HomeMy WebLinkAboutWEST DAY SUBDIVISION LOT 2 RITZ CARLTON GENERAL PART 2 OF 2 LEGAL.pdfTO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
MEMORANDUM
Planning and Environmental Commission
Community Development Department
November 14,2005
A request for a final review of a major exterior alteration, pursuant to
Section 12-7H-7, Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town
il.
Code, and a final review of a conditional use permit,pursuant to
Section 12-7H-2, Permitted and Conditional Uses; Basement or Garden
Levef, and 12-7H-3, Permitted and Conditional Uses; First Floor on
Street Level, Vail Town Code; and final review of architectural
deviations, pursuant to Section 8.3.3.A, Review Criteria for Deviations to
the Architectural Design Guidelines for New Development, Lionshead
Redevelopment Master Plan, to allow for the development of 107 multi-
family residential dwelling units, located at 728 West Lionshead Circle/Lot
2, West Day Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC
05-0062 and PEC 05-0063).
Applicant Vail Resorts Development Company, represented by
Braun Associates, Inc.Planner: Wanen Campbell
SUMMARY
The purpose of today's work session hearing with the Planning and
Environmental Commission is to allow the applicant an opportunity to present the
changes which have been made to the application in response to comments from
the previous meeting. The desired outcome of the hearing is for the Planning
and Environmental Commission to understand the following:
o The proposed structure in terms of bulk, mass, height, and operation.. The criteria by which the applicant is requesting flexibility regarding the
area of flat roof on the structure and the proposed the architectural
mechanical screening solution.
The Commission is not being asked to take any formal action on this application
at this time. As such, staff is not providing a formal recommendation at this time.
Staff and the applicant request that the Planning and Environmental Commission
tabfes the applicant's request to the November 28, 2005, hearing. lt is
anticipated that the applicant will request a final approval at the November 28,
2005, Planning and Environmental Commission hearing.
DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
The purpose of today's work session hearing with the Planning and
Environmental Commission is to allow the applicant an opportunity to present the
changes which have been made to the application in response to comments from
|il.
the previous meeting. After the presentation the Planning and Environmental
Commission will be asked to provide additional feedback regarding the revisions
to the proposal.
The primary changes made since October 24,2005, are:
r The elimination of the screening element for the mechanicals located over
the primary ridge;. The reduction of flat roofed areas and increase in roof top tenaces; and . The incorporation of an architectural landmark tower measuring 112 feet
in height.
The proposed Ritz-Carlton Residences project is on the third and final parcel of
the comprehensive development site encompassing the existing Marriott Hotel,
the Gore Creek Residences, and the West Day Lot parking area. The West Day
Lot parking area and the existing Marriott parking structure sites total 2.399 acres
in size and is location of the proposed Ritz-Carlton Residences project. A vicinity
map identifying the location of the development site has been attached for
reference (Attachment A). A reduced set of revisions are attached for reference
(Attachment B).
The Ritz-Carlton Residences proposal is comprised of two (2) different
development review applications. Each application is intended to facilitate the
redevelopment proposal. The development applications include:
r A maior exterior alteration aoplication for a new 107 multiple-
family dwelling unit structure; and r A conditional use oermit aoolication for "lodge rooms or dwelling
unifs" located on the basement or garden level and the first floor
or street level of the structure.
The key elements of the proposal include:
. A 1O7 multiple-family dwelling unit condominium structure;r A total ol 212,695 square feet of Gross Residential Floor Area
(GRFA);o A 388 space below grade parking structure to serve as parking for
the Marriott Hotel and the Ritz-Carlton Residences;r A landmark tower feature which is 112 feet in height;o A loading and delivery facility comprised of three bays;o A lobby/lounge area with a front desk, concierge, and valet; and r A media room, game room, and pool/hot tub deck.
BACKGROUND
The subject development site includes several parcels of land cunently used for
the Manioft Hotel, the parking structure for the Marrioft Hotel, the Gore Creek
Residences, and the West Day Lot.
Marriott Hotel History (Parcel 1 of the West Day Subdivison)
The Marriott (previously "The Mark") was approved by the Town in 1977
as a hotel and condominium project and was zoned Special Development
District No. 7 by Ordinance 3, Series of 1977. The project was expanded
and modified throughout the 1980's and 1990's. In 1999 the Marriott
property, along with the rest of Lionshead, was rezoned to Lionshead
Mixed Use 1 and SDD No. 7 was repealed. The Marriott as developed
today includes 35 dwelling units, 276 hotel rooms, meeting rooms, a
restaurant, and other hotel amenities.
West Day Lot History (Parcel 2 of the West Day Subdivision)
The western portion of the site (the Morcus Subdivision), known as the
"West Day Lot", was regraded and used for Vail Resorts employee
parking. Prior to the rezoning of this parcel to Lionshead Mixed Use 1 in
1999, the property was zoned Parking District.
On August 22, 2005, the Planning and Environmental Commission held
an initial hearing on the Ritz-Carlton Residences. At that hearing Staff
proved the Commission with parameters by which the project would be
reviewed. At this hearing the Commission requested to see how the
parcels recently acquired by Vail Associates and the potential of
relocating the Frontage Road would affect this property. In addition the
Commission asked for a response as to why a conditional use permit was
appropriate to be granted for condominiums on the ground floor next to a
potential future lift and within an overall greater portal to the mountain
being created in western Lionshead.
On September 12, 2005, the Planning and environmental Commission
expressed that there were no concerns with the Conditional Use Permit
that was being request for dwelling units on the first floor or garden level.
The Commission continued by expressing concem regarding the height of
the landmark tower. The general consensus was that a height of 140 feet
was inappropriate. In addition, the Commission stated that the height of
the screening element for the mechanicals had not been justified in the
presentation and other options should be examined. The Commission
was not comfortable with approving the height of the screening element
over the maximum height of 82.5 feet. Finally the Commission expressed
that they would like greater information regarding the flat roof maximum
area requirement found in the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan.
Several members expressed a need for the western elevation along the
Frontage Road to have step backs incorporated into the architecture.
On September 26, 2005, The Planning and Environmental Commission
generally expressed that of the three Options/Alternatives presented that
that Option/Altemative B was preferable to Option/Alternative C. The
Commissioners generally felt that while OptioniAlternative B incorporated
the mechanical screening solution which exceeds the maximum height, it
does not result in additional head height in the top floor units as in
Option/Altemative G. Some concemed was expressed about how
mechanical screening which exceeds the maximum height could be
limited and controlled so as not to be abused on future projects. One
thought expressed was to have more speciflc language in the Master
Plan to address screening of mechanical units. Some members believed
that enough regulations, or safeguards, were in place to insure that
mechanical screening abuse would not occur on other projects as they
would need to pass PEC and DRB review. For instance, the applicant
was directed to provide a sample of the mechanical screening material,
look at incorporating roof-top tenaces, and examine the possibility of
creating a more "cascading roof effect" on the southeast elevation.
On October 10, 2005, the Planning and Environmental Commission gave
direction to the applicant regarding the proposed architectural deviations.
The Commission in general felt the proposed landmark tower was still too
tall at 120 feet and that there were concems with the height of the
architectural screening solution for the mechanicals. The Commission
was relatively comfortable with the flat roof area of the building, however,
they directed staff to call Jack Zehren, of Zehren and Associates, one of
the individuals who participated in the writing of the Lionshead
Redevelopment master Plan.
On October 19, 2005, staff spoke directly with Jack Zehren regarding the
intent of Section 8.4.2.7, Roofs, and what the design goal/intent was of
limiting flat roofed portions of buildings to 500 square feet. Through
conversation it was learned that a draft prior to the approved Master Plan
identified a maximum of 250 square feet for flat roofs. He continued by
stating that the number of 500 square feet was arbitrary and that the
goal/intent was to allow for larger buildings which have complex roof
systems to utilize the flat roofed areas as "transitions" between the
complicated systems. He stated that it was the understood during the
drafting of the Master Plan that some structures would have multiple flat
roofed areas located on larger buildings which might total more that 500
square feet. He conclude by stating that the writers of the Master Plan
realized that some flat roofed areas may exceed 500 square feet,
however, if those flat roofed areas did not disrupt the overall roof system
and architecture they could be approved per the following statement from
the Master Plan:
Secondary roof forms which occur at logical breaks in building
massihg may exceed 500 square feet if the general intent of
fragmented forms and visual harmony is met.
On October 24, 2005, the Planning and Environmental Commission
generally supported the architecture of the proposed structure.
Regarding the proposed architectural deviations (flat roof area,
mechanical screening, and a landmark tower) there were varying
thoughts. Several members were comfortable with the mechanical
screening solution as it was a good solution by which other developers
could aspire, while other members were adamant that the height limitation
of 82.5 feet not be exceeded. In regards to the flat roof area of the
building the general consensus was that the area proposed was
appropriate. Several members desired to see the architectural landmark
return to the design of the project. Some members felt the tower should
e,omply with the 97.5 feet height requirement and others thought it could
go slightly taller.
On Novembe r 2, 2005, the Design Review Board, at its regular hearing
voted unanimously to forward a recommendation of approval on the
architectural deviations (flat roof area, and architectural landmark tower)
to the Planning and Environmental Commission.
Gore Creek Residences History (Parcel 3 of the West Day Subdivision):
On November 24, 20O3, the Planning and Environmental Commission
approved text amendments to Section 12-7H-5, Conditional Uses;
Generally (on all levels of a building or outside a building), Vail Town
Code, to allow single-family residential dwellings and two-family
residential dwellings as conditional uses in the Lionshead Mixed Use 1
District and Section 12-16-7, Use Specific Criteria and Standards, Vail
Town Code, to provide criteria to which a single-family and two-family
residential dwelling proposal within the Lionshead Mixed Use 1 District
must adhere. The text amendments were subsequently approved by
Town Council upon second reading in Ordinance 36, Series of 2003, on
December 16, 2003.
On June 28, 2004, the Planning and Environmental Commission
approved, with conditions, a conditional use permit and a major exterior
alteration application on this site for eight two-family structures for a total
of 16 dwelling units.
On December 13, 2004, the Planning and Environmental Commission
approved a minor subdivision establishing the West Day Subdivision
which is comprised of three parcels. The approval and recording of the
West Day Subdivision was the culmination of the review of the Gore
Creek residences during which it was agreed that the three lots
comprising the West Day Subdivision would be tied together for zoning
purposes. A note was placed upon the West Day Subdivision which
states the following:
"For the purposes of zoning, Lots 1, 2, and 3, created by this
subdivision are to be treated as one development site.
Development sfandards shall be based upon the improvements
and land area of the combined area of Lofs 1 , 2, and 3."
As a part of the approval of the West Day Subdivision, a spreadsheet
identifying the development potential for each of the three par@ls was
approved in conjunction with the minor subdivision. That spreadsheet,
was entitled, "West Day LoUManiott Hotel/Gore Creek Place
Approved Development Plan/Development Allocations", and dated
December 6, 2004.
ROLES OF THE REVIEWING BOARDS
The purpose of this section of the memorandum is to clarify the responsibilities of
the Design Review Board, Planning and Environmental Commission, Town
lv.
Council, and Staff on the various applications submitted on behalf of Vail Resorts
Development Company.
A. Exterior Alteration/Modification in the Lionshead Mixed-Use I
zone district
Order of Review: Generally, applications will be reviewed first by the
Planning and Environmental Gommission for impacts of use/development
and then by the Design Review Board for compliance of proposed
buildings and site planning.
Planning and Environmental Commission:
Action: The Planning and Environmental Commission is responsible for
final approval/denial of a Major/Minor Exterior Alteration. The Planning
and Environmental Commission shall review the proposal for compliance
with the adopted criteria. The Planning and Environmental Commission's
approval "shall constitute approval of the basic form and location of
improvements including siting, building setbacks, height, building bulk and
mass, site improvements and landscaping."
Design Review Board:
Action: The Design Review Board has no review authority on a Major or
Minor Exterior Alteration, but must review any accompanying Design
Review Board application.
Sfaff;
The staff is responsible for ensuring that all submittal requirements are
provided and plans conform to the technical requirements of the Zoning
Regulations. The staff also advises the applicant as to compliance with
the design guidelines. Staff provides a staff memo containing
background on the property and provides a staff evaluation of the project
with respect to the required criteria and findings, and a recommendation
on approval, approval with conditions, or denial. Staff also facilitates the
review process.
Town Council:
Actions of Design Review Board or Planning and Environmental
Commission may be appealed to the Town Council or by the Town
Council. Town Council evaluates whether or not the Planning and
EnMronmentral Commission or Design Review Board ened with approvals
or denials and can uphold, uphold with modifications, or overturn the
board's decision.
B. Conditional Use Permit (CUP)
Order of Review: Generally, applications will be reviewed first by the
Planning and Environmental Commission for acceptability of use and then
by the Design Review Board for compliance of proposed buildings and
site planning.
Planning and Environmental Commission:
Action: The Planning and Environmental Commission is responsible for
v.
final approval/denial of CUP. The Planning and Environmental
Commission shall review the request for compliance with the adopted
conditional use permit criteria and make findings of fact with regard to the
project's compliance.
Design Review Board:
Action; The Design Review Board has no review authority on a CUP, but
must review any accompanying Design Review Board application.
Staff:
The staff is responsible for ensuring that all submittal requirements are
provided and plans conform to the technical requirements of the Zoning
Regulations. The staff also advises the applicant as to compliance with
the design guidelines. Staff provides a staff memo containing
background on the property and provides a staff evali.ration of the project
with respect to the required criteria and findings, and a recommendation
on approval, approval with conditions, or denial. Staff also facilitates the
review process.
Town Council:
Actions of Design Review Board or Planning and Environmental
Commission may be appealed to the Town Council or by the Town
Council. Town Council evaluates whether or not the Planning and
Environmental Commission or Design Review Board erred with approvals
or denials and can uphold, uphold with modifications, or overturn the
board's decision.
APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS
The following checklist was created to provide a means of evaluating the Ritz-
Carlton Residences proposal for complianee with the Lionshead Redevelopment
Master Plan. The checklist is intended for the Planning and Environmental
Commission to use in conjunction with their copies of the Lionshead
Redevelopment Master Plan to locate relevant portions of the Master Plan which
pertain to this proposal.
Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan
Chapter 2: lntroduction
a 2.1 Purpose of the Master Plan
o 2.2 Definition of a Master Plan
o 2.3 Policy Objectives s 2.3.1 Renewal and Redevelopment a 2.3.2 Vitality and Amenities s 2.3.3 Stronger Economic Base Through Increased Live
Beds s 2.3.4lmproved Access and Circulation o 2.3.5 lmproved Infrastructure
o 2.3.6 Creative Financing for Enhanced Private Profits and
Public Revenues
Chapter 4: Master Plan Recommendations - Overall study Area
a 4.1 Underlying Physical Framework of Lionshead o 4.1.1 Lionshead Master Plan Concept o 4.1.5 West Lionshead - Residential/Mixed-Use Hub
o 4.3 Connections to the Natural Environment o 4.3.1 Visual Connections o 4.3.1.2 North-South Orientation of Buildings
a 4.6 Vehicular and Pedestrian Circulation
o 4.6.4 Modifications to West Lionshead Circle and
Lionshead Place a 4.6.4.1 East lntersection of W. Lionshead Circle
and South Frontage Road o 4.6.4.2Intersection of Lionshead Place and West
Lionshead Circle o 4.6.4.3 Pedestrian Sidewalks and Crossings a 4.6.4.4 Visual lmprovements
a 4.7 Loading and Delivery s 4.7.1 Properties with Direct Service Access
o 4.8 Parking o 4.8.1 Potential Displacement of Existing Parking a 4.8.1.2 West Day Lot a 4.S.2ResidentialProperties
o 4.9 Housing o 4.9.1 No Net Loss of Employee Housing o 4.9.3 Policy Based Housing Opportunities
o 4.10 Gateway, Landmarks, and Portals o 4.10.2 Landmarks
a 4.11 Public Art
Chapter 5, Detailed Plan Recommendations
o 5.13 The Maniott o 5.13.1 Redevelopment or Development of the Parking
Structure B 5.17 West Day LoU Vail Associates Service Yard/ Holy
Cross Site
Chapter 6, Site Design Guidelines
o 6.4 Secondary Pedestrian Walk
8
6.6 Pedestrian Path
Chapter 8, Architectural Design Guidelines
s 8.1 Vision Statement
s 8.2 Organization, Purpose and Scope a 8.4.2 Architecture s 8.4.2.1 Introduction a 8.4.2.2 Building Form and Massing s 8.4.2.3 Building Height o 8.4.2.4 Exterior Walls o 8.4.2.7 Roofs
Resolution 18. Series of 2004: A Resolution Amendino Certain Sections Of The
Lionshead Redevelooment Master Plan Clarifuinq And Affordinq ALL Tvoes Of
Development Proiects. 'Wew And Redevelopmenf". Flexibilitv In The Aoplication Of The
Architectural Desiqn Guidelines. As Prescribed In Chaoter 8 Of The Lionshead
Redevelooment Master Plan. And Settinq Forth Details In Reoard Thereto.
8.3.3.A Review Criteria for Deviations to the Architectural Design Guidelines for
New Development
Similar to the implementation policies of the ADG prescribed for existing
structures, the Town has determined that there may be instances where
flexibility in requiring strict compliance with the Guidelines for new
development maybe in the best interest of the community and the
fuftherance of the goals and objectives stated in the Lionshead
Redevelopment Master Plan. That said, however, it is acknowledged that
such instances are rare and extraordinary, and shall be considered on a
case-by-case basris. To aid in determining when flexibility shall be
afforded to new development from strict compliance with the Guidelines,
review criteria have been established. The degree of design deviation
flexibility afforded to a development project shall bear proportionately to
the extent of the improvements proposed. For example, a development
application that proposes fhe construction of a new structure which
includes the demolition of an existing structure or adds significant volume
or mass to a property, shall more fully comply with the prescribed
Architectural Design Guidelines outlined in the master plan than an
application which proposes a renovation or addition to an existing building
The following criteria shall be used by the Town of Vail Planning &
Environmental Commission and Design Review Board to determine if
deviations to the Guidelines should be granted:
It shall be the burden of the applicant to demonstrate to the satisfaction of
the Town of Vail Planning & Environmental Commission following a
recommendation ftom the Design Review Board that:
. The request for design deviations are in compliance with the
purposes of the zone district; and
The proposal which includes fhe deslgn deviations is conslstenf
with applicable elements of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master
Plan; and
The proposal which includes fhe desrgn deviations does not have
a signifrcantnegative effeet on the eharader of the neighborhood;
and
The proposal substantially complies with other applicable
elements of the Vail comprehensive plan; and
The design deviation meets or exceeds the intent of the specific
design standards as prescribed in Section 8.4; and,
o A public beneft is achieved as a resu/f of the design deviation;
and,
o The design deviation fufthers the goals, objectives and purposes
as sfated in Sections 2.3, 2.5 and 8.2 of the Lionshead
Redevelopment Master Plan.
Zonino Requlations
Lionshead Mixed Use - 1 Zone District (in part)
12-7H-1: PURPOSE:
The Lionshead Mixed Use-l zone district is intended to provide sifes for a
mixture of multiple-family dwellings, Iodges, hotels, fractional fee clubs, time
shares, lodge dwelling units, restaurants, offices, skler serubes, and commercial
establishments in a clustered, unified development. Lionshead Mixed Use 1 zone
district, in accordance with the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, is
intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space and other amenities
appropriate to the permifted types of buildings and uses and to maintain the
desirable qualities of the District by establishing appropriate site development
standards. This District is meant to encourage and provide incentives for
redevelopment in accordance with the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan.
