The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1997-1222 PEC THIS ITEM MAY AFFECT YQUf2 PRGIPERTY ~ PUBLIG NOTICE NOTICE 1S HEREBY GIVEN thaf the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail will hold a public hearing in accordance with Sectinn 18,66.060 of the Municipal Gode ofi the Town of Vail on December 22, 1997, at 2:00 P.M. in the Town of Vai1 Municipal Building. In consideration of: A request for a conditional use permit to canstruct four multiple-family dwelling units and a variance from Section 18.28.090 (Building Height) and a variance from Sectian 18,28.070 (Setbacks), ta allow for commercial and residential expansion, located at 143 E. Meadow Drive (Crossroads East Building) l Lot Pf Black 5D, Vail Viilage 1 st. Applicant: Crossroads Plaza, Trevina L.P., represenfed by Bill Pierce Planner; Daminic Mauriello A request for a minor subdivision, to correct a right-af-way encroachment, lacated at 2704 L.arkspur LanelLot 6, Block 3, Vail Intermountain. Applicant: Kathy MauzylTown of Vail P]anner: Dominic Mauriello A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for the construction af a temparary structure to accommodate a winter sleigh ride operation at Golden Peak Ski Base, located at 458 Vail Valley DrivelTract F, Vail Village5th Filing. Applicant: Vail Associates, represented by E3rian McGartney ~ Planner: George Ruther R request for a canditional use permit to allow skierlguest parking on weekends and holidays, with vehicular access fram the SouthFrontage Road only, located at Lot E, Vail Village 2nd (Vaif VaIley Medical Center parking structure). Appficant: Vail Valley Medical Genter Planner: Dominic Mauriella 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 infierpretation availableupon 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. ~ TDW 4VAIL tlgenda lastrevised Deeember 17, 1997 (12;52pm) PLANNING AND ENVlRONMENTAL COMMISSION ~ Monday, Deeember 22, 1997 AGENDA Project Grientation / GHRISTMAS LUNCH - CommunitY Develop.ment Department 12:30 pm MEMBERS PRESEN? MEMBERS ABSENT 5ite Visits : 1:30 pm 1. Mauzy - 2702 Larkspur Lane 2. Vail Valley Medical Center - F'arking Structure Driver: George a~; ~ ; T_ NOTE: if the PEC hearing extends until 6:00 p.m., the baard will break for dinner from 6:00 - 6:30 p.m. ~ Public Hearinq w Town Council Chambers 2.00 p.m. 1. A request for a minor subdivision, to correct an existing right-of-way encroachment, Iocated afi 2702 Larkspur LanelLot 6, Block 3, Vail Intermountain. Rpplicant: Kafhy Mauzy/Town of Vail Planner: Dominic Mauriello 2. A request for a conditional use permit to allaw skier/gues# parking on weekends and holidays in the VWMC Parking Structure, with vehicular access from the South Frontage Road only, lacated at Lot E, Vail Village 2nd. Applicant: Vail Clinic, Inc., represented by Stan Anderson Planner: Dominic Mauriello 1 A request for a worksession to discuss a canditional use permit ta cons#ruct four multiple- family dweNing units and variances from Section 18.28.090 (Building Height), Section 18.28.140 (Landscape Area) and Section 18.28.070 (Setbacks), to allow far commercial and residential expansion, located at 143 E. Meadow arive (Crossroads East Building) / Lat P, Black 5D, Vail Village 1 st. Applicant: Crossroads Plaza, Trevina L.P., represented by Bill Pierce Planner: Dominic Mauriello ~ - ~a ~DWNnF4'AI~ ~it 1 Agenda last revised Deeember 17, 1997 (12:52pm) 4. A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for the constructian of a temparary structure ~ to accommodate a winter sieigh ride operation at Golden Peak Ski Base, lncated at 458 Vail Val(ey Drive/Tract F, Vail Village 5th Filing, Applicant: Vail Associates, represented by Brian McCartney Planner: George Ruther WITHDRAWN 5. Approvai of December 8, 1997 minutes. The applications and information about the proposals are available fnr public inspection during regular office hours in the project planner's office located at the Town af Uail Cammunity Development Department, 75 Sou#h Frontage Raad. Sign language interpretatian available upan request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479-2114 voice or 479-2356 TDD for information. Community aeveiopment Department Pubiished December 19, 1997 in the Vail Trail ~ 2 ~ - Agenda last revised December 23, 1997 (12:23pm) io Note: Due to #he cancellation af the December 23rd town Gouncil meeting, there wili be no scheduled PEC report. PIease review this Final Agenda and cantact the project planner directiy if you have questions on any of these items. PLANNING AND ENVIR4NIVlENTAL COM11lIISSInN Monday, December 22, 1997 FIiVAL AGEIVDA MEMBERS PFiESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Greg Mo#fet Ann Bishop Greg Amsden