Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
1997-1208 PEC
THIS ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY PUBLIC NOTICE 11 [1 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail will hold a public hearing in accordance with Section 18.66.060 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail on December 8, '1997, at 2:00 P.M. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. In consideration of: A request for a variance to allow for the installation of an entry sign to the Vail Golf Course, located at 1778 Vail Valley Drive/ Lot 3, Sunburst Filing No. 3. Applicant: Vail Recreation District, represented by Piet Pieters Planner: George Ruther Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan - Discussion and recommendation. Staff: Susan Connelly A request for a minor subdivision, to allow for an amendment to the existing property line, located at 242 East Meadow Drive/on of a part of Tract 0, Block 5D, Vail Village 1 st Filing. Applicant: Austria Haus Development, represented by B.J. Davis Planner: George Ruther A request for a residential addition, utilizing the 250 Ordinance, located at 4153 Spruce Way West/Lot 10, Block 9, Bighorn 3rd Addition. Applicant: David Neiss Planner: Dominic Mauriello The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours in the project planners office located at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. 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 November 21, 1997 in the Vail Trail. TOWN OF VAIL 'I Agenda last revised 12103 10 am PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION Monday, December 8, 1997 AGENDA Proiect Orientation / LUNCH - Community Development Department 12:30 pm ff rd j T j F. W V W1 q JS I Site Visits: 1. Niess - 4153 Spruce Way 2. VRD - 1778 Vail Valley Drive 3. Lionshead Inn - 705 West Lionshead Circle UUM Driver: George NOTE: If the PEC hearing extends until 6:00 p.m., the board will break for dinner from 6:00 - 6:30 p.m. Public Hearing - Town Council Chambers 2:00 pm. 1. A request for a minor subdivision, to allow for an amendment to the existing property line, located at 242 East Meadow Drive/on a part of Tract C, Block 5D, Vail Village 1 st Filing. Applicant: Austria Haus Development, represented by B.J. Davis Planner: George Ruther 2, A request for a residential addition, utilizing the 250 Ordinance, located at 4153 Spruce Way/Lot 10, Block 9, Bighorn 3rd Addition. Applicant: David Neiss Planner: Dominic Mauriello & A request for a variance to allow for the installation of an entry sign to the Vail Golf Course, located at 1778 Vail Valley Drive/ Lot 3, Sunburst Filing No. 3. Applicant: Vail Recreation District, represented by Piet Pieters; Planner: George Ruther 4. A request for a major exterior alteration in CC2 and a variance from Section 18.26.070 (Setbacks), to allow for construction of a parking garage at The Lionshead Inn, located at 705 West Lionshead Circle/ Lot 1, Block 2, Vail Lionshead 3rd Filing. Applicant: Lionshead Inn LLC, represented by William Pierce ll i M i i Do Planner: Dominic aureo I* IL TWO WY OF *YZ MEMBERS ABSEN Ann Bishop 1 Agenda last revised 12103 10 am 5. Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan - Discussion and recommendation. 0 Staff: Susan Connelly 6. Approval of October 27, 1997, November 10, 1997 and November 24, 1,997 minutes. The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours in the project planner's office located at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. 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 December 5, 1997 in the Vail Trail 2 is Agenda last revised 12109 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION Iali<1T»� : iiir7=1 Project Orientation / LUNCH - Community Development Department 12:30 pm MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Greg Moffet Greg Amsden (left at 4:20 pmt Galen Aasland Gene Uselton Diane Golden John Schofield Ann Bishop Site Visits : 1:00 pm 1. Niess - 4153 Spruce Way 2. VRD - 1778 Vail Valley Drive 3. Lionshead Inn - 705 West Lionshead Circle Driver: George a NOTE: If the PEC hearing extends until 6:00 p.m., the board will break for dinner from 6:00 - 6:30 p.m. Public Hearing - Town Council Chambers 2:00 p.m. 1. A request for a minor subdivision, to allow for an amendment to the existing property line, located at 242 East Meadow Drive /on a part of Tract C, Block 5D, Vail Village .1 st Filing. Applicant, Austria Haus Development, represented by B.J. Davis Planner: George Ruther MOTION: John Schofield SECOND: Ann Bishop VOTE: 7 -0 APPROVFn WITH 1 cnNnITInN. Agenda last revised 12/09 2. A request for a residential addition, utilizing the 250 Ordinance, located at 4153 Spruce Way /Lot 10, Block 0; Bighorn 3rd Addition. Applicant: David Neiss Planner: Dominic Mauriello MOTION: John Schofield SECOND: Diane Golden VOTE: 7 -0 APPROVED WITH 1 CONDITION: 1. That should the existing evergreen trees be damaged or destroyed during construction of the addition, said trees shall be mitigated or replaced on a linear height to linear height basis. Staff shall inspect the excavation prior to pouring the foundation. 3. A request for a variance to allow for the installation of an entry sign to the Vail Golf Course, located at 1778 Vail Valley Drive/ Lot 3, Sunburst Filing No. 3. Applicant: Vail Recreation District, represented by Piet Pieters Planner: George Ruther MOTION: Greg Amsden SECOND: John Schofield VOTE: 7 -0 APPROVED WITH 2 CONDITIONS: 1. That prior to the installation of the new sign, the applicant remove the existing freestanding building identification sign currently located on Vail Valley Drive, near the entrance to the parking lot. 2.. That prior to the installation of the new sign, the applicant shall bring the property into compliance with the Town of Vail Sign Code. The PEC suggested that a Comprehensive Sign Program be considered by the applicant. 4. A request for a major exterior alteration in CC2 and a variance from Section 18.26.070 (Setbacks), to allow for construction of a parking garage at The Lionshead Inn, located at 705 West Lionshead Circle/ Lot 1, Block 2, Vail Lionshead 3rd Filing. • r: 11 11 Agenda last revised 12/09 3. That final approval by CDOT, for the proposed exit on the South Frontage Road, be obtained prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. 4. That the proposed garage door facing the S. Frontage Road be wood sided. 5. That the retaining walls and header above the garage door, at the proposed exit on the S. Frontage Road, shall be rock faced to match the other rock facing proposed on the building. 6. That the details of the mechanical exhaust for the parking structure shall be approved by the DRB. 7. That all lighting proposed or existing on-site shall conform with the requirements of the Town's Lighting Ordinance. 8. That the proposed 3' tall planter along the south elevation of the building and the east elevation of the parking structure shall be rock-faced. 9. That the applicant shall provide 2 interior parking lot landscape islands on front of the building and shall provide a minimum of one large tree in planter, subject to DRB approval. 5. Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan - Discussion and recommendation. Staff: Susan Connelly 6. Approval of October 27, 1997, November 10, 1997 and November 24, 1997 minutes. The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours in the project planner's office located at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. Sign language interpretation available upon requestwith 24 hour notification. Please call 479-2114 voice or 479-2356 TDD for information. Community Development Department MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: December 8, 1997 SUBJECT: A request for a minor subdivision amending the existing property lines of a lot legally described as a part of Tract C, Block 5-D, Vail Village First Filing, Austria Haus, located at 242 East Meadow Drive. Applicant: Austria Haus Development, represented by B.J. Davis Planner: George Ruther The applicant, Austria Haus Development, represented by B.J. Davis, is requesting a minor subdivision to amend the existing property lines of a lot legally described as a part of Tract C, Block 5-D, Vail Village First Filing (a.ka Austria Haus). The minor subdivision is intended to facilitate the redevelopment of the Austria Haus (SDD #35) and is proposed as was agreed to by the Vail Town Council during the review stages of the Austria Haus project. The proposed minor subdivision results in an exchange of land between the Town of Vail and Austria Haus Development. The land exchange will insure that the Austria Haus improvements are on private property and eliminate the need for lease agreements and/or revocable right-of- way permits for permanent building improvements. The staff has worked with the applicant to insure that there is an equitable exchange of property. As a result of the proposed minor subdivision, the Town will acquire 2,377.77 square feet of Gore Creek stream tract and right-of- way and Austria Haus Development will acquire 2,377.77 square feet of developable property adjacent to East Meadow Drive. A copy of the proposed plat has been attached for reference. One of the basic premises of subdivision regulations is that the minimum standards for the creation of a new lot must be met. This project will be reviewed under the Minor Subdivision Criteria, pursuant to Chapter 17, Subdivision Regulations, of the Town of Vail Municipal Code. The first set of review criteria to be considered by the Planning and Environmental Commission for a Minor Subdivision Application are as follows: A. Lot Area - The Town of Vail Municipal Code indicates that the minimum lot or site area for a lot located within the Public Accommodation Zone District, shall be 10,000 sq. ft. (0.299 acre) of buildable area. The Municipal Code defines "buildable area" as, "any site, lot, parcel or any portion thereof, which does not contain designated floodplain, red hazard avalanche, or areas in excess of 40% slope." As proposed, the buildable area of a part of Tract C, Block 5-D, Vail Village First Filing is 24,092 sq. ft. (0.553 acre). This is above the minimum 10,000 square feet required by the Municipal Code. B. Frontage - The Vail Municipal Code requires that lots in the Public Accommodation Zone District have a minimum street frontage of thirty-feet (30'). The, current proposal indicates street frontage greater than thirty-feet (30'). C. Site Dimensions - The Vail Municipal Code requires that each lot be of a size and shape capable of enclosing a square area, 80 feet on each side, within its boundaries. The current request results in a lot of the size and shape necessary to enclose a square area, 80' on each side, within its new boundaries. The second set of criteria to be considered with a minor subdivision request are as outlined in the subdivision regulations: "The burden of proof shall rest with the applicant to show that the application is in compliance with the intended purpose of Chapter 17, the Subdivision Regulations and other pertinent regulations that the PEG deems applicable. Due consideration shall be given to the recommendations by public agencies, utility companies and other agencies consulted under. Section 17.16,090. The PEC shall review the application and consider its appropriateness in regard to Town policies related to subdivision control, densities proposed, regulations, ordinances and resolutions and other applicable documents, effects on the aesthetics of the Town, environmental integrity and compatibility with surrounding uses." The subdivision purpose statements are as follows: 1 To inform each subdivider of the standards and criteria by which development and proposals will be evaluated and to provide information as to the type and extent of improvements required. Staff Response: The review of this request has followed the regulations prescribed for minor subdivisions in the Municipal Code. 2. To provide for the subdivision of property in the future without conflict with development on adjacent properties. Staff Response: The proposal does not increase the number of lots. Instead, the proposal allows for an even exchange of land intended to facilitate the redevelopment of the Austria Haus. The proposal will not conflict with development on adjacent properties. 3. To protect and conserve the value of land throughout the municipality and the value of buildings and improvements on the land, 0 2 Staff Response: Staff does not believe that the applicant's request will negatively impact the value of land in the Town of Vail generally, or in the immediate area specifically. 4. To insure that subdivision of property is in compliance with the Town Zoning Ordinance, to achieve a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land uses, consistent with municipal development objectives. Staff Response: The proposed subdivision meets the minimum zoning requirements as outlined in SDD #35. 5. To guide public and private policy and action in order to provide adequate and efficient transportation, water, sewage, schools, parks, playgrounds, recreational and other public requirements and facilities and generally to provide that public facilities will have sufficient capacity to serve the proposed subdivision. Staff Response: Staff does not believe the requested minor subdivision will have any new adverse impacts on the above-described criteria. & To provide for accurate legal descriptions of newly subdivided land and to establish reasonable and desirable construction, design standards and procedures. Staff Response: 110 The proposal will create an accurate legal description for the subdivided land. 7. To prevent the pollution of air, streams, and ponds, to insure adequacy of drainage facilities, to safeguard the water table and encourage the wise use and management of natural resources throughout the municipality in order to preserve the integrity, stability and beauty of the community and the value of land. Staff Response: Staff believes the proposed minor subdivision will have impacts on the above- described criteria as the Town acquires additional lands adjacent to the Gore Creek riparian corridor. The Community Development Department recommends approval of the minor subdivision of a part of Tract C, Block 5-D, Vail Village First Filing (a.k.a. Austria Haus), located at 242 East Meadow Drive. Staff believes that the proposed minor subdivision meets the criteria outlined in Section 11 of this memorandum. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to grant an approval of the applicant's request, staff would recommend that the PEC find: 1 That the request for a minor subdivision of a part of Tract C, Block 5-D, Vail Village First Filing complies with the criteria outlined in the staff memorandum dated December 8, 1997 and that the minor subdivision is necessary to facilitate the redevelopment of the Austria Haus as reviewed and approved by the Town of Vail. Staff would further recommend that an approval carry with it, the following condition: 1 That the applicant amend the title of the plat to read, FINAL PLAT VAIL VILLAGE, FIRST FILING, A PART OF TRACT C, BLOCK 5-D, AUSTRIA HAUS TOWN OF VAIL, COUNTY OF EAGLE, STATE OF COLORADO prior to submitting the plat to the Town of Vail for recordation. Cl 7 • FAI MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: December 8, 1997 SUBJECT: A request for a residential addition, utilizing the 250 Ordinance, located at 4153 Spruce Way West/Lot 10, Block 9, Bighorn 3rd Addition. Applicant: David Neiss Planner: Dominic Mauriello !-IM2WW#IIj,IIlC"' NUPPI . . 0, E E The applicant is proposing to construct a one-car garage and a new enclosed entry to an existing duplex. The proposal will add approximately 130 sq. ft. of additional GRFA to the house and 300 sq. ft. of garage area. The proposed garage will be substantially below grade, built into the side of the hill. No regrading is proposed on this hillside. Approximately 3' of the garage will be exposed above grade. The roof will be flat and will be utilized as a deck. The applicant has proposed a railing around the deck. The building materials are proposed to match the existing structure. The existing trees on-site are located approximately 7' from the proposed addition. The existing house was constructed in 1980 and therefore qualifies for additional GRFA under this ordinance. 111. ZONING ANALYMIS Zoning: Two-Family Residential Use: Duplex residence Lot Size: 20,797 sq. ft. Standard Allowed/Required Site Coverage: 4,159 sq. ft. (20%) GRFA: 5,180 sq. ft. Setbacks: Front: Sides: Rear: Landscape area: 20' 15' 15' 12,478 sq. ft. (60%) Existigg 3,231 sq. ft. (15.5%) 6,113 sq. ft. 51 15'& 15' 105' 15,510 sq. ft, (74.5%) 1 Proposed 3,725 sq. ft. (1 7.9%) 6,243 sq. ft. 26' n/c n/c 15,016 sq. ft. (72%) 111111. CRITERIA AND FINDING Upon review of Chapter 18.71 - Additional GRFA, the Community Development Department recommends approval of this request for additional GRFA based upon the following factors: A. Consideration of Factors: Before acting on an application for additional GRFA, the Planning and Environmental Commission shall consider the following factors with respect to the proposed use: 1 Effect upon the existing topography, vegetation, drainage and existing structures. The proposed addition will have minimal, if any, negative impacts on the site, and neither drainage nor grading on the property will be affected. There are several large evergreen trees located near the addition. There could be potential impacts to the root systems of these trees during excavation. Mitigation measures should be in place to ensure replacement of these trees if killed due to root destruction. 2. Impact on adjacent prgperties. The proposed remodel will have minimal, if any, negative impacts on adjacent properties. The addition is substantially below grade. 3. Compliance with the Town's Zoning requirements and applicabil development standards. Section 18.71.020 (F) of the Town of Vail Municipal Code requires that any dwelling unit that proposes to use Additional GRFA shall comply with the standards outlined in the Town of Vail Design Review Guidelines. These standards include landscaping, undergrounding of utilities, driveway paving and general maintenance of the property. The site has paved parking and adequate landscaping. All utilities are located underground. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting approval for Additional GRFA: 1 That the granting of the requested Additional GRFA will not negatively affect existing topography, vegetation, drainage and existing structures. 2. That the granting of the requested Additional GRFA will not negatively impact adjacent properties. 3. That the granting of the requested Additional GRFA will comply with Town zoning requirements and applicable development standards. 11 2 IV. STAFF RECQMMENDATION The Community Development Department staff recommends approval of the applicant's 250 request to add 130 sq. ft. of GRFA subject to the following findings: 1. That the granting of the requested Additional GRFA will not negatively affect existing topography, vegetation, drainage and existing structures. 2. That the granting of the requested Additional GRFA will not negatively impact adjacent properties. 3. That the granting of the requested Additional GRFA will comply with Town zoning requirements and applicable development standards. That should the existing evergreen trees be damaged or destroyed during construction of the addition, said trees shall be mitigated or replaced on a linear height to linear height basis. Staff shall inspect the excavation prior to pouring the foundation. 0 F:IEVEIIYONEIPECIMEMOS\97\NEISS,DOII 1] 3 f f �CRhW L_'SPn cF�� �* _ 1 9 A t L n , �1. � k m` � � �! 1 - � ,� . � =e-wn- � 1 � , t fiYGw �c�tf*v.. ... L a'% TA t L Z J $Mf S T I I -pl lzi D E 7A 1 L I A V r T DU PL f)K -A t> u IT 10N 1 'b P P� V (� f W;t A-*T V.A 14. DESIQ '1E0tNO .1 1 .. �U � --' ._5 - E., - C T r,-4 Z5 no 4 ttt 4 k `F •Ci1i`,:'.. "Y� -.tom . 1� _ 11 k f f I �14 msxe..ne — { / '4i ,;E -a. S 7 ELF N TGN '@,k SY � SIfT�N6' l ra I S S FNGVNEIE9 - €N G .