Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVista Bahn Building Common Area 702i27/95 M0N 12:12 FAX 21 2 830 5313 1tE IC I - - TANG ... .� Oscal L. 'yang 600 Fifth AvcnU0 New Yo, New York 10020 -230 t2l z) 1330 - 530 , Fobruary 27, 1995 M Andy Knudtoen Senior planner Town of Vail Dear Andy; tre review I appreciate your part offer to irvol�re mo ir. l o in 1 process for the redevelopment of the ronmena°s buy �• u roce U that the Planning and Environmental commission will be holding a. work session an this subject this afterrnuua, and would a ppreciate it if you would convey rnY thoughts as expresses in this letter to its members. T have a home on top of the Red Dion Building and �cialphavc family time resident of Vail- 'Ll L of e our time in Vail and we spent an increasing port zn addition, expect this portion to continue - 1 rries v ir_ Vail including we have redeveloped a number of prop_-- - the Red Dion apartments ainin thega- mbiance and1charm aftthe vested. interest in main. g 77illage I am very concerned with the proposed Serrano's redevelopment. ar oudsize otet'he io rns. in ana lyzing lyzing Propose 14Y concern centers the bui�lding given the small to e within given zoning retauirements. On ,p the design objective plans it a has been hich maximum hat, e f � top of that, for thersolevpurp yosesofrfurthersincr increasing hence appear to ba f This square footage and the fallow results: building. approach produces 1, The total floor area of the proposed building is 17,104 square feet, 3.7 times the lot size In contrast the Red Lion building has a emen t� D Square footagetratio is 2.8 above ground (ex bas times lot si4e, aboutdo Ye notebe�aezoning measure in Lion. While this ra tio Vail, it often is elsewhere,, and measure f tbe proposed the mass of a build.rsq building is twice as ma.ssive as its immediate neighbor. 02/27/ MON 12:13 FAX 212 830 531 0____ REICH & TANG • 2. There is virtua no n e the a side a attached itootheoGaldene sides and, of co e sstraight p , four floors. one of the Peak House it goes u attractions of Vail Village fihraugh theestreets.haIt all sense of scale when walking three floors without set-- baokS, as in buildings we nt up rla ets the feeling many parts O f Lio'_l shead, the pede nAgin the contrast that he is walking through a cant' with tbp Red Lion is dramatic. At a great sacrifice to floor area, the Fed Lion sets back a great deal after just one flenr_ 3. The negative aagQC "t of the Golden Peak edsSerrana's redevelopment are aggravated by peculiar plan. For reasons that Are j�'srified by its circumstances, the Golden peak House, through a Special was ,rAnt.p 1 n#' couerar�e ratios a nd Dcvclo District, VIis already creates a mass erY eights above normal zoning. and oc lc at the on (J plan,Pwhen a ddedsto h d of L the large. The proposed Serra P Solid wall pffac:t just Golden rea]c Houce, creates a long at the edge of the ffer�t is to ski mountain. The e significantly impair tho views Qf the neighbors and Road. In pedestrians on, a Development ataffahas�PQintYOcl Out, t.hp n Ranc daaiLiO � � sun/shade factor is s�,gnificant�.y affected negativp� -y' the 4. The conditional use permits requested contributes to overall scale UL she b,_,ilding dnd may become a factor 4n circumventing the GFFA limitations of the tat. Both the SpdGe Apo square feet of chin addition, e a s ince the mass of the building. value of residentia si the temptation l beQstrong office space at thi site, to the pu�c;7lase of the s to seii the office P 7 residential who could incorporate the extraa00 tgeare feet into the residence, effectively o ve r- xiij limits. I redeveloped the red Lion residential 'Theniy wife and the Planning Commission at the time space some years ag o, urged us to moderate d e town as whole. t interests of our g hbors andhe tc reduce the specifically, the Commission asked us he views of the impact of our d on blocking ` and (2 to residential owner on the Ruck Sack prop M 02 HO N 12:13 FAX 2 12 830 5310 _._ _ RE & TANG 9 004 minimize the dpnsit.y to help hold down the requirement for services in the middle of the village. we responded by cutting back the gall of a living room by so.1c oight feet in order to preserve a cor ri d or of the ski mountain view for the neighboring property. in addition, we built approximately 2500 square FpPt. 1pss than the 1.1,200 sgoaare feet of allowable GRFA on the lot. I believe that the planning ccmminsion requested of us ron�-ps ions, and we agreed to them, in the Common spirit that everyone needs to C011tribute something towards maintaining the environment which is so special in 'Vail Village. In this spirit we were 110Lppy to do so, in spite cf the immediate economic penalties. In - �riew of t " � above factors, T now urge the Commyssion to deny the tl for variances and ccriclitionai. use permits made on behalf of the Serrano redevelopmernt. More than that, I urge the CUILUASsi011 to risk t?;e developer to moderate his objective of floor area and monetary maximization, and to suostantially down :ice LLe SC:ale of the proposed new building. This would be in keeping with the common spirit that we must ail. contribute to nIcL�4ILdi.l.iIjg the special quality of Vail Village. Sincerely, Oscar L. Tang OLT:aC s - ----------- 1 � — • T s 4L ba; Ark MEMORANDUM TO Planning and Environmental Commission s kk�- Community Development Department FR C Y p DATE: Decem , ', 2 - ) ( I r SUBJECT: request for a worksessiotrfor a major exterior alteration in the ommer I Core I zone district and site coverage, stream setback and common area variances and conditional use permits to allow office on the third floor and to 1 . VnrJ allow an outdoor dining deck to provide for the redevelopment of Serrano's, located at 298 Hanson Ranch Road /Lot C, Block 2, Vail Village 1st Fil' 1 ' Applicant: Margretta B. Parks and Vail Associates, Inc. Planner: Andy Knudtsen DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUE5T5 Please note that the new staff analysis provided throughout the memo is shown in italics. V Glen Heelen, the project developer and representative of the app licants is proposing to demolish the existing Serrano's Building and replace it with a new structure. The proposal includes: •A basement and first floor of retail use. Each floor is approximately 3,400 square feet. 1 •A restaurant on the second floor of approximately 3,100 square feet. 57� -Office on the third floor of approximately 1,050 square feet (by conditional use). 14 -One residential condominium on the third and fourth floors of approximately 3,600 �- square feet. In addition to these uses, there will be walkway and landscaping improvements to the rear of the building and to the east of the building along the Mill eek stream tract. , ti To accomplish the proposal described above, and 'n ition to the C erior alteration, there are three variances required: 1. A 6 -foot encroachment int � -fo t 4stm fallowed ck for Mill Creek; iv, 2. A site coverage vain e e t of 0 in CCI); 3. A variance for c Also, two conditional use permits office space on the third floor. I oor dining deck on the second floor and 1 I - 2' - G/s MEM ORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: February 27, 1995 A request for a worksession for a major exterior alteration in the Comm SUBJECT: rcial Core I zone district and site coverage, stream setback ermits to allow office variances, a floodplain modification and conditional use P on the third floor and t provide for the an allow outdoor dining locatedat 298Hanson Ranch C, Block redevelopment of Serr 2, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: Margretta B. Parks and Vail Associates, Inc. I DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUESTS to representative of the applicants, is proposing r osal Glen Heelen, the project developer and rep lace it with a new structure. Thep p demolish the existing Serrano 's Building and rep includes: and first floor of retail use. Each floor is approximately 3,000 square feet. •A basement roximately 3,200 square feet. •A restaurant on the second fl00 0 r x o maPely 700 square feet (by conditional use). •Office on the third floor of app roximately 3,600 .one residential condominium on the third and fourth floors of app square feet. uses, there will be walkway and landscaping improvements to the rear of In addition to these the Mill Creek stream tract. A second floor the building and to the east of the building along dining deck will be constructed over the Hanson Ranch Road right -of -way. Iteration, To accomplish the proposal described above odifiaation d e red:the CCI exterior a there are three variances and a floodplain m encroachment into the 30 -foot stream setback 1 for sMbaCre k the basement floor only); 2 A site coverage variance request of 94.6% (80% is allowed in CCI); 3. A variance for common area of 89.4% (35% is allowed by zoning), and 4. A modification to the one hundred -year floodplain. I use deck on the second floor Also, two conditional are required: for the outdoor dining P and for the office space on the third floor. of LL o _ - r N y Q M O `o o � a O M M p y y U a a C cn O y �v N > N ^oo o^ CO r N m a o N 2 0 o v y C (D O aw �v D w0 zviuj3 Cl) LL o _ - r N y Q M O `o o � a O M M p y y U a C cn O y �v N > Q) _0 JE M M O p o C O c x O O D o r z X Q t w0 ^ Q c0 M c ) z C/) Lu cO M LL o _ - r N y Q M O `o o � a O M M p Q LL N � O E J E o` o J � C 0 J � co N Of N co N C m LD N M O q M � ^ a LL m C � o O 00 E m E z cD O C 7 O O v 7 y y y � O cp cy C r` C6 . M O N N N y y U a C cn O y �v N > Q) _0 E E C O c x O O - � y o r z X Q t w0 ¢ zwLunt N y M O O O Q LL N � O E J E o` o J � C 0 J � co N Of N co N C m LD N M O q M � ^ a LL m C � o O 00 E m E z cD O C 7 O O v 7 y y y � O cp cy C r` C6 . M O N N N y y U C C cn O y �v > Q) _0 M a O O O d L N w 3 M 3: co t N L L > 0 M C: 0 J y a L C > O a) O y 3 (1) o o co m } o� y O N N N N C J Q � � ? T �� Z oo aL Z U J O N N yd D > P Q cD y - C v E d o a m i C'3 U�= O aa) o 0 m d _Z Z ao cm n 0 N N N O O N N � V U U •� m _O a 0 2 Q. y N O- C7 y J y N co y (B N L Cam') � � C ry cm O O 01 � a O (0 R Q O ^ ? N N Q L U C Q Q 0 O D LL E N J U = ) Q LL N � O E J E o` o J � C 0 J � co N Of N co N C m LD N M O q M � ^ a LL m C � o O 00 E m E z cD O C 7 O O v 7 y y y � O cp cy C r` C6 . M O N N N N LS O . d L N w 3 M 3: co t N L > 0 F C: 0 J y a L C m a) O C a7 J Lv cn � c LO- c y O N N N N , O 00 M D d� C Z O_ y 0 m D > P o N - C v 0 J ° o a m i Q c ro O a, c E o 0 m d r ao cm n O N N N O O N N D V U U •� U C _O a 0 2 Q. y N O- C7 y J y N co y (B N L Cam') � � C ry cm O O 01 � a O (0 R N ^ ? N N Q x Q 1 ° o a- LL E U u y S m � O S O N ¢ C7 �j � N C j o ^ b9 c u M N x m N C O N O 0 M If 0 Z J (1 lu N p cv 4- x N y cr c o `o y a� N N y y N N a1 pl '•_ N d N N C C-4 o O Q r S a a c an d D g �v E J o- D c N � � (( N U y y, N N 0 y N CD o co m CD cm o v ro c L V1 l77 O_ O ro- N CD s cu d .G O' d L N O C � Q) II j S cu Q L o a) L N N o CO o x o > a o ?' CO Q y 0- n N N t` y D n N aI> N O O O ca co 2_ _. ,C CD V O N CO n1 co ' a E y Q u lA V1 O CL — d C (0 j '_ •t N O_ N t0 m y E F N N O V M + M co 19 O L N a) d a) N N CD a) ' N cr 0 O O O O D M Ln U) d a L L y c — m N LS O Q N L N w 3 M 3: co L. C N L > 0 F C: 0 J 0o cD a L C m` a) O C a7 cc cn ca LO- c y y N N N , O 00 M D d� d N y` N O_ y 0 N U Y m` c a � O d L N 0 m d !0 Y U l0 a7 O N O O E C3, >a x E 1 ° o a- LL E U u y o m E ° S a m ¢ C7 �j v 3 m o c Y c u V O J (1 lu N p N III. URBAN DESIGN CRITERIA AND RELEVANT MASTER PLAN POLICIES A. Vail Village U rban Design Guide Plan The Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan specifically addresses the Mill Creek stream tract east of the Serrano's Building as follows: Concept 8 - "Mill Creek walking path, West Side Mill Creek Path completes linkage from pirate ship and mountain path to Gore Creek Drive." Staff believes that this walk should be an extension of the recent improvements made to the Mill Creek Court Building and adjacent stream tract. Staff recognizes that it is a mutual goal among the developers, Vail Associates, and the Town of Vail to create a new pedestrian link from Hanson Ranch Road to the Vista Bahn ski base. The staff has many concerns regarding the design of the pathway connecting Hanson Ranch Road to the base area. Staff believes that the pedestrian walk design could be improved by ensuring that the materials match the improvements the Town used in the Mill Creek corridor by the Mill Creek Court Building, and by preserving the existing trees. A more detailed analysis is provided below. B. Vail Village Urban Design Criteria Pedestrianization: The Vail Village Urban Design Criteria state that: "a major objective for Vail Village is to encourage pedestrian circulation through an interconnected network of safe, pleasant pedestrian ways." Staff believes that the concept of the proposed site plan is generally consistent with this criteria. However, the specific details of the plan do not meet it. The current design for the pedestrian walkway connecting Hanson Ranch Road to the base area is aligned through a congested area. Because the proposed building extends to the property lines, the pedestrian walkway around the building is located on the Vail Associates owned stream tract land. The existing evergreen trees, transformer locations, and steep slope are located such that there is not adequate room for the walking path without significantly disturbing the area. At this time, the landscape plan calls for the transformer to be relocated closer to the bike path, it calls for several of the mature evergreen trees to be cut down or moved off -site. and it calls for retaining walls around the base of the existing steep slope. As discussed later in the memo, staff believes that there are zoning standards, such as site coverage, which are set forth to ensure that proposed development is not excessive. We believe that the pedestrian ization criteria is another test, or development standard which is used to determine if 3 the proposed development is too large for the site. Because of the effect that the building has on the relatively congested area, staff believes that the proposal does not meet this criteria and that the building should be pulled back from the property line to accommodate a portion of the path or -site and reduce the amount of disturbance described above. 2. Vehicular Penetration: Staff believes that the proposal is consistent in the goal of eliminating vehicles from the Vail Village Core. 3. Streetscape Framework: The building will present a three -story facade along Hanson Ranch Road. It will include an outdoor in k on the second floor, an easily recognizable main entrance to the building from Hanson Ranch Road, and public art adjacent to the ropA- entrance. The public art will be in the form of If arge wall graphic painted on the first floor exterior wall or possibly a sculpture located in front of this wall. We believe that these elements fulfill this criteria as the proposed building will create new commercial activity and give additional interest to the street life. 4. Street Enclosure: In general, the goal of this criteria is to create "outdoor rooms ". From an urban design point of view, the outdoor rooms are successful if the width of the space of the street is twice as wide as the average height of the buildings on either side of the street. The diagram below is an example of this concept. Assuming the first floor of the Red Lion commercial shop on the south side of the building is approximately 15 feet tall, the proposed structure is consistent with the standards of this goal. � :� ► z �{ 1 I 2 WjkL.� YWan 5. Street Edge: This criteria calls for buildings to be designed with portions located at or near the property line. This helps to create the outdoor rooms discussed above; however, the guidelines state that; this is not to imply contiquaUs- building frontage along the property line." The success of the street edge is dependent on variety, wi l portion �fibtaildings being setback from the property line. Staff believes that this is a key criteria which the proposed project fails to meet. We believe there should be more variation with the building's massing relative to the property lines. At this time, the proposed building is basically extended to the property lines or to thllto Creek create variety it needed to provide aqua quality be pulled back in some a reas street edge. One specific area where this variation could be applied is on the third floor, on the east elevation. We believe that one of the more successful architectural changes that has been made is to drop the roof on the third floor down to a 5- foot plate height, except where punctuated with dormers. We believe this accentuates the variation in the roof line. We believe that the dormers should be further articulated by removing small portions of the building on either side of the dormer. Staff and the architect have discussed this concept and the architect has agreed; however, the plans have not been changed at this time. 6. Building Height: The proposed building height is generally consistent with the goals of the Design Considerations. It must be slightl modified as the 43 foot high portion exceeds the 40% allowable by 0.4% 6 square eEt). Ithough there is a small portion of the roof which is flat, the architec as one a good job, in staff's sible. In the last few design opinion, making this portion as small as pos iterations, this element has become smaller and smaller. 7. Views and Focal Points: A detailed analysis of the adopted view corridors have been done. Though this building comes close to the adopted view corridor boundaries, there is no encroachment. Staff continues to request of the applicants detaile mechanical drawin s to insure that no mechanical chases or vents will encroach into the view corridors. g. Service and Delivery: As proposed, the Golden Peak House and the Serrano's Building will be sharing a common trash elevator. The elevator which services the utility area of Golden Peak House will be accessible to both buildings via an internal connection. Staff believes that this is an excellent coordination of this service and reduces the amoun not ved a signed a focusing it at one entrance. Staff ned agreeme allowing this shared use at this time. 5 9. Sun /Shade: The sun /shade impacts to the surrounding properties will increase. For the Spring and Fall equinox, half of Hanson Ranch Road will be in shade at 10:00 a.m. By 2:00 p.m., the street will not be shaded, but the walking path will be. Shading at the Winter solstice will be much more significant. 10. Roofs Staff has spent quite a bit of time working with Jeff Winston, the Town's urban design consultant, and with the project architect regarding the roofs for the Serrano's Building. There has been a significant improvement in the roof form for the building since the initial application. The Town has encouraged the architect to unify the building under a single roof form. Previously, the builo?,g appeared somewhat "boxy" because a top floor did not appear to be tied into the lower three floors. T_he r it on�da d improved the integratithe building. At this tio 0 t ird ofl or from the o elements and make the building appear more cohesive. The Town's guidelines call fo / overhangs hat range from 3 to 6 feet on all edges. Staff believes that thi 's a ' nificant issue to which the proposed architecture does not conform. When compared to the proposed Golden Peak House, the proposed building lacks articulation. The shadow lines that are created on the Golden Peak House by the deep eaves and variety of massing improves the aesthetic quality, as it breaks up the elevations. In the case of Serrano's, the roof eaves are shallow, approximately 18 inches, because the building has been designed so close to the property lines. As a result, there is no room to extend the ives out further. Staff believes that this is another test to determine when a p. :posed structure is too large for a site. This will be discussed in greater detail under the variance criteria for site coverage. The roof is proposed to be tar and gravel which is consistent with criteria stated in the Guidelines. The proposed roof pitch is a 3:12, which is consistent with the Guidelines, which calls for roofs ranging from 3:12 to 6:12. 11. Facades The materials to be used in the facade include stucco, vertical cedar siding, and copper elements, and are all materials frequently used in the Village and allowed for by the Guidelines. Concerning transparency, staff is concerned that there might be too much transparency, particularly on the second floor. The Guidelines call for the first floors to be 55% to 70% transparent. Upper floors are to be 35% to 40% transparent. In this case, there is little differentiation between the first and second floor. Staff believes that the second floor should be modified to differentiate it more from the first floor. [.1 Most of the windows are made up of the small panes which staff believes is consistent with the Guidelines and makes for a more attractive building. The trim around the windows will be a significant feature on the building, which is also consistent with the Guidelines. 12. Decks and Patios A dining deck will be located on the second floor. The Guidelines call for dining decks to be elevated a few feet above the pedestrian walk to allow diners to view the street activity. The Guidelines do not speak to second floor decks; however, staff believes that the proposed second floor deck is a reasonable proposal. 13. Balconies Staff believes that the balconies will be an effective accent element of the building. The railing design is consistent with an " 'n character ", an d the number of balconies have been reduced to limit the amount of architectural "busyness ". 14. Accent Elements The architect is proposing to use copper on several awnings and roof elements on the first and second floors. The shutters, window bo Nofascia, and stonework at the base of the building are all strong accent elements that will en o t e success o t e ro ec a rock walls should be finished without a cap, in staff's opinion. An accent element that staff is concerned about is Me artwork to be located to the west of the main entrance. Details of the wall painting or the sculpture should be provided for the PEC to review. 15. Landscape Elements There are three components of the landscape plan associated with this project: North Side The building has shallow planters, approximately 18 inches in width. Staff believes that the foundation planting should be increased and that some landscaping should be planted next to the building such as aspen tree We believe that if landscaping were planted next to the building in a few key locations, it would help soften the mass of the building. East Side Staff believes that the landscape design for the Mill Creek stream tract should reflect the work the Town did adjacent to the Mill Creek Court Building in the summer of 1994. The concept used by th Town was to integrate the sidewal steps, softscape and creek together. The paver walkway is edged in some 17 places with boulders and in other places is open to grasses. The curvilinear style reflects the natural character of the space. The staircases are finished in sandstone (not concrete), and all walls are finished with moss rock. The north side of the bridge for Hanson Ranch Road, adjacent to these improvements, has been faced with moss rock. Staff believes that this style, and all of these materials, should be used for the improvements adjacent to the Serrano's property, including the completion of the south side of th= bridge on Hanson Ranch Road, as a part of the Serrano's redevelopment. South Side .l On the southern side of the site, there are six ffqt existing evergreen trees. These range in height from 20 to 25 feet. The applicant is rop sing o eave two of these. Staff believes that the landscaping plan should be reworked to save all of them in their existing locations. We think that the beauty of these trees and the effectiveness that they will have in buffering the building from the south will be difficult to replace. We t th stair a e connecting thi w Ikway to the existing bikepath should be relocated to work around the existing rees. a ingTra fSto rs s ou e e t where ey a Cher than relocated to a more visible location adjacent to the bikepath. If these efforts are to be accomplished, the building must be pulled back and the walkway must be accommodated partially on -site. Overall Site A significant issue with the proposal is that a finalized a landscape plan has not been reviewed by staff at this time. It appears that there may be a landscape variance that is required. The zoning standards require that there be a minimum of 203 square feet of landscaping on -site. The current site plan does not provide this amount of landscaping and would require a landscape variance. This has not been published for and the PEC cannot approve a landscape variance at the February 27, 1995 hearing. Staff believes that this is another indication that the building should be pulled back in mass and scale, so that more landscaping can be provided on -site. C. Vail Villaqe Master P,an Goal #1: Encourage high quality development while preserving the unique architectural scale of the V ilage in order to sustain its sense of community and identity. 1.2 Objective: Encourage the upgrading and redevelopment of residential and commercial facilities. C:3 1.21 Policy: Additional development may be allowed as identified by the action plan and as is consistent with the Vail Village Master Plan and Urban Design Guide Plan. 1.3 Objective: Enhance new development and redevelopment through public improvements done by private developers working in cooperation with the Town. 1.3.1 Policy: Public improvements shall be developed with the participation of the private sector working with the Town. 2.2 Objective: Recognize the "historic" commercial core as the main activity center of the Village. 2.2.1 Policy: The design criteria of the Vail Village Urban Design Guideplan shall be the primary guiding document to preserve the existing architectural scale and character of the core area of Vail Village. 2.3.1 Policy: The development of short term accommodation units is strongly encouraged. Residential units that are developed above existing density levels are required to be designed or managed in a manner that makes them available for short term overnight rental. 2.4 Objective: Encourage the development of a variety of a new commercial activity where compatible with existing land uses. 2.4.1 Policy: Commercial infill development consistent with established horizontal zoning regulations shall be encouraged to provide activity generators, accessible greenspaces, public plazas, and streetscape improvements to the pedestrian network throughout the Village. 