Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2002-03-05 Support Documentation Town Council Work Session
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL WORK SESSION Tuesday, March 5, 2002 1:00 P.M. NOTE: Times of items are approximate, subject to change, and cannot be relied upon to determine at what time Council will consider an item. SITE VISIT: Mountain Haus. (20 min.) Bill Gibson 1. Kevin Whalen - 20 year anniversary (5 min.) Mike Vaughan - 20 year anniversary (5 min.) 2. Bob McLaurin ITEM/TOPIC: Strategic Planning: The Town's Role in Regard to Recreation, Culture, Education, and Economic Development: What Business Are We In? (1 hour) 3. Bill Gibson ITEM/TOPIC: Appeal of the February 11, 2002, Planning and Environmental Commission decision to deny the proposed exterior alteration or modification of the Mountain Haus, located at 292 East Meadow Drive/Lot 5, Part of Tract B, Vail Village 1St Filing. (30 min.) ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Uphold, .uphold with conditions, or overturn the Planning and Environmental Commission's decision to deny the proposed exterior alteration or modification of the Mountain Haus. BACKGROUND RATIONALE: On February 11, 2002, the Planning and Environmental Commission denied the proposed minor exterior alteration or modification of the Mountain Haus to allow for the construction of a new front entry feature. The applicant submitted an appeal of the Planning and Environmental Commission's decision. Please refer to the staff memorandum for additional information. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Town Council overturn the Planning and Environmental Commission's decision to deny the proposed an exterior alteration or modification of the Mountain Haus, located at 292 East Meadow Drive/Lot 5, Part of Tract B, Vail Village 1St Filing. 4. Eagle River Water & Sanitation District Replacement of Greg Hall Water Lines. (15 min.) 5. ITEM/TOPIC: Special Events Discussion. (30 min.) Bob McLaurin Matt Mire BACKGROUND RATIONALE: Council ended their last work session directing staff to research the pros and cons of establishing a 501(c)(3) for the Commission on Special Events. Additional questions arose as to appointments for the retail, lodging, and restaurant voting seats on this commission. Staff requests direction as to whether Council formally establishes this Commission as an appointment directly by the Town Council or proceeds with the establishment of a 501(c)(3), recognizing if the Council chooses the former, a councilmember is prohibited by Charter from sitting as a voting member on the commission. 6. DRB Report (5 min.) 7. Information Update. (5 min.) 8. Matters from Mayor and Council. (5 min.) 9. Executive Session. -Conferences with an attorney. C.R.S. 24-6-402(4)(b). (30 min.) 10. Adjournment. (4:30 P.M.) NOTE UPCOMING MEETING START TIMES BELOW: (ALL TIMES ARE APPROXIMATE AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE) THE NEXT VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR WORK SESSION WILL BE ON TUESDAY, MARCH 19, 2002, BEGINNING AT 2:00 P.M. IN THE TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS. THE NEXT VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR EVENING MEETING WILL BE ON TUESDAY, MARCH 19, 2002, BEGINNING AT 7:00 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS Sign. language interpretation available upon request with 24-hour notification. Please call 479-2332 voice or 479-2356 TDD for information. TOWN OF VAIL Office of the Town Manager 75 South Frontage Road Yail, Colorado 81657 970-479-2105/Fax 970-479-2157 TO: VAIL TOWN COUNCIL FROM: BOB MCLAURIN DATE: 28FEB02 RE: STRATEGIC DISCUSSION -RECREATION INTRODUCTION At the Council retreat on February 12th, the Council identified the need to discuss and agree on "what business are we in?" Specifically, the Council desired a need to clarify the town's role in the areas of recreation, economic development, cultural and educational development. On March 5th we have set aside time to begin these discussions. Because these topics are so broad, we have subdivided them into three distinctive areas: recreation, economic development, and cultural and educational development. The topic for Tuesday's strategic discussion is recreation. Members of the VRD Board will be in attendance Tuesday to answer the Council's questions, and at the Council's discretion, participate in the discussion. Obviously, this is a philosophical question and there are no right or wrong answers. The purpose of this document is to provide information to assist the Council in these discussions. Perhaps the best place to begin this discussion is with the Vail Charter. As you are aware, the Charter is the foundation of the town's legal and organizational structure. The prefatory synopsis of the Charter states, "...that the community of Vail is unique in that it places greater emphasis on aesthetic, environmental, promotion and recreational concerns than are traditional in most municipal goverments." The synopsis closes by noting, "This Charter is, therefore, fundamentally founded in the belief that the quality of life of the people in Vail shall continue to be enhanced through progressive municipal government." Town of Vail Charter Article I, Section 1.2, sets forth the powers of the municipal goverment. This section states: "The Town shall have all the powers of local self-government and home rule and all power possible under the Constitution and laws of the State of Colorado. The Town shalt and may exercise all municipal powers, functions, ~~~ RECYCLED PAPER MEMORANDUM TM rights and privileges of every nature whatsoever. The enumeration of particular powers in this Charter shall not be deemed to be exclusive of others." Council Mission and Vision The Council's Mission and Vision were developed several years ago. Last November the Council reconfirmed these documents. The Council's mission reinforces the original tenets of the Charter. These are as follows: Council Vision - To be the premier mountain resort community. Council Mission - We will provide the citizens of Vail and our guests with a superior level of environmentally sensitive services and an abundance of recreational, educational and cultural opportunities. Recreation The importance of recreation was realized early in Vail's history. In fact, the Vail Metropolitan Recreation District was formed before the town. What follows is a section of the Vail Recreation District's Masterplan. History of the Vail Recreation District The Vail Metropolitan Recreation District (VMRD) was formed in 1966, before the Town of Vail was formed, to provide recreation facilities for the developing resort community. The VMRD developed the golf course and tennis courts (on land leased from Vail Associates and others). Later when the town was formed, it began to provide a few recreation facilities, but for many years golf and tennis were the only significant recreation in Vail. In 1976, the town formed the Recreation Department, constructed the Ice Arena, and began providing limited general recreation programs. The town eventually purchased the golf course land and was given some of the land under the tennis courts (some is still in private ownership), but those facilities are still being managed by the VRD under the original leases. On January 1, 1989, the Town of Vail transferred the management of most recreation programs and facilities to the VRD. The town has retained ownership of most of the facilities, however (Dobson Ice Arena, Golf Course land, Ford Park, etc.) and continues to retire any debt on them that may exist. The VRD has been given responsibility for managing the facilities, and staffing/directing the programs. In January 1991 the Board of Directors changed the District's name to Vail Park and Recreation District in order to conform to current law. Subsequently the park nomenclature was dropped and a new name, Vail Recreation District (VRD) is now used. During 1993 VRD approached the Town of Vail with the concept of transferring all taxes currently collected by the town over to VRD. The town agreed to allow such an issue to go before the voters in May 1994. During that election, the measure passed by over 70% and effective 1/1/95 all tax collections designated for recreational purposes will be collected by the Vail Recreation District thereby making the District entirely separate from the town with the exception of lease agreements for real property. The VRD is managed by a team of recreation supervisors, maintenance staff, and customer service personnel. The overall administration and management of the District is the responsibility of the Executive Director. The Executive Director works under the supervision and guidance of a five member elected board, each elected for a term of four years. The most recent additions to the recreational infrastructure are the Vail Ice Dome and the construction of the Red Sandstone athletic field. Consistent with past practices, the TOV funded the purchase and construction of the bubble and the new athletic field, and the VRD operates the bubble and will maintain the new field. In terms of recreational infrastructure, perhaps the most pressing question at this time centers on the gymnastics issue. Because of the impending transfer of the old town shop site to the Eagle River Water and Sanitation District, we will need to relocate the gymnastic facility. As you are aware, we have examined three alternatives for a new gymnastics center: Donovan Park (Phase 2), Red Sandstone School, and to reconstruct it on the existing site (as part of the new water facility). The estimated cost of the Red Sandstone site is $3.5 million. A preliminary estimate for constructing a shelf in the new water/wastewater plant is $2.5 million. Questions for Council Consideration: 1) Does the Town of Vail municipal government have a role in the provision of recreational amenities to residents and guests? 2) If the answer to Question 1 is yes, what should the specific responsibility be? 3) Should the TOV continue to be the owner of recreation infrastructure and be solely responsible for funding new capital construction? 4) What is the Vail Recreation District's responsibility for recreational capital projects, maintenance, and upkeep? 5) What is the Vail Recreation District's responsibility for management of existing recreation programs? Future programs? 6) Are there instances where ownership and management roles could be shared or combined? I realize this memorandum is somewhat general; however, given the philosophical nature of these questions, I was unsure of exactly what you need as backup information. If you need additional information or more specific details in any of these areas, please give me a call. I will be around all weekend and can be reached at home (476-7388) or on my cell phone (376-3158). I look forward to your discussions. C6 ~ 10 l TI 0 N ~-~ ~ ~'~~ 5 ~l~~fu. U~10 VYIR~Sr~12P~~41J MISSION OF THE VRD -OVERVIEW The mission of the VRD is to improve the quality of life of Vail's residents and guests through recreational programs and services and to do such in a fiscally responsible manner. Through the efforts to meet this mission, the VRD has specific branch goals. The VRD has to provide progressive, creative programs to meet the continuing changing needs of the Vail residents and guests. The District utilizes tax payers dollars prudently and efficiently. The District is customer service oriented, always placing the customer on the top of the organizational chart. The District recognizes the important role that recreation plays in marketing and attracting Vail's guests, thereby having an economic impact. The District continues to thrive to provide exceptional facilities and to upgrade and improve the infrastructure and facilities whenever possible. CURRENT FACILITIES GOLF: Vail Golf Course SPORTS AND TENNIS Tennis Softball ,, Rugby/Soccer Volleyball Red Sandstone Gymnasium Gymnastics Center OUTDOOR RECREATION: Cross Country ski trails Snowshoe trails Nature Center Ice Dome rink YOUTH SERVICES: Youth Center Camp Vail DOBSON ICE ARENA ADMINISTRATIVE and MARKETING OFFICES C7 j/3yr/02-04 history.doc LOCATION 18 holes (east of Village) 12 courts (2 at Golden Peak, 2 at Booth Creek, 8 Clay courts at Ford Park) 3 fields (Ford Pazk) 1 field (Ford Park) 3 outdoor sand courts (Athletic Field)_ Red Sandstone Elementary School Old town shops Vail Golf Course Vail Golf Course Ford Park Vail Golf Course Lionshead Parking Structure Golden Peak Children's Center Between Village and Lionshead Ford Park 2 SPORTS BRANCH I. SCOPE AND OVERVIEW A. Mission The mission of the Sports Branch is to provide recreational, sport, and athletic activities via tournaments, leagues, camps, and special events. A unique challenge is created as the Sports Branch strives to meet the recreational needs of its . diverse population. This community encompasses a variety of athletic groups, different age and skill levels within those groups, and a wide socioeconomic range. In meeting these leisure needs, the Adult Sports Branch offers individuals the opportunity to belong to and be an active member of a social group, improve physical fitness, escape the routines and requirements of the workplace, and the occasion to display the competitive spirit. The Youth Sports Branch is of value to our children in developing social skills, physical fitness, gross and fine motor competencies, leadership skills, independence through interdependent activities, sport-specific technical skills, and an interest in and desire to continue participation in sports during adulthood. B. Demographics Served Our programs and facilities offer services to youth from age six through senior citizens. The major portions of participants fall between the ages of 20-50 years. The user group income levels range from less than $15,000lyear (seasonal-service employees) through professionals earning six- figure salaries. The families with children who participate in VRD sports programs fall within this same socioeconomic breakdown. Because of the various program offerings, the Sports Branch user population consists of residents, non-residents, resident-seasonals, and guests. A number of our programs are designed for and used by both adult and youth locals, i.e., Adult Summer Softball League, High Country Hoops, and the Vail Mountain Challenge Bike Series. We also have other programs, which are designed to attract the guest, such as the Vail Invitational Soccer Tournament and Vail Running Race Series. C. Current Facilities and Physical Conditions 1. Ford Park Tennis Center: Good condition. 2. Tennis Courts: 8 excellent, 4 fair 3. Ford Park Softball Fields: The turf is marginal to poor. The building is poor. A fence needs to be constructed between the east and middle fields. 4. Vail Athletic Field: A new middle section of turf has been added but is constantly overused. The irrigation system is new. The building is in good condition. The volleyball courts are in need of a new net system. A fence surrounding the entire perimeter of the field was constructed last year. 5. Red Sandstone Gymnasium: A new floor has been poured. The building is fair to marginal. 6. Gymnastics Center: The building is in poor condition and is far too small. The equipment is fair. 7. Maloit Park baseball fields: The turf is poor. An irrigation system is desperately needed. The infields are in fair shape. The bleachers are poor. The fencing has all been replaced. • D. Current Program Highlights Youth: * High Country Hoops-230 children. * Boulder Valley Girls Softball Tournament-60 teams. * Triple Crown 3v3 Soccer Tournament-135 teams * Vail Valley Youth Soccer League-300 participants. * Eagle County Schools Olympic Track Meet-300 participants. * Secured $10,000 in sponsorship funds from Vail Daily for youth programs. * Quality of programming helped to secure "buy in "funds from other entities. * Secured $48,000 in corporate sponsorship for all programs. Adult: * Softball Leagues-80 teams (Summer-Fall). * National Soccer Tournament-24 teams. * International Lacrosse Tournament-52 teams. * Football League-10 teams. * Red Sandstone Gymnasium Leagues-400 participants. * Rocky Mountain Co-Rec Softball Classics-40 teams. * Vail Running Race Series-nationally televised race. * Winter Basketball Leagues-20 teams. E. Base Staffing and Funding - 3 full time staff: 1 supervisor, 2 coordinators. - 2 full-time gymnastics: 1 coordinator, 1 assistant, 8 hourly teachers - 1 part-time seasonal clerical. - 5 full-time seasonal tennis staff: Head Professional, Assistant Professional, Tennis Manager, two front desk staff. 2002 expenditures and revenues including tennis: Sports wages-$131,568 Gymnastics wages-$88,122 Tennis wages-$21,200 Tennis Professional-$9,750 Expenses $646,511 Revenues $506,228 Funding Level $140,283 II. STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES A. Operational Strengths Our biggest strength lies within our five full time professional staff members. As a team, the staff possesses the necessary skills to produce quality programs and events in almost any athletic scope. All seven possess a high level of sports competency along with a dedication to and passion for sports. 2 The continuous, varied, and quality programming of the S orts Branch serv and diverse user group. The strength of this programming has helped the Sports Bran h establi~h itself as a valid and much needed entity throughout the Vail Valley. The Vail Hill Climb, Adult Softball Leagues, Winter Red Sandstone Leagues, Altitude Gymnastics, High Country Hoops, Vail Valley Youth Baseball, and Vail Valley Youth Soccer are some examples of this exceptional programming. B. Resource Strengths The Ford Park softball and athletic fields are a huge asset to the District and Town. These fields are multi-purpose and can host a number of special events besides athletic events. They currently host the second largest lacrosse tournament in the world. The Ford Park Tennis Center is one of the finest tennis facilities on the Western Slope. The addition of the clay courts and the establishment of a comprehensive pro shop make this facility second to none. The addition of the Maloit Park ball fields as a summer youth sport venue is a significant strength for the Sports Branch. This site serves as the headquarters for youth baseball, which if not available, would make the production of Vail Valley Youth Baseball impossible for the VRD. The volleyball courts at the Vail Athletic Fields have proved to be a tremendous resource to the District and we hope to construct more in order to bring larger tournaments to Vail. The improvements made to the Athletic Field make it a top-notch facility for hosting a variety of athletic events. C. Resource Weaknesses Our biggest weakness is that our programs and participation levels have outgrown our existing facilities and these facilities are outdated. We are lacking in softball fields, athletic fields, volleyball courts, and a gymnasium. Four of our hard court tennis courts will need to be resurfaced along with major crack repair. In addition, this process needs to be repeated every two or three years. The Ford Park Softball Fields are in need of an amended playing surface. The existing turf is not strong and exhibits wear patterns that diminish playability. The condition of the surface has now become a safety concern. The building needs improvements, i.e., painting the floor, construction of additional shelf space, repair of interior walls and plumbing repairs. To be a complete softball park and to provide adequate security during special events, the fence between the middle and east Fields should be extended the entire length of the southern boundary. A secure storage facility is also needed at the site. 1 The Vail Athletic Field is in excellent condition but is overused. The building could use alock- off storage area constructed upstairs to ensure all VRD equipment placed there is secure. 3 ~`~~~c~5 S ~o~~~~ C. CURRENT FACILITIES AND PHYSICAL CONDITION Facility Lionshead Auxiliary Building 20 Below Youth Activities Room Red Sandstone Gym & Room Gold Peak Children's Ski Center Vail Skatepark D. PROGRAM HIGHLIGHTS Condition Building in fair to poor condition. Hard to keep clean. Offices crowded but in good condition. Storage a problem. Poor condition. Good activities. Need new carpet, etc. Good condition. Excellent supply selection. Good condition. Excellent supply selection. Very good condition. High rent. Excellent indoor & outdoor play space. Convenient location. Unknowns w/ VA. Average condition. Excellent location and variety of obstacles. Labor intensive. Not optimal materials. • Kidzone Unlimited: Before & After School Program (school year, ages ~-11). 