- " Y • n • i 11 0 • , 0 1 TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: December 8, 1997 SUBJECT: A request for a major exterior alteration in the CC2 zone district and a variance from Section 18.26.070 (Setbacks), to allow for construction of a parking garage at The Lionshead Inn, located at 705 West Lionshead Circle/ Lot 1, Block 2, Vail Lionshead 3rd Filing. Applicant: Lionshead Inn LLC, represented by William Pierce Planner: Dominic Mauriello 1111040 The applicant is proposing a major exterior alteration in order construct a 57 space parking structure and a 1,216 sq. ft. common area addition to the Lionshead Inn. The applicant is also requesting setback variances to allow the parking structure to be located in the front and side setbacks and to allow the common area addition to encroach into the rear setback. The second level of the parking structure is proposed at essentially the same elevation as the existing parking lot, however, without the extreme side slope that exists today. The first level is proposed to be below grade with an exit only lane on to the South Frontage Road. The proposed structure is located up to the front and side property lines. The existing parking area is also located up to the property lines. Substantial landscaping is proposed in the CDOT right-of-way, as well as a 3' tall rock faced wall which will screen the upper level parking area from the S. Frontage Road. The applicant is also proposing to add rock veneer to portions of the east and south elevations of the building as well as reconfiguring the deck area and stairs. The additional common area is below the proposed deck and includes ski storage lockers and other common area facilities. A new pedestrian sidewalk and entry to the building are also proposed in the basement level of the building. The proposed ski lockers are located up to the rear property line adjacent to the Enzian Condominiums. Prior to 1989, the parking for this development was nonconforming as 44 parking spaces existed on-site and 66 spaces were required. Therefore, 22 parking spaces were "grandfathered" at this site. In 1989, the parking area in the basement of this building was eliminated to accommodate common area. This eliminated 16 parking spaces. These spaces were allowed to be paid-in- lieu. As part of the 1989 remodel, the previous owner was required to pay a pay-in-lieu fee of $75,000 over a period of 5 years for these 16 spaces. The previous owner defaulted on the promissory note. The proposed parking structure provides 57 parking spaces. This proposal alleviates the need for the parking pay-in-lieu as 29 new parking spaces are being provided on-site. The site • remains nonconforming with respect to parking as 66 spaces are required for the uses on-site and 57 spaces are being provided. With this proposal, the site is "grandfathered" for 9 parking spaces. The existing building is in excess of the allowable common area (35% of total GRFA). However, the property has additional GRFA available which is being used to account for this additional common area over 35%. The existing site is nonconforming with respect to landscape area. This proposal will add approximately 542 sq. ft. of landscape area to the site. See applicant's statement attached. III. ZONING ANALYSIS 23 DU's or 46 AU's 52 AU's Zoning: CC2 Building Height: 48' Lot Size: 40,367 sq. ft. n/c Site Coverage: Standard Allowed/Required Existing Proposed GRFA: 32,290 sq. ft. (80 0 /.) 18,009 sq. ft. (AU) 18,009 sq. ft. (AU) 3,406 sq. ft. (8.4%) 602 sq. ft. (excess common) 1,818 sq. ft. 18,611 sq. ft. 19,827 sq. ft. Common Area: 11,302 sq. ft, (35%) 11,302 sq. ft. (35 11,302 sq. ft. (35 602 sq. ft. (as GRFA) 1,818 sq. ft. (as GRFA) 11,904 sq. ft. 13,120 sq. ft. Restaurant: N/A 6,142 sq. ft, n/c 0 Dwelling Units: 23 DU's or 46 AU's 52 AU's n/c Building Height: 48' 82' n/c Site Coverage: 30,275 sq. ft. (70%) 6,752 sq. ft, (16.7%) 7,968 sq. ft, (19.7%) Landscaping: 8,073 sq. ft. (20%) 2,864 sq. ft, (7%) 3,406 sq. ft. (8.4%) Parking: 28 spaces 57 spaces AU's: 38.8 spaces Restaurant: 27.2 spaces (3,266 sg. ft. net w/bar Total: 66 spaces Ill. REVIEW CRITERIA FOR MAJOR EXTERIOR ALTERATION A. Compliance with the urban Design Guide Pign for Uon5head This location is not identified in any of the sub-area concepts specified in the Urban Design Guide Plan for Lionshead. However, staff believes the proposed improvements are consistent with the design guidelines and compatible with the existing architecture of the building. The proposed improvements will improve vehicular, pedestrian, and ADA access. 2 • • M Compliance wilh the Ur4an Design Considerations for Lionshead and CCIII, Exterigr Alteration !Qriteria This location is not identified in any of the sub-area concepts specified in the Urban Design Considerations for Lionshead. Again, staff believes the proposed improvements are consistent with the design guidelines and compatible with the existing architecture of the building. The proposed landscaping and proposed rock work will substantially improve the appearance of this building. The proposal complies with the development standards of the Zoning Code. C. Compliance with the Vail Land Use Plan 1.3 The quality of development should be maintained and upgraded whenever possible. 3.1 The hotel bed base should be preserved and used more efficiently. 3.3 Hotels are important to the continued success of the Town of Vail, therefore conversion to condominiums should be discouraged. • 3.4 Commercial growth should be concentrated in existing commercial areas to accommodate both local and visitor needs. 4.1 Future commercial development should continue to occur primarily in existing commercial areas.. Future commercial development in the Core areas needs to be carefully controlled to facilitate access and delivery. Staff believes that this proposal is consistent with the Vail Land Use Plan. D. Compliance with the purpose statement for the C!Q2 zone district According to Section 18.26.010 of the Zoning Code, the purpose of the CC2 district states: The Commercial Core 2 zone district is intended to provide sites for a mixture of multiple dwellings, lodges and commercial establishments in a clustered, unified development. Commercial Core 2 District in accordance with the Vail Lionshead Urban Design Guide Plan and Design Considerations is intended to insure adequate light, air, open space and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of buildings and uses and to maintain the desirable qualities of the district by establishing appropriate site development standards. Staff believes that the proposed improvements are in concert with the purpose of this zone district. • 3 IV. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS FOR THE VARIANCE REQUESTS 9 Upon review of Section 18.62, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the setback variances based upon 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 Lionshead Inn is located in an area of Lionshead that is made up of a large proportion of lodging facilities. These facilities require adequate parking to serve their guests. The existing parking at the Lionshead Inn is not adequate to meet the parking needs of the uses on-site. The proposed setback variance will essentially formalize the existing parking configuration. The Vail Glo Lodge also has parking within the front and side setbacks as do other developments in the area. Staff believes the proposed variances are consistent with other existing and potential uses in the area. 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 existing parking lot is located in essentially the same configuration as is the proposed parking structure. The lower level of the proposed garage will be located below grade and will not be visible from neighboring properties. The proposal will allow this development to provide adequate parking for the uses on-site. Staff believes that the proposal will not be a grant of special privilege, as there are several parking areas in the Lionshead area that encroach on setbacks.. 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. This proposal will have little, if any, impact on any of the above stated issues. The variance will allow additional parking on-site with little impacts to the traffic flow on the S. Frontage Road. CDOT has issued a preliminary approval of the proposal. B. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a variance: 1 That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. 4 0 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. 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 A. The Community Development Department recommends approval of the proposed major exterior alteration subject to the following finding: That the proposal is consistent with purpose of the CC2 zone district, the Vail Land Use Plan, and the development standards in the Town's Zoning Code. 0 The recommendation of approval is subject to the following conditions: 1 That all utility companies approve the parking structure encroachment in the utility easement and the proposed utility locations. 2. That the Vail Spa Condominium Association approve all grading and landscaping that is located on its property. 3. That final approval by CDOT, for the proposed exit on the South Frontage Road, be obtained prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. 4. That the proposed garage door facing the S. Frontage Road be wood sided. 5. That the retaining walls and header above the garage door, at the proposed exit on the S. Frontage Road, shall be rock faced to match the other rock facing proposed on the building. 6. That the details of the mechanical exhaust for the parking structure shall be approved by the DRB. 7. That all lighting proposed or existing on-site shall conform with the requirements of the Town's Lighting Ordinance. 0 5 8. That the proposed 3` tall planter along the south elevation of the building shall be rock faced. 9. That the applicant shall provide 2 interior parking lot landscape islands on front of the building and shall provide a minimum of one large tree in each planter, subject to DRB approval. B. The Community Development Department recommends approval of the proposed setback variances subject to the following findings: 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 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. 4. That 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. FAEVERYON E\PEC\M EMOS\97\LION INN. D08 LIN 0 SIM rg. S. If*# 50 • R. 0. W. I N T E R S T A T E Ills— c. Ar3--x • 7 0 55 LC, ��IMtT1K rti r1, — A 25 126 , z Z 01 < I W T x w to j I z ■ 0i ENTR 1R 11OR Is a 7 6 --* & 4 13 2 IR ............ ------ .......... ...... ............. 0 ............. ..... .... ................. "% ................... f FRrrZLEN ........ PIERCE . ........... --------------- ....... .......... ............ f BRINER ANCHITICTS 12 1 LANl:>9aAPr- PLAN VZ, SCAI ML ` E "Cl lf.\CC258Wt1\703CLAL4 11-2"7 4:31= 0. MT MtCH- DUCTS LAVDStAPE 4 LEGEND Ae #6M.ALPWeClffl41K#.W 0 xra 6 "" wwrom o""m rQ Ci • R. 0. W. I N T E R S T A T E Ills— c. Ar3--x • 7 0 55 LC, ��IMtT1K rti r1, — A 25 126 , z Z 01 < I W T x w to j I z ■ 0i ENTR 1R 11OR Is a 7 6 --* & 4 13 2 IR ............ ------ .......... ...... ............. 