Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-1127 PEC0 1 �Ya %'° k U The applicant, Bob Borne, representing Innsbruck Meadows Development, Inc., is requesting a front setback variance for a new single family residence currently under construction on Lot 6, Innsbruck Meadows Subdivision. A Building Permit for the residence was issued on September 18, 1995, and construction has proceeded since that date. According to the applicant, the 3.5 encroachment is a result of a surveying error. Several 9 According to the approved site /landscape plan, the building corner would be 24.5 feet from the back of the curb line and 11 feet from the pedestrian sidewalk. The landscape plan shows eight, two-inch caliper aspen trees in the area immediately adjacent to the point of encroachment (see Attachment 3). No space trees are proposed for Lot 6. degree The is relief from the tric literal interpretation and enforcement f a specified regulation i to i compatibility n uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to in the j civ this title without grant of special privilege. The degree to which the applicant is requesting relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of the front setback regulation is the minimum necessary to allow the structure to remain as constructed. Many of the older existing structures in the Vail Intermountain area are non- conforming as they relate to setbacks. An example of such non - conformity in the area of the Innsbruck Meadows Subdivision is the Camelot Townho es. The Camelot Townhomes are non-conforming as they relate to the front, sides and rear setbacks. Other examples of non-conforming setbacks in the Vail Intermountain Subdivision are the Bellflower Condominiums (Lot 7, Block 6, Vail Intermountain Subdivision), the estri ge Condominiums (Lot 1, Block 8, Vail Intermountain Subdivision), and the Rush Condominiums (Lot 9, Block 8, Vail Intermountain Subdivision). f:\ everyone \pec \memos \innsbruck.n27 IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends denial of this front setback variance request. Staff believes the request does not meet the Criteria and Findings, listed in Section III of the memorandum, in order to grant an approval of the variance, Staff believes that the applicant has met Criteria and Findings Al, A3, B2, B3 a, b & c. Staff does not believe, however, that the applicant has met Criteria and Findings A2, and 1. Staff is specifically concerned that the granting of approval of the requested variance may result in the grant of a special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same zone district. Should the PEC choose to grant an approval of the requested variance, the staff would recommend that the approval carry with it the following conditions; 1. The applicant shall proceed through the proper procedure to vacate that portion of the pedestrian, utility and drainage easement into which the building is encroaching prior to receiving a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for knit #6. . The applicant shall revise the proposed landscape plan which illustrates eight two- inch caliper aspen trees in the vicinity of the encroachment, and propose a minimum of two additional eight-foot evergreens. It is the staff's opinion that the o evergreens will help mitigate the additional 3.5 foot encroachment upon the pedestrian sidewalk. f:\everyone\pec\mems\innsbruck.n27 EngWeerWgLtd. October 18, 1995 . Bob Bome P.O. Box 4205 Vail, CO 8165 Re: Lot 6 Innsbruck Meadows Project No. 95-0173S Bear Bob: Several months ago you requested Inter - Mountain Engineering to stake out proposed Lot 6, Innsbruck Meadows so your contractor could lay out a foundation for the proposed house. per that request we did stake out the four corners of the lot but did not lay out any points on the front lot line along the curse. When we did the Improvement Location Certificate we found that a small portion of the foundation intruded into the required front yard setback by about the same distance as the radius of the curse or some 3.5 feet. What I believe happened is that since there were no curse points staked it appears the house was laid out from the chord line between the property comers and not from the curse, which resulted in the encroachment into the easement and setback. If you have any further questions, please call me at 949 ®5072, Sincerely, Je ery Span I, p.E. m 0 0 14% r ! i . SLA[�� � ATTACHMENT #3 A mm WO-LA-. ✓Fib i / -'` lc� 0 ENCROACB14ENTA T TIES AGREEMENT, is made and entered into this —[Y—day of 1995 bylk/V 5 i3CO IZ L—f MW§ th uas rp ti n�b th , and 2— �C--. e a q i-municipal co ora o f e State of Colorado, hereinafter referred to as "District". WHEREAS, Property Owner(s) is/afe presently the owner(a) of certain real property described as _L IJo4j .5 1-1611,5-6d , located-4t E'agle County, Colorado; and ZO feet WHEREAS, the District is presently in possession of an easement , width, running through the aforementioned property, which easement is described �-n —Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference; and 4. The Property Owner(s) shall indemnify the District from any increase in the cost of construction of any new utility lines or in the cost of any repairs to the District's utility lines, such increase, if any, due to the proximity of the permanent structure to the utility lines. ATTACHMENT #5 0 f INNSBRUCK MEADOWS DEVELOPMENT, INC. W P.O. BOX 4205 VAIL, COLORADO 57 303-476-5263 October 30, 1995 Background: Innsbruck Mea ws is a multi family project which is currently platted as one big lot It is planned for a total of fourteen homes , nine of which are single fa ily, four of which are primary/secondary with the secondary nit being an EHU and the last being a true primary/secondary and is is being built for the original seller oft the land. Prior to delivery of title to units, new plats will be created which show Improvement Locations and the individual lots which are to be transferred to purchasers. At this time no units have been transferred and all of s property is owned by Innsbruck ea o s Development., Inc. The variance that we are requesting is as follows: There are presently rive homes under construction. One oft the homes, building six recently had an ILC issued which showed a small encroachment o the Northwesterly corner of the building into the front easement. This encroachment exten s about 3m feet into the easement at the very corner oft the building and travels on a diagonal for eight feet where it crosses out oft the easement. GIs the encroachment is about o een square feel® The error in the Southwesterly corner's location was occasioned by an omission on s part of the projects surveyor who was directed to stake out the proposed lot and easement sot at a foundation could be installed on that lot. The surveyor through some sort of omission staked out the four corners oft the lot but omitted to stake out any intermediate changes in direction ofthose lines. In this case the relation of the property litre to the curb ranged from eleven feet on one side to four feet on the other, thus making the Northerly lot line a parabola or uneven curve and not the straight tine he indicated y is placement of corner lot line stakes. He provided no intermediate points at all in that lines We ' have included n this submission a letter from the surveyor indicating s accuracy of is statement. With no intermediate of is to indicate something other than a straight lot litre, the ATTACHMENT #6 Y 1} Four copies of the indicating the encroachment 2 } Four copies of a le tte r from Inter ountan Engineering indicating the facts of is issue. 3} Four copies oft the Architects statement regarding same. } Four copies of over all site plans, specific site plans as well as elevations an floor plans. } Four copies oft the variance application _} The required fee fort the application Respectfully submitted, Innsbruck Meadows Development, Inc. By: Robert Borne, Pres. MEMORANDUM TO.- Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: November 27, 1995 SUBJECT: A request for an amendment to Chapter 18.24.050 (B), Permitted and Conditional Uses Above Second Floor, to clarify the zoning code regarding the removal of dwelling units and accommodation units for all floors above the second floor, requiring a Conditional Use Permit. Applicant- Town of Vail Planner. George Rut her • 11. PROPOSED T The proposed addition to Section 1 .24.050 (B) is shown below. The addition appears as shadtd texts Permitted conditional say es - Above second fl A. The following uses shall be permitted on any floor above the second floor above grade: 1. Multiple-family residential dwellings 2. Lodges B. The following uses shall be permitted on any floor above the second floor above grade, subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 1 y :fir r , .1 .0 gal hi h alt In t `; . tart " flfr� r co €�d t' ust,' or ai risers raf,ll relre s�rss►rsai Par it 1, Retail stores and establishments, including the following: Apparel stores, Art supply stares and galleries, Bakeries and confectioneries, restricted to preparation of products specifically for sale on the premises, Bookstores, Camera stores and photographic studios, Chinaware and glassware stores, Delicatessens and speciality food stares, Drugstores, Florists, Gift shops, Hobby stores, Household appliance stores, Jewelry stores, Leather goods stores, Luggage stores, Music and record stores, Newsstands and tobacco stores, Photographic studios, Stationery stares, Toy stores, Variety stores, Yardage and dry goods stares, Liquor stares, Radio and TV stares and repair shops, Sporting goods stores„ 20 Eating and drinking establishments, including the following: Bakeries and delicatessens with food service, restricted to preparation of products specifically for sale on the premises. Cocktail lounges and bars, Coffee shops, Fountain and sandwich shops, 2 S accommodations. 2.3.1 POLICY The development of short term accommodation units is strongly encouraged. Residential units that are developed above existing density levels are required to be designed or managed in a manner that makes them available for short term overnight rental® 2-.5-DBJECTIVE Encourage the continued upgrading, renovation and maintenance of existing lodging in commercial facilities to better serve the needs of our guests. IV. BIAEEREQQMMENDAMN Staff feels the proposed amendment to Section 1 .24.050 ), as described in the memorandum, will create consistency within the zoning code and will help carry out the intention of the permitted and conditional use sections of the Commercial Gore I and Commercial Core 11 zone districts. Staff believes it is the Intention of the zoning code to allow dwelling or accommodation units to be eliminated above the second floor to allow for another permitted or conditional use, subject to the Issuance of a Conditional Use Permit in accordance with Chapter 16.60. The proposed amendment will ensure that a request to combine or enlarge existing accommodation or dwelling units into one or more larger units will be reviewed by the Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission® f:\everyone\pec\memos\zoning.n27 M E MEMORANDUM Planning and Environmental Commission SUBJECT: A request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow for a "quasi-public club" in the Commercial Core I Zone District to be located on the 3rd and 4th floors of the Serrano's Building located at 298 Hansen Ranch Road/Lot C, Block 2, Vail Village 1 st Filing. Applicant: Margaretta B. Parks, represented by Glen Heelan Planner: Jim Curnutte - Private - "Private" means a use, area, property or facility which is not public. (Ord. 21(1994), § 5.) . . . . . . .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . f:\everyone\pec\memos\serranos.n27 As described in more detail in Section II (Background) of this memo, the project developer, Glen Heelan, recently received PEC approval (March 13,1995) to demolish the existing errano's Building and replace it with a new structure. The approved uses on the 3rd floor of the new building include two offices and a portion of a residential condominium. The remainder of the condominium would be located on the fourth floor of the building. The new concept is to use the 3rd and 4th floors exclusively for a quasi-public club. The club owners will be offering their members not only the traditional ski storage (in the basement ), but also areas of comfort and relaxation together with an array of services. The applicant has indicated that club members would have the ability to ski down to the base of the mountain, give their skiis to the ski valet, and enter the club. Here they would have the luxury of taking off their boots, sitting down by the fireplace in a quiet atmosphere to relax in the comfort of their "mountain living room." They might enjoy the refreshment of their choice, make a couple of phone calls, check the stock market, send a fax, hold a meeting or host a dinner party for their family, friends, or business associates. It is anticipated that the 3rd floor of the building would be used for. A. Personal lockers, steam room and showers (similar to a private golf club where bags are stored elsewhere ); B. Office space for building and club operations; C. Lounge area where members could have a drink, make a call, send a fax; and D. Up to three meeting and /or dining rooms. The 4th floor is anticipated to be the "living room on the mountain." This is an area where members could sit by the fire and relax, meet with friends and family, have an appetizer and a drink® This Conditional Use Permit request does not involve any exterior chap ges to the previously approved building. The original approval of the errano's redevelopment included a restaurant and a "private to club" on the 2nd floor of the building. The applicant has indicated that that portion of the 2nd floor currently labeled as private club, will be used as additional dining for the 2nd floor restaurant. Since this entire area was calculated as a restaurant for parking purposes, there will be no additional impacts associated with the proposed change in use. 111. RBACKORDUND On March 1, 1995, Glen Heelan, the project developer, received PEC approval to demolish the existing Serrano', Building and replace it with a new structure. (Please see attachment 1, site Ian, elevation drawings and floor plans of the approved building). The building program included: Commercial uses and a potential nightclub in the basement. Retail uses on the 1 st floor. Restaurant uses on the 2nd floor. Two offices and a portion of a condominium on the 3rd floor. The remainder of the condominium on the 4th floors £.\ everyone \pec \mem ®s \serranas.n27 ITINEIIIIII! 11 �� IF 1111MI I III outdoor dining deck on the second floor; and 2. Office space on the third floor. 0 f;\everyone\pec\memos\serranos.n27 3 A. Con i er1fign f F e r Q . Relationship and impact of the use on the v Ic objectives of the Town. _$Laff s Re s on se - Staff is in support of the proposed use of the 3rd and 4th floors of the errano's Building as a quasi-public club. It would appear that the club has the potential to provide more activity and interest in the Village than would be provided by one residential dwelling unit and two office spaces. Additionally, staff believes that the proposed Conditional Use Permit request would serve to carry out the following oalsg policies and objectives of the Vail Village Master Plan; 2.4 Objective: Encourage the development of a variety of a new commercial activity where compatible with existing land uses. 2. 