2859 user days • Kidzone Unlimited: School's Out Day Camp (school year, ages 5-11). 440 user days • 20 Below: Drop-In Youth Center (year round, ages 6 - 20) 3754 user days Special Events: dances, birthday parties, game tournaments, movie nights • Camp Vail (summer, ages 5 - 12) 3687 user days • Pre-Kamp Vail (summer, ages 2 1/2 - 5) 692 user days • Planet Fun: weekly programs (summer, ages 4 - 14) 405 user days • Camp Eco Fun (summer, ages 4 - 6 & 7 - 12, w/ Nature Center) 267 user days • Winter Camp Vail: (December to April, on demand, ages 5 - 12) • Teen programs: field trips, rock climbing, TV production club, baby sitting classes, sleep- overs, cooking classes, special interest clubs (ages 11 - 15) 100 user days ~ Youth Volunteer Corps: Volunteer program for grades 6 and up 125 participants • After school classes: art, climbing, cooking, photography & skateboarding 100 user days • Pre-Kindergarten Programs -monthly art workshops, weekly play group 255 user days • Birthday party organization and implementation for ages 4 -16 400 user days • Special Events: Little Cupids, Family Carnival, Easter Egg Hunt, Super Ripathon, Summer Skatefest, Halloween Coloring Contest, Trick or Treat Trot, Club Vail 2500 user days • Youth components of community special events (ages 3-13) July 4`h parade & Duck Race 250 user days • Vail Skatepark organization, implementation and administration 10, 000 user days • Administration of the Eagle County Youth Activities Grant Program • Advisory and planning committees for local schools, towns and community organizations • Charter organization for Boy Scout troop and Cub Scout pack E. BASE STAFFING AND FUNDING LEVELS • Full Time Staff: 1 Supervisor, 2 Recreation Coordinators • Part Time Staff: 2 - 3 during school year • Seasonal Staff: 20 - 25 full time June -August 2 OUTDOOR BRANCH 2002 - 2004 I. SCOPE AND OVERVIEW A. Mission To provide quality environmental education, nature study and outdoor recreation programs for youth and adults. Educational displays are presented to offer a stimulating and informative experience for our visitors. The Vail Nature Center strives to educate and entertain participants in such a way that will promote a richer understanding and appreciation of the Colorado Mountain environment and the future preservation of both local and regional ecosystems. B. Demographics Served The majority of visitors to the Nature Center are summer tourists, although winter participation is increasing. While our visitors are mostly from the United States, we enjoy a spectrum from azound the world. Vail residents and homeowners comprise approximately 30% of our visitors. In the past three years we have had a considerable increase in visits and programs for school groups, both in summer and winter. Last year alone neazly every kindergarten student in Eagle County came to the Nature Center, as well as many from the higher grades. We also work with Youth Services and Camp Vail, offering children's adventure programs throughout the year. All ages of visitors aze welcome and programs are offered that aze tailored for ages 5 and up. C. Current Facilities and Physical Conditions The Vail Nature Center is located on a renovated homestead, comprising 7 acres of land located along the south bank of Gore Creek in Ford Park. The Interpretive Center, located in one of the original farm houses, consists of two ground level rooms filled with various displays and interactive exhibits. The upstairs consists of the director's office, staff office and work space and a preparation room. There is also a small reference library. The Nature Center also has a 40-seat outdoor amphitheater. A small retail section on the ground floor offers books and T-shirts for sale. Snowshoe trails connect the Nature Center and the Nordic Center (Golf Course) during the winter. We maintain approximately five miles of snowshoe trails and nine miles of cross country ski trails on the Golf course. These trails are all open to the public free of charge. The Nature Center uses these trails to conduct winter interpretive nature tours on a daily basis. The Nature Center is also used for a variety of winter programs and events. Overall the Interpretive Center is in good shape. The interior of the building will continue to improve as new displays are added and existing ones refurbished. The trail system has been improved as well. New self-guided trail signs have been added, and resurfacing of the trails has been done in the past year. A temporary cover has been installed over the outdoor • amphitheater and has resulted in the azea being much more useable. Approximately 20,000 people visited the Vail Nature Center during 2001. Program participation has increased about 10% during the past year.. Most of this increase was in children's programs. 1 FEB-28-2002 13 09 ~Va~CJ n,,,~ ELECTION RESOLUTION P.01 WHEREAS, the terms of office of Directors Hermann Staufer, Colleen McCarthy and Lew Meskiman shall expire after their successors are elected at the Regular District Election to be held on May 3, 1994 ("Election") and take office, WHEREAS, in accordance with the provisions of the Special District Act ("Act") and the Uniform Election Cade {°Code"), the Election must be conducted to elect three Directors to serve for a term of four years and zero Directors to serve for a term of two years, WHEREAS, the Board also determines that a Ballot Issue resulting in a Mill levy increase and exact Town of Vail mill levy decrease, should be submitted to the eligible electors of the District at the Election, NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Board of Directors of the Vail Park and Recreation District dba .Vail Recreation District in the County of Eagle, State of Colorado that: 1. The cegular election of the eligible electors of the District shall be held on May 3, 1994, between the hours of 7:00 AM and 7:00 PM pursuant to and in accordance with the Aet, Code, and other applicable laws. At that time. three (3) Directors will be elected~to serve afour-year term, and zero Directors will be elected to serve a two-year term. There shall also be submitted to the eligible electors of the District a Mill levy increase ballot issue and exact Town of Vail MiII levy decrease as stated in the ballot ti8e substantially in the following form: SHALL VAIL PARI4 AND RECREATION DISTRICT TAXES BE INCREASED $541,274 ANNUALLY IN THE FIRST FISCAL YEAR OF 1995 THROUGH THE IMPOSITION OF AN ADDITIONAL 1.585 MILL LEVY, AND CONTINUING EACH YEAR THEREAFTER AS OTHERWISE ALLOWED BY LAW, CONTINGENT UPON THE TOWN OF VAIL CONCURRENTLY REDUCING ITS MILL LEVY 6Y A LIKE AMOUNT IN THE FIRST FISCAL YEAR OF 1995; AND SHALL VAIL PARK AND RECREATION DISTRICT BE ENTITLED TO COLLECT AND SPEND THE FULL REVENUES FROM SUCH TAX INCREASE REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE ANNUAL REVENUES FROM SUCH TAX INCREASE IN ANY YEAR AFTER THE FIRST FULL YEAR IN WHICH IT IS IN EFFECT EXCEED THE ESTIMATED DOLLAR AMOUNT STATED ABOVE AND WITHOUT ANY OTHER LIMITATION OR CONDITION, WITHOUT LIMITING THE COLLECTION OR SPENDING OF ANY OTHER REVENUES, TAXES OR FUNDS BY THE VAIL PARK AND RECREATION DISTRICT, UNDER ARTICLE X, SECTION 20 OF THE COLORADO CONSTITUTION OR ANY OTHER LAW, ALL ON THE CONDITION THAT THE TOWN OF VAIL REDUCE ITS MILL LEVY BY THE EXACT AMOUNT OF THIS MILL LEVY INCREASE 2. The District shall be divided into one (1) election precinct for the convenience of the eligible electors of the District, and there shall be a polling place for each precinct at the following location: Vail Municipal Building, 75 S. Frontage Road West, Vail, CO 81657 electianheso ~r ~~~ J- TOWN OF VAIL AND VAIL PARK AND RECREATION DISTRICT LEASE sec , ~~ , 1993 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. PURPOSE .................................................. 2 2. SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED. BY THE DISTRICT ................. 2 3. REAL PROPERTY AND IMPROVEMENTS THEREON .............. 2 A. Premises License .. . ...................................... 2 B. Terms and Conditions ..................................... 3 C. Offie Space ............................................ 5 4. CONTROL OF THE JOHN DOBSON ICE ARENA .................. 6 5. RENT ...................................................... 7 b. GOLF AND SKATING PASSES .................................. 7 7. PARKING .................................................. 7 ' 8. BOUNDARIES ............................................... 7 9. PERSONNEL ................................................ 9 10. LIABILITY, INDEMNIFICATION AND INSURANCE ................ 8 A. District Indemnification .................................... 8 ~ B. Town Indemnification ..................................... 8 C. Insurance .............................................. 9 11. EFFECTIVE DATE .......................................... 10 l2. TERMINATION ............................................. 10 l ' 13. MISCELLANEOU PROVISIONS ............................... I1 A. Modifications and Waivers ................................. 11 B. Entire Agreement ....................................... 11 C. Binding Agreement ...................................... 11 D. Severabilitv ............................................ 11 i E. Authority to Enter ....................................... 12 ' F. Notice 12 ~ G. No Third Part rLRights ...................... ........... . 12 H. Specific Enforcement .................................... . 12 i LIST OF EXHIBITS Exhibit A Premises License Exhibit B Deed of Gift Exhibit C Outstanding Agreements between Town of Vail and Third Parties ii TOWN OF VAIL AND VAIL PARK AND RECREATION DISTRICT LEASE THIS LEASE is made and entered into this~jffday of ~~=tardie , 1993, by and between the TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, a Colorado municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as the "Town," and the VAIL PARK AND RECREATION DISTRICT, a Colorado quasi-municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as the "District". WHEREAS, it is the desire of both parties to provide recreation programs and services to the inhabitants and guests of the Town; and WHEREAS, the District has been providing such services under agreements signed in 1989 and, 1993; and WHEREAS, it is the desire of both parties for the District to continue to provide these services; and WHEREAS, the Town and the District are authorized by the Constitution and Statutes of the State of Colorado, including Section 29-1-2d3, C.R.S., to enter into intergovernmental agreements to govern the provision of such services to the inhabitants and visitors of the Town; and WHEREAS, the Town and the District intend that the District hold an election in May, 1994 to increase the District's mill levy so as to provide an amount approximately equal to the amount currently being paid by the Town to the District to administer the recreation program and that the Town reduce its mill levy, so as to reduce taxes by an approximately equal amount. 1 NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises contained herein, the i adequacy of which is hereby admitted, the parties hereto agree as follows: 1. PURPOSE. It is the general purpose of this LEASE for the District to continue in the management and provision of all recreational services for the inhabitants and visitors of the Town. 2. SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED BY TIDE DISTRICT. The District shall provide recreational programs and services. Such services and programs shall be of high quality and shall be of sufficient diversity and scope to meet the recreational needs of the inhabitants of the Town and the visitors thereto. 3. REAL PROPERTY AND IMPROVEMENTS THEREON. A. Premises License. The Town grants the District a LEASE to use the following real estate, and improvements thereon set forth below and more particularly described in Exhibit A attached hereto (the "Premises"): i. John Dobson Ice Arena and Environs; ii. Nature Center and Environs; iii. Upper Bench of Ford Park; iv. Public Tennis Courts; v. Athletic Fields; and 2 vi. Youth and Teen Center B. Terms and Conditions. The use of the Premises is subject to the following terms and conditions: i. Use of Premises. The Premises shall be primarily used for recreation programs and services except as otherwise provided for herein. ii. Utilities. The District shall pay all charges for gas, electricity, light, heat, power and telephone, or other communications services used, rendered, or supplied upon or in connection with said Premises, with the exception of the Youth and Teen Center, and shall indemnify the Town against any liability or damages on account of such charges. iii. Access to the Premises. The Town and its agents shall have the right to enter in or on the Premises to examine them, to make and perform such alterations, improvements, or• additions that the Town may deem necessary or desirable for the safety, improvement, or preservation of the Premises. iv. Alterations by the District. The District shall make no major alterations or additions to the Premises without the Town's prior written consent. All such work shall be .performed in a good and workmanlike manner and all alterations and/or additions upon the Premises shall, upon termination of this LEASE unless otherwise agreed at the time the Town's consent is obtained or unless the Town requests removal thereof, become the property of the Town. The District may make minor improvements to the Premises in order better to serve the citizens and guests without written approval. 3 v. Maintenance and Repairs. The District shall take good care of the premises and the fixtures and improvements therein including without limitation, any storefront doors, plate glass windows, heating and air conditioning systems, plumbing, pipes, electrical wiring and conduits, and at its sole cost and expense perform maintenance and make repairs, restorations, or replacements as and when needed to preserve them in good working order and first class condition. The District's obligation for repair and replacement shall include all interior, exterior, nonstructural, ordinary and extraordinary, unforeseen and foreseen repair, and rubbish removal. The Town shall be responsible for landscaping, snow removal, and lawn care. The repair, maintenance and replacement of the refrigeration system for the ice surface in the Dobson lee Arena shall be the sole responsibility and cost of the District. The Town shall be responsible for all capital improvements including replacement of structural and non-structural components such as would be depreciable pursuant to the federal tax rules and regulations. The Town shall not be responsible for the replacement of any equipment or components damaged by the willful acts or negligence of the District. The District shall develop a maintenance scheduled for each respective improvement used pursuant to this Lease, which schedule shall be subject to the approval of the Town. The District shall keep a log setting forth actual maintenance performed at the Dobson Ice Arena. The logs shall be kept in the same manner as had been maintained by the Town prior to the first lease of the premises to the District. vi. Assignment. This LEASE shall be non-assignable and the District shall not mortgage, hypothecate, or encumber any of the facilities set forth herein without the prior written consent of the Town in each instance, 4 vii. Dama„g~e to or Destruction of Premises. If any of the Premises are damaged by fire, gradual decay from natural causes, or any other cause so that they may not be used for the purpose for which they were intended and the repair or replacement of such Premises shall require substantial cost, the Town may elect not to repaix such damage and this Lease shall automatically terminate as it relates to said damaged or destroyed Premises effective as of the giving of notice by the Town of such election. Upon the Town electing not to repair such damage, the District shall have the option of making the necessary repairs or replacements of the damaged Premises at their expense and this Lease shall then remain in affect. viii. Surrender of Premises. Upon the expiration or other termination of this LEASE, the District shall promptly quit and surrender to the Town the Premises in good order and first class condition, ordinary wear excepted. ix. Compliance with All Laws and Re ulg ations. The District agrees not to use or permit the Premises to be used for any purpose or in any fashion prohibited by the laws of the United States, or the State of Colorado, or the ordinances or regulations of the Town including the Town's no smoking ordinance, Ordinance No. 11, Series of 1988. C. Office Space. In addition to the recreational Premises set forth in this Agreement, the Town further grants a LEASE to the District to utilize the offices the District is presently uti!szing at the time of the signing of this Agreement in the Vail Public Library for continued use as office space only [including tt~e ten (10) parking spaces in the hospital lot] at a rate of $20.QO/sq. ft.lyear, which rate includes aU utility ~ costs for said offices, which costs shall be the responsibility of the Town. This rate will be renegotiated each five (5) years. The District shall have the option of vacating offices and terminating any further obligation upon 90 days notice. 5 4. CONTROL OF THE JOHN DOBSON ICE ARENA. The parties understand the John Dobson Ice Arena is a multi-use facility utilized for both recreation and other purposes by the Town, and further understand the Arena is subject to certain terms and conditions contained in a Deed of Gift between the Town and the Websters, a copy of which is attached to this LEASE as Exhibit B. The District agrees not to violate any of the terms and conditions of said Deed of Gsft during the term hereof. The District's use of the Arena pursuant to this LEASE shall be subject to all outstanding agreements between the Town and third parties for or relating to the use of the Arena, which are listed on Exhibit C attached hereto. The District agrees to use its best effort to maximize the use of the Arena for conventions, meetings, conferences, concerts, and other income producing events during the period it is not required to use the Arena for ice skating by the Deed of Gift. During the term of this Lease, the Town shall have the right to use the Dobson Ice Arena for a total of thirty (30} days during each year of the term hereof for whatever purposes it deem appropriate upon the giving of thirty (30) days written notice of such use to the District. The Town may exercise twenty (20) of said days between March 15 and December 15, and tcn (10) of said days between December 15 and March 15. The Town shall be responsible and shall have the right to negotiate all terms and conditions of any activity or event the Town wishes to use the arena for during said thirty (30) days. The District shall be entitled to receive the gross receipts or rent produced by any such event less all expenses and costs thereof. The 't'own further agrees to pay all associated hard costs during these thirty (30) days to include, but not limited to labor costs and electricity costs. The Agreement with the Worldwide Church of God is exempt from paying or being charged for the associated hard costs during the present term of their Agreement. 6 S. RENT. For all Property in Exhibit A and referred to in 3(A) rent is $1.00/year. Payment is made in advance and acknowledged. 6. GOLF AND SKATING PASSES. The District shall provide the Town with as many season golf and skating passes as the Town requires to utilize as a benefit for its employees. 7. PARKING. The Town will provide six (6) parking spaces for District employees at the Ford Park Parking lot at no cost. Further, the Town will provide to the District as many parking passes and coupons for the Lions F~ead Parking Structure as the District requires to utilize for its employees. These passes may not be re-sold by the District. 