This Zone District was specificalty developed to provide incentives for properties
to redevelop. The ultimate goal of these incentives is to create an economically
vibrant lodging, housing, and commercial core area. The incentives in this Zone
District include increases in allowable gross resrdential floor area, building height,
and density over the previously established zoning in the Lionshead
Redevelopment Master Plan study area. The primary goal of the incentives is to
create economic conditions favorable to inducing private redevelopment
consisfent with the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. Additionally, the
incentives are created to help finance public off-site improvements adjacent to
redevelopment projects. With any developmenvredevelopment proposal taking
advantage of the incentives created herein, the following amenities will be
evaluated: sfreefscape improvements, pedestian/bicycle access, public plaza
redevelopment, public aft, roadway improvements, and similar improvements.
t0
12-7H-2: PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES; EASEMENT OR GARDEN
LEVEL:A. Definition: The 'basement' or "garden level' shall be defined as that floor
of a building that is entirely or substantially below grade.
B. Permitted Uses: Ihe following uses sha// be permitted in basement or
garden ievels within a structure:
Banks and financial institutions.
Commercial ski storage.
Eating and drinking establishments.
Personal seruices and repair shops.
Professional offices, busrhess offices and sfudios.
Public or private lockers and storage.
Recreation facil ities.
Retail establ ish ments.
Skier ticketing, ski school, skrbr serulceg and daycare.
Travel agencies.
Additional uses determined to be similar to permifted uses
described ln fhls subsection, in accordance with the provisions of
Secflon 12-3-4 of this Title.
C. Conditional Uses; The following uses sha// be permitted in basement or
garden levels within a structure, subject to lssuance of a conditional use
permit in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 16 of this Title:
Conference facilities and meeting rooms.
Liquor stores.
Lodges and accommodation units.
Major arcade.
Multiplefamily residential dwelling units, time-share units,
fractional fee clubs, lodge dwelling units, and employee housing units
(Type lll (EHU) as provided in Chapter 13 of this Title).
Radio, TV stores, and repair shops.
Theaters.
Additional uses determined to be similar to conditional uses
described rn fhr.s subsection, in accudance with the provisions of
Sectrbn 12-3-4 of this Title.
12-7H-3: PERMTTTED AND CONDITIONAL USES; FIRST FLOOR OR SIREET
LEVEL:
A. Definition: The Tirst floor' or "street level' shall be defined as that floor of
the building that is located at grade or street level along a pedestrianway.
B. Permitted Uses lhe following uses sha// be permitted on the first floor or
street level within a structure:
Banks, with walk-up teller facilities.
Eating and drinking establishments.
Recreatio n facil itie s.
Refall stores and establishments.
ll
Skier ticketing, ski school, skr'er seryices, and daycare.
Travel agencies.
Additional uses determined to be similar to permitted uses descrlbed
in fhis subsection, in accordance with the provisions of Section 12-&
4 of this Title.
C. Conditional Uses; The following uses sha// be permitted on the first floor or
street level floor within a structure, subject to issuance of a conditional use
permit in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 16 of this Title:
Barbershops, beauty shops and beauty parlors.
Conference facilities and meeting rooms.
Financial institutions, other than banks.
Liquor stores.
Lodges and accommodation units.
Maltipl*family residential dwelling uni6, time-share units,
fractional fee clubs, lodge dwelling units, and employee housing units
(Type lll (EHU) as provided in Chapter 13 of this Title).
Radio, TV stores, and repair shops.
Additional uses determined to be similar to conditional uses
described rn fhis subsection, in accordance with the provisions of
Secfibn 12-3-4 of this Title.
12-7H-4: PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES: SECOND FLOOR AND
ABOVE:
A. Permifted Uses; Exception: The following uses sha// be permifted on those
floors above the first floor within a stucture:
Lodges and accommodation units.
Multiple-family residential dwelling units, time-share units,
ftactional fee clubs, lodge dwelling units, and employee housing units
(Type lll (EHU) as provided in Chapter 13 of this Title).
Additional uses determined to be similar to permifted uses descrlDed
rn lhis subsection, in accordance with the provisions of Section 12-3-
4 of this Title.
1 2-7 H-6: ACCESSORY USES:
The following accessory uses sha// be permifted in the Lionshead Mixed Use 1
zone district:
Home occupations, subject to lssuance of a home occupation permit
in accordance with the provisions of Section 12-14-12 of this Title.
Loading and delivery and parking facilities customarily incidental and
accessory to permitted and conditional uses.
Minor arcade.
Offices, lobbies, laundry, and other facilities customarily incidental
and accessory to hotels, lodges, and multiple-family uses.
Outdoor dining areas operated in conjunction with permitted eating
and drinking establishments.
Swimming pools, tennis courts, patios or other recreation facilities
cusfomarily incidental to permifted residential or /odge uses.
l2
vt.
Other uses customarily incidental and accessory to permitted or
conditional uses, and necessary for the operation thereof.
1 2-7H-8: COMPLIANCE BURDEN:
It shall be the burden of the applicant to prove by a preponderance of the
evidence before the Planning and Environmental Commission and the Design
Review Board that the proposed exterior alteration or new development is in
compliance with the purposes of the Lionshead Mixed Use 1 zone district, that
the proposal is consisfenf with applicable elements of the Lionshead
Redevelopment Master Plan and that the proposal does not othetwise have a
significant negative effect on the character of the neighborhood, and that the
proposal substantially complies with other applicable elements of the Vail
comprehensive plan.
12-7H-18: MtTtGATtON OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACTS:
Propefi owner{developers shall also be responsible for mitigating direct
impacts of their development on public infrastructure and in all cases mitigation
shall bear a reasonable relation to the development impacts. lmpacts may be
determined based on reports prepared by qualified consultants. The extent of
mitigation and public amenity improvements shall be balanced with the goals of
redevelopment and will be determined by the planning and environmental
commission in review of development projects and conditional use permits.
Mitigation of impacts may include, but is not limited to, the following: roadway
improvements, pedestrian wall<way improvements, sfreetscape improvements,
stream tracUbank improvements, public art improvements, and similar
improvements. The intent of this section is fo only require mitigation for large
scale redevelopmenUdevelopment projects which produce substantial off site
impacts.
ZONING ANALYSIS
Address/Legal Description: 720 and 728, West Lionshead Circle, and 825 West
Forest Road/Lots 1, 2, 3, West Day Subdivision
Parcel Size:
Zoning:
6.82 acre (297,165 sq. ft.)
Lionshead Mixed Use 1
Land Use Designation: Resort Accommodations and Services
The West Day Lot Development is comprised of three parcels which include the
existing Marriott Hotel and the 16 Gore Creek Place Residences, and the
proposed RiE-Carlton Residences. As was stated previously in the
memorandum these three parcels are tied together and treated as one large
development site by the recorded plat. Below is a zoning analysis which
incorporates all three parcels and the developments which exist, are under
construction, and are proposed on the three lots. This analysis will become a
part of the Approved Development Plan for the three parcels included within the
West Day Lot Development Site.
DeveloomentStandard Allowed
Land Uses:
Existino
Lotl-MarriotHotel
Lot 2 - West Day Lot and Maniott Hotel Parking Structure
Lot 3 - Gore Creek Residences
l3
Prooosed
Lot Area:
Setbacks All Sides:
Building Height:
Density:
GRFA:
Site Coverage:
Landscape Area:
Parking:
Parcel Size:
Zoning:
Land Use Designation:
Lot Area:
Setbacks All Sides:
Building Height:
Density:
GRFA:
Site Coverage:
Landscape Area:
Parking:
10,000 sq. ft.
10 ft.
71 ft. avg.
82.5 ft. max
238 DUs (35/ac.)
Unlimited AUs
742,912 sq. ft.
208,015 sq. ft.
(70Yo)
10,000 sq. ft.
10 ft.
71 ft. avg.
82.5 ft. max
83 DUs (35/ac.)
Unlimited AUs
261,250 sq. ft.
73,150 sq. ft.
(7oVo)
20,900 sq. ft. (20%)
145.6 (1.4/DU)
297,165 sq. ft.
10 ft.
70 ft. avg.
80.5 ft. max
51DU (7.5/ac.)
276 AU
213,239 sq. ft.
148,076 sq. ft.
(4e.8%)
104,500 sq. ft.
NA
NA
NA
297,165 sq. ft.
10 ft.
67.9 ft. avg.
82.5 ft. max
158 DU (23.1|ac.)
276 AU
425,934 sq. ft.
203,234 sq. ft.
(68.4%)
104,500 sq. ft.
10 ft.
66.4 ft. avg.
82.5 ft. max
107 DU (44.61ac.)
212,695 sq. ft.
77,760 sq. ft.
(74.4Vo)
25,060sq. ft. (23.9Yo)
388 spaces*
59,433 sq. ft. (20%) 139,713 sq. ft. (41olo) 1'19,772sq.ft. (40.3o/o)
156 (1.4/DU) 412 spaces 498 spaces
276 (0.7tAU)
The following analysis is performed solely on the site proposed to be the location
of the Ritz-Carlton Residences.
Address/LegalDescription: 728 West Lionshead Circle/Lot 2 West Day
Subdivision
2.399 acre (104,500 sq. ft.)
Lionshead Mixed Use 1
Resort Accommodations and Services
Develooment Standard Allowed
Land Uses:
Existinq Proposed
Lot 2 - West Day Lot and Marriott Hotel Paking Structure
NA
NA
NA
NA
l4
" Of the parking proposed to be provided 146 spaces will serve the Ritz-Carlton
Residences, 237 will serve as replacement spaces fort he Marriott Hotel to replace the
structure, and 5 are surplus.
VII. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING
North:
South:
East:
West:
Land Use
Residential
Open Space
Residential
Public Utility
Zoninq
Lionshead Mixed Use 1 District
Natural Area Preservation District
Lionshead Mixed Use 1 District
General Use District
VIII. MAJOR EXTERIOR ALTERATION REVIEW CRITERIA
Section '12-7H-8, Compliance Burden, Vail Town Code, outlines the review
criteria for major exterior alteration applications proposed within the Lionshead
Mixed Use 1 (LMU-1) zone district. According to Section '12-7H-8, Vail Town
Code, a major exterior alteration shall be reviewed for compliance with the
following criteria:
1. That the proposed major exterior alteration is in compliance with the
purposes of the Lionshead Mixed Use 1 zone district;
2. That the proposal is consistent with applicable elements of the Lionshead
Redevelopment Master Plan;
3. That the proposal does not otherwise have a significant negative effect on
the character of the neighborhood; and,
4. That the proposal substantially complies with other applicable elements of
the Vail Comprehensive Plan.
Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve the
major exterior alteration application, staff recommends that the Commission
makes the following finding as part of the motion:
"Pursuant to Section 12-7H-8, Compliance Burden, Vail Town Code, the
applicant has proven by a preponderance of the evidence before the
Planning and Environmental Commission and the Design Review Board
that the proposed major exterior alteration is in compliance with the
purposes of the Lionshead Mixed Use 1 zone district, that the proposal is
consrsfenf with applicable elements of the Lionshead Redevelopment
Master Plan and that the proposal does not otheruise have a signfficant
negative effect on the character of the neighborhood, and that the proposal
substantially complies with other applicable elements of the Vail
Comprehensive Plan."
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REVIEW CRITERIA
As previously discussed in Section ll of this memorandum, the applicant is
requesting approval of a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 12-7H-2,
l5
Permitted and Conditional Uses; Basement or Garden Level, and 12-7H-3,
Permifted and Conditional Uses; First Floor on Street Level, to construct dwelling
units within the Garden Level and on the First Floor of the proposed structure,
subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the
provisions outlined in Chapter 16, Conditional Use Permits, VailTown Code.
Section '12-16-6, Criteria; Findings, Vail Town Code, outlines the review criteria
for conditional uses permit requests proposed within the Lionshead Mixed Use 1
(LMU-1) zone district. According to Section 12-16-6, Vail Town Code, the
Planping and Environmental Commission shall consider the following factors with
respect to the proposed use:
1. Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the town.
2. Effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation
facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public
facilities and public facilities needs.
3. Effect upon traffic, with particular reference to congestion, automotive and
pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access,
maneuverability, and removal of snow from the streets and parking areas.
4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be
located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to
surrounding uses.
Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve the
application, staff recommends that the Commission make the following findings
before granting a conditional use permit:
1. That the proposed location of the use is in accordance with the purposes
of the Zoning Regulations and the purposes of the Lionshead Mixed Use 1
zone district.
2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it
would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public
health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or
improvements in the vicinity.
3. That the proposed use complies with each of the applicable provisions of
the Zoning Regulations.
RESOLUTION 18. SERIES OF 2004. REVIEW CRITERIA
The applicant is requesting two architectural design deviations which are
permifted flexibility under the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan and are
subject to review by the Planning and Environmental Commission under a set of
criteria. lf certain findings can be made by the Planning and Environmental
Commission, upon receipt of a recommendation by the Design Review Board,
flexibility can be granted. The two architectural design features the applicant is
requesting flexibility from are:
t6
The Master Plan limitation on a maximum of 500 sq. ft. of flat roofed
areas; and
The Master Plan requirements for an architectural landmark which is
112 feet tall.
Staff will not address the specific criteria at this time regarding the two
architectural design elements the applicant is requesting to deviate from in the
Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. Attached are the responses to the
specific criteria submifted by the applicant regarding the proposed deviations
(Attachment C). Staffs initial analysis of the two architectural design deviations
are as follows:
Flat Roofed Area of the Structure:
The Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan identifies a maximum area
of 500 square feet for flat roofed portions of a structure. Staff believes
that the intent of this provision is to limit buildings to minimal flat roofed
areas so as to encourage true sloping roof forms. Staff believes that
the limitation of 500 square feet per area for a structure located on a
site encompassing 2.399 acres may be unreasonable. The proposed
structure has a total roof area of approximately 58,433 square feet and
the proposed flat roofed portion of the structure is proposed to be
approximately 3,910 square feet or 6.7 percent of the total area. This is
a reduction from the previously proposed roof design which contained
approximatefy 5,442 square feet or 9.2 percent of the total area. The
current roof plan now incorporates 4,454 square feet of roof-top terrace.
The applicant has proposed a roof design in which they believe the flat
portion is secondary to the sloped roofed areas. Through the use of
sloped mansard roof forms the applicant has attempted to reduce the
visibility of the flat roofed portions of the structure from many
perspectives. The flat roofed areas will not be visible from a pedestrian
perspective nor from the sunound properties as the height of the
building is above a majority of the neighboring structures. The flat
roofed areas will, however, be visible from the ski mountain.
Landmark Tower Element:
The applicant has proposed to locate a landmark tower element on the
northwest corner of the proposed structure. The Master Plan identifies
the importance of landmark elements on projects within Section 8.4.1.2,
Landmarks. The specific language in the Master Plan is as follows:
A landmark provides a sense of orientation for the community,
and reinforces ds "sense of place" or image. As such, it must
be visible from key locations within the community, such as
portals and major public spaces, and must offer an image
consistenf with Lionshead. As a unique architectural element,
a landmark should be designed to clearly stand out from the
1.
't.
2.
t7
rest of the community, while still presenting a consisfenf
design language. Care should be taken to provide a clear
hierarchy between the village landmark and other, secondary
Iandmarks. Landmarks are most successfu/ when they serve
special functions such as bell towers, clock towers,
monuments, or public aft, rather than being seff-seruing.
Furthermore, they should be carefully scaled to the buildings
adjacent to them, as well as to the overall scale of the urban
village.
Title 14 of the Town of Vail Zoning Code states that:
Towers, spires, cupoloas, chimneys, flagpoles, and similar
architectural features not useable as habitable floor area may
extend above the height linit a distance of not more than
twenty-five percent (25%) of the height limit nor more than . fifteen feet (15').
The proposed tower has a height of 112 feet, measures approximately
25 feet by 25 feet, and is located in close proximity to the intersection of
the South Frontage Road and West Lionshead Circle. This revised
proposal has reduced the height of the landmark tower a total of 8 feet
from 120 feet depicted on the previous plans. The proposed
architectural landmark tower does not contain any GRFA above the
maximum height of 82.5 feet in height. Currently the feature is
anticipated to be illuminated from the exterior with up lighting. At a
height of 112feet the proposed tower is 14.5 feet (14.9Yo) taller than the
maximum height of 97.5 feet identified in the Master Plan. The
Planning and Environmental Commission does have the authority within
the Master Plan in conjunction with the criteria found in Resolution 18,
series of 2004, to allow for an architectural feature as proposed if the
findings found below are made.
It shall be the burden of the applicant to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the
Town of Vail Planning & Environmental Commission following a recommendation
from the Design Review Board that:
The request for design deviations are in compliance with the purposes of
the zone district; and
The proposal which includes the design deviations is consistent with
applicable elements of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan; and
The proposal which includes the design deviations does not have a
significant negative effect on the character of the neighborhood; and
1.
3.
18
4. The proposal substantially complies with other applicable elements of the
Vail comprehensive plan; and
5. The design deviation meets or exceeds the intent of the specific design
standards as prescribed in Section 8.4; and,
6. A public benefit is achieved as a result of the design deviation; and,
7. The design deviation furthers the goals, objectives and purposes as stated
in Sections 2.3,2.5 and 8.2 of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan.
Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve the
application, staff recommends that the Commission make the following findings
before granting a flexibility under lhe recommendations of the Lionshead
Redevelopment Master Plan:
1. That the request for design deviations are in compliance with the purposes of
the zone district; and
2. That the proposal which includes the design deviations is consistent with
applicable elements of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan; and
3. That the proposal which includes the design deviations does not have a
significant negative effect on the character of the neighborhood; and
4. That the proposal substantially complies with other applicable elements of the
Vail comprehensive plan; and
5. That the design deviation meets or exceeds the intent of the specific design
standards as prescribed in Section 8.4; and,
6. That a public benefit is achieved as a result of the design deviation; and,
7. That the design deviation furthers the goals, objectives and purposes as
stated in Sections 2.3, 2.5 and 8.2 of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master
Plan.
XI. NEXT STEPS
The following is a tentative schedule of hearings dates at which the Planning and
Environmental Commission (PEC) and the Design Review Board (DRB) will be
asked to review, comment, and take action on the proposed Ritz-Garlton
Residences:
19
. November 28, 2005, Planning and Environmental Commission final
review.. December 7 and 21 ,2005, Design Review Board work sessions preparing
for final review and approval.
XII. STAFFRECOMMENDATION
Staff and the applicant would request that the Planning and Environmental
Commission tables the applicant's request to the November 28, 2005, hearing.
XIII. ATTACHMENTS
AttachmentA: Mcinity Map
Attachment B: Reduced copy of the proposed revisions
Attachment C: Response to the Criteria found in Resolution '18, Series of 20O4,
provided by the applicant
20
=E L o q
o Ol 3B
Gi(
,Es +a !_E3 trE oa oE.oo
EE?otj eEF o fi';
ll +rs.=tE9E b,!F +rJx
\J lEs 6=6 .FRF
JF.6 x.=fll e L l.1l
OE ar- l-r!' 6 EP
G'-E#
+.o o
tt o
).1,
l-
t\l ()
I N +,
E
o ?
