and incremental improvements must be allowed. Having said this, the following potential exterior improvements should be considered as priorities by both private property owners and the Town of Vail. All reasonable efforts to encourage, provide incentives, and facilitate these improvements should be made. Renewed and expanded retail frontage. For properties fronting the I,ionshead retail mall and retail pedestrian streets, the renovation and expansion of the ground floor retail level is perhaps the most critical element in revitalizing the Lionshead retail core. • Roafs. As outlined in the ADG, the roofscape of Lionshead is a critical component in "knitting" together the built environment and providing visual cohesion to the urban fabric of Lionshead. • Planning considerations. All buildings in Lionshead, both existing and new development, should seek to fulfill the roles of landmarks, portals, turning ~aoints, and other roles as outlined in the Master Plan. • Form, massing and height criteria. b + Building surface treatment- walls, d©ors, windows, signage, etc. • All other components of the architectural design guidelines. A critical question regarding the renovation of existing structures is when compliance with the architectural design guidelines is "triggered" or required, Regarding this, the following guidelines should be considered: • To the greatest extent possible, renovating properties should endeavor to make significant and meaningful improvements to their properties as opposed to small, insignificant irnprowements. This does not discount the importance of any improvement to a properties exterior. Any single incremental improvement to one building element will not necessarily trigger compliance on all remaining building elements, However, any portion of the building being unproved should do so according to the parameters of the architectural design guidelines, For example, if a property applies to resurface the walls of their building, this resurfacing should be done according to the Al]G, but will not in and of itself also require the replacement of the roof, or another major modification, at the same time. i •~1~:%t'f',Y9f!' .74/.T~i~~3T.//~ , „7,. ,,,,,.J'lUC7 t~ 7,~//C1~®% ~,Y,r ~,rr ~~.a ~. „~~~ v~~ !a 11.c a,r ~+„ n~~ ..a 8.3.3,A Review Criteria for Deviations to the Architectural Design Guidelines for New Development Similar to the implementation policies of the ADG prescribed for existing structures, floe Tawn has determined that there may be instances where flexibility in requiring strict compliance with tf:e Guidelines for new development maybe in floe best interest of the community and the furtherance of the goals and objectives stated in floe Lionshead Redevelopment Nlcaster .Plan. That said, however, it is acknowledged that such instances are rare and extraordinary, and shall he considered on a ease-by-case basis. To aid in determining when flexibility shall be afforded to new development far strict compliance with the Guidelines, review criteria have been established. The degree of design deviation flexibility afforded to a development project shall bear proportionately to the extent of the improvements proposed. For example, a development application that proposes the construction of a new structure which includes the demolition of an existing structure shall more fully comply with 11te prescribed Arcfaitectural Design Guidelines outlined in the master plan than a» application which proposes a renovation or addition in an existing building 7 The following criteria shall be used by the Design Review Board to determine if deviations to the Guidelines should be granted: It shall be the burden of the applicant to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Design Review Board that + The request for design deviations are in compliance with ,the purposes of the zone district; and • Tl:e proposal which includes the design deviations is consistent with applicable elements of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan; and • The proposal which includes the design deviations does not have a sign cant negative effect an the character of the neighborhood; and • The proposal substantially complies with other applicable elements of the Vail comprehensive plan; and • The design deviation meets or exceeds the intent of the specific design standards as prescribed in Section S.d; and, • A public benefit is achieved as a result of the design deviation; and, • The design deuiatian furthers the goals, objectives and purposes as stated in Sections 2.3, 2.5 and S.2 of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends that the Town of Vail Planning & 1=nvironmental Commission forwards a recommendation of approval of the proposed text amendment to the implementation policies of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan regarding the appiication of the Architectural Design Guidelines prescribed in Chapter 8 of the Master Pian, and further codified in Title 12, Zoning Regulations of the Vai{Town Code. • ~~ • • PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION PUBLIC MEETING ~~~~'~' , Monday, July 12, 2004 PROJECT ORIENTATION - Community Development Dept.. PUBLIC WELCOME 12:00 pm MEMBERS PRESENT Doug Cahill David Viele Anne Gunion Bill Jewitt George Lamb Rollie Kjesba MEMBERS ABSENT Chas Bernhardt Site Visi s : 1. Tract IC, Glen Lyon Subdivision 2. Mill Creek floodplain -Tract E, Vaii Village Filing ~ (near Pirate Ship Park) 3. Holy Cross Lot - 923 South Frontage Raad West 4. Lionshead Core Site Hotel - 675 Lionshead Place Driver: Clare NOTE: If the PEC hearing extends untiC 6:00 p.m., the Commission may break for dinner from 6:00 - 6:30 p. m. Public Hearing -Town Council Chambers 2:00 pm A request for a final review of a major exterior alteration or modification, pursuant to Section 12- 7H-7, Vail Town Code, and a request for a final review of a conditional use permit, pursuant to Chapter 12-16, Vail Tawn Cade, to allow for the construction of the Lionshead Core Site Hotel and the operation on a new private skier club, new lodge dweping units and conference facilities and meeting roams on the first floor or street IeveC float of a structure, located at 675 Lionshead Place!(a complete legal description is available for inspection at the Town of Vail Community Development Department upon request). Applicant: Vail Corporation Planner: George Ruttier Staff made a presentation to the Commission per the staff memorandum dated July 12, 2004. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the merits of amending the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan to afford flexibility to ~Il types of development in Lionshead. As presently drafted, the master plan permits "redevelopment" projects to deviate from the strict and literal application of the architectural design guidelines. Jeff Winston, Urban Design Consul#ant with Winston Associates, Inc. presented a 3-D model to the Gammission that illustrated various examples of deviations that the Commission may wish to consider when reviewing development applications in Lionshead. Upon deliberations, the Comrnissian generally believed that some form of amendment should be considered by the Town to afford flexibility to all types of development in Lionshead. The Gammission, however, qualified their beliefs by stating that greater flexibility within the Plan could be good or load far the applicant, that the need for flexibility goad as long as a "two-way street" was gained, which paid special heed to intent and that the objectivity of government was important in this instance. One Commission member stated that flexibility would eliminate the need for variances and SDDs in the future and that rigid standards that afforded no room for creativity were not the end result, though there must be enough standards that the developer understood what was expected. The PEC was in favor of amending the master plan to accommodate all types of development, as long as the intentfgoafs of the Plan remained intact. Therefore, varying levels of flexibility must be allowed, dependent upon the type of development proposed. MOTION.: Viele SECOND: Lamb VOTE: 6-0-0 Approval of a motion to prepare an amendment to the Lionshead Master Plan, as specified in the staff memorandum. 2. A recommendation to the Vail Town Council of a major amendment to a Special ©evelopment District (SDD~, pursuant to Section 12-9A-1 C1, Amendment Procedures, Vai! Town Code, to allow for an amendment to Special Development District No.4, Cascade Village, fo allow for a new development area, located at Tract K, Glen Lyon Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Vail Resorts, represented by Braun Associates, Inc. Planner: Bill Gibson Bill Gibson introduced the project according to the memorandum. Tom Braun, of Braun Associates, representing Vail Resorts presented an overview of the applicants request. Tom Braun indicated that the applicant agreed with the conditions recommended in the staff memorandum except condition number three. The applicant requested that resolution of the protective covenant issues be postponed until such time as a conditional use permit application is submitted. Adjacent property owners Howard Snow