Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-0708 PECTHIS ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail will hold a public hearing in accordance with Section 18.66.060 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail on July 8,1996, at 2:00 P.M. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. In consideration of: A request for an exterior addition utilizing the 250 Ordinance, located at 781 Potato Patch/Lot 21, Potato Patch. Applicant: Sissel and Richard Pomboy Planner: Dominic Mauriello A request for a worksession to discuss parking and retaining wall height variances to allow for the construction of a new parking area at the Lodge at Lionshead, located at 380 East Lionshead Circle/Lot 6, Block 2, Vail Lionshead, 2nd Filing. Applicant: Lodge at Lionshead, represented by Ric Fields Planner: Dominic Mauriello A request for front and side setback variance to allow for a residential addition to the Messenbaugh residence, located at 970 Fairway Court/Lot 5, Vail Village 10th Filing. Applicant: Robert and Hildegard Messenbaugh, represented by Mike Guida Planner: George Ruther A request for worksession to discuss a conditional use permit for a proposed addition to the Vail Chapel, located at 19 Vail Road/Tract J, Block 7, Vail Village 1 st Filing. Applicant: Vail Religious Foundation Planner: Dominic Mauriello A request for a conditional use permit, a density and front setback variance to allow for a Type 11 EHU above the existing garage, located at 227 Rockledge Road/Lot 13A, Block 7, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: Steve Kirby Planner: Dominic Mauriello A request for a setback variance to allow for a snowmelt boiler to encroach 5.5 feet into a sideyard setback, located at 2049 Sunburst Drive/Lot 1, Vail Valley 4th Filing. Applicant: Landon and Mary Hilliard, represented by Larry Eskwith Planner: George Ruther A request for a conceptual discussion of Lionshead Redevelopment. Applicant: Vail Associates, represented by Dave Corbin Planner: Susan Connelly Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479-2114 voice or 479-2356 TDD for information. Community Development Department Published June 21, 1996 in the Vail Trail. Agenda last revised 7/2/96 9am PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION Monday, July 8, 1996 AGENDA Proiect Orientation / Lunch - Communitv Development Department 12:00 pm Site Visits 1:00 pm 1. Messenbaugh - 970 Fairway Court 2. Vail Chapel - 19 Vail Road 3. Lodge at Lionshead - 380 East Lionshead Circle Driver: George Public Hearinq - Town Council Chambers 2:00 p.m. 1. A request for a setback variance to allow for a snowmelt boiler to encroach 5.5 feet into a sideyard setback, located at 2049 Sunburst Drive/Lot 1, Vail Valley 4th Filing. Applicant: Landon and Mary Hilliard, represented by Larry Eskwith Planner: George Ruther • 2. A request for a worksession to discuss parking and retaining wall height variances to allow for the construction of a new parking area at the Lodge at Lionshead, Phase III, located at 380 East Lionshead Circle/Lot 6, Block 2, Vail Lionshead, 2nd Filing. Applicant: Lodge at Lionshead, represented by Ric Fields Planner: Dominic Mauriello 3. A request for front and side setback variances to allow for a residential addition to the Messenbaugh residence, located at 970 Fairway Court/Lot 5, Vail Village 10th Filing. Applicant: Robert and Hildegard Messenbaugh, represented by Mike Guida Planner: George Ruther 4. A request for worksession to discuss a conditional use permit for a proposed addition to the Vail Chapel, located at 19 Vail Road/Tract J, Block 7, Vail Village 1 st Filing. Applicant: Vail Religious Foundation, represented by Ned Gwathmey Planner: Dominic Mauriello 5. A request for a conceptual discussion of Lionshead redevelopment. Applicant: Vail Associates, represented by Dave Corbin Planner: Susan Connelly 0 Agenda last revised 7/2/96 9am 6. A request for an exterior addition utilizing the 250 Ordinance, located at 781 Potato Patch/Lot 21, Potato Patch. Applicant: Sissel and Richard Pomboy Planner: Dominic Mauriello TABLED UNTIL JULY 22,1996 7. A request for a conditional use permit, a density variance and front setback variance to allow for a Type II EHU above the existing garage, located at 227 Rockledge Road/Lot 13A, Block 7, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: Steve Kirby Planner: Dominic Mauriello WITHDRAWN /////////// 8. Information Update • Request for endorsement of Vail Tomorrow 9. Approval of June 24, 1996 minutes Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479-2114 voice or 479-2356 TDD for information. Community Development Department Published July 5, 1996 in the Vail Trail. Agenda last revised 7/9/96 9am i PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION Monday, July 8, 1996 AGENDA Project Orientation / Lunch - Communitv Develooment Department 12:00 pm Sg Visit$ 1:00 pm 1. Messenbaugh - 970 Fairway Court 2. Vail Chapel - 19 Vail Road 3. Lodge at Lionshead - 380 East Lionshead Circle Driver: George Public Hearina - Town Council Chambers 2:00 p.m. 1. A request for a setback variance to allow for a snowmelt boiler to encroach 5.5 feet into a sideyard setback, located at 2049 Sunburst Drive/Lot 1, Vail Valley 4th Filing. Applicant: Landon and Mary Hilliard, represented by Larry Eskwith Planner: George Ruther • MOTION: Henry Pratt SECOND: Gene Uselton VOTE: 5-1 (John Schofield against) (Galen Aasland absent) APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS 2. A request for a worksession to discuss parking and retaining wall height variances to allow for the construction of a new parking area at the Lodge at Lionshead, Phase lil, located at 380 East Lionshead Circle/Lot 6, Block 2, Vail Lionshead, 2nd Filing. Applicant: Lodge at Lionshead, represented by Ric Fields Planner: Dominic Mauriello WORKSESSION - NO VOTE 3. A request for front and side setback variances to allow for a residential addition to the Messenbaugh residence, located at 970 Fairway Court/Lot 5, Vail Village 10th Filing. Applicant: Robert and Hildegard Messenbaugh, represented by Mike Guida Planner: George Ruther MOTION: Henry Pratt SECOND: Greg Amsden VOTE: 6-0 APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS 4. A request for worksession to discuss a conditional use permit for a proposed addition to the Vail Chapel, located at 19 Vail Road/Tract J, Block 7, Vail Village 1 st Filing. Applicant: Vail Religious Foundation, represented by Ned Gwathmey Planner: Dominic Mauriello WORKSESSION - NO VOTE Agenda last revised 7/9/96 9am 5. A request for a conceptual discussion of Lionshead redevelopment. Applicant: Vail Associates, represented by Dave Corbin Planner: Susan Connelly CONCEPTUAL DISCUSSION - NO VOTE 6. A request for an exterior addition utilizing the 250 Ordinance, located at 781 Potato Patch/Lot 21, Potato Patch. Applicant: Sissel and Richard Pomboy Planner: Dominic Mauriello TABLED UNTIL JULY 22,1996 7. A request for a conditional use permit, a density variance and front setback variance to allow for a Type II EHU above the existing garage, located at 227 Rockledge Road/Lot 13A, Block 7, Vail Village 1 st Filing. Applicant: Steve Kirby Planner: Dominic Mauriello WITHDRAWN 8. Information Update A is • Request for endorsement of Vail Tomorrow 9. Approval of June 24, 1996 minutes Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479-2114 voice or 479-2356 TDD for information. Community Development Department Published July 5, 1996 in the Vail Trail. is is MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: July 8, 1996 SUBJECT: A request for a worksession to discuss proposed parking, setback, and retaining wall height variances to allow for the construction of a new parking area at the Lodge at Lionshead, Phase 3, located at 380 East Lionshead Circle/Lot 6, Block 2, Vail Lionshead, 2nd Filing. Applicant: Lodge at Lionshead, represented by Ric Fields Planner: Dominic Mauriello 1. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant is requesting several variances in order to reconstruct the existing surface parking area on this site. The reconstruction involves removing the existing carport which houses 3 parking spaces and spreading the parking out across the frontage of this lot. Both the proposed and the existing configuration contain six parking spaces (see the proposed parking plan). The specific variances include the following: • 1. A variance from Section 18.58.020 (C) Fences, Hedges, Walls, and Screening to allow a retaining wall in the front yard setback in excess of 3' in height. The proposed wall is up to 5.5' in height. 2. A variance from Section 18.20.140 Parking and Loading for the High Density Multiple Family (HDMF) district to allow 5 parking spaces in the front yard setback (20'). No parking is allowed in the front setback area of this zone district. The proposed parking spaces are up to T from the front property line. 3. A variance from Section 18.20.140 Parking and Loading for the HDMF district to allow less than 75% of the total parking on-site to be completely screened or enclosed. The site is currently nonconforming with respect to parking. There are currently 18 parking spaces located on-site. The required parking for this site is 25 parking spaces (2 per unit, except for Unit 12 which requires 2.5 spaces). Therefore, 19 parking spaces (75%) are required to be enclosed or completely screened. This request provides for 12 enclosed spaces and 6 surface spaces (33% of the parking provided). Currently there are 15 enclosed spaces (83%). 0 II. ZONING ANALYSIS Zoning: HDMF (29% of lot) and MDMF (71%of lot) Lot size: 0.9822 acres or 42,784.63 sq. ft. Allowed/Reauired Existinq GRFA: Parking: Enclosed parking: Landscaping: 18,076.51 sq. V 25 spaces 19 spaces (750%) 30% 20,043 sq. ft." 18 spaces 15 spaces (830%) Prooosed N/A 18 spaces 12 spaces (660/6) 0 'This figure was derived from information in the file regarding the 290/o/71 % zoning split. These figures were applied to the density limitations of each district. "This figure is an estimate of the units based on information provided by Jeff Bailey, Manager. It does not include any common areas that might qualify as GRFA. Ill. ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION Parking Layout The applicant has indicated that the reason for the reconfiguration of the existing parking is to solve a drainage problem in the existing parking lot and to make the parking more functional. The proposal increases the amount of paving and spreads the parking across the frontage of this lot. Staff believes that the parking could be reconfigured in substantially the same configuration to correct these problems by improving the driveway grade, possibly heating the drive, and adequately addressing drainage on this site. Also, staff does not find a hardship which justifies the placement of a retaining wall greater than 3' in height in the front setback. Enclosed Parking The proposal increases the amount of parking which is not completely screened. The total number of existing enclosed parking spaces is 15 (83%) and the proposed number of enclosed spaces is 12 (66%). Staff believes that a decrease in the amount of screened parking, especially in the this area, is unacceptable. The Town is attempting to improve this pedestrian route, through public improvements, and this proposal is working against the objectives for this area by reducing landscaping. Stneetscape Master Plan The Streetscape Master Plan recommends methods to soften this area with the introduction of landscaping in order to screen parking areas and make the area more inviting for pedestrians. A paver sidewalk is proposed in the right-of-way along this frontage. Staff believes the introduction and exposure of parking along this frontage is inconsistent with the Streetscape Plan for this area. The variances would allow parking spaces up to 3' from the right- of-way and the proposed sidewalk. is 11 • f:\everyone\pec\memosUodglion.708 2 T Landscaping The code requires that 30% of this site be-landscaped. The proposed plan reduces the amount • of landscaping provided on-site. Staff is unable to evaluate this requirement at this time as the applicant has not provided a site plan of the entire site. This requirement will be addressed prior to the PEC's final review of the proposal. IV. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS The code criteria for review of such a request are provided for your information. Since this is a worksession, staff has not addressed the specific criteria. A. Consideration of Factors: 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, • transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. B. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the followina findina,5 before, grantina a variance: 1. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that doe not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. C. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other • properties in the same district. f:\everyone\pec\memoslodglion.708 3 i V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Since this is a worksession to discuss the proposed variances at the Lodge at Lionshead, Phase 3, staff will not be providing a formal staff recommendation at this time. Staff will, however, provide a staff recommendation at the time of final PEC review. r? U • f:leve ry one \peclmemosUdglion.708 4 -? - --- -- - - -- -- .. ..' - - - - J \ *m o Aert , N rocr DCONT" a?nc UNR_A0CrXV M rt/V5 N[WVAUXYpJLlf D[CNM C[MLR ON M-MW6 PM EASrwm-, rADGxrLF =s rDwOFrunArrV"r)vmWALA mrarLRrY DOUWDAP1' _ __? _ rrr \ \ y\\ O? 9W 1 R[pX9rCD \? W [A3[Hr'Nr A?1 \ Al\ 1 CNDOrFEACZ THE LODGE AT LI®NNSG EAD 1COPIYI0N jfl"rr • DOBS N AM, E >d? 4 F, Vol, i?rexrsnN6rR Ho WA APL i WX CORMrAPFA DRMNACIr 2 CYMONCY--4XALC - _ - i i" 2corrnoN,AAr01cR - - ? loomoov zYw"eRRrngvcracvr ICOHHON,A##'Cr -- LoccolL.M IVAV&ArCDD06AVD-. ONWVM r&i...1.,, 1—' tA'NCRARGt /1 CON9VErmA rwx"ffr YRAYa°i.YJlDP19772CONLrAJt -- -- xACt,r-ra WVD5GAPE PLAN FOR TOP OF M CAffr PitLi1r11NAtY ew*y •iADINi ftAN 1?E I,ObGt ..? LIOlJ51?E?Q uofw 700 OAbT L.IOWSN6AO GRGLC i n=o' PREPN'EO tr! ?I?LDSCAPC tNC04?!'OSQAtCD PO. 60Y leli A,/OW,., COLORADO 11,10 81ri9019 41 41 i Euynue uu `?\ \ ?\ \V\ "'? A ? MAST(" W=*46 ---- I? T •vwe yiglr? Gebrmr C?+'-WSe i w. M'ia pryr? Golerab OYr Cp.ece ? 'qru a«?.?iew.. Onug •Y?e?? O S' ? eMe YMUb?s.a Odsd.lwgg ^TeA C.wty?y M•r Ibf grmb ?.n. rtp4 i ?.avpb,?ee 51wL05 ? JKwu atlan'A-coati' _? Ypr?cn?ab??rbax' ne+?,V?pr l p I f!e VCACgYYNS cw? -.1- I res I* wna??wev? I o?vo?w,iy nw I - I ?.roo s EAST LIONS, -AJ GiRGLE o•? s,«`?eere,.rror--- .,. neg.. no _ - V ! nu.T. '°?' rl,ls T.n _- ?? ?W A- i ? = ? EXISTING SUILDIN6 \ ?rr• • \ 1"=10'-O" North l \ i •I1\ \ a rn ? N S OgE? LS O d 0 O U V r+ co 0 Q) U 4 ^ C3 a N ml W CD A N p' ? O co _[ f E Q? C= C 1 E a ?. t • MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: - Community Development Department DATE: July 8, 1996 SUBJECT: A request for a worksession to discuss a conditional use permit for a proposed addition to the Vail Interfaith Chapel, located at 19 Vail Road/Tract J, Block 7, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: Vail Religious Foundation, represented by Ned Gwathmey Planner: Dominic Mauriello 1. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST This site is zoned General Use (GU) which allows churches and related facilities subject to a conditional use permit. The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to allow the construction of a new building on the premises. The proposed single story structure will house clergy offices and consultation areas. All of the existing surface parking spaces will remain and 18 spaces will be provided in a garage beneath the proposed structure. The existing Chapel will also be modified internally by restoring lower level meeting areas, updating building systems (such as the lighting system), enlarging windows for more natural light, compliance with ADA • requirements, and other modifications. The proposed structure will be constructed on an area of the lot behind the existing chapel and will comply with the 50' stream centerline setback and will not be constructed within the 100-year floodplain. A conditional use permit was issued for the existing playground in the same area proposed for the new structure and therefore will be removed or relocated when this structure is constructed. II. ZONING ANALYSIS The development standards for the GU district are determined by the PEC. The PEC must determine what development standards are needed on a site specific basis. The proposed standards are as presented on the site plan and building plans for the site. III. ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION Parking The proposal will add 18 parking spaces to the site. If we calculate the parking for the new building as an office building, 7 parking spaces would be required. Staff believes the proposed parking is adequate to accommodate the existing chapel and the new building. There is a parking easement recorded on the property for use by the neighboring bank for the existing parking. The easement allows the bank access to this parking during normal business hours. Staff believes that this is a beneficial arrangement as the hours of operation of these uses do not • f:\everyone\peckriemosbhape1.708 1 conflict. Landscaped Area • The proposal reduces the amount of landscaped area on site. There is no specific landscaping criteria for the GU zone district, however, the PEC has the discretion to set a standard on this site. A landscape plan has not been provided. Staff believes this issue should be reviewed by both the PEC and the Design Review Board. Architectural Compatibility Staff believes the proposed structure is architecturally compatible with the existing chapel and the other buildings in the area. The siting of the proposed structure behind the existing chapel does not change the view from the public right-of-way and therefore does not detract from the prominence of the chapel. IV. REVIEW CRITERIA FOR THIS REQUEST The code criteria for review of such a request are provided for your information. Since this is a worksession, staff has not addressed the specific criteria. In addition to the conditional use criteria, staff has included the purpose statement from the zoning code, as we believe this will help the PEC in its evaluation of the request. The Vail Interfaith Chapel is located in the General Use (GU) zone district. According to Section 18.36.010 of the zoning code, the purpose of the GU district is: "to provide sites for public and quasi-public uses which, because of their special characteristics, cannot be appropriately regulated by the development standards prescribed by other zoning districts, and for which development standards especially • prescribed for each particular development proposal or project are necessary to achieve the purposes prescribed in Section 18.02.020 and to provide for the public welfare. The General Use District is intended to ensure that public buildings and grounds and certain types of quasi-public uses permitted in the District are appropriately located and designed to meet the needs of residents and visitors to Vail, to harmonize with surrounding uses, and, in cases of buildings and other structures, to ensure adequate light, air, open spaces, and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of uses." A church shall be permitted in the GU zone district subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 18.60. For the PEC's reference, the conditional use permit purpose statement indicates that: "in order to provide the flexibility necessary to achieve the objectives of this title, specified uses are permitted in certain districts subject to the granting of a conditional use permit. Because of their unusual or special characteristics, conditional uses require review so that they may be located properly with respect to the purposes of this title and with respect to their affects on surrounding properties. The review process prescribed in this chapter is intended to assure compatibility and harmonious development between conditional uses and surrounding properties in the Town at large. Uses listed as conditional uses in the various districts may be permitted subject to such conditions and limitations as the Town may prescribe to insure that the location and operation of the conditional uses will be in accordance with the development objectives of the Town and will not be detrimental to other uses or properties. Where conditions cannot be devised, to achieve these objectives, applications for conditional use permit shall be denied." • f:\everyone\pec\ memos\chapel.708 2 The conditional use permit consideration of factors are as follows: • 1. Relationship and impact of the use on the development objectives of the Town. 2. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities needs. 3. Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and parking areas. 4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. The conditional use permit findings are as follows: The Plannina and Environmental Commission shall make the following findinq§ before, prantina a conditional use hermit; 1. That the proposed location of the use is in accordance with the purposes of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. • 2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in=the vicinity. 3. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code. V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Since this is a worksession to discuss the proposed conditional use permit for the Vail Interfaith Chapel, staff will not be providing a formal staff recommendation at this time. Staff will, however, provide a staff recommendation at the time of final PEC review. is f:\everyone\pec\memos\chapel.708 3 NAIL IN'I=TA'R- AITH CHAPEL PROPOSED ADDITION EMWy - J W a Q S U S z g f IL a Di 0 W z w z o w J m (? Q (n z a M-r ar 48 AY 16 w'" E E: M1dm WAIL VILLAGE- tiL:CC'ND F/L l? 10 / CURVE TABLE CHORD " ?./ cuvve oB1rA BAO/us AM la9A:rw rwwxwr Owiwa BeAp/w6 j ( 0-1 9 07.56• 904.39 $2.00• 91.81• If. of Al 4 50.36• r ' ' 0-r a 01.41• 591. 0F' C-a a 92'56' 704.09' 20.00• 10. e7' t0.,0' ".fr• 11.65• fa.7v• a0 N / 5J N 2 31 .3e• WJ o LOT i ? G I B• S d ? . c? ?p ND l fro °"• T 4 •1 i PAW -9 ro+.w• cw?uarro &or 0-0 414 1 . .1 0- ?y ? rya _ N • . A. 8 w.?wr MAI NtA Vy ar Aro pe • 4f /0• g V Y _ Mr .0 64.0 1r• r? 13, 0 o r r ? o io yY SToRY TwO BUI ? NG #OR ? ' $BI 01- PIP B f• t10. D 17. 7 00• BOOK 771 PAC! 494 r? ne A PART OP rBACr B - A/l / 1 /CW5/ArAO sccr.MV P/1 /AC 's8/ 10'11 E 187, Z, 'PO '40 so . J A - 33 59.00• R 30?,?6' T 9?.36' L - 179,28' C14 176.66' CO N 73 23'30' W AllMlr 7771,. 4 10.6 A 09 35.51 Q 991.59 T 99.13• L - 66.10' CH 66.0?' CO S 9 91'91• E • r , Pratt / 05µi J W aT 1 z Q 2 ?- a O Lu -1 F- ? > z o 0 Z) z -i m t? > z Q u 0 ', -AHwarAm 1 6B• Armw Or GOMM 11x04M&M Or 0000 .0056. El A•ngrlw l! IW IfA9 !1009 P- 4516 CYIIr Af /nr/cArro Ii•l-1r r ! ?o d rue roar 17227 r?auo rrronr.r?cw rrwr !an•Af•o s. rraoortiA9. uo.. 1w iwa 1707. /? MN N,M FLOOR PLAN 1 • Q sc61e• i• lo•.p. 7'C0'W l?0.86' ra" wothmvy ?r J w a . a U z a W IL 4 -----;- -- --; LY p 1 --- r---'- 1 J 1 1 .. 1--------r---- -r-- ----- 1-------`?---? Z W _j C) 1 1 r_.. ------------?' +y :3 z i ' 1 1 1 1 1 `, 1/ 1 1 ? ---------- --------- ------ ---- 1 1 T 1 T .w `' ? 1 I , - 1 ------------ 1 1 1 I 1 ,_ 1 1 vl iRTr} 1 ED I 1 ? 1 -?-?_?f 1 1 1 1 ? 1 1 . D" 30 ARL ? IMW two KO*W ,FI-MfZ PLAN ?? J • r 1 f y t 1 "? i / J ?P f P i ?i r• rj • 0 6b? I I YAIV CHAfb-L--- a - 30 .!?G Rm? 1 ' }:a G t rrr _ AAZ jm_ - - - If -- ------------ -- --- --------- - CRlFC81D! ??lflllll - u J U - U U R!ttUgf? sTma TSIM ?.MMA h;PT Ows 0 J W Q s a z IL a W z w 1- Z o w J a N > z o Daft JO AWL &M RD" 1.2 MEMORANDUM 0 TO: FROM: Planning and Environmental Commission Community Development Department DATE: July 8, 1996 SUBJECT: A request for a setback variance to allow for a snowmelt boiler to encroach 5.5 feet into a sideyard setback, located at 2049 Sunburst Drive/Lot 1, Vail Valley 4th filing. Applicant: Landon and Mary M. Hilliard, represented by Larry Eskwith Planner: George Ruther 1. BACKGROUND In June of 1994, Bill Duddy, representing Landon and Mary Hilliard, submitted a Design Review Board (DRB) application to the Town of Vail Community Development Department. The DRB application was a request for a proposed snowmelt boiler and boiler pad to be located in the south, sideyard setback at the Hilliard residence, 2049 Sunburst Drive/Lot 1, Vail Village 4th Filing. After reviewing the application, staff denied the proposed snowmelt boiler and boiler pad in the sideyard setback. The reason for staff's denial was pursuant to Section 18.58.020 (a), • Supplemental Regulations, and Section 18.04.370, Structures, of the Town of Vail Municipal Code. Pursuant to Section 18.58.020 (a), "all accessory uses and structures except fences, hedges, walls and landscaping, or ground level site development such as walks, driveways, and terraces shall be located within the minimum setback lines on each site." Additionally, Section 18.04.370, defines a structure as, "anything constructed or erected with a fixed location on the ground but not including poles, lines, cables, or other transmission or distribution facilities of public utilities, or mailboxes or light fixtures." Staff's decision to deny the proposed snowmelt boiler and boiler pad in the south, sideyard setback was based upon the fact that a snowmelt boiler is not a fence, hedge, wall or landscaping, nor is it ground level site development such as a sidewalk, driveway or terrace. Staff determined a snowmelt boiler to be a "structure" as defined in Section 18.04.370 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code. In determining that the snowmelt boiler was a "structure," staff concluded that a snowmelt boiler and boiler pad is constructed with a fixed location on the ground and is not a transmission or distribution facility of a public utility. While it is true that electrical transformers are permitted in required setbacks, such structures are exempted from the setback regulations according to Section 18.04.370, as well as the fact that electrical transformers and other transmission or distribution facilities of public utilities are required to be • placed within platted easements. Platted easements regularly exist in required setback areas. Upon hearing staff's decision to deny the proposed snowmelt boiler in the south, sideyard setback, Bill Duddy worked with staff in finding a location on the applicant's property for the snowmelt boiler and boiler pad, that would not be in any required setback area. A mutually • agreed upon area was found. In October of 1994, a Design Review Board approval for a snowmelt boiler and boiler pad to be constructed on the Hilliard's property, in conjunction with a proposed driveway replacement was granted by the Town of Vail Community Development Department. A mechanical permit for the installation of the snowmelt boiler was issued by the Town of Vail Building Department and construction of the snowmelt boiler was commenced. The snowmelt boiler construction has been completed. The boiler was constructed in the location approved by the Town of Vail. The applicants are now proposing to relocate the snowmelt boiler on the property. On June 10, 1996, Larry Eskwith, representing Landon and Mary Hilliard, appeared before the Planning and Environmental Commission requesting a setback variance to allow a snowmelt boiler to encroach into the south sideyard setback. Upon hearing testimony from both the applicant's representative and the town staff, the PEC approved a motion to table the request until further research information could be obtained by the applicant with regard to geologic hazards. The applicants were also instructed to investigate alternate locations for the snowmelt boiler and boiler pad on the property that are not in any required setbacks. On July 1, 1996, the applicants' representative submitted a Geologic Hazard Report to the Community Development Department, prepared by consulting geologist, Nick Lampiris (see attached). The report prepared by the geologist indicates that the existing and proposed location of the snowmelt boiler and boiler pad is in a rockfall and snow avalanche hazard zone. In the hazard report, the geologist indicates that the snowmelt boiler could be placed in the proposed location with mitigation. Mitigation required includes the construction of a new, V-shaped wall, in front (south) of the heating plant. According to the consulting geologist, the proposed mitigation is and placement of the snowmelf boiler and boiler pad in the proposed location will not increase the hazard to other properties or structures. On July 3, 1996, the applicants' representative submitted to the Town of Vail Community Development Department, a revised landscape plan illustrating the V-shaped mitigation wall and landscape plant materials designed to screen the new wall (see attached). No other alternate locations for the snowmelt boiler and boiler pad were proposed. ll. DESCRIPTIQid OF THE REQUEST The applicants are proposing to move the existing snowmelt boiler and boiler pad approximately 14' to the southwest behind an existing snow avalanche mitigation wall. The proposed location places the snowmelt boiler approximately 5.5' into the required south, sideyard setback. As indicated previously in the memorandum, pursuant to Sections 18.58.020 (a) and 18.04.370 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code, snowmelt boilers are not permitted in any required setback without a variance from the Planning and Environmental Commission. Therefore, the applicants are requesting an approval of a variance from Section 18.58.020 (a) Supplemental Regulations, of the Town of Vail Municipal Code, to relocate the existing snowmelt boiler approximately 5.5' into the south, sideyard setback. According to the applicants, approval of the request for the sideyard setback variance is necessitated by the need to screen the snowmelt boiler from their residence by placing it behind the existing snow avalanche mitigation wall. The applicant has submitted a revised landscape illustrating the location of the geologic hazard mitigation wall and plant material designed to is 2 screen the new wall. The mitigation wall will be V-shaped and will be approximately 10.5 feet in length. The height and exterior finish of the wall is proposed to match existing which is 5-6 feet • tall and white stucco. Four, 6-8 foot tall Colorado Blue Spruce and ten, 5 gallon, Redtwig Dogwoods have been proposed to screen the snowmelt boiler and mitigation wall from the public's view from the bike path. According to the applicants, the placement of the snowmelt boiler in the required south, sideyard setback will be in conformance with discussions the applicants had with the Town of Vail Public Works Department. In those discussions, it was indicated by representatives of the Town of Vail Public Works Department, that the snowmelt boiler and boiler pad could be placed in the required setback, if the applicants were agreeable to granting the Town of Vail a drainage easement. A drainage easement was never requested nor granted. III. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Section 18.62.060, Criteria and Findings, of the Town of Vail Municipal Code, the Community Development Department continues to recommend denial of the requested sideyard setback variance. The recommendation for denial is based on the following factors: A. Consideration of Factors: 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The proposed relocation of the snowmelt boiler and boiler pad will have minimal impacts on existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity • of the Hilliard's property. Placing the boiler behind the existing snow avalanche mitigation wall will screen the boiler from the Hilliard's view. It will however, minimally increase the visibility of the boiler from the Town of Vail bike path, located immediately to the south of the Hilliard's property. The bike path is located approximately 25' from the existing snowmelt boiler. Since the boiler is already partially in view from the bike path, staff does not feel that if the boiler were relocated to the proposed location, any measurable negative impacts would result. Philosophically however, staff is concerned with the proposal to reduce the property owner's view of the boiler from their own property, while increasing the visibility of the snowmelt boiler from public property. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. Staff is concerned that an approval of the requested variance will result in a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the Town of Vail Municipal Code. The applicants have not identified a practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship justifying the granting of a variance. In staff's opinion, no physical hardship or practical difficulty exists prohibiting the Hilliard's from having a snowmelt boiler within the setbacks on their property. Additionally, staff believes that the applicants have not identified is exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to their 3 property which do not apply generally to other properties in the Primary/Secondary Residential Zone District. The applicants have demonstrated that a snowmelt boiler and boiler pad can be • accommodated on the property through the successful construction of the existing boiler. While this may not be the most desirable location of a snowmelt boiler from the property owner's perspective, the existing location conforms with all the applicable development standards. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. The staff believes the above-described criteria is not relevant to this variance request. B. The Planning and Environment4l Commi$sion shall make the following findings 12efore granting a variance: That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified • regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. C. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. IV. STAFF RECOMI IFENDATION The Community Development Department continues to recommend denial of the applicant's request to relocate an existing snowmelt boiler and boiler pad approximately 5.5' into the required south, sideyard'setback. In staff's opinion, an approval of the applicant's request would result in a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the Municipal Code. Staff further believes that there are no physical hardships associated with the Hilliard's property, nor are there any extraordinary circumstances or practical difficulties prohibiting the Hilliards from constructing a snowmelt boiler within the setbacks on their property, and therefore, a variance approval should not be granted. r? I? 4 Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to grant an approval of the requested variance to allow the snowmelt-boiler and boiler pad to be relocated into the south • sideyard setback, the staff would recommend that the approval carry with it the following conditions: 1. That the applicants sign and submit to the Town of Vail Office of Community Development, a Geologic Hazard Acknowledgement Form, prior to the issuance of a building permit for the relocation of the snowmelt boiler and boiler pad. 2. That the proposed landscaping designed to screen the snowmelt boiler be installed within one month of the completion of the relocation of the snowmelt boiler. I That the new, V-shaped mitigation wall be constructed prior to the actual relocation of the snowmelt boiler. • • 5 VARIANCE REQUEST The Applicant requests a variance to allow her to locate a boiler • for her heated driveway within the front setback of her lot. In regard to the four matters which this statement must address pursuant to Section V A of the Application for a Variance, Applicant submits the following: 1. The variance will have no impact on existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. 2. The granting of this variance will not be a special privilege and it is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity because numerous other setback variances have been granted to property owners within Vail Village Fourth Filing. 3. The variance, if granted, will have no affect on light and air, distribution of population, transportation, traffic facilities, utilities, or public safety. 4. The variance is not applicable to Vail's comprehensive plan, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 0 • '?? + _ GORE i tTER SHACK 9 10 1945 197,9 F] 8 1905 1925 1653 1895 13 7 tJN? 1985 1875 21 14 6' 1944 1999 GOLF 1855 984 15 /670 OURS 20 200 16 f 9 1 CLUB 835 04 4 TRACT 8 1998 • 19 / OUSE 2008 VAIL 1825 18 17 GOLFCOURSE 3 MAP TOWNHOMES 1778 3 1785 IS I 181 816 TRACT A VAIL VALLEY 3rd. FILING A RESUBDIVISION OF A UNPLATTED PART OF SUNBURST . ;Did • Post Office Box .2 Silt, Colorado 81652 Tel. (970) 876-5400 June 26, 1996 Larry Eskwith 108 South Frontage Road W Suite 307 Vail, Colorado 81657 Dear Larry, RE: End of Sunburst Lane I have visited the site of the Hutchinson home for purposes of evaluating the heating- -'' plant site. It is my understanding that it is proposed to be moved to outside of the • existing protective wall. As you know this area is in a rock-fall and snow avalanche hazard zone. I believe that this can be safely accomplished by constructing a new, V-shaped wall in front of the heating plant. This wall can be of less strength than the existing wall because of the V- shape pointing up hill. This mitigation will not increase the hazard to other properties or structures, or to public utilities, right of ways, roads, streets, easements, utilities or facilities or other properties of any type. The area is within a geological .hazard zone however. If there are further questions, please contact me. Sincerely, < < _. ..r Nicholas Lampiris; Consulting Geologist ..`.. ... 0 r /00007 NO Property Line a • Proposed recirculating water feature \ J/A Existing •° Aspen / .o? O t O - \Y,, i9/LI - \ O l 1 etback r a YXyxx Proposed boilers ocation o K 4:: r 1/PP i I 1/PP 10 C11 1. _ -?XlSt111g f • ,? _._. Additional boulder retaining wall (+ /- Lower Pond r Diane Golden seconded the motion. It passed unanimously by a vote of 6-0. . 5. A request for a setback variance to allow for a snowmelt boiler to encroach 5.5 feet into a sideyard setback, located at 2049 Sunburst Drive/Lot 1, Vail Valley 4th filing. Applicant: Landon and Mary Hilliard, represented by Larry Eskwith Planner: George Ruther George Ruther gave an overview of the request. He stated that snowmelt boilers are not permitted in setbacks and therefore, a variance is needed. Staff feels the boiler can be inside the building envelope. Additionally, there is a negative impact with it being in public view. Staff feels the request is a grant of special privilege. It is possible to keep it as it currently exists on the applicant's property and therefore, staff is recommending denial. Larry Eskwith, representing the Hilliards, and Glen Ellison, owner of Landscape Designs were present. Glen Ellison explained that the request makes the property more aesthetically pleasing. He demonstrated with graphic renderings how the Hilliards wanted a water feature and to develop their front yard with landscaping. They intended to screen the bike path with trees, to hide the boiler in its new location. Larry Eskwith had nothing to add to Glen Ellison's presentation. He did point out on page two of the staff memo, that the applicants had been told by Terri Martinez, that it could be moved, if the applicants granted the Town an easement. The applicants thus feel they deserve this request. The applicants said they were treated unfairly. 40- Larry Eskwith proceeded to have copies made of a handout from the applicant. Greg Moffet stated to Larry Eskwith that his having to make copies is holding up the process and that the applicant should have had the copies made several weeks ago. He suggested going on to the next item. Larry Eskwith said he underestimated the number of copies needed and we could proceed if copies could be shared with Torn Moorhead. Larry Eskwith began to read a letter from Mrs. Hilliard. In 1994, Mrs. Hilliard stated that the location of the boiler was not ok. In 1995, Mrs. Hilliard requested another location for the boiler. In June, 1995, Terri Martinez said it was approved by the DRB (although she should have said DRT), as long as there were no objections from the neighbors. Mrs. Hilliard had an oral agreement from the neighbors. She then secured Land Designs to begin work on the water feature. Terri Martinez, the Assistant Public Works Engineer, then said the Town would not have to use the easement. Mrs. Hilliard said she would never have gone through with the landscaping, if she didn't think she could have the boiler in the setback. Terri Martinez said she would let the applicant know if an easement was needed. Mrs. Hilliard said the DRB agreed to the placement of the boiler in the setback, if the neighbors agreed. Included in the handout was a bill from Land Designs that she received after she was told verbally that she had permission to Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes is June 10, 1996 5 b a ' that he is not here to argue this case as if the PEC were a court. A promise, justifiable reliance and action on the promise is estoppel. He's arguing fairness. The applicant.is doing it legally. In • 1994, Mrs. Hilliard did not want a boiler, if it wasn't able to go in the setback. In 1995, the Town made a deal for an easement with the approval from the neighbor. Mrs. Hilliard agreed to the easement. She was doing exactly what the Town of Vail asked her to do. She spent her money doing what she was told and had the rug pulled out from under her. It was not equitable treatment. He sees no detriment to the granting of it. Henry Pratt asked George Ruther if he found the geologic hazard report. George Ruther said no. Henry Pratt noted that the boiler is being proposed to be located on the uphill side of an avalanche zone. George Ruther concurred, but with mitigation. Henry Pratt said he has concerns with both locations having the gas lines exposed to an avalanche area. The structure is in a clearly defined avalanche zone. Henry can't allow the move, unless the avalanche issue is addressed. Greg Amsden said this request is extraordinary and therefore, not a grant of special privilege. He does agree with Henry that the avalanche issue needs to be addressed. George Ruther said staff is not disputing the conversations with Public Works. He said it was made very clear to Bill Duddy that Community Development would not permit the boiler in any setback without approval. It was made very clear after the June, 1995 correspondence with • Terri. Bill and I met on-site. At no time was it represented by Community Development that a building permit would be issued without a variance. This was during late summer or early fall of 1995. There was an urgency to do the work before the ground froze. The boiler would not be permitted in the side setback. Bill Duddy thought the departments were working together on this and when Terri said ok, the applicant thought it was ok. Tom Moorhead asked what the time period was between when Terri said it ,vas a go and the meeting with George. Bill Duddy said it was quick. Tom Moorhead asked what the action taken was between the two conversations. Bill Duddy said he ordered his materials. It was a two week period of time. Gene Uselton asked if the location was considered safe by the Town. This is a tough problem. Who's going to be harmed. Gene didn't see it as a special privilege. The findings B3 and B3b showed the applicant acted in good faith. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes • June 10, 1996 7 .• s Bill Duddy said it was not custom; it was a standard size from Sibley Plumbing. Henry Pratt asked the board to table this. The avalanche report might offer a solution. Is the • additional wall a solution or more of a problem? Gene Uselton agreed that it would solve the problem for the applicant, so he is in favor of waiting for the report. George Ruther stated the second wall was not agreeable to Ms Hilliard. Greg Moffet said mitigation would require another wall and that she had no choice. Larry Eskwith said if it takes a wall for mitigation to be able to move the boiler, she would do that. Greg Moffet said he is in a favor of another wall if it is done well. George Ruther asked Glen to explain what the billable hours were on the July 14,1995 statement. Glen Ellison explained that this was for transplanting plants. Gene Uselton stated that one of the Town Council goals is to provide a more user friendly place and so he is in favor of approving this request. Tom Moorhead suggested not moving forward on this request until a hazard report is reviewed. Henry Pratt made a motion to table this request until an avalanche report is available or until this request can be mitigated or until a new location can be found. • The motion was seconded by Gene Uselton. It passed unanimously by a vote of 6-0. Tom Moorhead stated that the avalanche report might say it's detrimental for public health, safety or welfare. 6. A request for a conditional use permit to allow for an outdoor dining deck at Garton's Saloon, located at 143 East Meadow Drive/Lot P, Block 5E, Vail Village 1st Filing, Crossroads. Applicant: Dave Garton Planner: Dominic Mauriello Dominic Mauriello gave an overview of the request. He reminded the PEC that this item was at the last meeting and that the Board did express concerns at that meeting. These concerns were laid out in the conditions. Dominic asked the Board if a final date for the cleanup should be required. He also asked the Board if an inspection by staff should be required every year. He stated that some trees appear to be dead. Do we need mitigation? Dominic stated that there were 10 conditions in the staff memo. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes • lone 10, 1996 9 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: July 8, 1996 SUBJECT: Conceptual Discussion of Proposed Lionshead Redevelopment Applicant: Vail Associates, Inc. and Vail Associates Real Estate Group, represented by David Corbin Planner: Susan Connelly 1. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The Applicant requests a worksession to present to the PEC in conceptual form its proposed redeveh,V ..ent of Lionshead. At its June 4, 1996 meeting, the Town Council approved a request from the Applicant to enter into a joint study or evaluation of the feasibility of a public/private partnership for the • redevel.,y.uent of the Lionshead area of Vail. The specific request presented to the Town Council, along with the proposed "Lionshead Redevelopment Plan" dated June 4, 1996, is attached for your review. At this time, the Applicant seeks to share conceptual information with the PEC and to obtain from the PEC initial comments on the conceptual plan. Such comments might include suggestions for the boundaries of the study area, public interests to be considered in the study, the scope of possible infrastructure improvements, and specific tasks to be included in the joint study agreement. Community Devel.,Y...ent Department staff's preliminary comments in response to the concept plan are attached for your review under a cover letter dated June 11, 1996 from Susan Connelly to David Corbin, along with an October 7, 1993 letter f iv... Kristan Pritz to David Corbin regarding a prior conceptual review of a prior proposal for redeveluF...ent of Lionshead. Additional background and zoning analysis will be provided as appropriate in the future. II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Because this is a worksession for information and preliminary feedback on a conceptual plan, staff is not providing a recommendation at this time. 0 Everyone/susan/memMionshead r LIONSHEAD 2000 REDEVELOPMENT STUDIES Town of Vail - Council presentation - 6/4/96 . VAIL ASSOCIATES ("VAI") AND VAIL ASSOCIATES REAL ESTATE GROUP ("VAREG") REQUEST THE APPROVAL AND AUTHORIZATION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL TO UNDERTAKE WITH TOWN OF VAIL ("TOV") MANAGEMENT A JOINT STUDY OR EVALUATION OF: (1) Publiclprivate partnerships (both broad based & site specific) and downtown redevelopment or urban renewal districts and authorities, including an investigation oh. how these partnerships or authorities are created, what their powers are, who the participants are, how these entities are led or managed, what purposes or improvements may be served through such entities, and what financing options, including tax increment financing, are available to fund the work of the partnership or authority; (2) Possible revision or redefinition of the Lionshead master plan, zoning ordinances, and design guidelines; and (3) The scope, feasibility and conceptual venture formats of the Lionshead hotel, conference center, parking, and core redevelopment plans suggested and presented by Vail Associates. PARTICIPATION IN THE STUDY OR EVALUATION SHALL INCLUDE: Vail Associates real estate development and operational senior management, The Town Manager or his designees, including the Directors of Community Development and the Department of Public Works, Planners, architects and other experts or urban renewal specialists hired by VAREG and/or TOV; and • The community at large, including Lionshead and Vail stakeholders, some directly, others through personal interviews, public forums, or scoping sessions. THE SCOPE AND SUBSTANCE OF THE STUDY OR EVALUATION, TOGETHER WITH THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF VAREG AND TOV SHALL BE SET FORTH IN A WRITTEN LETTER AGREEMENT TO BE SUBSEQUENTLY ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE PARTIES. PRELIMINARY FUNDING OF THE STUDY OR EVALUATION, AS WELL AS PREDEVELOPMENT LAND PLANNING AND DESIGN EXPENSES, SHALL BE ADVANCED BY VAIL ASSOCIATES REAL ESTATE GROUP. THESE COSTS AND EXPENSES SHALL BE EQUITABLY ALLOCATED OR APPORTIONED AS MORE FULLY SET FORTH IN THE WRITTEN AGREEMENT BETWEEN TOV AND VAREG. THE JOINT STUDY SHALL RESULT IN A REPORT TO THE COUNCIL, TO BE COMPLETED AND PRESENTED PRIOR TO SEPTEMBER 30,1996, WHICH SHALL MAKE SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS OR PROPOSALS REGARDING: (1) - One or more public/private ventures designed to implement redevelopment in Lionshead; (2) Development agreements or contracts between TOV and VAREG and/or other third parties necessary to effect redevelopment; (3) The creation of downtown development or urban renewal districts or authorities; (4) Financing mechanisms, including tax increment financing, which might be utilized to fund or incent redevelopment; (5) The drafting or adoption of new or revised master plans, zoning ordinances, and design guidelines for Lionshead; and (6) The nature, scope, feasibility, and type of venture concerning a proposed hotel and conference site in Lionshead on property owned by TOV. 0 V, -E A^ s 1? T f ? M E 0 O P I v? o R E D S L p R A D C O V A I ? l.? 1 L w? 0 • LIONSHEAD REDEVELOPMENT PLAN Prepared for: Vail Associates Real Estate, Inc. P. O. Box 959 Avon, Colorado 81620 970.845.2500 Prepared by: Design Workshop, Inc. 953 South Frontage Road West Suite 102 Vail, Colorado 81657 970.476.8408 • JUNE 4, 1996 • CONTENTS Introduction ... 1 Existing Conditions ... 7 Project Objectives ... 9 Urban Design ... 10 Building Form ... 16 Identity Creation ... 19 Concept Site Plan... 24 Conclusions ... 27 INTRODUCTION The Purpose of This Study The planning and development of complex places is a* dynamic process. This report booklet is a work in progress. It documents a preliminary presentation of the early analy- sis of the place called Lionshead and its component parts. Lionshead is not as desirable as Vail Village, or other suc- cessful destinations, in spite of its prime location at the base of Vail Mountain. A lack of public excitement for the place has resulted in an unrealized economic potential for the community. It is an underwhelming place. This lack of desirability is due in large part to the design and organiza- tion of the buildings, plazas and streets in Lionshead. The purpose of this preliminary booklet is to provide Vail Associates Real Estate and the Town of Vail an opportuni- ty to review and comment on the ideas and studies com- pleted to date. The input from both will be included and the planning process incorporated in an overall Lionshead Master Plan. The process "could include public forums, development strategies, additional design studies, econom- ic analysis and identification of critical paths necessary to achieve the plan. 0 Historical Background Founded in 1962, Vail had changed dramatically by the end of 1968. Vail had achieved a significant market presence and was gaining stature as a premiere North American ski resort. Growing rapidly, the ski company and resort com- munity undertook the first substantial leap in scale and identity with the creation of Lionshead. Beginning in 1968- 69, a decade of expansion saw the ski company add nine lifts and the Lionshead Gondola, as well as restaurants and an additional 1,400 acres of ski terrain. Lionshead was the cornerstone of this expansion. In 1969, Vail Associates, Inc. started construction of the Gondola Building and the "Sink" building (Lionshead Center building), planned by Beardsley and Associates. The gondola itself was completed in 1970. Conceived as a new and contemporary addition to the ski resort, Lionshead's architectural themes mimicked the clustered, concrete modernism of newer French resorts such as Les • Arcs and Courchevel. Physically separated from the core village, Lionshead followed its own development path dri- A view of Lionshead Village from the gondola. The much photographed clock tower in Vail Village, circa mid -1960's. ven by this distinct architectural theme and the relatively new phenomenon of the "condominium", which allowed the sale of small, individually affordable resort properties in large buildings with common amenities. • • With the creation of Lionshead, Vail advertised a resort of seven uphill lifts, two gondolas, four beginner's lifts, 28 restaurants, 4,500 beds and a ski school of 70 instructors. 1972 saw the first incarnation of the Lionshead parking structure, with a capacity of 603 cars. By 1976, Vail sur- passed 1,000,000 skier visits in a season, and the build-out of Lionshead was well on its way to completion. A decade later, the Vail Valley had changed beyond any- thing envisioned by the resort's founders. Beaver Creek was a growing and increasingly successful reality. The Vail community was stretching west. However, the bed base in Vail was becoming dated, physically depreciating and in danger of shrinking. Vail properties were increasingly valu- a 115 able, often enjoying substantial individual remodeling, and owners were less inclined to rent their properties for overnight or short-term use. By 1988, Vail Associates' management was actively attempting to bring a major hotel into the Lionshead core to counter the loss of "live beds". Conversations were held with the Ritz, Rock Resorts, the Biltmore and others in an effort to build a major resort hotel with 300 rooms or more, full conference facilities, shops, restaurants and operational facilities, as well as condomini- ums or townhomes to help pay for the development. A down valley golf course was sought to tie into the project and give it a strong summer attraction. Several plans were considered, but ultimately the economics of grand hotels were not compelling enough to see a project to completion. The worsening financial condition of Vail Associates' own- ership subsequently postponed the Lionshead renewal indefinitely. In 1993, new ownership enabled Vail Associates to revisit its Lionshead core properties, and land planning studies were undertaken to assess redevelopment opportunities. The two acre core site comprised of the Gondola Building, Sunbird Lodge and North Day Lot were evaluated for a mixed use core facility containing Vail Associates' ski oper- ations, retail, lodge rooms and condominiums, and an office complex on the North Day Lot. Land planning and mass- ing principles were identified and various physical alterna- tives were examined, including massings of "grand" hotels (300+ rooms), smaller boutique hotels (120+/- rooms), and pure condominium projects. However, the redevelopment 2 of Lionshead was again delayed, this time to address a more compelling facility replacement at Golden Peak. A year and a half later, with Golden Peak plans nearing approval, the Lionshead studies were reconsidered. A hotel . consultant and development prospect was hired to evaluate the financial alternatives posed by the redevelopment of the Vail Associates core site. Financial models were created by the consultant to review four alternatives, including: (1) a pure, grand hotel with modest meeting room capacities and retail; (2) a fee simple condominium project with retail; (3) a mixed-use boutique hotel with supporting time share or vacation ownership units and retail; and (4) a mixed-use boutique hotel with condominiums and retail. The result of the financial review, coupled with the land planning studies, was the determination that the core site was not well suited to a substantial hotel redevelopment. Among other compli- cating factors, the site physically lacked the size necessary to accommodate a substantial, grand hotel without resorting to a very large, tall and ungainly building mass. Even then, the site was not large enough to include appropriately sized conference space or facilities. It suffered from extremely poor access and had no "front door" or prominent entry presence. Finally, while enjoying a great mountain loca- tion, it did not connect well to the rest of the town. Economically, the core hotel alternatives were not viable without sacrificing the return on a very large investment by Vail Associates' ownership. A more creative solution was going to be required for the problem of redeveloping the Lionshead base facilities, building a new bed base and cat- alyzing a Lionshead renewal. Goals Vail Associates began re-examining the goals for a Lionshead redevelopment. These included: • maximizing the creation of live beds and expanding guest usage; • creating a financially viable hotel with substantial confer- ence facilities; • redeveloping the core site properties with a lodging com- ponent, retail and operations space; • stimulating a renewal and upgrading of Lionshead, includ- ing its public and private spaces; • enhancing the resort environment and destination appeal of Vail; and, • promoting the financial strength of the Town of Vail and 3 community as a whole. With these goals as its guide, Vail Associates returned in 1996 to the problems and opportunities posed by a redevel- opment of the Lionshead properties. After 30 years of operation, Vail Village still represents the major visitor focal point for the resort. Bridge Street, Gore Creek, the Vista Bahn and the retail core of Vail Village rep- resent the post card images of the community. Lionshead has not been as successful as a village core, lacking the charm and business success of the Bridge Street area. The existing conditions which contribute to the lack of suc- cess for business and the absence of memorable imagery in Lionshead represent significant opportunities for change. These include: • Dated, unattractive architecture which has no recogniz- able style or cohesive imagery. • Under-utilized buildings, such as the Sunbird Lodge and Gondola structure. Both occupy critical village locations. • Increased demand for skier services, limited building space, fragmentation of functions, and lack of coherent arrival sequences for the visitor. • Limitations on capacity reduce skier-friendly quality and discourage repeat skiing on the Lionshead Gondola. • Inadequate space and utilization of the Gondola Building for Vail Associates' staffing, administrative and opera- tional needs. • Lack of a village focal point and significant public gath- ering spaces. • Need for a reasonable economic return for ownership. The Gondola Building and Sunbird Lodge represent an uneconomic use of the land, especially given their high appraised valuation. • Inadequate retail space and a lack of secondary pedestri- an areas that create interest and a desire to explore the neighborhood. In essence, a master plan for re-development would address the needs of four principal client groups: 4 • The Skiing Public • The Vail Community • The Vail Associates, Inc. Staff • The Vail Associates, Inc. Ownership The basic objective of this planning effort was to balance these interests and create a new village core which provides an excellent vacation experience, ya strong commercial asset, and a fair return on investment for Vail Associates, Inc. ownership. Secondhand or associated benefits can be envisioned for adjacent properties, and the village core in general, through modifications of and enhancements to development rights by the Town of Vail. The potential to create a cohesive image and character for all of Lionshead Village can be easily foreseen given these `off-site' opportunities. 1993 Lionshead Village Plan Review eA4 dL All great, memorable places contain focal features and unique postcard images. Vail Village has the Covered Bridge and Bridge Street, the Vista Bahn and Pepi's. Spectacular views of Vail Mountain seem to appear in everyone's photograph collection with the Village Clock, Tower perfectly framed. Unfortunately, Lionshead, for a variety of reasons, has not captured these important seg- ments of the vacation experience. It is probably not coinci- dental that Vail Village is called a village and Lionshead simply a "base area". While Vail Village was planned and designed as a great destination with cohesive building and site design, Lionshead proceeded as more of an economi- cally driven subdivision of multi-family and commercial land parcels. The cement which might weld these parcels into a fabric of quality public spaces has been lacking. The 1993 planning process offered an opportunity to create these spaces, cementing the Lionshead base into a village with compelling architecture, ski facilities and retail. The 1993 planning process began with a rigorous program- ming exercise based upon detailed interviews with all Vail Associates, Inc. department heads and key staff from the Town of Vail. The plan proceeded from the following find- ings about Lionshead: • Core buildings are under-utilized. • Missed opportunities due to lack of focus on Vail as a sin- gle, unified village. 5 • Skier and guest services are fragmented. • There is a need to create in Lionshead a central place. or destination, with strong activities base and more cohesive architectural character. The resulting 1993 plan objectives were: • To upgrade and modernize lift and mountain operations. • To update and address skier service requirements for full, anticipated capacity of the Lionshead portal. • To clarify circulation (pedestrian and vehicular). • To create a dynamic retail core. • To improve the landscape with children's activities. • To create a new village focal point, as the Sunbird and Gondola Buildings have insufficient architectural charac- ter to serve this purpose. • To look at the creation of a place - the same process from which Vail Village originally evolved. E .'1 Detailed programming needs were developed for the fol- lowinc, use categories. Each of these has been addressed to provide the best public facilities possible. • Ticketing • Rest Rooms • Ski School • Employee / Staff Facilities • Public Lockers / Basket Check • Food Service • Staff Housing • Ski Administration (Ski Operations) Offices • Parking • Shipping and Receiving Important design considerations were also identified: Re • Views of the mountain need to be opened with emphasis on north/south visual access. • Lift access at the base needs to be on grade to eliminate stairs and encourage repeat skiing. • Enhanced retail. • Arcaded walkways. • Stepped roof lines. • Articulated building facades. • Introduce native landscape features and enhanced summer activities. • Vehicular access and overnight guest arrival on west side need improvement. 