8. BOUNDARIES. The District and the Town will use their best efforts to take whatever steps arc necessary to make the boundaries of the District and the Town coterminous. 9. PERSONNEL. The Town and the District and their respective officers, agents, and employees shall fully cooperate so as to facilitate the performance of this LEASE. The provision of recreational services and programs as contemplated in this LEASE, the hiring, firing, and discipline of District employees shall be the responsibility of the District. No person employed by the District, in accordance with this LEASE, shall have any right to Town benefits including health insurance and pension. The District, however, may invest pension 7 funds in the Town's pension fund subject to such conditions as may be established by the Town and permitted by law. The Town shall not be liable for the payment of any salaries, wages, or other compensation to any District personnel performing recreation services pursuant to this Agreement, nor for any obligation of the District other than provided for herein. Nothing herein shall obligate the Town to be liable for the injury or sickness of any District employee arising out of his/her employment. 10. LIABILITY. 1NDEMNIFICATION AND INSURANCE. A. District Indemnification, To the extent legally permissible, the District shall indemnify and hold the Town, its agents, servants and employees harmless from and against any and all liability, loss, damages, costs and expenses, including reasonable attorney's fees and costs of investigating any such matters, suffered or sustained by the District, its agents, servants or employees, or by any other person rightfully on or about the Premises arising out of any act, error, omission or negligence in the operation, maintenance or use of the Premises by the District, its agents, servants or employees or of any occupant, subtenant, visitor or user of any portion of the Premises, or any condition of the Premises or adjacent property; provided that this indemnity shall not extend to damages resulting solely from the negligence or willful misconduct of the Town, its agents, servants or employees. District does not by this paragraph waive any protections or limitations contained in Colorado Governmental Immunity Act, 24-IO-101, et. seq., C.R.S. B. Town indemnification. To the extent legally permissible, the Town shall indemnify and hold the District harmless from and against any and all liability, loss, damages, costs and expenses, including reasonable attorney's fees arising from the negligence of the Town, its officers, agents, employees, successors and assigns. The Town does not by this paragraph waive any protections or limitations contained in Colorado Governmental Immunity Act, 24-10-101, et. seq., C.R.S. C, Insurance. The District and the Town shall respectively provide their own public liability, property damage, and errors and omissions insurance policies sufficient to ensure against all liability, claims, and demands or any other potential Liability arising from this Agreement. Further, the District and the Town shall, subject to the approval of each party's insurance carrier, name the other party as a coinsured under such insurance policies and shall furnish evidence of the same tc~ the other party. In the case of any claims-made policy, the necessary retroactive dates and extended reporting periods shall be procured to maintain such continuous coverage, The District and the Town may provide such insurance through programs of self insurance. Each party shall procure and continuously maintain the following minimum insurance coverages, or self insurance capability: i. Workman's Compensation insurance coverage in the statutorily prescribed amounts. ii. The following types of insurance coverage in the amount of one hundred fifty thousand dollars ($150,000} per person and six hundred thousand dollars ($600,000) per occurrence, or such limits as provided by the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act, and one million dollars ($1,000,000} aggregate: a. General Liability insurance coverage. The policy shall be applicable to all Premises and operations and shall include coverage for bodily injury, broad form property damage, personal injury, blanket contractual, products and completed operations. b. Comprehensive AutomobiteLlability insurance coverage with respect to each of the parties' owned, hired or non-owned vehicles used in the performance of this Agreement. 9 c. Errors and Omissions insurance coverage. d. Liquor Liability insurance coverage if the District obtains a liquor license to serve wine, beer, or intoxicating liquors. I1. EFFECTIVE DATE. This LEASE shall become effective on the ~ S~ day of ~_, 1994. 12. TERMINATION. A. Unless sooner terminated as provided for herein, this Lease shall terminate at noon on March 27, 2015, which time and date corresponds to the original forty-nine (49) year term for the ground lease of the Vail Municipal Golf Course. B. Notwithstanding any other provision of this LEASE, this LEASE shall terminate on December 31,1994 if the District does not receive consent of the voters at the contemplated May, T994 election to increase its mill levy as hereinabove indicated. C. In the event that the consent of the voters is zeceived and the increase in mill levy is effected as provided for in paragraph 12.B. hereof, but thereafter (before the termination date provided for in paragraph 12.A. hereof} the District ceases to collect the taxes resulting from the increased mill levy (the "Increased Taxes") and the Town increases its mill levy to compensate for the District's cessation to collect the Increased Taxes, this LEASE shall terminate on December 31 of the last year in which the District collects the Increased Taxes. 1.0 D. Upon termination of this LEASE as set forth herein, the District's right to use the Premises and all improvements thereon shall cease as provided for in paragraph 3. B. viii., hereof. In addition, the District shall return to the Tawn all equipment, vehicles, and personal property set forth on Exhibit A. E. Failure of either party hereto to maintain the insurance policies or coverages specified in paragraph 10.C. hereof, or to pay the rent provided form paragraph S. hereof within fifteen (15) days of its due date, or failure to perform any other obligation of this LEASE within thirty {30) days after written notice of default shall constitute a material breach of this contract, upon which the non-breaching ~ party may immediately terminate this LEASE. 13. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS A. Modifications and Waivers. No modification or waiver of this LEASE or of any covenant, condition, or provision herein contained shall be valid unless in writing and duly executed by the party to be charged therewith. B. Entire Agreement. This written LEASE embodies the whole agreement between the parties hereto and there are no inducements, promises, terms, conditions, or obligations- made or entered into either by the Town or the District other than those contained herein. C. Binding_A~reement. This LEASE shall be binding upon the respective parties, their successors or assigns. D. Severability. All promises and covenants herein are severable, and in ', the event that any of them shall be held invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, this LEASE shall be interpreted as if such invalid provision or covenant were not contained herein. 1Z E. Authority to Enter. The District and the Town have represented to each other that each possesses the legal ability to enter into this LEASE. In the event that a court of competent jurisdiction determines that either of the parties did not possess the legal ability to enter into this LEASE, this LEASE shall be considered null and void as of the date of such court determination. F. Notice. Any notices to be sent to the parties pursuant to the terms of this LEASE shall be mailed to the following addresses: Town Manager Town of Vail 75 Sotith Frontage Road Vail, CO 81658 Executive Director Vail Park and Recreation District 292 West Meadow Drive Vail, CO 81657 G. No Third Party Rights. This LEASE shall not be deemed to confer or grant to any third party any right to claim damages or bring any legal action or claim against either the District or the Town because of any breach hereof or of any covenant, condition, or provision contained herein. H. Specific Enforcement. In addition to any other remedies available to the parties in law or equity upon breach, this LEASE shall be subject to specific enforcement. 12 1N WITNESS WHEREOF, the Town and the District have executed this LEASE as of the date first set forth above. TOWN OF VAIL, a Colorado municipal corporation By: ~ ~ - Robert W. McLaurin, Town Manager VAIL PARK AND RECREATION DISTRICT, a quasi-municipal corporation By. c } ~~-----. Hermann S aufer, Chairman, Vail Park and Recreation District 13 MEMORANDUM TO: Town Council FROM: Community Development Department DATE: March 5, 2002 SUBJECT: An appeal of the Town of Vail Planning & Environmental Commission's denial of an exterior alteration or modification, in accordance with Section 12-7A-12 (Exterior Alterations or Modifications), Vail Town Code, to allow for the construction of a new front entry feature at the Mountain Haus, located at 292 E. Meadow Drive/Lot 5, Part of Tract B, Vail Village. Appellant: Mountain Haus Condominium Association, represented by Fritzlen Pierce Architects Planner. Bill Gibson L SUBJECT PROPERTY The subject property is the Mountain Haus, located at 292. E. Meadow Drive/Lot 5, Part of Tract B, Vail Village. The property is zoned Public Accommodation. II. STANDING OF APPELLANT The appellant has standing to file an appeal as the owner of the Mountain Haus. III. BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The appellant; Mountain Haus Condominium Association represented by Fritzlen Pierce Architects, has proposed an "exterior alteration or modification" in accordance with Section 12- 7A-12 (Exterior Alterations or Modifications), Vail Town Code, to allow for the construction of a new front entry feature at the Mountain Haus, located at 292 East Meadow Drive. As part of this proposal, the appellant requested a variation from the setback standards of the Public Accommodation District in accordance with Section 12-7A-6 (Setbacks), Vail Town Code. The proposed new front entry feature will replace the existing canvas awning located on the north side of the Mountain Haus building along East Meadow Drive. The proposed new front entry feature will consist of a cantilevered timber canopy with gables and pitched roofs. A significant portion of the proposed front entry feature will be located within the Town of Vail's East Meadow Drive right- of-way. At its October 20, 2000, public hearing, the Vail Town Council, as the property owner of the East Meadow Drive right-of-way, granted the appellant permission to proceed through the Town's development review process with their proposal. The Design Review Board approved, with conditions, the proposed Mountain Haus front entry feature at it November 7, 2001, public hearing. In addition to review by the Design Review Board this proposal also required review by the Planning and Environmental Commission. The Planning and Environmental Commission denied this proposal at its February 11, 2002, meeting when a motion to approve this proposal failed due to a lack of a second. Please refer to the attached Staff Memorandum to the Planning and Environmental Commission dated February 11, 2002, and the attached Planning and Environmental Commission minutes for additional details about this request. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends that the Town Council overturn the Planning and Environmental Commission's denial of the proposed exterior alteration or modification. Staff's recommendation is based upon the review and evaluation of the criteria and findings identified in Section IV of the Staff Memorandum to the Planning and Environmental Commission dated February 11, 2002; and upon the review and evaluation of the applicable Town policies, regulations, and master plans. The Community Development Department recommends that the Town Council overturn the Planning and Environmental Commission's denial and approve the requested variations to the setback standards of the Public Accommodation District as part of an exterior alteration or modification subject to the following findings: 1. That the proposal provides necessary separation between buildings and riparian .areas, geologically sensitive areas and other environmentally sensitive areas. 2. That the proposal complies with applicable elements of the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and Design Considerations. 3. That the proposal will provide adequate availability of light, air and open space. 4. That the proposal will provide a compatible relationship with buildings and uses on adjacent properties. 5. That the proposal will result in creative design solutions or other public benefits that could not otherwise be achieved by conformance with prescribed setback standards. The Community Development Department recommends that the Town Council overturn the Planning and Environmental Commission's denial, approve the requested exterior alteration or modification, including the requested variation to the setback requirements of the Public Accommodation District, subject to the following findings: 1. That the proposal is in compliance with the purpose of the Public Accommodation District. 2. That the proposal is consistent with the applicable elements of the Vail Village Master Plan, the Vail Village Urban Design Guidelines and the Vail Streetscape Master Plan. 3. That the proposal substantially complies with applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan. 4. That the proposal does not otherwise have significant negative effect on the character of the neighborhood. Should the Town Council choose to overturn the Planning and Environmental Commission's denial of this exterior alteration or modification, the Community Development Department recommends the following condition of approval: 1. That the appellant executes an encroachment agreement or similar agreement as deemed appropriate by Town Staff prior to the application for a building permit. 2 V. APPLICABLE POLICIES, REGULATONS, AND MASTER PLANS COMPLIANCE WITH THE VAIL LAND USE PLAN Staff believes this proposal is in compliance with the Vail Land Use Plan as identified in Section V of the Staff Memorandum to the Planning and Environmental Commission dated February 11, 2002. COMPLIANCE WITH THE DESIGN GUIDELINES The Design Review Board determined that this proposal is in compliance with the Design Guidelines at its November 7, 2001, public hearing. COMPLIANCE WITH THE PURPOSE STATEMENT OF PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION DISTRICT Staff believes this proposal is in compliance with the purposed statement of the Public Accommodation District as identified in Section VI of the Staff Memorandum to the Planning and Environmental Commission dated February 11, 2002. COMPLIANCE WITH THE VAIL VILLAGE MASTER PLAN Staff believes this proposal is in compliance with the Vail Village Master Plan as identified in Section V of the Staff Memorandum to the Planning and Environmental Commission dated February 11, 2002. COMPLIANCE WITH THE STREETSCAPE MASTER PLAN Staff believes this proposal is in compliance with the Streetscape Master Plan as identified in Section VII of the Staff Memorandum to the Planning and Environmental Commission dated February 11, 2002. COMPLIANCE WITH THE VAIL VILLAGE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN AND DESIGNCONSIDERATIONS FOR VAIL VILLAGE Staff believes this proposal is in compliance with the Vail Village Master Plan as identified in Section VIII of the Staff Memorandum to the Planning and Environmental Commission dated February 11, 2002. 3 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: February 11, 2002 SUBJECT: A request for final review of an exterior alteration or modification, in accordance with Section 12-7A-12 (Exterior Alterations or Modifications), Vail Town Code, to allow for the construction of a new front entry feature at the Mountain Haus, located at 292 E. Meadow Drive/Lot 5, Part of Tract B, Vail Village 1St Filing. Applicant: Mountain Haus Condominium Association Planner: Bill Gibson I. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant, Mountain Haus Condominium Association, represented by Fritzlen Pierce Architects is requesting a final review of an "exterior alteration or modification" in accordance with Section 12-7A-12 (Exterior Alterations or Modifications), Vail Town Code, to allow for the construction of a new front entry feature at the Mountain Haus, located at 292 East Meadow Drive. As part of this review, the applicant is requesting a variation from the setback standards of the Public Accommodation District in accordance with Section 12-7A-6 (Setbacks), Vail Town Code. The proposed new front entry feature will replace the existing. canvas awning located on the north side of the Mountain Haus building along East Meadow Drive. The proposed new front entry feature will consist of a cantilevered timber canopy with gables and pitched roofs. A significant portion of the proposed front entry feature will be located within the Town of Vail's East Meadow Drive street right-of-way. Drawings of the proposed entry feature have been attached for reference. As part of this project, the applicant is proposing to reconfigure the existing nonconforming short-term guest loading and drop-off area located in front of this building along East Meadow Drive. The proposed reconfiguration of the existing short-term guest loading and drop-off is intended to bring this area into conformance with the Town of Vail's minimum required engineering standards, improve vehicular and pedestrian traffic flow, and improve traffic safety along East Meadow Drive. Drawings of the proposed short-term guest loading and drop-off reconfiguration have been attached for reference. Since the majority of the proposed entry canopy structure will be located on Town of Vail property, the applicant is proposing to provide public improvements as part of this project. The applicant is proposing to install 2,456 sq.ft. of heated brick pavers. The proposed pavers. will replace the existing sidewalk along the north side of East Meadow Drive from the bus shelter to the parking structure tunnel, and pavers will replace a portion of the East 1 Meadow Drive street between the Mountain Haus and the parking structure. Drawings of the proposed public improvements have been attached for reference. For the Commission's information, the applicant's representative has submitted their previous conceptual designs for the Mountain Haus and East Meadow Drive that the Mountain Haus explored in an effort to improve their entry, improve their short-term guest loading and drop-off, and improve the flow of traffic along East Meadow Drive. Drawings of these conceptual designs have been attached for reference. Comments from Greg Hall, Director of Public Works, pertaining to these conceptual designs have also been attached for reference. The applicant, their representative, and staff feel that their current proposal is the best design solution, which is feasible, to upgrade their entry and improve the traffic conditions along East Meadow Drive. II. TOWN CODE Since the Mountain Haus was lawfully constructed prior to the Town of Vail adopting Zoning Regulations, the existing structure is nonconforming in regard to many of the Town's current development standards. The regulations of Title 12, Chapter 18 (Nonconforming Sites, Uses, Structures and Site Improvements), Vail Town Code, address the use, expansion, and continuance of nonconforming structures such as the Mountain Haus. The purpose of these regulations is stated in Section 12-18-1 (Purpose), Vail Town Code: This Chapter is intended to limit the number and extent of nonconforming uses and structures by prohibiting or limiting their enlargement, their reestablishment after abandonment, and their restoration after substantial destruction. While permitting nonconforming uses, structures, and improvements to continue, this Chapter is intended to limit enlargement, alteration, restoration, or replacement which would increase the discrepancy between existing conditions and the development standards prescribed by this Title. Section 12-18-5 (Structures and Site Improvements), Vail Town Code, states the following: Structures and site improvements lawfully established prior to the effective date hereof which do not conform to the development standards prescribed by this Title for the district in which they are situated may be continued. Such structures or site improvements maybe enlarged only in accordance with the following limitations: A. Lot And Structure Requirements: Structures or site improvements which do not conform to requirements for setbacks, distances .between buildings, height, building bulk control, or site coverage, may be enlarged; provided, that the enlargement does not further increase the discrepancy between the total structure and applicable building bulk control or site coverage standards; and provided that the addition fully conforms with setbacks, distances between buildings, .and height standards applicable to the addition.... 