F
o o o ?
o E
o o
Attachment: A
oT
IL .n gt €F
lt o
ss FTF 1d v Fa ll
(a '' (o
aod co rr')
eo =q+-€tn rn+J lr cn:
.x
ddl odg
t4
td F
8
L. F-.
,-, 9'1, -,";1H;r |J.t ri |]t El
^./ | n
^')?s ?.- t+r .-H-r .\ ll n N X r\ Y Xtr X d \l ta V &49 e ,sl
li Fr lr k-a t 'I .l I
rrl
dr'rr'1F
EX <V
/1F X{Vr-l
'1'l I-F
FF
F]
n
k
Attachment: B
'ru-,
/,'t""...,'
\'-\s ' '
"
o
o
o
o
o
o
I
I
\
I
I
I
RESOLUTION 18. SERIES OF 2004. REVIEW CRITERIA
Two deviations to architectural design standards of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master
Plan are proposed by the Ritz Residences. Flexibility to these standards is subject to
review by the Planning and Environmental Commission (following a recommendation
from the DRB). The two deviations to these standards are:
"Secondary roofelements" in excess of500 sq. ft.
The proposed building has a total roofarea ofapproximately 58,433 square feet and the
proposed flat roofed portion of the structure is proposed to be approximately 8,364 square
feet or 14.3o/o of the total roof area. Of this flat roof area approximately 3,909 sq. ft. will
be rooftop terraces resulting in 4,454sq. ft. of flat roof, or 6.7Yo of the total roof area.
The proposed roof plan depicts 26 separate flat roofed areas. Of these only five exceed
500 sq. ft. and these five areas range in size from 57 6 to 949 sq. ft. A number of these
flat roofed areas accornmodate mechanical equipment. The overall roof desigr is
predominantly a gable form along with portions of mansard roof. From the public
domain the building will not "read" or be perceived as a "flat roofed" building.
On November 2nd the DRB unanimously recommended approval of this proposed design.
Landmark/Tower feature in excess of 82.5'
The LHMP specifically encourages architectural landmark features as a means to define
spaces and to create unique and creativebuilding forms in Lionshead. The Plan also
states that the height of such features may exceed the allowable building height. The
Plan does not specifu to what extent a landmark/tower may exceed allowable building
height, but simply states approval is subject to the reviewing board.
Proposed plans for the Ritz include a tower located at the main entry to the building. In
addition to defining this entry the tower "anchors" the comer of the project and also
establishes a landmark feature at the westem end of Lionshead. While the PEC has not
taken formal action on the height of this tower, the Commission has indicated that a
landmark feature is appropriate in this location. On November 2nd the DRB unanimously
recommended approval ofthis proposed design.
As measured to its peak the tower is 112 feet tall from existing grade and 97.5 feet from
proposed finished grade. There is no habitable space above the maximum building height
of 82.5 feet.
RITZ CARLTON RESIDENCES
Response to Design Deviation Criteria
Attachment: C
l.The request for desipn deviations are in compliance with the purposes of the zone
district: and
The purpose of the Lionshead Mixed Use I District is "to provide sites for a
mixture of multiple-family dwellings, lodges, hotels,fractionalfee clubs, time
shares, lodge dwelling units, restaurants, ffices, skier sewices, and commercial
establishments in a clustered, unified development. . . . and to maintain the
desirable qualities of the District by establishing appropriate site development
standards". The Ritz Club Residences is comprised of multi-family dwellings
which are in keeping with this stated purpose. Asidefrom the two proposed
deviations the project is designed in conformance to established development
standards, therebyfurthering the desirable qualities ofthe District and ensuring
adequate light, air, open space, etc. The minor nature of the proposed deviations
is such that the project is still very much in compliance with the purpose of the
LHMU-I District.
The orooosal which includes the desien deviations is consistent with applicable
elements of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan: and
The Ritz was designed to conJbrm to applicable elements of the Master Plan and
the LHUM-I zone district. The proposed building has been before the PEC on
five occasions and to date the only outstanding issues pertain to these proposed
deviations. This would imply that the overall project design is consistent with
relevant elements of the plan.
The proposal which includes the design deviations does not have a sienificant
negative effect on the character ofthe neighborhood: and
Flat roof areas are very limited and are located such that it is unlikely they will
be visible to any significant extent from virtually anywhere. This is due to two
factors -Jlat roofs comprise only a small portion ofthe total roofarea and in all
cases theJlat roofportions ofthe building are on internal areas ofthe roof. The
building will "read" as though it has a pitched roof. The flat roofed portion will
have no significant negative impact to the neighborhood.
The vast majority of the tower is below the maximum allowable building height of
82.5 feet. Portions of the tower above 82.5' are generally limited to the narrow
spire. The location of the tower is such that it will orient primarily to the
Frontage Road and to the VR Maintenance Yard. ll/hile the tower will be visible
from the Vail Spa, it does not have a significant negative efect on neighborhood.
2.
3.
RITZ CARLTON RESIDENCES
Response to Design Deviation Criteria
4.The proposal substantially complies with other applicable elements of the Vail
comprehensive plan: and
The Town's Comprehewive Plan includes a wide variety of documents. One of
the most recent plans and clearly the most relevant plan to consider in relation to
this project is the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. As described in item
#2 above, the Ritz project is consistent with applicable elements of this plan.
The design deviation meets or exceeds the intent ofthe specific design standards
as prescribed in Section 8.4: and.
The LHMP includes a vast number oJ design goals and objectives. One of these is
to encourage the use of roofs to "provide visual cohesion to the urban fabric"
and to ensure that "roofs are predominantly gables and hips, with sheds or Jlat
roofs which cover more than 500 sS. ft." The Plan goes on to state that
"secondary roofs that occur at logical breal<s in building massing may excced
500 sq. ft. While not specijically stated in the LHMP, it can be inferred that the
intent of the limitation on flat roofs is to further the goal of having
" predominantly gable roofs ".
The proposed roof plan depicts 26 separate flat roofed areas. Of these only five
exceed 500 sq. ft. and these five areas range in size from 576 to 949 sq. ft. From
a quantitative standpoint the portion offlat roof that exceeds 500 sq. ft. is very
insignificant. From a qualitative standpoint the flat roof portions of the building
are innocuous. The proposed deviation clearly meets the intent ofSection 8.4 as
it pertains to flat roofs.
The LHMP specifically states that "landmark" building elements such as towers
may exceed maximum building heights. The PEC has acknowledged that a tower
in the location proposed is appropriate. The proposed height of the tower has
been determined in order to establish an appropriate relationship with the rest of
the building. In doing so the tower meets the specific design standards of Section
8.4.
A nublic benefit is achieved as a result ofthe design deviation: and.
The design deviations, while minor in nature are important elements of the
proposed building. The screening feature, while exceeding the 82.5 building
height limit, provides a signiJicant public beneJit by screening rooftop mechanical
equipment. Virtually all of the flat roofed portions of the building that exceed
500 sq. ft. also serve as rooftop patios or locations for mechanical equipment - a
public benefit is achieved by locating this equipment on the roof in lieu of ground
level location. When considered in the context of the proposed building and in
the context of the three parcels of the West Day Lot subdivision, approval oJ'the
proposed deviations will result in an improved design solution which in turn
qchieves a public bene/it consistent with the overall redevelopment ofLionshead.
5.
6.
RITZ CARLTON RESIDENCES
Response to Design Deviation Criteria
7.
A major design goal of the LHMP is to establish "special landmarkfeatures".
The design of the Riu includes a tower feature and in doing so addresses this
design goal and provides a public benefit.
The desisn deviation furthers the qoals. objectives and purposes as stated in
Sections 2.3. 2.5 and 8.2 of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan.
Section 2.3 refers to broad policy objectives such as redevelopment, improved
access/circulation, improved infrastructure and enhanced public revenues.
Section 2.5 addresses broad urban design principles and Section 8.2 addresses
the overall design intent for Lionshead. By virtue of the project's compliance
with specifc relevant guidelines the Ritz furthers these broad goals and
objectives. The two minor design deviations proposed by the Ritz Carlton
Residences are itnportant elements ofthe overall building design as and such also
serve to further the goals ofthe sections refened to above.
RITZ CARLTON RESIDENCES
Response to Design Deviation Criteria
Ritz Carlton Residences
West Day Subdivision lLot2
m,e 2,€3
o o
November 2,2005
DRB Recommendation
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD AGENDA
November 2,2005
3:00 P.M.
PUBLIC MEETING
PUBLIG WELCOME
PROJECT ORIENTATION / LUNCH - Community Development Department
MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT
Sherry Donrard
Pete Dunning
Lynne Fritzlen
Joe Hanlon
Margaret Rogers
SITE VISITS 1. Smead - 395 Mill Creek Circle 2. Hess - '1220 Ptarmigan Road 3. Snowstorm. LLC - 2009 Sunburst Drive 4. Debooy - 4022 Willow Way 5. Dantas - 1772 Alpine Drive 6. Vail Corp. - 728 West Lionshead Circle
Driver: Warren
12:00pm
2:00pm
PUBLIC HEARING - TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS
1. Smead Residence DRB05-0578
Final review of a minor alteration (landscaping changes)
395 Mill Creek Circle/Lot 19, Block 1, Vail Village Filing 1
Applicant: Ann Smead, represented by Fitz & Gaylord Landscaping
ACTION: Tabled to November 16.2005
MOTION: Hanlon SECOND: Dorward
2. Dantas Residence DRB05-0568
VOTE:5-0-0
Elisabeth
Conceptual review of new construction (single family residence)
1772 Alpine Drive/Lot 10, Vail Village West Filing 1
Applicant: Dantas Builders
ACTION: Conceptual review, no vote
3. Hess Residence DRB05-0556 Warren
Final review of change to approved plans (elevation changes)
1220 Ptarmigan Road/Lot 2, Block 8, Vail Village Filing 7
Applicant: Ronnie and Donald Hess, represented by Nedbo Construction
ACTION: Denied
MOTION: Hanlon SECOND: Dunning
3:00pm
Matt
Page 1
VOTE: 5-0-0
4. Snowstorm, LLC DRB05-0577
Final review of a minor alteration (landscaping)
2009 Sunburst Drive/Lot 15, Vail Valley Filing 3
Applicant: Snowstorm, LLC, represented by Nedbo Construction
ACTION: Tabled to November 16, 2005
MOTION: Dunning SEGOND: Hanlon VOTE:5-0-0
5. Debooy Residence DRB05-0561
Final review of a minor alteration (roof)
4022 Willow Way/Lot 11, Bighorn Subdivision
Applicant: Tom and Louise Debooy
ACTION: Tabled to November 16, 2005
MOTION: Dunning SEGOND: Fritzlen VOTE:5-0-0
6. CMC Trust, Inc. DRB05-0581
Conceotual review of a residential addition
39964 Lupine Drive/Lot 1, Block 2, Bighorn Subdivision Addition 1
Applicant: Cecil Christensen
ACTION: Tabled to November 16, 2005
7. Skarajunsky Residence DRB05-0582
Conceptual review of a residential addition
39968 Lupine Drive/Lot 1, Block 2, Bighorn Subdivision Addition 1
Applicant: Vinnie Skarajunsky
ACTION: Tabled to November 16. 2005
Warren
Bitl
Bitl
Bitl
8. VailCorp. DRB05-0497 Warren
Final review of new construction (multi-family)
728 West Lionshead Circle/Lot 2, West Day Subdivision
Applicant: The Vail Corp, represented by Jack Hunn
ACTION: Fonrard a recommendation of approval to the Planning and Environmental
Commission of deviations from the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan
Architectural Design Guidelines.
MOTION: Hanlon SEGOND: Donnard VOTE:5-0-0
Staff Approvals
Showcase Snowboards DRB05-0557 Bill
Final review of a sign
244Vtlall StreeULot 5C, Vail Village Filing 1
Applicant: Intrawest Retail Group, represented by Black Duck Builders
Parliament Residence DRB05-0536 Matt
Final review of changes to approved plans (roof design)
3241 Katsos Ranch Road/Lot 6, Block 1, Vail Village Filing 12
Applicant: Marvin and Casey Parliament
Blivas Residence DRB05-0539 Matt
Final review of a minor alteration (retaining walls)
1463 Greenhill CourULot 8, Glen Lyon Subdivision
Applicant: Julie Blivas, represented by Landscape Technology Group
Page2
Steinberg Residence DRB05-0558
Final review of a minor alteration (landscaping)
1022 Eagles Nest Circle/Lot 3, Block 6, VailVillage Filing 7
Applicant: Thomas and Florence Steinberg
Talisman Condominium Association DRB05-0515 George
Final review of a sign
62 South Meadow Drive/Lot l, Block 5E, Vail Village Filing 1
Applicant: Talisman Condominium Association, represented by Snowdon and Hopkins Architects, PC
Byrne Residence DRB05-0540 Matt
Final review of a minor alteration (concrete paver driveway)
2520 Bald Mountain Road/Lot 15, Block 3, VailVillage Filing 13
Applicant: Paula Byrne, represented by Ron Constien
Mendik Residence DRB05-0527
Final review of a minor alteration (doors)
174 East Gore Creek Drive, Units 143 and 145/Lots A,B,C, Block 5C, Vail Village Filing 1
Applicant: Bernard Mendik, represented by Constien Builders, LLC
VailViking Ltd. DRB05-0546 Matt
Final review of changes to approved plans (color changes)
4916 Juniper Lane, Lot 4, Block 5, Bighorn Subdivision 5'Addition
Applicant: Vail Viking Ltd., represented by Fdt/en Pierce Architects
Ellis Residence DRB05-0517 Elisabeth
Final review of a residential addition (windows)
302 Hanson Ranch Road/Lot l, Block 5A, Vail Village Filing 5
Applicant: Gail Ellis, represented by Snowdon and Hopkins Architects, PC
Talisman Condominium Association DRB05-0516 George
Final review of a minor alteration (traffic gate)
62 East Meadow Drive/Lot l, Block 5E, VailVillage Filing 1
Applicant: Talisman Condominium Association, represented by Snowdon and Hopkins Architects, PC
D.E.l., LLP DRB05-0571 Matt
Final review of a minor alteration (re-paint)
1765 Alpine Drive/Lot 33, Vail Village West Filing 1
Applicant: Don Gury
Heaven's Spa DRB05-0559 Matt
Final review of a minor alteration (door)
500 East Lionshead Circle/Lot 1, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Filing 1
Applicant: Bob Lazier, represented by Jenny Ricca
Bailey Residence DRB05-0580 Warren
Final review of change to approved plans (landscaping changes)
1287 Yail Valley Drive/Lot 2, Block 3, Vail Valley Filing 1
Applicant: Gary and Brenda Bailey, represented by Land Designs by Ellison
Warren
Matt
Page 3
Montano Residence DRB05-0572
Final review of a minor alteration (deck)
Warren
1925 Sunburst Drive/Lot 10, VailValley Filing 3
Applicant Rufino and Margarita Vigil, represented by Darlene Montano
Schulz Residence DRB05-0565 Warren
Final review of a minor alteration (hot tub)
1798 Alpine Drive/Lot 13, Vail Village West Filing 1
Applicant: Edward Schulz, represented by Alpine Construction & Remodeling, Inc.
l45VailRoad DRB05-0583 Joe
Final review of a minor alteration (landscaping)
145 Vail Road/Lot 1, Mill Creek Subdivision
Applicant: Lodge Properties, Inc.
Drew Residence DRB05-0579 Elisabeth
Final review of a minor alteration (hot tub)
1768 Alpine Drive/Lot 8, Vail Village West Filing 1
Applicant: Leah Drew
Gohan Ya DRB05-0567 Elisabeth
Final review of a sign
2'161 North Frontage Road/Lot 24, Block 3, Vail das Schone
Applicant: West Vail Mall Corp.
Interlochen Condominium Association DRB05-0574 Warren
Final review of a minor alteration (deck)
2958 South Frontage Road/Lots 3 and 4, Block 5, Interlochen Condominiums
Applicant: Interlochen Condominiums Association
Hochtl Residence DRB05-0552 Warren
Final review of a minor alteration (landscaping changes)
890 Red Sandstone Circle/Lot 5, Block 3, Vail Village Filing 9
Applicant: Kad and Christine Hochtl
The Wren Association DRB05-0533 Warren
Final review of a minor alteration (fence)
500 South Frontage Road/Unplatted
Applicant: The Wren Association, represented by Andy Ford, manager
Wl 104 LLC - Sevilla Residence DRB05-0588 Joe
Final review of a minor alteration (windows)
68 Meadow Drive, Unit 104/Lot O, Block 5D, Vail Village Filing 1
Applicant: Wl 104 LLC - Sevilla, represented by Vail Home Rentals
Vail International Gallery DRB05-0570 Elisabeth
Final review of a sign
100 East Meadow Drive, #16 and 17llot O, Block 5D, VailVillage Filing 1
Applicant: Nico Vail, Inc., represented by Maria Levarn
Page 4
Cohn Residence DRB05-0549
Final review of a minor alteration (decUfrench doors)
2456 Chamonix Lane/Lot 3, Block B, Vail das Schone Filing 1
Applicant: Craig B. Cohn
Matt
Denied
1082 Riva Glen Road LLC DRB05-0543 Bill
Final review of a minor alteration (hot tub, flagstone patio)
1082 Riva Glen Road/Lot 3 Spraddle Creek Subdivision
Applicant 1082 Riva Glen Road, LLC, represented by Stuart Smith
The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office
hours in the project planner's office, located at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75
South Frontage Road. Please call 479-2138 for information.
Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479-2356
Telephone for the Hearing lmpaired, for information.
Page 5
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
MEMORANDUM
Design Review Board
Community Development Depa(ment
November 2,2005
A request for a final review of a major exterior alteration, pursuant to
Section 12-7H-7, Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town
Code, and a final review of a conditional use permit, pursuant to
Section 12-7H-2, Permitted and Conditional Uses; Basement or Garden
Level, and 12-7H-3, Permitted and Conditional Uses; First Floor on
Street Level, Vail Town Code; and final review of architectural
deviations, pursuant to Section 8.3.3.4, Review Criteria for Deviations to
the Architectural Design Guidelines for New Development, Lionshead
Redevelopment Master Plan, to allow for the development of 107 multi-
family residential dwelling units, located at 728 West Lionshead Circle/Lot
2, West Day Subdivision, and setting forth details in. regard thereto. (PEC
05-0062 anb pec 05-o0e^' '' ^ \,",. ( K,-tr_ (-^rl1"t)
Applicant: Vail Resorts Development Company, represented by
Braun Associates, Inc.Planner: Warren Campbell
il.
SUMMARY
The applicant, Vail Resorts Development Company, represented by Braun
Associates, Inc., has submitted an application to allow for deviations from the
Architectural Design Guidelines of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan.
Pursuant to Resolution 18, Series ot 2004, the Town of Vail Design Review
Board is responsible for the review of such deviations and for fonvarding a
recommendation to the Planning and Environmental Commission of approval,
approval with modification/conditions, or denial of the proposed deviations.
APPLICABILITY
The proposed Ritz-Carlton Residences project is on the third and final parcel of
the comprehensive development site encompassing the existing Marriott Hotel,
the Gore Creek Residences, and the West Day Lot parking area. The West Day
Lot parking area and the existing Marriott parking structure sites total 2.399 acres
in size and is location of the proposed Ritz-Carlton Residences project.