6 EXISTING CONDITIONS A Major Mountain Access Point In recent years, the Vail resort has attracted over 1.5 million annual skier visits with daily attendance peaking at 20,000. The Lionshead base typically provides mountain access for 45% of the total daily skier visits: on average 8,000 to 9,000 skiers. Due to building space limitations, skier services have been split into three principal buildings. Main services are provided in the gondola building; ski school and chil- dren's programs operate from Lionshead center building; and lockers, employee facilities and some retail activities are located in the Sunbird Lodge. A clear arrival sequence with rest rooms, food service, ticketing, ski school, rental and retail is not achieved by existing building spaces. Vail Associates corporate offices are currently housed in 31,000 square feet of space. Based upon reasonable ratios and allowances for growth, 70,000 square feet of space is needed. The Sunbird Lodge is essentially obsolete because the structural characteristics, floor plan and building conditions do not allow for marketable accommodations. y L The Gondola Building occupies the center of the village and its massive, pre-engineered concrete character does not offer an appropriate human scale or opportunity for retail services. North-south circulation is blocked and a clear visual connection to the mountain is missing. From an urban design standpoint, many of the public spaces in Lionshead are not correctly proportioned and lack a human scale. Additionally, the impact of retail is lost due to poor visibility across wide spaces. This is particularly true of the mail space between the Lionshead parking structure and ticketing. Redevelopment opportunities are posed by three major land parcels owned by Vail Associates, Inc. These include: Tract "G" - Gondola and Sunbird. Roughly 3.0 acres of buildable land on a tract which is 4.0 acres but is limited for use due to private covenants. North Lot - 1.2 acres currently used as surface parking for staff. 7 Service Center/West Lot - The west lot is now employee parking, and the service center is the maintenance shop and warehousing center. When merged, these parcels offer 5.8 acres of buildable land. Additional contiguous parcels may also have development potential. Lionshead Parking Structure - The Structure accommodates approximately 1,000 automobiles, and recent studies have indicated opportunities to reconfigure and enlarge the facil- ity. Additional levels for parking and new developable ground might be provided through air rights. This redevelopment plan focuses on the north lot parking, structure and the village core parcels. The service center is an independent development parcel which will be influ- enced by ongoing efforts to centralize warehousing and maintenance functions for Vail Associates, Inc. • • 8 PROJECT OBJECTIVES Potential of Redevelopment The development opportunities presented by these land. parcels are: • Centralized, modernized, and improved skier services to maintain a competitive position in the industry. • Expanded bed base for short term accommodations to gen- erate long term skier visits, create liveliness, and animate the village core. • Significantly expanded retail which will be presented in a more attractive, viable pedestrian setting. • Introduction of a new, higher capacity gondola. • Creation of facilities that will accommodate Vail Associates offices and corporate administration in close proximity to skiing. • In general, the objective of redevelopment is to recreate aesthetic and economic opportunities at Lionshead. This can be the catalyst for a renaissance that will benefit the skier, the resort and immediate property owners. • 9 URBAN DESIGN Principles to Guide the Plan • i Destination Resorts Salzburg, Grenoble, Whistler-Blackcomb, KitzbUhl, Chamonix, St. Moritz, Vail. Why do these destinations flourish? These and other successful resorts adhere to basic principles of good design. So what makes Vail Village and other des- tination resorts prosperous and not Lionshead ? People have expectations for vacations and destinations. People choose the Vail Valley for the mountain environ- ment. Depending on the activity, people visiting Vail are looking for the associated mountain component: ski runs and lifts; village streets with shopping connected with views to the surrounding natural landscape; alpine mead- ows and wildflowers; open plazas for gathering, eating and people watching; streams with fishing and water sports, and more. Good design of places provides people with cues and clues to these destination components. Successful destinations have a number of components that reinforce and confirm expectations. These components must tell the users they have arrived. They must give people landmarks that lead to and remind them of various places. They must have edges and open- ings appropriately scaled to create comfortable people places and invite visitors to enter and explore. Successful destinations provide a variety of experiences. Once a visitor has arrived, a sequence of gate, corridor and space must be developed to maintain variety, activity, and excitement for the experience. These three elements must be appropriately sized for their programmed activity and use. Successful destinations connect to and reaffrnn the place and vernacular landscape. People visit destination resorts to participate with a special environment. The qualities that make a place unique should be reinforced visually and psychologically. Whether it is a 10 Vail Village, Colorado Salzburg, Austria Chamonix, France river, mountain, waterfront, past history or other character- istic, all great destinations constantly remind the visitor of its significance and contribution to the place. • Successful destinations provide physical and emotional comfort. Great places take advantage of and control micro-climate conditions that affect people and their activity. Direct sun- light, shadow, wind and precipitation all contribute to the use of outdoor space. A sense of security is affected by these climactic conditions as well as visibility, noise, and defined activity places. People should be protected from adverse conditions while participating in a place. Successful destinations provide outdoor opportunities and activities that are compatible with the architectural spaces. Where people gather, opportunities to pause and watch, eat or sit must be provided in the form of cafes, restaurants, and associated commercial uses. Retail shops and service com- mercial uses are most successful when located along corri- dors of pedestrian movement. Corners and intersections are especially significant in the ability to create a sense of4b character and quality. Successful destinations offer diverse visual and physical stimuli to the visitor Whether it is winter or summer, color, texture and detail play a crucial role in the spirit and vitality of a place. Building facades, roofs, and colorful, well lit window dis- plays for storefronts provide visual excitement in winter. Window boxes, landscape plantings, flags, umbrellas, shop fronts, signage and banners provide the visual welcome for visitors in summer. The Existing Village of Lionshead • • The existing village of Lionshead is a collection of mid- and high-rise condominiums developed in the 1970's and So's as a new real estate product. It is larger in scale and denser than its counterpart, Vail Village. Given its greater service and population needs. Lionshead was allowed to disregard many of the charming and successful characteristics of established mountain villages. Buildings were located in response to haphazard land parcel divisions rather than as part of a cohesive village plan. Precast and cast-in-place concrete building systems, with streets designed for snow removal and service deliveries, negated relationships to personal scale and ignored human tactile sensitivity. Building sites and open space were not organized to create a dynamic experience. The lack of vitality and sensitivity to pedestrians can be cat- egorized in a series of missed or disregarded design princi- ples. These principles can always be found in successful destinations. even as close as Vail Village. A Sense of Arrival Lionshead lacks a sense of arrival. Whether visitors arrive via the parking structure, by transit, foot, or automobile, there is no announcement that one has arrived. There is no 12 The east entry point to Lionshead Village from the parking structure offers no invitation or sense of arrival. arrival space, no pate, door, or landmark from the perimeter of Lionshead. These missing cues can't be found at any of the edges. Conversely, Vail Village provides landmarks and visual connections to the mountain from the parking struc- ture to the village and ski lifts. There is an arrival plaza at• the bottom of Bridge Street, preparing the visitor for the series of spaces and places to traverse. ay sit SK Gates and portals invite pedestrians to investi- gate the places beyond. Landmarks and Turning Points Except for the gondola cars moving up the mountain, Lionshead has no significant landmarks. When the new gondola is in place in 1996, its proposed low profile will eliminate Lionshead's one landmark. There are no signifi- cant architectural components which lead the visitor through the various spaces of the village. In addition, with- out these key elements there is nothing which offers the vis- itor recall of place and space. Wayfinding for the visitor is greatly diminished. The missed opportunity to direct visitors through the space using landmarks and other urban cues is compounded by a lack of turning points. There are no spaces, view corridors, or landmarks which indicate where to change direction. There is no hierarchy of elements and spaces. All streets, open spaces, and buildings are uniformly uninteresting. There is nothing that entices people into or through the cor- ridors and public spaces of Lionshead. Gates and Sequence of Movement Lionshead offers a uniform wall of development along its perimeter. There is no ceremonial announcement of prima- ry or secondary entry. No one place invites the visitor into the core village. From the parking structure visitors are directed to the core by the gondola cars but, once at street level, this landmark is lost. From every other edge, this landmark is invisible. Although an initial direction to the village is implied by the brief view of the cars, there is no clear receiving space for the pedestrian. Likewise, there is no portal which i announces one's arrival and transition to the destination. Today, a confusion of service trucks, transit vehicles, pedes- 13 The Clock Tower in Vail Village is an example of an excellent landmark. trians and automobiles clutters and dissects the area intend- ed as the village "gate". Landscape plantings block direct views, indistinct paving doesn't offer clear separation of uses and indirect access confuses the principal pedestrian • movement. Connection to the Environment There is no sense of place in Lionshead. Urbanistically and architecturally, Lionshead could be anywhere in the world. The building styles are not indicative of the place, nor does the arrangement of the buildings and open spaces allow a clear visual connection to the mountain and the surrounding environment. The expected elements of the mountain land- scape - wildflowers, rock outcroppings, streams cannot be found in the open spaces of Lionshead. The mountain landscape must be brought into the core area of Lionshead. Vegetation, water and stone indigenous to the region are needed to offer grounding and cues to the place. The architecture and arrangement of buildings and spaces must also evoke this vernacular. This fabric should cue the visitor to the destination's roots. Sensitive development of these components and interpretation of the mountain envi- ronment will provide visitors the psychological comfort expected from the place. Comfort and Security Presently, Lionshead does not provide comfortable relief from the elements of wind, snow, and ice in winter and intense sun in summer. Disregard for the qualities which offer shelter from the elements results in a low level of activity in Lionshead's outdoor spaces compared to Vail Village. This is somewhat true in summer but it is espe- cially apparent in winter. As important as physical comfort is the psychological sense of security. Visibility of other spaces and people is para- mount to the success of an outdoor plaza or street. In Lionshead, the streets are truncated and non-aligned. The shadows of the large condominiums are deep and forebod- ing. There are no "crossroads" or "views up the street" in Lionshead. These negative aspects of the street further diminish the pedestrian level of comfort, and ultimately its use. Sadly for merchants in Lionshead, an uninviting and uncomfortable street or outdoor space means little or no walk-in retail traffic. 14 Visual connections to the mountain are critical to making the built environment feel a part of the natural setting. (Innsbruck. Austria) Raised areas immediately adjacent to the activity area will provide visitors with comfortable oppor- tunities to participate while in the sun and out of the flow of traffic. Commercial Uses Compatible with Adjacent Outdoor Space Poorly located commercial use further reduces the vitality and viability of the pedestrian and shoppino experience of Lionshead. Commercial uses function best and have greater visitation when located adja- cent to outdoor spaces that support their services or products. Likewise, public outdoor spaces depend on the synergy with adjacent commercial uses for their vitality. Take, for example, Pepi's in Vail Village. Located at the crossroads of Gore Creek Drive and Bridge Street, this establishment has flourished since its outdoor cafe was established. Today, the intersec- tion is always full of people pausing, chatting, ori- enting, watching or window shopping. People gath- er where others are gathered. A Sense of Place We need to create a sense of place in order to invig- orate Lionshead for the visitor and to inject a new measure of financial gain to owners and operators. Opportunities to create this new place will be great- ly affected by the specific treatment of architecture and site details. 15 The thoughtful management of commercial uses adjacent to outdoor space pays off here in Whistler. British Columbia, Canada. Pepi's outdoor cafe in Vail Village above, compared to an out- door space in Lionshead, pictured below. BUILDING FORM Creatina a New Place The Existing Buildings The existing buildings at Lionshead lack an Alpine theme. There is no cohesive fabric, material, form or detailing to its architecture. The late modernist style \,'hich is characteris- tic of these buildings is cold and uninviting. Guests in • • RW . 16 Examples of the typical architectural style found in Lionshead. An example of the typical streetscape character found in Lionshead. Lionshead do not relate warmly to their surroundings, because the buildings are often harsh in form, cold in mate- rials, and devoid of human proportions. Pedestrians feel out of place and lost in Lionshead. There is poor continuity in the sequence of public spaces. The buildings do not interrelate to form streets and plazas that flow in a comfortable and inviting manner. Rather, the buildings perch on their sites in a disjointed campus of iso- lated structures facing onto rigid and cold public spaces. People can't find "the Lion" in Lionshead. There is no sense of entry, place, or identity. The neighborhood lacks a unifying image or architectural theme which defines the area. It is separate and different from the core of Vail Village, without affirming itself or its character in any coherent or appealing way. A Statement of Goals and Design Principles In order to create a sense of excitement about Lionshead, a significant and fundamental change must occur in its urban fabric and architecture. This change can be advanced through the realization of the following architectural princi- ples: y Create an architectural identity or theme within the overall context of Vail. Lionshead can present itself as a component of Vail while establishing its own distinct sense of identity, value, and quality of life. It need not recreate Vail Village. Its separate identity is important not only for economic reasons, but also for the richness of the overall commu- nity experience. To institute an archi- tectural direction which tries to reph cate the style of Vail Village will result in frustration, partially because the harsh building forms and materials that will remain in Lionshead after its redevelopment will be isolated and accentuated, instead of integrated within a new overall image. F- -I LJ 17 Old and new buildings should be grade cohesive and com- patible in a timeless style. [7 9 Lionshead must crow beyond its past. Existing buildings, given the limitations of their mass and form, must be reno- vated in a manner that makes them compatible with new buildings. In order to avoid backing the existing buildings into a stylistic comer, the new buildings should subtly reflect the pro- portions of the existing buildings and ele- ments in selected areas. This will allow the final mixture of new and old to be cohesive. Lionshead must be a new, authentic, and invigorating American Alpine Village. The buildings should reflect a combination of relevant American and European stylistic architectural elements reconstituted into new and meaningful forms that reflect, but do not mimic, established historical styles. The construction of literal representations of a singular style, whether European or American, could deval- ue and embarrass the existing buildings and therefore the entire village. Design limitations of the existing buildings are significantly more constrained than new construction, especially given their form and mass. Architecture should express the diverse community it repre- sents. Lionshead must be stylistically and functionally as diverse as the community it represents. In diversity will be the strength of Lionshead. This diversity should represent the richness of the community's heritage, but should be designed within common principles that weave the commu- nity into a larger, cohesive whole. Just as European Alpine architecture is extremely diverse, so too can be the American alpine architecture of Lionshead. Lionshead architecture can lead to a fun and invigorating American alpine village. Lionshead can become more attractive to investors and property owners willing to make long term improvements. It can stand out to the resort visitor as a viable choice when deliberating between Lionshead, Vail Village, Beaver Creek or Arrowhead for a vacation or residence. 18 History and traditions can be established and reinforced in the architecture. The use of a Lion theme .throughout the design, detailing and graphics will provide meaning to the village's name, especially given that the namesake 1r?t+y??.??r N r f Lionshead rock is not visible from Lionshead. • Lionshead can be an alpine community which creates a sense of comfort for the pedestrian. People can be afforded orientation and stimulation... Lionshead can become fun! To achieve this, Lionshead must have a recognizable center and recognizable edges. A sense of entry is crucial at strate- gic points of arrival. This sequence of edge, gate, pedestri- an path, and center will make possible a greater guest ori- entation and identity in Lionshead. IDENTITY CREATION Architectural Characteristics In order to achieve the full potential for Lionshead, the architectural design of new buildings must occur in concert with the renovation of existing buildings. These two com- ponents of the revitalization effort are intimately linked. The revitalization will be greatly enhanced by creating new buildings and modifying old buildings with the following architectural characteristics. • 19 Order NA- I l`a GR*wP.*a.:c=•??t!-i;'{-WK=uwaj?n-(sW.a (1[+?'7;v+lr?t%tcw}. Opportunities exist to create a uniformity of architectural style with existing buildings. d4A 1_j i 1 •rs~- __ r rss? ?? j, 1: SO E Buildings in Lionshead should not be rectangular volumes with skins that express their structural grid through the use of exposed columns or continuous floor spandrels. Buildings should include a recognizable vertical order, a "triparti" with clearly defined base, middle, and top. The base should express strength and intensity counterbal- ancing architectural mass with transparency of shop fronts. This is the portion of the building with primary pedestrian focus. It should therefore be varied, interesting, and excit- ing. Primary considerations in the design of the bases of build- ings are the use of their first floors and their relationship to the site. In contrast to the transparency of the existing struc- tures in Lionshead, new buildings should convey a sense of solidity, confidence, and strength at locations where a sense of gateway or entry is needed. Walls that define pedestrian routes should be characterized by large, punched retail win- dows in substantial walls. Structural frames should not be the primary architectural elements at the street level. Battered walls will convey a sense of substantiality and weight. The first level should be a "foil" of life and inten- sity that reinforces the pedestrian experience and counter- balances the height of some of the new structures with color, relief, ornament, and signage. New street-level retail frontage characterized by humane architectural elements such as arcades and protective, overhanging eaves should be created. These can occur along existing buildings as well as at the ground level of new buildings. Awnings, columns, signs, and inviting colors will enliven the streetscape. Hand crafted ornamental elements such as signs, benches, and doors should be used. The middle portion of each building should be quiet and more repetitive than the rest of the building. The walls should be a subtle blend of color and material. Windows should be primarily punched in the tradition of the pre- industrial world. The quiet simplicity of this zone is criti- cal to the success of the top and bottom of the building, and therefore, the success of the street and townscape. The win- dows should have a vertical and horizontal hierarchy of size and pattern. 