2 D. Off-Street Parking And Loading: Structures or site improvements which do not conform to the off-street parking and loading requirements of this Title may be enlarged; provided, that the parking and loading requirements for such addition shall be fully satisfied and that the discrepancy between the existing off-street parking and loading facilities and the standards prescribed by this Title shall not be increased. Staff believes that this proposal conforms to the intent and requirements of these regulations and is an allowable alteration to an existing legally nonconforming structure. This proposal does not increase the amount of site coverage on the Mountain Haus property and if approved,. this proposal will conform to the setback requirements of the Public Accommodation District. The Mountain Haus had no parking requirements at the time of its construction and as a nonconforming structure continues to have no parking requirement. Since this proposal only affects the Mountain Haus' short-term guest loading and drop-off, not general parking or delivery parking, the Mountain Haus is not required to come into conformance with the parking standards of Title 12, Chapter 10 (Off-Street Parking and Loading), Vail Town Code. After further review of this proposal and the regulations of the Town- Code, Staff has made a determination that this proposal meets the definition of a "major exterior alteration or modification" per the regulations of the Public Accommodation District. Section 12-7A-12 (Exterior Alterations or Modifications), Vail Town Code, states the following: Review Required: The construction of a new building or the alteration of an existing building shall be reviewed by the Design Review Board in accordance with Chapter 11 of this Title. However, any project which adds additional dwelling units, accommodation units, fractional fee club units, any project which adds more than one thousand (1, 000) square feet of commercial floor area or common space, or any project which has substantial off-site impacts (as determined by the Administrator) shall be reviewed by the Planning and Environmental Commission as a major exterior alteration in accordance with. this Chapter and Section 12-3-6 of this Title. Due to the nature of the work involved and the substantial off-site impacts associated with this proposal, Staff has determined that this proposal requires Planning and Environmental Commission approval as a "major exterior alteration or modification." Section 12-2-2 (Definitions), Vail Town Code, defines a substantial off-site impact as follows: SUBSTANTIAL OFF-SITE IMPACT: An impact resulting from development or redevelopment on the surrounding neighborhood and public facilities in the vicinity of a developmenf or redevelopment site having a considerable amount of effect upon the area. For example, substantial off-site impacts may include, but are not limited to, the following: deed restricted employee housing, roadway improvements, pedestrian walkway improvements, streetscape improvements, stream tracbbank restoration, loading/delivery, public art improvements, and similar improvements. The regulations of the Public Accommodation District are unique in that they grant the Planning and Environmental Commission the discretion to approve variations to the setback standards during the review of an "exterior alteration or modification" without a variance. Section 12-7A-6 (Setbacks), Vail Town Code, states the following: 3 In the PA District, the minimum front setback shall be twenty feet (20), the minimum side setback shall be twenty feet (20), and the minimum rear setback shall be twenty feet (20). At the discretion of the Planning and Environmental Commission and/or the Design Review Board, variations to the setback standards outlined above may be approved during the review of exterior alternations or modifications (Secfion 12- 7A-12 of this Article) subject to the applicant demonstrating compliance with the following criteria: A. Proposed building setbacks provide necessary separation between buildings and riparian areas, geologically sensitive areas and other environmentally sensitive areas. 8. Proposed building setbacks comply with applicable elements of the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and Design Considerations. C. Proposed building setbacks will provide adequate availability of light, air and open space. D. Proposed building setbacks will provide a compatible relationship with buildings and uses on adjacent properties. E. Proposed building setbacks will result in creative design solutions or other public benefits that could not otherwise be achieved by conformance with prescribed setback standards. Based upon these regulations, Staff directed the applicant to revise their application from a request for a variance from Section 12-7A-6 (Setbacks), Vail Town Code, to a request for final review of an "exterior alteration or modification" in accordance with Section 12-7A-12 (Exterior Alterations or Modifications), Vail Town Code. The regulations of the Public Accommodation District are also unique in that they allow for flexibility from strict compliance with the regulations of Title 12, Chapter 10 (Off Street Parking and Loading). Section 12-7A-11 (Parking and Loading), Vail Town Code, states: ...short-term guest loading and drop-off shall be permitted in the required front setback subject to the approval of the Planning and Environmental Commission and/or Design Review Board. Based upon the regulations, the Planning and Environmental Commission may approve the reconfiguration of the Mountain Haus' short-term guest loading and drop-off within the front setback along East Meadow Drive as part of this request for an exterior alteration or modification without a variance. Please note that the proposed short-term guest loading and drop-off areas are not intended for use as parking spaces or delivery parking spaces as required by Title 12, Chapter 10 (Off Street Parking and Loading). General parking and delivery parking are accommodated in this area by the existing public parking spaces designated along the south-side of East Meadow Drive. 4 II1. BACKGROUND In the fall of 2000, the Mountain Haus proposed to construct a similar front entry feature at their north entrance along East Meadow Drive. This proposal included discussions of a joint venture between the Mountain Haus and the Town of Vail to make streetscape improvements to East Meadow Drive. It was determined that streetscape improvement to East Meadow Drive would not be a high priority in the Town's Capital Improvements Program at that time, so the Mountain Haus has decided to proceed with a proposal for a new front entry feature and abandon proposals for joint effort streetscape improvements. Since the Mountain Haus is proposing to construct a significant portion of their new front entry feature on Town of Vail property (i.e. the East Meadow Drive right-of-way), Town Council permission is required. Upon hearing the applicant's previous request at its Tuesday, October 20, 2000, meeting, the Town Council granted the applicant permission to proceed through the planning process. At its November 7, 2001, public hearing, the Town of Vail Design Review Board approved, with conditions, the proposed new front entry feature at the Mountain Haus. The Design Review Board's approval is contingent upon the Planning and Environmental Commission's approval of this exterior alteration or .modification request. If the Planning and Environmental Commission decides to deny this request, then the Design Review Board's approval of this proposed new front entry feature will be null and void. The Planning and Environmental Commission reviewed the setback variance request for the proposed front entry feature at its November 12, 2001, public hearing. The majority of the Commissioners were not supportive of the setback .variance request. Some of the Commissioners' concerns included the following: that construction of the proposed entry feature would worsen an already dangerous traffic situation on East Meadow Drive, that approval of this variance would be a grant of special privilege, that the proposed entry feature needs to be part of a comprehensive development plan for the site, and that the Town should receive some public benefits for allowing the Mountain Haus the use of public property. At the applicant's request, this item was tabled for further discussion to the December 10, 2001, Planning and Environmental Commission's public hearing. At the applicant's request, the Town Council held a worksession at their Tuesday December 4, 2001, afternoon hearing to discuss the applicant's front entry feature proposal. The purpose of the worksession was for the Council, as the property owner of the East Meadow Drive right-of-way, to give the applicant general feedback and direction about the concept and design of the proposed entry feature. The Council did not review the applicant's setback variance request and the Council took no formal actions pertaining to this proposal. A majority of the Town Council members were generally supportive of the concept of the Mountain Haus making improvements to their north entry. A majority of the Council members were also generally supportive of the concept of allowing the Mountain Haus to encroach onto public property to accommodate improvements to their building. As the East Meadow Drive right-of-way property owner, some Council members were comfortable with the project as presented, some Council members were opposed to the project as presented, and other Council members stated that they would be comfortable with the project if certain changes were made to the entry feature design. 5 Some of Council's recommendations for improving this proposal included: reducing the size and scale of the proposed canopy, expanding the proposed snow-melted areas, examining options for eliminating or reconfiguring existing interior building space to accommodate the entry feature, and examining options for redesigning the East Meadow Drive street alignment. At its December 10, 2001, public hearing the Planning and Environmental Commission held a worksession to discuss this proposal with the applicant and their representatives. The Commission was generally supportive of the proposal; however, several Commissioners expressed continued concerns about the affects of this proposal on traffic flow, pedestrian circulation, and public safety. At the applicant's and staffs request, this item was tabled for further discussion to the January 14, 2002, Planning and Environmental Commission's public hearing. The applicant's previous application for a variance from Section 12-7A-6 (Setbacks), Vail Town Code, was withdrawn on the January 14, 2002, Planning and Environmental Commission's public hearing agenda. The Planning and Environmental Commission continued its review of this proposal as a request for an "exterior alteration or modification" at its January 28, 2002, public hearing. After additional review and discussion of this proposal, this item was tabled to the February 11, 2002, Planning and Environmental Commission public hearing for further review. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends approval of the requested variations to the setback standards of the Public Accommodation District as part of an exterior alteration or modification subject to the following findings: 1. That the proposal provides necessary separation between buildings and riparian areas, geologically sensitive areas and other environmentally sensitive areas. 2. That the proposal complies with applicable elements of the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and Design Considerations. 3. That the proposal will provide adequate availability of light, air and open space. 4. That the proposal will provide a compatible relationship with buildings and uses on adjacent properties. 5. That the proposal will result in creative design solutions or other public benefits- . that could not otherwise be achieved by conformance with prescribed setback standards. 6 The Community Development Department recommends approval of the requested exterior alteration or modification, including the requested variation to the setback requirements of the Public Accommodation District, subject to the following findings: 1. That the proposal is in compliance with the purpose of the Public Accommodation District. 2. That the proposal is consistent with the applicable elements of the Vail Village Master Plan, the Vail Village Urban Design Guidelines and the Vail Streetscape Master Plan. 3. That the proposal substantially complies with applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan. 4. That the proposal does not otherwise have significant negative effect on the character of the neighborhood. Should the PEC choose to approve this request for an exterior alteration or modification, the Community Development Department recommends the following conditions: 1. That the applicant meets all Town Staff conditions prior to the application for a building permit. 2. That the applicant executes an encroachment agreement or similar agreement as deemed appropriate by Town Staff prior to the application for a building permit. V. APPLICABLE POLICIES OF THE VAIL VILLAGE MASTER PLAN AND THE VAIL LAND USE PLAN A. Vail Land Use Plan Goal 7.7 Vail should continue to grow in a controlled environment, maintaining a balance between residential, commercial and recreational uses to serve both the visitor and the permanent residence. Goal 7.3 The quality of development should be maintained and upgraded whenever possible. Goal 4.1 Future commercial development should continue to occur primarily in existing commercial areas. Future commercial development in the core areas needs to be carefully controlled to facilitate access and delivery. Goal 4.3 The ambience of the Village is important to the identity of Vail and should be preserved (scale, alpine character, small town feeling, mountains, natural setting, intimate size, cosmopolitan feeling, environmental quality). 7 The applicant's proposal for the remodel of its entry reflects a high quality redevelopment proposal that should enhance the viability and aesthetics of the Mountain Haus without adversely impacting other commercial and residential uses in the vicinity of the project. This proposal is in harmony with Goals 1.1 and 1.3. This proposal is also in harmony with Goals 4.1 and 4.3. Goal 4.1 states in part, that "future commercial development in the core needs to be carefully controlled to facilitate access and delivery." This proposal is intended to improve both vehicular and pedestrian access and traffic flow at this location along East Meadow Drive, while providing a front entry for the Mountain Haus. B. Vail Village Master Plan The goals for Vail Village are summarized in six major goal statements. Each major goal focuses on a particular aspect of the Village community. "Goal 1 Encourage high qualify redevelopment while preserving the unique architectural scale of the Village in order to sustain a sense of community and identity. " This proposal involves design details similar in architectural scale and identity as those of the west-side of the Mountain Haus building in Slifer Square. "Goal 2 To foster a tourist industry and promote year-round economic health and viability for the Village and for the community as a whole. " The proposed new entry canopy will enhance the economic vitality of the Mountain Haus, and along with the proposed streetscape improvements will improve the aesthetics, functionality, and safety of East Meadow Drive. "Goal 3 To recognize as a top priority the enhancement of the walking experience throughout the Village." As discussed in Goal 2 above, this proposal will improve the aesthetics, functionality, and safety of East Meadow Drive for pedestrians and vehicles. "Goal 4 To preserve existing open space areas and expand green space opportunities. " This proposal will not affect any open space or green space areas. "Goal 5 Increase and improve the capacity, efficiency and aesthetics of the transportation and circulation system throughout the Village. " As mentioned, the proposed canopy, streetscape improvements, and short-term guest loading and drop-off reconfiguration will substantially improve the existing problematic conditions along East Meadow Drive. 8 "Goal 6 To ensure the continued improvement of the vital operational elements of the Village. " This proposal will benefit short-term guest loading and drop-off activities in the vicinity of the project. The proposal will provide snow melted walkways and improved storm water drainage for a safer environment for pedestrians on East Meadow Drive. VI. COMPLIANCE WITH THE PURPOSE STATEMENT OF PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION DISTRICT. Section 12-7A-1, Vail Town Code, identifies the purpose of the Public Accommodation District as follows: This Chapter is intended to limit the number and extent of nonconforming uses and structures by prohibiting or limiting their enlargement, their reestablishment after abandonment, and their restoration after substantial destruction. While permitting nonconforming uses, structures, and improvements to continue, this Chapter is intended to limit enlargement, alteration, restoration, or replacement which .would increase the discrepancy between existing conditions and the development standards prescribed by this Title. The proposed entry canopy, along with the implementation of streetscape improvements, will improve the desired resort quality of the Mountain Haus and East Meadow Drive. The remodel improves the quality and aesthetic appearance at this location without interfering with the light, air and open space enjoyed by surrounding buildings and uses. Vll. COMPLIANCE WITH THE STREETSCAPE MASTER PLAN The streetscape Master Plan does not include specific recommendations for this portion of East Meadow Drive. However, the proposed installation of heated decorative pavers, proposed storm water drainage improvements, and proposed street construction improvements all conform to the intent and recommendations of the streetscape Master Plan. VIII. COMPLIANCE WITH THE VAIL VILLAGE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN AND DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR VAIL VILLAGE The Mountain Haus is not within the boundaries of the area controlled by the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan, however, the design of the proposed front entry feature does conform to the intent and recommendations of the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan. 9 Ix. REVIEWING BOARD ROLES The PEC is responsible for evaluating a proposal for: 1. Compliance with the purpose of the Public Accommodation District. 2. Consistency with the applicable elements of the Vail Village Master Plan, Vail Streetscape Master Plan, and the Vail Comprehensive Plan. 3. The effect of the requested proposal on the character of the neighborhood. 4. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed request. Design Review Board: Action: The DRB has review authority on the construction of a new building or the alteration of an existing building in the Public Accommodation District. The DRB is responsible for evaluating the DRB proposal for: - .Architectural compatibility with other structures, the land and surroundings - Fitting buildings into landscape - Configuration of building and grading of a site which respects the topography - Removal/Preservation of trees and native vegetation - Adequate provision for snow storage on-site - Acceptability of building materials and colors - Acceptability of roof elements, eaves, overhangs, and other building forms - Provision of landscape and drainage - Provision of fencing, walls, and accessory structures - Circulation and access to a site including parking, and site distances - Location and design of satellite dishes - Provision of outdoor lighting , X. ZONING STATISTICS Lot Size: 21,610 sq.ft. (0.496 acres) Zoning: Public Accommodation Development Standard Allowed/Required Existing Proposed Setbacks: Front: 20 ft.* 0 ft. Infill 1 ft. Sides: 20 ft.* 0 ft. No Change Rear: 20 ft.* 0 ft. No Change Site Coverage: 14,047 sq.ft. (65%) 17,909 sq.ft. (83%) No Change (* Refer to Section 12-7A-6 (Setbacks), Vail Town Code, for exceptions.) 10 XI. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Consideration of Factors Regarding the Exterior Alteration or Modification: A. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a variation to the setback standards as part an exterior alteration or modification: 1. That the proposal provides necessary separation between buildings and riparian areas, geologically sensitive areas and other environmentally sensitive areas.. 2. That the proposal complies with applicable elements of the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and Design Considerations. 3. That the proposal will provide adequate availability of light, air and open space. 4. That the proposal will provide a compatible relationship with buildings and uses on adjacent properties. 5. That the proposal will result in creative design solutions or other public benefits that could not otherwise be achieved by conformance with prescribed setback standards. B. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before approving an exterior alteration or modification, which includes a request for variations to the setback standards: 1. That the proposal is in compliance with the purpose of the Public Accommodation District. 2. That the proposal is consistent with the applicable elements of the Vail Village Master Plan, the Vail Village. Urban Design Guidelines and the Vail Streetscape Master Plan. 3. That the proposal substantially complies with applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan. 4. That the proposal does not otherwise have significant negative effect on the character of the neighborhood. 11 OTNOIIep ~1[NIATIOIM ORN'p Y WD( TpeO~ ptN'iN/ O .jr' e E"°&EB k'~ $~~j~y Ef dYc'~. r~r. a.e~.nw .,a ...r.K o~. ..~.~ r ~. Y AT Ai t '(~'^ ~ GRNIIN _ ~ ~ ~ MGV^ COrOte~1 ~IJ, ee 'plfnp IV/Ot p. . . . ° r. ' v. . L. ~ IIEE c "ffrr s w r "~ Le ~ ' M . we i .cr~wee ~ T ~i..erew rvhl ew _ ~'ie Up eon ._ Dip ..___.____ ofoi Ma _ .aa ^'°' f11{~fIMY - ~aiwee efnfx nweno~x Mner __ cpO em rL.fM .._.__....__..._._....__._._._.....___..__.~__ wowwax Mnr ~+.aaa 11pe1~ •fl RIM ~a~nnu_rnLrevw iar±ra.w Mo e~taoio aaw rwe w>t oo ~ _. _ ~>tm .....__ ........... w>Aro ~f 1. ro ~raee Viral m aTna eorna - ._ eGf6a ....___...___. annp OGT 6 p eerna ' ecr n a ~ Yvil of a Mw eta _ v.... ^ev etp ._-_.__. wv eta IIe/ Ot a _. Ma/eta --- Mov et a _.___ __. .~.. „a, _ fwwerr weex enwraNiaiw erral oo eoraa ~wi eta ." ~°" ,' K FL 3. r e ~ ~ ~w. v rIE2'~~e Y, O. edO4 CJ}re6 "'F"' ..iuo~._._ .ea _.__._._ wfa rwac~rny!~~~.rwM __.. MaaNfeease~awefgi ._...__._..._.____.___._~ ~_ NII1e~ItIM~N11 ~ dial oo ~=,oe .____._.__ ~f~pp p>rna,._ cofna ..__-. w+vst a,. -._---._. .._..---._..... .__.___..._. yP ^g F xr V6. r No] M/weO lIN1.11~If ~eippl ~ ~ p G. ^ W r ~ TION owe /d0! r{/IYO RMI~~fI• ~e~ee ~ ~ ' ~ _- _ --- ~ r __.. ..~ __ _ • V. e!D ~ M!R lrxefR ._..___.__. M _. .._.........._......__._.____.____. e11Y011RfL,RMe' ._____T_._ ~. _._.__._ ..__.___.. .._.______. .-___... . !O/.wD KiK ~ :~~. ~ 11! RC pj~jr}~ N pIfIG1MeL R~M1 e~owr.~t rafar - ~__ - ._ _._ --- 7wry tw eo+ .moo ~.... . ~. ~~. ._.._._ MDG. PLIIRMATIOItl G 4 ~ N e .___.._._._. . _.._.._____.______.____._, _. __. -__ ._ , _ - ,,l, _._~_ ._,,,__, ___ pp rye pee eeee~~ S'JIMe rNr e rrll _-_ ~ee~ RTY LiK ~ ~- Ce eTG 111e: __ ___.-___.._... QtNrM Qb _-_ ____ !.l r Vr wwtiaeer.s V .~~.~~ 01'~KG mw ® s... ~= ~ ~~......_ __ .~.-._ ...__....__..~_._.___....____.._____ _________ . ' ...___..._.. ____ ~ ,I ...____ __~_I _~_ _~_- ~.:- -wiwK sr-eou ® _~ ® ® ... ~ y~ 6~Lld ;,; ; M . /JRVIT ePy IM IOV 1rlupNpf, vfe ro wit elb~reYROw GOrrK~ • eifrnf I vM r~Ke NO b/+e N eesreeC. u - re, reenrro w rNaeo wee uo.e MY u:aau. A . ~e e0.'' rYf ro wT[w ~lfr ~v. 1~OUNT,~ I ~ ~~US ~101~T~ ~1\IT~Y R~~101~~T1 ON5 ~iC.T DMIEfTpK LOLL ii . W AOMN011fATIV! M'O. VK „C0.PUOO f Wl . LOr f rNl Or leKr 0 ew ~ ]~!f tmesx.ecmesa, w' eu~r~.oo.. eewf nernse .xeu .•u.recn M90 [ VM VI~LLCY WN Gaoei.w awe nfifV f+o !IX<iwi KGn[O M'rOv .~..,,,.,.,.. ro.«or v.iL n . M . we[+rreGr. nc...s e. waf ZH~a na.e; .uwwwnw oronucf rN4eoe .fv ' uaoe.m wfe 1O ~ .,r. _. _ eenrr ewtn~.ewe.w sr e e:rwL ewnaee. urvice+ ar Leuwco ---- -- ros a+eaaev , eewrfn wecer•w.w • K~00 Lw~ir luo~e! LOOT 4 LRGe~pp Wfl HOfl1MN 2 Z ~ mG F~" F ~ o Z 7~d cO FRITZLEN PIERCE ARCHITECTS ~.~~.a ,.w~~. DOVER SHEET X4000 /.rte. S~ ~ ~ 8 Tw+xoaT~rioa cerrzR riwlnw anwcruae .w EVT 1~,,pp1 ~~ .-'~'/r~ -~ ~~ ~,~ ~ _~' u o yA ~' ~ ~ o- QY Q NOTE: SURVEY INFORMATION PROVIDED BY PEAK LAND SURVEYING, ING. ~t ~` ~n ~~ Y O•-- ~ -- O--• -- p...4. _. O~- ~...~. p ~. .... ~ 51l'E SURYE`( 0101 !Cllr ~ L]O Q Z 3 m ~G ~a~ FRITZLEN PIERCE ARCHITf:CTS ~Yw, w. nww SITE SURVEY GIOI *a..o fpN TRANSPORTATION CENTER PARKING STRUCTURE ENL,4R6ED SURY~Y ~® NORTH ENTRY q ecxe ~ ~~a ~ROPEF /K~iC• t/LJ~ ~1 ARCHITECTS ENLARGEDu SURVEY G102 tl3' :~. ~ TRANSPORTATION CENTER ~`~~_~ PARKING STRUCTURE -~,,_ 0000 0 .s#'"-.~a: e.~ °Oo0 0~0 ~ ~on - '~.~~ Oo ~ . ~OCboo0op~0o00000000o OoOo Oo00oo pus O ° 00000 000000 00 000000 a" Oo0oo000000000000 ,0~` aw.. QO 00 0000 0 .;;,.a'~ oo ~.no0oo000 0 00 0000 0 0 000 00 00 0 00 0< RIVE ° 000 0 ~ uo0..n__'b'_' Banc O O °°~ -.n '~c fl Dili;' r~ F;-~ ' .L lf~ ~~ ~ u i i `~a ~~~:~ ----- J •~ ~_ ~;,1 4 MAO .. :1 i:tr. C -"- ~ ~ . ~ws~ws ~An feK.w 31f ® •~ DNMLK A1MµT AW V!K pMH, I n aEMOL I TI ON PL~4N fo xxe ~ Ira (/') Z ~S~ Z ~ ao O FRITZLEN PIERCE ARCHITECTS ~,iH a. Sung. c.. DEMOLITION PLAN DIOI LORIRKTCR TO 1'40 KA/'( ALL enRS cacrtwns i«<LUww wr Ror irzo To Vn4tt'am ARO Loc~no.e at To aeen«w roRC. GOMlUGTCR TO TNC! AlL 1!G!YlI.RY wwrww ro wewrz rpu ARO Doer. cowrRACroR To caoRdrurz r~Tw rov .+RCa.a cwerwcrww ++v+Tw era q!/!pClnlllw ARO wLUG4AR1. !R ARV IrlW TO RMV.IR AROpn TO !! GOMIMLTOR TO caoROwnrz LxITwN 1'Y.RIC Ytl1M ~!n itlRK TO lRM4! lxKT Lwrz a Olro. cn Q _ ~~ Z gm^ ~¢_' o a ~XI5TIN6. NORTH ~ ~LE1/~TION- DEMOLITION lGV.! ~ VO'Rlb` FRIYZLEN PIERCE ARCHITECTS ~.~ ~o,...Arn~ ~., DEMOLITION ELEVATION D301 i l I - '-_: ~~ I ~~ ' ~„ -„I a. ewnR.eau n Ree.we,eae ToR NOUT~pM YR~fVNwQ~KI G%nTYY a' MTM. 1. COM1RKipl n Rl4Qdl~C TOR A1Mw1 Tr! MTQ01uTY p fTRYCIUq M9f iMfAWlD w OlMOLITMax TTCRK. 4niw1 RAM ATp DNATia+ WCRNATMiM !A%D I.MT /.6-Aaf ~lAh•1lrpRa. OOMTRKTgI 10 !i[tD ~R~TT' ALL OrpMYOr6 AMD MOTMi MTOrRGT. !. LOMAKTOR TO K4Ti LGCATgR AMp AODO,KY Q ALL !,vlT. trtuT2f A10 Gp•!<1MlM~. 1. W MOT fLAL! OM DRAronf. GOxTRKTOR i0 MlLD vL1uTY ALL oolTY•a OQOI1gn PRIOR TO DMQ,TIW OR Cp6TIaaTMM ~OO V~~O~-{J000 f wmr ~ E I O pOO~®OOOOO ~ ~ ~° ~ I OoOoooOoO o i ~ ~~.a• I DO Ooo®~o0 1 o Oo0oo0~oQ € O oo00Qoo ~ObpooO0oo0®tuooQoo®o0at,o o~0®0000®o0D„~rgo0oopo0oo0o0oomf ®ot'rno0o0o0o0ooopmUoopo0o0 ~o0oopo0oopo0o~ o0o0Q,o -r I o0®o0oopo0o i p ~ Ooo QoOoo®oQooO O o ~ X0001 ' ~ ~ ro+e wTr.wh ~ Mme. I _____ `! I { .r t,.,, s ;. n I 3 ~a• `'ill ir, v.~• i ~~ ~.g• ~ ~ I a_ I '- ~ ~ .°..r». ?llfti ~' ex ~ ,~1i4 Iv' t SR ~ ~ ~\ J j9.5 I Est ~ E I "'°^ . . t s ' I ! ' I I l ~ "« ~I TI~oMKVAVC~, ~ p a' eeoDW ORAYR ON OONKTID OAl4. N MTDRCMO RADUxT TIlM.1 M RTOp. Row awe TsR rw eati x,vo. oc. AfTTY1T bw !Dl Tp/ f1AwARD1 •' enelw eoMraere a eor.Aerte ro ruTU s.nror. ~>~.T.I..A~M. ,AT~I, ,~ R~,AIR A, .RlD. A TITlATlO I.. aaN6lD eo.e CmAR ~~». cor.ew wnoT Tae To .urw .esr uTTRV. ~ PROP05~S~ 51 T'~ PLAIN ,~.~ a ~.•.I~ Q Z $S* ~G y~y O p i FRITZLEN PIERCE ARCHITECTS s+neDC1 ~51TE PLAN A-101 k ~ i t ~ an ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i i i ~ i - ~ i ~ ~ I I ~ i ~ 2f < I ~ i ~ ~ i i i- I i - ._ _. _. _ . ; ~. 1 ~ ~ sv . eNe a aro.e w !'-w> • Grp! w ~'•]' I OI4p! L d ~ s-1n4 [puM TTl ~- ~• w.can uax ~r w. ro e•u area. caur« nr wnoeRr roew.s . o- ve.rvx wswwr reap .ear . w-.. vewr.s.aur w.aw sa.w - .-ara.a vereew - arae w ieo.c ~~~~. ~ S~GTION THROUGH GOLUMN v v ~ ^ ~.e..e.~e.rea ~~~. ~ ~.~~7 ___.__~' CAwR~ '~ ~.plr CeaK p'/Ke n FRONT ENTRY PLr4N . ~,~~~ Q Z~ H ~~s FRITZLEN PIERCE ARCHITECTS u~~m. Rene~c-, ENTRY PLAN COI ~ ROOM PL,4N 4G~L! ~ V4Y1'-0' - ~ REPL~c'rEa GEILIN6 PLAN KNZ ~ W.Ib' ax.ew,w.A.,... .. - w,M.........w ,~ ~.~ .. ~ . cw.ew m ..e n .~.ru.esr wn... ~. Q..,~,,., ~.~., ~...«.. Q =~a Q ~ mG ~~o Z ~~~ ~ ' FRITZLEN PIERCE ARCHITECTS wOOF69RGP PLANS ~O~ ~..~>~ ~..~.a,e.K,,,,,......A.,.,. ... n.,.....,. ,. ~ .,..... ~, .. ~., ~. ~~ o q K„~ e..,. ~. » n . e. v.. ti.. ~,. :Qa,~. ~ ~:..K. M,~.,° .. ~ b:.~.,. a, e.,.... Q _ ~e om III H ~ Z ~~ ~ ' O ~ NORTH ELE1/r4TION Od42 ~ V1'~IW' FRITZLEN Pl ERCE ARCHITECTS W9)01 ruw~w tu~`eq. ~. NORTH w~ ELEVATION A~301 ,. ~.~..o .,.. o .,..,...~ . ~,.., ~~~~~ ~.3.~~3,.~,..~ro11,o a. cw11..~ra1 n SSb'OM6e .a. `° o ~ :,:~ SMtW ~~ „~. .: ~.,..~.~. » ..,.a.,.~ .~. w~„~.~ A i113~RG 4_ y. CLOY 10. 11YM a u+e3a ~- me -r ownua~ SR6 M3. 113. .t.uC-l1/1M.. n STLEL TUSt t~L'T~41 L ~ YV~ST LL~YA~TION a~ ~~t z ~°~ ~ ' CQ FRITZLEN PIERCE ARCHITECTS ENIARGEDW ELEVA710N5 A302 L _L___________SJ i i t ~ NORTl~ ~~L~Yr4TION >~ 1 ~.~~ cn Q _~~ Z °mm a. F¢- ~ ~ o Z ~~ ~ ' O ~. i ~ ~ i i ' ~ i i /; i roorwn. a: s.wcnw.,,s -~ i ~ ~ ~eucH.nm we. sne+c+uiw.s `_____.~~ 'r ~ _____________________U___, -„~- n 5EGTION ®Gr4NOPY ~~ ~' ~- ti~ FRITZLEN PIERCE ARCHITECTS BUILDING SEG~TID^NS ~"'~/ I „"Oom©O©OoOp °Om © ~~"' O©Ooo°0o0 © ~ ~,;, m ©°Oom 90° m 0 ° °OoOm°Omo O m O ®°°O©~~°Om° OO a4 ~ ~'~©OOm°O©Oo00°Oom ~°©° z~©O°Oom ~ ~~~ ©O©Oo°OoOm©C °O°m°Oo0mo0°Oo©mOO°4mo0®OoOm° ©°Om< l ~ ~ %~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~w ~ c\-~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~rl ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ r ~ ~ ~ 1-- ~-----------_-_-_-_- ~ O ~ ~- -~ - - - ~-~ ------------- ~ ° ti' - - ---- ------ ,1 ~ ~...~ ~'I I __...._. ....._.... ~~~- ~ ~ ~ GONG. WALL + + PROPOSED LOAD I NG Ln Q 2>~ Z gg* ~ Fob Z ~~~ ~ ' FRITZLEN PIERCE ARCHITECTS °. v MEADOW DRIVE ~`~®°~ I TRANSPORTATION CENTER PARKING STRUCTURE o,. ~o°m° o 0 ~ a°oo ~ o0 ~$o ~~ ~013oooQ op~~ooooopo0ooo00000 ~ 00000 \ o • ®0000 OoOoo®o0`~000oo®00000o0ooopo0oopo0 ab• ° HEATED GONG PAN 6~0• a.or 0 0 ~ ~ X a iii ~ °~i1 ~~llii -- - -~ ~~` C r. ;ur~~ I,I'78 sf HEATED PAVERS ~. PROPOSED PUBLIC BENEFITS 0000oopo0ooopo0• o~ooQoopo~ »•~ ~. O f C "~ f (l7 Z > Z oQ~ ~ ~ oG ~ m~~ FRITZLEN .PIERCE ARCHITECTS .~,.~a a.u~~- ~~ t j` •- i r /// f .: F:. .~ Y~Y ~ ... ~~ "` .` 1'litlV .~~`li t'.1}~Ti~13~ ~i~ £~: i iY.iti Cs '~......w....,....„........_..w...............~ .................. ._. ...w.„,._._ ...... ..._ ~ 3~ .,_., .,,,w .,,..... ,t .. .:, `~. N a 0 a ,_ ... sans?' a to ~" -...,_ ., n: ~w ' n as ~' "~1 "°.. :-..,.. -a:AU . ,.,.. s< ~.~.3<ae. ~ swr. smxx:,x ~°Q i »:~~ ~' } e:.. .r r 4 {»~'. .~ R ., a ;: . _,_......,. .: ..W.-......~...._.........,, `E ~.~ ~w.~V i { \ a j .... - t't»c; fib ................................_._.........._..........._~ i E{ ~ . ~ti~' ? ",. l~ 1 - ~ ;W: F 1 E, v L C W L pW & ~ T~ i .................~a. __ `~3 rj~ ..... ........ xG£ ~_ v. y. ~ .., r`. ' a .~ ~ ' 4 . rasa' ::!SV. «,, RECEIVE® Fre o ~ zooz C ~~ C c C vxm. :,: .,. :. .. x sn ~ z sat .: ,„,.. t`~ ~.. ~, ,,, _.... n.._.._ ~~ ~ ~~(v a ~~ ` FRITZLEN °., ~ P I E R C E f ~ SMITH -. ~, 51~ ~~~*' N ARCHITECTS ~ ~ ~ ~ " r.Anoaco •..m• ma .....~n ~' ~ ' AIOI 'i ,..._ `~. __ ~ ~ i ~.... i~$5 xnxrz' ... !~ fS i iii .. s;::t i5`~Yr9."•~ 3tlT1s E4F:e. i ~ i ~ PzY i.F' ~ p . ~ '~<v.> =5 FRITZLEN ,~.Y-~~-~a±, ~ P I E R C E ,' ~ SMITH SITE PLRN N ". `"""„ ~.~.a. ,~.<., ~~ Z AIOI ft Z'.,%~~.R`'iiv:J~'`i~'1Ytr'1.?~Sl ,. f PttKll~u c.~~vi., i~ t ~, 1 _.._. _. -,~ '^ _., _.___._ Au _ .. --4 ~, ....._. ......- ~.. ~ .,~ .... ,.w _ o s~.o _.~.__._ .. ~ ~ ~. __ __ . ~.. ~ __ ......_ E ~.ti9.. g ... > .... '~ C°SS. ~.~ J €.~(4 ~ .~} .. til i `~~ 1 `~ ,~ f .. i ~ ___-__ f F• p ... Y f "-`+.~ j r . .~.. ~~ ` ~.. v..~-..,., ... '- . -r-.~.......... ~ ._..,..-.... .............~-,.. j .. `~...,.,, w.,1 1 -- ~~ .,-.~.w......,...n. .._ ._...~. . .,.. ....ry. ~\ ) ~J .._. ...-. ....., ~\ .~ ' ~ ~. , ... ~.... , Y.(1R Y i ~ - ... .-...~, t ~~,~ ~ ,'^~ Y .. a .~ C9 e _ f "v. x _.... ., h .._ re ~,..,..FZf.'~! ~ Z x.Yr ~ ,goo y` ~. -;„ t ~~ f ~~~ i, ..... ....' ... ............. .s .._..~. ..... ~ N`, .° i~`s ~"` =`- ~ I t iEa~i~4c;trCJi~'F:~iC}~ C;E.PvT?:4 r..;.. -.-. -- ~ r ~' _._'- .ww~ `\ .._ - v]: wis'.i ~ ~ .....'..+.... ..,,. I rte; 0 f 4 =. \ xce /^ k ". y ;• \\\ a. ,..wE `tom .. ' A. ~~~F - ...... ... ...............W...,....,,..... 7{ I ~ ~ F ~.... Ff ~ ~.._~._...... ~ fi ..... ~.~~ ~ 11 ~~~-~ S~ ~. 1 ~ _.. a ,. r--Y t R j _.... Y4r r .- - ~ "~. M1 r. . d.: i ~.........saC, .. r -a.:m -. ...... .,,?K,..-. ~.,.... j _ _.._ . ~_ . ~ ., ~* , _„ _ ,. . .... ___ w........_.-. i ` " ~ , ^~.,,; \ r ~ n:> _ t ~; 0 ~. 0 >_ a ~~ C W L gW & ~ N .~. ~^ cQ G ~e { i1ATnvT. (°~ / ~~- ~ G ~. & g3ti .' af", >; ~. 'J#~ ~ ,l. ~ ... ~-s a3.er. ~ ~ ~ a+s5.z '_~ _ , ~ FRITZLEN -- PIERCE ~,~,., SMITH +~ 1 ~ - 51TE PLAN "' ARCNITfGTS 1'~10'~d ~.......".::; 1 y ~. •a -° ,f O ` n ., ~. ., ..__._.~.._ - ~ a` .y _ -._____ ___ . __._.__-. ___. __~ _.w_... _.._..~_____.... ___ __m____...~. ___ _._ -_.__ ~ € ,. _._. t ~ ..._ ~ i~ ..._ .... . . a0'RS.a 1 f ~'. _ _~_ _ ~' ~w2~~~gG.LF<xy ... _.. ~ 0 ~ E l q~ f - _` ~ `d+ ` t O ..._ ~, .... r .,„....ry,,..~„ ~ J ~ _ __ ,w .._ a ~ ared -......_`~` __ f _ j ( ". ~. ,! Y .: V/ 'Y°"'2 M. fJ{ e..„ ~1.. ~ :. ..., ..,......1...., r .. ............._ +x -_ . ___ __ ~.., _ -~ na~ ,, , .: , _. _ __ ___ ~, cv ~~ ~ ,~ , ; . ~ __-. ~. ..a. ~~ .. .. .~ ~~ ~. ~ - -. _ . ., ~. F -~-~;. ~ _. r ~ - .. L_ 1 ~ ~ j------1. ~, . -~~ +- ;; ; ~~. , 1 ,:: ~_~~ ,,~ ,# g ,- - ~ n n . .:" 3 ~ . [' f ._._ . s ~,. ~, ors ~.~ ' i ~! ~~~ .__ . 3 I N ''. ~ f ~ 3 - i~ 'e i ~ i srt:kC i• •~„~r - rx~~.,.x~ ~ a ~ FRITZLEN -s4 PIERCE .... ~~t;nY.i' } SMITH u.. CwJ .ham SITE PLAN N ARCHITECTS N ~ ~ ~ ~ .a co un ~x bww„:e..~,n r.Nna anew ma o..oa ~~~ AIOI .ea. nwAwce xn » aeoo w•reo ser a*aeea is aooo nuuw x. xoveroew ~ xoo EAST MEADOW DRIVE 1°R~OP05La 51TE PLAN sc,~.~ I i~.tcl-o• ~o ~~ ~t11A1wrVArwrw~ CCMeR ~Aacw ~nawnwe O V/ .../ 2 ~~ Q ~' . ~f FRITZLEN PIERCE AR CMIT[C Td wAh~~ ~lOl g~(SQL~oA80 •2L. ~Y ANL[ L!R ]! ]ON VDAilD Y~ ocroxw w aooD nue1w ser wvenen ] ]awo EXIST. PJJ~ SHELTER nec u+ -Ph y]]M,m~ ~ cwrx~ EAST ~~ MEADOW DRIVE ~ww ~4TDIDIOMR -.. ' ~OM].l' TRANSPORTATION GENTER PARKING STRUCTURE ~" YS' ra• snac.we ~ ~ wr xe uaaoml,nwc -.. ,. 1 oOoOaot~ II~II .Dt~oOnopo~'o'~oOM,oQo4„opo0'o~o4ue i~ ^t~+nnn ~ , arat]AnagdW.. ..~,',n-.n .;Jr• •rno ®1"°o0a PROPOSED 511'C PLAN /\ SCALE 1 I•^IO'-p• " ~,~ ~ ~ V/ TQ i Z Q !~? O war wvr FRITZLEN PIERCE ARC1111lCt] ~~o~ i:e ~~~ . .s s .1Yr_~-~ '.=~2AU-lttiL- _ . t,~AL L ~i;..:ieJL... ,;iO~t,.an.t1L ,t!C:t1 t.lk~.^ ~~r _,w.p1Ya ~ __ R+-FLU. ~~ q \ ~ ~ _--'~ _.L . 4 .. .. - S ,.__.-._..__ 1'c Ar.ri Eav~ %~'Kt hdA 1I!.vr "n ~ ___.-._-- l~IA+- _(' ~~ - .: ~t i _..... _ __.__ _ i __... _, _ - T :______ .. ` - -~-`r-._ _-....~ /E ZJ ( _ ~t ~~ - ~ \. •• r'~. "` ~ C~~ 9v ~C% ~~Ad.nr_~C ,~Ur-al._t~,at ir.. '--._~. ._:,: --i ._ ~ .~. _ k Y-~. ~~n.c-fish 1 ~ Y TT p~ ~: ~ - ;i t l ,~ ~,y ~ I ~~'' ,'~' I 1 1 1 -~.,~-~"~f~-r•rj~-r;-{;~, r ~ ~ , t ~:-`'","'~1 ~ " ~`1° i` r'~ ~ I' I ; ~/.fit 4~1 i~ ~\ f ~,'?. II ':~ ~ I ~ ~ '~ t, I i i I 1 ~ 1~ I 1 I~' t I I II~1 ~V 11 I t I I{.{' 111 I I} { ~1! ~ t t t l I~ \ ,~ r_ _ it , II i y,tl I i , Ij 4 I ' I ~11 I , I - .', T %'~ ~ ~y I, l ~ I I!~ in~ t~ ~ l l l i I I I I I I 1'~ ; ~~ _I LLL~ I 11;.! t 1' I t ('~ ~ ~I .~`' ~' ' r+--ti ' t e- ~ ' 5 ~ ' e I ~ > ~/ ~~ ~ i~~ ~..,) `~I ' I ~( n_~ ' III ' I I _ _- _ _ U'~l ~ i 1 / +r~: ^v it \....~~~:A.~1"TL~C% 1_./~ ~ ' it , ' l'_ .iL~ ~ ~ _ ~JP.~-.-~ Ti,-I ~i1 I -__. {',F,-,~e1n 1. ~~ ... ._ - - Greg Hall - 2/8/02 Mountain Haus The streetscape master plan did not contemplate any turnaround being constructed in this portion of East Meadow drive. There is a concern that if the turnaround is too close and easy to use, we may be encouraging traffic to use it as a drop off. We thought the turnaround should be east of the front door. The enhanced, dedicated three-point turn submitted was our attempt to accommodate turnarounds and at the same time not encourage drop-offs. In all the scenarios the distance from the covered bridge bus stop to the gate needs to accommodate 2,40 `west bound buses and provide room when the WB buses are parked to get the east bound bus through. The current gate location meets this requirement. The next criteria is that the roadway width remain 22'. In order for parking spaces to be legal they need to meet our required sizes. Secondly the- public works department felt if any thing was improved on this side of the building, then the turning movement had to be accommodated in order to consider the situation improving over the existing situation currently. Any scenario which did not improve the ability to adequately turnaround was rejected. There was a desire to eliminate any backing movement over the pedestrian walk on the opposite side. The town of Vail standard for cul-de-sacs is 45' radius. The minimum to handle a 30' panel truck. The minimum to handle a fire truck is 35'. The absolute minimum to handle a passenger vehicle (suburban or cargo van) is the minimum radius of 24' plus a 2' overhang of the vehicle and a 2' shy zone to avoid hitting objects (walls)This equals 28'. We do not build cul-de-sacs this small we try to get the 35' radius. Scheme # 1 Turnaround is too small Scheme # 2 Bus gate moves to close to covered bridge: Scheme # 3 Moves gate and provides no turnaround Scheme # 4 Moves gate, turnaround is too small If a radius of 28 from the pillars may work with the gate remaining in its same location Scheme # 5 No turnaround Scheme # 6 Moves gate Scheme # 7 Moves gate to a location which does not accommodate the eastbound bus movement. Improves the turnaround a little bit but the movement was not shown on submittal. The movements of the cars west of the entry are not accommodated. Concern with the expanded area becoming another illegal parking space. Scheme # 8 Has private functions beyond the bus gate. The partial turnaround does not go far enough. Scheme # 9 Road too narrow. Scheme # 10 Backing movements in pedestrian zone. Scenarios not shown were the full size turnaround. The moving of the front door or a front door operation to the northeast corner of the building and the turnaround between the Vail Mountain Lodge and the Mountain Haus, Potential for a entry through the parking structure and a bridge across and eliminate the need for cars out front. The potential for a double gate system where Vail Mountain Lodge and Mountain Haus guest access the first gate and a second gate where the buses exit. A turnaround is still needed and a queuing area. For the gate use. Some of these scenarios will take cooperation with the Vail Mountain Lodge or the Town of Vail. PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES Monday, February 11, 2002 PUBLIC WELCOME PROJECT ORIENTATION I - NO LUNCH Community Development Dept. MEMBERS PRESENT .MEMBERS ABSENT ,_.' ~ a k,. ,. ~~ 1:00 pm Site Visits : 1:30 pm 1. Mountain Haus - 292 E. Meadow Drive Driver: Allison ~~ NOTE: If the PEC hearing extends until 6:00 p.m., the board may break for dinner from 6:00 - 6:30 Public Hearing -Town Council Chambers 2:00 pm A request for an exterior alteration or modification, in accordance with Section 12-7A-12 (Exterior Alterations or Modifications), Vail Town Code, to allow for the construction of a new front entry feature at the Mountain Haus, located at 292 E. Meadow Drive/Lot 5, Part of Tract B, Vail Village 1St Filing. Applicant: Mountain Haus, represented by Fritzlen Pierce Architects Planner: Bill Gibson/Allison Ochs George Ruther presented an overview of the staff memorandum. He highlighted the changes from the previous discussions on this