The proposed Ritz-Carlton Residences is located within the Lionshead
Redevelooment Master Plan area and is zoned Lionshead Mixed Use I District.
Therefore, the provisions of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan's
Architectural Design Guidelines are applicable to this proposed project.
III. SUMMARY OF PROPOSED DEVIATIONS
Chapter 2, lntroduction, Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan (excerpts)
2.3 Policy Objectives
The Town Council adopted six policy objectives on November 4, 1996 to outline
the important issues to be addressed in the master plan and to provide a policy
framework for the master planning process.
2.3.1 Renewal and Redevelopment
Lionshead can and should be renewed and redeveloped to become a
warmer, more vibrant environment for guests and residents. Lionshead
needs an appealing and coherent identity, a sense of place, a personality,
a purpose, and an improved aesthetic character.
2.3.2 Vitality and Amenities
We must seize the opportunity to enhance guest experience and
community interaction through expanded and additional activities and
amenities such as performing arts venues, conference facilities, ice rinks,
streetscape, parks and other recreational improvements.
2.3.3 Stronger Economic Base Through Increased Live Beds
In order to enhance the vitality and viability of Vail, renewal and
redevelopment in Lionshead must promote improved occupancy rates
and the creation of additional bed base ("live beds" or "warm beds")
through new lodging products.
2.3.4 lmproved Access and Circulation
The flow of pedestrian, vehicular, bicycle and mass transit traffic must be
improved within and through Lionshead.
2.3.5 lmproved Infrastructure
The infrastructure of Lionshead (streets, walkways, transportation systems,
parking, utilities, loading and delivery systems, snow removal and storage
capacity) and its public and private services must be upgraded to support
redevelopment and revitalization efforts and to meet the service
expectations of our guests and residents.
2.3.6 Creative Financing for Enhanced Private Profits and Public
Revenues
Financially creative and fiscally realistic strategies must be identified so
that adequate capital may be raised from all possible sources to fund
desired private and public improvements.
2.5 Urban Design Principles
On November 4, 1996, the Town Council adopted the following set of
urban design principles to guide the development of the master plan:
1. Connect Lionshead physically and visually to the mountain landscape.
2. Make people physically and emotionally comfortable in Lionshead.
3. Provide a sense of arrival to demarcate the Lionshead district.
4. Create landmarks and turning points to guide people through the area
and make it memorable.
5. Provide gates and portals to help define the sequence of public
spaces and places.
6. Define appropriate land uses adjacent to outdoor spaces.
Chapter 8, Architectural Design Guidelines, Lionshead Redevelopment
Master Plan (excerpts)
8.1 Vision Statement
The Lionshead neighborhood in Vail presents the opportunity to establish
a dynamic and exciting community within one of the premier resorts in the
world. Lionshead's mountain location, proximity to the ski slopes, and
ample residential base evokes the vision of a truly special place, full of
vitality and interest. This vision can be achieved through redevelopment
of the community by addressing site and architectural issues, and through
consistent and effective transitions from existing to new buildings.
The pedestrian experience of the public spaces within Lionshead is the
most critical issue for redevelopment. Many of the existing spaces are
static and uninteresting, due to a prevailing grid organization and lack of
animation and architectural coherency within the spaces. One of the
most effective ways to intensify this experience is through careful design
of the architecture which defines the public spaces. Visually dynamic
variation at the pedestrian level can help avoid a monotonous
streetscape, and judicious use of ornament, detail, artwork, and color can
reflect individuality and establish a variety of experience.
The architecture of Lionshead is envisioned as a unified composition of
buildings and public spaces based on the timeless design principles of
form, scale, and order, made responsive to their setting and environment.
It is not envisioned as a strict dictation of a specific "style" or "theme."
Many existing buildings within the community are built of monolithic
concrete slabs and lack any sense of order or personality. The new
image for Lionshead should move towards the future-using historical
alpine references and Vail Village as antecedents. This design
framework will allow individual property owners freedom of expression
within the personalities of their buildings while establishing and
maintaining an overall unifying character and image for the entire
community. In addition, it is paramount that the redevelopment effort
address specific design considerations generated by the location, climate,
and surrounding environment, such as addressing views, using
indigenous building materials, and reflecting the alpine heritage.
Designing in response to our regional heritage, adhering to a consistent
architectural order, and enhancing the public experience will enable
Lionshead to define its own identity-making it a distinct and special
place not just within the context of Vail, but within kindred mountain
communities around the world.
8.2 Organization, Purpose and Scope
The purpose of the Lionshead Architectural Design Guidelines (ADG) is
to work in concert with the Lionshead Master Plan to enhance the
existing experience within the community, improve the quality of life,
focus direction for future groMh, create visual harmony, and improve
property values for businesses and homeowners. This document
constitutes a design philosophy for the community, which when
integrated with the Lionshead Master Plan, helps to establish Lionshead
as a coherent, dynamic village with a true "sense of place." These
Guidelines are intended to direct the growth of the community through
distinct levels of perception, from views of the neighborhood from the
mountain and the highway, to perceptions within its pedestrian streets,
to the detail level of artistry and ornamentation on the structures
themselves.
8.3.3. A Review Criteria for Deviations to the Architectural Design
Guidelines for New Development
Similar to the implementation policies of the ADG prescribed for existing
structures, the Town has determined that there may be instances where
flexibility in requiring strict compliance with the Guidelines for new
development maybe in the best interest of the community and the
furtherance of the goals and objectives stated in the Lionshead
Redevelopment Master Plan. That said, however, it is acknowledged
that such instances are rare and extraordinary, and shall be considered
on a case-by-case basis. To aid in determining when flexibility shall be
afforded to new development from strict compliance with the Guidelines,
review criteria have been established. The degree of design deviation
flexibility afforded to a development project shall bear proportionately to
the extent of the improvements proposed. For example, a development
application that proposes the construction of a new structure which
includes the demolition of an existing structure or adds significant
volume or mass to a property, shall more fully comply with the
prescribed Architectural Design Guidelines outlined in the master plan
than an application which proposes a renovation or addition to an
existing building.
The following criteria shall be used by the Town of Vail Planning &
Environmental Commission and Design Review Board to determine if
deviations to the Guidelines should be granted:
It shall be the burden of the applicant to demonstrate to the satisfaction
of the Town of Vail Planning & Environmental Commission following a
recommendation from the Design Review Board that:
The request for design deviations are in compliance with the
purposes of the zone district; and
The proposal which includes the design deviations is consistent
with applicable elements of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master
Plan; and
The proposal which includes the design deviations does not have
a significant negative effect on the character of the neighborhood;
and
The proposal substantially complies with other applicable
elemenls of the Vail comprehensive plan; and
The design deviation meets or exceeds the intent of the specific
design standards as prescribed in Section 8.4; and,
. A public benefit is achieved as a result of the design deviation;
and.
r The design deviation furthers the goals, objectives and purposes
as stated in Sections 2.3, 2.5 and 8.2 of the Lionshead
Redevelopment Master Plan.
8.4.1.2 Building "Roles"
Landmarks
A landmark provides a sense of orientation for the community, and
reinforces its "sense of place" or image. As such, it must be visible
from key locations within the community, such as portals and major
public spaces, and must offer an image consistent with Lionshead.
As a unique architectural element, a landmark should be desiqned to
clearlv stand out from the rest of the communitv. while still presentinq
a consistent desiqn lanquaqe. Care should be taken to provide a
clear hierarchy between fhe village landmark and other, secondary
landmarks. Landmarks are most successful when they serve special
functions such as bell towers, clock towers, monuments, or public art,
rather than being self-serving. Furthermore, they should be carefully
scaled to the buildings adjacent to them, as well as to the overall
scale of the urban village.
8.4.2.3 Building Height
Additional Requirements/Exceptions
All buildings, regardless of permitted building heights and massing
principles, shall conform to all established Public View Corridors (see
Lionshead Master Plan). Special "landmark" buildinq elements. such
as chimnevs. towers, or other unique architectural forms. mav exceed
the Absolute Maximum Heioht. subiect to approval bv the reviewinq
board. This orovision is intended to provide for architectural creativitv
and qualitv of buildino form. and shall not be used as a means of
circumventinq the intent of the buildinq heiqht limitations. ln addition,
regardless of final built height, buildings shall avoid monotonous,
unbroken ridge lines, and shall provide visual interest through the use
o of varied peak heights, roof forms, gables, and other appropriate
architectural techniques.
Title 14 of the Town of Vail Zoning Code states that:
Towers, spires, cupoloas, chimneys, flagpoles, and similar
architectural features not useable as habitable floor area may extend
above the height limit a distance of not more than twenty-five percent
(25%) of the height limit nor more than fifteen feet (15').
DEVIATION #1: The proposed Ritz-Carlton Residences includes an architectural
landmark tower measuring 112 feet. The definition of a architectural projection as
found in Title 14 of the Town Zoning Code would allow an architectural element,
such as the proposed tower, to proiect above the maximum allowable height of
82.5 feet to a height of 97.5 feet.
Staff Comment: The Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan identifies the
importance of architectural landmark elements within the study area. Through
several work session with the Planning and Environmental Commission the height
of the architectural landmark tower has been reduced in height to be more in
keeping with neighboring properties and the scale of the proposed structure.
Staff believes this deviation complies with the seven review criteria.
8.4.2 Architecture
8.4.2.1 lntroduction
The architectural portion of these Guidelines is intended to provide a
unified, conceptual framework using historical alpine references. lt is
imperative that the redevelopment effort address specific architectural
design considerations generated by the location, climate, and
surrounding environment-such as addressing views, using
indigenous building materials, and reflecting the alpine heritage.
However, within this framework, the architectural language of
buildings within Lionshead should strive to reinterpret its heritage and
look to the future, instead of simply mimicking the past.
8.4.2.7 Roofs
General
In keeping with the spirit of the area's mountain architecture, primary
roofs within Lionshead are to be predominantly gables and hips, with
. sheds or flat roofs permitted at smaller, secondary roofs. Primary
roofs are defined as roofs which cover more than 500 SF of roof area,
while secondary roofs are those which cover 500 SF of roof area or
less. Secondarv roofs which occur at loqical breaks in buildino
massino mav exceed 500 SF if the oeneral intent of fraqmented forms
and visual harmonv is met. Free-standing sheds and butterfly roofs
are not permitted. Mansard roofs are permitted on buildings where
pitched roofs would be impractical, if the mansards are of similar form,
pitch, material, color, and detail to other roofs within the community
(and identified within these Guidelines). lf used, these types of roofs
should be considerate not only of views from the pedestrian street, but
also those from the ski mountain. To this end. areas of flat roof within
the slopes of the mansard shall be limited to the practical minimum,
and the materials for the flat roof shall be black or in a color to blend
with the sloped roof. In addition, rooftop equipment within the flat
areas shall be painted to blend with the roof material (see
"Miscellaneous Equipment" Section to follow). The overall image for
Lionshead takes its cue from the simple, fragmented, gabled roof
forms of European alpine villages, where views of the roofscapes from
the mountains are paramount.
All new construction shall comply with the following roof criteria.
Substantial expansions and renovations shall also adhere to these
Guidelines, along with the remaining portions of the building which are
not being expanded or renovated (see exceptions above, in Sections
8.3.1, 8.3.4.2, and later in this Section). Roof framing shall be
expressed wherever possible, particularly through exposed ridge
beams, outriggers, rafter tails, and fascia boards.
DEVIATION #2: The proposed Ritz-Carlton Residences roof includes a several flat
roofed areas which exceed the 500 square foot limitation on secondary roof
forms.
Staff Comment: On October 19, 2005, staff spoke directly with Jack Zehren
regarding the intent of Section 8.4.2.7, Roofs, and what the design goal/intent was
of limiting flat roofed portions of buildings to 500 square feet. Through
conversation it was learned that a draft prior to the approved Master Plan
identified a maximum of 250 square feet for flat roofs. He continued by stating
that the number of 500 square feet was arbitrary and that the goal/intent was to
allow for larger buildings which have complex roof systems to utilize the flat
roofed areas as "transitions" between the complicated systems. He stated that it
was the understood during the drafting of the Master Plan that some structures
would have multiple flat roofed areas located on larger buildings which might total
more that 500 square feet. He conclude by stating that the writers of the Master
Plan realized that some flat roofed areas may exceed 500 square feet, however, if
those flat roofed areas did not disrupt the overall roof system and architecture
they could be approved per the following statement from the Master Plan:
Secondary roof forms which occur at logical breaks in building
massing may exceed 5(N square feet if the general intent of
fragmented forms and visual harmony is met.
Staff believes the deviation from this guideline is necessary for an aftractive
implementation of the proposed architectural style. Staff believes this deviation
complies with the seven review criteria.
tv.CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
It shall be the burden of the applicant to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the
Town of Vail Planning & Environmental Commission following a recommendation
from the Design Review Board that:
1. The request for design deviations are in compliance with the purposes of
the zone district; and
2. The proposal which includes the design deviations is consistent with
applicable elements of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan; and
3. The proposal which includes the design deviations does not have a
significant negative effect on the character of the neighborhood; and
4. The proposal substantially complies with other applicable elements of the
Vail comprehensive plan; and
5. The design deviation meets or exceeds the intent of the specific design
standards as prescribed in Section 8.4; and,
6. A public benefit is achieved as a result of the design deviation; and,
7. The design deviation furthers the goals, objectives and purposes as
stated in Sections 2.3, 2.5 and 8.2 of the Lionshead Redevelopment
Master Plan.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff is recommending approval of the proposed deviations from the Lionshead
Redevelopment Master Plan's Architectural Design Guidelines.
Should the Design Review Board choose to approve the proposed deviations
from the Architectural Design Guidelines of the Lionshead Redevelopment
Master Plan, Staff recommends the Board make following motion:
"The Design Review Board forwards a recommendation of approval to the
Planning and Environmental Commission for proposed deviations from the
Architectural Design Guidelines of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master
Plan to allow for a new conference center, subject to the following findings:
1. That the request for design deviations are in compliance with the
purposes of the zone district; and
2. That the proposal which includes the design deviations is conslsfenf wifh
applicable elements of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan; and
3. That the proposal which includes the design deviations does not have a
significant negative effect on the character of the neighborhood; and
v.
?J}-f,^f-" [^J^^i" c N,tLA*r
6.
7.
That the proposal substantially complies with other applicable elements of
the Vail comprehensive plan; and
That the design deviation meets or exceeds the intent of the specffic
design sfandards as prescribed in Section 8.4; and,
That a public benefit is achieved as a result of the design deviation; and,
That the design deviation furthers the goals, objectives and purposes as
stated in Secfions 2.3, 2.5 and 8.2 of the Lionshead Redevelopment
Master Plan."
4.
nr w\N&
\l)g- Mff*
A'^"t
l^,^r)r,,rilt ^L,*,J,J
-)uu
^4 ry*A
N',\*^dJ
ob- 5-o-0
+, Qeo
1r./.(l t
r(.Tl XI
X
X
\os o\troc
-I\9rl
V
aod +to \o '--w^.@ro rnO
H-r U):
Y\c 3i
14
H at
rrl F
F--,, I-r
<8 <r-l <! t.l lrt !a |rt
?s a
AX n
ePe
k€<
rrl
<{tr.
rrl i{4x <Y
nr-XS \Z l-l
r-l rl
FF
FF
r4
t'\
F
itQi ,'
I
i\
\
\
\
\
\
-,/'
/\o
o
o
o o
December 24,2005
PEC Memorandum
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
MEMORANDUM
Planning and Environmental Commission
Community Development Department
October 24,2005
A request for a final review of a major exterior alteration, pursuant to
Section 12-7H-7, Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town
il.
Code, and a final review of a conditional use permit,pursuant to
Section 12-7H-2. Permitted and Conditional Uses: Basement or Garden
Level, and 12-7H-3, Permitted and Conditional Uses; First Floor on
Street Level, Vail Town Code; and final review of architectural
deviations, pursuant to Section 8.3.3.A, Review Criteria for Deviations to
the Architectural Design Guidelines for New Development, Lionshead
Redevelopment Master Plan, to allow for the development of 107 multi-
family residential dwelling units, located at 728 West Lionshead Circle/Lot
2, West Day Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC
05-0062 and PEC 05-0063).
Applicant: Vail Resorts Development Company, represented by
Braun Associates, Inc.Planner: Warren Camobell
SUMMARY
The purpose of today's work session hearing with the Planning and
Environmental Commission is to allow the applicant an opportunity to present the
changes which have been made to the application in response to comments from
the previous meeting. The desired outcome of the hearing is for the Planning
and Environmental Commission to understand the following:
. The proposed structure in terms of bulk, mass, height, and operation.e The criteria by which the applicant is requesting flexibility regarding the
area of flat roof on the structure and the proposed the architectural
mechanical screening solution.
The Commission is not being asked to take any formal action on this application
at this time. As such, staff is not providing a formal recommendation at this time.
Staff and the applicant request that the Planning and Environmental Commission
tables the applicant's request to the November 14, 2005, hearing. lt is
anticipated that the applicant will request a final approval at the November 14,
2005, Planning and Environmental Commission hearing.
DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
The purpose of today's work session hearing with the Planning and
Environmental Commission is to allow the applicant an opportunity to present the
changes which have been made to the application in response to comments from
the previous meeting. After the presentation the Planning and Environmental
Commission will be asked to provide additional feedback regarding the revisions
to the proposal.
The proposed Ritz-Carlton Residences project is on the third and final parcel of
the comprehensive development site encompassing the existing Marriott Hotel,
the Gore Creek Residences, and the West Day Lot parking area. The West Day
Lot parking area and the existing Marriott parking structure sites total 2.399 acres
in size and is location of the proposed Ritz-Carlton Residences prolect. A vicinity
map identifying the location of the development site has been attached for
reference (Attachment A). A reduced set of revisions are attached for reference
(Attachment B).
The Ritz-Carlton Residences proposal is comprised of two (2) different
development review applications. Each application is intended to facilitate the
redevelopment proposal. The development applications include:
o A maior exterior alteration aoplication for a new 107 multiple-
family dwelling unit structure; and r A conditional use oermit application ior "lodge rooms or dwelling
units" located on the basement or garden level and the first floor
or street level of the structure.
The key elements of the proposal include:
. A 107 multiple-family dwelling unit condominium structure;r A total of 212,695 square feet of Gross Residential Floor Area
(GRFA);. A 388 space below grade parking structure to serve as parking for
the Marriott Hotel and the Ritz-Carlton Residences:o A landmark feature which is 120 feet in height;o A loading and delivery facility comprised of three bays;. A lobby/lounge area with a front desk, concierge, and valet; and . A media room, game room, and pool/hot tub deck.
III. BACKGROUND
The subject development site includes several parcels of land currently used for
the Marriott Hotel, the parking structure for the Marriott Hotel, the Gore Creek
Residences, and the West Day Lot.
Marriott Hotel History (Parcel 1 of the West Day Subdivison)
The Marriott (previously "The Mark") was approved by the Town in 1977
as a hotel and condominium project and was zoned Special Development
District No. 7 by Ordinance 3, Series ot 1977. The project was expanded
and modified throughout the 1980's and 1990's. In 1999 the Marriott
property, along with the rest of Lionshead, was rezoned to Lionshead
Mixed Use 1 and SDD No. 7 was repealed. The Marriott as developed
today includes 35 dwelling units, 276 hotel rooms, meeting rooms, a
restaurant. and other hotel amenities.