2.4.2 Policy: Activity that provides night life and evening entertainment for both the guests and the community shall be encouraged. 2.5 Objective: Encourage the continued upgrading, renovation and maintenance of existing lodging and commercial facilities to better serve the needs of our guests. Goal #3: To recognize as a top priority the enhancement of the walking experience throughout the Village. E 3.1 Objective: Physically improve the existing pedestrian ways by landscaping and other improvements. 3.1.1 Policy: Private development projects shall incorporate streetscape improvements (such as paver treatments, landscaping, lighting and seating areas), along adjacent pedestrian ways. 3.4 Objective: Develop additional sidewalks, pedestrian only walkways, and accessible green space areas, including pocket parks and stream access. 3.4.1 Policy: Physical improvements to property adjacent to the stream tract shall not further restrict public access. 3.4.2 Policy: Private development projects shall be required to incorporate new sidewalks along streets adjacent to the project as designated by the Vail Village Master Plan and /or Recreation Trails Master Plan. Goal #4: To preserve existing open space areas and expand green ::aace opportunities. 4.1 Objective: To improve existing open space areas and create new plazas with green space and pocket parks. Recognize the different roles of each type of open space in forming the overall fabric of the Village. 4.1.3 Policy: With the exception of ski base - related facilities, existing natural open space areas at the base of Vail Mountain and throughout Vail Village shall be preserved as open space. 4.1.4 Policy: Open space improvements including the addition of accessible green space is described or graphically shown in the Vail Village Master Plan and/or Urban Design Guide Plan, will be required in conjunction with private in -fill or redevelopment projects. 10 Vail Village Master Plan - Land Use: Vail Village Master Plan - Conceptual Building Height Plan Vail Village Master Plan - Sub -Area Concepts: Mixed Use - This category includes the "historic" Village Core and properties near the pedestrianized streets of the Village. Lodging, retail, and a limited amount of office use are found in this category. With nearly 270,000 square feet of retail space and approximately three hundred and twenty residential units, the mixed use character of this area is a major factor and appeal of Vail Village. 3 to 4 stories No. 3 -8; Mill Creek Streamwalk "A walking path along Mill Creek between Pirateship Park and Gore Creek, further completing the pedestrian network and providing public access to the creek. Specific design and location shall be sensitive to adjacent uses of the creek environment." ,VA I LOG C L�1N0 46NA4H�p J CASINO SLOG. CLOCK LOWER S LOG. LIOV OA f ,J•' �IL A2II � � 1 � �R, ,AJL TOWNHOUSES • ou C C OUP1 9LI'- O v V TIED LWN I"I'1 RANDS D. Streetscape Master Plan r MAIS1 a "The primary paving material for the right -of -way area of the Village Core is recommended to be rectangular concrete unit pavers, in the color mix specified in the Guidelines for Paving section of this report. The herringbone pattern, which is proposed for most areas, is edged by a double soldier course. The intent is to satisfy the need for a simple streetscape treatment without being monotonous." The applicant is proposing a band of pavers along the front of the building. The proposed band would be 10 feet wide, extending out from the face of the building. It would wrap around the building on the northeast corner and continue along the east side towards the bike path. The paver walkway in front of the Golden Peak House will be snowmelted, and staff believes that this paver walkway in front of Serrano's should also be snowmelted. 11 Staff believes that the discussion of materials for the improvements in the Mill Creek Stream tract should be reiterated; we are looking for the Vail blend of pavers to be used for the walkway, moss rock stone to be used on all planter walls and retaining walls, (without a cap), and that any stairs be finished with sandstone and not be concrete. Staff also believes that Village light fixtures should be installed along the path at appropriate locations. IV. HISTORY OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES At the - =quest of the PEC, staff researched the histories of several buildings surrounding the Serra; s site: A. A & D Buildin October 8, 1984 - The PEC approved a CCI exterior alteration. No variances were requested. Site coverage was proposed at 79.0 %. The exterior alteration was approved with the condition that a floodplain modification request be approved by the Town prior to construction. May 8, 1985 - The PEC approved a floodplain modification for the A & D development No stream setback variance was required. February, 1995 - Applicant proposes expansion to Golden Bear. Proposed site coverage is 79.95 %. B. Red Lion Buildin April 9, 1990 - The PEC approved a view corridor encroachment, stream setback variance, site coverage variance, CCI exterior alteration, and conditional use permit (to allow an outdoor dining deck). Prior to redevelopment, the Red Lion Building encroached into the Mill Creek stream setback 1 to 18 feet. The proposed redevelopment requested 5 additional feet of encroachment. The staff memo cited the location of the existing building and the A & D improvements as significant issues that would not make the request a grant of special privilege. The staff recommended denial of the requests, although the PEC ultimately approved the requests. Concerning site coverage for the Red Lion redevelopment, the proposal included 50 square feet of additional site coverage. However, as part of the redevelopment, 27 square feet of existing site coverage was to be eliminated. As a result, there was net increase of 23 square feet of site coverage. At the time of the proposal, the existing Red Lion Building had a site coverage of 83 %. Though the staff recommendation for the site coverage variance request was denial, the PEC ultimately approved it. 12 One of the conditions of the exterior alteration was an agreement between the Town and the Red Lion developers that the GRFA approved through that process be the cap. Language has been incorporated into the condominium declarations that the existing 8,714 square feet of GRFA and three dwelling units are the maximum allowed for the property and that no other GRFA or dwelling units may be added to the project in the future. The standards for CCI zoning would have allowed approximately square feet of GRFA and eight dwelling units. On October 22, 1990, the PEC approved an exterior alteration and a site coverage variance to allow an airlock to be constructed for the Szechuan Lion Restaurant. At the time of the request the building had a site coverage of 83.2 percent. The proposed airlock was an additional 60 square feet. The approval allowed the building to reach a site coverage of 83.6 percent. Staff recommended approval, primarily Zoning Code at the time emphasized the need for airlocks. C. Golden Peak House November 2, 1993 - Town Council approved a Special Development District for the Golden Peak House. This included, among other things, a site coverage request which exceeded the 80% allowed in CCI. At the time of the proposal, the existing Golden Peak House on the existing lot had a site coverage of 91.6 %. Under the approved plans with the expanded lot, the site coverage will be 94 %. D. Curtin Hill Buildinq March 8, 1993 - The PEC approved a CCI exterior alteration for this building. Site coverage at the time of this proposal was 71 %. The approved site coverage is 71.6 %. E. Christiania Lodge Under the Public Accommodation zone district, allowed site coverage is 55 %. On March 23, 1992, Town Council approved a Special Development District allowing the Christiania to expand from 32% to 39% site coverage. F. Slifer Building February 24, 1992 - The PEC approved a site coverage variance. The existing site coverage at the time was 92.1 % or 2.956.7 square feet. The request was for an additional 57 square feet of site coverage or 1.8 ° / A. Since the construction of this addition, the current Slifer Building has a site coverage of 93.9% or 3,013.7 square feet. The basis for staff supporting the request was a concept proposed at the time by a consultant hired to analyze the Zoning Code who recommended changes. These changes included modifying the site coverage section for CCI to reflect the setback section for CCII. In Lionshead (CCII), setback standards can be waived if proposed additions are in complianch the to oberage was proposed to be used That concept was suggested to be applied sed in the e Village. It is important to note that these code modifications were not approved. 13 G. Clock Tower Building August 12, 1991 - The PEC denied a request for a site coverage variance at the Superstars Studio within the Clock Tower Building. The PEC found that the property was not encumbered with a physical hardship. The existing site coverage was 87 %. The request for an additional 28 square feet would have put site coverage at 87.2 %. The staff recommended denial and the rtC concurred. H. Covered Bridge Building The Covered Bridge building was approved for redevelopment in 1993. The applicants originally requested five variances and a floodplain modification, but ultimately designed a building which conformed with all zoning standards. The project was approved and recently received its' TCO. V. VARIANCE CRITERIA AND FINDINGS At this time, the applicant is requesting variances for site coverage, stream setback, and common area. A. Consideration of Factors The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. Site Coverage Staff believes that the relationship of the proposed development to othe• uses in the vicinity could be improved if the extent of the variance wer reduced. We believe that the building is too large at this time and that it should be reduced. The specific benefits of reducing the amount of site coverage would be to allow for more landscaping on -site, allow a portion of the Mill Creek pedestrian walk to be located on -site, and provide larger eaves consistent with the design criteria and surrounding buildings in the area. Stream Setback Staff supports the variance request for stream setback as it relates to this criteria. All of the building above -grade conforms to the setback. The only portion of the building that extends into the setback is below grade. Therefore, we see very little negative impact on this criteria by the requested variance. 14 Common Area Staff's position on the common area variance is similar to the site coverage variance. The Code allows 35% of allowed GRFA to be used as common area. In December of 1994, the applicant was proposing 62.8 %. At this time, the applicant is proposing 89.4 %. The PEC and staff acknowledged earlier that a common area variance may be needed. However, staff believes that 89.4% is high. Benefits from reducing the amount of common area are listed above. 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 grant of special privilege. Site Coverage Staff believes that there is no physical hardship which would justify a site coverage variance. In the research provided in the previous section, staff has found that the Covered Bridge Building, the A & D Building, the Curtin Hill Building, and the Christiania Lodge have been redeveloped without requiring site coverage variances. Staff chose these buildings as they are in the vicinity and have been through the review process recently. The Red Lion Building received site coverage variance approvals, but staff believes that the extent of the requests reflect that the project was significantly different than the proposed Serrano's redevelopment. At the time of redevelopment, the Red Lion Building had a site coverage of iL 83 %. The applicant proposed an additional 50 square feet, but also proposed a reduction of 27 square feet in another part of the site. Therefore, there was a net increase of 23 square feet of site coverage. At a later date. the Town approved a request for 60 additional square feet of site coverage to allow for an airlock at the Szechuan Lion. The magnitude and use of these requests, and the fact that the existing building exceeded the allowable site coverage prior to the review, are significant differences from the Serrano's project. The Golden Peak House, through an SDD process, was allowed to reach a 94% site coverage. The major difference between these two development proposals is that the Golden Peak House was reviewed as an SDD and had to address many more criteria than what are under consideration for the Serrano's redevelopment. Major streetscape improvements and employee housing provisions were included as part of the review of the Golden Peak House, for example. In addition, staff believes it is important to note that the ownership patterns of the Golden Peak House make it very different than the Serrano's request. 15 Since the PEC worksession in December, staff has provided research from an additional building: the Slifer Building. On February 24, 1992, the Town approved a site coverage variance of 1.8% or 57 square feet. At the time, the existing site coverage was 92.1%. With the addition, the site coverage is now 93.9 %. In the memo for this request, staff relied on the recom— - ndations of the Urban Design Guide Plan Considerations to ju . the variance. This was based in part on changes recommended by a consultant regarding the way the Municipal Code should be rewritten. Even though the Code was ultimately not changed according to this concept, staff believes that the more important issue is that the Slifer proposal was consistent with the Urban Design Considerations. The basis of the variance was that it brought the building into conformance with the Urban Design Guidelines. Staff has identify several areas where Serrano's requested variance creates conflict, vvith the Design Considerations. Therefore, we believe that the logic used to support the Slifer Building site coverage variance cannot be transferred to the Serrano's project. Stream Setback Staff believes that there is not a physical hardship on this site which would justify encroaching into the stream setback. We acknowledge that the impacts from this encroachment are few_gDLLaL9jDJhat this site is small. The applicant has said th t e ing out into the st am setback area is critical in this cas ecause the site is small. Common Area In the past, staff has supported common area variances associated with commercial buildings. Typically, these have been full - service hotels which require a higher level of guest amenity and therefore, a greater amount of common floor area. In this case, the applicant has requested the variance mainly to achieve Uniform Building Code requirements -:�r front and rear exits and common hallways. Staff believes that we could support the request for additional common area; however, we continue to be concerned about the extent of the request at 89.4 %. 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. Site Coverage Staff believes that the requested site coverage variance will negatively impact the sunlight on Hanson Ranch Road. 16 Stream Setback Staff believes there will be little impact from this variance request on the criteria listed above. Common Area Staff believes that there will be little impact from the common area variance on these issues. B. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the follo findings before granting a variance: 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. 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. Staff will analyze the findings for the final worksession. VI. CONDITIONAL USE CRITERIA AND FINDINGS At this time, the applicant is requesting conditional use approval for an outdoor dining deck and office use on the third floor. A. Consideration of Factors: Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town. 17 Outd oor Dining Deck The development objective, articulated in the Purpose Section of Commercial Core I, Section 18.24.010, states that the district is intended to maintain the unique character of Vail Village with its mixture of lodges and commercial establishments in a predominantly pedestrian environment. The Purpose Section speaks -o the Vail Village Urban Design Consic rations and states that the goal is to ensure a continuation of the architectural qualities that distinguish the Village. Staff believes that the second floor dining deck is consistent with the goal of contributing to the street life character. Office Use of Third Floor Staff believes that providing additional office space in the Village broadens the number of users within the Village and helps fulfill the goals of the development objectives. 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. Outdoor Dining Deck No impacts. Office Use on Third Floor No impacts. 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. Outdoor Dining Deck Now that the dining deck has been reduced in scale and does not encroach into the right -of -way further than the existing improvements, staff believes that the impacts on congestion, pedestrian safety, and traffic flow are reasonable. The Fire Department has approved the proposed deck and finds the encroachment into the Hanson Ranch Road right -of -way acceptable. Office Use on Third Floor No impacts. iR 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. Outdoor Dining Deck Staff believes that the outdoor dining deck will improve the character of the area and will be a positive addition to the Village. Office Use on Third Floor Staff acknowledges that the office use, as well as the other proposed uses, all contribute to the mass and bulk of the Serrano's redevelopment. As expressed elsewhere in the memo, staff is concerned about this issue. However, staff believes that if the building can be reduced in site coverage, that the office use itself is acceptable. B. Findings The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a conditional use permit: That the proposed location of the use in accord with the purposes of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. 2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code. Staff will analyze the findings for the final worksession. VII. FLOODPLAIN MODIFICATION The Town of Vail Municipal Code allows an individual to modify the one - hundred year floodplain if the PEC can find that the work will not adversely affect adjacent properties, or increase the quantity or velocity of flood waters (Section 18.69.040E). The applicant has had Intermountain Engineering study the floodplain changes. The reason the floodplain modification is proposed is that the applicant plans to excavate around the perimeter of the building to provide room for the pedestrian walkway. A portion of this excavation extends into the Mill Creek floodplain. The engineer for Intermountain Engineering has not been able to provide a final study to the Town staff to review and verify that the standards listed above are met. At this time, staff does not have the proper documentation to verify that the proposed changes comply with the Code standards. 19 VIII. CONCLUSION Though there are significant aspects of the proposal which need to submitted and review ., by staff, we believe that it is beneficial for the parties involved to bring this item to the PEC fcr discussion. The outstanding items can be submitted and the project can be returned to the PEC for a formal vote at a later date. Rather then table the item for another two weeks, staff believes that getting input from the PEC at this time is appropriate. Of all of the aspects of the proposal, staff is most concerned with site coverage. At this time, staff cannot support the site coverage variance request as we believe that there is not P physical hardship that warrants the variance. Furthermore, staff believes that the relationship of the proposal to the surrounding properties is negatively affected by the request. We believe that if the site coverage were reduced, that several aspects of the proposal would improve. Specifically, the items that staff believe needs improvement include the Mill Creek pedestrian walk, the landscaping on -site, and the roof eaves. The second issue is the stream setback variance. Staff at this time cannot support the stream setback variance. Though it does meet two of the three criteria and the relationship of the encroachment to the surrounding area is negligible, staff cannot recommend approval as there is no physical hardship which would warrant the encroachment. We acknowledge that the encroachment is all below -grade and will not be noticed by the public. In the past, staff recommended denial of stream setback variances for the Red Lion, though the PEC ultimately approved them. Another major aspect of the proposal includes the floodplain modification. Staff also cannot support this request due to the fact that at this time we have no documentation from an engineer verifying that the proposed changes comply with the Town of Vail standards. It is imperative for the applicant to submit this information and allow the Town Engineer three to five days to review the material. Concerning the conditional use for the second floor dining deck and the third floor office, staff believes they meet all of the conditional use criteria as discussed above. Concerning the variance for common area, staff understands that the need for the common area is primarily to address Uniform Building Code issues. Secondary access are required at each level and therefore, an interior hallway is required between the front to the back of the building. However, staff believes that there is some common area whic° J be eliminated and that the request could be reduced somewhat. However, in general, _ nas recommended approval of these types of variance requests for commercial Duildings and believes that circumstances may warrant support. Cor ~ning the exterior alteration, staff has several conditions. The architecture has significantly improved during the review process, but there are too many unresolved details at this time to support the request. Of particular concern is the landscape plan. At this time, staff does not have a detailed plan with sections, and it is unclear if the grades will work. Further, it is unclear if a landscape variance is needed. 20 r IA Staff believes that the project is generally consistent with most of the exterior alteration criteria, but has several issues which must be addressed prior to a final hearing. These include ensuring: 1. That landscaping on -site be increased. 2. That the eaves be increased in depth. 3. That the walkway be revised to show that all trees on the southern side of the site are preserved and that the utility boxes are not moved, but screened. 4. A detailed review of all materials to be used in the stream tract corridor to ensure that they match what the Town used. 5. A detailed review of the design for the southern bridge abutment to ensure that it matches the finished work the Town did on the northern side. 6. That Village lights are added to the walkway. 7. That a stone cap on the rock walls be eliminated. 8. That the walkway on the north side of the building is heated. ` e tra arency -.of the second floor be reduced. 10. That a portion of the east wall, on the third floor adjacent to the dormer, is recessed. 11. That all planter boxes are irrigated. 12. A review of the proposed public art adjacent to the main entrance of the building. 13. A detailed review of all mechanical equipment to ensure that it does not encroach into the view corridor and to ensure that it is aesthetically pleasing. 14. That the Town receive a final copy of the executed agreement between Vail Associates and the owner to allow the improvements on the stream tract. 15. That all the floodplain engineering be submitted. 16. That the height of the structure be revised (by 26 square feet) so that it conforms to the 60/40 requirement. 17. That an agreement between the Golden Peak House and the Serrano's Building be executed allowing common usage of the utility corridor. 18. That Jeff Winston be paid all of his consulting fees prior to final design review. c Apec \memos\&@ rano.227 21 EXHIBIT A Basement 1st 2nd 3rd 4th Total: GRFA 3,576 sq. ft. 2.5 spaces 48.6 Commercial 6.122/300 20 4 space Chart 2 — Parking Common Area 0 Office Restaurant --- 3.216 sq. ft. 727 sq. ft. - -- 727 sq. ft. 3,216 sq. ft. Office Chart 1 — Floor Area GRFA Commercial Common Area --- 3,183 sq. ft. 951 sq. ft. --- 1,705.5 + 1,026.5 + 207 sq, ft. 1,000 sq. ft. — 114 +554 2,292 sq. ft. - -- 580+144 1,358 sq, ry. - -- 46 3,650 sq. ft. 6,122 sq. ft. 3,389 sq. ft. GRFA 3,576 sq. ft. 2.5 spaces 48.6 Commercial 6.122/300 20 4 space Chart 2 — Parking Common Area 0 Office Restaurant --- 3.216 sq. ft. 727 sq. ft. - -- 727 sq. ft. 3,216 sq. ft. Office Restaurant 727/250 2,734/15/8 2.9 spaces 22.8 spaces 22 1! , a! Us. w T 1-3 " — X 4 ts P! r i in E9 IN . �q $ m { { {?�`�� / Of i Of �Itlillil CL \ �� \ � }$f � }�� ;f DOt?1070D '3B 71V,1 XO YA'I.LATO S:OA'F?I?I.�S goes- are/xrd O0e9 -st /EOE ` $UO1tl31N1 DNINNYId 3tl1119311NONY O'd S10311HOtld. NOSOIVNoo NHdW .lfol "I AL'' N Y Y � !b F ONE 0�i F � h G 6 F s2U-Ovelxvj A 00ar s tlO1 tl31N1.ONINNYId 311NOuv SNOfSIA3d S13311HDkJ NOSCIVNoa OL .. I i mira ma l ' X )700 '- OVTTLd ,71VA LLSN003N :ONla7l09 di S,ONYU917S so ese/xvi 0 025- 6f6 / foc S NO�tl 31N.- DNINNYId 38nl3311N7N♦ 'O'd ' S103iIHOHV NOSOlVN00 NHVW HOIDIA � 'ON 13: 'ON s; L=� �=7 y � /l C� is o � Ip G� VY U gee °f A` K_V I aloe w,- 15 I OIL- el� fl y i zr � � . -4 00 el� fl y i zr � � . -4 006410700 39Y771A 71VA No"jn I,LSNOJdy ON107W, Y'NLLNdo s,oiv '?yys o Q � u lu � Y 0 i Lu LV N add z adaa�ja �aaa a3i aaa — I I I I L I f I � I g L — j V� ff i,� . a % r o� a III 6 i t2 F i 4 r olo y id v/� t J p OQNNO70J '3JN771A MA NOLdJnN,LSNO33d ONI071nB VNI,LNVO S.ONVXNHS 7L LM e 9 g� a zz '� 0 5 d�WWm� W h F O � iaP„ § m VI b � �. 3Ae 0 OOYN070J '30Y77IA WYA NOI.ronyISNO331f 9NIawng VNIJNVJ S.OJVVY ISS warm � v U�M w e� V2 t � it W `jWWj^^ yy J pp La� YVS. JrUd J W a i i ij i �r ca r �A av Q ��3 � a Y �g �b � g RE 8 5PI WW a � O a f >�F . i. >3a U e PHA f� I J s �R R 11 0 Zs u G, o r I r AAaa �p yy iW3 n W�IY.ad z11 it ���iZia�a�a8a �A av Q ��3 � a Y �g �b � g RE 8 5PI WW a � O a f >�F . i. >3a U e PHA f� I J s �R R 11 0 1 0 FIL.r Pontf Bob Armour made a motion to table this item to the February 27, 1995 PEC meeting with Dalton Williams seconding the motion. A 4 -0 vote tabled this item to February 27, 1995. 8. A request for a major exterior alteration in the Commercial Core I zone district and site coverage, stream setback and common area variances and conditional use permits to allow office on the third floor and to allow an outdoor dining deck to provide for the redevelopment of Serrano's, located at 298 Hanson Ranch Road /Lot C, Block 2, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: Margretta B. Parks and Vail Associates, Inc. Planner: Andy Knudtsen TABLED TO FEBRUARY 27, 1995 Bob Armour made a motion to table this item to the February 27, 1995 PEC meeting with Dalton Williams seconding the motion. A 4 -0 vote tabled this item to February 27, 1995. 