4.1 lic ® Commercial in-fill development consistent with established horizontal zoning regulations shall be encouraged to provide activity generators, accessible greenspaces, public plazas, and streetscape improvements to the pedestrian network throughout the Village. 2.4.2 Policy: Activity that provides night life and evening entertainment for both the guests and the community shall be encouraged. 2.5 Objective: Encourage the continued upgrading, renovation and maintenance of existing lodging and commercial facilities to better serve the needs of our guests. In the CCI Zone District, "meeting rooms" may be approved, as a Conditional Use, only in the basement or garden level and on the 2nd level of a building. They are not allowed, as a permitted or conditional use, on the 1st floor or street level or any level of a building above the 2nd floor. Since the applicant's request includes the proposed use of a portion of the 3rd floor for meeting and /or dining rooms, staff was concerned with authorizing a use which is specifically prohibited on this level of a building in the CCI Zone District. The applicant has responded to staffs concern by committing that the meeting rooms will be used solely by club members, and therefore, can be considered as accessory to the functions of the quasi- public club. The club members, as a group, will not rent the room s to the general public. 2. The effect of the use on light air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, iliti schools, parks and recreation facilities, and t r public facilities a® fa\ everyone \pec \memos \serranos.n27 4 D B. inu li®® £a \everyone \pec \memos \serranosen27 paragraphs A and B above, applications for a Conditional Use Permit within the CC 1 Zone District must address the following additional development factors- 1 ects of vehicular traffic on Commercial Gore I District; Staff es onse - The proposed change of approved uses on the 3rd and 4th floors of the errano's Building, from a dwelling unit and office s ce to a quasi- public club, would not appear to have a negative effect on vehicular traffic in the CC I Zone District. The loading and delivery traffic associated with the club will be accommodated by the same loading and delivery vehicles associated with the restaurant already approved on the second level of the building and should not result in additional traffic impacts. 2. Reduction of vehicular traffic in Commercial Core 1 District; staff es onse - The proposed change in use would not appear to cause a reduction, or increase, in vehicular traffic in the CCI Zone District. . Reduction of nonessential off- street parking; Staff Response - The proposed change in use would not reduce, or increase non - essential off - street parking. There is currently no off - street parking associated with this property. . Control of delivery, pick -up and service vehicles; Staff Res onse - As mentioned in staff's response to criteria #1 above, staff believes that there will be no increase in the number of delivery, pick- up or service vehicles associated with the proposed club. The food and beverage elements associated with the club appear to be minimal and can be accommodated through the deliveries that would already occur in relation to the restaurant on the 2nd level. . Development of publics aces for use by pedestrians; Staff esponse - The proposed quasi-public club will have no effect, positive or negative, on public spaces for use by pedestrians. . Continuance of the various commercial, residential, and public uses in Commercial Gore I District so as to maintain the existing character of the area, Staff Re5ponjae ® Staff believes that the proposed quasi-public club use would continue the various commercial and public uses in the CC I Zone istrict, Approval of the club would displace the previously approved dwelling unit from the property, however, since the errano's Building does not currently have a dwelling unit in it, (only an approval for one large condominium to be built), the proposed club will not change the existin character of the area. In staff's opinion, the replacement of the approved condominium unit with a club is a positive change, as it would appear to offer the opportunity to provide a more active and lively feel to the Village, and to provide additional services and amenities for the Town's guests. f: \everyane\pec \memos \serran®s.n27 =IRMa vx�a um F MFA Co 9fA� A p�gT T%g+` -fil @Btd dE wi8. 45ip 5l, 5:.ffi9 5�, � ��. tfcsag3l4s91 i�. Arms SF. I1B ®aetlM6 i %4P.' 9869 5P. y 4AI- g 0 . 0 0 0 B® 9 a 0 Awn e _ 1 GRAPMcsC ®. I me 19 • g B e 0 * J - Lj i Va it' v*jt. a • B ° • .. ..g�f� A`l0 B .•4. 9J a a. � � � .. +'. 0 p ® , i P4 ra ass .0 •0 mbi sr ° SPP. i *P. P; Mme v. OoAatrJu � sc w wAw aY+apoeA 1; A, a i Al MIT El .. ..g�f� A`l0 B .•4. 9J a a. � � � .. +'. 0 p ® , .. ..g�f� A`l0 B .•4. 9J a a. � � � .. +'. 0 n k F_ •0 Mme v. OoAatrJu � sc w wAw aY+apoeA 1; El .1 WU mum --- - - - --o - ue �o n k F_ V O 4 m 0 m I I 7 714- ll�l L T!!--- IF71 I TOWN OF Y 75 south frontage road Office of the Town Attorney Vail, Colorado 81657 970- 479- 2107/F 970- 479 -2157 MEMORANDUM r RECYCLED PAPER ` GOLDEN PEAK SKI BASE REDEVELOPMENT Staff Memorandum ` TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. N ............................................................ ................ .................................... .2 A. Zoning Code Text Revisions ...... .............................................. ......... ................... 2 B. Revisions to the P Plan .......,..........—......3 1. Overview .....~...............—.......~,~......,..~........-.--..--,~_3 2. Major Elements ....~...--.........................,......_--..—....../4 011. Background . ................................................................................................................... ` 8 111111. Zoning Analysis ........,...........................................~...—...~.....—.]1 ` ' IV. Criteria To Be Used in Evaluating This ProposaU..............................--......13 A. Zone Change Criteria .......................................................................................... ` 13 `r ~ L,�n9�r�n�n�w� ..........,............~..,~..'. B. ��O�����D�� V�� ��� ��� ��� 14 ` 1. \/a|! Land Use Plan ................................................................. ................ 14 ` 2. Vail Village Master Plan ........................................................................... 15 ` ` 3. Transportation Master Plan .......................................................... .......... 17 ' 4. Streetscape Master Plan ......................................................................... ` 1B 5` Recreation Trails Master ` Plan ..~._...-._..........~......~~.~......... ` 6. Comprehensive Open Lands Plan..—.—....--.....—.—...--.----. 26� ` C. Development Plan Standards and (��te�a.....................~............27 � � O. Criteria for Approving the Multi-Family Dwellings ................................................. 33� V. Staff Recommendation ................................................................. ............................... 35 . ` � f:\everyone\pec\memos\gpeak.n27 ` 1 ` ` ' ' ` ` ` mod, B. Pro Dosed Revisions to the P Av eelopment Plan 1® OvLDrview Chapter 13.39.090(A) (Development lan Required) of the Ski Base/ Recreation Zone District states.- "To ensure the unified development, the protection of the natural environment, the compatibility with the surrounding area and to assure that development in the ski base/recreation district will meet the intent of the district, a development plan shall be required." The approved development plan shall be used as the principal guide for all development within the Ski Base/ Recreation District. Amendments to the plan which do not change its substance may be approved by the PEC at a regularly scheduled public hearing. The changes to the previously approved plan currently being proposed by the applicant are considered to be substantive and, therefore, require PEC, Town Council and DRB review. There are significant transportation/circulation and parking issues and opportunities associated with the proposed redevelopment of the Golden Peak Ski Base. The interface between and among Town of Vail buses, private shuttles and vans, private vehicles and pedestrians must be carefully reviewed. The challenge is to te the variety of sometimes conflictin s and users in the f efficient manner possible, taking into cc n the interests f the i cr To understand and meet the transportation /circulation and parking needs, associated with the Golden Peak Ski Base redevelopment, Vail Associates has hired TA, Inc. of Denver (a transportation planning firm) to conduct an analysis of the transportation operating characteristics of the Golden Peak Ski Base. This analysis identifies the number of skiers arriving by the various modes of transportation, documents existing access and circulation conditions, provides future design day arrival volumes, and presents an operations plan to insure appropriate use of the facility and minimal traffic congestion. Vail Associates has also hired RRC, Associates of Boulder (a research, planning and design firm) to perform a Golden Peak Ski Base portal analysis and facility survey. This survey polled 527 skiers regarding information relating to their current and expected uses of the Golden Peak Ski Base facilities. A copy of the complete T A and RRC reports are contained in the original application notebooks previously provided to the PC and Town Council members. A summary of the information contained in those reports, however, can be found as Attachment #2 to this memorandum. Vail Associates proposes to llevi t vehicular an stri n congestion now experienced r the r (1 ) formalizing improving general skier drop-off, ( reducing vehicular r is with the removal of the r s public parking l "managing" t n- it e parking, () designing the Children's Center r area, and () making improvements to the j r pedestrian leading to it f :!everyone \pe6memos\gpeak.n27 The existing Golden Peak Ski Base facility is proposed to be replaced with a new base lodge building of 82,779 sq. ft., in virtually the same location as the existing building and the building approved in conjunction with the 1985 redevelopment plan. (Please see Section 11 of this memorandum (Background) for a more detailed description of the previously approved 1985 redevelopment plan). f: \everyone\peo\memos \gpeak.n27 C B. A revised parking lot configuration accommodating 103 paid, public parking J Ill. ZONING ANAI V-QIQ The following zoning analysis has been prepared for the purpose of comparing the proposed redevelopment plan to the Ski Base/ Recreation zone district development standards and to the previously approved 1985 development plan. For a more complete breakdown of the specific uses within the building and a comparison of the 1985 approved plan to the 1995 proposed plane lease see the next page. Zoning: Ski Base /Recreation Lot Area: 49.33 acres Allowed /Required 1935 approved 1995 proposed b Zoning develoortsent Ian development of Setbacks: As shown on the n - 95' n - 96' to lodge approved development s - n/a 73' to garage plan e - 45° s - n/a w - 206° e - 43' w - 15' to garage 210' to lodge Site Coverage: As shown on the 30,156 sq. ft. 31,725 sq, ft. lodge approved development 32,254 sq. ft. of plan parking structure Landscaping: As shown on the N/A N/A approved development plan Parking: As shown on the *149 spaces * °221 spaces approved development plan Height * ** : For a flat or mansard roof - 35' 35' 6®% arch. projections 60% roof area less than 35' 40' 74% less than 35' 40% roof area less than 40' 20% less than 40° Dwelling units: 1 dwelling unit per 3 acres or 6 dwelling units 6 dwelling units 6 dwelling units GRFA: 30% of the total gross 22.2% or 23.3°% or square footage of the 14,462 sq. ft. 23,457 sq. ft. main building Commercial area No limitation except retail & meeting 4,633 sq. ft. or 7°% for retail 7,526 sq. ft. or 9% space, which is 15°% & 5°% respectively 2,005 sq. ft. or 3% for meeting space 3,607 sq, ft. or 4°% of the non - residential floor area. Total floor ea: As shown on the 65,150 sq. ft. 32,779 sq. ft. approved development plans * This figure includes 113 public parking spaces, 12 spaces associated with the six residential units, 7 general skier drop -off spaces and 12 Children's Center spaces that were added in 1933. ** This figure includes 143 managed spaces, 14 spaces associated with the residential units, 29 general skier drop - off spaces and 30 Children's Center drop -off spaces. ** For a more detailed definition of how building height is calculated in the ski Base Recreation Zone District, please see the proposed zoning changes attached to the end of this memorandum. Note: Architectural projections may exceed the maximum building height by 25% of the height limit but not more than 15 feet, f:\ everyone \pec \rnernos \gpeak.n27 11 Square calculations an rison to the 1985 approved l oars Footage Floor 1965 1995 �/ guars Foota lJe 1965 1995 ®Chance Retail space 4,633 7,526 +62% Restaurant 12,165 9,756 - 0% Ticketing /Ski school 3,097 3,252 + % Conference /meeting rooms 2,005 3,607 +79% Employee lockers 7,996 5,764 - 8% Residential: oars Fooa y ��rellin Unit GRFA 14,462 23,457 + 62% Common area 2,662 6,910 +159% Parking area 2,227 5,055 +127% Children's Ski School 5,663 0 N/A Private Club 0 4,170 /A General Common Area- 3,295 + 5% echanical/ torage 1,790 3,680 +105% Circulation 7,463 7,669 + 3% Re troom 765 19913 +144% Base Lodge Total 65,150 82,779 + 7% Managed parking structure + 0 ±52.38Q /A Total Building Square Footage 65,150 142,1 +118% oars Footage Floor 1965 1995 %Change First 26,131 30,097 + 7% Second 20,691 25,115 + 19% Third 13,190 13,33 + 3% Fourth 3,138 9226 +187% TOTAL 65,150 + % oars Fooa y ��rellin Unit Unit 1 2,883 4,637 + 1% Unit 2 1,690 3,33 + 76 % Unit 3 2,636 5,000 + % Unit 4 2,639 3,295 + 5% Unit 5 2,556 3,590 + 40% Unit 6 1 X656 3,596 + 3% Total GRFA: 14,462 23,457 % Residential C® on Area: +2662 + , 10 +159% Total Residential Floor Area: 17,124 30,367 + 7 ®/0 fAeveryone1 \memos \gpesk.n27 1 Is CRITERIA TO BE USED IN EVALUATING THIS The following criteria and findings shall be used in the evaluation of the proposed zone change request (text amendments to Chapter 13.39 -Ski Base/ Recreation Zone District) and amendment to the previously approved development plan. A. Zone Chance Criteria. 