0 ............. ..... .... ................. "% ................... f FRrrZLEN ........ PIERCE . ........... --------------- ....... .......... ............ f BRINER ANCHITICTS 12 1 LANl:>9aAPr- PLAN VZ, SCAI ML ` E "Cl lf.\CC258Wt1\703CLAL4 11-2"7 4:31= 0. MT & FL 0. W. t k T E 4 S T A 7 E ra PARKING NOTf!S r Lv► LML a.�kr =r . ft o LkY1C m Z FLrk �•vctres roar w COW. Z *7 ;=r 0i I I ------------------ Aao 4 4 r ,..,SITE PLAN LEVEL V - 20 FRITZLEN PIERCE BRINER A4CHIT t C T S HST r — 10 -1- 1 r. (5-)SITE 1111p— SECTION @ GARAGE/RAMP 11 - 20' Z FLrk z w Z 0i I ------------------ Aao 4 4 r ,..,SITE PLAN LEVEL V - 20 FRITZLEN PIERCE BRINER A4CHIT t C T S HST r — 10 -1- 1 r. (5-)SITE 1111p— SECTION @ GARAGE/RAMP 11 - 20' tr 48 48 d'*D 51 a a . 53 54 "a 55 "kr m auwrnK as fuwmx PD art. r UTILITY EASEMENT CHASE O O P2 _a ZQ - lu 18 20 21 22 23 1 24 1 25 , 26 27 28 28 z s c C EXIT w III ONE WAY OUT ' L Z a ENTRY T.Q. LLAaF H661 1 EL. 3r -6'k p� 14 13 ,12 tT TO 8 8 7 6 9 4 2 T P3 I GARAGE. h2k gf-ou DOOR ..s .. NEW PACE MAINT;. O' EAST WALL. t ROOM OF BLDG. 30k -2kk MELD VERIFIED PA 0P EXIST EAST BLDG, t R LOFAC OF q ETAIJING WA L ONE WAY ENTR t 32' -6" FIELD VERIFIED FRITZLEN P V' CXIST EAST BLDG, PIE It RE .A I3ING rVAFt OF BRINE R SfiTEPLAN 4 LoA ,� Atl C/1kT[CYtl a SCALE. Trk Tai EST IDEWAL GIU2 K: \9f03 t7oe�bed M�fS�58Yit.�7py^kK! Sk -2tl -4f 4:741.. pm a AICHITECYS BASEMENT LEVEL FLOOR PLAN l/W - V-O" NMT14 A201 Alf f/NRK TgAI� 1n z Z W t.11 Z lit 0 fa ma FRrTZLEN PIERCE BRINER ARCHITICTS _ -1..w. =, L055"r LEVEL PLAN 1/6 - I,-o* NORTH 1 %01,4 F. CW I FRrrZLEN PIERCE tlK I EK ASCHITtCYS NORTH ELEVATION /TN �q- W* X o 0 F I I ---------- V L SPA CONDOVINIUWS t. 7�. r. Q 0 0 23 ',!5' 22' is 5* TOW= 5,4.4 l uf 5 6145,00 I R-ONWALRY ELEV. 200• SIGHT DISTANCE • w • iUl I 3+00 4 v5 #0 Memorandum Date: RE: December 5, 1997 LJONSHEAD REDEVELOPMENT MASTER PLAN -- STATUS REPORT , At its December 2 worksession, members of Council expressed a desire to revisit the origins of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan process and to get clear on what decisions have been made to date and now serve as a foundation for additional decision-making. This memo is designed to respond to that desire. The memo clarifies what a master plan is, how the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan process started, why it was deemed desirable (and why do it-atAhis time), how the master planning process has been pursued to date, where we are now, and what issues must he resolved in order to proceed to a successful conclusion of the master planes process -- that is, a conclusion that achieves the desired results, mmu� i . Wc June 1996 -- Catalyst: Vail Associates (VA) announced its intention to redevelop its Core Site in Lionshead (i.e., the Gondola Building and the Sunbird Lodge) and suggested that the TOV undertake a comprehensive master plan for the redevelopment of all of Lionshead. The Town Council authorized staff to proceed to prepare a work program for such a process. Late Summer and Fall 1996 -- TOV staff worked with focus groups from the community to create a "problem statement" -- an articulation of what is lacking in and about Lionshead and what the TOV's responsibility is to address those issues. November 4, 1996 -- Town Council approved a Problem Statement, six Community Policy Objectives and a set of Urban Design Principles to be addressed in a Redevelopment Master Plan, a five-stage planning process, a community involvement commitment, Process Groundrules, an ambitious schedule, and financial collaboration with VA. Council also approved contracting with Design Workshop, Inc. to serve as the planning and design consultant on the project. H. WHAT IS A MASTER PLAN? A comprehensive framework for decisionmaking over a now-to-10 or 20 year horizon to solve existing problems and proactively achieve additional desired results over time. A master plan articulates the vision and explains how to achieve it. 0 Page 1 of 8 M. WHY DO A MASTER PLAN? In order to have a clear framework for decision- making that stays focused on achieving desired results, i,e., community, objectives/benefits. Using a master plan to guide decisions avoids reactive decision - making and creates more predictability about the future for property owners and tenants, investors, and decision-makers, It is an opportunity, to, make the whole become greaten than the sum of its parts, IV. WHY DO A MASTER PLAN NO". Capitalize on the VA Core Site Redevelopment opportunity to create and integrate other public and private redevelopment opportunities Capitalize on the opportunity to use tax increment financing from redevelopment Capitalize on the visibility afforded Vail by the '99 World Alpine Ski Championships Capitalize on opportunity to enhance sales tax revenues, property tax revenues and real estate transfer tax revenues V. OW TO DO A MASTER PLAN? The Process Design/ Work Program: A. Start with the framework approved by the Town Council on November 4, 1996: Problem Statement Six Community Policy Objectives Urban Design Priniciples Process Ground Rules B. Five Stages: One - Define the Opportunities and Constraints Two - Brainstorm a "Wish List" Three - Analyze Alternatives and Select Preferred Alternatives Four - Develop and Adopt the Master Plan and Design Guidelines Five - Adopt Required Code Modifications C. Community Involvement Commitment: Maximize opportunties for interested persons to become aware, knowledgeable and able to share their points of view Newsletter and other mailings -- 800+ person mailing list developed Newspaper advertisements (as well as news stories) Public Forums -- including on Sundays, to make it more convenient for part-time residents to participate Bus tours Walking tours, both guided and self-guided Page 2 of 8 0 1W Videotapes of presentations Channel Five televised replays of tours and meetings Internet web site for on-line Design charette with local architects and planners Phone conversations Meetings with individuals and groups letters received to date MEMMiE THREE -- WHERE WE ARE NOW A, July 1997 Five Public View Corridors designated by Council & September 1997 Analysis of Redevelopment Opportunities under Existing Regulatory Conditions (i.e., Commercial Core 11 Zone District limitations ©n height, site coverage, etc.) --indicates that 71% of the existing buildings in Lionshead exceed the GRFA limitations of current zoning and 84% exceed the hight limitations of current zoning. Conclusion: There is little or no opportunity for significant redevelopment under existing.zoning limitations. Therefor, there is little or no opportunity to achieve the Community Policy Objectives and significant "Wish List items under current zoning. C. 14 MASTER PLAN ELEMENTS ("Ingredients") October 11, 1997 PEC recommended approval of 10 of the 14 and suggested that several issues required more consideration Concerns also were raised by the Council and the community D. THERE ARE SEVEN OUTSTANDING ISSUES to be resolved in order to complete Stage Three and move ahead with the Redevelopment Master Plan process: 1. Transit Corridor Concept: a) THE CONCEPT: The concept of a central transit corridor through the heart of Lionshead evolved from identification of problems to be solved and opportunities to be activated (link east and west portals to Lionshead, solve existing transit problems, maximize delivery of guests to west end of retail area). A central transit corridor could achieve both sets of objectives. HONVEVER, the concept is problematic given existing technology and necessity to relocate portions of some existing buildings. b) ALTERNATIVES: Focus on achieving the desired results through other means. Discard the central transit corridor concept OR reserve a right-of-way in the event that future conditions (e.g., appropriate new technology, proposed private redevelopment of key buildings) warrrant implementation of the concept at some 9 Page 3 of 8 future time. Another alternative to achieve the desired results over time is to maintain the status quo in terms of transit operations inthe short-term but create over time (initially through reservation) a dedicated parallel right-of-way for transit on the South Frontage Road (vs. through the heart of Lionshead). 2. Parking: a) THE CONCEPT: The concept of an 800-space underground parking structure beneath the Landmark Townhomes, Concert Hall Plaza and Montaneros evolved from identification of problems to be solved and opportunities to be activated, including a shortage of public parking, the need to replace existing parking,- opportunities in the event of redevelopment of the North and West Day-Lats, a-ad the desire to activate the western portal (Concert Hall Plaza) and west end-of the, Lionshead Mall. A parking structure beneath Landmark Townhomes, Concert Hall Plaza and Montaneros could achieve both sets of objectives. HOWEVER, implementation of that concept would be dependent upon demolition-type redevelopment of those properties, which is too tenuous a possibility. b) ALTERNATIVES: Focus on achieving the desired results through other means... Alternatives include adding another deck to the existing Lionshead Parking Structure, building a new parking structure in a new "West End", or cenly in ivziqg private properties to add more below-grade parking spaces than would bc;re#red for their own uses in conjunction with their proposed redevelopments. 3. Realignment of South Frontage Road Concept: a) THE CONCEPT: The concept of realigning the South Frontage Road in the vicinity of the VA Maintenanc&"Facility was to create a new "West End" development opportunity for mixed use development, including locals housing, on a contiguous parcel of land created, in part through the relocation of the VA Maintenance Facility. HOWEVER, relocation of the VA Yard is problematic. b) ALTERNATIVES: Focus on achieving the desired results through other means. Creation of new "West End" mixed use development is not dependent upon realignment of the South Frontage Road. The West Day Lot, VA Maintenance Facility site (if the industrial uses were relocated), the Holy Cross Lot, and the Old Town Shops all still could be used -- separately or otherwise -- in ways that achieve desired community objectives. In addition, the current alignment of the South Frontage Road could be maintained but the roadway depressed and built over to create an additional development opportunity in the "West End". 