9. Approve minutes from January 23, 1995 PEC meeting. Bob Armour made a motion to approve the minutes from the January 23, 1995 PEC meeting with Kathy Langenwalter seconding the motion. A 3 -0 -1 vote approved the minutes from the January 23, 1995 PEC meeting with Dalton Williams abstaining from this item as he was not present at the January 23, 1995 PEC meeting. 10. Council Update: -Vail Commons RFP issued January 27, 1995. 11. Update on schedule for PEC appointments. PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION MINUTES February 13, 1995 11 • � R revised 7/14/94 r, COLORADO 199 54 t DESIGN REVIEW BOARD APPLICATION - TOWN OF VAL, -" DATE RECEIVED: DATE OF DRB MEETING: ti e INCOMPLETE APPLICATIONS MAY NOT BE SCHEDULED FOR REVIEW- I, PROJECT INFORMATION � 'd -t' �-' i�� _ A. DESCRIPTIO B. TYPE OF REVIEW: New Construction ($200.00) Minor Alteration ($20.00) Addition ($50.00) Conceptual Review ($0) p � ��'� �fl� I I C. ADDRESS: 7 D. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot Block U. I5T _ Subdivision AID- \/I If property is described by a meets and bounds legal description, please provide on a separate sheet and attach to this application. E. ZONING: F. :NAME OF APPLICANT: Mailing Address • '�-- Lim , 2� Phone G. p NAME OF APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE: " / TAR Mailing Address: Phone — H . NAME OF OWNER (S)�� OWNER (S) SIGNATURE: , TV L Mailing Address: Phone APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE PROCESSED WITHOUT OWNER'S SIGNATURE I. Condominium Approval if applicable. J. DRB FEE: DRB fees, as shown above, are to be paid at the time of submittal of the DRB appli Later, when applying for a building permit, please identify the accurate valuation of the proposal. The Town of Vail will adjust the - fee according to the table below, to ensure the correct fee is paid. FEE PAID: CHECK #: `DATE:BY: FEE SCHEDULE: VALUATION FEE w 16,000 2 0 .00 $ 10,001 - $ 50,000 $ 50.00 $ 50,001 - $ 150,000 $100.00 $150,001 - $ 500,000 $200.00 $500,001 - $1,000,000 $400.00 $ Over $1,000,000 $500.00 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL EXPIRES ONE YEAR AFTER FINAL APPROVAL UNLESS A BUILDING PERMIT IS ISSUED AND CONSTRUCTION IS STARTED. 1 r a II. PRE - APPLICATION MEETING: A pre - application meeting with a member of the planning staff is encouraged to determine if any additional application information is needed. It is the applicant's responsibility to make an appointment with the staff to determine if there are additional submittal requirements. Please note that a COMPLETE application will streamline the review process for your project. III. IMPORTANT NOTICE REGARDING ALL SUBMISSIONS TO THE DRB: A. In addition to meeting submittal requirements, the applicant must stake and tape the project site to indicate property lines, building lines and building corners. All trees to be removed must be taped. All site tapings and staking must be completed prior to the DRB site visit. The applicant must ensure that staking done during the winter is not buried by snow. B. The review process for NEW BUILDINGS normally requires two separate meetings of the Design Review Board:-a conceptual review and a final review. C. Applicants who fail to appear before the Design Review Board on their scheduled meeting date and who have not asked in advance that discussion on their item be Postponed, will have their items removed from the DRB agenda until such time as the item has been republished. - D. The following items may, at the discretion of the zoning administrator, be approved by the Community Development Department staff (i.e. a formal hearing before the DRB may not be required): a• Windows, skylights and similar exterior changes which do not alter the existing plane of the building; and b. Building additions not visible from any other lot or public space. At the time such a proposal is submitted, applicants must include letters from adjacent property owners and /or from the agent for or manager of any adjacent condominium association stating the association approves of the addition. E. If a property is located in a mapped hazard area (i.e. snow avalanche, rockfall, flood plain, debris flow, wetland, etc.), a hazard study must be submitted and the owner must sign an affidavit recognizing the hazard report prior to the issuance of a building permit. Applicants are encouraged to check with a Town Planner prior to DRB application to determine the relationship Of the property to all mapped hazards. F. For all residential construction: a• Clearly indicate on the floor plans the inside face of the exterior structural walls of the building; and b. Indicate with a dashed line on the site plan a four foot distance from the exterior face of the building walls or supporting columns. G. If DRB approves the application with conditions or modifications, all conditions of approval must be addressed prior to the application for a building permit. 2 IV. NEW CONSTRUCTION A. Three copies of a recent topographic survey, stamped by a Colorado Professional Licensed Surveyor, at a scale of 1" = 20' or larger, on which the following information is provided: 1. Lot area, and buildable area when different than lot area. 2. Legal description and physical address. 3. Two foot contour intervals unless the parcel consists of 6 acres or more, in which case, 5' contour intervals may be accepted. 4. Existing trees or 4 o roupsmoretrassmeasuredtfromsa with diameters of point one foot above grade. 5. Rock outcroppings and other significant natural features (large boulders, intermittent streams, etc.) . 6. Hazard areas (avalanche, rockfall, etc.), centerline of streams or creeks, required creek or stream setback, and 100 -year flood plain, if applicable. Slopes of 40% or more shall be clearly delineated by cross hatching. 7. Ties to existing benchmark, either USGS landmark or sewer invert. This information must be clearly stated on the survey so that all measurements are based on the same starting point. This is particularly important for determining building height and driveway slope. See Policy On Survey Information, for more information regarding surveys. g. Locations of the following must be shown: a. Size and type of drainage culverts, swales, etc. b. Exact location of existing utility service lines from their source to the structure, including: Cable TV Sewer Gas Telephone Water Electric C. All utility meter locations, including any pedestals to be located on site or in the right-of - way adjacent to the site. d. Property lines - distances and bearings and a basis of bearing. e. Indicate all easements identified on the subdivision plat. 9. Provide spot elevations at the edge of asphalt, along the street frontage of the property at twenty-five toot intervals (25 and a minimum of one spot elevation on either side of the lot. B. Site Plan 1. Locations of the following must be shown: a. Existing and finished grades. b. Proposed surface drainage on and off site. r1 C. Proposed driveway, including percent slope and spot elevations at the property line, garage slab and as necessary along the centerline of the drive to accurately reflect driveway grade. d• A 4' concrete drive pan at the edge of asphalt for driveways that exit the street in an uphill direction. 2. All existing improvements including structures, landscaped areas, service areas, storage areas, walks, driveways, off - street parking, loading areas, retaining walls (with top and bottom of wall spot elevations), and other existing site improvements. 3 . In order to determine proposed building heights elevations of all top roof ridges, and eaves when determined necessary by the zoning administrator, shall be indicated on the site plan with existing and proposed contour lines shown underneath. C. Landscape Plan W' = 20 or larger) - 3 Copies. required 1 • At a minimum, the following information must be provided on the landscape plan: a• Location of existing trees 4" diameter or larger, b. Type, size and location of all existing and proposed plant material, C. Location of all trees to be transplanted, d• A detailed legend of all proposed plant material including common and Latin names. 2. 'The location and type of existin watering systems to be employed in caring p for d Plant material following its installation. 3 . Existing and proposed contour lines. Retaining walls should be included with the contour information with top of wall and bottom of wall elevations listed. 4 • Complete the attached landscape materials list. D. Sign off from each utility comma,,.. location of unlit verifying the attached utility v erification form). (see E. A reliminar title re ort Schedule A and B mus accompany all submittals, to insure t and identify all easements affecting property ownership property. g the subject F. Architectural Plans (1/81 = 1 Preferred scale for review) 3 1. or larger, 1 /4f is copies are required. Floor plans and all elevations of the proposed development drawn to scale and fully dimensioned. The elevation drawings must show both existing and finished grades. 2. One set of floor plans must be "red to show how the gross residential floor area (GRFA) was calculated. 3 . Exterior materials and colors shall be specified on the attached materials list. This materials list must be completed and submitted as a part of the application. Color chips etc., shall be presented at the lDesignaReview 4 4F Details includi but not limited Boai_ meeting. ca p, meter to fascia, trim, railings, chimney and locations, etc. must be shown grap fully dimensioned. G. Zone check list (attaed) musti b e co if the project is located with Primary /Secondary or Duplex zone districts. H. Photos of the existing site and where applicable, of adjacent structures. I, and /or DRB may require the The Zoning Administrator submission of additional plans, drawings specifications, samples and other materials (including a model) if deemed necessary to determine GuidelinesWhether a project will comp V. VI. MINOR ALTERATIONS TV '1'nr. ���.,..�.,-- -- Photos or sketches whichc(Sateyplan ) eofttherredevelopment proposal and the locatio n proposal may be submitted in lieu f the o e formal requirements set forth above, p specifications for the proposal including colors and materials to be used are submitted. ADDITIONS - RESIDENTIAL OR COMMERCIAL A. Original floor plans with all specifications shown. B. Three sets of proposed floor plans 1/8" = 1' or larger (1/4" = l' is preferred) C. Three copies of a site plan showing existing and proposed construction. Indicate g rades r shown l a g derne athlons with existing and proposed D. Elevations of proposed addition. E. Photos of the existing structure. F. Specifications materials list for all materials and color samples on (attached) . At the request of the Zoning required to submit: A statement from each utility verifying location of service and availability. See attached utility location verification form. A site improvement survey, stamped by registered Colorado Professional Licensed surveyor. A preliminary title report, to verify ownership of property, which lists all easements. G. H. I. Administrator you may also be VII. FINAL SITE PLAN once a nuiidi.ng permit has been issued, and construction is underway, and before the op ie s of anpImprovementlLocatione a framing inspection, two cop Certificate survey (ILC) stamped by a registered professional engineer must be submitted. The following information must be provided on the ILC: A. Building locations) with ties to property corners, i.e. distances and angles. B. Building dimensions to the nearest tenth of a foot. 5 li PLANT MATERIALS: Botanical Name Common Name Quantity Size* PROPOSED TREES AND SHRUBS *Indicate caliper for deciduous trees. Minimum caliper for deciduous trees is 2 inches. Indicate height for coniferous trees. Minimum hni ght for coniferous trees is 6 feet. * *Indicate size of proposed shrubs. Minimum size of shrubs is J C allon Type � Square FoeraQe GROUND, COVERS �� �f'� � ? KAr' SOD SEED TYPE OF IRRIGATION TYPE OR METHOD OF EROSION CONTROL C. LANDSCAPE LIGHTING: If exterior lighting is proposed lease show the number of fixtures and locations on a separate lighting plan. Identify each fixture from the lighting plan in the space below and provide the height above g light proposed, lumen output, luminous area and acut� sheet of type of the light fixture. (Section 1 8.54.050 J) D. OTHER LANDSCAPE FEATURES (retaining walls, fences, swimming Pools, etc.) Please specify. Indicate heights of retaining walls. Maximum height of walls within the front setback is 3 '. Maximum height of walls elsewhere on the property is 61. UTILITY LOCATION VERIFICATION SUBDIVISION Vail Village 1st Filing JOB NAME Serrano's cantina Recon FILINGionlst LOT C BLOCK 2 ADDRESS 298 Hanson Ranch Road, Vail, Colorado The location and availability of utilities, whether they be main trunk lines or proposed lines, must be approved and verified by the following utilities for the accompanying site plan. Authorized Signature Date U.S. West Communications 1- 800 - 922 -1987 468-6860 or 949 -4530 Public Service Company 949 -578 Gary Hall Holy Cross Electric Assoc. 949-589 Ted Husky /Michael Laverty Heritage Cablevision T.V. 949-5530 14 C �vES Upper Eagle Valley Water & Sanitation District 476 -7480 Fred Haslee This form is to should berused availability ncon n conjunction with location. This plan and scheduling preparing your utility p installations. for any new construction proposal, the applicant must provide a completed utility verification form. If a utility company has concerns with the proposed construction, the utility representative should not directly on the utility verification form that there is a problem wh s c e lled needs outoinedetailvin anTattached should then be p lease keep in letter to the Town of Vail. However, p mind that it is the idenp�fiedlproblemsthe utility company to reso lve If the utility verification form has signatures from each of the utility companies, and no comments are made directly on the form, the Town will presume that there are no problems and that the development can proceed. These verifications 000btain relieve street cut contractor Of his responsibility t from th T own of V Department of Public Works and to obtain utilit' locations before the Tow and in public right-of-way or easement n �11G Vail. A building ermit is not a street cut permit. A street cut permit must be obtained separately. NOTE: 1 • 2. 3. 4. 0 TTfl��I�� 6. Installation of service lines are at responsibility of the prop the expense and Please bring a site plan, floor plan, and elevations when * Water &. Sanitation signatures. Fire obtaining Upper Eagle Valley flow needs must be addressed. ZONE CHECK Single Family OR y Residence, Duplex, Primary /Secondary ZONE DISTRICTS DATE: LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot ADDRESS: Block Subdivision OWNER PHONE ARCHITECT PHONE ZONE DISTRICT PROPOSED USE LOT SIZE BUILDABLE LOT AREA Al ---lid Existing PrO- -pOsed Total Height (30) (33) Total GRFA Primary GRFA — + 425 =_ Secondary GRFA — ---- -- + 425 =_ Setbacks Front Sides 10, -------- Rear 15 _ Site Coverage ------ Landscaping ------ Retaining Wall Heights 31/ Parking ---T —_ Regrd Garage Credit — _Encl (300) (600) (900) (1200)___ Drive: Permitted Slope Proposed Slope Complies with T.O .V. Lighting Ordinance Water Course Setback Yes No ( 3 0) (5 0 ) - ----_ Do Finish Grades Exceed 2:1 (50 %) Environmental /Hazards: YES_ N 1) Flood Plain 2) Percent Slope (< > 30 %) 3) Geologic Hazards a) Snow Avalanche b) Rockfall c) Debris Flow 4) Wetlands View Corridor Encroachment: Yes DOea No phis 1 CquC6L I"VUIve d 250 Addition? How much of the allowed 250 Addition is used with t Previous conditions Of a his request ?____ approval (check property file): 10 UTILITY LOCATION VERIFICATION SUBDIVISION Vail Village 1st Filing JOB NAME Serrano's cantina Re::. FILINGron s LOT C BLOCK 2 ADDRESS 298 Hanson Ranch Road, Vail, Colorado The location and availability of utilities; whether they be main trunk lines or proposed lines, must be approved and verified by the following utilities -for the accompanying site plan. U.S. west Communications 1-8_00-922 X68-6860 or 949 -4530 l IV Public Service Company 949-578 Gary Hall Authorized Si.gna ur LA Lc t Holy Cross Electric Assoc. 949 -589 Ted Husky /Michael Laverty Heritage Cablevision T.V. 949 - 5530 Upper Eagle Valley Water & Sanitation District 476 -7480 Fred Haslee This form is to verify hould berused anaconbj'unctionnwith location. This plan and scheduling preparing your utility p installations. )~or any new construction proposal, the applicant must provide a completed utility verification form. If a utility company has concerns with the proposed construct.ion, the utility representative should not directly on the utility verification form that there issue is a problem which needs outoinedetaresolved. l ved an T attached should then be spelled lease keep in letter to the Town of Mail. However, p mind that it responsibility Of utility company to res olve if the utility verification form has signatures from each of the utility companies, and no comments are made directly on the form, the Town will presume that there are no problems and that the development can proceed. These verifications do not relieve the contractor of his responsibility to obtain a street cut permit from th T own of Vail, Department of public works orte asementoi n tneq11VW in and to obtain utility lo of any public right-of Vail. A buildin ermit is not a street cut ermit. A street cut permit must be obtained separately. Installation of service lines are at the expense and responsibility of the property owner. NOTE: 1 - 2. 3. 4. M n * Please bring a site plan, floor plan, and elevations when Fire obtaining Upper Eagle Valley Water & Sanitation signatures. flow needs must be addressed. A •: UT's iTY LOCATION VERIFICATION gUB1�IVSSZO Vail Village 1st Filing SOB NAME serrano's cantina Recpn FILING1dn s LOT O BLACK 2 ADDRESS 298 Hanson Ranch Road, Vail, Colorado location and availability of utilitieSrovedtand verified by the The ro osed lines, must be pp trunk lines or p P in site plan. following utilities for the accompanying lute Authorized S—iMn-a U West Communications 1.800 - 19 87 468-6860 or 949.4530 Public Service Company 949 -578 Gary Hall Holy Cross Electric ASSOC .ff 949-58 Ted Husky /Michael Laverty Heritage Cablevision T.V. 949 - 5530 Upper Eagle Valley water & Sanitation District 476 -7480 Fred Haslee ility This form is to verify Se v in con rice ajunctionnv�ith location. This should Preparing your utility Plan and scheduling installations. 'For any new construction proposal, the applicant must provide a completed utility Verification form. If a utility company has concerns with the proposed construction, the utility representative should not directly on the utility verification farm that there is a problem which needs to be resolved, The issue should then be spelled Out �pleasetkeepedn Letter to the Town Of Va il. mind that it is the rerstponsibility Omsth2 utility company to resolve x if the utility verification form has signatures from commen each of the utility companies, and n will presume made directly on the form, the that there are no problems and that the development can proceed. These verifications dono�inealstreete cut n of permit his responsibility to, o from the 'own of Vail, Departmen befozeudi1Cina in and to obtain util or easement in the Town of an y public right•of cu t permilt Vail. A bui3din unit is ned st A street cut permi must be NOTE: 1. 3. 4. 5, 6, Installation of service lines are at the expense and responsibility of 'the property owner. * Please bring a site plan, floor plan, and elevations when Fire obtaining Upper Eagle Val Yater & Sanitation signatures. flow needs must be addressed. W l �-►- A-r- — JpO LA- &jb54Midj � , �� &jD �/cCL UTILITY LOCATION VERIFICATION SUBDIVISI JOB NAME _ LOT C va;l Village 1st Filing econstruction FILING _ s gg Hanson Ranch Road, Vail, Colorado ADDRESS main The location and availability line f approved whether , must and trunk lines or propos ed site plan. following utilities for the accompanying Authorized Sianature u.s. West Communications 1- 800 - 922 -1987 468-6860 or 949 -4530 Public Service Company 949-578 Gary Hall Hol Cross Electric Assoc- they be verified by the Date Y 949-589 Ted Husky /Michael Laverty � 7GZ Sn5-fu lla-�� Qe�u ;�ne.r� {�cQ�oo� Heritage r tage Cablevision T.V. P 949-5530 M�R� C,RFovES Upper Eagle Valley Water & Sanitation District 476 -7480 Fred Haslee NOTE: 1. This form is to veri se inaconbj'unctionnwith location. This should plan and scheduling preparing your utility p installations. 2. 3. 4. 5. BLOCK i?or any new construction proposal, the applicant must provide a completed utility verification form• has concerns with the proposed If a utility company r construction, the u tility representative should not directly on the utility verification form that there is a problem whicdoutoiedetailvin an attached n attached should then be sp elled lease keep in letter to the Town of flail. However, P mind that it is the responsibility of the utility company to resolve identified problems. If the utility verification form has signatures from each of the utility companies, and no comments are made directly on the form, the Town will presume that there are no problems and that the development can proceed. These verifications do not relieve the contractor his responsibility r of to obtain a street cut p from th T own of V Department of Public Works and to obtain utility locations before dhaaT any public ermit. c right -of -way or easement in the Vail. A c right ermit is not a street cut A street cut permit must be obtained separately. service lines are at the expense and of the property owner. 6, installation of responsibility Please bring a site plan, floor plan, and elevations when obtaining upper Fire * er Eagle Valley Water & Sanitation signatures. flow needs must be addressed. 1 UTILITY LOCATION VERIFICATION Vail Village 1st Filing on SUBDIVISI0 JOB NAME Serrano's cantina Rec FILINGion st LOT C BLOCK 2 ADDRESS 298 Hanson Ranch Road, Vail, Colorado n The location and availability of utilitiesi whether trunk lines or proposed lines, must be ap site plan. following utilities for the accompanying Authorized Signature U.S. West Communications 1-800-922 468 -6860 or 949 -4530 Public Service Company 949 -5781 Gary Hall Holy Cross Electric Assoc. 949 -5892 Ted Husky /Michael Laverty Heritage Cablevision T.V. 949 - 5530 M� FIVES Upper Eagle Valley Water & Sanitation District 476 -7480 Fred Haslee a_ Date \ —31-CV5 verify service availability and should be used in conjunction with utility plan and scheduling NOTE: 1. This form is to location. This preparing your installations. 2, r~or any new construction proposal, the applicant must provide a completed utility verification form. 3, if a utility company has concerns with the proposed construction, the utility representative should not directly on the utility verification form that there is a problem which needs to be resolved. The issue should then be spelled out in detail in an attache l etter to the Town of 'Vail. However, mind that it is the responsibility of the utility company to resolve identified problems. 4, if the utility verification form has signatures from each of the utility companies, and no comments are made directly there no on t l presume that problems and that the development can proceed. 5. These verifications 000btain relieve street cut contractor of his responsibility t from th Town of Vail, Department of Public Works and to obtain utility locations before digging in any pub right-of -way or ease in the Tow of Vail. A build permit is not a street cut per mit. A street cut permit must be obtained separately 6. Installation of service lines are at the expense and responsibility of 'the property owner. they be mai verified by the * Please bring a site plan, floor plan, and elevations when obtaining Upper Eagle Valley Water & Sanitation signatures. Fire flow needs must be addressed. � � a �4 UTILITY LOCATION 'VERIFICATION SuBDZVxSIO`T Vail Village 1st Filing JOB NAME Serrana's cantina Recon F ion ILING s LOT G BLOCK Z - ADDRESS 298 Hanson Ranch Road, Vaj.l, colorado Th6 location and availability of utilities' whether trunk lines Or u tilities e a iesfor theaccompanying following site plan. following 1 �! Authorized Sj.crn U.S. Wes t con=unica tions 1- 800-922 - 19 87 468 -6560 or 949 -4530 Public Service Company 949 Gary Hall pate 949 -5892 T Husky /Michael Laverty Heri-tage Cablevision T.V. 949.5530 Holy Cross Electric Assoc- Upper Eagle Valley water a Sanitat District 476 -7480 Fred Haslee NOTE 1. This form is to verify service availability and location. This should be used in conjunction With preparing your utility plan and scheduling installations. 2. for any' new construction Proposal' the applicant • must provide a completed utility verification form 3. if a- utility company has concerns with the proposed construction, the utility representative should not directly on the utility verification farm that there is a problem which sp i onedetailvin an`Iattached should then be p l keep in letter to the Town of 'Vail- However, p mind that it isheirespo sibility Ofsthe utility company to reso 4, If the utility verification form has signatures fzam each._oE the utility companies, and no comments ar. -- made directly 'an the form, tie Town..wi:1 presume that there are no problems and that the development can proceed. ntractor of M These verifications do not relieve the co Perm his r Town OftVail , o btain Department Public from the Town and to obtain unlit locations before dz in zn any public right -oft itoiseasemanstreet h o cutp rmi Vail, A buildin A street cut permit must be obtained separately• are at the e:tpense and owner. 6. O f respons ibility o f t ` he p lan, floor plan, and elevations when * site p natures, Fire please bri ng a obta i n ing Upper Eagle Valley Water & Sanitation sig natures, flow needs must be addressed. they be main verified by the TOTAL PAGE . t =..101 Nib � � _ N - I m o Y80 SO DAd.SI U ZZ NON O > ♦ a_mm J O I I° I U g m Z W W .9-.09 U - �p N ao ro ao m a 1 - Z 2 K 3> F. Q a o / co Q I . 00 > I > > U ' OWNZ N \ Q O N N �» m ° �b6 I O Ztn ` -+ O�Of 0 ' O / O N a� ¢1 00 O m Z \. 4 <I ,om N d w ° _V r oNZ�n3 33ZZ " � x2 1 ZZZ hn Y mao 0 1bg DIP` \ !