Galen Aasland Gene l)selton Diane Galden John Scho#ield ~jite Visits : 1:00 pm ' 1. Mauzy - 2702 Larkspur Lane 2. Vail Valley Medicai Center - Parking Structure ~ 3. Grossroads Plaza Driver: George NG1TE: If the PEC hearing extends until 6:00 p.m., the board will break for dinner from 6:00 - 6:30 p.m. P'ublic Nearina - Tovion Council Chambers 2:00 p.m. 1. R request for a minor subdivisidn, to correct an existing right-of-way encroachment, located at 2702 Larkspur LaneILot 6, Block 3, Vail Intermountain. Applicant: Kathy MauzylTown of Vail Planner: Dominic MaurieHo MOTIdN: John Schofieid SECOND: Galen Aasiand VOTE: 5-0-1 (Bishop absent; Amsdan abstained) APPRUVED 1Jit9TH NO CORIDITIUNS 2. A request far a conditional use permit to aIlow skier/guest parking on weekends and holidays in the VVMC F'arking Structure, with vehicular access from the South Frantage Road only, located at Lot E, Vail Viliage 2nd. Applicant: Vail Clinicr Inc., represented by Stan Anderson Planner: Reed Onate ~ MOTION: John Schofiieid SECOND: Diane Golden VOTE: 6-0 1 Agenda last revised December 23, 1997 (12:23pm) APPRt)VED WITH COND1710NS ~1. That the applicant shali keep the entrance gate open during the skierlguest parking nperation between 8:00 A.M. to 1:00 P.M. Saturdays and Sundays. 2. That the applicant shall pravide a comprehensive sign program, including signs that direct pedestrians to the West Meadaw drive busstop and a Town map mounted near the stairwe(I entrances that htghiight skier access to the mountain, the in-Town Shuttle Bus rautes/stops, and parking and access restrictions on the West Meadow Drive WMG alley access. 3. That any temporary or permanent promotional signs shall receive Town design approvals. 4. That any future temporary ar permanent booth structure shail receive Tawn design approvals. 5. That this Conditianal Use Permit shall expire after the 1997-98 ski season. Operation af the skierlguest parking lot wiil require a re-review of parking activities and approval of a conditional use permit for the 1998-99 ski season. 3. A request for a work session to discuss a conditional use permit to construct four multipie- , family dwelling units and variances from Sectian 18.28.090 (Buiiding Neight), Section 18.28.140 (Landscape Area) and Section 18.28.070 (Setbacks), to allow for commercial and residantiai expansian, located at 143 E. Meadow Drive (Crossroads East Building) / Lot P, Block 5D, Vai1 Viliage 1 st. ~ Applicant: Crossroads Plaza, Trevina L.P., represented by Bill F'ierce Pianner: Dominic MaurieNo Work sessian oniy; no motion was made. 4. A request for a conditional use permit, to ailow for the construction of a temporary structure to accommodate a winter sleigh ride operation at Golden Peak Ski Base, located at 458 Vail Vailey Drive(Tract F, Vail Village 5th Fiiing. Applicant: Vail Associates, represented by Brian McCartney Pianner: George Ruther WITMDRAeWN 5. Approval af December 8, 1997 minutes. The applicatians and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours in the project pianner's office located at the l'own of Vail Cammunity Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notiPication. Please call 479-2114 voice or 479-2356 TDD far information. Gommunity Development Department 2 ~ TOWNOPt'AI~ AbW ~ MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmentai Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: C7ecember 22, 1997 SUBJECT: A request for a minor subdivision, to correet an existing right-of-way encroachment, located at 2702 Larkspur LanelLat 6, Biock 3, Vail Intermountain. Applicant: Kathy Mauzyffown of Vail Planner: pominic Mauriello L DESCRIPTION OF TWE REQUEST The owner of this property, Kathy Mauzy, and the Town of Vail have entered into a voluntary agreement in order to correct an existing encroachment of a paved street (of 153,2 sq, ft.) on C.ot 6. The encroachment accurred prior to the Iand being annexed to the Town of Vaii. The Town ofi Vail has paid the owner of this lot for the encroachment and is now fiulfilling an obiigation to replat the property. The replat will remove 153.2 sq. ft. of area from L.at 6 and will add that area to the public right-of-way. There is currently a home being constructed on the property. The proposed reduction in lot area will not affect the GRFA for this hame but will reduce the overal! GRFA aliowance from 2,865.9 sq. ft. ta 2,827.6 sq. ft. (a difiference of 38.3 sq. ft.). ~ il. MINOR SUBDIilISIUN CRITERIA One of the basic premises of subdivision regulations is that the minimum standards for the creation/revision of a lot must be meC. This subdivisian will be reviewed under #he Minor Subdivisibn Criteria, pursuant to Chapter 17, Subdivisian Regulatians, of the Town of Vail Municipai Cade. The #irst set ofi criteria to be considered by the Pianning and Environmentai Commission far a Minar Subdivision application is: 1. Lot Area - The revised Int area for Lot 6 is 9,610.4 and therefore remains a nanconforming lot. The property is zoned Primary/Secandary Residential. The minimum lot area for the PrimaryiSecondary zone district is 15,000 sq. ft. Staff Response: As proposed, this minor subdivision does not meet this criferion. The lot will remain norrcanforming. This proposal is necessary to correct a long standing encroachment on this lot. The allowable GRFA for this lot will be reduced by 38.3 sq. ft. ~ 1 1'OWNO*VAIL . 