20 The tops of the buildings should be graceful and articulat- ed. Eaves should move and change in reaction to the street below and serve as visual clues as to the direction of travel and the sense of space. Small overhangs and parapets should be avoided in order to prevent the creation of blank', terminations of the street against the sky. Overhangs should convey an exaggerated sense of shelter and protection. Roof design should respond to snow shedding and the pro- tection of both pedestrians and property. Turrets, varying fascia heights, and a mix of hip, gable and dutch hip forms will reinforce the village atmosphere and create a pleasing roofscape as seen from the ski mountain. Materials Classic alpine materials with today's technology and inter- pretation can create a visual identity that reflects the moun- tains and Vail's heritage. At the bases of the buildings, conveying a sense of mass and permanence can be achieved through the use of stone and concrete, executed in different patterns, colors, textures, and degrees of relief. Concrete can be formed and textured to express mass, yet colored and patterned to complement natural materials while providing interest and contrast. Walls should be a mixture of stucco and wood throughout the village. Framing details at the juncture between the first and second levels provide articulation and scale to the buildings. Exposed rafters and trusses at selected areas will afford the buildings an opportunity to express their heritage of mountain architecture and building craftsmanship. In most cases, windows should be held back within the depth of the wall. This is especially important at the mid- dle portions of the buildings, in order to evoke a classic vil- lage vernacular tradition. The resulting shadow and relief will counterbalance both the height and coldness of the existing buildings. The view of the village from the mountain is critical. The roof materials should be textured and should hold the snow. Adding new roofs to existing structures should occur, not only to improve the view from the mountain, but to also conceal roof-mounted, ungainly mechanical elements that devalue the aesthetic quality of the roofscape. Roofs should be of a varied, but compatible color pallet and convey a • pleasing pattern of form when viewed from a gondola car or the ski mountain itself. 21 S 1LL? 1 K}?.11 1- ?J Scale The scale of buildings and their associated urban spaces should be comfortable to people. The buildings should step back at the first through third levels in order to provide light, sun and visual continuity with the surrounding moun- tains from the street level. The taller portions of the build- ings should not directly meet the street in shear vertical walls. The composition of forms should be additive and not sin- gular. Smaller components that create and reinforce a greater whole will make the place inviting and familiar. The streets and urban spaces must be orchestrated to offer the opportunity for continuous variety and a sequence of frontages. Retail intensity along pedestrian routes, as well as clear visual clues provided by the eave lines of buildings, should be primary goals. A hierarchy of spatial size will tell the pedestrian where places of travel and movement change to places of pause and rest. Paving in the street as well as planters, artwork, and benches will assist in the definition of the path as an interesting and welcoming experience. Ornament ?J Ornament can reflect the art, heritage, and culture of Vail and its blend of Western Colorado and European Alpine ties. The lessons of good architectural design from Europe and America can be applied here. The streetscapes of KitzbUhl and Salzburg are inspirations in their diversity of architec- tural expression and ornament, while maintaining a consis- tent theme. The inclusion of tactile detail and ornament gives a place an inhabited feel. Street level life can also be enlivened by the implementation of a strict minimum level of quality for the shop-fronts and retail signage. Vail Village is a success in this manner, almost to the point where the architecture becomes a subservient backdrop for all the banners, flags, signs, smells, tastes, and window displays that a pedestrian is exposed to while walking through the village core. C Streets and plazas should take cues from the design of suc- cessful places that exist elsewhere. Pedestrian cafes and apres-ski bars that occur on slightly raised platforms along the southern faces of buildings will inject life and energy 22 into the community. The design of the building ornamentation should be as diverse in style as the community. Signage and detail should express the multiplicity of traditions present in th0 valley. These include Western Colorado, the American Resort tradition, Alpine European traditions and the tradi- tion of diversity in the Vail Valley. Recommendations for the Future The revitalization of Lionshead will require an intensive architectural design effort in order to perform reconstruc- tive surgery on the existing buildings. This effort must be based on the creation of an authentic, meaningful architec- tural identity for the entire Lionshead Village. The economic and aesthetic potential of Lionshead can be realized by the reparation of existing buildings as well as the creation of new buildings and pedestrian streets that fol- low the design principles outlined earlier. The creation of a cohesive village of public streets, plazas, and building volumes is the single most important consid- eration in achieving this goal. 41 Architectural expression of an American alpine style can reinforce this goal by reflecting our time, place, and her- itage as we move into the next century. The execution of a singular literal style throughout the vil- lage will be less successful and less authentic than the implementation of varied styles within an overall theme. Lionshead should be characterized by meaningful architec- tural elements and proportions that point to the exciting future of the valley, while respectful of the many varied tra- ditions which have shaped this community. The rich images of Western Colorado, tempered by our ties to European alpine communities, can be expressed in an appealing combination of stylistic themes and details. Revitalizing the community in this manner will help trans- form Lionshead into yet another world-class magnet for investment and recreation in the Vail Valley. 23 CONCEPT SITE PLAN Design to Address the Issues • E - -I .. .........: .......... ......:...... ?i1, fir ti• l *:•< i\ .............. ......................................>3 iii. ... ?: Urban / Village Design Diagram • Connect to the Mountain Environment • Provide a Sense of Arrival • Provide Comfort and Security • Create Diversity and Variety along the Street • Provide Landmarks and Turning Points • Create a New Sense of Place [7 i --•k?I.: ? •rT ? _t•{: ?? w,g?7- '-111 24 Conceptual Opportunities Development Plan The proposed site plan addresses basic program needs foo skier services, lodging, retail, office space, and ski opera- tions. The major components of the plan will: • Create a new twelve-place gondola on grade to facilitate high capacity, repeat skiing. This will significantly reduce existing skier congestion. • Expand the skier bridge and integrate it with the skier staging area and plaza to create a smooth transition across Gore Creek. • Create a new 100-unit timeshare facility with immediate ski access and central services. An additional four pent- house condominiums cap the new structure. • Create a new courtyard with direct north-south circulation which will allow for double-loaded retail with frontage on the pedestrian mall and ski run "beach front". • Create new public spaces within the time share facility, including dining, health club and lobby uses. , ..Lonventioit ;Center • 25 l? • Strengthen the access from and orientation to the east and north: new "front doors" for Lionshead. • Provide over 40,000 square.feet of expanded retail in a pedestrian environment. • Include major "back-of-house" service functions below Grade with direct connection from the timeshare facility to gondola. This will provide improved food service to the mountain restaurants. • Improve pedestrian connections to other residential and lodging properties in the village core. • Create a new Vail Associates office building with 40,000 square feet of space, sub-surface parking and 96 employ- ee housing units. • Consolidate the ski school program in a remodeled Lionshead center (subject to the acquisition of building space). • The skier services and mountain delivery areas are located below grade to fully accommodate the program and reduce building mass. The gondola terminal is envisioned as a rel- atively transparent structure with mazing located to the north. Ticketing, ski school, and ski rental are positioned along the pedestrian street that leads skiers to the gondola. Facing the skier plaza are a skier's pub and a scramble cafe- teria framing the northern edge of the gondola space. In summer, the plaza open space can include a water fea- ture, alpine garden and events areas. The expanded skier bridge would be sod-covered to visually connect the moun- tain and village. lJ 26 CONCLUSIONS Project Opportunities This redevelopment plan for Lionshead will: • • Create the highest and best land use for currently under- utilized property in a politically responsible form without encroachment on open space. • Improve the scope and quality of skier services and the guest experience. • Create an expanded bed base to revitalize Lionshead. • Offer expanded retail in excellent pedestrian spaces. • Create a new, properly sized headquarters for Vail Associates administrative and corporate offices. • Build upon the new, state of the art gondola which will improve capacity and offer excellent repeat skiing. • Generate a return on invested capital for ownership. • Integrate Lionshead into the Vail Valley and improve this. portal to the ski mountain. • Increase surrounding property values and create an impe- tus for redevelopment and improvement of other private- ly owned properties in Lionshead. This plan could pro- vide the basis for an overall village improvement plan through the formation of a special improvement district to deal with broader urban design issues. While the plan addresses major issues, future study is required to resolve several open questions. These are: • Resolution of the children's ski school facility, including acquisition and remodeling of the space. • Transportation solutions for Vail Village and Lionshead related to access, level of service and traffic management. • A political structure, such as a special improvement dis- trict, is required for the publicly held spaces as well as adjacent private property. • 27 C7 endorsed b} vats should be Town of this plan otivners, and the ublic To move forward. and property and quasi-p citizens, rogram s business ership . citizens, .\ssociate. , ding own of a comrnun the Plan and the Vail. Surrou s Should be Part r the p interest group building cOnsensu ead ob. ective of Lionsh with the it can represent for renaissance DesignWorkshop, Inc. is internationally known for planning and design projects in mountain regions. The firm's scope of projects includes mountain and base area planning and design for new resorts as well as redevelop- • ment of existing places. Recent projects include Blackcomb Resort in British Columbia, the redevelopment of Aspen Mountain and the Little Nell Hotel, the Snowmass expansion plan and redevelopment plans for South Lake Tahoe, California. Their broad expertise has been called upon in Lionshead to address the relationship between ski- ing, program, site and buildings. Bill Kane - Principal As a planner and author of significant ski area plans in Asia, South America, Canada and the USA, Bill has vast experi- ence in planning similar projects. As the former director of planning for the City of Aspen, he has successfully resolved public processes and land use issues. David Kenyon - Manager, Vail As a planner and landscape architect, David has been involved in the development of resorts from Southeast Asia to Central Europe, North America and the Middle East. He . has taught design theory and construction practices at the university level and was awarded a Board of Regents fel- lowship at Texas A&M University. His three years direct- ing site development for Disneyland, Paris have brought a new perspective to Design Workshop and the newly opened Vail office. Sherry Dorward - Landscape Architect As a planner and landscape architect, Sherry has over 15 years of design experience and a strong love for high coun- try landscapes. As a Colorado native and Vail resident, she has developed a special expertise in mountain communities. Her work has included planning and design for parks, com- mercial developments, affordable housing, and residential gardens. Sherry has earned several design awards from the American Society of Landscape Architects and has enjoyed international accolades for her 1990 book, Design for Mountain Communities: A Landscape and Architectural Guide. 29 Jack Zehren - Architect Jack Zehren is the owner and president of Zehren and Associates, Inc. The firm was formed in 1983, and cur- rently employs 27 people in the fields of architecture, plan- ning and interior design. While Jack's work has been focused in mountain resort communities, the firm is now working in variety of locations throughout the United States, Korea, Vietnam, Mexico and Germany. Jack holds a Bachelor of Science Degree from West Point and a Masters Degree in Architecture from the University of Minnesota. He has been Chairman of the Beaver Creek Design Review Board since it was formed in 1980, and also is a member of the Bachelor Gulch Design Review Board. 11 • 30 TOWN OF VAIL 75 South Frontage Road Vai4 Colorado 81657 970-479-21381479-2139 FAX 970-479-2452 June 11,1996 Mr. David Corbin Vail Associates Real Estate Group P.O. Box 959 Avon, CO 81620 Department of Community Development • 4,4- Sent Via Fax x O RE: Conceptual Review of Vail Associates' Proposed Lionshead Redevelopment Dear David: Pursuant to our discussions on June 6, enclosed are some preliminary comments reflecting discussions with the planning staff. I do not yet have preliminary c....-..ents from Public Works, Fire or Police, but will forward those to you as soon as they become available. Also enclosed are two documents from prior work in Lionshead -- a compilation of comments regarding the Lionshead Mall (circa early 1990s?) and an October 7, 1993 letter from Kristin Pritz to you regarding conceptual review of a prior Lionshead proposal. Our planners have suggested that we may want to schedule a conceptual discussion of the proposal with the Planning and Environmental Commission. If you are interested, such a worksession discussion could be scheduled for an hour on Monday, July 8. We would need to know by 5:00 p.m. Monday, June 17 to meet our agenda publication requirements. We will plan to see you Friday, June 14 at 3:00 p.m. in the Community Development Department large confer, o„ce room for the discussion with Art Anderson, Executive Director of the Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority. Very Wily yours, S G. Connelly Community Development Director enc. (2) cc: Bob McLaurin Tom Moorhead Larry Grafel Greg Morrison Dick Duran Mike Mollica • • IV RECYCLEDPAPER CONCYPT[TAL REVW.,W • LI NSHEAD REDEVELOPMENT Town of Vail Community Development Department June 11, 1996 1T' TDY AREA VA Shops/Old Town Shops east through Lionshead along Meadow Drive to Vail Road (connecting Lionshead and the Village) POSSIBLE PUBLIC INTERESTS Performing arts center Convention facility Parking - adequate for uses - maintain public parking Loading and delivery Public areas Process - Structure of the partnership/JV - governing entity Bring VA corporate back to Vail • Night skiing Employee housing Economic development re: shoulder seasons Bus routes Sun/shade analysis Improving p..Ferty values Skier drop-off Pedestrian bridge (over I-70) connection SCOPE OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS Streetscape Master Plans Connection to the, Village EHUs Parking (DEPENDS ON PROJECT SCOPE) Road relocations (Frontage Road, too, in vicinity of Old Town Shops) Simba Run underpass/I-70 access Construction period hassles/phasing/timing Additional warm beds Financial feasibility Mix of retail/office View corridors (Public) Comprehensive aesthetics upgrade - including signage, incentivizing redevel.,r,,..ent other Impact on the Village Redefining character of Lionshead Zoning Implementation of Streetscape Master Plan along Meadow Drive TASKS TO BE ADDRESSED IN THE STUDY -Division of responsibilities . -Types of Consultants Definition of "Blight" - Blight consultant Applicability of statutory definitions and requirements Possible financing authorities/mechanisms Environmental Impact Report (tut) - Transportation, Economic, Parking, Social; VA and consultants Possible referenda - political consultants Community involvement - TOV (with VA) Communications - TOV (with VA) Cost sharing Selection of consultants REPORTING/CONriiiENTIALITY ISSUES Open Meetings Act -Exceptions: 1) Acquisition and disposition of real estate, including negotiations 2) Contract negotiations with consultants COMMUNICATIONS PLAN Suzanne Silverthorn, TOV and . VA 0 FEASIBILITY STUDY What (redevelup..ent plan) Where (study area) How ($) When - decision points/construction Who (P/S, JV, etc.) EIR Political analysis f.\everyonelsuunUhredev.611 • • TOWN OF VAIL 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 303-479-21381479-2139 FAX 303-479-2452 October 7, 1993 Mr. Dave Corbin Vail Associates Real Estate P.O. Box 959 Avon, CO 81620 RE: Conceptual review of Vail Associates' proposed Lionshead redevelopment Dear Dave: • Thank you for giving the Town of Vail staff the opportunity to review the preliminary design concept for Vail Associates' Lionshead redevelopment. This project provides a wonderful opportunity to revitalize Lionshead.. I have had an opportunity to discuss the project with the Fire, Public Works, and Community Development Departments within the Town of Vail. Below is a preliminary summary of Town staff comments concerning the project. 1. Community Development Comments A. General Overview of Proiect and Related Communitv Issues 1. Staff agrees that the analysis of the existing problems in Lionshead is very accurate. 2. The uses proposed for the project are very positive. Lodging, retail, skier service (particularly the relocation of the Children's Ski School from the congested Golden Peak site, and office are needed in Lionshead). Employee housing on this site or another site should also be considered with the project. 3. In respect to the review process for this project, we would like to suggest some additional steps. First, we believe it is very important that you discuss the general parameters of the project with the Lionshead community. We understand that Vail Associates must consider their own development objectives. However, we believe that by working with the Lionshead merchants and other residential owners within Lionshead at an early stage, the project will have a much better chance for success. This approach also has the potential to create a smoother review process. M t vu you t MLi Department of Community Development Mr. Corbin October 7, 1993 Page Three r; - 2. In respect to views, we believe that the view from Sundial Plaza up to the mountain needs to be opened up. It is true that there is a break in the building on the north elevation in this area. However, we believe a much wider view corridor is necessary to achieve a sense of openness and a view to the ski mountain. The view from the Lionshead Center Building towards this project (to the west), should be opened up into the Plaza. At this time, there is too much of a wall of buildings on this elevation. 3. We think it is wonderful that you are planning to have many outdoor dining spaces as well as retail on the first level to add pedestrian interest. We are not clear on how the plaza space between the two buildings functions. Per Alpine International's work, we see this area as becoming a green space corridor connecting Sundial Plaza to the mountain. We are also not clear on what spaces are public and what spaces are associated for hotel guests only. In many ways, locating a pool in this area seems to be unwise as it is such a prominent location. The space seems to function much better as a public area. 4. The retail building on the northeast comer of the project seems out of scale with the adjacent building. We believe that using this area for a landscaped plaza would be a better use. 5. In general, the height, particularly of the east building, is a concern. The building needs to step down more to the pedestrian level. If the model is correct, in comparison to existing buildings, the proposed eastern building is creating more of a lack of pedestrian scale when compared to these existing buildings. The building eave to grade height is even greater than the existing buildings which we know already create problems for pedestrian scale. The western building seems to do a better job of terracing down to pedestrian levels. • Mr. Corbin October 7, 1993 • Page Five C. Additional Information to Understand the Basics of the Proiect 1. A thorough view analysis is needed to truly understand the impacts of the project. I believe the Design Workshop worked on Little Nell in Aspen. It would be helpful if the same type of computer simulation could be completed for the Lionshead redevelopment project. 