item. He stated that that purpose of today's meeting is to focus on the circulation issues that were brought up previously. He further clarified the Nonconforming Chapter of the Zoning Regulations. He then spoke about the parking and loading requirements. He advised about the status of the application, stating that it does not require a variance, nor is it considered a major exterior alteration. He continued to present more information on the 5 criteria and findings for the Planning and Environmental Commission when reviewing deviations to the 20 ft: setback requirements. He gave an example of someone using the short term parking spaces. John Schofield requested additional clarification from George Ruther regarding setback and site coverage. Steve Hawkins thanked staff and discussed the proposal further. There was no public comment. TOWN OF PAIL ~i4 Doug Cahill stated that the parking must not be long-term parking, but must be~short-term parking only. He asked for clarification regarding the Town's agreement for these: improvements being located on Town property. ~'n ', George Ruther clarified the types of agreements that the Town typically enters into when. ~~ improvements are done on Town property. m Doug Cahill asked if the Town Council had already approved -this application. George Ruther clarified that the FEC is the reviewing board in this situation and the Town Council has only approved this application to proceed through the planning process. Greg Hall stated that the Town Council has seen the design that the applicant is proposing today, but has not seen some of the alternatives that are presented today in addition to the proposal George Ruther stated that the memorandum did clarify some of the Town Council's comments when they saw the application. John Schofield asked if the alternative schemes are for informational purposes only. He then stated that he believes that the applicants are not thinking outside the box and that the applicant needs to consider proposals that are within the footprint of the existing building. He does not believe that the application meets the criteria for deviations to setbacks. He stated for the record that the proposal with the columns on the site of the building will only exacerbate an already poor situation and does not believe that the proposal will improve the situation. Diane Golden stated that she believes that the applicant has gone to extraordinary efforts to improve the situation. She stated that she believes the proposal will benefit the Town and the applicant and is supportive of the situation. She stated that this is a portal to Vail and that the proposal will improve the current situation. Brian Doyon stated that this is a portal into Vail. He recommended that the applicant get a circulation expert to look at the traffic circulation. He will vote to deny the application. He stated that no proposal should impact the Town's circulation negatively. He stated that some of the schemes are better than the current proposal. Chas Bernhardt stated that this is a very difficult situation. He stated that he does not have any problem with the canopy encroachment, but instead with the circulation. He stated that the removal of one of the parking space is an improvement. He stated that according to the comments from Greg Hall, the circulation may be somewhat improved, He stated that he also saw an improved entry as a Town benefit. Steve Hawkins thanked everyone for their comments. He stated that if a better plan does come in the future, they are open to anything that would improve the area. George Ruther stated that there are conditions and findings within the staff memorandum. John Schofield moved to deny the application with the findings that the proposal does not meet the criteria on page 6 and 7. The motion was seconded by Brian Doyon. The vote was 2-3, with the motion failing. 2 Diane Golden moved to approve the request subject to the findings and criteria on pages 6 and 7. Doug Cahill stated that he would like to amend the motion to include a condition that no backing up be allowed in the right-of-way. No one responded. Diane Golden asked for clarification of the condition Doug Cahill stated that he believed that this proposal is not enough of an improvement of the circulation. George Ruther clarified that that would be more like Scheme 4 The motion failed due to lack of a second and according to Robert's Rules of Order, a lack of a motion is considered a denial therefore, the application is denied. 2. A request for a final review of a text amendment to Title 12, Chapter 3, Administration and Enforcement, of the Vail Town Code, to establish criteria for consideration for text amendments to the Vail Town Code, Title 12, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: George Ruther TABLED UNTIL FEBRUARY 25, 2002 3. A request for a Major Amendment to Special Development District#35, Austria Haus, to amend an existing condition of approval prohibiting the operation of restaurants within the special development district, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Johannes. Faessler Planner: George Ruther TABLED UNTIL FEBRUARY 25, 2002 4. A request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow for an Early Learning Center and a request for development plan review to construct Employee Housing within the Housing Zone District and setting forth details in regards thereto, located at the site known as "Mountain Bell"/an unplatted piece of property, located at 160 N. Frontage Rd./to be platted as Lot 1, Middle Creek subdivision. Applicant: Vail Local Housing Authority, represented by Odell Architects Planner: Allison Ochs TABLED UNTIL FEBRUARY 25, 2002 5. A request for an exterior alteration or modification, in accordance with Section 12-7B-7 (Exterior Alterations or Modifications), Vail Town Code, to allow for an addition located at Units 301 and 303, 225 Wall Street /Lot B, Block 5C, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: Eugene Fahey Planner: Allison Ochs WITHDRAWN 3 6. Approval of January 28, 2002 minutes 7. Information Update 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 Impaired, for information. Community Development Department 4 Approved 2/11/02 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES Monday, January 28, 2002 PROJECT ORIENTATION I -Community Development Dept. PUBLIC WELCOME 12:00 pm MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Galen Aasland Chas Bernhardt Diane Golden Brian Doyon John Schofield Doug Cahill Erickson Shirley Site. Visits : 1:00 pm 1. Mountain Haus - 292 E. Meadow Drive Driver: Bill ~~ NOTE: If the PEC hearing extends until 6:00 p.m., the board may break for dinner from 6:00 - 6:30 Public Hearing -Town Council Chambers 2:00 pm A request for an exterior alteration or modification, in accordance with Section 12-7A-12 (Exterior Alterations or Modifications), Vail Town Code, to allow for the construction of a new front entry feature at the Mountain Haus, located at 292 E. Meadow Drive/Lot 5, Part of Tract B, Vail Village 1St Filing. Applicant: Mountain Haus, represented by Fritzlen Pierce Architects Planner: Bill Gibson Bill Gibson presented an overview of the staff memorandum. Erickson Shirley asked if the PEC had to use the findings, as presented in the staff memorandum. Tom Dubois stated that he believed that the design has met the PEC's and staff's concerns, as stated at previous meetings. Brian Doyon requested that the applicant present the drawings of the proposed canopy addition. Tom Dubois stated that the intent of the design is to provide a covered entry and parking for the residents of the Mountain Haus. John Schofield stated that they watched a suburban use the turnaround today while on a site visit. Galen Aasland stated that he watched 4 cars. in the turnaround area this weekend: He then asked about how the parking would be managed. Steve Hawkins stated that the parking space would only be used for loading and unloading of guests. He further elaborated on the other parking spaces and their use. ~, TOWN OF PAIL ~~ Approved 2/11/02 Brian Doyon stated that the signs that are up right now state that they are for Mountain Haus only. Greg Hall clarified that those parking spaces are for public loading and that at one point the Police Department had asked for those signs to be removed, but they were apparently put back up at some point. Erickson Shirley stated that he is curious about the improvement to the traffic flow. Stephanie Lord stated that they believed that the improvements would be done primarily through signage. Erickson Shirley asked if anything has improved traffic flow: Stephanie Lord stated that the canopy has no effect on traffic flow. Brian Doyon asked for clarification on what the applicant is proposing. Doug Cahill asked for clarification on turning radii from Greg Hall. Greg Hall clarified. Erickson Shirley stated that people run, walk, bike, and rollerblade down the south-side of the road, including him. Stephanie Lord stated that she did not believe the canopy had an effect on that. She stated that they are attempting to improve the situation. Erickson Shirley stated the 4th parking spot is illegal. Stephanie Lord stated that unfortunately, that is the way it functions. Galen Aasland attempted to steer the meeting into a more positive light. He then asked for Commissioner comment. Erickson Shirley asked if they are voting. Galen Aasland stated that the are first asking for Commissioner comments. Erickson Shirley stated that he believed they should comply with parking and loading requirements. Brian Doyon stated that it was good that they are improving the building,. but did not believe that those improvements should be to the detriment of the public. He does not believe that this improves the situation. He also stated that he did not feel that the applicant had made the changes as requested by the PEC. He further stated that there are great opportunities for improvement, but he felt that this was a permanent improvement and it needs to be the best it can be. Steve Hawkins stated that they believed that this would improve the situation for everyone and that they have examined multiple proposals, but this is the one that improves the situation best for the Mountain Haus and for the Town. Brian Doyon stated that he believed they needed to think outside of the box. Chas Bernhardt stated that he likes the proposed canopy. He stated that he would like to see the traffic flow work better. He recognized that there is a problem and while he sees this as an improvement, he doesn't feel that this improves the traffic situation at all. He stated that he doesn't 2 Approved 2/11/02 believe that this is the best it can be. He asked about possibly working with the Vail Mountain Lodge. He doesn't object to the canopy, but doesn't feel that the traffic flow is improved. Doug Cahill stated that he believed that this is a positive move, but his concerns are in regards to the backing situation. His solution is to focus more on parallel parking and making a forward movement and a 180 degree turn instead of backing. He would like them to move forward on this proposal John Schofield stated that they all agreed that the canopy looks great but that there is still a lousy situation with regards to the traffic. He stated that the original developer created the constraints on this property, which coaxed out the development on the property. He stated that he did not believe that the proposal menthe required findings for the granting of a deviation to the setback requirements, He stated that they should explore other alternatives. He does not believe that this design is the best that it can be and that the owners need to open up their pocketbooks and shell out some money to make the improvements that would be more successful. Diane Golden stated that they are between a rock and a hard place. Galen Aasland stated that while the canopy improves the building, the proposal does not improve the situation and that there are better alternatives. Steve Hawkins stated that there are many alternatives which were explored, butthat the Town did not approve them. Greg Hall stated that to design a full cul-de-sac would cut significantly into the hillside next to the parking structure. He stated that the Streetscape Master Plan does not indicate aturn-around in this area, but that a van turnaround may be possible. He stated his apprehension of building a full turn-around, fearing that it may encourage more traffic and skier drop-offs in this area. Stephanie Lord stated that they have looked out of the box, but that the Town staff was often not impressed with the designs. She stated that the feedback from the Town has lead them to this point in the design. Doug Cahill stated they would like to see an improvement of the property. Erickson Shirley stated that he believed that the application ignored the parking and loading section of the code. He stated that it was not the PEC's role to design the proposal and that they needed to do more to improve the situation. Steve Hawkins stated that they are doing the best they can do to improve the situation. Chas Bernhardt stated that they are stuck between a rock and a hard place. He understood the difficulty, but that he felt that this would be detrimental to the public. Steve Hawkins asked if they put aturn-around in, would they get an approval. Galen Aasland asked the Commission for a straw pole. George Ruther stated that we should see a proposal before the Commission answered the question. Stephanie Lord asked what the staff saw as their options. George Ruther stated the options. 3 Approved 2/11/02 Steve Hawkins stated that he was confused about why he could not get support from the PEC, when Town staff recommended approval. Stephanie Lord asked to be tabled. Brian Doyon recommended that though the architects are great, an expert in parking, earth moving and planning would be beneficial to take a look at the plan. Galen Aasland stated that they should focus on the pedestrian scheme and traffic circulation. Brian Doyon stated that some of them are professionals up here, and having a consultant support the proposal will not go over well Chas Bernhardt made a motion to table this to the next meeting. Brian Doyon seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 6-1, with John Schoffield opposed. 2. A request for. a final review of a text amendment to Title 12, Chapter 3, Administration and Enforcement, of the Vail Town Code, to establish criteria for consideration for zone district amendments to the Official Town of Vail Zoning Map and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner. George Ruther George Ruther presented an overview of the staff memorandum. He stated that the purpose of this application is to codify findings and criteria for rezonings. Dominic Mauriello, representing multiple clients and a local consulting firm, stated that he believes that it is a great idea to codify the findings and criteria. He believed that it helps both the Town and the applicant to protect against lawsuits. He stated that staff is wonderful, terrific, and all-around good people. He stated that their comments are coming from the standpoint of any client. He said, think globally, but act locally. He provided three general criteria for rezoning requests: 1. Is there are change in conditions that warrant a change in zoning? 2. Is the proposed change compatible with surrounding uses? 3. Is the proposal consistent with the Land Use Plan? Specifically, he stated that he had concerns with Criterion A and Finding A. He stated that the criterion should be broader. He believed that documents of the Vail Comprehensive Plan should be listed individually. He also expressed a concern about Criterion E. The point being that a property may be rezoned years prior to the completion of a detailed development plan and may change the effect of a project on the listed factors. He also expressed a concern that Finding C may be difficult to apply to specific small-scale projects. He agrees with the intent of the Finding, but feels that the language should be made broader and take into consideration the other goals of the community. Erickson Shirley recommended that the Town Attorney establish the minimum standards required to protect the Town from litigation. Erickson Shirley asked where the proposed language came from? George Ruther responded that the proposed language was derived from other sections of the Vail Town Code and the Ordinances of other communities. George Ruther mentioned that staff agrees with Braun and Associates recommendation to include a criterion that addresses changes to the site, neighborhood, community, etc. Staff feels that the other comments have been addressed by 4 Approved 2/11!02 the proposed language, however, minor changes could be considered. Galen Aasland closed the public comment portion of the hearing. Erickson Shirley wants to know what the Town Attorney wants to see for language that will be required to avoid lawsuits. Brian Doyon recommended keeping the proposed environmental language. Chas Bernhardt had no additional comment. Doug Cahill recommended that the Town Attorney review the proposed language. John Schofield also recommended that the Town Attorney review the proposed language. He also recommended that the language of "applicable" plans be used in the proposed language. Diane Golden had no further comment. Galen Aasland recommended that the environmental goals of the community be incorporated into the criteria and findings. He also recommended that the proposed Criteria C remain a part of the proposed language. Brian Doyon made a motion to table this. until February 25, 2002. The motion was seconded by John .Schofield. The motion passed by a vote of 7-0. 3. A request for an exterior alteration or modification, in accordance with Section 12-7B-7 (Exterior Alterations or Modifications), Vail Town Code, to allow for an addition located at Units 301 and 303, 225 Wall Street /Lot B, Block 5C, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: Eugene Fahey Planner: Allison Ochs TABLED UNTIL FEBRUARY 11, 2002. Chas Bernhardt made a motion to table this until February 11, 2002. Brian Doyon seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 7-0. 4. A request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow for an Early Learning Center and a request for development plan review to construct Employee Housing within the Housing Zone District and setting forth details in regards thereto, located at the site known as "Mountain Bell"/an unplatted piece of property, located at 160 N. Frontage Rd./to be platted as Lot 1, Middle Creek Subdivision. Applicant: Vail Local Housing Authority, represented by Odell Architects Planner: Allison Ochs TABLED UNTIL FEBRUARY 11, 2002 Chas Bernhardt made a motion to table this unl:il February 11, 2002. Approved 2/11/02 Brian Doyon seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 7-0. 5. A request for a variance from Section 12-6D-6, Vail Town Code, to allow for a proposed new residence to encroach into the east side setback, located at 1794 S. Frontage Road/Lot 2, Vail Village West Filing No. 2. Applicant: Philip & Jocelyn Hagerman Planner. George Ruther WITHDRAWN 6. Sign Code Presentation -Discussion of Signs and Community Character Planner: George Ruther 7. Approval of January 14, 2002 minutes Diane Golden made a motion to approve the minutes as read. Erickson Shirley seconded the motion. The motion was passed by a vote of 5-0-2, with Brian Doyon and John Schofield abstaining. 