1® Suitability of the proposed zoning. t The proposed amendments to the existing text of the Ski Base/ Recreation Zone District are consistent with the purpose statement of the district and the permitted and conditional uses currently allowed. The uses on the first and second levels of the building are uses generally found in a ski mountain base facility. These uses include a restaurant, ski lockers, retail, meeting roc /restaurant overflow, ticket sales, ski school and employee lockers. The applicant is requesting the additional use of a private club, serving as a private locker room and ski valet for its members. This use is similar to the other uses in the building and therefore, staff believes it is suitable. The applicant is also requesting that "indoor and outdoor ski storage" be added to the list of permitted uses for the site. This will allow for overnight ski storage at the bus shelter and other potential locations near the chair lift. a Is the t proposal presenting a convenient, workable relationship among land uses consistent it nici I objectives t Staff has reviewed the existing and proposed permitted and conditional uses in the Ski Base Recreation Zone District and believe that these uses are consistent with adjacent land uses and municipal objectives. The text changes being proposed by the applicant are minimal in nature and are simply intended to clarify and bring the text language up -to- ate with today's standards. ® Does the rezoning r I provide for the growth orderly and viable community? StaffBgaR2nm It is staff's opinion that the most significant element of the proposed text changes is the revision of the submittal requirements and the requirement of a new, or amended, development plan application. Bringing this language up-to-date with today's standards assures that more complete and accurate information will be provided for review by the Town staff and boards and the community. Vail Associates has been meeting with representatives of the East Village Homeowners Association for well over a year. Staff believes that this extra effort with the neighborhood has assured that the proposed application provides a convenient, workable relationship among land uses. f: \everyone \pec \mem®a\gpeak,n27 1 U3 4. Is the proposed rezoning consistent with the Vail Land Use Plan? M 77� Staff believes that the proposed text revisions to the Ski Base\ Recreation Zone District are consistent with the Vail Land Use Plan. The proposed changes do not alter the bas intent of the existing Ski Base/Recreation Zone District, which is in compliance with the Land Use Plan. I Staff has evaluated the proposal for compliance with the applicable elements of the Town of Vail Comprehensive Plan, including: 1._ it Land Use Plan Goal 2.1 The community should emphasize its role as a destination resort while accommodating day visitors. Goal 2.2 The ski area owner, the business community and the Town leaders should work together closely to make existing facilities and the Town function more efficiently. Goal 2.3 The ski area owner, the business community and the Town leaders should work together to improve facilities for day skiers. Goal 204 The community should improve summer recreational and cultural opportunities to encourage summer tourism. Goal 2.5 The community should improve non-skier recreational options to improve year-round tourism. Goal 2.8 Day skier needs for parking and access should be accommodated through creative solutions such as- a) increased busing from out of town-, b) expanded points of access to the mountain by adding additional base portals; c) continuing to provide temporary surface parking; and d) addition of structured parking. fAeveryone\pec\memos\gpeak.n27 14 _ it i!! age Master Plan While Golden Peak may not always be considered to be a part of the Village, it is included in the 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 (promote healthy economy, environmental protection, etc.). Staff has listed each goal and the applicable objectives and policies that appear to be addressed by the proposed Golden Peak Ski Base redevelopment. Goal 1 Encourage high quality redevelopment while preserving the unique architectural scale of the Village in order to sustain its sense of community and identity. 1.2 Objective: Encourage the upgrading and redevelopment of residential and commercial facilities. Goal 2 To foster a strong tourist industry and promote year -round economic health and viability for the Village and for the community as a wholes 2.1 Objective: Recognize the variety of land uses found in the 10 sub- areas throughout the Village and allow for development that is compatible with these established land use patterns. 2.5 Objective: Encourage the continued upgrading, renovation and maintenance of existing lodging and commercial facilities to better serve the needs of our guests. 2.5.1 Policy: Recreational amenities, common areas, meeting facilities and other amenities shall be preserved and enhanced as a part of any redevelopment of lodging properties. Goal 3 To recognize as a top priority the enhancement of the walking experience throughout the Village. 3.1 Objective: Physically improve the existing pedestrian ways by landscaping and other improvements. 3.1.1 Policy: Private development shall incorporate streetscae improvements (such as paver treatments, landscaping, lighting and seating areas), along adjacent pedestrian ways. 3.4 Objective: Develop additional sidewalks, pedestrian-only walkways and accessible greenspace areas, including pocket parks and stream access. 3.4.2 Policy: Private development projects shall be required to incorporate new sidewalks along streets adjacent to the project as designated in the Vail Village Master Plan and /or the Recreation Trails Master Plan. Goal 4 To preserve existing open s ace areas and expand greenspace opportunities. f:\everyone\pec\mem ®s \gpeak.n27 1 E 4.1 Objective: Improve existing open space areas and create new plazas with greenspace and pocket parks. Recognize the different roles of each type of open space in forming the overall fabric of the Village. Goal 5 Increase and improve the capacity, efficiency, and aesthetics of the transportation and circulation system throughout the Village. 5.1 Objective.- Meet parking demands with public and private parking facilities. 5.1.5 Policy, Redevelopment projects shall be strongly encouraged to provide underground or visually concealed parking. 5.2 Objective: Encourage the use of public transportation to minimize the use of private automobiles throughout Vail. Additional parking for any facilities to r vi site. Although the revised development plan will provide more total parking spaces than currently exist on the site (short -term and long-term), which were approved with the 1935 plan, the spaces will not all be available to the public on a daily basis. As mentioned previously, if there are not sufficient pre -sales of club memberships, the 143 space parking structure may not be constructed. If this happens, the applicant has indicated that they will pay a parking pay -in -lieu fee to compensate for the loss of public parking that will result Existing v nt restrictions in i s sub-area would addressed to ll r development. The restrictive covenants, entered into between VA and (generally) the East Village Homeowners Association at the time of the 1985 plan, control where and how development can occur on this property. The Associations consultant has been involved in the development of this plan from its beginnings and has not expressed any concerns with regard to the proposal's non-compliance. Pedestrian improvements, uc s sidewalks, are important to connect this sub- area to r and the soccer field. There is currently a sidewalk connecting Golden Peak through the Manor Vail property to Ford Park. This sidewalk connects to a path in Ford Park, however this path does not connect directly to the Ford Park parking area. The applicant is not proposing any improvements hick would extend the pedestrian system directly to the Ford Park parking area. Additionally, the applicant is not proposing to extend the sidewalk along Vail Valley Drive from the Children's Center to the soccer field parking area. Redevelopment f the Golden Peak base facility ll be low profile ( stories) to minimize impacts on views to Vail Mountain. Although the Vail Village Master Plan recommends a building of not more than three stories, the maximum building height allowed by zoning (up to 40 feet) will allow for a four story building. The proposed base facility is four stories. While the building does conform to the maximum height requirements as defined by the zoning code, it does not comply with the sub -area concept of being low profile (2-3 stories). ® Tr r ti r I The Vail Transportation Master Plan, adopted in 1993, focused on all forms of transportation and developed a long -range implementation strategy for the transportation programs. The Plan is intended to guide the Town's decision- makers in developing coordinated approach to implementing transportation improvements. The broad categories of the Plan that relate to Golden Peak include parking, the Town bus system, and trail system interface. The parking issue revolves around the parking supply and the parking demand. The existing supply of parking is fairly constant from day -to -day, however, the demand for parking varies, depending upon the season of the year, day of the week and the time of the day. €:ieveryone \pecVnemos \gpeak.n27 17 The Town has determined that overflow demand for parking is acceptable 15 days per year. Travel demand management (through bus service, ride sharing, and price controls) needs to be implemented to reduce parking demand. , .. E3 Although the Streetscape Master Plan calls for concrete unit pavers to be used on the east side of Vail Valley Drive, a portion of this sidewalk has recently been constructed using concrete. The applicant's design consultant has indicated that the paving material on this side of the road is as "yet to be determined," to allow for further discussion by the PEC and the Town Council. Staff recommends that the sidewalk on this side of Vail Valley Drive be constructed of concrete unit pavers. StreetscaDe Master Plan Recommendation NE 4 Staff recommends that mail Associates construct a six to eight foot wide sidewalk in front of the Children's Cuter drop -off lot and provide the Town with a treetscape Improvement Plan that accurately reflects the recommended improvements identified in the Master Plan, from the Children's Cuter to the Soccer Field. tr r I c ti The existing i sta Bahn/Gold Peak recreational r it and the pedestrian connection to Ford Park through or Vail will be used as a part of this sub-area's ti n system. Manor Vail's entry to Ford r should include itl n l signing or an entry statement. Staff Analvsis; Vail Associates proposes additional si nae at both ends of the Ford Park path in order to better inform the public as to the location of this pedestrian link between Golden Peak and one of its associated parking areas. These signs will be included in a comprehensive sin program that will be presented to the Design Review Board for its review and approval. re sc t r I n ec i n Additional minor pedestrian paths, either concrete or asphalt, are proposed as follows: An east/ west connection a it Valley Drive and the xi tin recreational trail west of the iv li. path north of the tennis courts to the north entry the l r base facility. staff Anal si The applicant's Streetscape Upgrade Plan does reflect a four foot wide asphalt path connecting Vail Valley Drive to the existing recreation trail west of the Tivoli. As recommended in the Plan, Vail Associates is proposing to provide a path north of the tennis courts to the north entry of the Golden Peak Ski Base Facility. r c r 1 n c n tlon Consider li i ti the winter-time r in use n Chalet Road. Closure the dead-end road and development of a pocket park/open space area should be pursued. Staff Analysis: Although the closure of Chalet Road and the development of a pocket park/open space area was a part of the 1985 development plan, it is not proposed in conjunction with this redevelopment plan. For the past two ski seasons, the Town has eliminated (y plowing snow across the entry) the winter-time parking use on Chalet Road. # .\everycne\pecVnemcs\gpeak.n27 1 R Some residents in the neighborhood have expressed interest in closing Chalet Road and converting it to a pocket park, however, there does not appear to be neighborhood consensus on this issue. Staff believes that it is appropriate to address this recommendation of the Streetscape Master Plan at a later date and not tie it to the Golden Peak redevelopment application. ='In• r 11''1111will �tinmal x" fAeveryone\pec\memos\gpeak.n27 22 5treetggage Master Plan Reg.,ornmMendation K k It is r that the Children's stop be relocated to the northeast the l i base facility for two reasons: 1) congestion ca r traffic at the present location c s delays for buses and; 2) the proposed location r vi r access for summer events in r Park. A pedestrian crosswalk from relocated bus stop to the nor Vail/Ford Park Vail/For t ill be necessary. taff Analsio After several meetings with Town of Vail staff, Vail Associates staff and neighborhood representatives, it was determined that the best location for the bus stop is where it is currently located, between the Children's Cuter and the base lodge. This location promotes the use of the bus system by providing bus riders with the best access to the ticket windows, the Children's Center and the ski lifts. A pedestrian crosswalk, to the Manor Vail/Ford Park path has been provided with the new redevelopment plan in the same location as is suggested in the Master Plan. Additionally, Vail Valley Drive will be relocated in front of Manor Vail to improve site distances and provide a safer driveway intersection with Vail Valley Drive. StrggIggApe Master Plan Recommendation The westbound u stop that is presently located on Vait Valley Drive the ri over Gore Creek is recommended to be eli i t request of area residents and to reduce vehicular/bus congestion. t n stop at the r n of the ill remain. Staff Analysis: The Plan proposed by the applicant shows the removal of the bus stop as suggested in the Streetscape Master Plan. Ultimately, the Town Council will have to make the final decision to remove the bus stopm Streetscaoe Master Plan Recommendation Landscaping, lighting n site rnis ! should included r possible the r e sc improvements r I! bus stops and feature l provide full compliment i furnishings. Staff Anaivsisa The applicant's plan shows that "Village" light fixtures will be rovi e on the west side of Vail Valley Drive (from the Transportation Center to the Mill Creek Circle Plaza). These lights will then continue along the south side of Vail Valley Drive in front of the Golden Peak Ski Base, east to the Children's Center. (:\every ®ne\pec\mem ®s \gpesk.n27 W A new landscape planter is proposed in front of the Vorlaufer and at the corner of Hanson Ranch Road. Three streetscape benches are shown at the Mill reek Circle Plaza. recornmeTUT-iffa-Y-7ri t IxTures 57 proviaeo W ot Me entire length of Vail Valley Drive. Aeconfiguring the parking at the Vorlaufer to provide for a pedestrian walkway on the west side of Vail Valley Drive. Of the 12 existing spaces, two "guest" parking spaces for the Vorlaufer may need to be relocated to the east side of Vail Valley Drive. The final design shall ensure that there is no net loss of parking spaces for the Vorlaufer. The current proposal allows for the addition of an eight foot wide pedestrian