/. o0 / 3�G IG n tD o 3 N N ��• I d U h- > In Q1 h r- Sj \ INp x » • . Q � g °N O I `�� rmi /�- �n 4/ zz � U c>> w W '�' I p > <•O y� � .r! m o � � ^ �� co OmN (O o � DJ L mNN t7 oe '° m r8 oNm �f m �'b� 6 , bQ\G d• . nN \ •, ------�o 3 - -�`' oo I ;1>> m :�\ ' n �1Z ) r7 z z o 0 -_ c ♦ p O ' DI g i Y nj '7 > > aLl ( ID g frl O - mW , 0 I Y y � '•� z w o N 3 w O ♦ N x 2>> O n _ x» 1 z o M 1 cD O ro NN I N V d f 0.0 12Z m � t0 I 1 oro°o n Ov 3 Z �rr�� Z LLJ LL lJ M mw3 �u M oNN O Q __zz r o I I i �z N n W .n N N 01--) o do h i N _ " - > Nl o I �.� • 9 ' , S ll m \ °v v ^•� I W 0 o .. t �� O ,onmm XSO o `o p U°°m �� z c �. / � V. \ 8 m / ° x Z d/J 9 N pm3w •/ Z c0 C.).. I om3z 1 ' ' NN N x1>> N > / _ 2 LA 1 K m U p ° o �p CD W 00 ° , d Q I `O > S u .°' ,�i _ 18 . 8 N Q g no U Q N N N2 - N O N N I I > N I GE S �� u . 0 m o n` n o N m LlJ CD >. G 'b 'O O G y �'�C p W g •a M� �° W = oM, nmro o3N 1 �. .- 't 0L CD� R G d ozw 2Z O p N o g � . ++ u Z W x z z •� C w t 'b .� _ C -4 K O m ao d v u M u r, '� G '� •^ O 'O K x 1> - o 1 - z > e ~o °' 5 d o L 'C r C 'G J .,� IC C. '� P. �, i.. O O O ^ 1z �'°� 'v 0 N om3 x» 5.d�.L LL_ a) w v aO >,.� A.•� v m� g ao3w I 1 > 1zz 1r �'C w b • r�. N w r Q N u t >> p = 1 ;� j z in v y :d Gn O P," u `" ca p v m - 1 z z m N a •G •- b , [ ro N ° Y V� W M R y V O a •~ y G 23 w 6 �� L g eo3w GD 0. Q V r. p K d ° S A V E cD 7 Q cr G °D � G W O lj LL. m o v� o m O V '^ n• C O C v v N C. a0 ` 8 `� N o no� e�'>� �.K T o.0 0.0 F' •i. tC O� cn > � m 3 � z2 t v EXHIBIT A Chart 1 -- Floor Area W Commercial Comm °� Area Office Restaurant GRFA 3,268 sq. ft. 837.5 sq. ft. Basement --- 3,371.5 sq. ft. 312.5 + 316.5 -- 1 st -` 3,355.5 sq. ft. 309+233 --- 2nd --- 778 sq. ft. 788 sq. ft. - -- 3rd 2,228 sq. ft. - -- 41h 1,341=s . ft - 52 +67 2,905.5 sq. ft. 788 sq. ft. 3,355.5 sq. ft. 3,569 sq. ft. 6,639.5 sq. ft. Chart 2 -- Parking Commercial common Area Office Restaurant GRFA 788/250 3,029.5/15/8 3,569 sq. ft. 6,639.5/300 0 3.2 spaces 25.2 spaces 2.5 spaces 22.1 spaces Total: 55.2 W 11 J -Ir N p C7 G' m (D -1 o w :3 (D N -n w o m �. °.D o ° ° a a n > 3 v F aw w n 7 (n w < c° N O m o ° a (D c D _ - 0 3 x o m m 9' Z c° -0 w m N 6 � (o Q CD ? c) u' (n G (D w w 0 N O A 3 D �' wo w m CD °'3 Z C) c m w w r "� W p J� 6 D o o r- w o U) 7 w r v 'p m C � m 1° � (T 1 o ° ° w O m a 1 n O O m a c CO ° 'o 71 CD wo �.a (n N <" m ( D< 0 s m-0 N w. w n w o ° m, w. m co ° F °< m c n s m W ? j F > n > < �N. w o �w �w om m m w a 0 �= n m � m E - . (n AO Q. w , c (D °' ° C (D 0 (CD m N CD (D c s C < w p ° 77 - p m N < w w _ = = m w v y =5 w =3 N (f1 CF w w w CD 77 m S D N O' C CD m (� ° a o n. c w m s a C m N, 6 - v o, CD n O o o mcn3 oX m C (D O 0 0 W <D + w N 9 O w U� � o N w N 0_ l O m 0 co m w C O A w 3 3 '0 N N (D (D -p w N N cn w m (D N N w (D a N N O O (D 7 m =r O_ W m O CD Cn N 1p 9 J � CD N 0 ( D J co A _ (p <, 0 x o N o :3 < w 0 N S CD U3 (.+ Q N O S w o a m u °- CD C CD CD m _ N Ul W A 3 w CD 5 N N F� (D o c c � a n. � D - s m _ 3 gm(nZ A om �m N Z O Q W m n 3 O w W N O_ _(D (P O N N (n J 1 N O co w O 7 w w (D (o �Q N R? N a co v 1 `G A O W ° O <n w n N J m w 7 :3 0 O o J J (P m w w CD m d (D J (,D N W (D O_ O (D (n n " w O 7 U7 pD Ln 9 �' A w W O � S O N (D c N A O �% �' O 1 W W (D.1 p> (n N N (D (D 0 00 1 W O (D m m Co m D N 4 O O J - J (� O (n �' ° "O (n m C C O 07 0 0 °w m m C (D n U, c 3 m 3 CD CD am m -° (° 3 m N N ZI m m w o 3 x o a o O O < N Q( NC N �w a N --4 U, O° �D m 9 o° T w ° s Q a (D o o a D T 3 w m N <' Z (D w 7 x, O 'J J (''D S m 0 m N MORRIS January 16, 1995 Mr, Chris Ryman Senior Vice President Vail Associates, Inc. Mr, James S. Mandel SENT VIA FACSIMILE AND HARD Copy Senior Vice President Vail Associates, Inc. Ms, Gerry Arnold Paralegal Vail Associates, Inc. Gentlepersons: There seems to be some confusion and miscommunication s urro u nd i n g osed l improvements on ti portion i of with the Town of Vail regarding who is paying for the proposed p ing, in order to Tract E that lies directly East and South, and adja s ro ° the } Va 1 Associatesaetter of November further clarify any confusion, I would refer all part 04, 1994, bottom of page one and top of page two which states: or "Vail Associates will not be responsible including without limitation otherwise, related to the Redevelopment on the VA land of application, review process, construction permitting and physical constructia«." There is no question that the above currently represents my unde rstan d in g of to contact n t at Further if I can provide any assistance in clarifying this issue, p lease f ee l (3034 -0252. Si Olenn M, Heelan President cc Victor Mark Donaldson Andy Knutson Bill Whiteford W 303476 -7100 s 298 Hanson Ranch-Road • Vail, Colorado 81657 ten. 23. 1995 2:2jpU V. k LRG kt CePT, FED h 8 IWN6 Vail associates, Inc. , x . . . 1 ; ;� . � . +.r . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . lZmary 23, 1995 UP I= rlvjfflb � Mx, Andy Kautsoo Town, of Vail Community D velopmont 75 South P=t'P Road V&R, CO 81657 Mr, Glean Heelan P. G. Box 57`70 Avon, CO 81620 Re: HxWbr 01=tkm of the Senum's Cantina bulling, Lot C, Rlmk 2, Vail. Village First Ffling (Sorrnno't). You hm rmpC4tnd tint Vail AstWWm, Inc. ( "Vail Aswciat%m) withdraw the concUms to the ippli=dW mmcatod t y Vail Aasocraica in Can!%WdM with Sarrarm's eve agmcnt which ooadhinas ware ataisd in our loner to yw datrd November 4, 1994. we = wining to do so but only in oo d=a = with tha Mr. Rmlan and the Town of Vnil emus to l lamwlydge and I&= the Vail Aetoc3stA It not an adfve particigaat in San= mdvelopment (the "RBdevrinpmmt "), and is trot almml g to ittcar any coats vwhaL%Wi r, admWsVz ive or oth=wim, tektod to the Redevelopment on the VA UM, e.g., ecubmittal of application, avow ptvicesa, =Wtjo on p=nidla8 And phy" Oonntructioa. Mr. xeeUa ead tha TM of Van acl=Wledgo and agroo thjlt an d=moat executed by Vail ASUY. a, IX,On os before tba date of tbis least in connxdon with tha Redovokvmjmt &- a not give, trizu or cadtie Mr. 8celan or the owwr of Serrmo's land or tho Town of Vail to iay kPl rights in or to the VA Land. 7ha dpi.ng of the appliaadun by Vtil Atsvciatm doss not O=sthatn tho grading of an rs4qmant, ute xtht, daifudon or othcr aacumbrwwe of tbo VA Land, 4N`.A. cr.t PO Ica 7 •1/a;l, C do • atiS! - yMM 303 476 SS01 5] e n, 23 1995 2.27N LEGAL DEPT. P. D2 A- 11 'OutmCtim o i mp , , on the VA I P• ... i• .. .• . ..• .• // ••• L. . d ft Torwa of VO .. ..r tr • it •• 1 0% xgr= to pay aftd • Y•. h xrmlcu W ftho u t /1 .t•.• 1 the / • rN .•/ •. N • i b•m • Y - • • 1 Of . k= by / . • 1 1! SusccnalY I .r. a uu • : 1 • t: •u •. . • divan Hm n m �J February 07, 1995 Mr_ Andy Knudtsen Town of Vail Community Development 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 Re: Exterior alteration of the Serrano's Cantina building, Lot C, Bock 2, Vail Village First Filing Dear Mr. Knutdsen, You have requested that we provide documentation that Serrano's, "will either be building a common wall with the Golden Peak House or has permission to encroach over the Golden Peak House property line.. prior to returning for a final hearing ". Andy, while we expect to use a "common wall" if both projects are constructed simultaneously; because Serrano's exterior alteration application has not been approved, the resulting "common wall" has not been designed. Currently, it is also not possible for us to determine whether permission for an encroachment over the Golden Peak House property line is necessary. However, I can assure you that, if a "common wall" is not possible, permission will either be obtained from the owners of the Golden Peak House, or the structure will not be built over the property line, You have also requested that we "provide signatures from the owners of the Golden Peak House if the trash room of the Golden Peak House is to be shared with the Serrano's project." Mr. Willingham and I are negotiating an agreement that will be presented to the owners of the Golden Peak House at their meeting on February 1 1, 1995. If we unable to obtain the approvals of the owners of the Golden Peak House, we would anticipate providing for trash disposal within the building envelope of Serrano's.. the above will allow us to continue in the approval process with the Town of Vail. M. Beelan cc; Mark Donaldson 303 -476 -7100 • 298 Hanson Ranch Road • Vail, Galorado 91657 ca0t{na vail Hospital P. O. Box 5770 Avon, Colorado 131620 (303) 949 - 0252 Fax: (303) 94 9- 7045 FAX TRANSMISSION COVER SKEET Date: February 7, 1995 To: Mr Andy Knudtsen Fax: 303 - 479 -2452 Subject: Your letter of Decernber 22, 1994 Sender: Glenn M. Heelan yoU SHOULD RFC;FIVL 2 PAGE(S), INCLUDING THIS COVER SW ET. IF YOU DO NOT RECLI VE ALL TI -IF PAGES, PLEASE CALL (303) 949- 0252. Andy, Per my fax of yesterday, we are drafting the letter to Clark Willingham regarding the issues addressed in your December 22, 1994 letter, just to make sure that I am covering all bases, enclosed please find a letter explaining in more detail the intents, problems, etc. Once again, I hope to have a signed letter from Clark after his Tcbruar 4 I meeting, y ou w�uld like to discuss the enclosed, please feel free to call. M. Heelan Vail ` Hospi taflyInc. P. O. Box 5770 Avon, Colorado 81620 (303) 949- 0252 Far: (303) 949 -7045 FAX TRANSMISSION COVER SHEET Date: February 6, 1995 To: Mr.. ,Andy Knuduen Fax: 479 -2452 Subject: Mivc re Serrano's redevelopment Sender: Glenn kf. I';f'eelan YOU SHOULD RF.CEIV1;' 1 PAGE(S), INCLUDING TIKS COVER SIIEET rr YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL TIIE PAGES, PLEASE CALL (303) 949 - 0252. Dear Andy, (1) It has been brought to m attention that Jeff Winston has billed the Town of Vail $810.05 for services relating to the Serrano's exterior alt application. Could You please have Mr. Winston prepare a separate bill for Vail Hospitality Group, Inc. dba. Serrano's for the specific services he perfonaned and I will see that he get's paid gUickly? Thank YOU for yaur help in this matter. (2) Clark Willingham and I have discussed the requirements of your letter of December 22, 1994 as it regards the issues relating to the Gold peak Mouse redevelopment. it is my understanding that you have discussed the issues with John Martin and have agreed that. a letter vAth both Clark's and mfr signature will suffice for the purposes of the February 13, 1995 PEC hearing. Assuming this is correct, I have requested. that Bill post prepare such a letter for Clarks review and presentation at the Gold Peak House Condominium Association meeting that is to take place oil February. 11, 1995, . 1 would expect to have a signed copy of the letter for you on the mo reing of February 13, 1995. (3) This afternoon, a representative of my office will deliver an executed "hard copy" of the letter from Vail .Associates regarding the Tract E improvements. I hope this is everything you need. If there are any other outstanding issues you need to discuss with me, please feel free to call rile at 949 -6277. M. Heelan cc: Mark Donaldson Vail HosGroup, Inc. 1' O. Box 5770 Avon, Colorado 81620 (303) 949- 0252 Fax: (303) 949 -7045 FAX TRANSMISSION COVER SI-1E Date: January 31, 1995 To: Mr. Aju!y Knutson Fax. 303-479--2157 Subject: Your letter of December 22, 1994 Sender: Glenn M_ .Heelan YOU SHOULD RECEIVE 3 PAGE(S), INCLUDING THIS COVER SHEET IF YOU DO NOT 11ECEIVI= ALL T14 PAGES, PLIASF C ALL (303) 949- 0252. Dear Andy, Enclosed please find an executed copy of the letter from Vail Associates, Inc. It is my understanding that this letter is part of the requirements of item # 1 of your letter to Marls Donaldson on December 22, 1994. If you need further clarification or additional information, please feel free to give me a &ff n l M. I Yeelan Jan, 211995 2:21Pif V. A LHAL O$PT, 40.0915 P, 3 Vail A locilto, Yoe "724"'1 ♦ . . • . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . �: . . . . . . . . baaa" Z 1993 • VM VIAND DMIVW Tbwtlt of Van C==Uft Dn*ptw 75 Rauh v Rxd Vail, Co 81657 UX. Glow Beebn P. MIX sm Avila, CO 81B?0 Ito. 1abrim siasaft of ft 9eeeuap'a Cattier bust, Lot C. AWt 2, WU VmAP Pt* Pft 0. You bm r ggmbd fiat VrA AMOWn, I=. ("VIX Amod"o) mrittrd> m dm ooadidm to ft gVIcitil a eamostod by VAN Auod" in and moctIM w$h ,somm's rtl bw1apacaat wbbb boadlmu weep #mud i>a ow Idwr to ova damd November 4, 1904. We am wimet to do an bt 0* is caada umm with tt* �/�.11tir�M int: lift. HeeM m W tlaa Tom of VAR omatllQpa W VAWwk dpe and " thAt VNit AAmeift' Is wt an a** pudcipw t in tieasoo's re&mw <opmsat Me '8- 8evalopeatmw), sM is 00 p mn lr aq ants wh w "W, or otbeew* esw d to by la rdopweert m the VA Laid, ap., mftltw of sa*mdm, md w pmw% aftwoom peamiulos OW phir*d aom"'odoa. Mr. Ebokm aad the Tg n of Vdi @Obun * amd N' doebam t aMattted br Vail Aaoelabes, lgO�Ofl Qr bad'ea the drtmo a� this bdMot is �ootioroc wrltf► tbs �ade�►aigppnt does 94 &4 b=A%s ear emlale U1. HSOUM 0 flab o aer a de2e's bmd m"7brn & V& to sml loo tltbb in or to fa VA Lod. TM dpsi w of the NOIOW= by V ats AsMcisosc disa nt emoftota We VAPOR E of in andonsm aft 4t **oft or ntLer eocumboueoe of the VA Y gad. �w n . . PC &a 7 . WIL warade . flow - ,hero 4m So 21 1995 2,27 � LRGAI DEPT. x 0. 0915 P. f , 02 1�7 Pdm t4 tba oomitcuW= of bNpWvtuwb ob dw VA Lod, Vail Altdoolaw I mua oppnft su pevposfld it wanads an ft VA Lvd, .vhdh= yrop*W by the ddvaww *A Town at Vail o: O*W*im W. iioclan aed Ifirsm R. P+tls, u ownar of Sett =tg JA " to pay AM IM and hmoid Vdl Awxldm hmmlas from AU Iiabllity, d=WA, Dow toad amu mos ro oft to o: is oenm am v th ft xmkvclopmeot, iocl>uling WW Mt lam, the Wwmvem ft to ba cmftdod on ttse VA LtW. ACM UM of thlti IOW by the TM of VSU " oonStuW tbo Tawn of VIR'S q mm wt Nish do wtciee+q add it In this kttw. If dm WMA of ft Itow saes roaoptibfa to Mr. aw ka u develops mad un. PAM u wow of ft Id. pbm sin bolow u Wk�ed. may. Ice* Am 41M b tba WW kno Id f o"A AKM. 4 �tf�. r �'- ai95 bomi 303/949 -5200 FAX/949 -5205 -- VICTOR MARK DONALDSON ARCHITECTS, P.C. ARCHITECTURE • PLANNING • INTERIORS Box 5300 • Avon, Colorado 81620 January 23, 1994 Attn: Mr. Andy Knudtsen Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO. 81657 Re: Serrano's cantina Reconstruction Resubmittal for PEC Review Dear Andy, fi �.:) r JAN 2 3 1995 Tt�V • Comm , 6�V. DEpT. The attached documentation represents our resubmittal to our 'Application for Exterior Alterations' for PEC review. Please let us know if you need any additional information in order to be placed on the Feb. 2, 1995 PEC agenda for final review. The items contained in this resbmittal are keyed to your letter dated December 22, 1994 and are as follows: Item 1. At this time, the applicant has provided a signed application from Vail Associates with several conditions. Vail Associates is required to provide their consent for the improvements on the Mill Creek stream tract. At this time, Vail Associates owns this land. Prior to scheduling this project for a final hearing at the PEC, staff is requiring that a revised letter from Vail Associates be provided deleting all conditions. The applicant must also provide documentation listing all off -site improvements, approxiamate cost, and the individuals responsible for the funnding these improvements. Response Item 1. (a) We are awaiting the consent letter from Mr. Jim Mandel with Vail Associates, Inc. A copy of the letter will be forthcoming to Town of Vail. (b) Cost estimates for off -site improvements are currently being worked on. Upon completion of estimates, copies will be made available to Town of Vail and Vail Associates for their review. We are anticipating off -site improvements, including utility relocations and landscaping to be in the range of $75,000 - $100,000. These expenses for off -site improvements will be by the developer. Item 2. Prior to returning for a final hearing, the applicant shall provide documentation from the surveyor that all of the proposed construction is outside all Town adopted view corridors. View #1 and #4 must be reviewed in detail by a surveyor. Response Item 2. Please find attached with this submittal, letter and drawings prepared by Inter - Mountain Engineering showing that the proposed construction is outside all Town adopted view corridors. Item 3. Staffs review of the project shows that the drawings include excavation in the floodplain. If the applicant would like to propose a modification to the floodplain, a complete application must by submitted and the Federal review process should be initiated. If that is not the applicant's desire, all drawings must be amended to show that excavation will not occur in the floodplain. Response Item 3. Please find attached with this submittal, information from Inter - Mountain Engineering with respect to floodplain. Item 4. Staff needs to verify that the applicant will either be building a common wall with the Golden Peak House or has permission to encroach over the Golden Peak House property line. Documentation for either proposal must be provided prior to returning to a final hearing. Response Item 4. We have discussed this issue with Mr. Clark Willingham, the developer of the Golden Peak House. We are to provide an agreement to Mr. Willingham prior to February 11, when he holds his owner's meeting. We would expect a signed agreement on February 12, 1995. Item 5. The applicant shall provide signatures from the owners of the Golden Peak House if the trash room of the Golden Peak House is to be shared with the Serrano's project. If the applicants continue to propose a walkway on the south side of the building, the applicants must provide the signature of the Owner of the golden Peak House. The grades in this location may not allow a connection to the Golden Peak House, depending on how the applicant revises the grades within the floodplain. Response Item 5. Same intent and schedule as above Item 4 Item 6. The applicant shall provide three dimensional site staking of the development proposal for the next PEC hearing, whether that is a worksession or a final hearing. Response Item 6. Victor Mark Donaldson Architects shall verify and coordinate the requirements for the three dimensional site staking with the Town of Vail. Item 7. The applicant shall provide complete drawings of the revised proposal, including all elevations, all floor plans, sun /shade drawing, site plan, vicinity plan (showing the Golden Peak House), landscape plan, survey (based on USGS), and roof plan (showing USGS ridge elevations). Response Item 7. Please find included with this submittal all requested drawings. Item 8. The applicant shall provide a written response to the Fire, Public Works, and Town Landscape Architect comments about the proposal (please see attached sheets). Response Item 8. Please find attached Written Response to Fire, Public Works, and Town Landscape Architect Comments. Item 9. The applicant shall provide an updated model two weeks prior to the hearing. Response Item 9. Model will be provided as requested. .._., As stated in our original Application, dated Sept, 23, 1994, it is our intention to meet the goals and objectives of the Exterior Alterations process. We will provide any additional information that you and your staff may request upon review and will continue to evolve our design to the best of our abilities with the various input we receive along the way. Please contact my office for any clarifications or requests for additional information as you may so desire. Myself and my staff will be pleased to assist you in these endeavors. R pectf S mitted, or onaldson, AIA President VICTOR MARK DONALDSON ARCHITECTS, P.C. en: As outlined above. Copy letter to Mr. Chris Ryman, Vail Associate, Inc., dated January 16, 1995. 303/949 -5200 FAX/949 -5205 -- VI CTOR MARK DONALDSON ARCHITECTS, P.C. ARCHITECTURE • PLANNING • INTERIORS Box 5300 • Avon, Colorado 81620 January 19, 1995 SERRANO'S cantina Written Response to Fire, Public Works, and Town Landscape Architect Comments Fire - Jeff Atencio Comment - 1. The nature of the project, size, scope, and location will require close coordination with the Gold Peak House redevelopment, if it goes forward. Comment - 2. Specifically, the timing of the demolition and construction needs to be reviewed in conjunction with the Gold Peak House project. Response to 1. and 2. above - Coordination between the Serrano's cantina and Golden Peak House project is currently in the process with the Owners and Architects. This includes, but is not limited to, selection of General Ccontractors, shared services, and coordination of finishes and design between the two projects. Comment - 3. Construction staging areas should be disclosed. Comment - 4. Potential road closures should be disclosed so alternative access routes to the village core can be worked out. There may be significant restrictions needed re: delivery trucks, trash trucks, and emergency access. Response to 3. and 4. above - Will coordinate with Golden Peak House project, Vail Associates, Inc., Town of Vail, and Fire Department. Comment - 5. The proponent has indicated their intent to use wood shake shingles on the roof. The Fire Department Strongly opposes the use of wood shakes in the Village Core.... Response to 5. - All wood shake shingles have been removed and replaced with tar and gravel roofing. Comment - 6. The application indicates the desire to install bicycle racks on the south side of Serrano's. The racks are not shown on any of the site plans. There can be no encroachment or obstructions within the required 20 foot fire access on Hanson Ranch Road. Response to 6. - Any Town of Vail approved bicycle rack will be located out of any required fire access route. Location will be coordinated with Town of Vail and Fire Department. None are being requested at this time. Comment - 7 Response to 7. - ,,_ The Site Plan (Sheet A -2) does not show the usual collection of awnings, tables, chairs, menu boards, and similar encroachments into Hanson Ranch Road, placed there by tenants of the Red Lion Building. Are we going to eliminate such uses. Such uses as described above planned to be minimized on Hanson Ranch Road. No encroachments will be within any required fire access route. Comment - 8. According to the plans, the site coverage (landscaping) extends into the Public Right of Way on Hanson Ranch Road. A road width of 20 feet is enough to allow the Fire Department to drive through the space between Serrano "s and the Red Lion, but would not allow us enough room to set up a ladder truck for either building nor enough width to connect the hose from the hydrant to a pumper truck. Set -up width needs to be a minimum of 31 feet. Response to 8. - Refer to revised Site Plan, Sheet A -1, dated 1 -23 -95 for site coverage extending into the Public Right of Way. Landscaping has been reduced from the Public Right of Way and minimum set -up widths should be available. Comment - 9. The freight elevator appears to be intended for trash removal. There does not appear to be any defined "loading zone" to facilitate trash pick up and deliveries. Response to 9. - Vehicle penetration will be able to utilize the service and delivery policies currently in effect within this area of Vail Village. Comment - 10. Sheet A -6 and A -7 appear to lack second exits. Response to 10. The Third and Fourth levels will have second exits provided. Refer to Third and Fourth Level Floor Plans. Public Works - Todd Oppenheimer Comment - 1. Provide new topographic maps tied to USGS datum. Extend existing contours to west behind Golden Peak House to show where existing and proposed contours connect. Response to 1. - Refer to Topographic Map, Sheet 1 of 1, dated 12 -16 -94 and Site Plan, Sheet A -1, dated 1- 23 -95. Elevations are tied to USGS datum. Comment - 2. /have several concerns regarding the development proposed in the stream tract. These are as follows: a. Applicant is using the stream tract as public right -of -way to access commercial space. Access should be pulled back inside of property line. Perhaps the structure could overhang a walkway similar to the buildings on Wall Street. Response to 2. - The required square footage to make this project feasible does not allow for access to be pulled back inside of property lines or for overhung walkways. The walkway has been increased in width (8' min.). Coordination and review with The Vail Corporation, owners of Tract 'E', is taking place. `4 Comment - 3. The design of the deck on the November 17, 1994 submittal is much better than the November 7, 1994 submittal. The earlier submittal created too much of a restriction of Hanson Ranch Road. The street improvements shown directly across Ted Kindel Park should be redesigned. The applicant should survey the park improvements and design to them. Response to 3. - The park improvements will be surveyed and incorporated into our design where appropriate. Comment - 4. Town of Vail staff should discuss relocation of electrical transformers with Holy Cross Electric.... Response to 4. - No response required. Comment - 5. Rework grading at the "existing trees to remain" on the south and east sides of the building. The grades at each of the two trees to be saved is being cut about three feet. Rework grades to match existing at a distance equal to 12 - inch radius per inch of trunk diameter from the trunk. The applicant should make an effort to save or move the existing trees. Most are being disturbed due to the walkway on the stream tract. Refer to comment 2.a. Response to 5. - Refer to revised Site Plan, Sheet A -1, dated 1- 23 -95, for revised grading along stream tract. For the most part, grading along stream tract has remained unchanged as has existing trees. Our intent is to relocate trees affect by grading. Comment - 6. The planting plan should include the use of flowers (annuals and /or perennial). Currently, the plan includes only junipers and dogwoods for ornamental plantings. The applicant should put more effort into planting design and resubmit. Response to 6. - As stated in our Application for Exterior Alterations, "annual flowers in planter and window boxes and accent lighting around the structure will provide excitement which departs pleasantly from the stronger architectural materials and massing." "The use of planters as a building border will allow for an appealing transition from native to formal landscape experience for the pedestrian." The use of flowers is planned for. Comment - 7. The work proposed for the stream tract should be reviewed and signed off on by a hydraulic engineer. Proposed fills could cause changes to the flood plain upstream and downstream of the site. Proposed cuts could allow flood water to reach the building where it cannot do so at this time. The tall boulder retaining wall downstream from the bike bridge could deflect high flows and cause erosion on the opposite bank. Improvements /modifications to both sides of stream may be needed. Response to 7. - Inter- Mountain Engineering Ltd. is currently in the process of doing a study in regards to the effect this project will have on the flood plain. Refer to revised Site Plan, Sheet A -1, dated 1 -23 -95 for improvements /modifications made to plan. Town Landscape Architect - Greg Hall Comment - 1. Benchmark must be tied to USGS. Comment - 2. Provide flood plain determination based on USGS elevations. Response to 1. and 2. above- Refer to Response to 1., Public Works, above. Comment - 3. There is grading in the flood plain, most concerned about fill in flood plain. Response to 3. - Refer to Response to 7., Public Works, above. Comment - 4. Encroachment in to street unacceptable, not appropriate, makes area underneath dark, dining deck is shaded, appears to not blend well with Golden Peak House approval or streetscape. Any work required in TOV property or adjacent to TOV facilities / bike path will require complete engineered plans being approved, with spot elevations, profiles etc. prior to issuance of any building permits. Response to 4. - Refer to revised plans showing redesign of items mentioned above. Encroachment on to street is reduced and decks have been redesigned. Comment - 5. Great concern on staging. Response to 5. - Refer to Response to 3. and 4., Fire, above. Comment - 6. Concern on lack of loading area, may need tight restrictions on loading. Response to 6. - Refer to Response to 9., Fire, above. Comment - 7. Double trails near stream redundant. Response to 7. - Double trail eliminated, refer to revised Site Plan, Sheet A -1, dated 1- 23 -95. Comment - 8. Any walks to be heated? Response to 8. - The issue of snowmelt is currently being studied. The current thinking is that the north elevation walk will probably be heated. Comment - 9. Snow storage a concern if not decks especially. Response to 9. - Snow removal and storage will be coordinated with Town of Vail policy. Comment - 10. Grading and landscaping near bike path need to provide a clear zone of 2 - 4' min. Response to 10. - Refer to revised Site Plan, Sheet A -2, dated 1- 23 -95. Comment - 11. Drainage of roofs, decks and walks a concern, will need to be addressed. (Piped to storm sewer or creek with filter system). Response to 11. - Working with Inter - Mountain Engineering for a approved method. Comment - 12. Should make Hanson Ranch bridge railing and adjacent area similar to north side just complete. Response to 12. - Refer to Response to 3., Public Works, above. Comment - 13. Response to 13. - Comment - 14. Response to 14. - Comment - 15. Response to 15. Comment - 16. Response to 16. - Comment - 17. Response to 17. - Maybe enhance bike path bridge as new entry from Gold Peak. Not presently planned. A third bridge as staff suggests is redundant. A third bridge is not planned. Elevations don't show stair tower or elevator. Refer to revised elevations. Will need snow guards to keep snow from falling off walks onto streets and sidewalks. Will research snow guards when project advances to Construction Documents. Appears building is maxed out, and they use other people's property for landscaping, site circulation, trash and loading. For this privilege, significant improvements to these areas should be required. Coordination between the Serrano's cantina, Golden Peak House project, and Vail Associates is in the process with regard to landscaping, site circulation, trash and loading. It is anticipated that a significant dollar amount with regard to site improvements will be made to the adjoining Tract'E' parcel. These are Improvements that the Serrano's cantina development project will bear the cost for. 0 A Inter - Mountain Engineering Ltd. January 23, 1995 Mr. Mark Donaldson Victor Mark Donaldson Architects, P.C. Post Office Box 5300 Avon, CO 81620 RE: Town of Vail View Corridors, Serrano's Reconstruction Dear Mr. Donaldson: We have completed the requested view corridor analysis of the proposed development at Serrano's and confirmed that the building lies outside of all corridors as described in the Town of Vail Zoning Code, chapter 18.73, dated 9/29/92. This is based on the proposed site location, a first floor construction elevation of 8176 (USGS) , and a maximum building height of 43 feet, as indicated on the plans. The view corridors requiring analysis were numbers 1, 2 and 4. Corridor numbers 5 and 6 are located south and east of the proposed development and look east, as seen from the photographs, and do not cross the site. For corridor numbers 1, 2 and 4, a 3 dimensional model of each corridor was constructed. These views were inserted at their appropriate viewpoint locations, incorporating the rod height described in the zoning code. Subsequently, a 3 dimensional model of the proposed Serrano's Cantina was drawn indicating the maximum 43' ridge height. At this point it was determined that view corridor numbers 2 and 4 did not intersect the proposed building horizontally, so vertical sections were not necessary (see plan sheet) . Sections of view corridor number 1 were then constructed on the North and West side indicating the clearance between the view corridor and the proposed building. To provide visual clarity, the building elevations were then inserted in each section view. Included with this submittal are copies of the Town of Vail's view corridor pictures and a graphical display of the view corridor analysis. Sincerely, Stephen H. Blake 77 Metcalf Road, #200 • Box 978 • Avon, Colorado 81620 • Phone: 949 -5072 • From Denver Direct: 893 -1531 1420 Vance Street • Lakewood, Colorado 80215 • Phone: 232 -0158 % �}ti � J ' .. , l � \. ,. •fit ._ � r � • I ' err �` !� a v / _ .4 ` •r + r+ r r � r �• ti r . . �' fir � : � � • � � • rM: � • ���°� r �l , ti� �, � � �)r...N4�"d 1,• Ate �► 1 rn " \ �tt \� Ni k e Irk O IN k e rr KAHN • 1r; prim,-, � \�I 1 { �II r r J �'�'TM#*�.�r r - �T��•+� -•r., � �. {, i. .' �,+ `,•� '+.• .!}l. �„� S 1;'47 W.C; „ y i k P- A AM 4 '# X4,1; •`r ,,,,, � if j - .� ����� „TD+ cam`:! ! pul INK ww' 2 K , Y' t `! ar �t � i • ;I R ory yI 1 1 � I 1 ! � t: � Fir �r1.� ����il 1 � r �.� ,'i�r?• >(�� ,�I� � i� r .... � �. I "S 7�p• ,MFR, � T TM< �•���. � t .. ...—._ .. ',> r ' © in�/ ' .`"'•.. f -, i ; � t a � � ' r ray ti n. ;;ty � J ,. -_ � 'I ,'�wi L," ,1c � � C)Wi+.arvn.8w i� •� V , f 1 � 0 t - �~ ._ �.h a - , �:; wy. s • � � - ! .. .7 as r ,,, Yx r�"'1 r t r`� "n �G,���•p r +bt � ' � j�, �y�,t�� ��t *� ��+F { S { � ' 1 ..:',t�,.++u !M , ,� r k ♦1•f /+q` w,.rt`-iY'^YM +aN N 1a , h �. _ _ y_C•e ' ... .. ,,.,. ,.«.,. .. 1. .. ... � .. ,. _ � _ _s +_ _., ., i •i� /. +� � .' + I.''A r /��r ,. r•' � ` � } r µ t.r�4 � r , . 1 IM 1 A � 1 � •. i� r T � !r f " h � �C ms's � p i .Y r . � �_ ..w d'w , � r + ;DVS/ y,• �� ? K 1z: °�F yr , .. � / -, r _` ` +�A�`1,, 'ti ilr , Y,, " /' { t' A + �r�, r 4, . , Sc� + '�i"���, r ,! r �1 'Y'ti " y � id , � •f r �• t .'X a tt 1N MY '1 l,ti V.a ;yl, ♦��.'k �a t f , �. "V (' H k - j� .`L>.� ,� • r 1 �r'�� (fi � yt ��l' r r 1.Jr�� - �1 .: }si 1 ( 1 ,', i ��'r`o l�,r'�. "'rJ' j ffi,. + ���ir , h ��i ,( `., • I� � , ,7 � f.h •rl r ! {,r f '' f wi t ,: I , r ,. � y pE j,• "�4j �% Ott b +o ? ; r . �7��;r � � ff r 1 i �� � _ }� r '�r � i j ' i �j •'p"'i +'� rf/ �l`S Ef4? ry '� Yd��l'6i��5 Y $ ,. .� a. ay. +d+Mi, r .. . 0, ve r'. y 1el - �,.�• . t' vX;,, "b� � ,' ,k': - t l �� � y� r r t , � y, 0. a, r r�' a IA h�r •,� 1 P1 _ � i , �,, '1, p ?.d'�'+y' �A r• f��'. ,��' Vt�•4 �� x.1`'"4 .• q� �"Rj6l• �'j ,��^f ,kn epht �k `�,� �' " t om • + ef M* T ' - aN�� " INj` l r�•' . ' �_ 'i• i� +�w•'�wb "�!�" 1•.� r• ...�� �� '9F r • . r ' � ;1X� j � p X +l�•{l �'r .� . Y'N 1�' � i � .ItilN�ti } V� 1� M r jX�'• • }, *y� + �' r / " '� ' :� � .' �� r ,fi; `7:,� tt i }�: +i � i�Sj. ��� • •�'1�� ^i{" � + � �'�,t'�:'�'f� �^ ". : 1 4 ?' t .� l r• e i v s;,11µ. �-" 1 8 r r �' � SI l�� � • r w +� >Y i '+k �} � ". rtl 1 : , / r '•�. / a yy `�s • y 11•a'(,.d' Ki•� 1 f \ . t �� t' \Y' ��. d' ' � , �•� C �j�.✓ �ap1 �r� �° r ��i s�, rF . � , +�� ��►' l � r � �w��,,.�1'� - �.+ '�� 1 1� r ` '. r' r � � -t S'� � • • !� : A , , •D'!• te e,, i m " 16' Fa 1, �79 N ' .. ' ' �� Yom. ' � t Fa 1, • TO MIKE MCG - GREG HALL TODD OPPENHEIMER Return to An Town Planner INTER - DEPARTMENTAL REVIEW PROJECT: DATE OF PUl3LlC HE ARING �¢ DATE SUBMITTED: COMMENTS NEEDED BY: BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL: �.� - �- V Engine in9: Z ,,✓ 1/, Date: R ewed by: comments: &te,� �,,✓ P , 41 •� -✓ .vim' 4� Iv' •- w� s r 1 1 5 Landscap' 9" Date: Revie edby: mments: , , z a� O � < z o �j Fire Dept.: /�� Date: Reviewed by: Al� comments: Distributed to the Fire Department, Public Works, and Landscaping on J Z� / . MIKE M GEE GROG _ HALL TODD OPPENI-IEIMER TO: . . Return to And i Knucitscn Town Planner INT= EPARTMENTAL REVIEW PROJECT: DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING DATE SUBMITTED: COMMENTS NEEDED BY. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL: 1 Engineering: Reviewed by: Comments: il Landscaping: Reviewed by: Comments: . Pire Dept.: Reviewed by: Comments: Date: Date: Date: /l /cly Public Works, and Landscaping Distributed to the F ire Department, on THIS ITEM MAY EFFECT 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 18.66.060 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail on February 13, 1995, at 2:oo P.M. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. In consideration of: A request regarding amendments to Chapter 18.71 (Additional GRFA) and Chapter 18.57 (Employee Housing), deleting the section providing for Additional GRFA (the 250) and incorporating the 250 GRFA allowance in the Employee Housing Section of the Zoning Code, to be used exclusively for deed - restricted employee housing. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: George Ruther 2. A request for a major CCII exterior the Lion Square Lodge located at 660 West alteration s parking variances to allow for a lobby expansio n for Lionshead Place /Lot 1, Vail Lionshead 1st Filing. Applicant: Lions Square Lodge, represented by Sill Pierce Planner: Jim Curnutte 3. A request for a major exterior alteration in the Commercial Core I zone district and site coverage, stream setback and common area variances and conditional use permits to allow office on the Ser an located at 298 Hanson Ranch dining provide for 2t redevelopment o Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: Margretta B. Parks and Vail Associates, Inc. Planner: Andy Knudtsen 4. A request for a worksession for a major amendment to SDD #4 Cascade Village to allow for the completion of the Westhaven Condominiums (The Ruins) located at 1325 Westhaven Drive /Cascade Village, SDD #4. Applicant: Gerald Wuhrman, General Manager of the Westhaven Condominiums Planner: Andy Knudtsen 5. request for a major amendment men (Simba Run) to h Savoy Villas allow Developmen located on the previously app roved p on an unplatted parcel at 1100 North Frontage Road. Applicant: Walid Said Planner: Jim Curnutte e E THIS ITEM MAY EFFECT 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 18.66.060 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail on December 19, 1994, at 2:00 P.M. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. In consideration of: An appeal of a staff decision regarding the legal nonconforming status of a portion of a unit within the Mill Creek Court Building and a staff decision regarding the application of horizontal zoning for the Mill Creek Court Building located at 303 Gore Creek Drive /Lot I, Block 5 -A, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: Mill Creek Sports Planner: Lauren Waterton CCIII 2. A request for an amendment to Sections 18.24 (CCI), 18.26 (CCII), 18.27 ( , 18.28 (CSC), and 18.29 (ABD) regarding the outdoor display of goods and Section 18.69.050 (Hazard Regulations) regarding the maximum allowable height for garages in the front setback on lots exceeding 30% slope. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Lauren Waterton 3. A request for a worksession for a major exterior alteration in the Commercial Core I zone district and site coverage, stream setback, density (GRFA) and loading and delivery variances and a request for conditional use permits to allow for an outdoor dining deck and to allow for office use on the third floor to allow for the redevelopment of Serrano's located at 298 Hanson Ranch Road /Lot C, Block 2, Vail Village 1 st Filing. Applicant: Margretta B. Parks and Vail Associates, Inc. Planner: Andy Knudtsen 4. A request for a worksession for an amendment to Section 18.71 (Additional GRFA) and Section 18.57 (Employee Housing), to delete the section providing for Additional GRFA (the 250) and to incorporate the 250 GRFA allowance exclusively for deed - restricted employee housing. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: George Ruther - E t: € d { IT 0 0 /' -; -c S LA ROJ r (1* A, � Vil c oq� ;rrijl A- do s ��� a � ��' �� . C cs OWN C7 FILE , - SUP" 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 303-479-21381479-2139 FAX 303- 479 -2452 February 7, 1995 Mr. Jeff Winston Winston Associates, Inc. 1320 Pearl Street Mall Boulder, CO 80302 RE: Invoices for Serrano's Dear Jeff: Department of Community Development Would you please prepare a bill for all hours spent on the Serrano's project? Please have it addressed to Vail Hospitality Group, Inc. D /B /A Serrano's, P.O. Box 5770, Avon, CO 81620, with a copy sent to me. In addition to the $810.05 billed previously, please add the $82.25 bill from Invoice 21546. Any amount of documentation regarding the services that can be included would be appreciated by Glen Heelen, the developer. Thank you for providing this additional bill. I understand Mr. Heelen will be paying you quickly. Sincerely,, /�, 1 / A7 Andy K Jcltsen Senior Planner xc: Glen Heelen r f Amik - 1 W 'q W WINSTON ASSOCIATES ar E N V I R O N M E N T A L P L A N N I N G URBAN D E S I G N L A N D S C A P E A R C H I T'E C T U R E ►Tlt a a - _ 5661 L i N nr INVOICE Invoice 121546 - - - -- -- December 31, 1994 Page 1 Mike Mollica Town of Vail 75 S. Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 Client ID: VAIL Project $: 50551 Vail /Miscellaneous Project Review PROFESSIONAL SERVICES THRU December 31, 1994 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Payment received in our office after 12/31/94 is not recorded on this bill. TOTAL FEES ; 78.75 TOTAL REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES ; 3.50 INVOICE TOTAL ; 82.25 Accounts Receivable Invoice Date Description Amount Balance Due - - - - - -- -- - - - - -- ----- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- ----- - - - - -- 21502 11/30/94 Billing 810.05 810.05 TOTAL PAST DUE INVOICES 810.05 BALANCE NOW DUE ; 892.30 WINSTON ASSOCIATES, INC. 1320 PEARL STREET MALL BOULDER, CO 80302 (303) 440 -9200 FAX (303) 449 -6911 50551 Invoice # 21546 Vail /Miscellaneous Project Review December 31, 1994 Page 2 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- Project Billing Summary : ------------------- - - - - -- TERMS: YET 30 DAYS Current Prior Total Professional Services 78.75 8431.15 8509.90 Reimbursable Expenses 3.50 849.88 853.38 Outside Services 0.00 0.00 0.00 Late Foos Invoice Fees ------ 0.00 - - - - -- 0.00 0.00 ------ 82.25 - - - - -- ------ 9281.03 - - - - -- 9363.28 TERMS: YET 30 DAYS e - "► 0 DETAILED INVOICE DOCUMENTATION Invoice # 21546 ----------------------------- - - - - -- December 31, 1994 Page 1 Mike Mollica Town of Vail 75 S. Frontage Road Vail, CO K65 Client ID: VAIL Project #: 50551 Vail /Miscellaneous Project Review PROFESSIONAL SERVICES THRU December 31, 1994 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FEES Hours Charge - - -- - - - -- -- - - - - -- Client Coord.- Phone /Memo 12/11/94 Jeffrey T. ilinston 1.00 78.75 Serrano's with Andy K. TOTAL FEES $ 78.75 REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES Charge --------------- - - - - -- -- - - - - -- 12/31/94 Fax Receipt 3.50 TOTAL REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES $ 3.50 Golden:)'vak House Condos The Vail Corporation Vencura, Ltd. 27tTHanson Ranch Road P.O. Box 7 600 5th Avenue, 8th Floor Vail, CO 81657 Vail, CO 81658 New York, NY 10020 Mill Creek Court Condos P.O. Box 667 Vail, CO 81658 Blanche C. Hill 311 Bridge Street Vail, CO 81657 Jon & Mary Shirley Vail Trust P.O. Box 685 Medina, WA 98039 Christiania, Ltd. 356 Hanson Ranch Road Vail, CO 81657 Chamber Corporation Bosques De Chiahuahua, #111 Mexico DF 11700 W.P. GRiffin, Trustee 1390 Main Street, Plz -1 Sarasota, FL 34236 2-1 g 19 5 - Ctd�c�c�rlr°S & V THIS ITEM MAY EFFECT 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 18.66.060 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail on February 27, 1995, at 2:00 P.M. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. In consideration of: 1. A request for a site coverage variance to allow for an addition to the Ricci Residence located at 2576 Davos Trail /Lot 5, Block E, Vail Das Schone 1st Filing. Applicant: Nancy Ricci, represented by Galen Aasland Planner: Andy Knudtsen 2. A request for a major amendment to SDD #5 (Simba Run) to allow for modifications to the previously approved development plan for the Savoy Villas Development located on an unplatted parcel at 1100 North Frontage Road. Applicant: Walid Said Planner: Jim Curnutte 3• A request for a site coverage variance to allow for an expansion of the Aasland Residence located at 2527 Arosa Drive /Lot 3, Block D, Vail Das Schone 1 st Filing. Applicant: Galen Aasland Planner: Randy Stouder 4. A request for a CCI minor exterior alteration to allow for an addition to the Golden Bear retail shop within the A and D Building, located at 286 Bridge Street/Lots A and B and a part of C, Block 5 -A, Vail Village 1 st Filing. Applicant: Lee Hollis Planner: Randy Stouder 5. A request for a proposed change to the Land Use Plan from Park (P) to Low Density Residential (LDR) for a parcel owned by the Vail Valley Consolidated Water District, located at 967 Vail Valley Drive/Tract C, Vail Village 7th Filing. Applicant: Vail Valley Consolidated Water District, represented by Pat Dauphanais Planner: Jim Curnutte 6. A request for a conditional use permit for a Type II EHU located at 4040 North Frontage Road /Lot 3, Pitkin Meadows. Applicant: David Hilb Planner: George Ruther . 4+► 7. A request for a front setback variac to allow for 7, the 1st Filing. redevelopment of a residence located at 226 Forest Road /Lot 11 Applicant: John Krediet, represented by Steven Riden Planner: Randy Stouder 8. A request for a side setback variance to allow for theLots construction and 11 Block gaV e loc at 79213, 794A and 794B Potato Patch Potato Patch Subdivision. Applicants: Cogswell, Clark, Willson and Ludwig, represented by Richard Hempleman Planner: George Ruther 9. A request for a setback variance to allow for the construction of a freestanding garage to be located at 4524 Meadow Drive/Timberfails Condominiums. Applicant: Richard Vossler, Timberfalls Condominium Association Planner: Randy Stouder 10. A request for a major th amendment to a ven Condominiums D The Ruins) Il located at 325 Westhaven completion of the Westhaven Drive /Cascade Village, SDD #4. Applicant: Gerald Wuhrman, General Manager of the Westhaven Condominiums Planner: Andy Knudtsen 11. A request for a major exterior alteration area va�ancescand conditional d use rl pe m�i to -� coverage, stream setback and common allow office on the third floor and located a t 298 Han outdoor ide for the on Ranc hRoad /Lot v C,Block 2, Vail redevelopment of Serrano s, Village 1st Filing. Applicant: Margretta B. Parks and Vail Associates, Inc. Planner: Andy Knudtsen Golden Peak House Condos The Vail Cor oration 278 Hanson Ranch Road p Vencura, Ltd. P.O. Box 7 Vail, CO 81657 600 5th Avenue, 8th Floor Vail, CO 81658 New York, NY 10020 Mill Creek Court Condos P.O. Box 667 Vail, CO 81658 Blanche C. Hill 311 Bridge Street Vail, CO 81657 Jon & Mary Shirley Vail Trust P.O. Box 685 Medina, WA 98039 Christiania, Ltd. 356 Hanson Ranch Road Vail, CO 81657 Chamber Corporation Bosques De Chiahuahua, #111 Mexico DF 11700 W.P. GRiffin, Trustee 1390 Main Street, Plz -1 Sarasota, FL 34236 I Jas q 5 - o�acu &xt cur C�1 V �� ~ THIS ITEM MAY EFFECT 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 accorda-ice with Section 18.66.060 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail on February 13, 1995, at 2:00 P.M. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. In consideration of: 1 • A request regarding amendments to Chapter 18.71 (Additional GRFA) and Chapter 18.57 (Employee Housing), deleting the section providing for Additional GRFA (the 250) and incorporating the 250 GRFA allowance in the Employee Housing Section of the Zoning Code, to be used exclusively for deed - restricted employee housing. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: George Ruther 2 • A request for a major CCII exterior alteration and common area and parking variances to allow for a lobby expansion for the Lions Square Lodge located at 660 West Lionshead Place /Lot 1, Vail Lionshead 1st Filing. Applicant: Lions Square Lodge, represented by Bill Pierce Planner: Jim Curnutte A request for a major exterior alteration in the Commercial Core I zone district and site coverage, stream setback and common area variances and conditional use permits to allow office on the third floor and to allow an outdoor dining deck to provide for the redevelopment of Serrano's, located at 298 Hanson Ranch Road /Lot C, Block 2, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: Margretta B. Parks and Vail Associates, Inc. Planner: Andy Knudtsen 4• A request for a worksession for a major amendment to SDD #4 Cascade Village to allow for the completion of the Westhaven Condominiums (The Ruins) located at 1325 Westhaven Drive /Cascade Village, SDD #4. Applicant: Gerald Wuhrman, General Manager of the Westhaven Condominiums Planner: Andy Knudtsen 5. A request for a major amendment to SDD #5 (Simba Run) to allow for modifications to the previously approved development plan for the Savoy Villas Development located on an unplatted parcel at 1100 North Frontage Road. Applicant: Walid Said Planner: Jim Curnutte r- 6, A request for a site coverage variance e Lot De V Das Schone 1st Ftling. Residence located at 2527 Arosa D Applicant: Galen Aasland Planner: Randy Stouder 7, A request for a worksession foi w CCI for minor the G Bear retail shop coverage and a landscaping variance to a l within the A and D Building, located at 286 Bridge Street/Lots A and B and a part of C, Block 5 -A, Vail Village 1 st Filing. Applicant: Lee Hollis Planner: Randy Stouder g. A request for a conditional use permit allow Coffee outdoor located a 9227 Bridge Covered Bridge Building (Covered Bridge Street/Lots B, C and D, Block 5 -13, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: Julie Iverson and Kiendra Hoover Planner: Randy Stouder TOWN OF VAIL 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 303 - 479 -21071 FAX 303- 479 -2157 January 17, 1995 Jim Mandel, Esquire Legal Department Vail Associates, Inc. Post Office Box 7 Vail, CO 81658 Mr. Glen Heelen Serrano's/Vail Hospitality Post Office Box 5770 Avon, CO 81620 Dear Jim and Glen: Office of Town Attorney An issue was raised at the last Planning and Environmental Commission meeting on December 19, 1994, concerning the application that has been submitted for Serrano's which requires clarification. As you are aware, the Serrano's application includes improvements in the stream corridor east of the Serrano's building. That is stream tract land which is presently owned by Vail Associates. Permission was granted by Vail Associates for these improvements to be made on its property. Based upon conversations that I had with Jim Mandel and Gerry Arnold, it was clear to me that Vail Associates never intended to make these improvements themselves. At the above referenced PEC meeting, Glen Heelen raised the issue of who was responsible for the landscape plan set forth on the applicant's drawings. That discussion was as follows: "Glen Heelen stated that he would like to discuss the "give and take" a little bit while he had a forum here to discuss the issue, he said that he was unsure about completing a landscape plan on property that does not belong to Serrano's, and this is the ground to the east. He stated that it certainly could be discussed as part of the "give and take" here. He stated that while they were talking about on -site issues, they have rat made any commitments to do anything, it is part of the application and certainly at some point in time, it is going to be discussed. Mike Mollica asked whether any applications had been made to make improvements on that land? Glen Heelen state that they had not made application at this point. Mike Mollica asked why, then, was it included on the applicant's drawings? Andy Knudtsen stated that what is key to remember is that when projects redevelop in the Village or Lionshead, it is anticipated that the master plans that have been adopted will be incorporated into the project. So, whatever is on the master plan should be included. The stream corridor improvement is presented in a couple of the different master plans. Andy stated that he was surprised to hear this, he thought that since it was on the drawings that it was part of the applicant's proposal. Mike Mollica explained that it is incumbent upon the applicant to submit drawings which represent improvements that will be completed if approved. Mike Mollica was extremely surprised that Glen added the caveat that the improvements might not be made. He encouraged the applicant to eliminate those elements from the drawings not to be completed and actually present what it is the applicant wants to do before the next meeting. He felt that, frankly, a lot of people's time was being wasted if the applicant was going to withdraw certain elements at this point in the process." (Editorial changes have been made to this transcript. The tape is available for review.) The purpose of this writing is to bring this issue to everyone's attention so that it can be discussed and resolved prior to the next Planning and Environmental Commission consideration. To proceed through the process there must be an irrevocable agreement as to who is responsible for the improvements and that such authority to place the improvements on the property will not be removed as this project proceeds. If there is no agreement concerning the placement of the improvements or the use of the land then they should be removed from the application. I would be happy to discuss this issue further at your convenience so that it can be brought to resolution. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Very truly yours, l� R. Thomas Moorhead Town Attorney RTM/aw xc: Andy Knudtsen Mark Donaldson � FILE COPY k___ "'� .� ,,,nrrn►T nr. T1A ii IV VY IN Vi• FL11" 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 303-479-213 FAX 303- 479 -2 January 4, 1995 Mr. Victor Mark Donaldson P.O. Box 5300 Avon, CO 81620 RE: Jeff Winston's services for Serrano's Department of Communtly uc ��,� r .... ••. Dear Mark: We have received a bill from Jeff Winston for $810.0 ( amount? Please send the Check to me project. Would you please have Glen Heelen pay this ill ass it on to Jeff. Thank you for your attention to this detail and please call me if andlw p you have any questions. Sincerely, , Andy Knudts n Senior Planner .' WINSTON ASSOCIATES E N V IRON M E N T A L P L ANN I N G URBAN D E S I G N LAN D S C APE A R C H I T E C T U R E 1 - ' 95 INVOICE Mike Mollica Town of Vail 15 S. Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 Invoice # 21502 November 30, 1994 Page 1 Client ID: VAIL Project t: 50551 Vail/Miscellaneous Project Review PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TRRU November 30, - 1994 ----- ----------- ------------ -- --- ------ -- ---- ---- - -- - - - Payment received in our office after 11/30/94 is not recorded on this bill. $ 709.51 TOTAL FEES ----- - - ---- $ 100.54 TOTAL REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES ----- - - - - -- $ 810.05 ** INVOICE TOTAL ** Project Billing Summary : Professional Services Reimbursable Expenses Outside Services Late Fees Invoice Fees Current Prior Total 8431.15 709.51 1721.64 849.88 100.54 749.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - ----------- ------ - - - - -- ------ 810.05 - - - - -- 8470.98 9281.03 rr� 't � TERMS: NET 30 DAYS --- - - -_ -- ---- -------------------------- ---------------------- --------- - � (303) 440 -9200 FAX (303) 449 -691 2 BOULDER. CO 8030 WINSTON ASSOCIATES, INC, 1320 PEARL STREET MALL DETAILED INVOICE DOCUMENTATION Mike Mollica Town of Vail 75 S. Frontage Road Invoice # 21502 November 30, 1994 Page 1 Client ID: VAIL Project #: 50551 Vail/Miscellaneous Project Review I PROFESSIONAL SERVICES THRU November 30, 1994 I FEES Hours Charge Client Coord.- Phone /Memo 0.50 39.38 11/20194 Jeffrey T. Winston Andy K. Coord. w /City Staff 2,25 111.19 11;'20/94 Jeffrey T. Winston Design Review- Inhous° 59.06 0.115 — Stan Public Veetirgs/Hearings 2.50 196.88 11/30/94 Jeffrey T. Winston PEC Travel Time 158.00 4.00 11,20/94 Jeffrey T. Winston 2.00 79.00 11/30/94 Jeffrey T. Winston - - - -- -------- 6.00 237.00 Invoice 3 21502 1 November 30, 1994 /Miscellaneous Project Review page 2 ------------------------ - - - - -- $ 709.51 TOTAL FEES ----------- Charge MBURSABLE EXPENSES -- - - - - -- ------------------ 30.80 11/16194 Auto Mileage 10.10 11,28/94 Meals Expenses 59.64 11/28/94 Auto Mileage -------- 100.54 $ 100.54 TOTAL REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES -------- -- TOTVN OF VAIL 75 South Frontage Vail, Colorado 81657 303-479-213 81479-2139 FAX 3 03 - 479 -2452 December 22, 1994 Mr. Victor Mark Donaldson P.O. Box 5300 Avon, CO 81620 RE: Serrano's Dear Mark: At yesterday's Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) meeting, it appeared that the board was supporting the requests involved with the redevelopment proposal with the exception of two, the site coverage variance and the stream setback variance. I believe it is imperative to eliminate these two aspects of the request. I understand that you would like to go back to the PEC one more time for a final review. Whether you modify the proposal enough to eliminate these requests is up to you and your client to decide; however, there are many details which must be resorted prior to resubmitting for a final hearing. Three weeks prior to the hearing you would like to be scheduled for, please submit the following information: At this time, the applicant has provided a signed application from Vail Associates with several conditions. Vail Associates is required to provide their consent for the improvements on the Mill Creek stream tract. At this time, Vail Associates owns this land. Prior to scheduling this project for a final hearing at the PEC, staff is requiring that a revised letter from Vail Associates be provided deleting all conditions. The applicant must also provide documentation listing all off -site improvements, approximate cost, and the individuals responsible for the funding these improvements. 2. Prior to returning for a final hearing, the applicant shall provide documentation from the surveyor that all of the proposed construction is outside all Town adopted view corridors. View #1 and #4 must be reviewed in detail by a surveyor. (A 3. Staff's review of the project shows that the drawings include excavation in the floodplain. If the applicant would like to propose a modification to the floodplain, a complete application must be submitted and the Federal review process should be initiated. If that is not the applicant's desire, all drawings must be amended to show that excavation will not occur in the floodplain. Department of Community Development Y902 31E' ,, • Mr. Donaldson December 22, Page Two 4. 5. 6 1994 proposal for the nex hearing. W� I Staff needs to verify that the applicant will either be building a common wall with the Golden Peak House or has e pat on for either proposal must be provided Peak House property line. Docu prior to returning to a final hearing. The applicant shall provide signatures from the owners of the Golden Peak the House if the trash room of the Golden Peak House o e a be w hared with t the south Serrano's project. If the applicants continue top propose side of the building, the applicants must provide the signature of the owner of the Golden Peak House. The grades in this location may not allow ant revises connection to the Golden Peak House, depending on how the app the grading within the floodp!ain. The applicant shall provide three t FEC hearing, d� whether thates w o a or a pn ent 7, The applicant shall provide complete drawings of the revised proposal, including all elevations, all floor plans, s shade landscape plant vicinity (showing the Golden Peak House), and roof plan (showing USGS ridge elevations). 8. The applicant shall provide a written response to the Fire, Public W ee rks, an attached Town Landscape Architect comments about the proposal (please sheets). pdated model two weeks prior to the hearing. g. The applicant shall provide an u If y have any questions about these requirements, please do not hesitate to call me. I can Y be reached at 479 -2138. Sincerely, I Andy Knttdtlen Senior Planner xc: Mike Mollica MEMORANDUM TO: Andy Knudtsen, Community Development FROM: Todd Oppenheimer, Public Works DATE: December 9, 1994 SUBJECT: Review of Serrano's Cantina Submittal NOTE: This memo has been edited by Andy Knudtsen on December 21, 1994 Please accept the following comments regarding the Serrano Is Cantina reconstruction submittals dated November 7, 1994 and November 17, 1994. Provide new topographic maps tied to USGS datum. Extend existing contours to west behind Golden Peak House to show where existing and proposed contours connect. 2 . 1 have several concerns regarding the development proposed in the stream tract. These are as follows: a• Applicant is using the stream tract as public right -of -way to access commercial space. Access should be pulled back inside of property line. Perhaps the structure could overhang a walkway similar to the buildings on Wall Street. 3. The design of the deck on the November 17, 1994 submittal is much better than the November 7, 1994 submittal. The earlier submittal created too much of a restriction of Hanson Ranch Road. The street improvements shown directly across Ted Kindel Park should be redesigned. The applicant should survey the park improvements and design to them. 4. Town of Vail staff should discuss relocation of electrical transformers with Holy Cross Electric. These are primary feed cables for the Village and may have to be replaced from transformer to transformer. The next transformer north is behind the Rucksack and would mean digging up the new improvements in Ted Kindel Park. This should not be allowed. New transformer and service panel locations need to be approved by the Town of Vail Public Works staff. I will call Ted Husky at Holy Cross and discuss the transformers. 5. Rework grading at the "existing trees to remain" on the south and east sides of the building. The grades at each of the two trees to be saved is being cut about three feet. Rework grades to match existing at a distance equal to 12- inch radius per inch of trunk diameter from the trunk. The applicant should make an effort to save or move the existing trees. Most are being disturbed due to the walkway on the stream tract. Refer to comment 2.a. g. The planting plan should include the use a d dogwoods for ornamen Currently, the plan includes only junipe plantings. The applicant should put more effort into the planting design and resubmit. 7. The work proposed for the stream tract should be reviewed and signed off o by a hydraulic engineer. Proposed fills could h cou g ld s al ow fo d water to upstream and downstream of the sit p osed cuts reach the building where it cannot do so at co l uld deflect high tall f ows and wall downstream from the bike path bridge erosion on the opposite bank. Improvements /modifications to both sides of stream may be needed. 2 JWD OCT I U 1994 TO: MIKE MCGEE GREG HALL TODD OPPENHEIM - CR nelurn io /lncty I<nttcil Town Planner INTER DCP/1Rl "MGNTAI_ RC-- =VIE:W PnOJECT: DATE SUBMITTED: I D DATE - OF PUBLIC HEARING COMMENTS NEEDED BY: 10 26? q , • Bn1EF DCSCnIPTI / ON OF THE PnOPOSAL: • "�K-D J` U 1e� I�� � � n• �1 revc... � VZ ; prrc A" G "ca PP ci'�' f ✓l� -amt Engineering: Reviewed by: Date: Comments: Flc•.,� Ic..•i crt >) 71C.ti i5 al I' 1 �:si c,n �" � � � S Q > Y Ipp �IL•Y\ 1 ,hc >/ ( ?C.'. e' i c� t. Hc, .�, /I cicj Landsca in Reviewed by: Dale:/) `' `'' �• � � `. , --- ----�_ r s5 a �• - acc ,. ` y i Comments: , f e, /� w '� !,..� /.• ey ,) n b Sno- c ~ L IFcc d / �' ' ✓ i9i F•' 7Ci. / � /'li i ..� Va nevicwcdby: z.c�. / /���r. ✓• `�� �\ Date: ` 9 ^ Comment;,: � G c , / 'aYf'L KS cam- � µ..: � K y I'LL¢ d � � � `� �'o. -• cis: •� ca... / Distributed to the Fire Department, Public Works, and Landsc ' / o 13) titer 4c l i� , aping on f c 1 fS ��('. ✓n�liJ.^5 Clvn, � - ��Zp�tii ���✓ '�D� �✓ a� Uli- �c U, L} �j.(� �lC �� /�r�/'�'; � �r r;[li�t 1;�k'I %' � S L 'r��lc. �c• -.._ _- �� � I �l '� mesa - •'fir TOWN OF [AIL V 42 lVe _ ._ u r r L' Vail, Colorado ,4IGS7 303 - 179 -2250 MEMORANDUM TO: MIKE MOLLICA / ANDY FROM: FIRE INSPECTOR JEFF F DATE: 10/21/94 ATENCT%1 RE: SERRANO'S " EXTE -RIOR ALTERATION" l ail Firc Uepnr1711ent We have reviewed the revised set of revised set of plans did not Plans for Serrano . elevations, roof, and other �� include all floors � s The comments and concerns wtiicli needJpocbe• addressed e the fo exterior llowing ]. The nature of the require close coorditi tior► w.i.thttlle p if it goes forward. G ld P'r sco ea e House redevelopment, 2. Specificall needs to Y, the timing be reviewed of the demolition and construction Project. ill Of with the Gold Peak House 3• Construction stag fi 5 areas should be disclosed. 4 • Potential road closures should be access routes to the village core can be worked out. T significant restrictions needed re; disclosed so alternative and emergency deliver there may be y access. y trucks, trash trucks, 5 . The pro orient - P - has indicated their intent to Shingles on the roof. . The Fire Department s trop of wood shakes use wood shake shingles 111 the Village Core. a ° oses the use g loose their fire resistivit Fire retardant wood show the fire resist:a>>c:e at this altitud i Va' shake dissipates in 1 relativel quickly. Studies / the time for wh ich the shin 11 s environment, Given the DRB' files are rated. the Fire Department and PEC's response to the orientation made by roofing material be selected this ve year, we suggest an alternative If however, wood shake shingles are used Of the property line, lack of set backs regarding f , Building Openings ng de re trictions j oint use 9 protection p_nin � degree of hazards im ore gs on the property doors and windows) P d on the adjacent building line, and the appearance may have sig , and nificant impact O1(ie. balcgny Serrano's) , functiol� of bc�t }r buildings Gold peak and d � SERRANOS REVISED PLAPS PAGE 2 6. The app�Cati.on indicates the desire to install bicycle racks on the south side of Serrano's. The racks are not shown on any of the site plans. There can be no encroachment or obstructions within the required 20 foot fire access on Hanson Ranch Road. 7. The site plan (Sheet A -2) does not show the usual collection of awnings, tables, chairs, menu boards, and similar encroachments into Hanson Ranch Road, placed there by tenants of the Red Lion Building. Are we going to eliminate such uses? S. According to the plans, the site coverage. (landscaping) extends into the public right of way on Hanson Ranch Road. A road width of 20 feet is enough to allow the Fire Department to drive through the space between Serrano's and the Red Lion, but would not allow us enough room to set up a ladder truck for either building nor enough width to connect the hose from the hydrant to a pumper truck. Set -up width needs to be a minimum of 31 feet. 9. The freight elevator appears to be intended for trash removal. There does not appear to be any defined "loading zone" to facilitate trash pick up and deliveries. 10. Sheet A -6 and A -7 appear to lack second exits. E zlzaffljml� TOWN OF VAILLY Department of community Development 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 303-479-21381 FAX 303- 479 -245 December 12, 1994 Mr. Oscar Tang 100 Park Avenue, 28th Floor New York, New York 10017 RE: Redevelopment at Serrano's Dear Mr. Tang: Currently, I am reviewing the proposed plans for the Serrano's redevelopment. I remember rtai the concerns you expressed on November 4ke when more invov ed in thepreview e ate y our point of view and would like to know it y ou would process. The proposal has been to the final hearing has not been scheduled athis point n is scheduled for December 19, 1994. A Please let me know if you are interested in ow I could include you in the review of this proposal. I can be reached at 303/479-213 Sincerely, Andy, "nudtsen Senior Planner xc: Jay Peterson 2. A request for a worksession for a m m o setback, common area, Commercial ore I and zone district and site coverage, stream an outdoor delivery variances and a requ for on the third floor o permits allow for the n redevelopment dining deck and to allow for office of Serrano's, located at 298 Hanson Ranch Road /Lot C, Block 2, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: Margretta B. Parks and Vail Associates, Inc. Planner: Andy Knudtsen Andy Knudtsen reviewed the changes to the project that had been made since the last PEC worksession on November 28, 19 Mark Donaldson, the architect for this project, stated that they had overhauled the architecture and were quite pleased with the results. He said iid that they were making every attempt to stay out of the one hundred-year Jim Lamont, representing the East Village Homeowners Association, suggested that Todd Oppenheimer be the landscape architect for conjunction l with Hhia project. the asked applicant had not addressed problems what necessitated the excessive common area proposed. Mark Donaldson stated that the excessive common area was a result of a small building footprint and lot area. Bill Anderson said he would like to d s d til�concer concerned information the s setback on other buildings in the Village He was variance. He did not have a problem permits for the o� tdoor dining deck or opposed to the conditional use per the office space. He needed the additional information about the site coverage comparisons before making a decision. Bob Armour could not support a stream setback variance but did not have concerns regarding the common area variance, the office conditional use permit or the conditional use permit for the outdoor dining deck. Greg Amsden would like to seep uerael he felt the encroachment ompar solns nto the w th other setback. Concerning the site coverage variance, buildings would be helpful. He felt the common area variance was deck table as well as the conditional use permit for office spa ce and the Jeff Bowen was concerned about the requested stream setback variance. Allison Lassoe was also concerned with the tr She asked what the proposed�oad ng e site coverage variance was less of a problem. and delivery plan was to be. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes 2 December 19, 1994 Mark Donaldson responded that Serrano's would share the Golden Peak House loading and delivery area. with Glen Heelen, the project developer for Serrano's, work out the details of Clark Willingham, Golden Peak House developer, to trash plan. Kathy Langenwalter was opposed to the site coverage variance. She did not feel that a hardship existed on the site. She said it was nstitute a hardship. was to located on was small but that this did not c problem with the requested the stream setback variance as well. She did not have a p common area variance and the requested conditional use perm o s osed mass a of the building. She felt and the outdoor he eltt that the roof t lines shou be lowered She advised the roved by the Town as well as applicant that any floodplain work would need to be app the Federal Government. t the applicant was requesting to encroach 6 feet into the Mark Donaldson stated tha stream setback, comprising a total area of approximately 70 square feet. Concerning the site coverage and common area varianced attempt to reduce the together due to the small size of the lot. He said they as to whether the stream setback variance further. He asked the orEhe for Special t Devel pment District major exterior alteration and d process , approach, was more appropriate for the Jim Lamont stated that the site coverage analysis variance fo the would of all buildins in the be helpful in determining whether the requested site coverage Serrano's building was appropriate. Mark Donaldson stated that they had attempted i e reduce deemed scope necssary requested variances and would try to reduce them more if Bill Anderson agreed with Jim Lamont's Cn di eac property that warranted stated that the facts and physical constraints surrou variances were different for each case. Glen Heelen asked whether they should proceed with a Special Development District process for the Serrano's site instead of varianc Mr. Parks, the son of the owner of Serrano's, stated that they had not requested C RS A v ariances and view corridor encroachment variances in order to expedite the p Kathy Langenwalter felt that it was difficult to compare t e cec ano's Build for each Golden Peak House or the Red Lion Building because remodel was different. She stated that a comparison to the A stated and D wad of p to the more She helpful because it was a tear down remodel. staff or the PEC to prove that a site met the variance criteria. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes 3 December 19, 1994 would like to Craig Snowdon, the architect for th Golden e redevelopment s me time as the Golden t Peak House. He see the Serrano' s site get remodeled felt it would be beneficial for both projects to cooperate through the process. Lan enwalter agreed, however, she pointed out that this was not a criteria which Kath y 9 would allow for a site coverage variance. Jim Lamont pointed out that they would not know until February 10, 1995 whether the Golden Peak House would be rebuilt in the summer of 1995. Mike Mollica stated that the Serrano's project must stand on its own merits. Glen Heelen wanted to discuss his perception of the "give and take" which he believed was a part of the variance requests. And Knudtsen explained that whenever redevelopment projects are undertaken in the A y Village or Lionshead, there are certain imCI exterior alteration a criteria referencedahese plans which may be off -site. Since the CCI process did involve some "give and take ". He clarified that the improvements, the p either does or does not meet them variance criteria are clear and that the project regardless of improvements referenced in adopted master plans. and bus dinghe PEC for for their opinions on the second floor /restaurant issues, section. Allison Lassoe felt that the small balconies on the second floor were positive. She suggested reducing the stucco facade and changing the railing. Jeff Bowen and Bob Armour agreed. Greg Amsden suggested that the retail space needed to be more inviting to pedestrians. at they would like to prepare for a formal hearing. He asked Ma rk Donaldson stated th lied. for clarification from the PEC concerning how the variance criteria would be app of An eal of a staff decision regarding the legal no a d a ng decas on regarding 3. Unit No. 108 -B within the Mill Creek Court Budding located at 303 Gore application of horizontal zoning for the Mill Creek Court Building, Creek Drive /Lot 1, Block 5 -A, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: Mill Creek Sports Planner: Lauren Waterton Lauren Waterton made a presentation per the staff memo explaining the staff's position on this appeal. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes 4 December 19, 1994 A A44 r i N MEMORANDUM � TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: December 19, 1994 av Ad)-A SUBJECT: A request for a worksessio co vera g e, o lstreamrsetback and commonoarea mme rcial Core I zone district and site variances and conditional use permits to allow office on the third floor and to allow an outdoor dining Ranch Road/ of Cr Block 2e e Vail Village 1 stFia s located at 298 Hanson Filing. I, DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUESTS Please note that the new staff analysis provided throughout the memo is shown in italics. Glen Heelen, the project developer and representative of the applicants, is proposing to demolish the existing Serrano's Building and replace it with a new structure. The proposal includes: •A basement and first floor of retail use. Each floor is approximately 3,400 square feet. •A restaurant on the second floor of approximately 3,100 square feet. •Office on the third floor of approximately 1,050 square feet (by conditional use). .One residential condominium on the third and fourth floors of approximately 3,600 square feet. In addition to these uses, there will be walkway and landscaping t p t act n to the rear of the building and to the east of the building along the Mill Creek To accomplish the proposal described above, and in addition to the CCI exterior alteration, there are three variances required: 1. A 6 -foot encroachment into the 30 -foot stream setback for Mill Creek; 2. A site coverage variance request of 90.5% (80% is allowed in CCI); 3. A variance for common area. Also two conditional use permits are required: outdoor dining deck on the second floor and office space on the third floor. 1 J Applicant: Margretta B. Parks and Vail Associates, Inc. Dlonnar• Andv Knudtsen II. KEY ISSUES The proposal includes six specific requests. Since the previous worksession, staff believes that the applicant has made improvements in all of these areas. The site coverage variance was 94.9% and has been reduced to 90.5 %. Total common area has remained approximately the same. Loading and delivery no longer requires a variance. he Mill Creek stream setback encroachment has been reduced from 7 feet to 6 feet. Also, the amount of m T bulk in the stream setback has been reduced on the ass and first, second, and third floors. The offi area, which requires a conditional use, remains generally the same. The outdoor dining deck which requires a conditional use, has been reduced both in length and width so that it doe s not extend over the entry of the building or extend into the right -of -way as much as it did. Staff believes the applicant has moved in the right direction concerning these variances. More importantly, staff believes the applicant has made significant improvements to the archite of the building. Staff would like to see the model updated to be able to evaluate the cture architecture in greater detail. Using the criteria provided in the memo, staff believes that the PEC should give clear direction to the applicant as to the position the PEC holds reg the requested variances. 9 g on Staff believes it would be helpful for the Planning and Environmental Commission PEC focus on the six specific requests the applicant is making. Below is a summary of the to comments made by the PEC members durirq the November 28, 1994 meeting. 1 Site Coverage Variance Little support. 2. Stream Setback Variance Little support. 3. Common Area Variance Not discussed in detail _ 4 • Loadino and Delivery Variance Support for the request; however, since the original worksession, staff has determined that a loading and delivery variance is not required. The reason for this is because the existing building has a requirement of one loading berth and the proposed building does not change this requirement. As there is not a net increase in the requirement no additional facilities need to be provided. We understand that the applicant will continue to work with the Golden Peak House to coordinate loading and delivery issues. 2 5. Office Conditional Use Permit There was mixed support regarding the office. The use appeared to receive general support; however, the mass and bulk resulting from the office use was a concern to the PEC. 6. Conditional Use Permit for Outdoor Dining Deck The PEC appeared to support this request with the understanding that the deck would be pulled back significantly from the design presented on November 28, 1994. 7 CCI Exterior Alteration The PEC concurred with staff and Jeff Winston regarding the architectural qualities of the building. Many improvements have been made according to the comments of the PEC. 3 err rn N N N i U O LO X M N N O C C O N cu ¢ u m E Z .� H 2 LL C N N C o N C n m a I v U v E a E m� E o aL cc o o rn E c cD v v N x p o_ c o N Q y C N W . 9 CD 15 O O N N n O O O In 'j d W a) C cv O oS� °) a r� Cc QE o a o p o N d d o r M V *- O r p CJ O' j _ O to N N N N N O O a N iv m o w N c `o �c s an d °' O o co 3 rn o O ° O m p CA 4) U d C: O Q C N N c0 d N N Y N C 2 O Y L N N LO O N Da C C Z CO N N (d N 1 =N c0 y U W U L (n W C`7 r Cn L N O to c0 4 d C O cc RI '� o v3 a O Z u, N O co a N _N N N _E N = a Q p _c v� c � Q co �Y c) N CU m E 745 C\l Q L o o Y U N N L N o N x a o c U cm =� �* m oo r N d 1� n Q N N N N N N C a c c >, C C >, N id T .� m cu C:r IM N a a 'j N O c� N> a co N c� ro Q o °' N — w N N d 0) wp Q Zcn w3: cc a'� ro N N N o a) C O O O M+ p L 03 a p O O - Y Cl) In LO N M 7 O_ E U N Cc o a v w �v N c m o m 2 > Q1 C 6 L O N d LQL D N �_ a NL p v o` v °i'S ° 4) v co c " U L �' o roCS �� o � > >� t co CU 0 o CU L d co M ) cc .N N N N N — D7 C C d Cl) CY) `1 N C (l) > 4) N p N .LO Q .� co 0 Y9 N U m a 3 N o o r cu o o m c CR o r ID c aF- O C \ L o o r 3 O cu f0 J a n c ° v a � ° m om in u, C ) a) .o 0 �' � Z N o-z Cl) o` N cli rn a� a cu ° ° CO N U a .