8. Information Update -Reappointments 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 Impaired, for information. Community Development Department 6 Approved 1 /14/02 ~~ ~:` y ~,~ ., ~ z. t ~' ~ ° , '~ ~ PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES Monday, December 10, 2001 Grristmas Lund PROJECT ORIENTATION / -Community Development Dept. MEMBERS PRESENT Diane Golden Galen Aasland Chas Bernhardt Brian Doyon Erickson Shirley MEMBERS ABSENT John Schoffield Doug Cahill Site Visits Mtn. Haus - 292 E. Meadow Drive Driver: Bill 1:30 pm ~o NOTE: If the PEC hearing extends until 6:00 p.m., the board may break for dinner from 6:00 - 6:30 Public Hearing -Town Council Chambers 2:00 pm Swearing in of new PEC member, Erickson Shirley -Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk. 2. A request for a variance from Sections 12-7A-9 (Site Coverage) and 12-7A-6 (Setbacks), Vail Town Code, to allow for the construction of a new front entry feature at the Mountain Haus, .located at 292 E. Meadow Drive/Lot 5, Part of Tract B, Vail Village 1St Filing. Applicant: Mountain Haus, represented by Fritzlen Pierce Architects Planner: Bill Gibson Bill Gibson presented an overview of the staff memorandum, including the staff recommendation to table this tem to the January 14, 2002, PEC meeting. The applicant is requesting a worksession today to further discuss the concerns from the previous hearing. ~, TOWN OF PAIL ~4 PUBLIC WELCOME 12:00 pm 1 Approved 1/14/02 Stephanie Lord and Tom Dubois, Fritzlen Pierce Architects, presented an overview of the proposal. Diane Golden stated that she supports the project. Chas Bernhart stated that he is generally in support of the proposal. Brian Doyon stated that he was generally in favor of the project, but had concerns about overcoming special privilege. He also stated that he felt parallel parking should be considered as an option and that the two existing parking spaces should not be replaced with three spaces. Erickson Shirley expressed a concern regarding cars and pedestrians. Galen Aasland echoed Brian Doyon's concerns. He stated that there are multiple concerns with the current proposal. He stated that there is not adequate room on the Town property to meet the needs of the public. He stated that the improvements should also be at least partially located on private property: He also stated concerns about overcoming special privilege. Steve Hawkin stated that there was not adequate space within the building to accommodate the proposed improvements. Stephanie Lord stated that she believed that the proposed improvements would be a benefit to the Town. Russ Forrest stated that he believed that the safety concerns were getting better and that they are heating the walkway, which could be considered a public benefit. Brian Doyon stated that he did not believe that the fact that the Mountain Haus is paying for heat. qualifies it as overcoming special privilege. Bill Gibson stated that the variance which was granted on the west side of the building, was granted based on the fact that the building was constructed prior to zoning. Brian Doyon stated that he did not believe that the proposal improved the public health, safety, and welfare of the community. Erickson Shirley asked about the staffing levels with the proposal. Steve Hawkins clarified the staffing levels and concerns of the Mountain Haus. Stephanie Lord asked for more direction. Diane Golden stated that she is comfortable with the proposal. Chas Gerhardt stated that he does not see special privilege as a concern. He stated that he believed that this is making a bad situation better. Brian Doyon stated that it would be a benefit to creating an entry feature, but that he had too many concerns regarding the safety of the area, with specific regards to bus traffic. He stated that he did not believe that this was the best solution for the problems here. Erickson Shirley stated that he believes the problem is a circulation issue. Galen Aasland stated that he believed that the third parking space was creating some of the problems. He stated that when they return to the PEC, they need to prove that they are improving the circulation pattern in this area. 2 Approved 1/14/02 Chas Bernhardt made a motion to table this until January 14, 2002. Diane Golden seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 5-0. 3. A request for a worksession to review preliminary alternatives for the development plan of Middle Creek Village, located at the site known as "Mountain Bell"/an unplatted piece of property, located at 160 N. Frontage Rd./to be platted as Lot 1, Middle Creek Subdivision. Applicant:. Vail Local Housing Authority, represented by Odell Architects Planner: Allison Ochs Allison Ochs presented an overview of the staff memorandum. Mayor Ludwig Kurtz indicated that the construction of a parking structure at this location is not financially feasible. Mike Coglin indicated that the ABC and Learning Tree are requesting the minimum necessary to operate their businesses. Otis Odell, Odell Architects, presented an overview the proposed revisions to their plans. One of the revisions included eliminating a building and related parking in the southwest portion of the property. He said that covered parking on the south side of the western buildings has been relocated to the north side of the buildings and that small one-story covered parking garages have been added to the site and that visual corridors through the site are also being proposed. He said pedestrian paths will provide ABC and Learning Tree access to open areas adjacent to the site and that pedestrian connections from the entire site to the existing Vail infrastructure will be provided. Jim Lamont, Vail Village Home Owners, asked if elevation drawings are available. Otis Odell indicated that elevations have not been finalized, but displayed the section drawings. Jim Lamont distributed a letter expressing design considerations requested by the Vail Village Homeowner's Association. He also indicated an interest in integrated parking infrastructure issues related to this project. He expressed concerns about this project meeting minimum stream-setbacks and minimum open space requirements. He expressed an interest in looking at new building technologies to reduce costs for the project and he indicated that other housing projects in town need to be considered with the design of this project. Diane Golden applauded the efforts of the applicant in addressing the PEC's concerns. She asked about the location of the proposed tandem parking spaces. Bridget, with Odell Architects identified the location of the spaces on the plans. Diane recommended relocated the housing parking away from the daycare facilities. Chas Bernhardt indicated that this plan is an improvement over previous plans. He expressed concerns about not constructing a parking structure at this time. He will vote against the project with a concern that the site is not being maximized to the greatest public benefit. Brian Doyon thanked the applicants for the improvements they have made to their plans. He agreed with Chas's comments about maximizing the site, however, he also expressed a strong concern about over maximizing a site and spending an extraordinary amount of a project budget just for grading. He expressed concern about the feasibility of landscaping on a 2:1 slopes. He also expressed concerns that creating separate circulation should be considered, as well as continuing the use of the existing access drive should be considered. He applauded .the revisions make to the provisions of parking. He expressed concern about the impacts of the hazard mitigation. He also recommended that the housing parking located at the learning center should be relocated. He also recommended that parking spaces be revised to meet the standard/compact parking space Approved 1/14102 requirements. He also recommended eliminating the landscape islands in the northern parking lot to expand the potential area for parking and expressed a concern that the landscaping may not survive in the proposed islands. Erickson Shirley indicated he supports the concept of the project, but if not familiar enough with many of the project details to make further comment. Galen Aasland generally supports the project. He would like to see a parking structure constructed on the site, but he will not vote against the project on this issue. He also recommended relocating some of the garages and potentially constructing individual housing units about the garages. He also recommended making the proposal recognize the Qwest building and Middle Creek drainage. He also expressed concerns about how residents of this site will travel to Lionshead. Allison Ochs indicated that the Open Space Master Plans considered the entire 26-acre site, so at least half of the area will remain open space. Jim Lamont recommended that public access to the site and any amenities on the site should be open to the public. He also questioned the use of tandem parking on the site. Allison Ochs indicated that tandom parking is permitted for spaces dedicated to individual units. Mike Coglen indicated that the tandem spaces correlate to the number of three and four bedroom parking spaces. Many compact parking spaces will be revised to be standard sized spaces. The hazard mitigation above the Qwest building will be a wall bermed on the downhill slope. He also indicated that CDOT is very reluctant to allowing multiple curb cuts to the site. 3. A request for a variance from Sections 12-6C-6 (Setbacks) & 12-6C-9 (Site Coverage), Vail Town Code, to allow for the construction of a Type I Employee Housing Unit, located at 4166 Columbine Drive/Lot 18, Bighorn Subdivision. Applicant: Timothy Parks Planner: George Ruther TABLED UNTIL JANUARY 14, 2001 Brian Doyon made a motion to table this until January 14, 2001. The motion was second Diane Golden. The motion was approved by a vote of 5-0. 4. A request for a minor subdivison of the proposed "Fallridge Parcel," a Part of Lot 1, Sunburst Filing No. 3 / a portion of land adjacent to the Vail Golf Course Townhomes in the 1600 block of Golf Terrace. A complete metes and bounds legal description is as follows: That portion of Lot 1, Sunburst Filing No. 3, according to the map thereof recorded in the office of the Eagle County, Colorado, Clerk and Recorder, described as follows: Beginning at the northwest corner of Lot 2, Warren Pulis Subdivision, according to the map thereof; thence S00°00'00" E 109.62 feet along the west line of said Lot 2 to the northeast corner of Lot 1, Vail Valley Second Filing, according to the map thereof; thence N89°23'41" W 101.18 feet along the northerly line of said Lot 1 to the easterly line of Lot 11, Block 3, Vail Valley First Filing, according to the map thereof; thence N00°36'17" E 114.75 feet along said easterly line; thence N64°23'43" W 35.16 feet along the northerly line of said Lot 11 to the easterly right-of-way line, of Vail Valley Drive; thence, along said easterly right-of-way line, 4 Approved 1/14/02 7.97 feet along the arc of curve to the left, having a radius of 75.00 feet, a central angle of 06°05'17", and a chord that bears N08°33'46"E 7.97 feet; thence, departing said easterly right-of-way line, the following four courses along the southerly line of Condominium Map for Vail Golfcourse Townhomes Association Phase III, according to the map thereof; (1) 58.14 feet along the arc of a curve to the right, having a radius of 253.31 feet, a central angle of 13°09'05", and a chord that bears S85°43'11" E 58.02 feet; (2) S79°08'38" E 63.09 feet; (3) 10.83 feet along the arc of a curve to the left, having a radius of 310.00 feet, a central angle of 02°00'07", and a chord that bears S80°09'15"E 10.82 feet; (4) S00°00'00" E 11.20 feet to the point of beginning, containing 0.310 acres, more or less. Maps referenced in the above description are recorded in the office of the Eagle County, Colorado, Clerk and Recorder. Applicant: Fall Ridge Condominium Association Planner: Bill Gibson TABLED UNTIL JANUARY 14, 2002 Brian Doyon made a motion to table this until January 14, 2001. The motion was second Diane Golden. The motion was approved by a vote of 5-0. 5. A request for a variance from Section 12-7H-10 (Setbacks), Vail Town Code,. at the Lion's Square Lodge, located at 660 West Lionshead Place/Lot 1, Vail Lionshead 1St Filing. Applicant: Lion's Square Lodge Planner: Bill Gibson TABLED UNTIL JANUARY 14, 2002 Brian Doyon made a motion to table this until January 14, 2001. The motion was second Diane Golden. The motion was approved by a vote of 5-0. 6. A request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow for a Bed and Breakfast operation to be located at 1710 Buffehr Creek Road/Lot 2, Lia Zneimer Subdivision. Applicant: Paul & Nancy F~ondeau Planner: Allison Ochs WITHDRAWN 7. Approval of November 12, 2001 minutes Diane Golden made a motion to approve the minutes. Chas Bernhardt seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 4-0 (Erickson Shirley abstained) 8. Information Update Erikson Shirley made a motion to adjourn. Approved 1/14/02 Diane Golden seconded the motion. It passed by a vote of 5-0. 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 Impaired, for information. Community Development Department 6 Approved 12/10/01 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION PUBLIC MEETING SCHEDULE Monday, November 12, 2001 PROJECT ORIENTATION / -Community Development Dept. PUBLIC WELCOME MEMBERS PRESENT Galen Aasland Chas Bernhardt Diane Golden John Schofield Brian Doyon Doug Cahill Dick Cleveland Site Visits 1. Hagerman residence - 1784 & 1794 S. Frontage Rd. West 2. Cohen residence - 1467 Greenhill Court 3. Lions Square Lodge - 660 West Lionshead Place 4. Mountain Haus - 292 E. Meadow Drive 5. Parks residence - 4166 Columbine Drive Driver: Brent 12:00 pm 12:45 pm -~ NOTE: If the PEC hearing extends until 6:00 p.m., the board may break for dinner from 6:00 - 6:30 Public Hearing -Town Council Chambers 2:00 pm A request for a major amendment to Special Development District No. 6, to allow for the conversion of accommodation units into employee housing units and a request for a conditional use permit, to allow for Type III employee housing units, located at the Vail Village Inn, 100 East Meadow Drive/Lots M,N and O, Block 5D, Vail Village 15t Filing. Applicant: Daymer Corporation Planner: Allison Ochs Allison Ochs presented an overview of the staff memorandum. Connie Dorsey indicated that the existing building does not have a sprinkler system, only smoke detectors. He also indicated that the units will have microwaves for cooking and that 62 rooms are available for rent. He said that there will be 56 units (beds), since some rooms will consist of joint rooms for a single tenant. He also indicated that there are 50 exterior and 42 interior parking spaces available. Allison Ochs indicated that'sufficient parking is available. ,~ TOWN OF VAIL ~ MEMBERS ABSENT Approved 12/10/01 Connie Dorsey clarified that the parking spaces specifically reserved for Graig's Market are not counted as part of the available spaces. Doug Cahill questioned if any of the rooms will be used for common areas or facilities. Connie Dorsey indicated that no common areas are being proposed. Galen Aasland expressed concern about the electrical system and fire safety of the building. Joe Stauffer replied that the entire building was rewired as part of an addition in 1978. He indicated that he is a property owner in each phase of the project and that the owners agreed a filled building is better than a vacant building. Dick Cleveland agreed that people should be in the units, rather than having the building be empty. He said he would like to see a 56-unit maximum placed on the proposal. Bryan Doyon agreed to a maximum of 56 units, but wants to be sure that the Type III EHU standards are being met and if the square footage for units does not meet the minimum sizes, a dormitory design should be used. Chas Bernhardt had no additional comments. Doug Cahill recommended cone-year limit with follow-up Fire Department inspection. Diane Golden asked what assurances are being taken to ensure that parts of rooms are not going to be sublet. She also indicated a concern about parking in front of Craig's Market. Connie Dorsey indicated that this will be controlled by the lease agreement and that approximately 30% of the tenants don't have cars. Galen Aasland indicated that his greatest concern is for life safety. John Schofield motioned to approve the amendment to the SDD, in accordance with the staff memo. The motion was seconded by Chas Bernhardt. The motion passed by a vote of 7-0. John Schofield motioned to approve the conditional use permit, in accordance with the staff memo. 2. A request for a variance from Section 12-7H-10 (Setbacks), Vail Town Code, at the Lion's Square Lodge, located at 660 West Lionshead Place/Lot 1, Vail Lionshead 1St Filing. Applicant: Lion's Square Lodge Planner: Bill Gibson TABLED UNTIL NOVEMBER 26, 2001 3. A request for a variance from Sections 12-7A-9 (Site Coverage) and 12-7A-6 (Setbacks), Vail Town Code, to allow for the construction of a new front entry feature at the Mountain Haus, located at 292 E. Meadow Drive/Lot 5, Part of Tract B, Vail Village 1St Filing. Applicant: Mountain Haus, represented by Fritzlen Pierce Architects Planner: Bill Gibson 2 Approved 12/10/01 Bill Gibson gave a staff presentation and stated that the purpose of the project is to create an entrance statement on the front of the building and conditions included that an easement, or a revocable right away be created. Tom Debois, an architect from Fritlzen Pierce Architects, represented the applicant and there was no .presentation by the applicant. Doug Cahill asked about the relationship of posts to support the awning in relationship to the right-of-way and whether there would be heated pavers. Tom Debois said there would be heated pavers. The PEC then discussed, with the applicant, how guests currently park to check in and how loading and delivery works on the site. Doug Cahill stated that the overhang will further reduce parking and loading and delivery on the site. Stephanie Lord Johnson, also of Fritzlen Pierce, stated the applicant wanted to do an entrance in conjunction with other public road improvements to improve vehicular and pedestrian access. John Schofield stated he was opposed to the use of public land to resolve the Mt. Bell problem and felt that the proposal would reduce safety on the site. John thought this would be a grant of special privilege. Diane Golden said that the entrance on the west side looks great, but was afraid that the proposal would create an unsafe condition. Dick Cleveland stated that the proposal would be detrimental to the safety of the site and believes that this should not move forward until the Town and the Vail Mountain Lodge move forward. Brian Doyon agreed with Dick Cleveland, but was concerned with how the Mountain House is piecing the project together. He also agreed that this needs to be part of a comprehensive plan for the site. Chas Bernhardt asked what Greg Hall comments were on the site. Bill Gibson reviewed Greg Hall comments. Chas Bernhardt is opposed until Greg is completely satisfied with the proposal and recommended tabling the project until all safety issues can be resolved with Public Works. Galen Aasland agreed with Brian's comments that the project is piece-mealed. He said he liked the idea of a' cantilevered cover, but he was concerned that there would be increased safety issues on the site. Stephanie Lord Johnson stated that she believed she was headed towards a denial. She asked if the PEC would consider tabling the application until some of these issues have been resolved with Greg Hall. She stated that there is no overall master plan for the site, that the Mountain Haus has approached improvements in a different way. She stated that Public Works has stated that the public improvements they originally proposed were not acceptable by Public Works. She believed that they are in a Catch-22. Approved 12/10/01 John Schofield stated that they are in a Catch-22 and that because the building is located so close to the property, this is a difficult site. Brian Doyon stated that this problem has arisen because this project is so maxed out on the site and stated that his primary concern is the safety. Galen Aasland stated that if they would like to table the item, they would reconsider the project. Dick Cleveland stated that this is a tough circumstance and there may not be an easy solution. He then -made a motion to table this to the first meeting in December. Chas Bernhardt seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 6-1, with John Schofield opposed. 