and Robert Rosen and Mr. Rosen's representative Greg Goldberg presented their concerns to the PEC. The adjacent homeowners requested that Vail Resorts work more closely with the neighborhood to inform them of the snowcat proposal and to resolve any protective covenant issues. Mr. Rosen and Mr. Goldberg requested that the PEG table the proposal until all protective covenant issues have been resolved. However, should the PEG forward a recommendation to the Gouncil at this time, Mr, Rosen and Mr. Goldberg requested that the conditions of approval recommended by the Staff be incorporated into the PEG's motion. The PEG clarified the impacts of the proposal before them and noted that this proposal will not grant final approval of the snowcat access road. The PEC requested that Vail Resorts work mare closely with the Glen Lyon and Cascade Village neighborhood. MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Gunion VOTE: 4-2-8 (Dewitt ~ Lamb opposed) APPROVEQ WITH CONDITIONS: 1. The following uses shall be permitted in DevelopmentArea E (i.e. Tract K) of Special Development District #4, Cascade Village: 1. Nature Preserves 2. Passive outdoor recreation areas and open spaces 2. The #ollowing conditional uses shall be allowed in Development Area E (Le. Tract K) of Special Development District #4, Cascade Village, subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit: 1. Interpretive nature walks 2. Bicycle paths and pedestrian walkways 2 3. Public utility and public service uses 4. Ski trails 5. Snowmaking facilities 6. Access roads 7. Other uses customarily incidental and accessory to permitted and conditional uses and necessary far the operation thereof, with the exception of buildings. 3. Prior to the Town Council's second reading of a ordinance amending Special Development District #4, Cascade Village, the applicant shall submit written documentation to the Town of Vail Community Development Department demonstrating that the amendments are consistent with all provisions of the Protective Covenants of Glen Lyan Subdivision. 3. A request for a floodplain modification, pursuant to Chapter 14-6~, Grading Standards, Vail Town Code, to allow for stream bank stabilization within the Mill Creek floodplain located at Tract E, Vail Village Filing 5 (near Pirate Ship Park), and setting for details in regard thereto. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Elisabeth Eckel Elisabeth Eckel introduced the project according to the memorandum. Doug Cahill and George Lamb asked Gregg Barrie, of the Public Works Department, to describe how the stream would be diverted. Mr. Barrie detailed the stream"s diversion as part of the Vail Village 5treetscape Project. There were no additional PEC comments. MOTION; Kjesbo SECOND: Viele VOTE: 6-Q-4 APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS: 1. That the applicant, Vail Resorts Development Company, submits a revised set of plans to the Building Department of the Town of Vail Community Development Department prior to August 7, 2804, illustrating the changes in improvements, as required by the Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission. 4. A request for a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 12-71-5, Conditional Uses; Generally (an All Levels of a Building or outside of a Building), Vail Town Code, and a variance from Title 14, Chapter 5, Parking Lot and Parking Structure Design Standards for All Uses, Vail Town Code, to allow for the construction of an unpaved private parking lot, located at 923 South Frontage Road 1111est/unpiatted. (A complete metes and bounds legal description is available for review at the Town of Vail Community Development Department). Applicant: Vail Resorts, represented by Mauriello Planning Group, LLC Planner: Matt Gennett Matt Gennett introduced the project according to the staff memorandum. Dominic Maureillo, representing Vail Resorts, presented an overview of their application. He noted how the proposal was similar to the previous conditional use permit and variance approvals. He also identified Vail Resorts new landscaping and street improvements being proposed beyond the previous approval He commented on their intention to pave the lot by 3 2gg5 if the parking structure being contemplated is not improved. George Lamb and Daug Cahill asked Mr. Maureillo to describe the proposed snow storage for the parking lot. Mr. Mauriello gave a brief description of the snow storage plan. Raliie Kjesbo asked the Police Department had any concerns regarding possible traffic impacts. Mr. Gennett replied that they had no concerns. There were no other additional PEC comments. MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Lamb VOTE:6-0 APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS: 1. The conditional use permit shall expire on November 1, 2885 unless the parcel is paved according to the approved plan, in which case the conditional use permit will not expire. 