2. A sun/shade analysis would be very helpful to understand the impacts of the project's shade on the mall. 3. A zoning analysis comparing this project to the Commercial Core II zoning would be helpful to staff. 4. Employee housing will need to be addressed with this project. An analysis of the impacts of the additional employees above the current development would be extremely helpful to staff. II. Public Works Comments The Public Works Department would like: -Greater enhancement of the pedestrian connection to the western side of Lionshead (i.e. Radisson, Antlers, etc.) -Work with Lions Square Lodge to incorporate undergrounding a majority of the parking and provide a skier drop-off, charter bus drop-off, and pick-up for above. -Concern on sun/shade analysis -Snow removal techniques, snow storage, and show shedding -Need bike path from 1-70 Bridge down to Frontage Road, current proposal shows stairs on both sides. -impacts of drainage -impacts of traffic, may need to coordinate with CDOT for impacts on South Frontage Road (i.e. left hand turn lanes) • 7 Mr. Corbin October 7, 1993 Page Seven D. Potential major impacts on water main - another water main may be necessary. E. Loading areas - want more information. -Could this be a central loading area for the mall? Please keep in mind that these comments are preliminary. Even among our Town of Vail Departments, we will need to have further discussion on many of these issues. Please let me know when you would like to discuss these comments. Sincerely, ?f',?n ,V t Kristan Pritz Director of Community Development sc: Greg Hall Dick Duran Mike McGee Mike Mollica Todd Oppenheimer Mike Rose Lary Grafel • LION514EAD MALL-- VAIL. COLORADO END nF WOR FQP SUMMATION adon PPrkl 1 .Initial Improvpmep Pro eram :A Add interest, landscape, and space for events in the center of the mall - sloped lawn, south-facing - more benches and boulders - modified fountain Ease some of the hard wall lines with boulders,` soft-edged planting, benches . Ease the right turn around Laziers Lionshead arcade that discourages pedestrian flow to the west end Plant and soften the Lions Pride edge, develop a secondary pedestrian access, narrow the steps, add colorful planting Add more permanent trees in Lionshead Court, change snow management practices there Remove the 'stupid horseshoe' at the west end, replace with a low, rock garden type landscape Open up the east end auto/pedestrian entrance Begin a massive tree planting program 2. Mall Structure. East to west alignment creates strong northside shadows Most public spaces have no view of the mountain The mall is completely separated from the stream corridor, very little sense of the natural landscape 3. Mall Sprig Landscape wall edges are hard and linear, they reinforce the hardness of the architecture The sundial area is not memorable, does not seem like a place to visit or to linger in The fountain is poorly scaled, poorly constructed, and does not orient to the major central space Most seat walls slope and are uncomfortable • Benches are not well used, partly because of orientation There is little variety in widths of spaces; few small-scale, special places Absence of retail continuity. Building colors are monotonous to unpleasant; dark brown color is particularly unsuccessful Confusing entrances Lack of detail, richness, visual variety; public space quality The nicest places are where there are trees, where the south sun reaches terraces, where mountains are visible ' SUMMARY OF PARTTCIPANTS' COQ'S Obiectives Lead more people into Lionshead and get them to spend more time there Direct people to individual shops . Make_ Lionshead a good place to work in -= , : • ... - Give visitors some intrigue -they liketo explore, to be enticed to look around the corner Make improvements that will build an identity and an image for the Lionshead district Develop a cohesive planning process as a basis for design decisions Landscang - The landscape at Lionshead is very hard and linear; too many pavers. It reinforces the hardness of the architecture and appears to be too urban. There is a need to increase the amount of landscaping to soften the mall's appearance. Suggestions were made to create small pockets for sitting, especially where there'are views, and to add more flowers and grassy areas.. BB ildin - --- -- The buildings at Lionshead were felt to be monotonous and drab. The color of the buildings (a dark brown) Is viewed generally as both unpleasant and unsuccessful. Possible solutions: a theme image, more color Page 2, (less concrete grey), use of architectural elements and/or landscape for linkages, and making exterior facades more uniform. It was felt that the latter may be difficult since the buildings have multiple owners. • Shoff Better storefront lighting. Windows are presently too dark and hard to see in (there could be a problem because of multiple owners; changes to storefronts would require approval from condo owners). -; Simplify the DRB process to help store owners make improvements without such long delays. A master plan might help get designs approved more quickly Shops in the Landmark building are thought- to be a good improvement model. Sundial Plaza - Overall, deemed unmemorable, ineffective as a destination, too large and barren. It needs something in the center; needs a more natural character. Consider adding more grassy areas. Add a gazebo or band box for summer use. Fountain - In general, the fountain is falling apart and needs a facelift. It is poorly constructed and scaled. It is not attractive or visible and is not properly oriented to the central plaza space. One suggestion was to add tile work (like the Village bus stop the work) to improve the facade. Improvement is a high priority. Site Furniture Most of the seat walls slope and are uncomfortable to sit on; thus not well used. Also not well oriented or sited.. There is a need for more benches (not seatwalls), more sculpture and water. i a The inadequacy of signage poses a number of problems. There is no theme or organized system for signs, no consistent idenat?ty-w utidge"'isitors are often confused and don't know what is in the mall, where the entries are, or where to go from the bus stops. Summer visitors seemed more disoriented than winter visitors and seem to require more guidance. Suggestions were as follows: - Need a color - coded system, especially at entrances, to identify destinations - Add flags - Need directories at all entrances -Identify Lionshead in Village - Need signage in Lionshead parking structure -Need hotel signage . - Neon - bad or good? •' - Keep name of Lionshead? (or is it a barrier to identity with Vail as a whole?) . - West end seems to be greatest problem area - Need better maps/shop lists"at bus stops in Vail - Emulate quality of signage in old mountain resort towns like Salzburg and Innsbruck, Austria. pedestrian Circulatior! Some pedestrian circulation paths could be made into stronger connections: - Between Vail 21 Building and Landmark; also north of Vail 21, where access is presently blocked. - Back service area to Gondola by Sunbird - major congestion - a major drop-off point, but a poor introduction to area - Path to parking structure at east end - how to get people from arena back to Lionshead -Access to gondola, after redevelopment, will be on grade, and entries to building could vary Other comments: clearer, more user-friendly access into the mall from every location slow down pedestrian traffic, and strengthen corridor from Lionshead to recreation destinations. Vehifiilar Circulation Access to Sundial Plaza for fire engines and snow removal vehicles must be preserved. The gondola requires truck access for mountain service, but trucks are not allowed on Lionshead Mall. There was an objection to putting the police .station on the parking structure - participants did not feel this_.._ was the best use. The issue is still open and must be heard by the Planning Commission. (There are deed Page 3 uses. It was felt the restrictions concerning land uses on the parking structure site, which old VA. • parking structure could be an important and stronger link between new and o Other comments: how V.A. ownership and redevelopment of the Gondola/Sunbird site might affect the west end entrance; how to guide autos to parking facilities after they make drop-offs; general consensus was that the east end of the mall works better than the west half.' Liam Two main user groups were identified: day-skiers parking in the Lionshead structure and entering the mall . for challenge to from the east, and hoe fixllld length mall g frinto the mall. froe west. A om east to westn It was also design get people tow k the of th decline in the summer, as compared with winter. 10 000 skiers (about 459'0) begin their day at VA reps Hunn and Macy estimated that, on a busy day, Lionshead. Yet there are only about 450 beds in the Lionshead district; this suggests that much potential for pedestrian activity and retail business is presently being lost. _ Desm,n It was generall y felt that Lionshead lacks detail, richness, and visual quality. The lack of color, light (unsafe at night?), entertainment, and nightlife seemed dominant complaints. Spatial quality was a big issue: - There is little variety in the widths of spaces and very few small-scale special places. - Some open spaces may have to be•lost to accomplish goals. - There is a waste of space at the west end of Sunbird. - Need summer play spaces for kids. - Don't have to plow everything; leave some snow - it creates a great winter play space for kids. - Look at other places and see.what works. Other design comments: -Plan for public and private recycling, -Do something with the tar roof and trash at the Landmark, -Do something with or at the 'stupid horseshoe' -Create a better transition at the east side of the Gondola building; at present, the abrupt right-angle turn makes many visitors think there is nothing to see beyond it -Improve the mid-level terrace at Charlies T's (Montaneros below Concert Hall Plaza) -Add more activities for kids and more family-oriented fun. Children's murals and art were suggested, especially at the east end of the parking structure: - BudeeJ The amount available for improvements this year is $130,000, of which $30,000 is in escrow from Lazier's Lifthouse Lodge expansion project. Expenditures in excess of this amount must be included in the Town of Vail's 1992 budget. A Lionshead master plan has been budgeted for 1992. COMMENTS FROM WORKSHOP PARTICIPANTS z L - Concern that a banner system might be.too costly A•? ; How should Lionshead's boundary be defined? Y at east end i ` exit is confusing, -r1.-all ` Parking structure Quality of arrival not good - Color-coded sign, at the entrance? - Need stronger identity for Lionshead' 4 1•. - Most visitors do not know what is in mall -West end (Concert Hall Plaza) is a problem • Biggest barrier is the 90 degree turn at the clocktower, need a more gradual transition around gondola bldg_ Tree might have blocked view of Concert Hall Plaza stores- need directory there instead - Can tenants/property owners encroach on town land? What to do about the 'stupid little horseshoe'? • Page 4 Identity problem at west end of L_ionshead distract (Marriott): no signage Possible secondary corridor northof Vail 21; currently access is blocked, though people do move through it • --The area is not attractive - Vail 21 Building access might vary, maybe lose some parking - Community at large must police the area - It es a service area; truck access needed - Status of upper level parking? Major. west end identity/circulation problem Mall - not interesting, not welcoming; too many pavers; uninteresting facades, need more sculpture? - In Sundial circle - fire engine access?; snow removal/truck access; there may be flexibility (Kdstan); where to put the snow? - Area in front of bike shop is especially cold What impacts on open space will Vail Associates' development have? Original Lionshead - Mine shaft architectural style. Does not provide a countering soft landscape Lifthouse Lodge -plans to upgrade when V.A. design is known Define property lines - ownership pattern. Where is V.A.'s property line? - V.A. opinion: overall feel of mall is too hard - not enough landscape/softening - lacks small pockets of view to the creek; possibly tighten mall - more intimate, greater variety of spaces. V. A. project status: no definitive plans yet -program is very complex - increase retail S.F. by 100% - 200% - double skier operations space (much underground) - hotel - probably aggressive proposal - may park elsewhere - some open space areas may be lost . - new gondola - same location, but access point could change; entry should be on-grade with mall; -chair 8 will remain; skier bridge to be widened - corp. officeslemployee facilities and maintenance shops may move - ticket booth works winter, not summer - V.A. owns north lot, west lot, maintenance yard, skier runout area, land east of chair 8, tennis courts across Creek - wetlands; these sites could be redeveloped as part of the overall plan for the gondoWSunbird site. V.A. plans will also affect west end pedestrian entry to mall. - V.A. concern skier related - less overall Lionshead related - Lionshead, TOV, and V.A. must look at long range plans for growth, circulation, land use Objection to police station on the parking structure; not the best use - City facilities on parking structure; not a done deal, now before Planning Comm. - Parking structure - certain deed restrictions about land uses - must be public use - Fountain- add tile work? Mid-level terrace at Charlies - brighten up _ Need something at stupid horseshoe- Popcorn wagon? Disaster - waste of space at west end of Sunbird - Less concrete gray Village has an image Lionshead; none _ absence of central theme more flowers Christmas tree, ticket office is 'central'; need something in the center of sundial plaza? More , lights; more nightlife How to identify destinations? Too`urban,' needs to be softer > y Y :West end`confusion'at bus stop -add flags r Something on tar roof - trash" at Landmark Sundial space - more natural, possibly grass From east, mall ends at Popcorn wagon planter Path to parking structure at east end - how to direct people from the arena end back to Lionshead? _ Too hard overall - rocks • 'What is here? People confused, better signage needed; even Vail 21 courtyard hard for people to find Lots of winter activities in court - leave some snow; great winter kids play space Page S -more guidance -winter less so,f -?• .,': . Summer visitor - more confused,fneeds . Summer visitor use'reall ydrops'off:.- need summer play space:":, Good places - mall at Bart & Y's -,attractive Horseshoe at east end may be too big Lionshead has great opportunity for long range growth' What can Lionshead do best for the guest? - Look positively at future of Lionshead' west Retail windows, dark, not easy to see in` Mall needs more light, too dark, drab More seats - actual benches, not seatwalls Family-oriented fun Current project - may be a "band aid' (temp. improvement that can be changed) V.A. project is a big unknown Fountain - falling apart, needs a face lift; improve face and area in front of it- highest priorityl l Directories - all Lionshead entrances, also identify Lionshead in the Village Why keep name of 'Lionshead'? Is it a barrier to community use?-- East end works well - entrance good; west-end is the problem" How to change building exteriors - multiple owners -Get rid of dark brown;,try fora theme image, more color - Can only work on town lands - not on private properties - Long range - some type of exterior uniformity More sculpture, flags, water, hotel signage, clean-up streets (look at other places, what works well) - More benches, flowers - too urban now Access from every location - user friendly Make visitors come, slow down, stop,- stay awhile Signage, jwr-% al events e " a;ra ent =. _ • - Become a 'jewel' of a mall in the "community Lift House - upper level not attractive Fountain not attractive - not visible Dark at night - unsafe? Neon - is it okay? Shops in Landmark Building - good - ' Too hard - more grass, why all pavers? Some storefront changes must.be approved by Condo owners - would-like to brighten - DRB process tough - can process be simplified to help store owners? - Master plan key to getting designs approved without going thru cumbersome process - Some assurance needed for long range change - need to assure property owners -Must have M.P. budgeted by Town of Vail - $130,000 budget all thats available now; spend by this fall - or are we addressing only the escrowed $30,000? Matching funds from the Town? Process: Town has budget for Lionshead master plan in 1992; this work will contribute to the long range master plan as well as guide immediate improvements Two primary entrances at east and west ends; people also come through back service areas from Lions Square past the Sunbird to the gondola, - major congestion, poor introduction to Lionshead area (This is a major drop-off area) - Lionshead does keep trucks out of the mall Gondola requires truck access for mountain service Parking fee costs to owners Comments at east end of parking structure adding `a mural, more color to improve drawing power Lionshead is grey, lacks color -possible children's art/murals _ Need to make people feel at home f f ,No signage in Lionshead parking. structure Cy y Need better mapslshop lists at bus stops; throughout Vail - _? - How to guide autos to parking after drop=offs ;x r^-e t .Can corridors from Lionshead lead to recreation- destinations - reach out LrY •'Y,a? Asa -1 f s e L - , OIL- r d' r ? Y F ` .. _ C j Z t ,? J .J ?ys$yt? yf 'e ? 4 ? f t _ r ff t 57 - A TOWN OF VAILI 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 970-479-2100 FAX 970-479-2157 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE July 3, 1996 Contact: Bob McLaurin, 479-2105 Vail Town Manager VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AMONG THOSE LENDING EARLY ENDORSEMENT OF VAIL TOMORROW ACTION PLAN (Vail)--in a unanimous vote, the Vail Town Council last night (7-2) added its overwhelming support to the "Vail Tomorrow" project. The initiative, to be launched July 19 at a community kick-off, is designed to allow anyone who cares about Vail to have an equal voice in shaping its future. Organizers say the 10-month-long process will result in a specific list of actions designed to produce the kind of future people say they want. Implementation of those actions could begin by next spring. Yesterday's endorsement by the Vail Town Council is part of an effort to enlist other supporting organizations from the outset, said Town Manager Bob McLaurin. "What makes this project stand out from all the others will be our ability to bring everyone on board from the beginning," he said. "We're looking for agencies, organizations and others to assume a shared responsibility for making this effort successful." The Chamber of Commerce and the board of the Vail Village Merchants Association also agreed this week to support the project, while 20 other organizations are being asked to lend their names, as well. By endorsing Vail Tomorrow, the Vail Town Council and other organizations agree to: (more) ??? RECYCLEDPAPER . • Vail Tomorrow Endorsements/Add 1 • Be an active participant • Serve as an information resource to Vail Tomorrow • -Seriously consider all alternatives for actions forwarded to them, while neither violating nor creating conflicts with the organization's primary mission The Vail Tomorrow concept grew out of the work of the Town of Vail-Vail Associates Community Task Force, a 15-member group representing a cross-section of interests in the community. Reflecting various voices in the community, the group identified the need for long-range community planning, and agreed the best way to do that was by giving everyone a fair and equal chance to have a say in what Vail's future should be. From there, a group of 20 volunteers has agreed to help oversee logistics of the 10- month process and to enlist participants. The volunteers are: Monica Benderly, Sara Charles, Kate Collins, Mary Ellen Cope, Betty Cordova, Joe Donnelly, Kerry Donovan, Rob Ford, Joel Heath, Diane Herman, Elaine Kelton, Rob LeVine, Arn Menconi, Ellen 0 Miller, Maxine Miller, Chris Moffet, Levi Schofield, Rod Slifer, Brooks Thomas and Carl Walker. Following the July 19 kick-off weekend, the Vail Tomorrow process will begin with discussions throughout the summer of how the future of Vail could look. Then, during the fall and winter, the project will get more specific as people set goals, recommend actions=and analyze the alternatives. Roundtable discussions, surveys, mailings and other citizen involvement techniques will be used throughout the process to encourage as much participation as possible. If you'd like to find out more about Vail Tomorrow, contact Suzanne Silverthorn in the Town of Vail Community Information Office at 479-2115. a I } T: RESOLUTION NO. 13 SERIES OF 1996 A RESOLUTION OF COMMITMENT TO THE VAIL TOMORROW PROCESS. WHEREAS, the Vail community is faced with impressive challenges and changing conditions which will have dramatic impacts on its future as a community and as a world class resort; and WHEREAS, the Vail Tomorrow project is designed to bring people in this community together to discuss and decide what our future should be and what specific actions we should take to achieve that future; arld WHEREAS, Vail Tomorrow is designed to allow everyone who cares about Vail to have a say in our future, and to do so in a fair and equal way; and WHEREAS, the Town of Vail supports the Vail Tomorrow project and encourages everyone who cares about this community to get involved in describing our desired future and analyzing altematives proposed; and WHEREAS, the Town of Vail acknowledges that the Vail Tomorrow. project will be meaningless unless all agencies, organizations, and people assume a shared responsibility for . achieving selected alternatives. NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Town Council of the Town of Vail, Colorado, that the Town of Vail commits to the following: 1. To be an a Live participant in Vail Tomorrow; 2. To serve as an information resource to Vail Tomorrow; 3. To seriously consider all alternatives for actions forwarded to us, while neither violating' nor creating conflicts with the Town's primary mission;.to work on our own and in collaboration with others to develop and cant' out Vail Tomorrow's strategies for action; and if there is an instance where our direct involvement in an action would be irresponsible to explain why we are unable to act. 4. That the Town Council hereby finds, determines, and declares that this resolution is necessary and proper for the health, safety, and welfare of the Town of Vail and the inhabitants thereof. 