walkway on the west side of Vail Valley Drive and maintains the existing 12 parking spaces in front of the Vorlaufer. There is no need to relocate two guest parking spaces to the east side of Vail Valley Drive, as suggested in the Plan. The reconfiguration of parking spaces, however, will require modifications to the existing planters and retaining walls in the area. U`iaster Plan Recommendation jjIIIIIII!!IjIIj 5,111 1 11 44i offset the higher cost. In high profile areas, such as along Vail Valley Drive, more To prioritize available open lands for protection; f:\everyone\pec\memos\gpeak,n27 a. ® To identify creative strategies to implement the acquisition and protection program; w To define a management system to appropriately manage Town -owned open space lands nd ® To buffer neighborhoods with open space. The recommendations contai in the Comprehensive n Lands Plan that are applicable to the r n Peak Ski Base Redevelopment follows: g A in an extensive new trail system that essentially surrounds the Town and provides an interface with the National Forest system lands and Vail Mountain. The proposed trail system is somewhat similar to trail systems found in the Alps, where interconnected trails allow hikers to move around and to mountain villages. ® The Golden Peak area should be used as a trailhead to access both mountain trails and the Vail Trail, Add three "trailheas" in the core areas to access Vail Mountain trails and inform visitors of trail opportunities, Golden Peak is identified as an "activity center," These centers are activity areas where people are likely to gather or chose as a destination. Connections must then be provided that tie various activity centers throughout Town together through a series of bicycle and pedestrian trails. It is a high priority for the Town to obtain a public use agreement with VA to maintain access to all existing and proposed trail systems through the Golden Peak property. Additionally, the extension of the Vail Trail to the west is a high riority, Paved shoulders on Vail Valley Drive should be provided for a safer recreational path east of the core area. The current right-of-way is too narrow for complete bike lanes on either side, but paved shoulders will make the recreation path significantly safer and easier to use for both drivers and cyclists, in -line skaters and pedestrians, Staff believes that the proposed redevelopment of the Golden Peak Ski Base carries out a number of the recommendations in the Comprehensive Open Lands Plans Specifically, a new trailhead sign will be constructed and the Vail Trail is proposed to be extended through the Golden Peak property to the west. eveloo ent Ian standards and Criteria Chapter 13,39.120 establishes the criteria by which a proposed development plan for the Ski Base Recreation Zone District will be evaluated. The development plan s all meet each of the following standards or demonstrate that either one or more of there is not applicable, or that a practical solution consistent with the public interest has been achieved. f Aevery ®neipec \mern®slgpeak.n27 7 The revised development plan indicates that a buffer area has been provided where the Ski Base/Recreation one District boundary is adjacent to a residential use district boundary. Although some PEC members have raised concerns about children crossing the bus lane, staff believes the area will function safely as designed. The bus drivers for the in- own shuttle are accustomed to driving in a pedestrian oriented environment, and will use caution in that area. A barrier will be placed between the bus lane and the drop -off area to encourage people to crass only in the designated area (which will be identified with pavement striping). As identified in the Operational Management Plan, during Peak Periods both drop-off areas will be staffed with Vail Associates employees to assist in traffic flow. The public skier drop -off area located on the north side of the building will serve as an access point to three other traffic uses; the parking structure, the delivery area, and the residential condominium entry. Staff believes this area will handle the traffic generated by these uses. The parking structure will generate traffic, but due to the location of its entry /exit portal on the far west end„ the traffic should not interfere with the function of the drop-off area® The only exhaust fans from the parking structure will be above the vehicular entrance and will vent toward the south. The condominiums will not generate a large volume of traffic and will not interfere with the public skier drop -off area. The delivery area will be used during non -peak hours, as defined in the Operational Management Plan, therefore staff believes its impacts will be minimal. The existing bike path south of the base lodge is proposed to be relocated, but will provide for continuous access through the site (connecting to Vail Valley Drive, east of i Club Veil, and to the Village path to the west). As mentioned previously, the Golden Peak Ski Base redevelopment proposal includes the implementation of a number of elements identified in the Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan. Additionally, Vail Valley Drive is proposed to be reconstructed and straightened in order to improve site distances along this heavily used portion of the road. 3. Functional c n space in terms optimum r se tin of natural features (including n drainage r ), recreation, vi s, convenience, n unction; E Views from surrounding properties will not be detrimentally impacted with this new building. Generally, the proposed base lodge building will be no higher than the building approved in 1985. A.. Variety in terms of: housing type, densities, facties and open space; Variety is achieved through the many uses located within the base lodge building. The space for members; meeting rooms for ski events, community meetings and restaurant *AtPr!Wv .3,t*' siY rp—qkipttial 4+ellit* units. fAeveryone\pec\memos\gpeak.n27 KM The private condominium entrance will afford some level of privacy for these owners and their guests. The residential dwellings are located on the third and fourth floors and are distinctly separated from the public areas of the building. 6. Pedestrian traffic in ter f® safety, separation, convenience, access to points of destination, and attractiveness; One of the most important off -site improvements that will occur with this redevelopment is the addition of an eight -foot wide sidewalk, on the west side of Vail Valley Drive from the Vail Transportation Center to Golden Peak. The sidewalk will be completed in conformance with the Vail Streetscape Master Plan, as discussed previously in this memorandum. Oh-site, there are sidewalks proposed along Vail Valley Drive in front of the base facility and the Children's Center. Staff recommends that the six -foot wide sidewalk along Vail Malley Drive be extended along the road at the Children's Center drop -off, instead of the four -foot wide walkway currently proposed. This will require the reduction of aisle width and parking space length, in order to gain enough space for the expanded walkway and a landscape buffer. The applicant has proposed to improve the pedestrian connection at the Manor Vail north entry. Vail Associates will close off the dangerous sidewalk, located just south of this entry, and create a landscape barrier to encourage people to use the sidewalk and crosswalk at the north Manor Vail entrance. 7. Building type in r f: appropriateness to dens site relationship, E. StaffBegponse. Staff continues to have concerns regarding the mass and bulk of the proposed structure. We acknowledge the fact that the applicant is attempting to work within the "covenant boundaries" according to the approved 1985 plane The program elements within the building have changed significantly since 1985. The overall square footage of the structure is significantly larger than what was approved by the Town in 1985. Approximately 17, ., an increase of 7 %, has been added to the structure. While staff acknowledges the applicant's need for the additional square footage for the ski related uses, we feel that the applicant's desire to accommodate the additional square footage within the same 1985 building envelope" is creating a rather large, boxy structure. The architect's attempts to break up the boxiness of the structure has been successful on many portions of the elevations, however, the staff continues to be specifically concerned with the north and east elevations. Due to the lower natural grade elevation along the north, the building reads as a four -story structure in this area. This also occurs on a portion of the eastern elevation. Staff recommends li rat consider stepping the building back, on the third fourth floors, on these sides of the building. li that this would reduce ul of the iE ire from the r of the site hick are proposed to receive the largest f guests. f:\ everyone \pec \memos \gpeak.n27 1 IjIMMONSWIN "is intended to provide for the base facilities necessary to operate the ski mountain and to allow multi-family residential dwellings as a secondary use if certain criteria are met." 8. Landscaping of the total site in terms of: purposes, types, maintenance, suitability, and effect on the neighborhood. 9 ` ` 32 g. D. Criteria for rovin the ulti ®Fa il� wellin s tr As required in Chapter 1 .3 1 0 (U,2) of the Ski ase! ecreation Zone District, before acting on the proposed multi-family dwelling units, the Planning and Environmental Commission shall consider the following Conditional Use Permit factors in regard thereto. I Relationship and impacts f the use lc objectives f the Staff As identified previously in this memorandum, the proposed Golden Peak redevelopment will carry out numerous recommendations for improvements as identified in the Town of Vail Comprehensive Plans. It would not appear that the residential portion of the redevelopment project would have any negative effect on the development objectives of the Town. . Effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks, recreation facilities, n t r public facilities is facilities needs. ELaff Response. As indicated in the T A and RRC studies, the Golden Peak redevelopment will have a significant effect on the distribution of the skiing population among the four major portals to Vail Mountain, It is believed that the proposed Golden Peak Ski Base Redevelopment will doable the current uphill capacity of this particular portal. The applicant has indicated that the mode of arrival most likely to see increased use will be the way of mass transportation and pedestrian usage. They have also provided. information which indicates that, because of the managed nature of the parking structure, traffic impacts associated with the redevelopment proposal will be significantly less than that which occurs currently, as a result of the loss of the public parking lot that exists on the site. Additionally, because of the expanded and improved Children's Center and general skier public drop-off areas, staff believes that these transportation facilities will function significantly better than they currently do. Although staff believes the managed parking structure will result in reduced vehicular trips on Vail Valley Drive, we are concerned with the location of the attendant booth at the entrance to the structure. In its current location the booth is visible and allows for the possibility of the public believing that the structure is open to the public on a daily basis, Staff recommends that the booth be relocated in the structure, or removed from the structure As mentioned previously, VA is proposing to implement a number of the streetscape improvements which they believe are directly related to the Golden Peak redevelopment. These improvements ill encourage the expanded use of the pedestrian system throughout Town and have a positive effect on the reduction of vehicular traffic in the neighborhood. Overall, the proposed redevelopment of Golden Peak area is a positive improvement that should assure Vail °s continued standing as North America's premier ski resort and mountain community. f: \everyone \pec\menres \gpeak.n27 U717 "I C 4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in re at on to surrounding uses. .1 LI R - - Y V� 1% - - 'UF- .. 07 . 34 ® That the proposed use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of this title. V. ITAFF RECOMMENDATION Upon review of the Criteria and Findings identified in Section IV of this memorandum, staff recommends approval of the Golden Peak Ski Base redevelopment application and the Zoning Code text amendments with the following conditions: 1. Prior to the Town's issuance of a Building Permit for the redevelopment, the applicant shall be required to enter into a Developer Improvement Agreement with the Town. This will insure that the proposed on and off -site public improvements associated with this project are completed in conjunction with the redevelopment. 2. If the proposed 148-space parking structure is not able to be constructed during the same construction season as all of the other improvements at the Golden Peak site, the applicant shall be required to return to the PEC, or DRB, with re r in /revs etation plan for the area. And, as already committed to by the applicant, the applicant shall meet with the Vail Town Council to discuss payment of parkin pay-in-lieu fees for the loss of on-site parking. 3. Staff recognizes that changes to the project may occur at the Town Council and final Design Review Board stages of this redevelopment application review. However, once final Design Review Board approval has been granted, any substantial changes to the project will be required to be returned to the PEC and possibly Ton Council for additional review and approval. 4. Rather than participating in the provision of affordable housing associated with the Vail Commons project, as committed to in the Town of Vail/VA Growth Management Agreement, staff recommends that VA transfer their commitment to the next Town of Vail affordable housing project. 5. Staff recommends that the PEC, DRB and Town Council review the final architectural design and detailing of the building, specifically with regard to the criteria identified previously in this memo related to the building's bulk and masse . The final streetscae and bus lane designs must be reviewed and approved by the Public Works and Community Development Departments prior to the issuance of a Building Permit for the project. 7. The Environmental Impact Report must be revised/updated and approved by the Town, including the Mill Creek Geological Hazard Analysis, prior to the issuance of a Building Permit for the project. 3. The Mill Creek Circle Plaza must be designed in a manner more closely matching the design identified in the Streetscape Master Plan. 9. The aisle widths in the Children's Center parking lot must be reduced in order to accommodate a minimum six foot wide sidewalk along Vail Valley Drive in front of the parking area. "town Engineer approval is required. fAeveryonelpeetmemeslgpeak.n27 10. The Vail Trail extension rest be constructed from its current terminus, located behind the Children's Center, to the western edge of the Vail Associates property for base ledge prior to the issuance of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy the facility. 