4. VA's Concept for Its Core Site: VA has a concept for redevelopment of the Core Site and has been sharing that Page 4 of 8 concept (in the form of a model, renderings, etc.) with interested persons. VA-has- made no formal submittal to the TOV, nor has the TOV taken any informal position on VA's concept. The fact that VA's concept is being discussed at,the--same-- time as the Master Plan has led to some confusion about the relationship betw&=Ae two. To clarify: VA's public statement of its intention to redevelop its Core Site,was,-in, fact, the catalyst for the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan process. VA is paying, for half the cost of the master planning process, as approved by the Town Council an November 6, 1996. VA participates actively in the master planning process.. HOWEVER, Process Ground Rule Number 3 (adopted by the Town Council on November 4, 1996) states: "The Town of Vail will work collaboratively with Vail Associates (VA) on the master planning process for Lionshead and will involve all other interested citizens, business owners and property owners in the master planning process. The master plan ultimately recommended may or may not reflect development approaches currently being explored by VA. (Emphasis added.) VA's concept for redevelopment of the Core Site and the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan process are separate and independent. Whatever Master Plan and implementing regulations ultimately are adopted will control what VA mq develop on the Core Site. 5. Focus on Achieving Desired Community Poliev Wectiy!�*, Not on Preserving Private Views from Private. Balconies The vast majority of letters sent to the Council to date regarding the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan process have come from second homeowners who express concerns about the height of VA's proposed redevelopment on the Core. Site, loss of their private views, the central transit corridor concept, and-changCJil- - Lionshead in general. Very few of the letters address the Community Policy Objectives upon which the master plannning process is predicated. It is important to recognize that there is no legal protection of private views and no legal basis for relying on zoning regulations remaining the same in the face of changed conditions. The Town Council adopted a Problem Statement and six Community Policy Objectives to be achieved in a redevelopment master plan for Lionshead. The larger community benefits to be achieved through a redevelopment master plan may, in fact, differ substantially from strictly private interests. 0 Page 5 of 8 H6ghjjMas5 --Avoiding Crealingth '13-e=rCr k"Exl2eriengein Lin shead a) The Beaver Creek Experience: 1. What does not work well: Pedestrian perception that buildings, are too massive Little or no visual access to the mountain; blocked by buildings Gradient requires going UP to access the mountain [ADD FROM YOUR OWN EXPERIENCE] 2. What does work well: The materials used in the buildings Activities/amenities (ice rink, theatre, escalators, heated steps, etc.) Stream [ADD FROM YOUR OWN EXPERIENCE] b) The River Run at Keystone Exp erience: 1. What does not work well: Long flat facades Barriers between pedestrians and stores Plaza too large; lacking amenities Certain materials (e.g., corrugated metal) Too symmetrical street facade Too narrow/unimportant an entranceway [ADD FROM YOUR OWN EXPERIENCE] 2. What does work well: Strong visual connection to the mountain Building mass scaled down toward mountain Roof pitch changes; gables Sun spots Materials (e.g., warm stone) Diveristy in facades and materials Bridge over stream [ADD FROM YOUR OWN EXPERIENCE] C) What experience do we want to create in Lionshead? Pedestrian street orientation towards the mountain Public view corridors Sun pockets at key locations Enhanced stream amenity Appropriately-scaled pedestrian streets (width) and plazas (size) E Page 6 of 8 0 Pedestrian scale buildings (e.g., 30- degree cone of visual perception, create visual interest on bottom two floors; step buildings beck above grade) Pedestrian circulation patterns gates, focal areas, ;etc. than draw people through the entirety of Lionshead not just the VA Core Site or a straight shot to the ski yard d) Can we achieve those objectives ---create that experience -- in L ionshead under the existing Commercial Core II Zone District regulations? Current CCII Regulations/ limitations on redevelopment: Height: 45 feet for a flat roof 48 feet for a pitched roof GRl" A: 80% Site coverage: ,70 %° Setbacks: Vary, generally 10 feet from lot line Conclusion As stated in the presentation in September 1997 and reiterated above, because the vast majority of existing buildings in L. ionshead already exceed the limitations of existingzoning there is little or no- opportunity or significant redevelopment under existing zoning and, therefor, little - or no opportunity to achieve the Community Policy Objectives and any significant "Dish .Gist " items under existing zoning. e) Alternative to Existing Zoning: Establish parameters -- performance criteria -- to evaluate how future development proposals advance the Community Po ig Objectives and additional policies and design guidelines set forth in the Redevelopment Master Plan and implementing regulations. `Performance zoning" focuses on quality objectives instead of quantity limitations. Town Council still would maintain, final development review authority over specific development proposals. 7. Implementation -- How to Make the Desired Results HgI212!Q0 a) Phasing u lic improvements in Lionshead: What can the TOV do in two years five years ten+ years? b) Guiding improvements: Incentives Design Guidelines c) Directing private improvements: Regulatory requirements Acquisition of private property by public entity (e.g,, Downtown Development Authority, Urban Renewal Authority) d) Possible Financing Mechanisms Tax Increment Financing (TIF) is dependent upon creating a substantial incremental increase in taxes through significant redevelopment, VI. WHAT DOES IT TAKE TO CONCLUDE STAGE THREE OF THIS REDEVELOPMENT MASTER PLAN PROCESS? • Staff is prepared to bring to the Planning and Environmental Commission, for recommendation, and the Town Council, for action, a "checklist" of all remaining decisions needed to conclude Stage Three, with accompanying graphics, whenever so directed by Council. The "Stage Three Decisions Checklist" will be substantially in the form of the 14 Master Plan Elements previously presented, with additional detail on alternatives available to achieve the desired objectives. Council will then be in a position to act on each element of the Master Plan -- selecting or creating the preferred alternatives. The result of that selection process on the elements will be the conceptual framework for the Master Plan. VII. WHAT HAPPENS AFTER STAGE THREE IS COMPLETED? Once Council has reached consensus on all elements of the Master Plan conceptual framework, the team of staff and consultant will prepare for approval or modification by Council a proposed work plan and schedule for Stage Four, during which the conceptual framework will be fleshed out in to a draft Master Plan document and made available for community input, PEC review, and ultimately Council action. The proposed Master Plan document produced in Stage Four will identify all implementing actions required, including code modifications, if any. Any required code modification ordinances would be drafted and processed as Stage Five. VIII. ACTION REQUESTED AFTER TODAY'S DISCUSS ON The Planning and Environmental Commission is requested to forward to Council any comments or recommendations it may have in regard to the, items discussed in this memo or other items relating to the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan process. NO ACTION IS REQUIRED TODAY FROM COUNCIL. The Master Plan Team requests that Council consider, for discussion at the December 16 worksession, how you wish'to proceed to conclude Stage Three of this process, including what schedule you prefer. • TO: Town Council FROM: Community Development Department DATE: December 16, 1997 RE: Lionshead Master Plan - Summary of PEC meeting (12/8/97) Outstanding Issues: 1. Transit Corridor G. Aasland - Important to connect east and west ends, Ann - Look at a dedicated transit R-O-W. Diane - Keep a corridor in the forefront. John S. Echoed Galen; undertake an informational campaign in favor. Gene U. Likes the central transit corridor - future technology. Important to recognize the wishes of second homeowners - make sure they receive communication. Greg A. - [Questions about use of S. Frontage road?] Lamont - Four roundabouts: at two intersections and at entrance to Municipal Building and at parking structure. Keep the flow going. Look at advanced technology - silent. May want to keep some R-O-W through core (reservation). Greg M. - Don't abandon the concept of a corridor through LEI. Has concern with current technology - noise and smell - not a big street - something more intimate - bury the transit (or pieces of it) - moving ramps. PE Polling - Re: Maintain some version of central corridor. 7-0 Yes Galen John S. Greg M. Gene U. Ann B. Greg A. Diane 2. Parking - Additional deck on Lionshead parking structure - Incentivize private beyond required - West end structure - Employee housing-reduced requirement/ratio John S. - Additional deck is do-able - consider views from the north side of 1-70, - Additional structure is required. Skeptical of reducing EHU parking. Gene - Additional deck and west end structure good. - Remote parking/bus for employees Greg A. - In favor of additional deck - Reserve the south end for employee housing. - A little hesitant on parking structures - aesthetics. - EHU parking ratio - do not lower requirement. Galen - Not a huge fan of additional deck. - Could only reduce EHU parking ratio if remote parking lot, Ann - Abstain from giving any comments. - Needs more information on technology. Diane - Additional deck ok - keep in mind Civic opportunities on charter bus lot. - Skeptical re: EHU parking ratio reduction Greg M. - Consider additional deck. - Consider West end structure. - Consider lower parking ratios for EHUS. - Consider incenting additional private provision, Galen - Not if incentive is another floor added to buildings. Ann - Consider incentives. Diane - Consider incentives. John - Consider incentives. Gene U. - Consider incentives. Greg A. Only zoning or money incentives. In favor of monetary, not zoning. Lamont EVHO concerned re: cost-benefits. Seasonal employees don't necessarily need cars. Noise on S. Frontage Rd. by increasing traffic/West end structure-if accompanied by 1-70 off ramp. 93 Re-alignment of S. Frontage Road Ann - Q. What does "Problematic" mean? Galen - Q. Pumping diesel fuel up onto mountain - feasible? - ETHAN: up to EPA and USFS. Lamont - lnterc"onnectedness that we cannot avoid. - Get VA to deal with it - or West End notion fails - West End is the strength. - VAIL VILLAGE MASTER PLAN - NOT A REDEVELOPMENT PLAN. 0) 4. 