4. A request for a variance from Section 12-6D-5 (Lot Area and Site Dimensions), Vail Town Code, a minor subdivision of Lots 2 & 3, Vail Village West, Filing No. 2, to relocate a common property line and a rezoning of Lot 3, Vail Village West, Filing No.2, from Two- Family Primary/Secondary Zone District to Single-Family Zone District and setting forth details in regard thereto, located at 1784 & 1794 South Frontage Road West/Lots 2 & 3 Vail Village West, Filing No. 2. Applicant: Philip Hagerman/Allison Ochs Planner: George Ruther Allison Ochs gave a presentation of the requests and reviewed the criteria for the requests. The applicant, Phil Hagerman, thanked staff for their help. He commented that the site. has challenges with the floodplain. There was no public comments. Dick Cleveland had concerns about changing the size of the lot in relationship to the bike path. Mr. Hagerman believes that he can safely create a 30-foot buffer from the bike path. He believes that the site distance is fine and will allow safe egress onto the Frontage Rd and across the bike road and also that the driveway vvould also be flat to improve safety. Dick Cleveland asked if the reason for the proposal is to create a bigger home. Mr. Haggerman said he would like to create a house that is consistent with Vail. Dick Cleveland said he was concerned about adding additional floor area, but overall said he feels that this application would increase the conformance of the lot and would also reduce the density of the site. Brian Doyon asked Allison about the development potential today, versus the proposal. Chas Bernhardt generally supported the proposal. Doug Cahill also supported the proposal, but had questions regarding the bike path. Mr. Hagerman said that they will work with Public Works on the bike path crossing. 4 Approved 12/10/01 John Schofield said that the PEC has approved similar variances in the neighborhood and was generally comfortable with the application. Diane Golden wanted to clarify that the applicant would not be able to back out onto the bike path. Mr. Hagerman assured the PEC that they would be able to turn around and do head out parking. Galen Aasland asked again about the grade of the bike path, in relationship to the driveway. John Schofield made a motion to forward a recommendation to the Town Council to change the zoning.. Diane Golden seconded the motion. The motion was approved by a vote of 7- 0. John Schofield moved that the PEC grant approval for a minor subdivision, in accordance with the condition in the staff memo. Dick Cleveland seconded. The motion passed by a vote of 7-0. John Schofield moved that the PEC grant approval for the variance as requested. Diane Golden seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 7-0. 5. A request for a variance from Title 14, Development Standards, to allow for the replacement of an existing retaining wall with a new wall that exceeds six feet in height, located at 1467 Greenhill Court/Lot 10, Glen Lyon Subdivision. Applicant: Ellenore Joint Venture/Richard & Diane Cohen Planner: George Ruther/Allison Ochs Allison Ochs gave the staff presentation Art Abplanalp complimented staff and described why they needed to create the wall as proposed. Paul Macklin, from Yenter, emphasized that the current wall will fail in the very near future and he also explained how the wall would be constructed. There was no pubic comment Doug Cahill asked what alternatives were examined. Paul Macklin said that they looked at regrading and other wall materials and further explained the details of the proposed design. John Schofield recommended that the applicant and the DRB examine the use of a stone veneer on the proposed wall. Approved 12/10/01 Dick Cleveland said he supports the request, however, he expressed a concern that the wall be mitigated from the view of the neighbors. Brian Doyon supports the request, however, he expressed concerns for the disturbance from the access road and the elimination of trees. He would like to see all trees and shrubs replaced on an inch-per-inch caliper basis. He would also like to see the disturbance to vegetation and grading as part of the survey. Chas Bernhardt is satisfied with the application as proposed. John Schofield moved to approve the proposed variance request, in accordance with the staff memorandum and amended to change the required DRB resubmittal date to January 14, 2002. Doug Cahill seconded the motion. The motion for approval was passed by a vote of 6-1, with Brian Doyon opposed. 6. A request for a worksession to review preliminary alternatives for the development plan of Middle Creek Village, located at the site known as "Mountain Bell"/an unplatted piece of property, located at 160 N. Frontage Rd./to be platted as Lot 1, Middle Creek Subdivision. Applicant: Vail Local Housing Authority, represented by Odell Architects Planner: Allison Ochs Allison Ochs presented an overview of the staff memorandum. Galen Aasland asked staff to provide the PEC with GRFA calculations for other housing projects. Russ Forest indicated that to achieve a covered parking rate of 75%, it would require 93 additional parking spaces, costing approximately $2 million. Mike Coughlin indicated that they have met several times with staff to discuss revisions to the proposed design, prior to this re-issuance. Otis O'Dell presented an overview of their site analysis and the most recent proposed design for Middle Creek. Clark Atkinson spoke regarding the cut and fill required on the site, including the significant reduction with the current site plan. Otis Odell presented the other major points of the current plan, including snow storage, landscape area, etc. Clark Atkinson, with Shaw Construction, stated that they have built over 5,000 units of housing. He presented an overview of housing projects. He stated that Middle Creek is considered gland-constrained housing. He stated that Lake Creek provided covered parking due to the lot area availability and that the enclosed parking at Lake Creek is covered within freestanding garages. He also stated that a housing project in Aspen is subsidizing the enclosed parking on the site with $25,000 per unit. He also discussed the cost of surface parking ($1800-2200 per space) versus structured parking and that tuck- under parking is approximately $12,500, takes away a unit, increases the cost of the building and increases the cost of housing. He stated that they are trying to strike a balance regarding affordable housing and good planning. He continued to talk about the difficulty of 6 Approved 12/10/01 making the project anorth-south orientation. Brian Doyon asked about cut-fill Clark Atkinson stated that they are estimating a cut of 27,000 sq. ft. Galen Aasland requested that Otis Odell bring out various site plans that have been considered in the past. John Schofield asked about the access agreement with Mountain Bell. Jim Ellerbrook, Peak Engineering, clarified the communications that have occurred with Mountain Bell. He stated that they have been generally open to some changes to the Mountain Bell site. Brian Doyon said he doesn't like the tuck-under parking on the front building, that too many doors are visible right off the roadway, but he really likes the tuck-under parking on the back buildings. . Galen Aasland said he sees merit in the site plan presented today, because some of the older versions look more like Timber Ridge. Brian Doyon asked about why the early learning center had to be located on the eastern portion of the site, instead of the flag area of the site. He asked about the parking iot being on fill. He then continued to ask about relocating the early learning center to the western portion of the lot. John Schofield presented an alternative to the site plan, which included the learning center on the west portion of the site. Chas Bernhardt discussed his primary concern, regarding parking on the site. He stated that we should eliminate al! of the surface parking, which would allow for more lot area for housing. He then stated that he wanted a Town parking structure in that location. Nina Timm, representing the Housing Authority, stated that parking is not the purview of the VLHA. Allison Ochs clarified the enclosed parking requirement. Doug Cahill stated he did Pike the clustering of the buildings, but is supportive of the density. He said he still has concerns regarding the building on the western portion of the site, specifically breaking up the building which could eliminate some units. He stated that we need to maximize the density on the project. He said he liked the bus stop location and use of the site. He expressed concern regarding snow storage and that underground parking would eliminate that need. He stated that he would like to see the best plan possible, with no money considerations, then work down-ward from there to cut budgetary items. He said he likes the minimizing of grading and retainage. He said he likes the idea of clustering the buildings to get rid of the linear look of the western building. He said he wanted more information regarding bulk and mass and he had no comments on the setbacks. He said he had a huge concern about walking through the roundabouts for the pedestrian connection. He said he liked the Early Learning Center on the eastern end and the separation of the uses and he appreciates the hard work that has gone into the project. John Schofield stated that he would like to start fresh. He stated that maximizing the site for density is the direction to go, as long as parking is considered. He said to go up as high as you want and that parking must be aesthetically pleasing and well screened. He further stated that the life-cycle cost of the project need to be considered, instead of just up-front Approved 12/10/01 costs. He is okay with deviations to the setbacks, but we need to look at the noise on those adjacent to the Frontage Rd. He said that once the design is finalized, open space will fall into place. He said he had concerns about the pedestrian connection use through the roundabout or interstate and suggested possibly a shuttle service to the transportation system. He said he was not concerned about which- end the Early Learning Center goes on, as he believes that it is acceptable at either location. Diane Golden stated that she appreciated all that the applicant has done what they've asked them to do. She expressed a concern that they have not given the parking situation more consideration. She suggested possibly a parking structure on the site, instead of just housing. Dick Cleveland stated that he was happy that he is on this side of the table. Dick stated that he does have concerns regarding the density on the site. He stated that with the parking trouble, locating buildings on there, etc, he believes density should be reduced. He was pleased to see the reduction to 148 units, but believes that we need to take another look at density. He stated that less density would mean less parking and he said he would be ok with more surface parking if density and total parking numbers are reduced. He said he likes Chas's idea regarding a parking structure, but realized that won' be happening any time soon. He said he will not accept hazard mitigation if it is visible across the Valley. He said the Early Learning Center can go wherever. He said that the HDMF Zone District has a maximum height of 48 ft. and he wants the height at 36 to 40 ft. He said the setbacks are not a big issue. He said regarding the pedestrian connection, that the roundabouts are not pedestrian friendly, and they are charged with getting them to the roundabout. Brian Doyon stated that he believed Odell is doing a good job on this project and that the PEC is looking for quality. He stated that the location of the school is a concern of his. He is also concerned about the building on the west, specifically the line of garage doors along the Frontage Rd. He said he wants more density, but it has to fit with the site. He said we have lots of toys, and so covered parking is hugely beneficial. He said even earth covered parking that is open to the exterior, will hold close to the 75%. He said that site disturbance is of a concern to him. He said to go as high as we can, or 48 ft. and he is okay with the retaining walls being taller. He said that open space depends on density and if you can see hazard mitigation it is wrong. He said regarding the pedestrian connection, that we have to get them to the roundabout and to the pedestrian bridge. He said he wants to see the Early Learning Center on the west side, but is ok with it on the east and wants to see a turnaround/drop-off. Chas Bernhardt stated that he would like to maximize the use of the property. He stated that he believes the leadership of the Town needs to step out of the box and to consider maximizing the use of the site. He said he wants as much density as possible and wants to see the majority. of parking underground. He said he likes the tuck-under parking, and said there cannot be a sea of parking, as it is a waste of space and could be used more efficiently. He said he was also okay with taller walls and wants the height 48 ft. or higher. He had no issue with the setbacks and since they were surrounded by open space, there is no need for a park. He doesn't want to see hazard mitigation at all. He said, regarding the pedestrian connection, to get them to the roundabout, or provide more public transit. He said he would like the Early Learning Center moved to the west side. Galen Aasland stated that we've come so far, but we've got so far to go. He said he was okay with lots of density on this site. He said the western building is too linear and you can't line up 36 doors in a row, so some number may need to be eliminated and if you can see an ocean of parking, that is wrong. He said regarding the grading and retainage, that you can't just level the site, that you must work within a set of guidelines. He said the building design merits to the' Early Learning Center on both sides, and so is up to the applicant. He said he thinks that the design turns its back on the Mountain Bell tower. He said he is fine with 48 ft. Approved 12!10/01 height and setbacks and that the hazard mitigation should not be seen. He said he needs to see more about the pedestrian connection. Allison Ochs asked about the provision of parking on the site and whether or not a reduction would be allowed for the project. Mike Coughlin presented an overview of the parking management plan and the reasons for a reduction on the site. John Schofield said no to a parking a reduction, and there is a need for visitor parking. Doug Cahill said he was ok with a reduction, but wants to see a plan get as close as possible and would recommend designing it to meet the requirement. Diane Golden said no to a reduction in parking. Dick Cleveland said an 8% deviation in parking was too much, but if he could be shown how similar projects work, he may be open to about a 5% reduction with a stringent parking plan. Brian Doyon said he would hold this to the letter of the law and there was a need for all the parking required, specifically guest parking. Chas Bernhardt said he does not support a reduction in parking. Galen Aasland said he could support a 5% reduction in parking and grass pavers would be acceptable. Kay Ferry suggested that the discussion today is in the wrong location. She said she believes that more should be given to the developer to build affordable, i.e., more height, more density, and less parking. Chuck Ogilby asked for clarification regarding the height requirement. Doug Cahill, Diane Golden, John Schofield, Brian Doyon, Chas Bernhardt, and Galen Aasland were amiable to additional height, but they said it must be sensitive to the site and the design of the building: Dick Cleveland said he is not willing to concede to too much height. Mike Coughlin asked about the parking structure and the direction that Council would take regarding structured parking for the entire Town and if they said no, if this issue could be put to bed. The Planning and Environmental Commission stated that they would be willing to drop that issue if the Council chose not to move that direction. John Schofield made a motion to table this until December 10, 2001 Brian Doyon seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 7-0. 7. A request for a variance from Sections 12-6C-6 (Setbacks) & 12-6C-9 (Site Coverage), Vail Town Code, to allow for the construction of a Type I Employee Housing Unit, located at 4166 Columbine Drive/Lot 18, Bighorn Subdivision. 9 Approved 12/10/01 Applicant: Timothy Parks Planner: George Ruther/Allison Ochs John Schofield made a motion to table this until December 10, 2001. Chas Bernhardt seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 7-0. 8. Approval of October 22, 2001 minutes Diane Golden made a motion to approve as read. Chas Bernhardt seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 5-0, with John Schofield and Brian Doyon abstaining. 9. Information Update 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 Impaired, for information. Community Development Department 10 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD AGENDA Wednesday, February 20, 2002 3:00 P.M. PUBLIC MEETING RESULTS PUBLIC WELCOME PROJECT ORIENTATION /LUNCH -Community Development Department 12:00 pm MEMBERS PRESENT Bill Pierce Hans Woldrich Andy Blumetti Charles Acevedo SITE VISITS 1. Manart residence - 2945 Manns Ranch Road 2. Phillips 66 - 2293 N. Frontage Rd. West 3. '; Safeway - 2171 N. Frontage Rd. West 4. Hagerman residence - 1794 S. Frontage Rd. 5. Marriott - 715 W. Lionshead Circle 6. Panda City - 12 South Frontage Road 7. Nowell residence - 223 East Gore Drive Driver: Bill 2:00 pm PUBLIC HEARING -TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS 3:00 pm 1. Fermanis residence DRB01-0394. Bill Final review of a proposed new single-family residence. 1109 Sandstone Drive/Lot A-2(4), Block A, Lionsridge 1St Filing. Applicant: John Fermanis, represented by Steve Riden MOTION: Charles Acevedo SECOND: Andy Blumetti VOTE: 4-0 TABLED UNTIL MARCH 6, 2002 2. Marriott Vail Mountain Resort DRB02-0008. George Final review review of Phase II Improvements. 715 West Lionshead Circle/Lots C&D, Morcus Subdivision and Lots 4&7, Block 1 Vail Lionshead 3~d Filing. Applicant: Vail Resorts MOTION: Hans Woldrich SECOND: Charles Acevedo VOTE: 4-0 TABLED UNTIL MARCH 6, 2002 ~~ TDWN OF VAIL ~ MEMBERS ABSENT Clark Brittain 1 3. Hagerman residence DRB02-0019. George Conceptual review of a new primary/secondary residence. 1794 S. Frontage Road/Lot 2, Vail Village West Filing No. 2. Applicant: Philip & Jocelyn Hagerman CONCEPTUAL - NO VOTE 4. Nowell residence DRB02-0030. Bill Final review of a proposed hot tub addition. 223 East Gore Drive, Unit 1/Part of Lot A, Block 5B, Vail Village 1St Filing. Applicant: John Martin MOTION: Andy Blumetti SECOND: Hans Woldrich VOTE: 4-0 APPROVED WITH A RECOMMENDATION FOR A PRIVACY SCREEN AND 1 CONDITION: That the balcony railing must be painted. 5. Panda City DRB02-0025. Bill Final review of a proposed sign & modification to the sign program. 12 South Frontage Road/Lot N, Block 5D, Vail Village 1St Filing. Applicant: Fred McLoota MOTION: Andy Blumetti SECOND: Hans Woldrich VOTE: 4-0 APPROVED WITH 1 CONDITION: That the applicant must meet all sign code requirements. 6. Phillips 66 DRB02-0028. Allison Conceptual review of a proposed remodel. 2293 North Frontage Rd. West /Tract A, Vail Das Schone Filing 1. Applicant: Scott Medsker, represented by Stephen Richards CONCEPTUAL - NO VOTE 7. Manart residence DRB02-0031. Allison Change to approved plans. 2945 Manns Rance Road, #A/Lot 4, Block 1, Vail Village 13tH Applicant: Frank Manart, represented by Harry Gray MOTION: Andy Blumetti SECOND: Charles Acevedo VOTE: 3-1, Pierce opposed APPROVED 8: Safeway DR602-0009. Allison An appeal of a staff decision to deny the addition of metal siding in accordance with Title 14, Section 10, of the Town Code. 2171 N. Frontage Rd. West/Lot 3, Vail das Schone Filing 3. Applicant: Safeway Food Co., represented by Soldoff Development Appellant: Safeway Food Co. MOTION: Charles Acevedo SECOND: Hans Woldrich VOTE: 4-0 UPHOLD STAFF DECISION 2 Staff Approvals Ackerman residence DR602-0017. Bill 56 sq.ft. addition and interior conversion with dormer addition. 1550 Moraine Drive/Lot 21, Dauphinais-Moseley Filing 1. Applicant: Don E. Ackerman, Trustee, represented by Pat Dauphinais Tovar residence DRB02-0022. Allison New deck; replace window with french doors. 1620 Sunburst Drive, #34, Golf Terrace Building J/Vail Golfcourse Townhomes. Applicant: Alberto Tovar Vail Gateway DRB02-0029. Allison Window addition (3). 12 S. Frontage Road, Suite 600/Lot N, Vail Gateway Plaza Condo. Applicant: Vail Gateway, LLC 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 ca!! 479- 2356,Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. 3