1. The design of the seasonal tent proposed to be located near the ski race course finish area must be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Board prior to its placement on the property. 12. A comprehensive sign program for all on and off -site si na e in the area of Golden Peak must be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Board prior to the issuance of a Building Permit for the project. 1. The attendant booth currently shown at the entrance to the managed parking structure must be removed, or relocated as discussed in the memo. 14. Staff recommends several improvements to the landscape plan, however, since the landscape plan requires Design Review Board final approval, these comments can be addressed at that time. B. Retail and meeting room space limitation. 1. Retail sales space, , in the fiat two floors shall be limited to a maximum of fifteen percent of the non - residential gross square footage of the main base lodge building. Under Section 18.39.030, retail shall be defined as , candy sales, ski repair/rental sales, and accessories and clothing, and basket rental, ski lockers and storage for the public. 2. Meeting rooms shall be limited to a maximum of five ten percent of the non- residential gross square footage of the main building. C. Multi-family dwelling units within the nmtin base lodge building if the following requirements are meta 1. The dwelling units shall be a secondary use within the main base lodge building if they meet the following criteria: a. No residential use on ground level. . Visual impacts such as surface parking for the dwelling units shall be minimized by providing at least forty percent of the required parking within the main base lodge building or in n attached parking tru r a c. The maximum gross residential floor area ( PAS devoted to dwelling units shall not exceed thirty percent of the total gross square footage of the uffs base lodge building. . Before acting on multi-family dwelling units, the Planning and vir nt Commission shall consider the following factors in regard thereto; a. Relationship and impacts of the use on development objectives of the town, b. Effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks, and recreational facilities, and other public facilities and public facilities needs. c. Effect upon traffic, with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the streets and parking area. d ®Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. . The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the findings set forth in Section 13.60.060 B before permitting multi-family units within the ntain base lodge building. D. Permitted uses within t Children's i School building: 1. Year -round child care and children's ski school and appurtenant recreational facilities and programs. 2. Children's ski school services and programs. 3. Community events and programs. 4. Summer recreational programs. E. The following uses shall be permitted outside the and i! dren's Ski School buildings as shown on the approved development lane . Ski trails, slopes and lifts 2 0 3 2. Snowmaking facilities, 3. Bus and skier dropoff, . Surface parkin lot, 5. Ski racing facilities, 6. Public parks, tennis and volleyball courts, and playing fields, playgrounds; 7. Water-treatment and storage facilities buildings, 6. Mountain storage buildings, . Ski school activities, 10. Special community everts; 11. Food and beverage service, 12. Indoor and outdoor ski sty (Ord. (196$) § 1.- Ord. 6 (1966) § 1: Ord. 38 (196$) § 1. 13.39.050 Conditional uses. A. The following conditional uses shall be permitted in the Golden Peak ski base/recreation district, subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 18.60. 1. Recreation room /minor arcade. 2. Addition or expansion of storage buildings for mountain equipment. 3. Summer outdoor storage for mountain equipment. 4. Redevelopment of water storage extraction and treatment facilities. 5. Redevelopment of ski racing facilities. 6. Redevelopment of public parks, playgrounds. 7. Summer seasonal community offices and programs. 8. Additions or expansions of public or private parking structures or spaces. 9. 10. Sea ' sonal structures to accommodate athletic, cultural, oreducational activities. Redevelopment of ski lifts and tows, 11. Food and beverage cart vending. 12. Bed and breakfast as further regulated y Section 18.58.310. 1. Type III EHU as defined in Section 18.57.060; 14. Type IV EHU as defined in Section 16.57.0700 15. Public, private or quasi-public clubs. 0 3 1 .3 .070 Accessory Uses The following accessory uses shall be permitted in the Golden Peak ski/base recreation districts A. Accessory uses customarily incidental to permitted and conditional uses and necessary for the operation thereof. B. Home occupations, subject to the issuance of a home occupation permit in accordance with the provisions of Sections 13. .130 through 18.58.190. r. (1 3) § 1.) teffs 18.39.080 Location of usiness activity. A. All offices and retail sales conducted in the Golden Peak ski base /recreation district shall be operated and conducted entirely within a building except for approved special events and food and beverage vending. (Ord. 21 (19 6) § 2m Ord. 3 (1 3) § 1.} 18.39.090 Development plan required. A. To ensure the unified development, the protection of the natural environment, the compatibility with the surrounding area and to assure that development in the Golden ski base/recreation district will meet the intent of the district, a development plan shall be required. B. The proposed development plan shall be in accordance with Section 16.39.110 and shall be submitted by the developer to the zoning administrator, who shall refer it to the Planning and Environmental Commission, which shall consider the plan at a regularly scheduled meeting. A report of the Planning and Environmental Commission stating its findings and recommendations shall be transmitted to the town council for approval in accordance with the applicable provisions of Section 18.66.060 of the Municipal Code. C. The approved development plan shall be used as the principal guide for all development within the Golden Peak ski base/recreation district. D. Amendments to the approved development plan which do not substance alter the basic intent and character 1 t plan may e approved by the zoning administrator the lannin and Environmental Commission at a regularly scheduled public hearing in accordance with the provisions of Section 18.66.060. E. Eeeh-phase-of-ft approved The development plan and any subsequent amendments thereto shall require the approval of the design review board in 4 U-17 0 i. WITIM11 Jill 18.39.130 Lot area. The minimum lot or site area shall be forty acres of site area, at least one acre of which shall be buildable area. (Ord 83 (1 33) §1.) 18.39.150 Setbacks. In the Golden Peak ski base /recreation district, front, side, rear and stream setbacks shall be as indicated on the approved development plan. (Ord. 3 (1 983) § 1 ®) 1 .39.170 Height. 4 , the final roof plan as included in the approved 1 t plan. (Ord. 3 (19 3) § 1.) 1 .3 .1 0 Density Control. Total density shall not exceed one dwelling unit per eight acres of site area. (Ord. 3 (1983) § 1.} 18. 39.190 Site coverage. Site coverage shall be as shown on the approved development plan. (Ord. 38 (1 3) § 1.) 18-39.210 Landsca in and site development. ent. Landscaping requirements shall be as shown on the approved development plan. All areas within the area(s) of disturbance in the landscape plan not occupied by building, round level decks or patios, or parking shall be landscaped. (Ord. 33 (1 3) § 1.) 1 .39.230 Parking Plan Program r i 1 n n r r hall be as shown on and described in the ry l 1 ffteveryoneyim ibasempd y 3 ,,... � k k,' ,. Y; 4 ' .. ,_. �, � .. n, s .a.. , s � . =r i e v rA M v a. ea � ii' JL � 4 ' rt r �' .. - The parking lot, skier drop -off area and Children's Center are the major vehicle destinations at Golden Peak. Vehicles approaching from the west show the parking lot was the biggest destination, attracting 42% of all vehicle trips. The Children's Center and public drop -off were equal attractors at 29% each. On Saturday, a larger percentage of vehicles are destined for the parking lot due to DEVO drop off occurring there. Currently, the public parking area consists of a 130 space lot on the south side of Vail Valley Drive. Approximately 10-12 spaces are reserved for employees, 10 spaces are reserved for Spraddle Creek residents and nearby condominium development and fours aces are reserved for people with disabilities. - The Golden Peak parking lot is used as a skier drop off point, as well as for all day paid parking, On Saturdays, the west portion of the parking lot is reserved until :30 AM for parents of children in the DEVO program to drop their children offs Because of the large volume of DEVO vehicles arriving at one time vehicles trying to get into the parking area for drop-off still often back up on to Vail Valley Drive. - The public skier drop off area is located between the Golden Peak lodge and the Children's Center. There is currently space to accommodate a maximum of 10 vehicles off - street for this activity. At this level of use, vehicles must wait for the ones in front to exit before they can exit the turnaround. At any one time there were between three and five vehicles stopped along Vail Valley Drive during peak periods. - Dwell time is the average length of stay per vehicle in the drop off/pick up turnaround. Posted signs limit vehicles using this area to a 5 minute dwell time. Dwell time in the AM peak hour averaged 3.3 minutes per vehicle. In the afternoon, this duration increased over 75% to 5. 9 minutes per vehicle. Nearly 40% of the vehicles using the turnaround in the PM peak hour stayed over five minutes, and 15% stayed over 10 minutes, - Day care and children's ski school activities take place at the Children's Center. Currently, there are 21 head -ins aces in the parking lot serving the Children's Center. It is signed "Children's Skiing Center Drop-Off Parkin Only." The average stay for vehicles enter the parking lot was 12 to 15 minutes. Two vehicles remained parked in the lot all day during the 12/30/95 observations. In the AM peak hour, December count, 70 vehicles entered the Children's Center parking lot. From observation, approximately 100 people were dropped off at this time. This accounts for % of the total people dropped off at Golden Peak. - Over a third of the peak hour arrivals, 510 persons during the December count, were pedestrians. The following information represents the relative use of the six distinct pedestrian paths used by skiers walking into the Golden Peak area. The path from the west (Vail Village cored was the most utilized by arriving pedestrians, just under one -third at 1 %. Walk-ins from the south side of Manor Vail was next highest at 19 %, followed by those coming up Chalet Drive, 16 %. About 13% of the pedestrians come along Vail Valley Drive north of Golden Peak 11-1 and 7% from the east along Vail Valley Drive. The Ford Park Path, intermingled with Manor Vail guests, accounted for 14% of the walk-ins. Traffic study recommendations: - Redevelopment of the Golden Peak Base Facility should consider mitigation of several capacity and safety deficiencies. - The Children's Center could use an additional 12-15 off-street spaces to augment the existing 21 short term spaces. - The drop-off lane has a demonstrated need for about 25 to 28 off-street stalls. • © '?d ®« that a s 422« 2;increase in d 2 »? would occur, particularly among y »<» visitor segments who already have inclination ^ use the or to :«prefer the eastern portion of the mountain. - It usage, 2 #?2 §? /l for © » ? ? #22f »7f» <&: «� <»<2 4:. ?� y� access the upper mountain and China Bowl areas referred 4above as well as the use of Lift ?asa "skiing " lift) could increase the usage t Lift »as«:t2i«a « ». lift from siren levels, to range of ?? 4 ?8 percent the visitors and locals on any given day. Ski Center at Lionshead, it is not anticipated that either ski school students or the number of VA employees based at Golden Peak will expand significantly. Sven the variety of uses at the Golden Peak area, while demand for Lift 6 might be tripled over the current (rather low) levels, total access to the pod might only be expected to increase by about half that amount, due to the anticipated relatively constant level of use and lack of future growth in demand by both the Golden Peak Children's Center and by Vail Associates' employees based at that location. - Indications are that most of the shift access to Golden peak would be absorbed by increased use of the shuttle bus. Such usage would increase dramatically based on the survey data (46 percent would use the shuttle bus to access the Golden Peak area). This would place some increased demand not only on the Town bus system, but also on the passenger loading and unloading areas at Golden Peak as well. Currently, many skier passengers who unload from the bus at Bridge Street will continue instead to ride the bus to the Golden Peak stop. certain proportion of this increased In -Town bus demand for Golden Peak can be absorbed within the existing capacity of the system. - This analysis is based upon responses to a more comprehensive capital facilities survey, completed by a random sample of skiers interviewed at all of the various on- mountain restaurants at Vail. tj PLAN M ED Pi a`1F F2 04-44 --1- • 1 N to y O L m f ® ®_ lor Z, WAIWWALMATE R s .i, iAiH x, x w- ce e_ SBRCD 4 \C :ROLCDCOCER PLANTING DETA:H, a ^ ®° p �' �p ;l "V •le e m+aw'mv a -.w vWre94� t ,-_- -s . °. r .Y,'f•'MP ALE • 1 N to y O L m f 19Bed • 1 N to y O L m f Pr a 2 f }/ f(§ � ' I - - - - - -- • I I 1 I I I I I �• ------------ - - -- ---- -- 1------------ 1-------- - - - - -- 1 -- _-- _--- ®_J. ®-- __- _ -_ -__L __----- - - - - -- i I I 9 I i I yo — 1 is --- ---------------- __ -- -_- r I � I_, -_. _._ _- __ ------------ J___ ________ __ ___ __ ___ _____ _ __ ___a _____ ------------ �_ ®__- _______ j --------------i---------- I � I TTUDI ALB S ION 2f 1� if �R no I I I pl e.a a I I H 4' i 0 St(t PQ � gn I I a I I I LONGITUDINAL PARIaNG GARAGE UI I G SECTION A3.A ftwd- I j c I I I i j j NS VERSE F KING GARAGE BUILDING SECTIO.N °ae m N 1 4ID,.9ei ®g R.