5. That this resolution shall take effect immediately upon its passage. PABDMOntln. 13, 8. a IWS INTRODUCED, READ, APPROVED AND ADOPTS hiszcnd day of July, 1996. Ro rt W. Armour, Mayor ATTEST: ?0.eaYa4ctuO'Yl Holly L. McCutcheon, Town Clerk RNWngn No, 13. Swm d 1986 MEMORANDUM • TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: - Community Development Department DATE: July 8, 1996 SUBJECT: A request for front and side setback variances to allow for a residential addition to the Messenbaugh residence, located at 970B Fairway Court/Lot 5, Vail Village 10th Filing. Applicant: Drs. Robert and Hildegard Messenbaugh, represented by Mike Guida Planner: George Ruther 1. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUESTS The applicants, Drs. Robert and Hildegard Messenbaugh, represented by Mike Guida of Guida Builders, are requesting front and side setback variances, to allow for the expansion of an exterior deck and the construction of a residential addition on the north and west sides of their existing residence, located at 970B Fairway Court. According to the official Town of Vail Zoning Map, the applicants property is zoned Two-Family Residential. Pursuant to Section 18.12.060, Setbacks, of the Town of Vail Municipal Code, the minimum side setback for a structure zoned • Two-Family Residential, shall be 15', and the minimum front setback shall be 20'. The applicants are proposing to build their expanded deck to within 1' of the west property line and their new additions to within 12' of the north (front) property line. Therefore, the applicants are requesting an approval to allow for a 14' side setback variance on the west side of their property and an 8' front setback variance on the north side of their property. The applicants are proposing two additions to the west-half of the duplex. The additions include a new, expanded dining room on the second level of the residence and two, bedroom additions on the third level of the residence. The total new square footage proposed for the additions is approximately 323 sq. ft. Of the 323 sq. ft., 74 sq. ft. will be added to the second level, and 249 sq. ft. will be added on the third level. Of the total 323 sq. ft. of additional GRFA being added to the structure, 145 sq. ft. of GRFA will be located within the required setback areas. The applicants are also proposing to expand the size of an existing exterior deck on the west side of their residence. The deck expansion includes adding approximately 38 sq. ft. of deck area and the construction of a new set of stairs along the west property line to gain access to the deck. The new stairway is proposed to be constructed to within one foot of the west property line. The Town of Vail Municpal Code allows decks to encroach five feet into the fifteen foot sideyard setback without a variance. The applicants are proposing to encroach fourteen feet. II. BACKGROUND • On August 21, 1975, the Town of Vail Planning Commission approved a setback variance request by the owners of Lots 5, 7 and 8, Vail Village 1 0th Filing, to allow for the construction of the duplex structures in the front and side setbacks. The setback variance request was approved by the Planning Commission for two reasons. The first was to locate the structures as far as possible from the snow avalanche hazard to the south, and second was to mitigate the environmental damage caused from excessive cuts and fills necessary to meet the setback requirements. • On March 24, 1977, the Town of Vail Design Review Board approved the proposed Ziegler/Shapiro residence. • On June 20, 1977, the Town of Vail Building Department issued a building permit for the construction of the Ziegler/Shapiro duplex on Lot 5, Vail Village 10th Filing. • On September 18, 1989, the Town of Vail Design Review Board approved a request for a dining room expansion to the Messenbaugh/Ziegler residence. Ill. ZONING ANALYSIS Address: Legal Description: Zoning: Use: Lot Size: Development Standard GRFA: Site Coverage: Setbacks: Front: Sides: Rear: Parking:* * west-half only 9708 Fairway Court. Lot 5, Vail Village 10th Filing. Two-Family Residential Two-family residence 31,177 sq. ft. Allowed 6,159 sq. ft. 200% or 6,235 sq. ft. Existina 5,014 sq.ft. 7.9% or 2,475 sq. ft. Pronosed 5,337 sq.ft. 8.2% or 2,561 sq. ft. 20' 15' 15' 3 spaces (required) 14.29' 3' >15' 3 spaces 12.29' 1' no change 2 enclosed spaces IV. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Section 18.62.060, Criteria and Findings, of the Town of Vail Municipal Code, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the requested setback variances. The recommendation for approval is based on the following factors: A. Considerefion of Factors,: 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. 2 A • In 1975, the Town of Vail Planning Commission approved a variance • request to allow the structures built on Lots 5, 7 and 8, Vail Village 10th Filing to be located within four feet of the north (front) and west (side) property lines. The Planning Commission approved the variance request stating that the variance was warranted based upon the impact of the snow avalance hazard area to the south of the lots, and to mitigate the environmental damage associated with extensive cuts and the amount of tree removal necessary to meet the setback requirements. Based upon this finding,. staff believes that the requested variance, for the residential additions, is in keeping with the original decision of the Planning Commission with one exception. Staff is concerned that the new stairway proposed on the west side of the structure unnecessarily encroaches upon the west property line. As proposed, the new stairway would be located within one foot of the property line. Staff believes that the intent of providing access to the deck can be met without increasing the existing encroachment on the west property line. Staff would suggest that the applicants shift the stairway to the east and reconfigure the existing deck, or maintain the existing stair on the south side of the deck and not construct a new stairway. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. • The staff believes the applicants are requesting the minimum amount of relief necessary to achieve the desired objective with regard to the residential additions. As stated previously, 145 sq. ft. of additional GRFA will be constructed in the required setbacks. Staff further believes that based upon a previous decision of the Planning Commission allowing structures on Lots 5, 7 and 8 to be built within four feet of the property line, the applicants' request would not result in a grant of special privilege. Staff believes that the physical hardship allowing the structures on Lots 5, 7 and 8 to encroach to within four feet of the property line still exists. Staff is concerned that allowing the applicants to construct a new stairway, providing access to the existing deck, would be a grant of special privilege. The existing deck currently encroaches to within three feet of the west property line. Staff does not believe that a physical hardship or extraordinary circumstance exists permitting the applicant to encroach further upon the required setbacks. Staff would suggest that the applicants either !-edesgin the existing deck to accommodate a new stairway within four feet of the west property line, or maintain the existing stair on the south side of the deck and not construct a new stairway. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. • The staff believes the above-described criteria is not relevant to this variance request. 3 B. The Plannin"nd Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before ranting a variance: 1. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special • privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. C. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department staff recommends approval of the applicants variance request. • Staff has addressed the Consideration and Factors, and has determined that the applicants have met the Findings necessary for the Planning & Environmental Commission to grant an approval of their request. Specifically, staff finds that the applicants have met Finding B.1 in that the granting of the requested variance will not result in the grant of special privilege, Finding B.2 has been met since, in the opinion of the staff, the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; and that Finding B.3(b) has been met since there are extraordinary circumstances, in the form of a snow avalanche zone, and steep slopes to the south, which precludes the applicants from developing their lot to its full potential. Additionally, Finding B.3(c) has also been met since the strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicants of privileges enjoyed by the other property owners in the same district. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose the grant an approval of the requested variance, staff would recommend that the approval carry with it the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall submit a Geologic Hazard Report prepared in accordance with Chapter 18.69 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code to the Community Development Department prior to the application for a building permit. 2. That if the Geologic Hazard Report requires substantial changes to the • proposal, the applicant revise the proposal and reappear before the Planning and Environmental Commission for their review and approval. 4 3. That the applicants sign and submit a Geologic Hazard Acknowledgement Form to the Community Development Department prior to application for a building permit. • 4. That the applicants redesign the proposed new stairway to encroach no further than the line of the existing deck (three feet ) on the west side of the property. • 5 w INTERSTATE 70 (NOT IN T.O. v. 1 VAIL VILLAGE 8th. FILING TENNIS COURTS Id . U a-DRENS PAW 1 1 ty 1055 6 1115 11631183 2 4 1297 J =pFD PARK 4 11 9 !0 1193 1 AST VAIL WATER 967 1031 I • 125 1153 SANITATIONBl TRACT ( 2 1045 w 5,`, ,T?Io? ` - 2e H3 1287- 530 AAMPM .ATM NATURE NOS DEL NORTE A IORTH 8 F2 7 5 ?Fi? 6 CENTER ? szo JPa\'?P?,,E SOCCER 2 D • FIELD TRACT A VAIL VILLAGE 7th. FILING ?i Io34 Ito6 SILVER TRACT 14 1 11 3 EF 4 9 11 11i2 1ti37 It93 E S 6 It722? 5 T "g'. 2ygP 024 081 • 117 © EY i 1012 r 1014 1250 4 ,. 992 ^ V? 2 3 GOL TRACT 0 • 220 3 1 994 200 1170 2 3 ? TRACT F ±? 2 3- 4 5 11 1 So 7 7 It 27 7 11I9 ???n NNW • C PILN t ! i t i t M?. --- - existing third It deck ------ new stlrsa_; ; property line line of new a Idit ork on third It } y ?{ } =1 0 FLOOR PLAN OUTLINE (drawn at second level) 2=9! °° ?° (reference A-2,3&4 for floor plans) f _'e+ Y i Z. (REFERENCE IMPROVEMENT LOCATION o CERTIFICATE BY PEAK LAND SURVEYING, IN ;. = FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION) I o + . r m. F m'' „ c t- .gt c. - i tj. w f l _reain_. ing frcst.tL _to m -------""-'_ .'; ? ro new existing second It deck ' X m O' 0 0 C - m y C X400 „ i,. /nom p 1 c 10 xQ o o _ ? 0 ID 0 c c a1 -_ O COURT J M HEN?ERP n! rebuild ch}rrrev 4& I l f I L 7B) 'B O; u -- 1-17 8 Bj OD CB I i. Ll 1 I I ! Ill.. al 111 1 7 n r ? I I I I ? I i f i E D2 D 1 ?N JIM HENDERSON & =ASSOCIATES, INC.- 3400- EAST BAYAUD AVENUE. SUITE 390. DENVER, COLORADO 80209-2929 _ 303-320-6332 _ FAJX3'03 32t9(-}0A6c82 r •" .. .? .:•._? s.'.ar.....i :7 _`-..- -- ...^ _ t, -. .: ..•-' - .?:"n _-..s ._ "?y„t.,." . .. ay-a • e ?. •-. w:. 7L?•ar c.z .'P5 [. _ ,. ?y?. ,+' • existing buildino new cor struction on third floor rebuilt chimney r' t??4„A???AgaiA I ?' 0 i 7 t 4? Y N 1, V t, ] Y A x ?+ d _ -8 J p. 3rd J J • • i - - SOUTH ELEVATION JIM HENOER, ?. 1 0-1/4'-1' Oa. _ 3400 EAST BAYAI r " DENVER COLORA - r " " - - t " ' a- + ??` k 'fir ' , 303-320-6332 . .r x '':r a ? ? . c: ` z,:s a ' .,7y• F r" £„ ,3.=. ' : ? Y 3 c : s ?` 'r ? - FAX-303- 32 9 682 00 x ; ?, .c. ?- +'ra.. c:. <,,c? ? ar[?:?a?'y??..?- • 4+M'S , ' ...e 4 = ' :.t + '..k - ^ t <' cy^1s ,sax. a r:l ' •L 1 ?` ? .' k * n .i (n rr X ' ??? J. -.WJ w. . ? p,? ,..., ... .. .. , - _... , - .... .... . , .. ,q Yke „ c _ 9Cae ?•F! # _ u? .. ri?,i-°1t- W _ Y , Y. .. ?' . . _. , ebuilt cturrrr t4 , .. Iexistino deck & stair i I r -LL *Sim___ ??,-? O _I?? ' r IPp 1tsim ?A-8 oPD. hand ,// i4? 8 t _ 1 1 7? d 1 11 I • ' I P o;? c 1?17 I an4 slay / l I t III 1111 I I .l _ L L ? o 0 o o - I. new exterior stair & addition to deck existna deck JIM HENDERSON & ASSOCIATES, INC. 3400 EAST BAYAUD.AVENUE. SUITE 390 DENVER, COLORADO 80209-2929 • - 303-320-6332 '. ;:. • PLANNING COMMISSION August 21, 1975 3:00 PM Members present: Heimbach Wright Abbott Wilto Others present:' Lamont Toughill SALES TAX FIGURES Lamont presented sales tax data summarized by John Ryan and suggested that staff and Planning Commission might be able to use this information as an aid in considering conditional use permits in CCI. • The general feeling was that the Planning Commission would not want to impose the Town in the economic determinants,of the community,and the market place should determine what types of new businesses are allowed. They did, however, feel that the data with some refinement, could be used by the staff in the general review process. SET BACK VARIANCE FOR LOT 5? 7, and 8 Vail Villaqe 10th Filinq Jim Abbie, representing owners of Lots 5, 7, & 8, Vail Village 10th Filing - application for 4' setback in lieu of 20' required by the Zoning Ordinance. Diana Toughill explained that the setback variance was requested by these owners for two reasons: first, to locate the structure as far from Zone I, Avalanche Hazard area, as possible, and secondly to mitigate the environmental damage from. extensive cuts and fills nec- essary to meet the setback requirements. The Community Development Department staff recommended approval of the variance. Based on criteria and findings from Article 19 read into the record, a motion for approval was made by Jen Wright and seconded by Bill Wilto. The motion carried with Abbott opposed. A AP-N1272DJUL 22 196 0 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION July 8, 1996 Minutes MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Greg Moffet Greg Amsden Henry Pratt Gene Uselton Diane Golden John Schofield Galen Aasland Susan Connelly Mike Mollica Dominic Mauriello George Ruther Judy Rodriguez Public Hearinq 2:00 p.m. The meeting was called to order by Greg Moffet at 2:00 p.m. 1. A request for a setback variance to allow for a snowmelt boiler to encroach 5.5 feet into a sideyard setback, located at 2049 Sunburst Drive/Lot 1, Vail Valley 4th Filing. Applicant: Landon and Mary Hilliard, represented by Larry Eskwith Planner: George Ruther . George Ruther gave an overview of the request. He explained that Jay Peterson was here in place of Larry Eskwith to represent the Hilliards. He reminded the PEC that they voted unanimously at the June 10th meeting to table this item until the Geologic Hazard Report could be reviewed. On July 1, 1996, the report was submitted to the Town of Vail Community Development Department, along with the revised site plan. Staff continues to recommend denial based upon the Consideration of Factors on pages 3 and 4 of the staff memo. Should the PEC decide to grant an approval of this request, staff would suggest that the approval carry with it the conditions listed on page 5 of the staff memo. Jay Peterson stated that he is here on behalf of the applicants and in place of Larry Eskwith. The applicant has looked at alternate sites and has come up with a good plan. Jay had nothing further to add. John Schofield still believes there are alternatives suitable for a solution to the location problem. Gene Uselton had nothing to add to his comments from the last meeting. Greg Amsden had no further comments. Diane Golden said this item was a tough one. There are special circumstances with this request. Jay Peterson stated the problems resulted because of a misunderstanding on the part of the applicant. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes July 8, 1996 1 Henry Pratt agreed with Diane that there were special circumstances surrounding this request. He would however, like one more screening tree and a V-shaped wall as a condition for approval. He asked if staff needed to verify the final screening or would the DRB? Mike Mollica asked the PEC if more screening should be done with landscaping or with a wall. Henry Pratt stated a tree is a better screen. The equipment cannot be visible as you come from the golf course side of the path. Greg Moffet doesn't see this request any differently than at the last meeting. The applicant did however, spend a lot of money relying on the Town's go ahead. So therefore, he doesn't see this as a grant of special privilege because of the circumstances. Henry Pratt made a motion for approval in accordance with the staff memo, noting for the record that this is not a grant of special priveledge, because of the circumstances of the applicant relying on the Town's (Public Works Department) information. He would like to add the following two conditions to the three in the staff memo: 1. That at least one spruce tree, as approved by staff, be added. 2. That'the new mitigation wall be designed and stamped by an engineer. The motion was seconded by Gene Uselton. The motion passed by a vote of 5-1, with John Schofield voting in opposition. 