2. The applicant shall maintain and operate the proposed parking lot at an appropriate level a# cleanliness by providing trash receptacles on the siite for use by Vail Resorts' employees. 3. Parking delineation within the site shall be through simple ropes and flags which establish the location and configuration of the spaces. 5, A request for a recommendation to the Vail Tawn Council for the establishment of Special Development District Na. 38, Manor Vail Lodge, to allow for the redevelopment of the Manor Vail Lodge, and a request far a conditional use permit to allow far the construction of Type I II Employee Housing Units, pursuant to Section 12-6H-3, Vail Town Code, located at 595 Vail Valley DrivelLots A, 13, & G, Vail Village 7th Filing„ and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Manor Vail, represented by Melick and Associates Planner: Warren Campbell WITHDRAWN 6. A request for a variance from Section 12-21-14, Restrictions In Specific Zones On Excessive Slopes, Vail Town Code, to allow far the construction of driveways and surface parking in excess of 1q°Io of the total site area, located at 2388 Garmisch DrivelLot 9, Block G, Vail dos Schone Filing 2, and setting forth. details in regard thereto. Applicant: Snow Now, LLC Planner; Warren Campbell TABLED TO JULY 26, 2084 MOTION: Lamb SECOND: Kjesbo VOTE:6-0 7. A request for a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 12-6H-3, Conditional Uses; High Density Mul#iple Family, Vail Town Gode, to allow for a public utility and public services use, located at 501 North Frontage Road (Solar Vail Condominiums)/ Lot S, Block 2, Vail Potato Patch Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard to. Applicant: Verizon Wireless, represented by Kelsey Harrison, Closser Consulting Planner: Clare Sloan TABLED JULY 26, 2084 MOTION: Lamb SECOND: Kjesbo VOTE:6-8 8. Approval of June 14, 2gg4 minutes MOTION: Lamb SECOND: Jewitt VOTE: fi-8 4 • 9. Approval of June 28v 2004 minutes MOTION: Lamb SECON©: 10. Information 'Update • GRFA Jewitt VOTE: 6-0 11. Adyaurnment MOTSON: Lamb SECOND: Jewitt VOTE; 6-0 The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road, The public is invited to attend the project orientation and the site visits that precede the public hearing in the Town of Vail Community Development Department. Please call (970) 479-2138 for additional information. Sign language interpretation is available upon request with 24-hour notification, Please call (970) 479-2356, Telephone far the Hearing Impaired, for information. Community Development Department Published, July 9, 2004 in the Vail Daily. 5 5ANTA BARBARA REAL ESTATE & INVESTMENT CORPORATION `~ Julp 15, 2004 Planning Carnrnissian Tuwu of Vail 75 South Frontage Road Vail.,, CCU 81G.57 Dear Planniflg Commission, I write as a neighboring property owner in support of Vail Resorts and its intention to transform I~ionshead into a world class year round destination resort. In zny opinion the Lionshead area is probably one of the most under utilized prime locations in the entire state of Colorado. Certainly it's got to be a unique situation to have an architectural blight of 70's cheap tilt up construction at the Gondola entrance to the most popular luxury skiing resort in the country. When just down the road, Seaver Creek, on far Tess valuable terrain, thrives. It is time for Vail Village's ugly stepsister to be transformed into all she can bye. It is highly commendable when sa many developers today would prefer to ga to the old ~p~ and true cookie cutter method, for a fast buck to fulfill the masses, that Vail Resorts is striving far excellence, utilizing the best consultants and architects to assure authentic old world charn~, European ambience and personality to its property. That melding of art and commerce which is sa rate today get is so appropriate to this highly desirable site, The designs that I've seen have a classic timeless quality befitting the surrounding mountain beauty. If, as the derision makers, you would like Lionshead to retain its stature as the preeminent ski resort, we. need to support Vail Resorts artistic vision. TiYnin.g is critical in such a competitive marketplace. We should not stall the process. Yours truly, ~! 93].01 {$05) 569-2321 Fat - {805} 569-4520