� c V Si Q E v _/ 5 O CD N C) v 4) m Z C Y y — ° c 0 ro N a rn ) U > cc a C 1) m � E m (1) 0 o rn > C Y E cu c _ c Q L m Q E 5 ° o cu o) �i o o a= LL E N J F- o N Q 0 d m Y V o 3 = U) 3 co m m o U y J a -o-) « a IV. URBAN DESIGN CRITERIA AND RELEVANT MASTER PLAN POLICIES As this item is a worksession, staff will not evaluate the criteria. However, please be aware that the following criteria from the Vail Village Urban Design Guidelines, the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan, the Vail Village Master Plan, the Streetscape Master Plan, and the Zoning Code will be applied to evaluate the proposal at a later date. A. Vail Village Urban Design Criteria 1. Pedestrianization: 2. Vehicular Penetration: 3. Streetscape Framework: 4. Street Enclosure: 5. Street Edge: 6. Building Height: 7. Views and Focal Points: S. Service and Delivery: 9. Sun /Shade: lo. Roofs 11. Facades 12. Decks and Patios 13. Balconies 14. Accent Elements 15. Landscape Elements B. Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan The Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan specifically addresses the Mill Creek stream tract east of the Serrano's Building. Specifically, it calls for: Concept 8 - "Mill Creek walking path, West Side Mill Creek Path completes linkage from pirate ship and mountain path to Gore Creek Drive." Staff believes that this walk should be an extension of the recent improvements made to the Mill Creek Court Building and adjacent stream tract. Staff recognizes that it is a mutual goal among the developers, Vail Associates, and the Town of Vail to create a new pedestrian link from Hanson Ranch Road to the Vista Bahn ski base. C. Vail Village Master Plan Goal #1: Encourage high quality development while preserving the unique architectural scale of the Village in order to sustain its sense of community and identity. 1.2 Objective: Encourage the upgrading and redevelopment of residential and commercial facilities. 5 1.21 Policy: Additional development may be allowed as identified by the action plan and as is consistent with the Vail Village Master Plan and Urban Design Guide Plan. 1.3 Objective: Enhance new development and redevelopment through public improvements done by private developers working in cooperation with the Town. 1.3.1 Policy: Public improvements shall be developed with the participation of the private sector working with the Town. 2.2 Objective: Recognize the "historic" commercial core as the main activity center of the Village. 2.2.1 Policy: The design criteria of the Vail Village Urban Design Guideplan shall be the primary guiding document to preserve the existing architectural scale and character of the core area of Vail Village. 2.3.1 Policy: The development of short term accommodation units is strongly encouraged. Residential units that are developed above existing density levels are required to be designed or managed in a manner that makes them available for short term overnight rental. 2.4 Objective: Encourage the development of a variety of a new commercial activity where compatible with existing land uses. 2.4.1 Policy: Commercial infill development consistent with established horizontal zoning regulations shall be encouraged to provide activity generators, accessible greenspaces, public plazas, and streetscape improvements to the pedestrian network throughout the Village. 2.4.2 Policy: Activity that provides night life and evening entertainment for both the guests and the community shall be encouraged. 2.5 Objective: Encourage the continued upgrading, renovation and maintenance of existing lodging and commercial facilities to better serve the needs of our guests. Goal #3: To recognize as a top priority the enhancement of the walking experience throughout the Village. 1.1 3.1 Objective: Physically improve the existing pedestrian ways by landscaping and other improvements. 3.1.1 Policy: Private development projects shall incorporate streetscape improvements (such as paver treatments, landscaping, lighting and seating areas), along adjacent pedestrian ways. 3.4 Objective: Develop additional sidewalks, pedestrian only walkways, and accessible green space areas, including pocket parks and stream access. 3.4.1 Policy: Physical improvements to property adjacent to the stream tract shall not further restrict public access. 3.4.2 Policy: Private development projects shall be required to incorporate new sidewalks along streets adjacent to the project as designated by the Vail Village Master Plan and /or Recreation Trails Master Plan. Goal #4: To preserve existing open space areas and expand green space opportunities. 4.1 Objective: To improve existing open space areas and create new plazas with green space and pocket parks. Recognize the different roles of each type of open space in forming the overall fabric of the Village. 4.1.3 Policy: With the exception of ski base - related facilities, existing natural open space areas at the base of Vail Mountain and throughout Vail Village shall be preserved as open space. 4.1.4 Policy: Open space improvements including the addition of accessible green space is described or graphically shown in the Vail Village Master Plan and /or Urban Design Guide Plan, will be required in conjunction with private in -fill or redevelopment projects. 7 Vail Village Master Plan - Land Use Vail Village Master Plan - Conceptual Building Height Plan: Vail Village Master Plan - Sub -Area Concepts: Mixed Use - This category includes the "historic" Village Core and properties near the pedestrianized streets of the Village. Lodging, retail, and a limited amount of office use are found in this category. With nearly 270,000 square feet of retail space and approximately three hundred and twenty residential units, the mixed use character of this area is a major factor and appeal of Vail Village. 3 to 4 stories No. 3 -8; Mill Creek Streamwalk "A walking path along Mill Creek between Pirateship Park and Gore Creek, further completing the pedestrian network and providing public access to the creek. Specific design and location shall be sensitive to adjacent uses of the creek environment." _ E i I unl CREE. , IIOV O• ti CDUR1 Pl[TI. C-81-0 11 e 100. `r � `� � `• i . � 3 75 ','. � �,U•!1 .\ .ED 00- _ MRIS1 PLALA 7 , In staff's analysis of the goals, objectives, and policies of the Vail Village Master Plan, there were two policies which are not addressed by the Serrano's proposal. Employee housing has not been addressed or provided for, as well as short-term rental accommodations, which have not been addressed or provide for. D. Streetscape Master Plan "The primary paving material for the right -of -way area of the Village Core is recommended to be rectangular concrete unit pavers, in the color mix specified in the Guidelines for Paving section of this report. The herringbone pattern, which is proposed for most areas, is edged by a double soldier course. The intent is to satisfy the need for a simple streetscape treatment without being monotonous." A* 0 The applicant is proposing a band of pavers along the front of the building. The proposed band would be 10 feet wide, extending out from the face of the building. It would wrap around the building on the northeast corner and continue up the east side towards the base area. Staff understands that the paver walkway in front of the Golden Peak House will be snowmelted. Staff believes that this paver walkway should also be snowmelted. V. VARIANCE CRITERIA AND FINDINGS At this time, the applicant is requesting variances for site coverage, stream setback, and common area. A. Consideration of Factors 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 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 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. B. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findinqs before granting 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 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 strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. VI. CONDITIONAL USE CRITERIA AND FINDINGS At this time, the applicant is requesting conditional use approval for an outdoor dining deck and office use on the third floor. A. Consideration of Factors: Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town. 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. 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. Findings The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a conditional use permit: That the proposed location of the use in accord with the purposes of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. 2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code. 10 VII. HISTORY OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES Staff researched the histories of five buildings surrounding the Serrano's site: A. A & D Building I October 8, 1984 - The PEC approved a CCI exterior alteration. No variances were requested. Site coverage was proposed at 80 %. The exterior alteration was approved with the condition that a floodplain modification request be approved by the Town prior to construction. Ue ►2; j — ain modification for the A & D development. B. Red Lion Building April 9, 1990 - The PEC approved a view corridor encroachment, stream setback variance, site coverage variance, CCI exterior alteration, and conditional use permit to allow an outdoor dining deck. Prior to redevelopment, the Red Lion Building encroached into the Mill Creek stream setback 1 to 18 feet. The proposed redevelopment requested 5 additional feet of encroachment. The staff memo cited the location of the existing building and the A & D improvements as significant issues that would not make the request a grant of special privilege. The staff recommended denial of the requests, although the PEC ultimately approved the request. Concerning site coverage for the Red Lion redevelopment, the proposal included 50 square feet of additional site coverage. However, as part of the redevelopment, 27 square feet of site coverage was to be eliminated. As a result, there was net increase of 23 square feet of site coverage. At the time of the proposal, the existing Red Lion Building had a site coverage of 83 %. Though the staff recommendation for the site coverage variance request was denial, the PEC ultimately approved it. One of the conditions of the exterior alteration was an agreement between the Town and the Red Lion developers that the GRFA approved through that process be the cap. Language has been incorporated into the condominium declarations that the existing 8,714 square feet of GRFA and three dwelling units are the maximum allowed for the property and that no other GRFA or dwelling units may be added to the project in the future. The standards for CCI zoning would allow approximately 11,200 square feet of GRFA and eight dwelling units. On October 22, 1990, the PEC approved an exterior alteration and a site coverage variance to allow an airlock to be constructed for the Szechuan Lion Restaurant. At the time of the request the building had a site coverage of 83.2 percent. The proposed airlock was 60 square feet. The approval allowed the building to reach a site coverage of 83.6 percent. Staff recommended approval, primarily because the Zoning Code at the time emphasized the need for airlocks. 11 C. Golden Peak House /, q9 °2a November 2, 1993 - Town Council approved Special Development District for the Golden Peak House. This included, among 1,/Special things, a site coverage request which exceeded the 80% allowed in CCI. ime of the proposal, the existing Golden Peak House had a site coverage f i, °o. rider the approved plans, the proposed site coverage will lza 94%. Bse based on the expanded lot). D. Curtin Hill Building t & j March 8, 1993 - The PEC approved a CCI exterior alteration for this building. Site coverage at the time of this proposal was 71 %. The approved site coverage is 71.6 %. E. Christiania Lodge Under the Public Accommodation zone district, allowed site coverage is 55 %. On March 23, 1992, Town Council approved a Special Development District allowing the Christiania to expand from 32% to 39% site coverage. VIII. DISCUSSION As this is a worksession, staff does not have formal recommendations concerning the variance and conditional use requests. However, staff has provided some comments on the proposal. The new comments are shown in italics: In general, staff believes that the architecture has been revised and improved significantly. The building has been simplified in both the materials and massing. The Italian mansard roof has been eliminated on the second floor and replaced with balconies that surround the restaurant. The fourth floor condominium has been relocated to the central part of the building. As a result, it ties in better with the Golden Peak House and allows for a variety of roof forms on the third floor. Roof Design E 12 bu+Id+Rg. Wig. E 12 Staff believes it is imperative to receive a detailed mechanical plan prior to the final worksession hearing. In other projects, the mechanical plans have often not been developed until during the construction process. This often results in rooftop mechanical that has not been shown to the review boards during the planning process. Staff believes that the proposed roof design has improved significantly. Staff believes that it will be important to evaluate the roof design after a model is built. Because the fourth floor has been relocated to the center of the building, roof forms are now located around the perimeter of the third floor. An aspect that the staff believes has contributed to the improvement is a 5 -foot plate height on the third floor. This allows the roof to come to a much lower level. As a result, there is a greater hierarchy between portions of the building with gable roof forms and the portions of the building with shed roof forms. Other improvements include the elimination of the Italian mansard and the elimination of parapet walls. All clipped hips have been removed. It is important to note that the roof has been changed from cedar shake to a tar and gravel material. One of the goals the staff was advocating in the previous worksession was to have a uniform roof, continuing from the fourth floor down to the third floor. This has not been provided, as it would be difficult for the applicants to do this and still meet the zoning requirements. Though staff may still advocate a significant redesign in order to accomplish this goal, staff does not believe it is necessary. Staff believes a model is important to confirm this. Staff continues to need a mechanical plan for the building as described in letter "h" above. 2. Deck and Entry The dining deck has been reduced in size. It now extends 9 feet out from the face of the second floor. At this distance, the deck extends into the right -of -way the same distance as the existing first floor dining deck. Now that the deck has been pulled back from the entry, the main entrance has a greater importance within the elevation. It has been highlighted with an awning and a gable roof. 13 3. Stair Tower and Massing IMMME .. Staff believes that the issue regarding the stair tower is no longer relevant. Staff believes that relocating the fourth floor to the center of the building has improved the architecture. 4. Northeast Corner of Building The northeast corner of the building has improved significantly. The octagonal shape has been eliminated. The building now steps back with a forty -five degree angle provided on the first, second and third levels. We believe that this element is consistent with the context of Vail Village. Previously, we were recommending that the third floor be eliminated at this location; however, at this time, we believe that the building has been stepped adequately without removing third floor area on this corner of the building. To understand how the building steps, staff has provided the amount of encroachment into the stream setback per floor below: Basement. 75 square feet First Floor: 75 square feet Second Floor: 11.9 square feet Third Floor: 9.1 square feet Fourth Floor. 0 square feet 14 0 As one can see from the chart above, this corner of the building progressively steps back as it gets higher. B. Stream Tract Improvements /Site Improvements Stream Tract UUMM : i - I i m I N. The applicant has redesigned the stream tract improvements in a way which removes all fill that was proposed to be located in the floodplain, and the two walkways have been reduced to a single walkway. The walkway wraps around the building at the elevation of the first floor and then ascends a staircase at the rear to the bikepath. Staff believes it would be an improvement to have the walkway wrap around the building at the grade of the existing elevation. This would provide for a more natural appearance on the south side of the building, would reduce the steep drop -off into the south elevation, and would eliminate excavation in the floodway. Previously, staff had identified fill in the floodplain as a concern. At this time, the applicant has removed the fill, but has instead shown excavation. Fill or excavation requires a floodplain modification. Staff believes that a pathway that follows the existing grade would be more natural in appearance, and would not necessitate a floodplain modification. 2. Site Grading Staff would like to see a detailed site plan showing how the grading on the south side of the building fits into the Golden Peak House grading scheme. As the grades drop off significantly in this area, staff would like to ensure that the two site plans work together. Landscaping Staff believes that the existing trees in the area should be preserved. Given the amount of grade change in the area, this may not be feasible. Staff believes that the architect should work with the existing grade contours in an effort to preserve as many of the trees as possible. Staff also believes that the applicant should hire a landscape architect to design the Mill Creek stream tract improvements. We believe the quality should match the Town's recently completed Mill Creek Court project north of Hansen Ranch Road. Additionally, the bridge railing on the south side of Hanson Ranch Road should match the recent improvements by the Town. 15 4. Streetscape Improvements Staff believes that the area of Hansen Ranch Road immediately adjacent to this site should be improved according to the streetscape standards. This includes concrete unit pavers, in the color mix specified in the Streetscape Master Plan. The pavers should extend out beyond the face of the building to the point which matches the proposed plan of the Golden Peak House. As noted earlier in the memo, the applicants plan to put a 10 -foot wide band of pavers on the north side of the building and wrap that around the corner and continue it up the east side of the building. We believe that these paver walkways should be snowmelted. C. Zoning Issues 1. At this time, the applicant has provided a signed application from Vail Associates with several conditions. Vail Associates is required to provide their consent for the improvements on the Mill Creek stream tract. At this time, Vail Associates owns this land. Prior to scheduling this project for a final hearing at the PEC, staff is requiring that a revised letter from Vail Associates be provided deleting most of the conditions. The Town Attorney is working with attorneys from Vail Associates on an acceptable letter. 2. Prior to returning for a final hearing, the applicant shall provide documentation from the surveyor that all of the proposed construction is outside all Town adopted view corridors. The applicant has designed the building with this understanding and staff believes that there are probably no encroachments. However, this must be documented by a surveyor. View #1 and #4 must be reviewed in detail. 3. Staff's review of the project shows that the drawings include excavation in the floodplain. If the applicant would like to-propose a modification to the floodplain, a complete application must be submitted and the Federal review process should be initiated. If that is not the applicant's desire, all drawings must be amended to show that excavation will not occur in the floodplain. 4. Staff needs to verify that the applicant will either be building a common wall with the Golden Peak House or has permission to encroach over the Golden Peak House property line. Documentation for either proposal must be provided prior to returning to a final hearing. 5. The applicants shall provide signatures from the owners of the Golden Peak House if the trash room of the Golden Peak House is to be shared with the Serrano's project. If the applicants continue to propose a walkway on the south side of the building, the applicants must provide the signature of the owner of the Golden Peak House. The grades in this location may not allow a connection to the Golden Peak House, depending on how the applicant revises the grading within the floodplain. 16 6. The applicant shall provide three dimensional site staking of the development proposal for the next PEC hearing, whether that is a worksession or a final hearing. D. Other Second Floor /Restaurant Staff believes the second floor of the building should be modified in several respects. We are concerned that the amount of fenestration exceeds what is appropriate for the second floor. We understand that the first floor should be relatively transparent. However, we believe the upper stories of the building should reflect a different character. The new decks and balconies surrounding the restaurant on the second floor, in staff's opinion, appear to be more appropriate than the mansard roof. Staff would like the PEC's opinion on the railing design. Should the railings reflect a more traditional style, such as the Casino Building or the Sonnenalp? Finally, it appears that the width of the balcony may not be sufficient to allow the balcony to function for outdoor dining. Should this be increased to accommodate tables? 2. Sun /Shade Staff is concerned about the amount of shading that will impact Hanson Ranch Road, the Red Lion Building, and the Mill Creek stream corridor. To understand the impacts of the sun /shade analysis more thoroughly, staff would ask the applicant to provide drawings, showing the impacts from the existing building and then the impacts from the proposed building. 3. Building Section Staff is requesting that the applicant show a section through the building identifying floor to ceiling heights. In previous proposals in the Village, staff has been able to work with applicants, particularly in the area of the floor to ceiling height in condominiums to reduce the mass and bulk. IX. CONCLUSION As this is a worksession, staff does not have a formal recommendation. Staff would encourage the PEC to review the proposal and focus on the key issues outlined above, the specific requests, and the criteria provided in the memo. c: \pec \memos\serano 12.19 17 EXHIBIT A Chart 1 — Floor Area 0 Total. 55.2 r 18 GRFA Commercial Common Area Office Restaurant Basement - -- 3,400 sq. ft. 136+447 - -- - -- 1 st - -- 3,386 sq. ft. 500 +132 - -- - -- 2nd - -- _ 134 +530 - -- 3,113 sq. ft. 3rd 2,258 sq. ft. - -- 518 sq. ft. 1,046 sq. ft. - -- 41h 1,360 sq. ft. - -- - -- - -- - -- 3,618 sq. ft. 6,786 sq. ft. 2,397 sq. ft. 1,046 sq. ft. 3,113 sq. ft. Chart 2 — Parking GRFA Commercial Common Area Office - Restaurant 3,618 sq. ft. 6,786/300 0 1,046/250 3,113/15/8 2.5 spaces 22.6 space 4.2 spaces 25.9 spaces Total. 55.2 r 18 • FILE COPY MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: December 19, 1994 SUBJECT: A request for a worksession for a major exterior alteration in the Commercial Core I zone district and site coverage, stream setback and common area variances and conditional use permits to allow office on the third floor and to allow an outdoor dining deck to provide for the redevelopment of Serrano's, located at 298 Hanson Ranch Road /Lot C, Block 2, Vail Village 1 st Filing. Applicant: Margretta B. Parks and Vail Associates, Inc. Planner: Andy Knudtsen I. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUESTS Please note that the new staff analysis provided throughout the memo is shown in italics. Glen Heelen, the project developer and representative of the applicants, is proposing to demolish the existing Serrano's Building and replace it with a new structure. The proposal includes: •A basement and first floor of retail use. Each floor is approximately 3,400 square feet. •A restaurant on the second floor of approximately 3,100 square feet. -Office on the third floor of approximately 1,050 square feet (by conditional use). -One residential condominium on the third and fourth floors of approximately 3,600 square feet. In addition to these uses, there will be walkway and landscaping improvements to the rear of the building and to the east of the building along the Mill Creek stream tract. To accomplish the proposal described above, and in addition to the CCI exterior alteration, there are three variances required: A 6 -foot encroachment into the 30 -foot stream setback for Mill Creek; 2. A site coverage variance request of 90.5% (80% is allowed in CCI); 3. A variance for common area. Also, two conditional use permits are required: outdoor dining deck on the second floor and office space on the third floor. II. KEY ISSUES The proposal includes six specific requests. Since the previous worksession, staff believes that the applicant has made improvements in all of these areas. The site coverage variance was 94.9% and has been reduced to 90.5 %. Total common area has remained approximately the same. Loading and delivery no longer requires a variance. The Mill Creek stream setback encroachment has been reduced from 7 feet to 6 feet. Also, the amount of mass and bulk in the stream setback has been reduced on the first, second, and third floors. The office area, which requires a conditional use, remains generally the same. The outdoor dining deck, which requires a conditional use, has been reduced both in length and width so that it does not extend over the entry of the building or extend into the right -of -way as much as it did. Staff believes the applicant has moved in the right direction concerning these variances. More importantly, staff believes the applicant has made significant improvements to the architecture of the building. Staff would like to see the model updated to be able to evaluate the architecture in greater detail. Using the criteria provided in the memo, staff believes that the PEC should give clear direction to the applicant as to the position the PEC holds regarding on the requested variances. Staff believes it would be helpful for the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) to focus on the six specific requests the applicant is making. Below is a summary of the comments made by the PEC members during the November 28, 1994 meeting. 1. Site Coverage Variance Little support. 2. Stream Setback Variance Little support. 