West Day Lot History (Parcel 2 of the West Day Subdivision)
The western portion of the site (the Morcus Subdivision), known as the
"West Day Lot", was regraded and used for Vail Resorts employee
parking. Prior to the rezoning of this parcel to Lionshead Mixed Use 1 in
1999, the property was zoned Parking District.
On August 22, 2005, the Planning and Environmental Commission held
an initial hearing on the Ritz-Carlton Residences. At that hearing Staff
proved the Commission with parameters by which the prolect would be
reviewed. At this hearing the Commission requested to see how the
parcels recently acquired by Vail Associates and the potential of
relocating the Frontage Road would affect this property. ln addition the
Commission asked for a response as to why a conditional use permit was
appropriate to be granted for condominiums on the ground floor next to a
potential future lift and within an overall greater portal to the mountain
being created in western Lionshead.
On September 12, 2005, the Planning and environmental Commission
exDressed that there were no concerns with the Conditional Use Permit
that was being request for dwelling units on the first floor or garden level.
The Commission continued by expressing concern regarding the height of
the landmark tower. The general consensus was that a height of 140 feet
was inappropriate. In addition, the Commission stated that the height of
the screening element for the mechanicals had not been justified in the
presentation and other options should be examined. The Commission
was not comfortable with approving the height of the screening element
over the maximum height of 82.5 feet. Finally the Commission expressed
that they would like greater information regarding the flat roof maximum
area requirement found in the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan.
Several members expressed a need for the western elevation along the
Frontage Road to have step backs incorporated into the architecture.
On September 26, 2005, The Planning and Environmental Commission
generally expressed that of the three Options/Alternatives presented that
that Option/Alternative B was preferable to Option/Alternative C. The
Commissioners generally felt that while Option/Alternative B incorporated
the mechanical screening solution which exceeds the maximum height, it
does not result in additional head height in the top floor units as in
Ootion/Alternative C. Some concerned was exoressed about how
mechanical screening which exceeds the maximum height could be
limited and controlled so as not to be abused on future projects. One
thought expressed was to have more specific language in the Master
Plan to address screening of mechanical units. Some members believed
that enough regulations, or safeguards, were in place to insure that
mechanical screening abuse would not occur on other projects as they
would need to pass PEC and DRB review. For instance, the applicant
was directed to provide a sample of the mechanical screening material,
look at incorporating roof-top terraces, and examine the possibility of
creating a more "cascading roof effect" on the southeast elevation.
On October 10, 2005, the Planning and Environmental Commission gave
direction to the applicant regarding the proposed architectural deviations.
The Commission in general felt the proposed landmark tower was still too
tall at 120 feet and that there were concerns with the height of the
architectural screening solution for the mechanicals. The Commission
was relatively comfortable with the flat roof area of the building, however,
they directed staff to call Jack Zehren, of Zehren and Associates, one of
the individuals who participated in the writing of the Lionshead
Redevelopment master Plan.
On October 19, 2005, staff spoke directly with Jack Zehren regarding the
intent of Section 8.4.2.7, Roofs, and what the design goal/intent was of
limiting flat roofed portions of buildings to 500 square feet. Through
conversation it was learned that a draft prior to the approved Master Plan
identified a maximum of 250 square feet for flat roofs. He continued by
stating that the number of 500 square feet was arbitrary and that the
goal/intent was to allow for larger buildings which have complex roof
systems to utilize the flat roofed areas as "transitions" between the
complicated systems. He stated that it was the understood during the
drafting of the Master Plan that some structures would have multiple flat
roofed areas located on larger buildings which might total more that 500
square feet. He conclude by stating that the writers of the Master Plan
realized that some flat roofed areas may exceed 500 square feet,
however, if those flat roofed areas did not disrupt the overall roof system
and architecture they could be approved per the following statement from
the Master Plan:
Secondary roof forms which occur at logical breaks in building
massing may exceed 500 square feet if the general intent of
fragmented forms and visual harmony is met.
Gore Creek Residences History (Parcel 3 of the West Day Subdivision):
On November 24, 2003, the Planning and Environmental Commission
approved text amendments to Section 12-7H-5, Conditional Uses;
Generally (on all levels of a building or outside a building), Vail Town
Code, to allow single-family residential dwellings and two-family
residential dwellings as conditional uses in the Lionshead Mixed Use 1
District and Section 12-16-7, Use Specific Criteria and Standards, Vail
Town Code, to provide criteria to which a single-family and two-family
residential dwelling proposal within the Lionshead Mixed Use 1 District
must adhere. The text amendments were subsequently approved by
Town Council upon second reading in Ordinance 36, Series of 2003, on
December 16. 2003.
On June 28, 2004, the Planning and Environmental Commission
approved, with conditions, a conditional use permit and a major exterior
alteration application on this site for eight two-family structures for a total
of 16 dwelling units.
On December 13, 2004, the Planning and Environmental Commission
approved a minor subdivision establishing the West Day Subdivision
tv.
(Attachment D) which is comprised of three parcels. The approval and
recording of the West Day Subdivision was the culmination of the review
of the Gore Creek residences during which it was agreed that the three
lots comprising the West Day Subdivision would be tied together for
zoning purposes. A note was placed upon the West Day Subdivision
which states the following:
"For the purposes of zoning, Lots 1, 2, and 3, created by this
subdivision are to be treated as one development site.
Development standards shall be based upon the improvements
and land area of the combined area of Lots 1, 2, and 3."
As a part of the approval of the West Day Subdivision, a spreadsheet
identifying the development potential for each of the three parcels was
approved in conjunction with the minor subdivision. That spreadsheet,
was entitled, "West Day LoUMarriott Hotel/Gore Creek Place
Approved Development Plan/Development Allocations", and dated
December 6, 2004.
ROLES OF THE REVIEWING BOARDS
The purpose of this section of the memorandum is to clarify the responsibilities of
the Design Review Board, Planning and Environmental Commission, Town
Council, and Staff on the various applications submitted on behalf of Vail Resorts
Development Company.
A. Exterior Alteration/Modification in the Lionshead Mixed-Use I
zone district
Order of Review: Generally, applications will be reviewed first by the
Planning and Environmental Commission for impacts of use/development
and then by the Design Review Board for compliance of proposed
buildings and site planning.
Planning and Environmental Commission:
Action: The Planning and Environmental Commission is responsible for
final approval/denial of a Major/Minor Exterior Alteration. The Planning
and Environmental Commission shall review the proposal for compliance
with the adopted criteria. The Planning and Environmental Commission's
approval "shall constitute approval of the basic form and location of
improvements including siting, building setbacks, height, buibing bulk and
mass, site improvements and landscaping."
Design Review Board:
Action: The Design Review Board has no review authority on a Major or
Minor Exterior Alteration, but must review any accompanying Design
Review Board application.
Staff:
The staff is responsible for ensuring that all submittal requirements are
provided and plans conform to the technical requirements of the Zoning
Regulations. The staff also advises the applicant as to compliance with
o
the design guidelines. Staff provides a staff memo containing
background on the property and provides a staff evaluation of the project
with respect to the required criteria and findings, and a recommendation
on approval, approval with conditions, or denial. Staff also facilitates the
review process.
Town Council:
Actions of Design Review Board or Planning and Environmental
Commission may be appealed to the Town Council or by the Town
Council. Town Council evaluates whether or not the Planning and
Environmental Commission or Design Review Board ened with approvals
or denials and can uphold, uphold with modifications, or overturn the
board's decision.
B. Gonditional Use Permit (CUP)
Order of Review: Generally, applications will be reviewed first by the
Planning and Environmental Commission for acceptability of use and then
by the Design Review Board for compliance of proposed buildings and
site planning.
Planning and Environmental Commission:
Action: The Planning and Environmental Commission is responsible for
final approval/denial of CUP. The Planning and Environmental
Commission shall review the request for compliance with the adopted
conditional use permit criteria and make findings of fact with regard to the
project's compliance.
Design Review Board:
Action: The Design Review Board has no review authority on a CUP, but
must review any accompanying Design Review Board application.
Sfaff;
The staff is responsible for ensuring that all submittal requirements are
provided and plans conform to the technical requirements of the Zoning
Regulations. The staff also advises the applicant as to compliance with
the design guidelines. Staff provides a staff memo containing
background on the property and provides a staff evaluation of the project
with respect to the required criteria and findings, and a recommendation
on approval, approval with conditions, or denial. Staff also facilitates the
review process.
Town Council:
Actions of Design Review Board or Planning and Environmental
Commission may be appealed to the Town Council or by the Town
Council. Town Council evaluates whether or not the Planning and
Environmental Commission or Design Review Board ened with approvals
or denials and can uphold, uphold with modifications, or overturn the
board's decision.
V. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS
The following checklist was created to provide a means of evaluating the Ritz-
Carlton Residences proposal for compliance with the Lionshead Redevelopment
Master Plan. The checklist is intended for the Planning and Environmental
Commission to use in conjunction with their copies of the Lionshead
Redevelopment Master Plan to locate relevant portions of the Master Plan which
pertain to this proposal.
Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan
Chapter 2: Introduction
a 2.1 Purpose of the Master Plan
o 2.2 Definition of a Master Plan
o 2.3 Policy Objectives a 2.3.1 Renewal and Redevelopment o 2.3.2 Mtality and Amenities o 2.3.3 Stronger Economic Base Through Increased Live
Beds o 2.3.4lmproved Access and Circulation o 2.3.5 lmproved Infrastructure o 2.3.6 Creative Financing for Enhanced Private Profits and
Public Revenues
Chapter 4: Master Plan Recommendations - Overall study Area
s 4.1 Underllng Physical Framework of Lionshead o 4.1.1 Lionshead Master Plan Concept o 4.1.5 West Lionshead - Residential/Mixed-Use Hub
o 4.3 Connections to the Natural Environment o 4.3.1 Visual Connections o 4.3.1.2 North-South Orientation of Buildings
o 4.6 Vehicular and Pedestrian Circulation
o 4.6.4 Modifications to West Lionshead Circle and
Lionshead Place o 4.6.4.1 East Intersection of W. Lionshead Circle
and South Frontage Road a 4.6.4.2 Intersection of Lionshead Place and West
Lionshead Circle o 4.6.4.3 Pedestrian Sidewalks and Crossings s 4.6.4.4 Visual lmprovements
s 4.7 Loading and Delivery a 4.7.1 Properties with Direct Service Access
o 4.8 Parking
B 4.8.1 Potential Displacement of Existing Parking o 4.8.1.2 West Day Lot o 4.8.2 Residential Properties
o 4.9 Housing o 4.9.1 No Net Loss of Employee Housing o 4.9.3 Policy Based Housing Opportunities
o 4.10 Gateway, Landmarks, and Portals a 4.10.2 Landmarks
s 4.11 Public Art
Chapter 5, Detailed Plan Recommendations
o 5.13 The Marriott o 5.13.1 Redevelopment or Development of the Parking
Structure u 5.17 West Day LoU VailAssociates Service Yard/ Holy
Cross Site
Chapter 6, Site Design Guidelines
o 6.4 Secondary Pedestrian Walk
o 6.6 Pedestrian Path
Chapter 8, Architectural Design Guidelines
o 8.1 Vision Statement
o 8.2 Organization, Purpose and Scope o 8.4.2 Architecture s 8.4.2.1 Introduction o 8.4.2.2 Building Form and Massing g 8.4.2.3 Building Height a 8.4.2.4 ExteriorWalls q 8.4.2.7 Roofs
Resolution 18. Series of 2004: A Resolution Amendino Certain Sections Of The
Lionshead Redevelooment Master Plan Clarifvinq And Affordino ALL Tvoes Of
Develooment Proiects. 'New And Redevelopmenf i Flexibilitv In The Application Of The
Architectural Desiqn Guidelines. As Prescribed In Chaoter 8 Of The Lionshead
Redevelooment Master Plan. And Settinq Forth Details In Reqard Thereto.
8.3.3.A Review Criteria for Deviations to the Architectural Design Guidelines for
New Development
Similar to the implementation policies of the ADG prescribed for existing
structures, the Town has determined that there may be instances where
flexibility in requiring strict compliance with the Guidelines for new
development maybe in the best interest of the community and the
fuftherance of the goals and objectives stated in the Lionshead
Redevelopment Master Plan. That said, however, it is acknowledged that
such instances are rare and extraordinary, and shall be considered on a
case-by-case basis. To aid in determining when flexibility shall be
afforded to new development from strict compliance with the Guidelines,
review aiteria have been esfablbhed. The degree of design deviation
flexibility afforded to a development project shall bear proportionately to
the ertent of the improvements proposed. For example, a development
application that proposes the construction of a new structure which
includes the demolition of an existing structure or adds significant volume
or mass to a property, shall more fully comply with the prescribed
Architectural Design Guidelines outlined in the master plan than an
application which proposes a renovation or addition to an existing building
The following criteria shall be used by the Town of Vail Planning &
Environmental Commission and Design Review Board to determine if
deviations to the Guidelines shou/d be granted:
It shall be the burden of the applicant to demonstrate to the satisfaction of
the Town of Vail Planning & Environmental Commission following a
recommendation from the Design Review Board that:
. The request for design deviations are in compliance with the
purposes of the zone district; and
c The proposal which includes fhe des,gn deviations ls consstenf
with applicable elements of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master
Plan; and
t The proposal which includes fhe deslgn deviations does not have
a significant negative effect on the character of the neighborhood;
and
o The proposal substantially complies with other applicable
elements of the Vail comprehensive plan; and
The design deviation meets or exceeds the intent of the specific
design standards as prescribed in Section 8.4; and,
A public benefit is achieved as a resu/f of the design deviation;
and,
The design deviation furthers the goals, objectives and purposes
as sfafed i'7r Secflons 2.3. 2.5 and 8.2 of the Lionshead
Redevelopment Master Plan.
Zonino Requlations
Lionshead Mixed Use - 1 Zone District (in part)
12-7H-1: PURPOSE:
The Lionshead Mixed Use-l zone district is intended to provide slfes for a
mirture of multiple-family dwellings, lodges, hotels, fractional fee clubs, time
shares, lodge dwelling units, restaurants, offices, skier seruiceg and commercial
establishments in a clustered, unffied development. Lionshead Mixed Use 1 zone
district, in accordance with the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, is
intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space and other amenities
appropriate to the permifted types of buildings and uses and to maintain the
desirable qualities of the District by establishing appropriate site development
standards. This District is meant to encourage and provide incentives for
redevelopment in accordance with the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan.
This Zone District was specifically developed to provide incentives for properties
to redevelop. The ultimate goal of these incentives is fo creafe an economically
vibrant lodging, housing, and commercial core area. The incentives in this Zone
District include rncreases in allowable gross resrdential floor area, building height,
and density over the previously esfab/rshed zoning in the Lionshead
Redevelopment Master Plan study area. The primary goal of the incentives is to
create economic conditions favorable to inducing private redevelopment
congsfenf with the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. Additionally, the
incentives are created to help finance public off-site improvements adjacent to
redevelopment projects. With any developmenUredevelopment proposal taking
advantage of the incentives created herein, the following amenities will be
evaluated: sfreefscape improvements, pedestrian/bicycle access, public plaza
redevelopment, public art, roadway improvements, and similar improvements.
12-7H-2: PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES; BASEMENT OR GARDEN
LEVEL:A. Definition: The 'basement' or'garden level' shall be defined as that floor
of a building that is entirely or substantially below grade.
B. Permitted Uses; Ihe following uses sha// be permifted in basement or
garden levels within a structure:
Banks and financial institutions.
Commercial ski storage.
Eating and drinking establishments.
Personal services and repair shops.
Professional offices, business offices and studios.
Public or private lockers and storage.
Recritation facilities.
Retail establ ish ments.
Skier ticketing, ski school, skler serviceg and daycare.
Travel agencies.
Additional uses determined to be similar to permifted uses
described ln fhrs subsecflon, in accordance with the provisions of
Secflon 1 2-3-4 of this Title.
C. Conditional Uses; The following uses sha// be permifted in basement or
garden levels within a structure, subject fo issuance of a conditional use
permit in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 16 of this Title:
Conference facilities and meeting rooms.
Liquor stores.
Lodges and accommodation units.
Major arcade.
l0
Muftiple-hmily residential drelling unib, time-share units,
ftactional fee clubs, lodge dwelling units, and employee housing units
(Type lll (EHU) as provided in Chapter 13 of this Title).
Radio, TV stores, and repair shops.
Theaters.
Additional uses determined to be similar to conditional uses
described ln fhrs subsection, in accordance with the provisions of
Sectrbn 12-34 of this Title.
12-7H-3: PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES; F/RSI FLOOR OR SIREET
LEVEL:
A. Definition: The 'first floor" or 'street level" shall be defined as fhaf floor of
the building that is located at grade or street level along a pedestrianway.
B. Permifted Uses.' fhe following uses sha// be permifted on the first floor or
street level within a structure:
Banks, with walk-up teller facilities.
Eating and drinking establishments.
Recre ation f acil iti e s.
Refail sfores and establishments.
Skier ticketing, ski school, skler serulces, and daycare.
Travel agencies.
Additional uses determined to be similar to permitted uses descrlbed
rn fhis subsection, in accordance with the provisions of Section 12-3-
4 of this Title.
C. Conditional Uses.' The following uses sha// be permifted on the first floor or
street level floor within a structure, subject fo lssuance of a conditional use
permit in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 16 of this Title:
Barbershops, beauty shops and beauty parlors.
Conference facilities and meeting rooms.
Financial institutions, other than banks.
Liquor stores.
Lodges and accommodation units.
Multiple-hmily residential dwelling units, time-share units,
ftactional fee clubs, lodge dwelling units, and employee housing units
(Type lll (EHU) as provided in Chapter 13 of this Title).
Radio, TV stores, and repair shops.
Additional uses determined to be similar to conditional uses
described in fhis subsection, in accordance with the provisions of
Secfion 12-3-4 of this Title.
12-7H-4: PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES; SECOND FLOOR AND
ABOVE:
A. Permifted lJses; Exception: The following uses shall be permitted on those
floors above the first floor within a structure:
Lodges and accommodation units.
11
o
o
Multiplehmily residential dwelling unib, time-share units,
fractional fee clubs, lodge dwelling units, and employee housing units
(Type lll (EHU) as provided in Chapter 13 ot this Title).
Additional uses determined to be similar to permitted uses descrbed
ln fhls subsection, in accordance with the provisions of Section 12-3-
4 of this Title-
1 2-7 H-6: ACCESSORY USES;
The following accesso{y uses sha// be permifted in the Lionshead Mixed Use 1
zone district:
Home occupations, subject fo rssuance of a home occupation permit
in accordance with the provisions of Section 12-14-12 of this Title.
Loading and delivery and parking facilities customarily incidental and
accessory to permitted and conditional uses.
Minor arcade.
Offices, lobbies, laundry, and other facilities customarily incidental
and accessory to hotels, lodges, and multiple-family uses.
Outdoor dining areas operated in conjunction with permifted eating
and drinking establishments.
Swimming pools, tennis courts, patios or other recreation facilities
customarily incidental to permifted residential or lodge uses.