5. E Galen - Entrance to West. Ann - Lamont's comments summarize her position. Greg M - Great idea if problems can be overcome. Fuel tanks and lines will leak. N Concept is Separate Private Property Rights vs., Community Policy Objectives Lamont - Condo units sold subject to a concept. - "Much more fundamental and profound interest - enjoyment of private property." - Disagrees on fundamental issue re: Mountain Haus -- would have been quite different on appeal. - "Increasing tax base" is not a reason to do this master plan. - Let bureaucracy shrink - if 97% built out. - Put it to a vote, - People don't understand the implications. - People think things are fine. John S. - Will ruffle some feathers no matter what you do. - Existing buildings exceed zoning. Changing zoning now is no shock. Adjust zoning to bring into line with current reality. Gene U. - Find out what the majority of the property owners think. - Incorporate their thinking; short of a vote. Greg A. - Find out - Why master plan if property owners oppose it. - Times change - people need to change. - LH is due for a change, - Don't waste time on developing a plan if not backed by the public. Galen - Need to update it. - Can only consider p_ublic view corridors. - Letters - private views - reasonable concern to have view completely built out. - Consider views of non-resident taxpayers. Ann - Jim Lamont's issues - fair and equal treatment. - "To my mind, the private interests are the most important." Diane - Redevelopment of LH could have a great positive impact on town as a whole. - Distribute summary of letters. Greg A. - Find out from more of the owners. Geoff Wright - Destination resorts. - Concern among ownership - 95% very concerned. - Density and height - Changing from what it is to closer to Beaver Creek image. 3 - His job: Protect property values (not concerned) plus enjoyment of property, - Additional meetings over the holidays. Greg M. - VA use by right - analysis of sq. ft. possible? - Can't take their private property rights away. - Non-conformities lost if changed, generated, [Greg A. left - 4:05 p.m.] 6. Height/Mass Geoff Wright - His ownership AggLs hope for improvements, just not totally at their expense. - Come to something reasonable. - Maybe five stories instead of nine. Anne Essen - Excited to see what has happened in the process. - Go forward to make some changes. - Our last best hope to inject more community in Vail, - Year-round vitality. - House 60% of employees. Ginny Culp - Concerns with density and massing a'la BC. - Not one client has said a good thing about BC. - Claustrophobic - "Can't take in the mountain experience." - Resource capacity - Three hundred more units will trigger a $15M water treatment plant improvement - who pays? Ghiqui Hoffman - Employee housing - Impact on density. - Don't have employees for the businesses there. - Probably down style - over LH structures and West end - Build whatever water treatment is necessary. Galen - BC buildings are just too big - River Run, too, "and too flat." - Does not want nine story buildings. - More scared about height than density. Ann - Our job is to suggest issues for Council to consider. - Look also at Arrowhead 46- 90' tall and densities increased. - Bill Pierce build first building in Arrowhead - quality! Diane - Be careful about height, - Not so worried about the density. - Let's put people in there - vitality! John S. - Remember when property values went down. - Rare to have progress without problems. - Because of extent of non-conformities, a change in zoning is in order. - Fort Collins - Land Development Guidance System - throws out traditional Zoning - points system. - Perhaps a vote is in order - DDA vote. (Property owners and leaseholders and residents). 4 - If we aren't going to change the zoning, might as well stop right m Gene ' Po the property owners. -VVhat they are going to get and what it would cost them. - In favor of voluntary solutions VS. Government edicts. Greg M. -Current zoning -VA can rebuild 8ndn¢tPeplace a singheEHU. � -C� kill property values even io this market. - Keep the process going - zoning and needs changing - focus Onquality. Lamont - "Zoning" and "flexibilit = rezoning parcel by parcel is not acceptable. - Comp. approach is favored -ToVVD'vvide. not just LH. - EHU [eqU1n8Olent8 - ConlD1uD|h+vvde. not just LH. -SDOis torturing exaCtioDs—inotead. standards - applied equally. ' Resource capacity not adequately dealt with. � - Undertaking an initiative - fund jointly for LH and Village. -No separate funding o[ tax base. - Systemic iGou8S not being dealt with equally by all who vV0uid be funding iL - Truck parking ~ include in rezoning ' On-site parking ' Landscaping � John S. -Critical that Council move forward with due dispatch Or will lose some of the financing opportunity. -VAredeva|opnoentisghugepubUofingnmsexpense. Gene U. '\A\will probably seek [naxiOoUDl return; probably means something good. Galen - Agrees with John. Ann - No other comments, Diane - VAViUrOake wise dec - Opportunity to create needed improvements for our town. Greg M, - VA"has a ton Of use bv ri in front of eve buildi - Understand the implications. MEMORANDUM TO: Town Council FROM: Community Development Department DATE: December 16, 1997 RE: Lionshead Master Plan - Summary of PEC meeting (12/8/97) Outstanding Issues: 1. Transit Corridor G. Aasland - Important to connect east and west ends but it does not have to be straight.. Ann - Look at a dedicated transit R-O-W. Diane - Keep a corridor in the forefront. John S. Echoed Galen; undertake an informational campaign in favor. Gene U. Likes the central transit corridor - future technology. Important to recognize the wishes of second homeowners - make sure they receive communication. Greg A. - [Questions about use of S. Frontage road?] Lamont - Four roundabouts: at two intersections and at entrance to Municipal Building and at parking structure. Keep the flow going. Look at advanced technology - silent. May want to keep some R-O-W through core (reservation). Greg M. - Don't abandon the concept of a corridor through LH. Has concern with current technology - noise and smell - not a big street - something more intimate - bury the transit (or pieces of it) - moving ramps. PEC Polling - Re: Maintain some version of central corridor. 7-0 Yes Galen John S. Greg M. Gene U. Ann B. Greg A. Diane 2. Parking - Additional deck on Lionshead parking structure - Incentivize private beyond required - West end structure - Employee housing-reduced requirement/ratio 1 John S. - Additional deck is do-able - consider views from the north side of 1-70. - Additional structure is required. Skeptical of reducing EHU parking. Gene - Additional deck and west end structure good. - Remote parking /bus for employees Greg A. - In favor of additional deck - Reserve the south end for employee housing. - A little hesitant on parking structures - aesthetics. - EHU parking ratio - do not lower requirement. Galen - Not a huge fan of additional deck. - Could only reduce EHU parking ratio if remote parking lot. 0 Ann - Abstain from giving any comments. - Needs more information on technology. Diane - Additional deck ok - keep in mind Civic opportunities on charter bus lot. - Skeptical re: EHU parking ratio reduction Greg M. - Consider additional deck. - Consider West end structure. - Consider lower parking ratios for EHUS. - Consider incenting additional private provision. Galen - Not if incentive is another floor added to buildings. Ann - Consider incentives. Diane - Consider incentives. John - Consider incentives. Gene U. - Consider incentives. Greg A. Only zoning or money incentives. In favor of monetary, not zoning. Lamont EVHO concerned re: cost-benefits. Seasonal employees don't necessarily need cars. Noise on S. Frontage Rd. by increasing traffic/West end structure-if accompanied by 1-70 off ramp. Re- alignment of S. Frontage Road Ann - Q. What does "Problematic" mean? Galen - Q. Pumping diesel fuel up onto mountain - feasible? - ETHAN: up to EPA and USFS. Lamont - Interconnectedness that we cannot avoid. - Get VA to deal with it - or West End notion fails - West End is the strength. - VAIL VILLAGE MASTER PLAN - NOT A REDEVELOPMENT PLAN. 0 Galen - Entrance to West. Is Ann - Lamont's comments summarize her position. Greg M - Great idea if problems can be overcome. Fuel tanks and lines will leak. 4. VA Concept is Separate 5. Private Property Rights vs. Community Polipy Objectives Lamont - Condo units sold subject to a concept. - "Much more fundamental and profound interest - enjoyment of private property." - Disagrees on fundamental issue re: Mountain Haus -- would have been quite different on appeal. - "Increasing tax base" is not a reason to do this master plan. - Let bureaucracy shrink - if 97% built out. - Put it to a vote. - People don't understand the implications. - People think things are fine. John S. - Will ruffle some feathers no matter what you do. - Existing buildings exceed zoning. - Changing zoning now is no shock. - Adjust zoning to bring into line with current reality. Gene U. - Find out what the majority of the property owners think. - Incorporate their thinking; short of a vote. Greg A. - Find out - Why master plan if property owners oppose it. - Times change - people need to change. - LH is due for a change. - Don't waste time on developing a plan if not backed by the public. Galen - Need to update it. - Letters - private views - reasonable concern to have private view corridors considered. - Consider views of non-resident taxpayers. Ann - Jim Lamont's issues - fair and equal treatment. - "To my mind, the private interests are the most important." Diane - Redevelopment of LH could have a great positive impact on town as a whole. - Distribute summary of letters. Greg A. - Find out from more of the owners. Geoff Wright - Destination resorts. - Concern among ownership - 