2. A request for a worksession to discuss parking and retaining wall height variances to allow for the construction of a new parking area at the Lodge at Lionshead, Phase III, located at 380 East Lionshead Circle/Lot 6, Block 2, Vail Lionshead, 2nd Filing. Applicant: Lodge at Lionshead, represented by Ric Fields Planner: Dominic Mauriello Dominic Mauriello gave an overview of the worksession. He stated that staff had concerns with the parking. Staff is not sure if it reduces the required amount of landscaping on the property, since the applicant has not provided a site plan of the entire site. Staff also was concerned about it following the Streetscape Master Plan and being compatible with adjacent uses in the neighborhood. Ric Fields, representing the applicant, said that they are improving the drainage situation. They are making an attempt to lessen the grade and direct the water away from the retaining wall. The owners want the carport to go away, as it is not attractive. They are aware that there are issues about the enclosed parking. They feel the proposed plan solves the problem. John Schofield asked if the drainage was a major concern. Ric Fields, using renderings, explained the drainage. John Schofield asked why all the drainage couldn't be drained off in one place under the existing configuration. • Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes July 8, 1996 2 • Ric Fields explained that one side is substantially lower than the other. Dominic Mauriello said the Town is putting in a curb and doing some work to improve the drainage along this roadway. Ric Fields said this plan works with the Town's proposed Streetscape Plan. Gene Uselton asked if the 5-1/2' height of the wall is acceptable. The Zoning Code limits it to 3', because of obstruction to traffic. Ric Fields said the only place we are raising it above 3' is along the sign wall. Gene Uselton asked how far from the property line would the parking variance on the east side be. Ric Fields said 6'-7'. Gene Uselton stated that it might be enough to plant trees there. It would look like the other buildings to the west. Greg Moffet reminded everyone that this was a worksession and invited the public to feel free to participate. Greg Amsden asked if the drainage is the main concern, why doesn't the Association change • the drainage plan. Greg feels there is a lot of hard surface, regardless of what you do with the landscaping. Why not improve the existing situation. Greg feels there is excessive hard surface. Ric Fields said even though there is more asphalt, landscaping breaks it up. Ric said there is a tremendous amount of buffer now, which improves the situation. Diane Golden agrees with Greg Amsden that there is more hard surface with no gain in parking. She stated she could understand the proposal for more asphalt if there were additional parking spaces being provided, but there were not. There is not much aesthetic gain. Ric Fields said there were limitatations with the underground parking and that we are working within the parameters. Henry Pratt asked if anyone has successfully used grass blocks. He is less worried about traffic damage, then he is about snow plows. Ric Fields said the sod doesn't stay put on grass blocks. Henry Pratt said he feels it is too close to the main street, but it seems to be consistent with the neighbors. Henry asked about the east end where there is 5-1/2' of planting on the inside of the wall. He asked why you can't move the planting to the outside of the wall and therefore, move the wall further from the street. Dominic explained that the drawing being presented by the applicant is in fact different than the proposed plan. The proposed plan has less green buffer along the frontage. • Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes July 8, 1996 3 Henry Pratt, in reference to the 5-1/2 'retaining wall, suggested putting a berm along the streetside. He said to get rid of the island and cover all the parking with this berm. This would allow the applicant to meet the screened parking requirement and give you something to look at from the streetside. He gave the Athletic Club as an example. There would be no view from the building side, but that is not his concern. Henry suggested the applicant look at this option. Ric Fields asked the PEC if the applicant did this, would the request be looked at more favorably? The Commission unanimously said yes. Greg Moffet reminded the applicant that if they are going to satisfy the Commission, they need to prove a hardship showing that this is not a grant of special privilege. If the applicant uses Henry's suggestion, they could add parking spaces and decrease the variance. Right now I see a removal of landscaping, an increase in asphalt, without additional parking and being within 3' of the right-of-way. Greg Amsden said he doesn't mind the parking being side-by-side spaces. He does however, want to see a reduction in asphalt. He also wants it all to be screened from the street. Ric Fields asked if joining the 4 spaces would be better. Henry Pratt said it wouldn't get his approval. Just doing that will not be enough to get this request through all the variance criteria. He reminded the applicant that they need a bigger gesture. Greg Moffet said the drainage presents a hardship, but not to the level of asking for 3 separate variances. John Schofield asked if the height of the wall would need a railing in the future. Ric Fields said that no railing would be necessary if there was substantial landscaping, but he would have to further research that issue. John Schofield said at some point, with a sidewalk, a railing might be necessary. Henry Pratt said Ric Fields is right. A railing is not a requirement if there is substantial landscaping. Greg Moffet asked if the Lodge at Lionshead Manager had anything to add. He did not. 3. A request for front and side setback variances to allow for a residential addition to the Messenbaugh residence, located at 970 Fairway Court/Lot 5, Vail Village 10th Filing. Applicant: Robert and Hildegard Messenbaugh, represented by Mike Guida Planner: George Ruther George Ruther gave an overview of the request. Code allows decks to encroach up to 5' into the side setback, but the applicant is proposing an encroachment of 14'. Staff is recommending • Planning and Environmental Commission . Minutes July 8, 1996 4 . approval, referencing the PEC's decision for approval in 1975. George stated that the same situations exist today. Staff however, thinks the applicant should reconfigure the new stairway. Staff would like an additional condition that the exterior lighting and building siding be brought up to code. Greg Moffet asked for any public comment. Frank McKibben, representing Dr. Philip Sheridan and Dr. James Bowen, adjacent property owners of the applicant, stated there were three basic concerns. Most of the houses constructed on the north side of the street encroach into the front setback. This presents a problem in the winter with parking cars. This presents a very urban looking street. It all comes back to allowing development in the front setback. He said Lot 6 is an example of development happening without encroaching into the front setback. The property values are a lot higher now and any development must be looked at very closely. Frank stated that coming towards the street is not the answer. This won't improve the parking situation. From the side you get the feeling of a row of townhomes. He feels that this is a poor solution. I find the design criteria hard to follow. He stated that just because something occurred in the past, is not enough reason to go forward. Mike Guida, representing the applicant, said the front yard setback doesn't increase parking. Greg Moffet asked the Commissioners for their comments. Diane Golden had no comments. • Henry Pratt appreciated Frank's comments. Because there is no impact on the ground level, Henry had no problem with the side setback variance. Greg Amsden asked if the applicant is planning on using T-111 siding. George Ruther said yes. It must be removed and real wood siding used. Greg Amsden agrees with Henry and has no problem with the GRFA extensions. He does have a problem with the stairway on the west side. Mike Guida said the stairs are to access the second level deck. They could put a masonry wall leading up to the deck. Gene Uselton had no further comments. John Schofield does not support the stairs. He also agrees on the T-111 siding issue. George Ruther said staff added the additional condition to bring the exterior building materials and lighting up to code since they are adding more than 150 sq. ft. of GRFA to the structure. Under chapter 18.54 in the Design Guidelines, and per staff policy, when adding more than 150 sq. ft. of GRFA to a structure, the building must be brought up to code. Henry Pratt asked if we can impose bringing the building up to compliance for both sides of the structure. If the neighbor says no, you are denying them their property rights. i Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes July 8, 1996 5 Greg Moffet asked staff, regarding the siding issue, where it is found in the code to bring the entire building up to compliance. Mike Mollica said in Chapter 18.54.050, plywood siding is not permitted. Additionally, staff drafted a policy for changing out siding, for the undergrounding of utilities, etc. Any expansion over 150 sq. ft. in size warrants bringing the building into compliance. A duplex lot is considered one lot, as far as the Zoning Code. It is up to the applicant to work with his neighbor. In some situations, the neighbor can be a big stumbling block. Greg Moffet asked if this has been in place for a long time. Gene Uselton said we only discovered this provision today. Mike Mollica said it would be rare that the PEC would get involved with this. This is generally a DRB issue. Mike Guida asked what would happen if the applicant goes for solid wood siding and the neighbor doesn't want to do this. George Ruther said the entire structure would need to come into compliance. Mike Mollica said that both halves must be brought into compliance, or there will be no issuance of a building permit. Mike Guida said if we comply with the regulations, I don't see why we won't be allowed to do this. Greg Amsden gave the example of how the applicant is subject to the party wall agreement. • Mike Guida said we just found out 10 minutes ago that this was the case and we haven't had a chance to address this issue. Henry Pratt made a motion for approval in accordance with the staffs findings, with the additional recommendation that the side stair not be allowed as proposed. Greg Amsden seconded the motion. Henry Pratt amended his motion with the 4 conditions as proposed by staff and no additional conditions. The motion passed unanimously by a vote of 6-0. 4. A request for worksession to discuss a conditional use permit for a proposed addition to the Vail Chapel, located at 19 Vail Road/Tract J, Block 7, Vail Village 1 st Filing. Applicant: Vail Religious Foundation, represented by Ned Gwathmey Planner: Dominic Mauriello Henry Pratt excused himself from this item, as his office is submitting a bid on this project. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes July 8, 1996 6 Dominic Mauriello gave an overview of this worksession and stated that Ned Gwathmey, Lutheran Minister Rev. Walker and Rod Slifer were all present. Greg Moffet asked for public input. Ned Gwathmey explained that they are looking at the Chapel from a physical side to make it practical for the next 20 years and to also bring it into compliance with the new code issues, ADA and lighting. They have been directed not to discuss changing the appearance. Their plan involves taking the existing offices out of the basement. Parking has not been a problem. The bank paid for parking with the agreement that the church would use it on weekends and the bank during the week. We can't lower the building, because of the 100-yr. floodplain. We need to hear the major concerns from the PEC. We still have to raise the money to meet the needs. We are therefore testing the waters with the PEC. Rev. Walker stated that 6 congregations are using the chapel and all congregations are growing. It is a very heavily used facility and we see the continuance of being heavily used. The usage has been spiritual in nature and the traditional look will be kept. He also mentioned that there are four offices downstairs. John Schofield sees no problem with the request. Gene Uselton is impressed with the proposed addition. He suggested making the drive come under the building to miss the 100-yr. floodplain. Greg Amsden said he wanted to look into the GU Zone District for assurance that if the church • came into hard times, the use could not be converted to commercial use. He stated that he is supportive of this application. Diane Golden also supports the application. She asked if the offices in the existing chapel would be eliminated. Rev. Walker said yes, the offices would be eliminated. Greg Moffet agreed that more room was needed. It is a great asset to community. He didn't see any significant problems with the request. Rod Slifer stated that there are two components of the fund raising. There is endowment money to make improvements. Endowments ensure that the chapel will be maintained in the future, which answers the "hard times" in the future issue. Diane Golden asked if they had determined the cost of the project yet. Rod Slifer said it would cost approximately $1-1/2 million in rounded numbers. Ned Gwathmey mentioned that a memorial aspect was being considered for the grounds. It will be a beautiful area. A walkway was suggested with a small place for memorial plaques. This is not the intent with this application, but it has been felt by some of the members that this could be an asset. If it happens, it could be beautiful and only for ashes. A low wall with plaques was suggested for the memorial. • Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes July 8, 1996 7 Diane Golden asked how many souls could be accommodated. 0 Rev. Walker said that this is not a new idea. There are 25-30 such memorials in Denver. Gene Uselton asked if this would be a part of the fund raising plan. Ned Gwathmey said yes. John Schofield said all things are possible, when they are done well. Gene Uselton gave his approval of the idea. Greg Amsden had no objections. Diane Golden had no objections. Greg Moffet agreed with John, as long as it is well designed, but he did mention that there would be some political aspects to address regarding the memorial. 5. A request for a conceptual discussion of Lionshead redevelopment. Applicant: Vail Associates, represented by Dave Corbin Planner: Susan Connelly Susan Connelly introduced Dave Corbin to present the conceptual discussion. Comments from the PEC members followed. • John Schofield likes what he sees. He strongly encouraged using Gore Creek as an amenity to its best advantage. His biggest concern is the existing buildings that remain. He would like to see encouragement for all of Lionshead to follow VA's lead for upgrading. This proposal is definitely going in the right direction. He encouraged staff to be flexible in order to bring about the process. Gene Uselton agreed that it is very attractive. He questioned the compatibility about what exists there now, with what will be changed over time. Dave Corbin said they are looking at a 5 yr. time frame. The minimum would be 18 months to go through the approval process and 18 months to go through the building process. The time frame needs to be realistic in order to do it in such a way that it would not interfere with ski seasons. To incent other buildings to enhance their properties, is the most difficult part of this project. One of the topics of our study is to meet with Jeff Winston regarding the Courcheval incentive program. We feel we are on a path towards a better working relationship with the Town and together we could find reasons for surrounding properties to conform. We have to find a design that will mesh, as surrounding properties chose to change. Can facade treatments be done with financing mechanisms that would encourage other properties to do the same is a question we are asking. Perhaps free market density changes would be an incentive for properties to change. We need to give buildings a new set of design guidelines, so that they might do it on their own. The Associations involved are financially able to do it. Planning and Environmental Commission • Minutes July 8, 1996 8 Bob Lazier gave an example of the Lifthouse Lodge as being constructed of pre-stressed concrete which lends itself to this redevelopment. Condo Associations are eager to pick up property values. The incentives are there. We need staff agreeing that they will not put up superficial blockades; such as the Fire Dept. says one thing and the Electrical Inspector says another. Dave from Design Workshop said that the fabric of Lionshead will change. The opportunity is there to give everyone something. Gene Uselton agrees that he would like to see economic incentives. He agrees with Bob Lazier that a spirit of cooperation is needed with the Town. Greg Amsden is supportive of the ideas expressed. It seems though that the pedestrian distance, with the new parking structure, is increased. He feels that the North Day Lot housing offices and employee housing is not its best use. He thinks VA should use the Holy Cross site for offices and employee housing. He asked if there will be retail in the Sunbird with condos above. Dave Corbin said they are thinking about an interval time-share product above the retail in the Sunbird Lodge. This will add a mix of lodging enterprises in Lionshead. Greg Amsden would like to look at a new zone district, such as a special development zone district for the redevelopment of Lionshead. Incentives are needed to encourage any low-end buildings riding on the tail of a high-end neighborhood. • Diane Golden said it is a wonderful idea for Lionshead. She pointed out that the parking structure is being viewed for additional ice surfaces. Dave Corbin mentioned that the east end of the structure is being looked at for ice by Phil Hoversten. Henry Pratt said Gore Creek is an important asset to tie us back to the earth. The North Day Lot's best use is not for offices and employee housing. He reminded everyone that when you cut off the sun with large buildings, you will replace the sun with wind tunnels. If there is any way to have this completed by the `99 Championships; that would be great. Dave Corbin said it will be in progress during the Championships, but not done. The North Day Lot has blocked views in front, with highway noise in the back. A condo project would not be well received as a saleable product, since it would be without a view and burdened with highway noise. The North Day Lot would make the most sense operationally by keeping an employee group close to the core. Greg Amsden would like to see a greater skier drop-off in that vicinity. Henry Pratt mentioned that the development rights could be traded for public use where additional development rights could be an asset. Is an ice rink appropriate at the end of the structure. He sees the applicant trying to create a great plaza. Is Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes July 8, 1996 9 Greg Moffet doesn't see an impediment having the development stretch from Dobson to the Holy Cross shops. 49 Susan Connelly said Larry Grafel thought the redevelopment study area should extend west to Cascade. Kit Williams said pedestrian traffic across 1-70 needs to be addressed. Dave Corbin said they hadn't thought of the increased demand on the pedestrian bridge. This is a valid issue if it's being maximized now, it does need to be looked at. Bob Lazier said that the Enzian and Vail Glo Lodges need pedestrian help. Dave Corbin said north across the highway is a new problem. Susan Connelly said she heard that Red Sandstone School might be for sale. John Schofield said the Timber Ridge to Cascade area might need a study. 6. A request for an exterior addition utilizing the 250 Ordinance, located at 781 Potato Patch/Lot 21, Potato Patch. Applicant: Sissel and Richard Pomboy -Planner: Dominic Mauriello TABLED UNTIL JULY 22, 1996 0 7. A request for a conditional use permit, a density variance and front setback variance to allow for a Type II EHU above the existing garage, located at 227 Rockledge Road/Lot 13A, Block 7, Vail Village 1 st Filing. Applicant: Steve Kirby Planner: Dominic Mauriello WITHDRAWN Greg Amsden made a motion to table item 6. The motion was seconded by Gene Uselton. It passed unanimously by a vote of 6-0 8. Information Update • Request for endorsement of Vail Tomorrow Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes July 8, 1996 10 Susan Connelly introduced Chris Moffet and Robin Litt as part of the coordinating team putting together Vail Tomorrow. Chris Moffet asked the PEG for its support of Vail Tomorrow. The project now has about 20 people to initiate and get it going in the Community. They are looking for input from as many community members as possible. They will be reaching out to all members of community to get input from literally everyone with what they want Vail to look like in the future and how we can make that happen. It's a very action oriented project. They plan on coming up with specific action plans. We would like to ask the PEC to say yes that you will support this organization by your participation in focus groups, be a source of information and that you will seriously consider any of the outcomes that come as a result of this process. Robin Litt had nothing to add. Chris Moff et said she would like to have a PEC endorsement today. Susan Connelly stated that so far she has received support from every organization in Town and will finish contacting organizations within the next month. Chris Moffet again said we need the PEC endorsement so we can be assured the outcomes will be seriously considered. Susan Connelly said the community is deciding on a vision with implementation of that vision. She also said that Levi Schofield, a member of the high school, was to be present today, but something came up and he was unable to be here. Greg Amsden asked how can we support this project without knowing what the outcome will be? Chris Moffet said this is a valid question. Of course you can't endorse every outcome. There are some ground rules. If it goes against your mission, you have no obligation to support it. We just ask that you support the outcomes if you can. Susan Connelly said part of the process is a cost benefit analysis or financial feasibility. The community will be involved with the feasibility, so there is accountability involved and will happen by educating each other. The process is a product. Diane Golden asked if this will be a funded group. Chris Moffet said there will be fundraising. The TOV has committed funds, along with VA Susan Connelly said the TOV has given $50,000.00 seed money and the Vail Valley Foundation has endorsed the program with a contribution of $5,000.00. She reiterated that it is not a Town program. Gene Uselton asked a question regarding the flow charts. Are we at the first step on the flow chart. Susan Connelly advised the PEC that we are not using the flow chart in the handout. She stated that the flow chart listed is old. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes July 8, 1996 11 Chris Moffet said starting July 19th we will be rolling it out to the community. The first Vail Tomorrow meeting will be July 22nd. 40 Susan Connelly said there will be 10 focus groups or community round tables. We will be accommodating as many people as want to be involved. Greg Amsden made a motion to sign a statement saying the PEC will endorse Vail Tomorrow. Gene Uselton seconded the motion. It passed unanimously by a vote of 6-0. 9. Approval of June 24, 1996 minutes Gene Uselton made a motion for approval of the June 24, 1996 minutes. John Schofield seconded the motion. It passed unanimously by a vote of 6-0. Greg Amsden made a motion to adjourn the meeting. The motion was seconded by Gene Uselton. It passed unanimously by a vote of 6-0. The meeting adjourned at 5:30 p.m. is Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes July 8, 1996 12