Other uses customarily incidental and accessory to permifted or
conditional uses, and necessary for the operation thereof.
1 2-7H-8: COMPLIANCE BURDEN:
It shall be the burden of the applicant to prove by a preponderance of the
evidence before the Planning and Environmental Commission and the Design
Review Board that the proposed erterior alteration or new development is in
compliance with the purposes of the Lionshead Mixed Use 1 zone district, that
the proposal is conslsfent with applicable elements of the Lionshead
Redevelopment Master Plan and that the proposal does not otherwise have a
significant negative effect on the character of the neighborhood, and that the
proposal substantially complies with other applicable elements of the Vail
comprehensive plan.
12-7H-18: MITIGATION OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACTS:
Property owner{developers shall also be responsible for mitigating direct
impacts of their development on public infrastructure and in all cases mitigation
shall bear a reasonable relation to the development impacts. lmpacts may be
determined based on reports prepared by qualifted consultants. The ertent of
mitigation and public amenity improvements shall be balanced with the goals of
redevelopment and will be determined by the planning and environmental
commission in review of development projects and conditional use permits.
Mitigation of impacts may include, but is not limited to, the following: roadway
improvements, pedestrian wallanay improvements, sfreefscape improvements,
stream tracUbank improvements, public art improvements, and similar
improvements. The intent of this section is to only require mitigation for large
scale redevelopmenUdevelopment projects which produce substantial off site
impacts.
t2
vt.ZONING ANALYSIS
Address/Legal Description:
Parcel Size:
Zoning:
Land Use Designation:
Lot Area:
Setbacks All Sides:
Building Height:
Density:
GRFA:
Site Coverage:
Landscape Area:
Parking:
720 and 728, West Lionshead Circle, and 825 West
Forest Road/Lots 1, 2, 3, West Day Subdivision
6.82 acre (297,165 sq. ft.)
Lionshead Mixed Use 1
Resort Accommodations and Services
The West Day Lot Development is comprised of three parcels which include the
existing Marriott Hotel and the 16 Gore Creek Place Residences, and the
proposed Ritz-Carlton Residences. As was stated previously in the
memorandum these three parcels are tied together and treated as one large
development site by the recorded plat. Below is a zoning analysis which
incorporates all three parcels and the developments which exist, are under
construction, and are proposed on the three lots. This analysis will become a
part of the Approved Development Plan for the three parcels included within the
West Day Lot Development Site.
Develooment Standard Allowed Existino
Land Uses:
Lotl*ManiotHotel
Lot 2 - West Day Lot and Marriott Hotel Parking Structure
Lot 3 - Gore Creek Residences
Prooosed
10,000 sq. ft.
10 ft.
71 ft. avg.
82.5 ft. max
742,912 sq. ft.
208,015 sq. ft.
(7OVo)
297,165 sq. ft.
10 ft.
70 ft. avg.
80.5 ft. max
213,239 sq. ft.
148,076 sq. ft.
(4e.8%)
297,165 sq. ft.
10 ft.
67.9 ft. avg.
82.5 ft. max
158 DU (23.1|ac.)
276 AU
425,934 sq. ft.
203,234 sq. ft.
(68.4%)
238 DUs (35/ac.) 51DU (7.5/ac.)
Unlimited AUs 276 AU
59,433 sq. ft. (200lo) 139,713 sq. ft. (41%) 119,772sq. ft. (40.3%)
156 (1.4/DU)
276 (0.7tAU)
412 spaces 498 spaces
The following analysis is performed solely on the site proposed to be the location
of the Ritz-Carlton Residences.
Address/LegalDescription: 728 West Lionshead Circle/Lot 2 West Day
Subdivision ParcelSize: 2.399 acre (104,500 sq. ft.)Zoning: Lionshead Mixed Use 1
Land Use Designation: Resort Accommodations and Services
l3
DevelopmentStandard Allowed
Land Usss:
Lot Area:
Setbacks All Sides:
Building Height:
Density:
GRFA:
Site Coverage:
Landscape Area:
Parking:
Existinq
Lot 2 - West Day Lot and Marrioft Hotel Parking Structure
10,000 sq. ft.
10 ft.
71ft. avg.
82.5 ft. max
83 DUs (35/ac.)
Unlimited AUs
261,250 sq. ft.
73,150 sq. ft.
(70Yo)
104,500 sq. ft.
NA
NA
NA
Proposed
104,500 sq. ft.
10 ft.
66.4 ft. avg.
82.5 ft. max
107 DU (44.61ac.)
212,695 sq. ft.
77,760 sq. ft.
(74.4Vo)
25,060sq. ft. (23.9Yo)
388 spaces*
NA
NA
20,900 sq. ft. (20%) NA
145.6 (1.4/DU) NA
* Of the parking proposed to be provided 146 spaces will serve the Ritz-Carlton
Residences, 237 will serve as replacement spaces fort he Marriott Hotel to replace the
structure, and 5 are surplus.
VII. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING
Land Use Zoninq
North:
South:
Residential
Open Space East: Residential West Public Utility
Lionshead Mixed Use 1 District
Natural Area Preservation District
Lionshead Mixed Use 1 District
General Use District
VIII. MAJOR EXTERIOR ALTERATION REVIEW CRITERIA
Section 12-7H-8, Compliance Burden, Vail Town Code, outlines the review
criteria for major exterior alteration applications proposed within the Lionshead
Mixed Use 1 (LMU-1) zone district. According to Section 12-7H-8, Vail Town
Code, a major exterior alteration shall be reviewed for compliance with the
following criteria:
1. That the proposed major exterior alteration is in compliance with the
purposes of the Lionshead Mixed Use 1 zone district;
2. That the proposal is consistent with applicable elements of the Lionshead
Redevelopment Master Plan;
3. That the proposal does not othenrrrise have a significant negative effect on
the character ofthe neighborhood; and,
l4
tx.
4. That the proposal substantially complies with other applicable elements of
the Vail Comprehensive Plan.
Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve the
major exterior alteration application, staff recommends that the Commission
makes the following finding as part of the motion;
"Pursuant fo Secfion 12-7H-8, Compliance Burden, Vail Town Code, the
applicant has proven by a preponderance of the evidence before the
Planning and Environmental Commission and the Design Review Board
that the proposed major exterior afteration is in compliance with the
purposes of the Lionshead Mixed Use 1 zone district, that the proposal is
consrsfenf with applicable elements of the Lionshead Redevelopment
Master Plan and that the proposal does not otherwise have a significant
negative effect on the character of the neighborhood, and that the proposal
substantially complies with other applicable elements of the Vail
Comprehensive Plan."
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REVIEW CRITERIA
As previously discussed in Section ll of this memorandum, the applicant is
requesting approval of a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 12-7H-2,
Permitted and Conditional Uses; Basement or Garden Level, and 12-7H-3,
Permitted and Conditional Uses; First Floor on Street Level, to construct dwelling
units within the Garden Level and on the First Floor of the proposed structure,
subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the
provisions outlined in Chapter 16, Conditional Use Permits, Vail Town Code.
Section 12-16-6, Criteria; Findings, Vail Town Code, outlines the review criteria
for conditional uses permit requests proposed within the Lionshead Mixed Use 1
(LMU-1) zone district. According to Section 12-16-6, Vail Town Code, the
Planning and Environmental Commission shall consider the following factors with
respect to the proposed use:
1. Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the town.
2. Effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation
facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public
facilities and public facilities needs.
3. Effect upon traffic, with particular reference to congestion, automotive and
pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access,
maneuverability, and removal of snow from the streets and parking areas.
4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be
located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to
surrounding uses.
Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve the
application, staff recommends that the Commission make the following findings
before granting a conditional use permit:
l5
x.
1. That the proposed location of the use is in accordance with the purposes
of the Zoning Regulations and the purposes of the Lionshead Mixed Use 1
zone district.
2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it
would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public
health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or
improvements in the vicinity.
3. That the proposed use complies with each of the applicable provisions of
the Zoning Regulations.
RESOLUTION 18. SERIES OF 2004. REVIEW GRITERIA
The applicant is requesting two architectural design deviations which are
permitted flexibility under the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan and are
subject to review by the Planning and Environmental Commission under a set of
criteria. lf certain findings can be made by the Planning and Environmental
Commission, upon receipt of a recommendation by the Design Review Board,
flexibility can be granted. Staff has attached Resolution 18, Series of 2004, for
the Commissions review (Attachment C). The two architectural design features
the applicant is requesting flexibility from are:
The Master Plan limitation on a maximum of 500 sq. ft. of flat roofed
areas; and
The Master Plan requirements for screening of mechanical equipment
by proposing a screening feature which exceeds the 82.5 foot height
limitation.
Staff will not address the specific criteria at this time regarding the two
architectural design elements the applicant is requesting to deviate from in the
Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. The applicant has provided responses
to the Criteria found in Resolution 18, Series of 2004, which are aftached for the
Commission's review (Attachment D). Staffls initial analysis of the two
architectural design deviations are as follows:
'1. Flat Roofed Area of the Structure:
The Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan identifies a maximum area
of 500 square feet for flat roofed portions of a structure. Staff believes
that the intent of this provision is to limit buildings to minimal flat roofed
areas so as to encourage true sloping roof forms. Staff believes that
the limitation of 500 square feet per area for a structure located on a
site encompassing 2.399 acres may be unreasonable. The proposed
structure has a total roof area of approximately 59,441 square feet and
the proposed flat roofed portion of the structure is proposed to be
approximately 5,442 square feet or 9.2 percent of the total area. This is
a reduction from the previously proposed roof design which contained
approximately 9,100 square feet of flat roofed area or 15.3 percent.
1.
2.
16
The cunent roof plan now incorporates 1,862 square feet of roof-top
terrace. The applicant has proposed a roof design in which they believe
the flat portion is secondary to the sloped roofed areas. Through the
use of sloped mansard roof forms the applicant has attempted to reduce
the visibility of the flat roofed portions of the structure from many
perspectives. The flat roofed areas will not be visible from a pedestrian
perspective nor from the sunound properties as the height of the
building is above a majority of the neighboring structures. The flat
roofed areas will, however, be visible from the ski mountain.
2. Mechanical Screenino Solution:
The applicant has proposed a solution to screen several large cooling
towers and condensers on the main ridge of the structure located above
the port-cochere. The applicant has proposed to place a screening
solution over the mechanicals which would continue the roof line of the
main ridge up to a height which ranges from 85.3 feet (3.3% over
maximum allowable height) on the north elevation of the building to 89.8
feet (8.80/o over maximum allowable height) on the south elevation of
the building. The proposed solution exceeds the 82.5 feet maximum
identified in the Master Plan. The Master Plans identifies that
mechanicals should be placed on roof tops and painted so as to blend
into the roof color materials. The proposed structure has placed the
large mechanical pieces in a well on the roof, which has a finished floor
elevation less than 82.5 feet, and placed the screening element on top.
The screening element is proposed to be an element which would be an
architectural element which is custom created from metal and would be
primarily open.
It shall be the burden of the applicant to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the
Town of Vail Planning & Environmental Commission following a recommendation
from the Design Review Board that:
The request for design deviations are in compliance with the purposes of
the zone district; and
The proposal which includes the design deviations is consistent with
applicable elements of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan; and
The proposal which includes the design deviations does not have a
significant negative effect on the character of the neighborhood; and
The proposal substantially complies with other applicable elements of the
Vail comprehensive plan; and
The design deviation meets or exceeds the intent of the specific design
standards as prescribed in Section 8.4; and,
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
t7
6.
7.
A public benefit is achieved as a result of the design deviation; and,
The design deviation furthers the goals, objectives and purposes as stated
in Sections 2.3,2.5 and 8.2 of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan.
Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve the
application, staff recommends that the Commission make the following findings
before granting a flexibility under the recommendations of the Lionshead
Redevelopment Master Plan:
1. That the request for design deviations are in compliance with the purposes of
the zone district; and
2. That the proposal which includes the design deviations is consistent with
applicable elements of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan; and
3. That the proposal which includes the design deviations does not have a
significant negative effect on the character of the neighborhood; and
4. That the proposal substantially complies with other applicable elements of the
Vail comprehensive plan; and
5. That the design deviation meets or exceeds the intent of the specific design
standards as prescribed in Section 8.4; and,
6. That a public benefit is achieved as a result of the design deviation; and,
7. That the design deviation furthers the goals, objectives and purposes as
stated in Sections 2.3,2.5 and 8.2 of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master
Plan.
NEXT STEPS
The following is a tentative schedule of hearings dates at which the Planning and
Environmental Commission (PEC) and the Design Review Board (DRB) will be
asked to review, comment, and take action on the proposed Ritz-Carlton
Residences:
. DRB November 2, 2005: Applicant and Staff respond to previous
DRB comments. A recommendation will be requested regarding
the proposed architectural deviations.
o DRB November 14,2O05: Request for final review and approval
of the project if all comments and concerns have been addressed.
xl.
l8
XII. STAFFRECOMMENDATION
Staff and the applicant would request that the Planning and Environmental
Gommission tables the applicant's request to the Nowmber 14, 2005, hearing.
XIII. ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Vicinity Map
Atachment B: Reduced copy of the proposed revisions
Attachment C: Resolution 18, Series of 2OO4
Attachment D: Response to the Criteria found in Resolution 18, Series of 2004,
provided by the applicant
o
l9
=E L o q
o Ol 3B iR
.ER +, !-t8 trE oo oE oo ET?ci5
5fH at \, rn aa G9,E b.TF +rJi(
-\J
. oiY 6=E .IR
F i:F o x.=lue Ltu OE 'dF
=E r\t '-
-..ef
+.o o 3 u o tr
I
o o o F
o E
6 o E l.
1'.1,
tr
(g o I N +.
E
o F
F
Attachment: A
RESOLUTION NO. 18
Series ot2OO4
A RESOLUTION AMENDING CERTAIN SECTIONS OF THE LIONSHEAD
REDEVELOPMENT MASTER PLAN CLARIFYING AND AFFORDING Att TYPES OF
DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS, "NEW AND REDEVELOPMENT", FLEXIBILITY IN THE
APPLICATION OF THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN GUIDELINES, AS PRESCRIBED
IN CHAPTER 8 OF THE LIONSHEAD REDEVELOPMENT MASTER PLAN, AND
SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO.
WHEREAS, on December 15, 1998, the VailTown Council (the "Town Council")
adopted the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan (the "Master Plan"); and
WHEREAS, the Master Plan was initiated by the Town of Vail to encourage
redevelopment and new development initiatives within the Lionshead Study Area; and
WHEREAS, Section 2.8 of Master Plan outlines a procedure for amending the
Master Plan; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 2.8 of the Master Plan, the Town of Vail
Community Development Department has proposed an amendment to the Master Plan;
and
WHEREAS, the Town of Vail Planning & Environmental Commission has held a
public hearing on the proposed amendment on July 26,2004, and has forwarded a
recommendation of approval of the amendment to the Town Council; and
WHEREAS, the purpose of this amendment is to amend the implementation
policies prescribed in the Master Plan to clarify and afford all types of development, "new
and redevelopment, flexibility in the application of the Architectural Design Guidelines
(the'Guidelines"), as prescribed in Chapter 8, Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan;
and
WHEREAS, the Town Council finds that from time to time it may be desirable to
afford flexibility in strict application of the Guidelines to new development projects; and
WHEREAS, the Town Council finds that the proposed amendment improves and
enhances the effectiveness of the Master Plan without negatively affecting the goals,
objectives, and policies prescribed by the Master Plan.
Attachment: G
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE
TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO:
1. The Town Gouncil of the Town of Vail hereby amends the Lionshead
Redevelopment Master Plan as follows:
The amendments to the text of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan are
indicated in BOLD ITALICS (additions) and SSRKEFIIROIJGH ffntles
(deletions).
Crr.Aprnn 8
Architectural Design Guidelines
8.1 Vision Statement
The Lionshead neighborhood in Vail presents the opportunity to establish a dynamic and
exciting community within one of the prernier resorts in the world. Lionshead's
mountain location" proximity to the ski slopes, and ample residential base evokes the
vision of a truly special place, fuIl of vitality and interest. This vision can be achieved
through redevelopment of the community by addressing site and architectural issues, and
through consistent and effective transitions from existing to new buildings.
The pedestrian experience of the public spaces within Lionshead is the most critical issue
for redevelopment. Many of the existing spaces are static and uninteresting, due to a
prevailing grid organization and lack of animation and architectural coherency within the
spaces. One of the most effective ways to intensifu this experience is through careful
design ofthe architecture which dehnes the public spaces. Visually dynamic variation at
the pedestrian level can help avoid a monotonous streetscape, and judicious use of
ornament, detail, artworh and color can reflect individuality and establish a variety of
experience.
The architecture of Lionshead is envisioned as a unified composition of buildings and
public spaces based on the timeless desip principles offonq scale, and order, made
responsive to their setting and environment. It is not envisioned as a strict dictation ofa
specific "style" or "theme." Many existing buildings within the community are built of
monolithic concrete slabs and lack any sense of order or personality. The new image for
Lionshead should move towards the future-using historicd alpine references and Vail
Village as antecede,nts. This design framework will allow individual property owners
freedom ofexpression within the personalities oftheir buildings while establishing and
maintaining an overall uniffing character and image for the elrtire commrnity. In
addition, it is paramount that the redevelopment effort address specific design
considerations generated by the location, climate, and surrounding environment, such as
addressing views, using indigenous building materials, and reflecting the alpine heritage.
8.2
Designing in response to our regional heritage, adhering to a consistent architectural
order, and enhancing the public experience will enable Lionshead to define its own
identity-making it a distinct and special place not just within the context of Vail, but
within kindred mountain communities around the world.
l"tg il- l; 'fhe innge of Li<nshe*l shcnld <tvtnbute to ts si]nseuJpld<c.'
Organization, Purpose and Scope
The organization of the Lionshead Architectural Desigrr Guidelines is based
upon describing the "big pichre" ofthe redevelopment effort first, and then
studying the more detailed aspects. Sections 8.1 and 8.2 begin with the'big
picture" and offer the '?ision" for Lionshead, and provide explanatory
information regarding organization, purpose, and scope. Section 8.3 contains
special provisions for new and existing strrctures, including redevelopment
priorities, tiggers, and ransition tools. This Section addresses howfluibility in
the application of the Guidelines shoald be applied to development applications
under consideration by the Town's Boards and Commissions. Section 8.4
contains the Guidelines themselves, but begins first with the "big picture" of
planning considerations which may overlap with the Lionshead Master Plan.
Prospective developers and/or designers should study this portion ofSection 8.4
carefully, to see what design criteria must be met if their project occupies a
special site relative to building roles, pedestrian streets, or hansition spaces. The
latter portion of Section 8.4 deals with the architectural principles of the Design
Guidelines, starting first with overall issues such as building form and massing,
then moving into more detailed issues such as dimensional criteria for
architectural components, materials, and colors. Section 8.5 provides a "quick
glimpse" of the quantitative values outlined in the Guidelines.
The purpose of the Lionshead Architectural Design Guidelines (ADG) is to work
in concert with the Lionshead Master Plan to enhance the existing experience
within the community, improve the quality of life, focus direction for funre
growth, create visual harmony, and improve property values for businesses and
homeowners. This document constitutes a desigrr philosophy for the community,
which when integrated with the Lionshead Master Plan, helps to establish
Lionshead as a coherent, dynamic village with a true "sense of place." These
Guidelines are intended to direct the growth of the community through distinct
levels of perception, from views of the neighborhood from the mountain and the
highway, to perceptions within its pedestrian sfteets, to the detail level of artistry
and ornamentation on the structures themselves.