� 3. s � � m � � � ) � � i � `� / \ \ �ra > �d� » / f }\ M M A (:I)- - - ----------- ---- ------ TL Ep, --------- -- IL L-A Li \ ; Cif %' \ I I i I = �} m °� j L L FLOOR PLAN-LEVEL 207 zj FA2 GOLDEN OPERATIONAL PLAN I a A, GOLDEN OPERATIONAL PLAN I a 2 r reality that must be recognized in examining the creation of infrastructure and operational systems for Golden Peak or Vail at large is that both the ski company and the greater Vail community are engaged in the winter and summer resort usiness® For reasons beyond the complete control of the community e demands for and use of resort goods and services will always be subject to specific or isolated events such as the Christmas holiday or a world class competitive or cultural event. Events such as these will by necessity ea that Vail will experience surges r peaks of visitor use that may be mitigated, but will not be entirely overcome or eliminated by investment i ar assets® To the extent that such i demand events tax the capacity of our systems and our collective patience, we must also acknowledge that these events, if well managed, are also what give us life, vitality, excitement and special appeal. It is the effort "manage ell's that leads tot the creation oft is plan. I its application VA has proposed significant physical improvements tote Golden Peak portal. These include: ® doubling the skier drop off zone capacities; - improving ro off flow and function; giving locational primacy to public transit; ® structuring and landscaping prrvate auto parking; improving lit access to balance portal.use across the Village; and - improving base lodge facilities forte guest and local alike. 3 This major investment in hard assets satisfies tot highest degree possible the programmatic requirements of the Golden Peak project's planning professionals. The proposed management techniques which follow are meant to be flexible guidelines and dynamic tools which may be altered, revised, enhanced, or even eliminated over time as needs require to "manage well". And, while these techniques are described in terms of VA or T responsibilities, it must be noted that others, the greater Vail community and each and every Golden Peak neighbor, must likewise contribute, act responsibly and treat others equitably in managing or mitigating the impacts of use, growth and congestion during peak eri ®s within, our community. For their parts, pursuant tote Agreement, of VA and TOV have immediate responsibilities to undertake growth management measures. Section In (pages 1116) oft e Agreement outlines these immediate responsibilities under Tier I of the Plan. VA's obligations include measures which might mitigate impacts at Golden Peak such as providing bus passes to appropriate employees for use on the Town of Vail system, encouraging carpooling, and pursuing Park and Ride sites for employees. TOV's obligations, set forth in the Agreement, include controlling peak traffic and parking issues, productive management of traffic circulation and parking systems, creative- allocation of the bus service, effective utilization of law enforcement personnel, and better distribution of skiers to different base area facilities. i For these purposes it is pertinent to note that in the Agreement " ea Periods" are defined as: Christmas Peak: That period which extends between December 26 an December 31; an High Season: That period which includes Presidents' Weekend and each weekend e i in the third weekend in e rug through the end of March. "Nonpealz Periods" are defined as® Those periods falling outside of the Christmas Peak and i Season an which normally include the early ski season, Thanksgiving, the pre- Christmas as eri , the January to mid-February period, and the late ski season. Another pertinent concept in the Managed Growth Agreement is the benchmark capacity of the mountain which as been defined as 19,900 skiers at one time (II "). The theory e i the Managed Growth Agreement is to implement tiers of management techniques to control infrastructure demands and operations at or below the 19,900 SAOT threshold. additional factor for consideration is the design day standard for Golden Peak planning studies an infrastructure assessment which is 15,000 °T, a typical skier day count for the Taken together these total 148 spaces for drop off and parking. Presently the surface lot existing at Golden Peak holds approximately 1 automobiles or less depending on the amount of snow storage on the lot and the efficiencies of car storage. Of these 150 spaces roughly 18-20 are used by employees; Spraddle Creek roe ers rase a an util° e s aces; s ces are used for Cross Coen t Ski Van is and ro ® and approximately 118 spaces are available for use by the skiing u lic for a fee. Parking requirements forte Ski Base/Recreation District are addressed in Section 18.39.230 of the Vail Ordinances which reads: "Off-street parking shall be provided in accordance with Chapter 1 . _and/or asspecified on the Approved evelo ent Plan.11(emphasis supplied) The lang uage o this section er its an contemplates a parking function an design unique tot is district and its development plan. In response tot is unique environment the parking structure proposed in this plan consists o par ki n spaces (including an icy a or ADA spaces) located at or below the street elevation and landscaped across the top to provide an aesthetic benefit tot the development and the surrounding neighborhood. The fundamental concept oft the organization and management ofthese parking spaces, the equivalent of a Tier management tec ni eye, is to create a managed or reserved "right to park" mechanism designed to control the availability and use oft the spaces and hence cut down on indiscriminate tra c flows while providing for and paying fort the aesthetic 1 L approximately 2 members to every parking space. These members would call the parking manager more than 24- hours in advance to reserve their use of available spaces. A reservation list from among the members would be compiled aily fort the management of entry access by personnel stationed in the attendant booth at the entry to the structure. e. Access into the structure would be permitted upon presentation of a photo I. D. identifying the bearer as s member and s confirmation of a reserved r° space on the parking availability list® In the event that all parking spaces are not fully reserved and utilized the club members, VA, as operator of the facility, reserves the right at any time oft the year to utilize unreserved spaces for other guests, members of the skiing lic, employees or other persons who likewise must call and reserve a space less than ours in advance. is short-notice se by non-members would be permitted only on a daily basis by reservation. owever, this managed ®erational feature would expand the available user groups and increase the utilization oft the structure in non peak periods without adding appreciable, ern ate traffic. Further, if the utility of the structure can be maximized by offering additional e e hi s for sale, VA will o so after the first year of operation to lis es typical occupancies. M. SKIER DROP OFF Skier drop off occurs presently on the east side oft the existing Golden Peak structure a immediately tote north of the Children's Center. Existing conditions provide for 21 head-in s aces adjacent tote Children's Center and 1 9 j 1 may be needed to prevent congestion or vehicle stacking into Vail Valley Drive or the bus lane® During these periods and times, except for special events, VA will permit parking by the general public in the drop-off zone surface s aces consistent with the practice and use of other VA parking lots such as North Day lot. 4. Permanent, static, si na a at the top of Blue Cow Chute will be installed by TOV indicating that there is o public parking at Golden Peak and that only Children's Center and skier drop off is er itte 5® In Section V (page ) aft the Agreement a itional skier drop off zones have been identified as "pressing current trans portation and circulation needs". VA will therefore cooperate with the TOV in identifying additional skier drop off zones elsewhere in the town including For ar , the Main Parking Structure, Lions ea , and other locations which will be formalized and improved the Town of Vail. Initially TOV will develop an implement a plan for general skier drop on the upper ec of e Transportation Center utilizing existing physical improvements an facilities® ® Upon the conclusion of each ea Period and ski season the Assessment Committee or its designee, will specifically assess access to and egress from the mountain at Golden Peak, together with traffic and drop off impacts associated with e skier movements and will make recommendations for to the Tier I management techniques adjustments or improvements Iv: EMPLOYEE PARKING Presently 18 to 20 VA employees par t Golden Peak of the approximately 500 employees who are based there in Peak Periods. Another 2 to 30 spaces are seasonally leased by VA from third parties for employee parking. The remaining % of Golden Peak based employees par in public lots, use public transit, or use other private parking spots. A® Tier 1. The following ms a e e t techniques will be implemented sequentially upon redevelopment to mitigate employee transportation impacts and e the needs of the community's employees: ® VA together it V, ill enter into negotiations it the Colorado 7 Department of Tra I nsportation to secure, if os i le, an employee ar and ride e i terce t lot on Highway 6 in Eagle-Vail. This lot would be used for VA an employees to park their vehicles in le --Vail an utilize established pu lic transportation routes to continue on tot eir job locations in Vail® In the event the CDOT site is not available or unsuitable, of er sites will be located and secured for a park and ride lots 2® To the extents ace availability exists during non-peak perio s, V. A. will permit managed employee par i by reservation in the parking structure at Golden Peak. 1 described above, aSSeSS t. C operational res ltq and make recommendations for alterations or enhancements to the l .) Tier H. In the event that some or all of the Tier I management techniques have been implemented and employee , parking and transit is still concern, additional e o s of employee tr sit and parking it be undertaken at the recommendation of the Assessment Committee or its designee. V. MOUNTAIN OPERATIONS (A.) jier 1. Management measures to be undertaken during a eri s in a sequential fashion concurrently wit redevelopment include: . VA will extend its periods of mountain operations later into the day (e.g. until .) to spread out the departure times of skiers from e mountain. 2. Employee passes will be restricted during the Christmas Peak an Presidents' weekend. 3. improvements to the food and eves e offering at the base facility restaurant, including a res ski and dinner offerings, will be designed to attract the skiing u lic and stagger the public's departure from the portal . will cooperate and coordinate with the Colorado Department of Transportation regarding the installation of signage at base facilities, including Gof a ea advising e a i skiers of road conditions l and, if conditions are adverse, inviting advising in skiers to stay later in the village and draw out their departure times. 5. Upon the conclusion of each ea Period and the ski season the Assessment Committee or its designee will assess mountain operation impacts and a e recommendations for adjustments or improvements to the ier management tec i es described above. Tier n. e eve that s r all of a Tier management ® congestion stilt exists i the portal techniques have been implemented during ea eri® s, then the following successive management efforts will be undertaken in the next succeeding ski season or Peak Period: la VA /or TOV will implement additional ie I measures which have of yet been employed or will enhance those Tier I techniques already in se according to the recommendations of the Assessment Committee or its designee. 2® i continue to tae o �rational ea res t balance the functionality and se of its portals, as well as on-mountain circulation. COMMUNITY VI. DEVO/LOCAL AND b= " is an abbreviation for the Vail Development Team, a Children's Ski School Program consisting of 300 children whis ers specialized ski school classes to the children of locals and front range skiers. The high concentration of locals 1 (A ®) 'Pier 1. Management measures to be taken concurrently it redevelopment include: 1® Ski Club it programs will be coordinated wit other special events, as as done during the 1994/1995 easo , to reve t overcrowding of ro s in the portal at any one time. 2. Start times for Ski Club ail during peak periods and high season ill be coordinated so that Ski Club it arrival times will occur before the 9 a.m. hour rush and it be terminated ter in the afternoon to spread the peak departure r e ski mountain. and encourage 1 ail users to arrive and depart will allow using the General Skier r Zone. of the ski season, the sses e Committee or its 4® Upon the conclusion designee will monitor the Tier I techniques described above, assess the impact of Ski Club ail on the use and efficiencies of the portal and e recommendations for alterations or enhancements to the plan. (B.) _Tier H. In the event that some or all of t he Tier I measures have been implemented and l Vail stilt poses logistical problems for the optimized se of the portal, the recommendations of e Assessment Committee or its designee will be implemented. 1. Ski Club ail will be terminated in ole or in a in its use of the Golden ea race courses and se facility. si to cut down the dwell times to iles dropping skiers fors ' school registration. 5® Upon the conclusion of each a Period and the s' seas®, the Assessment Committee or its designee will assess congestion in the portal related to ski school activities and e recommendations for adjustments or improvements t the Tier I management techniques discussed above. ®j Tier H. In the event that some or all of the Tier I management techniques have been implemented and congestion associated wit the ski schools still results in crowding in the o al then a following additional management ste s will be sequentially implemented: ® The recommendations for improvements r adjustments made by the Assessment Committee or its designee will be instituted in e following season or Peak Period. m VA will make improvements to its Lionshead Ski School facilities upon the redevelopment oft that o al taking pressure off of the Golden Peak portal. ® LOADING, DELIVERY AND TRASH REMOVAL The Golden Peak Base Facility requires the delivery of food and liquor for its restaurant operations trash and recycling for all functions located at Golden ea Currently, food and liquor delivery takes place daily between 6® a.m. and 7:00 a. m. and again a ee ® and The majority of operational inefficiencies i I then the following management techniques ill be implemented in the next succeeding ski season: . The recommendations of s es a Committee will be implemented. 