95% very concerned. - Density and height - Changing from what it is to closer to Beaver Creek image. - His job: Protect property values (not concerned) plus enjoyment of property. - Additional meetings over the holidays. Greg M. - VA use by right - analysis of sq. ft. possible? - Can't take ftak private property rights away. - Non-conformities 1= if changed, generated. [Greg A. left - 4:05 p.m.] 6. Height/Mass Geoff Wright - His ownership does hope for improvements, just not totally at their expense. - Come to something reasonable. - Maybe five stories instead of nine. Anne Essen - Excited to see what has happened in the process. - Go forward to make some changes. - Our last best hope to inject more community in Vail. - Year-round vitality. - House 60% of employees. Ginny Culp - Concerns with density and massing a'la BC. - Not one client has said a good thing about BC. - Claustrophobic - "Can't take in the mountain experience." - Resource capacity - Three hundred more units will trigger a $15M water treatment plant improvement - who pays? Ghiqui Hoffman - Employee housing - Impact on density. - Don't have employees for the businesses there. - Probably down styli' over LH structures and West end. - Build whatever water treatment is necessary. Galen - BC buildings are just too big - River Run, too, "and too flat." - QQes not want nine story buildings. - More scared about height than density. Ann - Our job is to suggest issues for Council to consider. - Look also at Arrowhead 45'- 90' tall and densities increased. - Bill Pierce bui1q,first building in Arrowhead - quality! Diane - Be careful about height. - Not so worried about the density. - Let's put people in there - vitality! John S. - Remember when property values went down. - Rare to have progress without problems. - Because of extent of non-conformities, a change in zoning is in order. - Fort Collins - Land Development Guidance System - throws out traditional Zoning - points system. - Perhaps a vote is in order - DDA vote, (Property owners and leaseholders and residents). rd - If we aren't going to change the zoning, might as well stop right now. 10 Gene U -Poll the property owners. - What they are going to get and what it would cost them. - In favor of voluntary solutions vs. Government edicts. Greg M. -Current zoning - VA can rebuild and not replace a single EHU. - Can kill property values even in this market. - Keep the Process going - zoning and needs changing - focus on quality. Lamont - "Zoning" and "flexibility" = rezoning parcel by parcel is not acceptable. - Comp. approach is favored - Town-wide, not just LH. - EHU requirements - Community-wide, not just LH. - SDD is torturing exactions--instead, standards - applied equally. - Resource capacity not adequately dealt with. - Undertaking an initiative - fund jointly for LH and Village. - No separate funding or tax base. - Systemic issues not being dealt with equally by all who would be funding it. Truck parking - include in rezoning On-site parking Landscaping Closing Comments John S. - Critical that Council move forward with due dispatch or will lose some of the financing opportunity. VA redevelopment is a huge public finance expense. Gene U. VA will probably seek maximum return; probably means something good. Galen Agrees with John. Ann No other comments. Diane VA will make wise decisions. Opportunity to create needed improvements for our town. Greg M. VA "has a ton of use by right" in front of everyone's buildings. Understand the implications. [2:25 pm. - 5:00 p.m.] E f.\everyone\pec\minufes\LH.d08 0 " 1 TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE December 8, 1997 SUBJECT: A request for a variance from Section 16.20.020 (Sign categories and regulations), of the Sign Code, to allow for the installation of a new entry (building identification) sign to the Vail Golf Course, located at 1778 Sunburst Drive/Lot 3, Sunburst Filing No. 3. Applicant: Vail Recreation District, represented by Piet Pieters Planner: George Ruther The Vail Recreation District (VRD), represented by Piet Pieters, is requesting a variance from Section 16.20.020 of the Sign Code, to allow for the installation of a new entry sign (building identification) to the Vail Golf Course. The new sign will replace an existing non-conforming sign which is currently located immediately south of the Pulius Bridge, on the east of Vail Valley Drive. The proposed entry sign is to be located adjacent to an existing landscape planting bed south of the intersection of Vail Valley Drive and the South Frontage Road East (a map has been attached for reference). The entry sign is proposed to be approximately 20 square feet in size and will be made from a 3'x6' piece of rose-colored limestone (see attached drawing). Lighting for the sign will be provided by an indirect light source installed in the landscape planting bed. The Vail Golf Course is zoned Outdoor Recreation. According to Section 16.20.010 of the Sign Code (Signs Permitted), building identification signs are permitted in the Outdoor Recreation Zone District, Pursuant to Section 16.20.020 of the Sign Code, in part, the maximum number of building identification signs permitted on a building is one. There currently are two other building identification signs on the Vail Golf Course property, One of the building identification signs is a free-standing sign located near the entrance to the clubhouse parking lot, and the other is a wall- mounted sign located on the west side of the clubhouse building. Upon review of Section 16.36.050, Criteria and Findings, of the Town of Vail Municipal Code, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the requested sign variance. The recommendation for approval is based on the following factors: K Consideration of factors: There are special circumstances or conditions applying to the land, buildings, topography, vegetation, sign structures or other matters on adjacent lots or within the adjacent right-of-way, which would E substantially restrict the effectiveness of the sign in question, provided, however, that such special circumstances or conditions are unique to the particular business or enterprise to which the applicant desires to draw attention, and do not apply generally to all business or enterprises. Staff believes that special circumstances apply to the Vail Golf Course which do not apply generally to ail businesses in Vail. The clubhouse and golfcourse are located some distance from the South Frontage Road in a residential area. The location makes it difficult for visitors and guests to find the clubhouse. The applicant desires to have additional identification near the South Frontage Road to help provide patrons with directions to the clubhouse. Staff believes that only providing one building identification sign, as allowed by the code, is limiting and restricts the effectiveness and purpose of the proposed sign. Staff agrees with the applicant that a sign is needed near the intersection of Vail Valley Drive and the South Frontage Road to help provide direction to the patrons of the golfcourse and clubhouse. Staff believes that since this is the only golfcourse within the Town of Vail, it is unique and unlike other businesses, and therefore, having an additional identification sign on the property is appropriate. 2. That such special circumstances were not created by the applicant or anyone in privy to the applicant. Staff does not believe that the unique and special circumstances of the golfcourse and clubhouse were not created by the VRD. 3. That granting of the variance will be in general harmony with the purpose of the sign code, and will not be materially detrimental to the persons residing or working in the vicinity, to adjacent property, to the neighborhood, or to the public welfare in general. Staff believes the granting of the sign variance will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of the Sign Code. The new entry sign and the wall- mounted building identification sign will not be viewed simultaneously from any location. Staff believes that allowing the relocation of the new entry sign on Vail Valley Drive is reasonable due to the unique use and location of the golfcourse and clubhouse, and that the sign will be harmony with the purpose of the Sign Code. Staff would recommend, however, that the VRD remove the existing free-standing building identification sign currently located at the entrance to the clubhouse parking lot. We believe that once a patron has reached that area of Vail Valley Drive it is readily apparent where the clubhouse and golfcourse are located. Additionally, due to the location of the free-standing sign and the wall-mounted sign, each can be seen simultaneously from Vail Valley Drive and each conveys the same message. 2 0 4. The variance applied for does not depart from the provisions of the Sign Code any more than is required to identify the applicant's business use. The requested variance does not depart any more than is necessary from the regulation to identify the location of the golfcourse. The proposed sign complies with the purpose, size, height and location regulations for a building identification sign. Therefore, staff believes that the VIRD is requesting the minimum amount of relief necessary to identify their building. B. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a variance: That special circumstances or conditions apply to the land, building, topography, vegetation, sign structures or other matters on adjacent lots or within the right-of-way, which would substantially restrict the effectiveness of the sign. 2. That such special circumstances were not created by the applicant. 3. That granting the variance will be in general harmony with the purpose of this title and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 4. The variance applied for does not depart from the provisions of Chapter 16.20 more than is required to identify the applicant's business use. Ill. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department staff recommends approval of the VRD's variance request to allow for the installation of a new entry (building identification) to the Vail Golf Course, subject to the following findings and condition: Findings: 1. That special circumstances or conditions apply to the use, location and topography of the site, which substantially restrict the effectiveness of the sign. 2. That such special circumstances were not created by the applicant, but are unique to the site and use. 3. That granting the variance will be in general harmony with the purpose of this title and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 4. That the variance applied for does not depart from the provisions of Chapter 16.20 more than is required to identify the applicant's business. • 3 ~ That prior to the installation of the new sign, the applicant remove the existing free-standing building identification sign currently located on Vail Valley Drive, near the entrance to the parking lot. 4 0 • AV010 DEC ' ' PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION December 8, 1997 Minutes MEMBERS PRESENT: — Greg Moffet Greg Amsden (left at 4:20) Galen Aasland Gene Uselton Diane Golden John Schofield Ann Bishop STAFF PRESENT: Susan Connelly Mike Mollica George Ruther Dominic Mauriello Judy Rodriguez - 0 • a '. The meeting was called to order by Greg Moffet at 2:00 p.m. 31! s� 1 A request for a minor subdivision, to allow for an amendment to the existing property line, located at 242 East Meadow Drive/on a part of Tract C, Block 5D, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: Austria Haus Development, represented by B.J. Davis Planner: George Ruther • George Ruther gave an overview of the staff memo and said there was a correction in Criteria 7, the 1st sentence should read will have positive impacts. Greg Moffet asked if there was any public comment. There was none. Galen Aasland said that it met the criteria. Ann Bishop said she shared Galen's comments. Diane Golden said she shared Galen's comments. John Schofield said the change would enhance the entry to the new streamwalk. Gene Uselton asked if underground parking would extend to the new property line. B.J. Davis said, no. Greg Amsden had no comments. Greg Moffet was in agreement with Galen's comments. John Schofield made a motion in accordance with the staff memo. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes December 8, 1997 1 MT01 M41 The motion passed by a vote of 7-0. 2. A request for a residential addition, utilizing the 250 Ordinance, located at 4153 Spruce Way/Lot 10, Block 9, Bighorn 3rd Addition. Applicant: David Neiss Planner: Dominic Mauriello Dominic Mauriello gave an overview of the staff memo. Greg Moffet asked if the applicant had anything to add. David Neiss, the Engineer and Architect for the project, said he was misinformed about the front setback in 1980 and was told that it was 50'. He explained that the stairs were always full of snow and this proposal would add another car garage with a covered walk to reach the 1 st level. Greg Moffet asked if there was any public comment. There was none. John Schofield had no comments. Gene Uselton asked if the current GRFA rules were applicable back in 1980. Greg Amsden had no comments. Galen Aasland had no comments. Ann Bishop had no comments. Diane Golden had no comments. Greg Moffet said the house grew by 900' Dominic Mauriello said the entire structure (both units) grew by a total of 900'. John Schofield made a motion in accordance with the staff memo. Diane Golden seconded the motion. Dominic Mauriello asked the PEC if they wanted to put a time limit on the project. The motion passed by a vote of 7-0. - ;'A( E 3. A request for a variance to allow for the installation of an entry sign to the Vail Golf Course, located at 1778 Vail Valley Drive/ Lot 3, Sunburst Filing No. 3. Applicant: Vail Recreation District, represented by Piet Pieters Planner: George Ruther Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes December 8, 1997 2 4 4- George Ruther gave an overview of the staff memo. Greg Moffet asked if the applicant had anything to add. He did not. Greg then asked if there was any public comment. There was none. Galen Aasland noted that the existing building had a variety of different kinds of signs. George Ruther suggested making sign compliance a condition of approval. Galen Aasland said that it served the needs of the community, but he was concerned that the restaurant sign should be not there. Ann Bishop agreed sign compliance should be a condition. Diane Golden asked if the applicant was comfortable removing the signs. Piet Pieters said they had been trying to remove the signs for a long time. John Schofield asked what the relationship was to the restaurant. Piet Pieters; said the restaurant space was leased. John Schofield asked for clarification of the signs and if they were per building or business. George Ruther said the lease was just brought to staff's attention and that this was a multi- tenant use, which staff would have to review as it relates to each business. Mike Mollica asked if the PEC thought "restaurant" should be removed from the Vail Golf Club sign. John Schofield said to remove it. Gene Uselton said he liked having the restaurant sign there, as it was useful and not unattractive, but it did violate the use. Mike Mollica said as one of the conditions, staff would go through the Town's sign files, to determine which signs were authorized, but he noted that the applicant could always apply to have those unpermitted signs become legal. Gene Uselton asked if the Nordic sign would be removed. Piet Peters said, yes. Greg Amsden had no comments. Greg Moffet said he liked the proposal. He told the applicant that if for some reason a variance would be required for the starter shack, he would be favorably inclined to approve it. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes December 8, 1997 3 - 1 . George Ruther said the 2nd condition should be amended to recommend a sign program for the property. 0 Greg Amsden made a motion for approval in accordance with the staff memo with the additional condition that prior to the installation of the new sign, the applicant shall bring the property into compliance with the Town of Vail Sign Code and that the PEC suggested that a Comprehensive Sign Program be considered by the applicant. John Schofield seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 6-0 Greg Moffet stated for the record that the item #5 discussion would come before item #4. 4. A request for a major exterior alteration in CC2 and a variance from Section 18.26.070 (Setbacks), to allow for construction of a parking garage at The Lionshead Inn, located at 705 West Lionshead Circle/ Lot 1, Block 2, Vail Lionshead 3rd Filing. Applicant: Lionshead Inn LLC, represented by William Pierce Planner: Dominic Mauriello Dominic Mauriello gave an overview of the staff memo. He said that staff was recommending approval with 9 conditions with the amendment to Condition #8. He also clarified the inaccurate paragraph in the memo, regarding the grandfathering of parking spaces. Greg Moffet asked if the applicant had anything to add. Bill Pierce, on behalf of the Lionshead Inn, LLC, said he had the approval of the utility companies and the Vail Spa and that this project would result in a more natural look than there is now. He said, regarding Condition #8, that the rock facing on the east side of the parking structure might be on the adjacent property, but that it would not be a problem. Greg Moffet asked for any public comments. Geoff Wright, from Destination Resorts, stated there were 3 issues. He encouraged the PEC to discourage the pay-in-lieu in exchange for parking, because operationally, it didn't work. He also asked the PEC to encourage the applicant to do improvements worth the $85,000.00 obligation, rather than let it go away. Geoff said the Association was in favor of this project, as it was a good plan. He asked that the applicant address the eyesores along the South Frontage Road. He stressed that the south side was in need of improvements, since it was exposed to the Vail Spa and Marriott and was a well traveled area. Galen Aasland asked about the parking spaces. Mike Mollica said there were 44 non-conforming spaces and that with this proposal, which provided 57 parking spaces, there would be 13 additional spaces to use for additions in the future. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes December 8, 1997 4 Greg Moffet said there was no obligation that the pay-in-lieu goes with the land. He said when the applicant went away, the collection went away and not obligated to collect from subsequent owners. . a Diane Golden thought the project was great. John Schofield had no comments. Gene Uselton asked if the east wall rock facing should be a condition. Dominic Mauriello said it appeared that the applicant was agreeable to the conditions. Greg Moffet asked if there was a GRFA variance. Dominic Mauriello said the GRFA satisfied the common area and that there was no GRFA variance. Greg Moffet said he was not hung up on landscaping; but to maximize the parking. Dominic Mauriello said because of the right-of-way, there would be limitations on boulders. Greg Moffet asked for an explanation of the Zoning Analysis in the memo. Dominic Mauriello said the extra GRFA was being utilized for the common area. Ann Bishop made a motion for approval in accordance with the staff memo, including the amendment to Condition #8. The motion passed by a vote of 6-0. 5. Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan - Discussion and recommendation. Staff: Susan Connelly See attached discussion notes by Susan Connelly. 1111•• �44 A 101SIMMIDEOM III i lililrp! !IIIIIIIIIIIII!glill , 6 1 . , John Schofield seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 4-0-2 (Greg Amsden was not present and Galen Aasland and Diane Golden abstained). Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes December 8, 1997 5 John Schofield made a motion to approve the November 0, 1997 minutes. Galen Aasland seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 3-0-3 (Greg Amsden was not present and Diane Golden, Ann Bishop and Gene Uselton abstained). John Schofield made a motion to approve the October 27, 1997 amended minutes. Gene Uselton seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 5-0-1 (Greg Amsden was not present and Galen Aasland abstained). Mike Mollica gave an information update. He advised the PLC that the Lighting Ordinance was approved by the Town Council on the 1st Reading, reducing the lumens to 250. Mike also said the Vail Village Club withdrew its appeal to Council. He advised the PLC that Council overturned the PLC decision for the Miller Bed & Breakfast, with Bob Armour and Ludwig Kurtz voting against it being overturned. The meeting adjourned at 5:30 p.m. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes December 8, 1997 6