The scope of the Design Guidelines includes all crit€ria related to the
architectural design of new and redevelopment tmedel prqects within
Lionshead, along with site and planning sriteria which relate directly to
architecture. Other site and planning criteria may be found in the Lionshead
Master Plan, and should be reviewed concunently with these Guidelines.
Sfuctures which have been reviewed and approved by regulatory agencies for
Lionshead prior to the e,ndorsement date of this document may present special
Fig8-2: Ptnals olier, yes.nt the lirst tmaqes o-l the (:otnmt{flih'io pedestnans.
circumstances with respect to the criteria cited within these Guidelines, and will
be handled per Section 8.3.
8.3 New and Existing Structures
8.3.1 SpecialProvisions
While these Guidelines offer a roadmap for the redevelopment of
Lionshead, they are not intended to limit the eflorts of developers and/or
designers involved withnew and existing structures. It is understood that
many of the buildings within the community or may be unable to comply
with some of the criteria described in the ADG. Many existing buildings,
for instance, may already exceed the height criteria identified. Some
existing roof pitches within the communitymay not meet the numerical
values described. And many of the existing pedestrian streets may fall
well short of the "ideal" proportions depicted. These and similar issues
will be handled on a case-by-case basis, with determination of compliance
based upon whether the building meets the general intent of these
Guidelines and the tenets described herein.
Simihr to existing strucures, it is ulso understood thatfrom time to time
the Town may determine that it is desirqble to allordllexibility in strict
applicetion ofthe Guidelines to new development projects In these
instances, the reviewing body shall rely upon the stated review criteria
for deviations to the Architeaural Design Guidelines oatlined in sub-
section 8.3.3.A contained herein
Proposed renovations or additions which meet the general intent of the
ADG will be offered more latitude with respect to specific non-compliant
iterns than those which stray from the overall vision of Lionshead as
described withirr-variances will be granted from the detail of the
Guidelines if the overall intent is met. In addition, any meaningful efforts
to enhance existing structures will be recognized as positive progress, and
strict compliance with the "letter" of these Guidelines is not meant to
discourage potential improvements.
8.3.2 Development Master Plans
Since many of the structures within Lionshead are pre-existing,
Development Master Plans are higily encouraged to define long-range
goals for buildings within individual parcels. These Plans should be
presented to the Desigrr Review Board (DRB) for review when applying
for initial building desigrr approval, and should include information such
as:
. Overall architectural '!ision" for all buildings within the site
. DesiEn stategies formaintaining consistent architectural language
between renovations and new construction within the site . Proposed phasing plans
8.3.3 Redevelopment Prioritization and'6Triggers"
Consistent with Section 8.3.1 above, existingproperties are encouraged to
renovate and rehabilitate, to the great€st extent possible, the exterior of
their buildings according to the parameters of the ADG. It is recognized,
however, that a single, complete, and comprehensive exterior renovation
may not be economically possible for all existing structures, and
incrfirental improvements must be allowed. Having said this, the
following potential exterior improvements should be considered as
priorities by both private property owners and the Town of Vail. All
reasonable efforts to encourage, provide incentives, and facilitate these
improvements should be made.
Renewed and expended retail frontage. Forproperties fronting
the Lionshead retail mall and retail pedeshian streets, the
renovation and expansion ofthe ground floor retail level is perhaps
the most critical element in revitalizing the Lionshead retail core.
Roofs. As outlined in the ADG, the roofscape of Lionshead is a
critical component in "knitting" together the built environment and
providing visual cohesion to the urban fabric oflionshead.
Planning considerations. All buildings in Lionshead, both
existing and new development, should seek to fulfill the roles of
landmarks, portals, tuming points, and other roles as outlined in
the Master Plan.
' Fornb massing and height criteria.r Building surface treatment- walls, doors, windows, sipage, etc.. All other components of the architectural design guidelines.
A critical question regarding the re,novation of existing structures is when
compliance with the architectural desigrr guidelines is "triggered" or
required. Regarding this, the following guidelines should be considered:
o To the greatest extent possible, renovating properties should
endeavor to make significant and meaningful improvements to
their properties as opposed to small, insigrrificant improvements.
This does not discount the impodance of any improvement to a
properties exterior.
. Any single incremental improvement to one building element will
not necessarily trigger compliance on all remaining building
elements. However, any portion of the building being improved
should do so according to the parameters of the architectural
design guidelines. For example, ifa property applies to resurface
the walls of their building this resurfacing should be done
according to the ADG, but will not in and of itself also require the
replacement of the roof or another major modification, at the same
time.
. Any proposal to add significant volume or mass to a property may
*ill tigger full and+easenable compliance to the Master Plan and
Architectural Design Guidelines. Deviations from this
requirement shall require demonstration of compliance with
the procedures and review criteria outlined in Subsection
E.3.3.A herein.
E 3.3.A Review Criteriafor Deviations to the Architectural Design Guidelines
for New Development
Similar to the implemenntion policies of the ADG prescribedfor
existing structares, the Town has determined that there may be instances
where flexibility in requiring strict compliance with the Guidelines for
new development maybe in the best interest of the communig and the
furtherance ofthe goals and objectives stated in the Lionshead
Redevelopment Master Plan That said, however, it is acknowledged
that such instances are rare and ertraordinary, and shall be considered
on a case-by-case basis To aid in daermining whenfluibility shall be
alforded to new developmentfrom strict compliance with the Guidelines,
review citeria have heen established. The degree ofdesign deviution
Jlexibilig alforded to a development project shall bear proportionately to
the extent of the improvemen$ proposed" For uample, a development
application that proposes the construction ol a new structure which
includes the demolition of an uisting s-tracture or adds significant
volume or mass to a properfit, shall morefully comply with the
prescribed Architectural Design Guidelines outhned in the master plan
than qn application which proposes a renovation or addition to an
exixing building
Thefollowing titeris shall be used by the Town of Vail Planning &
Environmental Commission and Design Review Board to determine if
deviutions to the Guidelines should be granted:
It shall be the burden ofthe applicant to demonstrqte to the satisfaction
of the Town of Vail Planning & Environmental Commissionfollowing a
recommendutionfrom the Design Review Board that:
t The requestfor design deviations are in compliance with the
purposes ofthe zone district; and
The proposal which includes the design deviations is consis-tent
with applicable elements of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master
Plan; and
The proposal which includes the design deviations does not have
a signiftcant negative elfeu on the charac'ter of the
neighborhood; and
The proposal substantially complies with other applicable
elements of the Yail comprehensive plan; and
The design deviation meets or uceeds the intent of the specilic
design s'tandards as prescrtbed in Section 8.4; and,
A public beneJit is achieved as a result ofthe design deviation;
and,
The design deviation furthers the goals, objectives and purposes
as stated in Sections 2.3, 2.5 and E.2 ofthe Lionshead
Redevelopment Master Plan.
2. lf any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this
Resolution is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity
of the remaining portions of this Resolution, and the Town Council hereby declares it
would have passed this Resolution, and each part, section, subsection, clause or phrase
thereol regardless of the fact that any one or more parts, sections, subsections, clauses
or phrases be declared invalid.
3. The Town Council hereby finds, determines and declares that this
Resolution is necessary and proper for the health, safety and welfare of the Town of Vail
and the inhabitants thereof.
4. Bylaws, orders, resolutions and ordinances, or parts thereol inconsistent
herewith are repealed to the extent only of such inconsistency. This repealer shall not
be construed to revise any bylaw, order, resolution or ordinance, or part thereof,
theretofore repealed.
o
INTRODUCED, READ, AppRolrED At{D ADoPTED thb 3d day of argust,
20u.
Rodney Slifer, Malor, Tovn of Vail
ATTEST:
Lorelei Donaldson, Torm Clerk
LAl28l2g85 A2:2L BRAJN ASSOCIATES o
'o
Thornas A. Braun, AICP
Cc: JaokHunn
JayPeteneon
Robert Fitzgerald
Attachment D
978-926-7576 o
RAUN
ASSOC'.rATES. tNC'..
LAiID PLAr.lNr{g A <OMMUNrrv OWELOpMENT
Ootober 19,2005
Mr. Warren Carnpbell
Town Planncr
Town ofVail
75 Ssuth Frontage Road
Vail, CO 81632
RE: Riu Residoucss
Dear Wetrcn:
As per yow rcguest, atkchcd pu will fnd our responsa to revicw criteria relafive to
Resolution #18, Series 2004. This response has been prepued based on the rwised
"sketch-up" ptan set that was submitted on 10/18/05.
Please lot me know if 1ou necd any other information in ordcr to facilitate yoru rwiew of
ttris project. Thanks again for your ongoing assistance.
Sinccrcly,
PAGE A2
Tho RlE.C,arlbn Residenccs
Rccolutioo #l E.Dcviation Criterig
Opll Buildlng .
970-0?67375
225 Mlln Srri€t ' Sultr G2 . Edw!rd!, CO 81632
' 97O-gX-7576 lar . Wvyw-braunassocbf.e.rom
RESOLUTION 18. SERIES OF 2004. REVIEW CRITDRIA
Two deviations to architectural design standards of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master
Plan are proposed by the Ritz Residences. Flexibility to these standards is subject to
review by the Planning and Environmental Commission (following a recommendation
from the DRB). The two deviations to these standards are:
"Secondarvroofelements" in excess of500 sq. ft.
The proposed building has a total roofarea ofapproximately 59,441 square feet and the
proposed flat roofed portion ofthe structure is proposed to be approximately 7,333 square
feet or l2.3Yo of the total roof area. Of this flat roof area approximately 1,349 sq. ft. will
be rooftop terraces resulting in 5,084 sq. ft. offlat roof, or l0.l% ofthe total roofarea.
The proposed roofplan depicts 19 separate flat roofed areas. Ofthese only seven exceed
500 sq. ft. and range from 506 to 1,048 sq. ft. A number of these flat roofed areas
accommodate mechanical equipmenl The overall roof design is predominantly a gable
form along with portions of mansard roof. From the public domain the building will not
"read" or be perceived as a "flat roofed" building.
Mechanical Eouioment Screen in excess of 82.5'
The roof of the mair/central portion of the building extends to 82.5 feet in height.
Cooling towers and other mechanical equipment will be located on top of this roof. This
equipment extends to a height of xx.x'. In order to minimize the potentially adverse
visual impact of this equipment a rooftop screening feature is proposed. The screen is a
metal trellis feature that is designed as an extension of the roof form below. This design
results in an appearance of a gable roof form, albeit with the upper portion of the roof
being a tellis and not a part of the actual roof. The ridge formed by the trellis is 85.3' on
the north end of the building and 89.8' on the south end.
Historically the Town has allowed for mechanical equipment to exceed allowable roof
height. ln addition, the Town has permitted rooftop mechanical screening devises to
exceed allowable roofheight. From this standpoint the proposed trellis/screen feature is
technically not a deviation to the development standard. Notwithstanding, the proposed
ridge of the central portion of the building does exceed 82.5' and as such it will be
reviewed in accordance with the criteria of Resolution 16.
The Ritz Carlton Residences
Resolution #l 8-Deviation Criteria
l.The request for desim deviations are in compliance with the purposes of the zone
district and
The purpose of the Lionshead Mixed Use I District is "to provide sites Jbr a
mixture of multiple-family dwellings, lodges, hotels, fractional fee clubs, time
shares, lodge dwelling units, restaurants, ffices, skier services, and commercial
establishments in a clustered, unified development. . . . and to maintain the
desirable qualities of the District by establishing appropriate site development
standards". The Ritz Club Residences is comprised of multi-family dwellings
which is in keeping with this stated purpose. Aside from the two proposed
deviations the project is designed in conformance to established development
standards, thereby furthertng the desirable qualities ofthe District and ensuring
adequate light, air, open space, etc. The minor nature ofthe proposed deviations
are such that the project is still very much in compliance with the purpose of the
LHMU-I District.
The pronosal which includes the desipn deviations is consistent with applicable
elernents of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan: and
The overall project is consistent with applicable.elements of the Lionshead
Redevelopment Master Plan. Compliance with applicable elements of this Plan
will be provided under separate cover.
The proposal which includes the desiprr deviations does not have a sipsdficant
nesative effect on the character ofthe neishborhood: and
Flat roof areas are very lirnited and are located such that it is unlikely they will
be visible to any significant extent from anywhere. This is due to two factors - flat
roofs comprise only a small portion of the total roof area and in all cases the flat
roofportions ofthe building are on internal areas ofthe roof. The building will
"read" as though it has a pitched roof, The flat roofed portion will have no
significant negative impact to the neighborhood.
As outlined above, the mechanical screenfeature conceals mechanical equipment
in the central portion of the building. llhile both the mechanical equipment and
screenfeature exceed the height limit of 82.5', the Town has histurtcally allowed
both equipment and screeningfeatures to exceed allowable height limits. Given
the altemative of exposed mechanical equipment on the roof, the proposed
screeningfeature that is actually integrated into the design ofthe building
represents a much better solutionfor both the building design andfor the
neighborhood.
The proposal substantially complies with other applicable elements of the Vail
comprehensive plan: and
2.
J.
4.
The Ritz Carlton Residences
Resolution #l 8-Deviation Criteria
5.
The Town's Comprehensive Plan includes a wide varielt of documents. One of
the tnost recent plans and clearly the most relevant plan to consider in relation to
this project is the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. As described in item
#2 above, the Ritz project is consistent with applicable elements of this plan.
The desisn deviation meets or exceeds the intent ofthe specific design standards
as prescribed in Section 8.4: and.
The LHMP includes avast number of design goals and objectives. One of these is
to encourage the use ofroofs to "providevisual cohesion to the urbanfabric"
and to ensure that "roofs are predominantly gables and hips, with sheds orflat
roofs which cover more than 500 sq. ft.". Wile not specifically stated in the
LHMP, it can be inferred that the intent of the limitation onJlat roofs is tofurther
the goal ofhaving " predominantly gable roofs".
The proposed building has a total roofarea ofapproximately 59,441 squarefeet
and the proposedflat roofed portion of the structure is approximately 7,333
squarefeet or 12.3% ofthe total roofarea. OfthisJlat roofarea approximately
I,349 sq. ft. are proposed roofiop terraces resulting in 5,084 sq. ft. offlat roof or
I 0. I 96 of the total roof area. The proposed roof p lan depicts I 9 s eparate Jlat
roofed areas. Of these only seven exceed 500 sq. ft. and range in size from 506 to
I,048 sq. ft. Four of the seven are between 506-540 sq. ft. in size.
From a quailtitative standpoint the portion offlat roofthat exceeds 500 sq. ft. is
very insignificant. From a qualitative standpoint the Jlat roof portions of the
building are innocuous. The proposed deviation clearly meets the intent of
Section 8.4 as it pertains to flat roofs.
As discussed above, the proposed deviation for the trellis screen feature to exceed
82.5' is a design element that has historically been approved by the town (i.e.
mechanical equipment and screening devices can exceed allowable height lirnits).
The screen feature is an attempt to pro-actively address rnechanical equipment as
part ofthe overall design process and not as an afterthought. This approach
exceeds specific design standards for mechanical equipment as outlined in the
LHMP.
Another important consideration is found in Section 8.4.2.3 Building Height. This
section permits "unique architectural fortns " to exceed the allowable maximum
building height, subject to approval by reviewing boards. The proposed trellis
screen is certainly a unique approach to dealing with mechanical screening.
Otherfactors to consider relative to the overall project and development
standards:
The Ritz Carlton Residences
Resolution #l 8-Deviation Criteria
The trellis screenfeature is only 2.8' above the height limit on the
north end ofthe building and only 7.3' on the south.
All habitable space within the building is well below 82.5'.
The project is developing well below the rnarimum allowable GRFA.
The project conforms to maximumwall plane heights.
Ifconsidered an "architectural projection" the trellis screen is well
below the maximum 97.5'height that is allowable by code.
The overall average height ofthe building is 66.4, this is well below
the maximum average of 7l '. This calculation includes the height of
the idge formed by the trellis screen.
A public benefit is achieved as a result ofthe desien deviation: and.
The design deviations, while minor in nature are important elements of the
proposed building. The screeningfeature, while exceeding the 82.5 building
height limit, provides a significant public benefit by screening rooftop mechanical
equipment. Virtually all of the flat roofed portions of the building that exceed
500 sq. ft. also serve as rooftop patios or locations for mechanical equipment - a
public benefit is achieved by locating this equipment on the roofin lieu of ground
level location. ll'hen considered in the context ofthe proposed building and in
the context of the three parcels of the lVest Day Lot subdivision, approval of the
proposed deviations will result in an improved design solution which in turn
achieves a public benefit consistent with the overall redevelopment ofLionshead.
The design deviation furthers the qoals. obiectives and ourposes as stated in
Sections 2.3. 2.5 and 8.2 of the Lionshead Redeveloplnent Master Plan.
Section 2.j refers to broad policy objectives such as redevelopment, improved
access/circulation, improved infrastructure and enhanced public revenues.
Section 2.5 addresses broad urban design principles and Section 8.2 addresses
the overall design intentfor Lionshead. By virtue ofthe project's compliance
with specific relevant guidelines the Ritzfurthers these broad goals and
objectives. The two rninor design deviations proposed by the Ritz Carlton
Residences are irnportant elements ofthe overall building design as and such also
serve tofurther the goals of the sections refened to above.
I
!
I
I
6.
7.
The Ritz Carlton Residences
Resolution #l 8-Deviation Criteria
TOTAI, ROOF ,\RI]I\
T( )TrU- l:1..,\T R()()l' ARIrA
FL;\T ROOF r\REr\ tu\'I'IO
R()()[; PL:\N 09.2(r.0.5
7.971 SF /59.44t5F= l3.1Vo
T()T.\1. R(X)F .\RE \'t o1,.\t. Ft..{1' ROOF _Utrr\
Fl,.\1' RCX)l; .\Rt i.\ R{t't()
(lndudes r<xrf terrace)
59,027 SF
7.3rH St,
F L.'\'l' RO()lI :\ Rl'1.\ tu\'l lC)
7,3rH SI;/5r,{)27 Sl: = 123?./o
(7.3tr+ - 1.862)/59.rt27 = 92 o/o
Roof Plan Roof Plan - Reaised
(PEC Submittal Date 09 / 26 / 05)
o
L4-- --' -
o
Partial Roof Plan =\
Detail View from Nortb East
Panel Detail
PEG Memorandum
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
MEMORANDUM
Planning and Environmental Commission
Community Development Department
October 10,2005
A request for a final review of a major exterior alteration, pursuant to
Section 12-7H-7, Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town
il.
Code, and a final review of a conditional use permit,pursuant to
Section 12-7H-2, Permitted and Conditional Uses; Basement or Garden
Level, and 12-7H-3, Permitted and Conditional Uses; First Floor on
Street Level, Vail Town Code; and final review of architectural
deviations, pursuant to Section 8.3.3.A, Review Criteria for Deviations to
the Architectural Design Guidelines for New Development, Lionshead
Redevelopment Master Plan, to allow for the development of 107 multi-
family residential dwelling units, located at 728 West Lionshead Circle/Lot
2, West Day Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC
05-0062 and PEC 05-0063).