2. VA will endeavor t eliver larger loads directly to o lden Peak and store additional food and every e on site thus reducing the number of trips or will arrange night delivery to avoid traffic congestion. X. SNOW MANAGEMENT Snow management of e n Peak will be conducted in er similar to that in other VA portals. Snow storage zones ave been depicted upon the revise snow storage map prepared and submitted wit the Application. .) Tier 1. The following e en efforts ill be undertaken wit respect to snow storage and arts e e t during the ski season, including peak and r season periods. . VA will by contract with third a ies or through its own forces plow all areas of vehicular circulation as depicted on the Snow an a en Plan by a. m. every morning on a snowfall of 4 or more inches. . VA, through its own forces, will remove snow from sidewalks and I a areas depicted upon the Snow Management la y means of a bobcat, an ATV and/or by hand between the hours of on all mornings following snowfall of 4 ices or more. 3. VA will store snow in temporary snow storage areas within the drop off zones and within two to seven days of a " snowfall will use loaders an trucks o remove the snow stored there and transport it from the site® Impacts on traffic congestion will eter e the speed and frequency of removal of snow from the temporary o storage areas VA will remove snow immediately i snow storage results in congestion in the drop-off zones causing to stacking into the street m At the end of each eaPeriod i season the Assessment Committee or its designee will review snow removal performance during the season and, as ecessa , make recommendations for adjustments or improvements to the Tier I techniques described above. (B.) Tier H. In the event that some or all of e Tier I techniques dei ne to manage snow ve not effectively cleared the snow from the drop off zones r other public areas /or have impacted circulation the public streets, then V ill implement recto e dos made by the Assessment Committee or its designee. XI. SPECIAL EVENTS AND I RACING Golden e is the site of a siraces and eci ' events ri the course of a ski season. Typically the racing season begins in i ece r and runs through early April. Training for ski racing can a broken down as follows: Club Vail generates 60,000 gate starts per year; high school programs add 7,500 to starts per year, and corporate/club corporate/club training i events add 7,500 more starts per yearp Actual racing starts for these three user groups are approximately 15,000 gate starts per year for Ski Club ail, with an additional , to per year for local high school programs, and , 000 starts per year for corporate and club racing. These total roughly 102,000 ate starts per year and very e 4.5 ski racing everts per week. Daily activity ®r ski racing is lly commences continues until 4:30 p.m. Of these race events two ®r three major televised events occur each year, not all of which are e a ere the Golden Peak course. These include e Pro Tour, PIS World and erica Trophy Series races® In 1 the World Championships will be held at ail and opening ceremonies are scheduled for Golden Peak. Race starts demand for training space have been growing steadily for the past decade. Special Events which occur t Golden Peak, in addition to the routine racing programs, i cl a various snowboarding events which draw typically 100 to 250 people, the ® Pro Tour which draws t 500 people, and Hot Winter Nights events which draw to 1000 people typically in e rua and arc and up to 3000 people during the Christmas holiday. 6) Tier L Management techniques already utilized and in ! ce at Golden Peak r which will be implement it redevelopment include: 2' 1. Snowboarding events typically held in non- peak erio s are usually small with i i al impact on portal arrivals or use® Arrivals and staging f event participants ill be managed with VA personnel on an "as needed" basis. 2® Hot Winter Nights events are held during ours and not interfere with other portal arrivals or demands on infrastructure. These will be managed it VA personnel on an `gas needed" basis. 3. Major events, such as televise racing 'events, the World Championships, major bicycle race events, and summer ire r will be managed through the standard special event permitting process of the ® At the end of each ea Period and ski season the Assessment Committee ' or its designee will review and recommendations concerning Speci l Events and racing activities at Golden Peak and their impacts on the portal and congestion r the surrounding infrastructure. (B.) Tier H. In ' the event some or all of the Tier I techniques have been implemented and estio has still resulted at the portal which adversely effects traffic or surrounding town infrastructure t o ill implement the recommendations of the Assessment Committee or its designee in the following ski season or Peak Period. In addition t e following succe ive ` management tec i e ill be implemented: ® Special events will be moved in a rt from this al t® down valley locations. e ' PLANNING I E TAL COMMISSION November 27,1995 Minutes MEMBERS PRESENT: ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Bob Armour Tom Moorhead . Greg Arnsden Mike Mollica Greg Moffet Jim Curnutte Henry Pratt Lauren Waterton Jeff Bowen Randy Stouder Dalton Williams George Ruther Kevin Dei han (t hour late) Judy Rodriguez Public a in 2:00 p.m. The meeting was called to order by Bob Armour at 2:05 Kevin Deighan was not present. Mike ktiolltca asked for a Commission discussion and vote on an issue with the VA temporary tent in Lionshead. Randy Stouder stated that the VA temporary tent is made of vinyl, rather than canvas (approved material) and he felt that the PEC should review the change in fabric. He said there would also be rough log siding on the lower portions of the tent. He asked the Commission to discuss the material change. Jack Hunn said the current tent was not portable, however, the fabric is of the same quality. Dalton Williams had a problem with the rough wood siding and with the material change. He stated that the wood siding would make the tent look like an old beat -up shed. Last year's material was better. Dalton said to put back what was approved, the size construction etc. Jack Hunn said the new location was 'approved. Dalton Williams said last; year's tent had roll -up sides and the current tent with oo siding precludes that. VA is modifying an approval. He is not in favor of approving this change. Jack Hunn said the rough siding was added to give the tent a western look'and character. Randy Stouder also added that staff recommended that the rough idin e added. Greg Moffet asked if the same material from last year was still available. ' Jack Hunn said that it was, but it would have to come from a different manufacturer and this would take more time. Jack requested going through one year looking like it does. They made a mistake by putting the shiny side out instead of the dull side. Three fabric samples were shown to the PEC. Jack stated that sample ## f was last years fabric, sample # 2 is this years, with the exception that the shiny side mistakenly was put on the outside and can't be turned inside out at this point® 1 Jeff made a motion for denial. Dalton Williams seconded the motion. Dalton ke if he missed something similar that had been previously approved during meetings in the past. Dalton said his concerns were that in his 6 years on the Board, they made someone take a roof off for a similar situation. Bob Ar =,our reminded the Commissioners that there is a motion on the floor and discussion should have been taken up in the worksession. George ,Other mentioned the Musyl residence and the Michael Lauterbach residence on Sandstone were similar situations where surveying errors caused buildings to be non- conforming, however, the PEC had granted a variance. Dalton Williams said errors and omission insurance should cover this Foss® Bob Borne said with regard to the Musyl residence, the surveyor made a 2.5` error in height. The Board granted this variance. He stated that the home (Unit 6, Innsbruck Meadows) is sold and the owners vivant to move in. It cannot be moved. Bob Armour reminded Bob Borne that there is an appeals procedure after the PEC vote. Dalton Willia asked the staff if there is any such thing as a penalty to the surveyor because of this error- George ; uther said he Is not aware of any way for the Town to penalize the surveyor. The vote:; was 3 in favor of denial and 2 opposed for denial. Mike Mollica stated that Bob Borne had 10 days to appeal to Town Council regarding the PEC vote of denial. 2. A request for an amendment to Chapter .24.050, Permitted and Conditional Uses Above Second Floor, to clarify the Zoning Code regarding the removal of dwelling units and accommodation units for all floors above the second floor, requiring a Conditional Use Permit. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: eor e Ruther George Ruther gave an overview of the request and stated that he was bringing it to the PEC as a housek-eeping item. If we are proposing to keep the use the same, there would be no change in the perynitted use.. This change in the permitted use is in the staff memo with the language. Staff feefs this change should be made to create consistency in the code. Bob Arnfour asked Tom Moorhead if he was going to say anything on this subject. Jim Lamont, ` representing the EVHA, would like to see the language strengthened and is in favor of the change, because it promotes the mixed use in the neighborhood. Greg o et asked if e were recommending this to go to Council. Planning and Environmenial Commission MinuieS November27,1995 George Ruther said yes, that any change to an Ordinance goes to the Council. Greg Amsden is against it because it is an addition to a process that is not needed. Jeff Bowen said it tightens up the Ordinance. He proposed that in addition to the staff's language some of the uses in the memo should be deleted such as delicatessens and speciality food stores, Variety stores, Liquor stores, Radio and TV stores and repair shops and kennels. Dalton Williams said it reduces density in the wrong place and so he is in favor of it. Dalton said to delete dog kennels, but wants to stick with the text that staff recommended. Henry ratt falls between the two Gregs. He can go either way. Bob Armour is in favor of it. Jeff. Bowen made a motion'to approve this request for recommendation to Council with the dditioiaai language that dog kennel and Household Appliance Mores be removed. Greg offet seconded the motion® Dalton Williams said he hates to tinker with the wording on the spur of the moment, although he is not in favor of dog kennels being included. Jeff Bowen reminded the Commissioners that this is going to Council. The vote was 4 in favor and Greg sden and Dalton Williams opposed. . A request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow for a "quasi - public club' to be located on the 3rd and 4th floors of the Serranos Building located at 293 Hanson Ranch Road /Lot C, Block 2, Vail Village t st Piling. Applicant: Gretta Parks, represented by Glen Heelan. Planner- Jim Curnutte Bob Armour reminded everyone that at the last meeting this item was tabled. Tom Moorhead gave his determination of a Conditional Use Permit and clarified it with a memo. He does believe the application meets the Conditional Use criteria and a private club is not an issue. It is his understanding from the Conditional Use standpoint, nothing stands in the way of issuing it. There was a New Purpose clause adopted in 1980 and nowhere under the CCI regs is there identified any requirement that each building have a residential component. There is no reference to dwelling units, so basically he could not find any regulation that would preclude granting this. request® The building that is being replaced had no residential component® Jeff Bowen said the applicant has changed from a private club to a quasi - private club. His question is does that use fit within the Zoning Code. Henry ra asked if excluding clubs was intentional. Tom Moorhead said that under the present application, it is available to the public for a fee. Jeff Bowen asked if that would be Tom's opinion if it would be a private club. Planning and Environmental Commissi ®n Minutes November 27, 1995 4 To � oorhead said he didn't know. What is being proposed is not a private club. Glert Heelan said he dosgn*t have a lot to add. We have identified the issues. The 3rd and 4th floor is similar to an eating and drinking establishment. Jim Laimont, representing the PVH , asked Torn if this is quasi- public, do these definitions stern from e open space zoning issues. How do we define private. If one needs a membership to join a private club in other zone districts and also has a membership in a quasi- public club; what is the clifference between them. Tom Moorhead said the use is issue being addressed. In 1930 the New CCi Purpose statement did not reference any old language. Old language weight was lost with the New Purpose statement. Jim ont said a policy issue is the argument. That this use will not change the character of the neighborhood is a fallacious argument. dearly any new building must conform to the mixed use gets. Our discussion here should be if we can have accommodation units in the building and stiff have a club. He takes argument with staff and stated that we have to be very careful if we are changing our philosophical goals. If we are going to follow the staff's recommendation, there a recedent will be set that will eventually o away with the mixed use in the neighborhood. We 't want to become a sales tax cow to finance the government. Kevin Deighan arrived at 3:05p.m. Tom Maorhead said accommodation units are encouraged. What staff has recommended clearly refer es the policy that is now in effect. Greg offet is in favor of it but with minor changes. He would like a condition to be added that applicant apply for a public liquor license. Greg, Amsden agrees with Greg Moffet's comments. What if the success of the private club was o good that they want to go totally privates Some recourse needs to be done by the Town. He didn't think many people actually reside in the CCI Zone District® He doesn't believe it's a residerTfial sector.' Henry ra said this use is beneficial to the Town. We roust evaluate these requests on a case by case basis. We should consider a restriction against live music; where a party might bring in amplified or live music. Jim Guirnutte stated that the noise ordinance would deal with any live music. Henry., Pratt said the noise ordinance is reactive. He would like to prohibit it altogether and take an active stance with this condition. Glen Ffeelan said it may be appropriate to have live music, such as a piano bar as long as it complies with the noise ordinance. Tom Worhead said it comes down to the design of the amplified sound system® We may want to consider some type of condition to approve the design of the amplified system. Jim Cuwnutte said existing noise ordinances and promises by the applicant made him believe that this would e complied with. Planning and Environmenia9 Commission Minutes November 27, 199 5 a Glen Heelan said they are air - conditioning the whole building to control noise. He stated that he is seas` i e to the noise issue. Dalton Williams sees no problem with the proposed use. That is what the village is about. This is a case were the building has nearer had accommodation units and so is net setting precedent. Jeff Bowen said 's are important but not necessarily in the village. This is an excellent use of the building. He still has a problem with the.. exclusivity. Jim Lamont said this was a mixed use building in the 1970's. In response to Greg's point; In the - '70's it was employee housing and that is why the horizontal zoning was passed. The eon ircial value is exceeding the residential value. We are not here to protect the locals, but to protect e residential use. Residential means being made up of residential and accommodation units. e are ma in a decision in a de facto basis to turn it into all commercial. Jinn tends to agree with Worn regarding having a sauna design system. Bob our is on the'fence. It is not an existing lodge, nor will it be. He is against a private club.'"