3. Common Area Variance Not discussed in detail. + 4. Loading and Delivery Variance Support for the request; however, since the original worksession, staff has determined that a loading and delivery variance is not required. The reason for this is because the existing building has a requirement of one loading berth and the proposed building does not change this requirement. As there is not a net increase in the requirement, no additional facilities need to be provided. We understand that the applicant will continue to work with the Golden Peak House to coordinate loading and delivery issues. 4 5. Office Conditional Use Permit There was mixed support regarding the office. The use appeared to receive general support, however, the mass and bulk resulting from the office use was a concern to the PEC. 6. Conditional Use Permit for O utdoor Dinina Deck The PEC appeared to support this request with the understanding that the deck would be pulled back significantly from the design presented on November 28, 1994. 7 CCI Exterior Alteration The PEC concurred with staff and Jeff Winston regarding the architectural qualities of the building. Many improvements have been made according to the comments of the PEC. 3 t' N LL CU CC C U o E 'D 00 Q) E �� O C U O O C Q C, C, O N N N O Cep CV C Cl) Q O) Cl) M N N N T N N N N d a) m o C W LO LL N CA O f` N CA N CO CO J a) m io E O O N o m O U 0� F- fU r c Z cnw� ri N LL CU CC C U o E 'D 00 Q) E �� O C U O O C Q C, C, O N N N O Cep CV C Cl) Q O) Cl) M N N N T N CU U , C T ro Cd co > N d N CU N d N CS U O N % m O U U 6 > m Q) co (1) j a) O N N C co -p O L-• C N p O } U my °N °o\ o J N Cd ro a L CD v CL Q 2 Q N Z E N �, Q Ev p CD N Z U v Z c O x N '0 N iT d O U Qa 2) NJ F— 2 U) O IN LO Ul) a- o- N N O Q II N � X z Q Q tn Lf) CD O r N CD `o (((U �Q o N N to U ce 0) L U) O Q Q N N N lO V O N O II ro a L o U O L CV o co X co h; .CD C v V) N O n CO N {n Cl a C�6 OD N ch + M L N d C W LO LL N d a Cl c o o r � a Q w0 ¢ zCoLui o 0 N CU U , C T ro Cd co > N d N CU N d N CS U O N % m O U U 6 > m Q) co (1) j a) O N N C co -p O L-• C N p O } U my °N °o\ o J N Cd ro a L CD v CL Q 2 Q N Z E N �, Q Ev p CD N Z U v Z c O x N '0 N iT d O U Qa 2) NJ F— 2 U) O IN LO Ul) a- o- N N O Q II N � X z Q Q tn Lf) CD O r N CD `o (((U �Q o N N to U ce 0) L U) O Q Q N N N lO V O N O II ro a L o U O L CV o co X co h; .CD C v V) N O n CO N {n Cl a C�6 OD N ch + M L N m C W LL d C O O Z F- fU r •� W p d (b .N �N •� > m ( CT O O d 0 N Q 'N .N N CO O N L- •- CD O C) E C D m Y c CD � r ° cD � cu coo CO Cl) C O NN CO C6 a:3 d C N w C •� N Y 0 � C ca O O C6 N N a C O O E O c C U LL E O V v c d 3 cm Q Q m 0 0 m . C O O Z F- fU r •� W p 7 O a��i E N m a > cc `p O °o o x rn CL c d C N w C •� N Y 0 � C ca O O C6 N N a C O LO p O c N m o 0 3 d 3 cm Q Q m 0 0 d O N 0 N C y N O L N N Cn V C:) CD N a1 � N Y 7 N td O U 7 O O C CU LO Cc Q N c O N a LO O_ Hi L 0 Z N N N CD N N L N a c � m c Y c (n CD m c0 CL p cl Q) a S. (D c c m a c c '^ m - y O cr CT N CT N > N 2 co a' N N a m c d c 0 0 0 0 0 N cc 0 co L6 L6 CO CL E r_ U >, fU � O O N a o s ca v U) N N O) N C L O L Q a _ • N N ca cc N 6 C L O O O U QI a O m ca O (n a F— L N cu cc m ro U a aJ ° c c U ID m in � y U O ICO m -� �o a .N c i6 co fA E c° C- U p Y E o a. Of U =O 3 C U L a J F- Q n It IV. URBAN DESIGN CRITERIA AND RELEVANT MASTER PLAN POLICIES As this item is a worksession, staff will not evaluate the criteria. However, please be aware that the following criteria from the Vail Village Urban Design Guidelines, the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan, the Vail Village Master Plan, the Streetscape Master Plan, and the Zoning Code will be applied to evaluate the proposal at a later date. A. Vail Village Urban Design Criteria 1. Pedestrianization: 2. Vehicular Penetration: 3. Streetscape Framework: 4. Street Enclosure: 5. Street Edge: 6. Building Height: 7. Views and Focal Points: 8. Service and Delivery: 9. Sun /Shade: 10. Roofs 11. Facades 12. Decks and Patios 13. Balconies 14. Accent Elements 15. Landscape Elements B. Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan The Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan specifically addresses the Mill Creek stream tract east of the Serrano's Building. Specifically, it calls for: Concept 8 - "Mill Creek walking path, West Side Mill Creek Path completes linkage from pirate ship and mountain path to Gore Creek Drive." Staff believes that this walk should be an extension of the recent improvements made to the Mill Creek Court Building and adjacent stream tract. Staff recognizes that it is a mutual goal among the developers, Vail Associates, and the.Town of Vail to create a new pedestrian link from Hanson Ranch Road to the Vista Bahn ski base. C. Vail Village Master Plan Goal #1: Encourage high quality development while preserving the unique architectural scale of the Village in order to sustain its sense of community and identity. 1.2 Objective: Encourage the upgrading and redevelopment of residential and commercial facilities. 5 1.21 Policy: Additional development may be allowed as identified by the action plan and as is consistent with the Vail Village Master Plan and Urban Design Guide Plan. 1.3 Objective: Enhance new development and redevelopment through public improvements done by private developers working in cooperation with the Town. 1.3.1 Policy: Public improvements shall be developed with the participation of the private sector working with the Town. 2.2 Objective: Recognize the "historic" commercial core as the main activity center of the Village. 2.2.1 Policy: The design criteria of the Vail Village Urban Design Guideplan shall be the primary guiding document to preserve the existing architectural scale and character of the core area of Vail Village. 2.3.1 Policy: The development of short term accommodation units is strongly encouraged. Residential units that are developed above existing density levels are required to be designed or managed in a manner that makes them available for short term overnight rental. 2.4 Objective: Encourage the development of a variety of a new commercial activity where compatible with existing land uses. 2.4.1 Policy: Commercial infill development consistent with established horizontal zoning regulations shall be encouraged to provide activity generators, accessible greenspaces, public plazas, and streetscape improvements to the pedestrian network throughout the Village. 2.4.2 Policy: Activity that provides night life and evening entertainment for both the guests and the community shall be encouraged. 2.5 Objective: Encourage the continued upgrading, renovation and maintenance of existing lodging and commercial facilities to better serve the needs of our guests. Goal #3: To recognize as a top priority the enhancement of the walking experience throughout the Village. lu N 3.1 Objective: Physically improve the existing pedestrian ways by landscaping and other improvements. 3.1.1 Policy: Private development projects shall incorporate streetscape improvements (such as paver treatments, landscaping, lighting and seating areas), along adjacent pedestrian ways. 3.4 Objective: Develop additional sidewalks, pedestrian only walkways, and accessible green space areas, including pocket parks and stream access. 3.4.1 Policy: Physical improvements to property adjacent to the stream tract shall not further restrict public access. 3.4.2 Policy: Private development projects shall be required to incorporate new sidewalks along streets adjacent to the project as designated by the Vail Village Master Plan and /or Recreation Trails Master Plan. Goal #4: To preserve existing open space areas and expand green space opportunities. 4.1 Objective: To improve existing open space areas and create new plazas with green space and pocket parks. Recognize the different roles of each type of open space in forming the overall fabric of the Village. 4.1.3 Policy: With the exception of ski base - related facilities, existing natural open space areas at the base of Vail Mountain and throughout Vail Village shall be preserved as open space_ 4.1.4 Policy: Open space improvements including the addition of accessible green space is described or graphically shown in the Vail Village Master Plan and /or Urban Design Guide Plan, will be required in conjunction with private in -fill or redevelopment projects. 7 o Vail Village Master Plan - Land Use Vail Village Master Plan - Conceptual Building Height Plan Vail Village Master Plan - Sub -Area Concepts: Mixed Use - This category includes the "historic" Village Core and properties near the pedestrianized streets of the Village. Lodging, retail, and a limited amount of office use are found in this category. With nearly 270,000 square feet of retail space and approximately three hundred and twenty residential units, the mixed use character of this area is a major factor and appeal of Vail Village. 3 to 4 stories No. 3 -8; Mill Creek Streamwalk "A walking path along Mill Creek between Pirateship Park and Gore Creek, further completing the pedestrian network and providing public access to the creek. Specific design and location shall be sensitive to adjacent uses of the creek environment." Vl,1/V 1 �. � i �, urll Cc[F• � L10V0• 1 COUa7 ELal• }llc.e neo c• D G . 1• J— �- 11 _ , eLOa. J �. f` •, `,� -FO L10r _ / MRIS1 n !' 1 in staff's analysis of the goals, objectives, and policies of the Vail Village Master Plan, there were two policies which are not addressed by the Serrano's proposal. Employee housing has not been addressed or provided for, as well as short-term rental accommodations, which have not been addressed or provide for. D. Streetscape Master Plan "The primary paving material for the right -of -way area of the Village Core is recommended to be rectangular concrete unit pavers, in the color mix specified in the Guidelines for Paving section of this report. The herringbone pattern, which is proposed for most areas, is edged by a double soldier course. The intent is to satisfy the need for a simple streetscape treatment without being monotonous." The applicant is proposing a band of pavers along the front of the building. The proposed band would be 10 feet wide, extending out from the face of the building. It would wrap around the building on the northeast corner and continue up the east side towards the base area. Staff understands that the paver walkway in front of the Golden Peak House will be snowmelted. Staff believes that this paver walkway should also be snowmelted. V. VARIANCE CRITERIA AND FINDINGS At this time, the applicant is requesting variances for site coverage, stream setback, and common area. A. Consideration of Factors 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 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 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. B. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a variance: 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. 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 a E C. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. VI. CONDITIONAL USE CRITERIA AND FINDINGS At this time, the applicant is requesting conditional use approval for an outdoor dining deck and office use on the third floor. A. Consideration of Factors: 1. Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town. 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. Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and M . 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. Findings The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before -granting a conditional use permit: 1. That the proposed location of the use in accord with the purposes of the V conditional use permit section of the zoning code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. 2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code. 10 VII. HISTORY OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES Staff researched the histories of five buildings surrounding the Serrano's site: A. A & D Building October 8, 1984 - The PEC approved a CCI exterior alteration. No variances were requested. Site coverage was proposed at 80 %. The exterior alteration was approved with the condition that a floodplain modification request be approved by the Town prior to construction. May 8, 1985 - The PEC approved a floodplain modification for the A & D development. No stream setback variance was required. B. Red Lion Buildinq April 9, 1990 - The PEC approved a view corridor encroachment, stream setback variance, site coverage variance, CCI exterior alteration, and conditional use permit to allow an outdoor dining deck. Prior to redevelopment, the Red Lion Building encroached into the Mill Creek stream setback 1 to 18 feet. The proposed redevelopment requested 5 additional feet of encroachment. The staff memo cited the location of the existing building and the A & D improvements as significant issues that would not make the request a grant of special privilege. The staff recommended denial of the requests, although the PEC ultimately approved the request. Concerning site coverage for the Red Lion redevelopment, the proposal included 50 square feet of additional site coverage. However, as part of the redevelopment, 27 square feet of site coverage was to be eliminated. As a result, there was net increase of 23 square feet of site coverage. At the time of the proposal, the existing Red Lion Building had a site coverage of 83 %. Though the staff recommendation for the site coverage variance request was denial, the PEC ultimately approved it. One of the conditions of the exterior alteration was an agreement between the Town and the Red Lion developers that the GRFA approved through that process be the cap. Language has been incorporated into the condominium declarations that the existing 8,714 square feet of GRFA and three dwelling units are the maximum allowed for the property and that no other GRFA or dwelling units may be added to the project in the future. The standards for CCI zoning would allow approximately 11,200 square feet of GRFA and eight dwelling units. On October 22, 1990, the PEC approved an exterior alteration and a site coverage variance to allow an airlock to be constructed for the Szechuan Lion Restaurant. At the time of the request the building had a site coverage of 83.2 percent. The proposed airlock was 60 square feet. The approval allowed the building to reach a site coverage of 83.6 percent. Staff recommended approval, primarily because the Zoning Code at the time emphasized the need for airlocks. 11 C. Golden Peak House November 2, 1993 - Town Council approved a Special Development District for the Golden Peak House. This included, among other things, a site coverage request which exceeded the 80% allowed in CCI. At the time of the proposal, the existing Golden Peak House had a site coverage of 76 %. Under the approved plans, the proposed site coverage will be 94 %. (Both of these figures are based on the expanded lot). D. Curtin Hill Building March 8, 1993 - The PEC approved a CCI exterior alteration for this building. Site coverage at the time of this proposal was 71 %. The approved site coverage is 71.6 %. .,, E. Christiania Lodge Under the Public Accommodation zone district, allowed site coverage is 55 %. On March 23, 1992, Town Council approved a Special Development District allowing the Christiania to expand from 32% to 39% site coverage. VIII. DISCUSSION As this is a worksession, staff does not have formal recommendations concerning the variance and conditional use requests. However, staff has provided some comments on the proposal. The new comments are shown in italics: In general, staff believes that the architecture has been revised and improved significantly. The building has been simplified in both the materials and massing. The Italian mansard roof has been eliminated on the second floor and replaced with balconies that surround the restaurant. The fourth floor condominium has been relocated to the central part of the building. As a result, `ies in better with the Golden Peak House and allows for a variety of roof forms on the third floor. Roof Design T . t 12 fig. Eliminate the pafa Simplify the faseia, 9. appliGatieR of f T . t 12 h. Staff believes it is imperative to receive a detailed mechanical plan prior to the final worksession hearing. In other projects, the mechanical plans have often not been developed until during the construction process. This often results in rooftop mechanical that has not been shown to the review boards during the planning process. Staff believes that the proposed roof design has improved significantly. Staff believes that it will be important to evaluate the roof design after a model is built. Because the fourth floor has been relocated to the center of the building, roof forms are now located around the perimeter of the third floor. An aspect that the staff believes has contributed to the improvement is a 5 -foot plate height on the third floor. This allows the roof to come to a much lower level. As a result, there is a greater hierarchy between portions of the building with gable roof forms and the portions of the building with shed roof forms. Other improvements include the elimination of the Italian mansard and the elimination of parapet walls. All clipped hips have been removed. It is important to note that the roof has been changed from cedar shake to a tar and gravel material. One of the goals the staff was advocating in the previous worksession was to have a uniform roof, continuing from the fourth floor down to the third floor. This has not been provided, as it would be difficult for the applicants to do this and still meet the zoning requirements. Though staff may still advocate a significant redesign in order to accomplish this goal, staff does not believe it is necessary. Staff believes a model is important to confirm this. Staff continues to need a mechanical plan for the building as described in letter "h" above. 2. Deck and Entry The dining deck has been reduced in size. It now extends 9 feet out from the face of the second floor. At this distance, the deck extends into the right -of -way the same distance as the existing first floor dining deck. Now that the deck has been pulled back from the entry, the main entrance has a greater importance within the elevation. It has been highlighted with an awning and a gable roof. 13 3. Stair Tower and Massing U.I. arm Staff believes that the issue regarding the stair tower is no longer relevant. Staff believes that relocating the rourth floor to the center of the building has improved the architecture. 4. Northeast Corner of Building The northeast corner of the building has improved significantly. The octagonal shape has been eliminated. The building now steps back with a forty -five degree angle provided on the first, second and third levels. We believe that this element is consistent with the context of Vail Village. Previously, we were recommending that the third floor be eliminated at this location; however, at this time, we believe that the building has been stepped adequately without removing third floor area on this corner of the building. To understand how the building steps, staff has provided the amount of encroachment into the stream setback per floor below: Basement: 75 square feet First Floor: 75 square feet Second Floor. 11.9 square feet Third Floor. 9.1 square feet Fourth Floor: 0 square feet 14 r 4. Streetscape Improvements Staff believes that the area of Hansen Ranch Road immediately adjacent to this site should be improved according to the streetscape standards. This includes concrete unit pavers, in the color mix specified in the Streetscape Master Plan. The pavers should extend out beyond the face of the building to the point which matches the proposed plan of the Golden Peak House. As noted earlier in the memo, the applicants plan to put a 10 -foot wide band of pavers on the north side of the building and wrap that around the corner and continue it up the east side of the building. We believe that these paver walkways should be snowmelted. C. Zoning Issues At this time, the applicant has provided a signed application from Vail Associates with several conditions. Vail Associates is required to provide their consent for the improvements on the Mill Creek stream tract. At this time, Vail Associates owns this land. Prior to scheduling this protect for a final hearing at the PEC, staff is requiring that a revised letter from Vail Associates be provided deleting most of the conditions. The Town Attorney is working with attorneys from Vail Associates on an acceptable letter. 2. Prior to returning for a final hearing, the applicant shall provide documentation from the surveyor that all of the proposed construction is outside all Town adopted view corridors. The applicant has d°Signed the building with this understanding and staff believes that th :ire probably no encroachments. However, this must be documer:.Z.� by a surveyor. View #1 and #4 must be reviewed in detail. 3. Staff's review of the project shows that the drawings include e; avation in the floodplain. If the applicant would like to-propose a modification to the floodplain, a complete application must be submitted and the Federal review process should be initiated. If that is not the applicant's desire, all drawings must be amended to show that excavation will not occur in the floodplain. 4. Staff needs to verify that the applicant will either be building a common wall with the Golden Peak House or has permission to encroach over the Golden Peak House property line. Documentation for either proposal must be provided prior to returning to a final hearing. 5. The applicants shall provide signatures from the owners of the Golden Peak House if the trash room of the Golden Peak House is to be shared with the Serrano's project. If the applicants continue to propose a walkway on the south side of the building, the applicants must provide the signature of the owner of the Golden Peak House. The grades in this location may not allow a connection to the Golden Peak House, depending on how the applicant revises the grading within the floodplain. 16 9 • As one can see from the chart above, this corner of the building progressively steps back as it gets higher. B. Stream Tract Improvements /Site Improvements Stream Tract UM The applicant has redesigned the stream tract improvements in a way which removes all fill that was proposed to be located in the floodplain, and the two walkways have been reduced to a single walkway. The walkway wraps around the building at the elevation of the first floor and then ascends a staircase at the rear to the bikepath. Staff believes it would be an improvement to have the walkway wrap around the building at the grade of the existing elevation. This would provide for a more natural appearance on the south side of the building, would reduce the steep drop -off into the south elevation, and would eliminate excavation in the floodway. Previously, staff had identified fill in the floodplain as a concern. At this time, the applicant has removed the fill, but has instead shown excavation. Fill or excavation requires a floodplain modification. Staff believes that a pathway that follows the existing grade would be more natural in appearance, and would not necessitate a floodplain modification. 2. Site Grading Staff would like to see a detailed site plan showing how the grading on the south side of the building fits into the Golden Peak House grading scheme. As the grades drop off significantly in this area, staff would like to ensure that the two site plans work together. 3. Landscaping Staff believes that the existing trees in the area should be preserved. Given the amount of grade change in the area, this may not be feasible. Staff believes that the architect should work with the existing grade contours in an effort to preserve as many of the trees as possible. Staff also believes that the applicant should hire a landscape architect to design the Mill Creek stream tract improvements. We believe the quality should match the Town's recently completed Mill Creek Court project north of Hansen Ranch Road. Additionally, the bridge railing on the south side of Hanson Ranch Road should match the recent improvements by the Town. 15 6. The applicant shall provide three dimensional site staking of the development proposal for the next PEC hearing, whether that is a worksession or a final hearing. D. Other Second Floor /Restaurant Staff believes the second floor of the building should be modified in several respects. We are concerned that the amount of fenestration exceeds what is appropriate for the second floor. We understand that the first floor should be relatively transparent. However, we believe the upper stories of the building should reflect a different character. The new decks and balconies surrounding the restaurant on the second floor, in staff's opinion, appear to be more appropriate than the mansard roof. Staff would like the PEC's opinion on the railing design. Should the railings reflect a more traditional style, such as the Casino Building or the Sonnenalp? Finally, it appears that the width of the balcony may not be sufficient to allow the balcony to function for outdoor dining. Should this be increased to accommodate tables ? 2. Sun /Shade Staff is concerned about the amount of shading that will impact Hanson Ranch Road, the Red Lion Building, and the Mill Creek stream corridor. To understand the impacts of the sun /shade analysis more thoroughly, staff would ask the applicant to provide drawings, showing the impacts from the existing building and then the impacts from the proposed building. 3. Building Section Staff is requesting that the applicant show a section through the building identifying floor to ceiling heights. In previous proposals in the Village, staff has been able to work with applicants, particularly in the area of the floor to ceiling height in condominiums to reduce the mass and bulk. IX. CONCLUSION As this is a worksession, staff does not have a formal recommendation. Staff would encourage the PEC to review the proposal and focus on the key issues outlined above, the specific requests, and the criteria provided in the memo. c: \pec \memos\serano 12.19 17 EXHIBIT A Total GRFA 3,618 sq. ft. 2.5 spaces 55.2 Commercial 6,786/300 22.6 space Chart 1 — Floor Area Common Area 136+447 500+ 132 134+530 518 sq. ft. e� 2,397 sq. ft. Chart 2 — Parking Common Area 0 L_J Office Restaurant --- 3,113 sq. h. 1,046 sq. ft. - -- 1,046 sq. ft. 3,113 sq. ft. Office = GRFA Commercial Basement - -- 3,400 sq. ft. 1 st - -- 3,386 sq. ft. 2nd - -- 3rd 2,258 sq. h. - -- 4th 1,360 sq. ft. - -- 3,618 sq. ft. 6,786 sq. ft. Total GRFA 3,618 sq. ft. 2.5 spaces 55.2 Commercial 6,786/300 22.6 space Chart 1 — Floor Area Common Area 136+447 500+ 132 134+530 518 sq. ft. e� 2,397 sq. ft. Chart 2 — Parking Common Area 0 L_J Office Restaurant --- 3,113 sq. h. 1,046 sq. ft. - -- 1,046 sq. ft. 3,113 sq. ft. Office = Restaurant 1,046/250 3,113/15/8 4.2 spaces 25.9 spaces r 0