Applicant: Vail Resorts Development Company, represented by
Braun Associates, Inc.Planner: Wanen Campbell
SUMMARY
The purpose of today's work session hearing with the Planning and
Environmental Commission is to allow the applicant an opportunity to present the
changes which have been made to the application in response to comments from
the previous meeting. The desired outcome of the hearing is for the Planning
and Environmental Commission to understand the following:
o The proposed structure in terms of bulk, mass, height, and operation.o The criteria by which the applicant is requesting flexibility regarding the
area of flat roof on the structure, the architectural mechanical screening
solution, and the proposed landmark tower.
The Commission is not being asked to take any formal action on this application
at this time. As such, staff is not providing a formal recommendation at this time.
Staff and the applicant request that the Planning and Environmental Commission
tables the applicant's request to the October 24,2005, hearing. lt is anticipated
that the applicant will request a final approval at the October 24, 2005, Planning
and Environmental Commission hearing.
DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
The purpose of today's work session hearing with the Planning and
Environmental Commission is to allow the applicant an opportunity to present the
changes which have been made to the application in response to comments from
the previous meeting. After the presentation the Planning and Environmental
Commission will be asked to provide additional feedback regarding the revisions
to the proposal.
The proposed Ritz-Carlton Residences project is on the third and final parcel of
the comprehensive development site encompassing the existing Marriott Hotel,
the Gore Creek Residences, and the West Day Lot parking area. The West Day
Lot parking area and the existing Marriott parking structure sites total 2.399 acres
in size and is location of the proposed Ritz-Carlton Residences project. A vicinity
map identifying the location of the development site has been attached for
reference (Attachment A). A reduced set of revisions are attached for reference
(Attachment B).
The Ritz-Carlton Residences proposal is comprised of two (2) different
development review applications. Each application is intended to facilitate the
redevelopment proposal. The development applications include:
. A maior exterior alteration aoolication for a new 107 multiple-
family dwelling unit structure; and o A conditional use permit application for "lodge rooms or dwelling
unifs" located on the basement or garden level and the first floor
or street level of the structure.
The key elements of the proposal include:
r A 107 multiple-family dwelling unit condominium structure;o A total ol 212,695 square feet of Gross Residential Floor
(GRFA);. A 388 space below grade parking structure to serve as parking for
the Marriott Hotel and the Ritz-Carlton Residences:r A landmark feature which is 120 feet in height;. A loading and delivery facility comprised of three bays;. A lobby/lounge area with a front desk, concierge, and valet; and r A media room, game room, and pool/hot tub deck.
BACKGROUND
The subject development site includes several parcels of land currently used for
the Marriott Hotel, the parking structure for the Marriott Hotel, the Gore Creek
Residences, and the West Day Lot.
Marrioft Hotel History (Parcel 1 of the West Day Subdivison)
The Marriott (previously "The Mark") was approved by the Town in 1977
as a hotel and condominium project and was zoned Special Development
District No. 7 by Ordinance 3, Series oI 1977. The project was expanded
and modified throughout the 1980's and 1990's. In 1999 the Marriott
property, along with the rest of Lionshead, was rezoned to Lionshead
Mixed Use 1 and SDD No. 7 was repealed. The Marriott as developed
today includes 35 dwelling units, 276 hotel rooms, meeting rooms, a
restaurant, and other hotel amenities.
Area
il1.
West Day Lot History (Parcel 2 of the West Day Subdivision)
The western portion of the site (the Morcus Subdivision), known as the
"West Day Lot", was regraded and used for Vail Resorts employee
parking. Prior to the rezoning of this parcel to Lionshead Mixed Use 1 in
1999, the property was zoned Parking District.
On August 22, 2005, the Planning and Environmental Commission held
an initial hearing on the Ritz-Carlton Residences. At that hearing Staff
proved the Commission with parameters by which the project would be
reviewed. At this hearing the Commission requested to see how the
parcels recently acquired by Vail Associates and the potential of
relocating the Frontage Road would affect this property. In addition the
Commission asked for a response as to why a conditional use permit was
appropriate to be granted for condominiums on the ground floor next to a
potential future lift and within an overall greater portal to the mountain
being created in western Lionshead.
On September 12, 2005, the Planning and environmental Commission
expressed that there were no concerns with the Conditional Use Permit
that was being request for dwelling units on the first floor or garden level.
The Commission continued by expressing concem regarding the height of
the landmark tower. The general consensus was that a height of 140 feet
was inappropriate. In addition, the Commission stated that the height of
the screening element for the mechanicals had not been justified in the
presentation and other options should be examined. The Commission
was not comfortable with approving the height of the screening element
over the maximum height of 82.5 feet. Finally the Commission expressed
that they would like greater information regarding the flat roof maximum
area requirement found in the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan.
Several members expressed a need for the western elevation along the
Frontage Road to have step backs incorporated into the architecture.
On September 26, 2005, The Planning and Environmental Commission
generally expressed that of the three Options/Alternatives presented that
that Option/Alternative B was preferable to Option/Alternative C. The
Commissioners generally felt that while Option/Alternative B incorporated
the mechanical screening solution which exceeds the maximum height, it
does not result in additional head height in the top floor units as in
Option/Alternative C. Some concerned was expressed about how
mechanical screening which exceeds the maximum height could be
limited and controlled so as not to be abused on future projects. One
thought expressed was to have more specific language in the Master
Plan to address screening of mechanical units. Some members believed
that enough regulations, or safeguards, were in place to insure that
mechanical screening abuse would not occur on other projects as they
would need to pass PEC and DRB review. For instance, the applicant
was directed to provide a sample of the mechanical screening material,
look at incorporating roof-top terraces, and examine the possibility of
creating a more "cascading roof effect" on the southeast elevation.
tv.
Gore Creek Residences History (Parcel 3 of the West Day Subdivision):
On November 24, 2003, the Planning and Environmental Commission
approved text amendments to Section 12-7H-5, Conditional Uses;
Generally (on all levels of a building or outside a building), Vail Town
Code, to allow single-family residential dwellings and two-family
residential dwellings as conditional uses in the Lionshead Mixed Use 1
District and Section 12-16-7, Use Specific Criteria and Standards, Vail
Town Code, to provide criteria to which a single-family and two-family
residential dwelling proposal within the Lionshead Mixed Use 1 District
must adhere. The text amendments were subsequently approved by
Town Council upon second reading in Ordinance 36, Series of 2003, on
December 16, 2003.
On June 28, 2004, the Planning and Environmental Commission
approved, with conditions, a conditional use permit and a major exterior
alteration application on this site for eight two-family structures for a total
of 16 dwelling units.
On December 13, 2004, the Planning and Environmental Commission
approved a minor subdivision establishing the West Day Subdivision
(Attachment D) which is comprised of three parcels. The approval and
recording of the West Day Subdivision was the culmination of the review
of the Gore Creek residences during which it was agreed that the three
lots comprising the West Day Subdivision would be tied together for
zoning purposes. A note was placed upon the West Day Subdivision
which states the following:
"For the purposes of zoning, Lots 1, 2, and 3, created by this
subdivision are to be treated as one development site.
Development standards shall be based upon the improvements
and land area of the combined area of Lots 1, 2, and 3."
As a part of the approval of the West Day Subdivision, a spreadsheet
identifying the development potential for each of the three parcels was
approved in conjunction with the minor subdivision. That spreadsheet,
entitled, "West Day LoUMarriott Hotel/Gore Creek Place Approved
Development Plan/Development Allocations", and dated December 6,
2004.
ROLES OF THE REVIEWING BOARDS
The purpose of this section of the memorandum is to clarify the responsibilities of
the Design Review Board, Planning and Environmental Commission, Town
Council, and Staff on the various applications submitted on behalf of Vail Resorts
Development Company.
A. Exterior Alteration/Modification in the Lionshead Mixed-Use I
zone district
Order of Review: Generally, applications will be reviewed first by the
Planning and Environmental Commission for impacts of use/development
and then by the Design Review Board for compliance of proposed
buildings and site planning.
Planning and Environmental Commission:
Action: The Planning and Environmental Commission is responsible for
final approval/denial of a Major/Minor Exterior Alteration. The Planning
and Environmental Commission shall review the proposal for compliance
with the adopted criteria. The Planning and Environmental Commission's
approval "shall constitute approval of the basic form and location of
improvements including siting, building setbacks, height, building bulk and
mass, site improvements and landscaping."
Design Review Board:
Action: The Design Review Board has no review authority on a Major or
Minor Exterior Alteration, but must review any accompanying Design
Review Board application.
Staff:
The staff is responsible for ensuring that all submittal requirements are
provided and plans conform to the technical requirements of the Zoning
Regulations. The staff also advises the applicant as to compliance with
the design guidelines. Staff provides a staff memo containing
background on the property and provides a staff evaluation of the project
with respect to the required criteria and findings, and a recommendation
on approval, approval with conditions, or denial. Staff also facilitates the
review process.
Town Council:
Actions of Design Review Board or Planning and Environmental
Commission may be appealed to the Town Council or by the Town
Council. Town Council evaluates whether or not the Planning and
Environmental Commission or Design Review Board erred with approvals
or denials and can uphold, uphold with modifications, or overturn the
board's decision.
B. GonditionalUse Permit (CUP)
Order of Review: Generally, applications will be reviewed first by the
Planning and Environmental Commission for acceptability of use and then
by the Design Review Board for compliance of proposed buildings and
site planning.
Planning and Environmental Commission :
Action: The Planning and Environmental Commission is responsible for
final approval/denial of CUP. The Planning and Environmental
Commission shall review the request for compliance with the adopted
conditional use permit criteria and make findings of fact with regard to the
project's compliance.
Design Review Board:
Action: The Design Review Board has no review authority on a CUP, but
must review any accompanying Design Review Board application.
V.
Staff:
The staff is responsible for ensuring that all submittal requirements are
provided and plans conform to the technical requirements of the Zoning
Regulations. The staff also advises the applicant as to compliance with
the design guidelines. Staff provides a staff memo containing
background on the property and provides a staff evaluation of the project
with respect to the required criteria and findings, and a recommendation
on approval, approval with conditions, or denial. Staff also facilitates the
review process.
Town Council:
Actions of Design Review Board or Planning and Environmental
Commission may be appealed to the Town Council or by the Town
Council. Town Council evaluates whether or not the Planning and
Environmental Commission or Design Review Board ened with approvals
or denials and can uphold, uphold with modifications, or overturn the
board's decision.
APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS
The following checklist was created to provide a means of evaluating the Ritz-
Carlton Residences proposal for compliance with the Lionshead Redevelopment
Master Plan. The checklist is intended for the Planning and Environmental
Commission to use in conjunction with their copies of the Lionshead
Redevelopment Master Plan to locate relevant portions of the Master Plan which
pertain to this proposal.
Lionshead Redevelopment Master PIan
Chapter 2: Introduction
a 2.1 Purpose of the Master Plan
a 2.2 Definition of a Master Plan
o 2.3 Policy Objectives o 2.3.1 Renewal and Redevelopment s 2.3.2 Vitality and Amenities o 2.3.3 Stronger Economic Base Through Increased Live
Beds o 2.3.4 lmproved Access and Circulation o 2.3.5 lmproved Infrastructure o 2.3.6 Creative Financing for Enhanced Private Profits and
Public Revenues
Chapter 4: Master Plan Recommendations - Overall study Area
a 4.'l Underlying Physical Framework of Lionshead a 4.1.1 Lionshead Master Plan Concept
4.1.5 West Lionshead - Residential/Mixed-Use Hub
o 4.3 Connections to the Natural Environment o 4.3.1 Visual Connections a 4.3.1.2 North-South Orientation of Buildings
o 4.6 Vehicular and Pedestrian Circulation
o 4.6.4 Modifications to West Lionshead Circle and
Lionshead Place a 4.6.4.1 East Intersection of W. Lionshead Circle
and South Frontage Road s 4.6.4.2Intersection of Lionshead Place and West
Lionshead Circle o 4.6.4.3 Pedestrian Sidewalks and Crossings a 4.6.4.4 Visual lmprovements
s 4.7 Loading and Delivery s 4.7.1 Properties with Direct Service Access
u 4.8 Parking o 4.8.1 Potential Displacement of Existing Parking a 4.8.1.2 West Day Lot
a 4.8.2 Residential Properties
u 4.9 Housing o 4.9.1 No Net Loss of Employee Housing o 4.9.3 Policy Based Housing Opportunities
u 4.10 Gateway, Landmarks, and Portals a 4.10.2 Landmarks
o 4.11 Public Art
Chapter 5, Detailed Plan Recommendations
a 5.13 The Marriott s 5.13.1 Redevelopment or Development of the Parking
Structure o 5.17 West Day LoU Vail Associates Service Yard/ Holy
Cross Site
Chapter 6, Site Design Guidelines
o 6.4 Secondary Pedestrian Walk
a 6.6 Pedestrian Path
Chapter 8, Architectural Design Guidelines
o 8.1 Vision Statement
o 8.2 Organization, Purpose and Scope a 8.4.2 Architecture
o 8.4.2.1 lntroduction a 8.4.2.2 Building Form and Massing o 8.4.2.3 Building Height a 8.4.2.4 Exterior Walls s 8.4.2.7 Roofs
Resolution 18. Series of 2004: A Resolution Amendinq Certain Sections Of The
Lionshead Redevelooment Master Plan Clarifvino And Affordinq ALL Tvpes Of
Development Proiects. 'New And Redeye/opmenf". Flexibilitv In The Aoolication Of The
Architectural Desion Guidelines. As Prescribed In Chaoter I Of The Lionshead
Redevelopment Master Plan. And Settinq Forth Details In Reoard Thereto.
8.3.3.4 Review Criteria for Deviations to the Architectural Design Guidelines for
New Development
Similar to the implementation policies of the ADG prescribed for existing
structures, the Town has determined that there may be instances where
flexibility in requiring strict compliance with the Guidelines for new
development maybe in the best interest of the community and the
furtherance of the goals and objectives stated in the Lionshead
Redevelopment Master Plan. That said, however, it is acknowledged that
such instances are rare and extraordinary, and shall be considered on a
case-by-case basis. To aid in determining when flexibility shall be
afforded to new development from strict compliance with the Guidelines,
review criteria have been established. The degree of design deviation
flexibility afforded to a development project shall bear proportionately to
the ertent of the improvements proposed. For example, a development
application that proposes the construction of a new structure which
includes the demolition of an existing structure or adds significant volume
or mass to a property, shall more fully comply with the prescribed
Architectural Design Guidelines outlined in the master plan than an
application which proposes a renovation or addition to an existing building
The following criteria shall be used by the Town of Vail Planning &
Environmental Commission and Design Review Board to determine if
deviations to the Guidelines shou/d be granted:
It shall be the burden of the applicant to demonstrate to the satisfaction of
the Town of Vail Planning & Environmental Commission following a
recommendation from the Design Review Board that:
c The request for design deviations are in compliance with the
purposes ofthe zone district; and
c The proposal which includes fhe desgn deviations,s consisfenf
with applicable elements of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master
Plan; and
o The proposal which includes the deslgn deviations does not have
a significant negative effect on the character of the neighborhood;
and
t The proposal substantially complies with other applicable
elements of the Vail comprehensive plan; and
The design deviation meets or exceeds the intent of the specific
design standards as prescribed in Section 8.4; and,
A public benefit is achieved as a result of the design deviation;
and,
The design deviation furthers the goals, objectives and purposes
as sfafed ln Secfions 2.3, 2.5 and 8.2 of the Lionshead
Redevelopment Master Plan.
Zoninq Reoulations
Lionshead Mixed Use - 1 Zone District (in part)
12-7H-l: PURPOSE:
The Lionshead Mixed Use-l zone district is intended to provide sites for a
mixture of multiple-family dwellingg /odges, hotels, fractional fee clubs, time
shareg lodge dwelling units, restaurants, offices, skler serurbeg and commercial
establishments in a clustered, unified development. Lionshead Mixed Use 1 zone
district, in accordance with the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, is
intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space and other amenities
appropriate to the permitted types of buildings and uses and to maintain the
desirable qualities of the District by establishing appropriate site development
standards. This District is meant to encourage and provide incentives for
redevelopment in accordance with the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan.
This Zone District was specifically developed to provide incentives for properties
to redevelop. The ultimate goal of these incentives ls fo creafe an economically
vibrant lodging, housing, and commercial core area. The incentives in this Zone
District include,ncreases in allowable gross resldential floor area, building height,
and density over the previously established zoning in the Lionshead
Redevelopment Master Plan study area. The primary goal of the incentives is to
create economic conditions favorable to inducing private redevelopment
consrsfenf with the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. Additionally, the
incentives are created to help finance public off-site improvements adjacent to
redevelopment projects. With any developmenUredevelopment proposal taking
advantage of the incentives created herein, the following amenities will be
evaluated: sfreefscape improvements, pedestrian/bicycle access, public plaza
redevelopment, public art, roadway improvements, and similar improvements.
12-7H-2: PERMTTTED AND CONDITIONAL USES; BASEMENT OR GARDEN
LEVEL:A. Definition: The "basement" or "garden level' shall be defined as that floor
of a building that is entirely or substantially below grade.
B. Permifted Uses: Ihe following uses sha// be permifted in basement or
garden levels within a structure:
Banks and financial institutions.
Commercial ski storage.
Eati ng and drinking esfab/lsfimenfs.
Personal servrbes and repair shops.
Professional offices, busi'iness offices and sfudios.
Public or private lockers and storage.
Reaeation facilities.
Retail e sta bl i sh m ents.
Skier ticketing, ski school, skier serulceg and daycare.
Travel agencies.
Additional uses determined to be similar to permifted uses
described ln this subsection, in accordance with the provisions of
Secfion 12-3-4 of this Title.
C. Conditional Uses; The following uses sha// be permifted in basement or
garden levels within a structure, subject to issuance of a conditional use
permit in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 16 of this Title:
Conference facilities and meeting rooms.
Liquor stores.
Lodges and accommodation units.
Major arcade.
Multiple-family residential dwelling units, time-share units,
fractional fee clubs, lodge dwelling units, and employee housing units
(Type lll (EHU) as provided in Chapter 13 of this Title).
Radio, TV stores, and repair shops.
Theaters.
Additional uses determined to be similar to conditional uses
described ln fhls subsection, in accordance with the provisions of
Secfion 12-3-4 of this Title.
12-7H-3: PERMITTED AND CONDITTONAL USES; F,RSI FLOOR OR SIREET
LEVEL:
A. Definition: The 'first floor' or 'street level' shall be defined as that floor of
the building that is located at grade or street level along a pedestrianway.
B. Permitted Uses: Ihe following uses sha// be permifted on the first floor or
street level within a strudure:
Banks, with walk-up teller facilities.
Eating and drinking establishments.
Recreatio n faci I ities.
Retal sfores and establishments.
Skier ticketing, ski sc/tool skr'er servr'ces, and daycare.
Travel agencies.
Additional uses determined to be similar to permitted uses descrlbed
in thrs subsecfion, in accordance with the provisions of Section 12-3-
4 of this Title.
C. Conditional Uses; The following uses sha// be permitted on the first floor or
street level floor within a structure, subject fo rcsuance of a conditional use
permit in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 16 of this Title:
Barbershops, beauty shops and beauty parlors.
l0