--- A quasi - private is somewhat better. Jim Curinutte clarified the horizontal zone and that this property, in relation to a quasi -club, meets the criteria for a Conditional Use . Bob r our said he wants to change the two year start date to one year. Greg offet agreed that he doesn't want it two years from toddy. Tom Moorhead said the approval should be concurrent with the date. Kevin , ighan said he will not vote on this issue, but is happy with the change to quasi - private. Jeff Bowen made a motion to approve with the additional conditions that the applicant must carry a public liquor license and that the approval run concurrently with the approval of the original project- ,Greg et seconded the motion. Bob r our stated that in April 1997, this Conditional Use would expire should there be a lapse in construction. Dalton illias wanted it clear that if it becomes a private club, it will no longer be able to operate- operate- Tom Moorhead said the applicant °s change of use is not being hindered by the State Legislative To Liquor Law. Glen Heelan said we are applying for a hotel and lodging liquor license.' Dalton illiams reminded the applicant that the Conditional Use approval would go away if it becomes private. Planning and Environmental commission Minutes November 27, 1995 6 Jim u utte said there were 150 public parking spaces on the property now that theoretically could be used by the public. These are being replaced by a 145 2-tier managed parking structure. Tier 1 spaces are controlled. Tier 2 spaces would be fully utilized through reservation system that could be open to the public. The parking structure is visually buried. It fits in n° ely into the hillside.- if the applicant does not have sufficient pre- sales, they may chase not to build the structure at all. This is a concern and it needs to be discussed among the PEC members. The applicant would offer to the Town a pay -irk -lieu fee instead of building the parking structure. . Increased the retail exposure® . The north side has been broken to reduce the size. 4. Resolved the south side issues. 5. Added facade relief. 6.-Added a peaked roof feature to resolve the ambiguity with the ordinance with respect to height They replaced the flat roofs with an opaque skylight. The peaked skylight is being utilized to hide the mechanical systems, however they are flexible with the material on these skylights- 7. They added a service dock so that loading/unloading loading/unloading is not exposed. 3: The: cGndo entry has been lowered. . They hid the mechanical equipment. 10 They revised the lift shack, bus stop structure and added a roof peak feature. Dave Corbin began to address the fourteen conditions. onditlo no 1: The appricant had no objection in entering into a Developer Improvement Agreement. Condiflon no 2. Regarding the 146 proposed parking structure, VA expressed concern with the question of the timing regarding the reve etation of the site prior to 1997. Jim rnutte stated that the revegetation pertains to the structure not being built at all. Bob Armour questioned the pay in lieu fee for how many parking spaces. Jim Curnutte said if structure is not built, the comparison may be made to what we have row. Jim Lamont was concerned with the language regarding this area. If the parking structure goes away the green space will remain and provide a milling area for Chair 12. This meets all the design requirements. Diane Milligan, representing the Ramshorn, expressed approval of the Golden Peak redevelopment because the parking would be covered and aesthetically appealing. If the parking strut : r is eliminated, they would be very concerned and do not want to see surface parking to replace the covered parking. Dave Corbin said if the structure is not built, 30 spaces will be provided so as to cut back on the pay in lieu fee. Jim Lamont stated that if the parkin doesn't happen, he wants landscaping to replace it. Bob ur asked the Commissioners their thoughts on the parking issue. Kevin Deighan is not in favor of a managed parking system, but rather public parking. He is not in favor of VA not building a parking structure. Dave Corbin said the cost of not building the structure would be approximately $1,900,000.00, if paid according to today's pay -in -lieu fee. Planning and Environmental commission lvlintites November 27, 1995 10 Dave Corbin asked the PEC if VA could discuss different options with Council. Greg . sdeh said they cannot build lust part of the structure. Dave Cwbin said he could break even on part of the cost with a partial structure. Dalton Williams said to pay the true adjusted cost of building a parking space or pay for the Town of bail to build it. Bob Arracur said we need to get the wording correct. Dave Cowbin said if there is a no provision in the Town Ordinance, why would VA be treated differently or subjected to a different standard. Dalton W, illiams said we are rushing this process all the way through. Jim Curnutte said Condition no 2 will be rewritten by staff to reflect PEC comments. Mike Matlica suggested we go forward with the plan. If the plan for the structure changes, they heed to ome back with the plan. We can strike the final sentence in condition no 2. Condito no 3. Dave doibin asked what is the scope of DRB and to what extent is the process never ending. What is e definition of substantial change . Bob Arrnour said the PEC has performed a substantial design process. To have to go through an 3 month process with the DRB and then go back to the PEC is not right. Jim Curnutte said the DRB does review mass and bulk as well. Jim said the Council can direct the DRI37.s focus. Jim nt said the whole review process can modify/ uphold/ or change. The appeal process can change it and so it doesn't need to be in the recommendations. Greg den said it requires two Town Council meetings. Kevin fghan also felt it unfair to dome back to the PEC. Jim Currrutte said anyone can appeal the 's decision® Dave Corbin understands that if VA institutes a change, they have no problem coming back. The scope of DRB's review should be color, material etc., not bulk or mass. Jeff Bowen thought we could instruct the DRB as to what to review. Jim Curnufte said staff can prepare a memo to the DRB which reflects the P C's recommendation for the D 's focus on the project. Jeff Bowren said the memo should be specific as to what the DRB can do. -Condition no 4. Planning and Environmental Commission MinLnes November 27, 1995 12 fl Jim Curnutte said that the Town suggested a variety of ways to decrease the amount o f at roof on the building and hide mechanical equipment at the same time. Jeff Bowen said the peaked roof solves the Commissioner's problem. Jim Lamont said a point of contention is the additional 7 feet. Nothing in the code prohibits a flat roof. Dave Schnegelberger said there is subjective judgement involved here. Jeff Bowen said this is a district with olume and height roles only. Mike Mollica said there are numerous ways to come op with a sloping roof. We are just trying to work with the applicant. Jack Hunn explained the peaks successfully hide the mechanical elements and fans. Jim-Curnutte said the sloping roofs allowed to reduce the flat roofs and cover the mechanical equipment. Chris Ryman said he felt it had a clean look, but will compromise to satisfy all the constituents just to be done with this issue. Jim Lamont asked if all the mechanical equipment will be covered. Jack Hunn explained why they downplayed the entrance so as not to have dueling towers. The tower is needed for a grand lobby and to let in light. Chris Fly ah said it fits in well with a residential neighborhood. A ski day lodge look would have generated a lot more criticism. Eight months of the year the building should be perceived as having a residential look. Chris Hyman said the eastern side could be softened with canopies. He said you have a very different look from street level. Henry Pratt said that the roof solution had an elegant look to it. Condition no 5. Henry Pratt asked staff in their memo to DRB, note the fallowing PEC recommendations: The three residential porch overhangs need to be pulled back a minimum of ` -6. The mechanical roof coverings need to be made of the same material as the rest of the roof and mounted on posts to allow air to circulate underneath. ® More vertical landscaping needs to be in place on the north elevation. m T current design for the south entry needs to be looked at again. DRB will have sornething to say about this entr ay_ Condition o 6. Dave Corbin asked what the limitation in the e o included. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes November 2i, 1995 14 Jim urnutte said that Council will make the final decision, but staff will review the final streetscape and bus lane construction design and this should be worded in condition no 6m Greg offet said the Children's Center path to the parking structure is more dangerous then before and no significant effort has been made to change this. Dave Corbin said VA has added, at staff's request, the bus lane and pedestrian walkway. Greg offet said VA is creating an opportunity for small children to run out into traffic lanes. r. ag Arnsden said signage could address this issue David nyon from Design Workshop said 55' is needed from the barrier to turn at this angle. A speed bump could be added with signage. It is less safe today than what we are proposing. Greg offet said the operations plan should address this specifically. Dave Corbin said it does address it in peak periods® Greg offet said he would like to see stop signs and much more mitigation than shown on the plan. Chris Ryman said he will not say he will have personnel there, since that creates a liability, but he will put in all the safety features such as signs etc., in the best interests of the public, Jim Lamont said any streetscape issues should be appealable to the Town Council, Diane Milfigan has a grave issue with the sidewalk on the east of Vail Valley Drive because of the safety issues. By highlighting the west, side, you will encourage people to walk on the west side. Also, there are too many entrances and exits on the east side. The west side is the safest route from the parking structure to the mountain base. Crossover traffic will always be there, but V needs to encourage use of the west side, Greg en agrees with the west sidewalk with two crossovers one being at the Vail Trails. The Board voted unanimously in favor of the west sidewalk only by a vote of 7-0. !onditibn of 7. Dave Corbin had no objection to condition no 7. With respect to condition no €3, plantings along the street ere discouraged because of plowing and no large; vertical landscaping was proposed in the center because itwoul obstruct views and hide the pedestrian path. :altos Wi r liams had no problem with benches and but would also like a piece of art. Henry _mitt thinks it out of character with the rest of the streetscape. Kevin Deiighan, Greg A sden and Greg Moffet agreed. Jim Currmtte asked the consensus of the PEC. Bob Armour €cur said if you can find an art piece that fits, suggest that AIPP put it in- Plannifig and En ironmental Commission Minute November 27, 1995 15 Condition no 8. r Ccsnsf:tion no. a was deleted by s consensus of the Board with the recommendation that the AIPP consider it as a location for a piece of art' Condition no 9. Dare Corbin said that VA did not want to introduce pedestrians for safety reasons. A wider sidewalk is designed primarily for summer purposes. VA feels a 4® sidewalk is appropriate, if at all. Any wider of a sidewalk will compromise the parking space stall length and aisle width. The Children's Center crossing will be squeezed and safety compromised with a wider sidewalk. Jim Lamont is for the wider sidewalk. Hen Pratt is not in favor of giving up the parking stall length. Dalton Williams :wants a ' sidewalk and feels it important for the summer. He would rather pull parking depth back and use the extra sidewalk length for snow storage in the winter. David Kenyon, from Design Workshop, said we have a wall there for safety reasons and would not like the wall to go away. Dalton illiams said he would rather have a berm there made out of show. Jeff Bowen is fine with the 4e sidewalk, but wants it open in the winter for jogging. Greg Am den wants a 6® sidewalk and wants to shorten the spaces that are affected. Greg offet feels it important to make the parking spaces as big as you can® Kevin Delghan wants a 6° sidewalk. Bob Armour wants a 6° sidewalk. Condition no 10. Dave Corbin does not object to this condition and will construct the Vail Trail extension. Condition no 11. Dave Corbin has no abjection with this condition. Jim Lamont said we should have a designer tent or a permanent structure made of fabric. He said to ake sure they are really classy. The Board voted unanimously in favor of this condition. Condition no 12. The Board voted unanimously in favor of this condition. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes November 27, 1995 16 Conditions: 1. ol�. 2. It be changed to road T V and applicant agree that the 148 space parking is an integral cowmponent. It may begin in the 1997 construction season. . To: read that any changes made by the applicant will cause the applicant to return to the PEC for review. 4. Dellete 5. Re— commended that a memo be written to the DRB suggesting they focus on certain is es re: the covered deck be moved back® Also that the mechanical coverings be the same as the roof material and be mount. d on posts for air circulation. Also to take another look at the south side entry with a pull out dormer and recommend that DRB discuss this issue: Henry Pratt said to make changes and bring it to` DRB. Bob Armour said to change it back to the way it vas. 6. A . "construction" designs and add two crosswalks across Vail Valley Drive. 7. o . Delete 9. As designed 10, b 11, b 12. o 13. Add the wording "mutually acceptable solution."° 14. Two o 20' + evergreens and maple moved to the entry plaza® Additionat conditions up for discussionm 1 Change wording in Management Plan to allow DEVO to be moved to other Vail portals, bw not to Beaver Creek entirely. Dave Corbin said ®evo could be terminated by VA at any time. It is a private interest. Greg Moffiet warts the elimination of Devo removed from the management plan, He wants it one of the contingencies to eliminate DEVO. Dalton rfiams agrees with Greg offet's statement.. The consensus of the Board was 4 voted to take out the wording and 3 voted to keep It in® Chris ley ; n said it's the largest issue of the management plan® VA has created a large infrastrucUire to address this issue® The motion was seconded by Kevin Deighan. The Bo ar voted unanimously with a vote of ®0. Chris Ryman thanked the Board, staff and Jim Lamont and feels that VA has a better product because of all the discussion. 8 be Jeff Bowen moved that agenda items 5, 6, and 7 be tabled and that withdrawn. Planning and PnvironmenW Commission Minuses November 27, 1995 20