2. Frantaae - The Subdivision Regulations require a minimum street Frantage af 30'. Staff Response: ~ As proposed, this rninarsubdivision meets this requirement. 3. 80' x80' scuare - The Subdivision Regulations require that the lot be capabie af enclosing an 80' x 80' square. Sfaff Respanse: Thrs lot, in its existing configuration, daes nat meet this requirement. The proposed replat does not affect this requirement. The !ot will remain nonconforming with respect to this criterian. The secorad set of crsteria to be considered with a minor subdivisian request, as outiined on the subdivision regulations, is: The burcfen of proof shail rest with the appiicant to show that the application is in compliance wi#h the intended purpose af Chapter 17, the Subdivision Regulations and ather pertinent regulations that the PEC deems appilcable. Due consideration shallbe given to the recammendafions by public agencies, utility campanies 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, regulatians, 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 follaws: 1. To inform each subdivider of the standards and criteria by which development and 1101 proposals will be evaluated and to provide information as ta the type and extent of improvements required. Staff Response: The review of this re.quest has faliowed the regulatians preseribed for minor subdivisions in the Municipa! Code. 2. To provide for the subdivision af property in the future withaut conflict with development on adjacent properties. Staff Response: The proposed subdivision will not have a negative effect or conflict with devetopment on adjaeent lots. The proposal wi/{ farmalize an encraachment that has existed far 20+ years. 3e Ta protect and conserve the value af land throughout the municipality and the value of buildings and improvements on the land. Statf Respcrnse: Staff does noi be/ieve that the applicant's request will negatfvely impact the value of land in the Town of Vai/ generaHy, or in the immediate area speclfical/y. ~ 2 - - 4. To insure that subdivision of property is in compNance with the Town Zoning Ordinance, ~ to achieve a harmonious, convenient, warkabie relationship among land uses, consistent with municipal development objectives. Sfaff Response: The proposed subdivisron meets the minimum zoning requirements for fhis zone district, with the exception of lot area and remains a noncartforming /ot. 5, To guide public and private policy and action in order fo provide adequate and efificient transportation, water, sewage, schools, parks, playgrounds, recreatianal and other public requirements and facilities and generaily tq provide that public #acilities wiN have sufficient capacity to serve the propased subdivision. Sfaff Response: Staff does not be/ieve the requested minor subdivision will have any adverse impacts on the above-described criterion. 6. Ta pravide for accurate legal descriptions of newly subdivided land and to establish reasnnable and desirable construction, design standards and procedures. 5taff Respanse; The proposai wii/ create an accurate iegal description #or the svbdivided fand. 7. To prevent the pollution af air, streams, and ponds, to insure adequacy of drainage facilifiies, 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 af the community and the value of land. Staff F#esponse: Staff daes not ,believe the praposed rninor subdivision wiii have any negative impacts on the above described criterion. 111, STAFF REGOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recnmmends approval of the proposed minar subdivision subject to the following finding; 1. That the proposed minor subdivision plat campiies with the review criteria and requirements of Ghapter 17 of the Town of ilail Municipai Code and of PrimarylSecondary Residenfial zone district, as they apply to nanconforminglots. F:1EV ERYC3N E\PE C\M EMOS\97W1AUZY. b22 ~ 3 I I ! ~T ~ L LOT 5 f TRACT 1 ~~t" ~ DRAWAGE ~ s' u ~asEMENT 1 53.2 sq.ft. ~ ri~irY & pRa~ rvacE EasEr~E,~r 55 ' UT~L1T~' & DRq AGE EASEMENT S&4'23'00"E ` 0 1s.ao* 7 9.83' FC7UND PRC ~ ~ o aS co _ PE-PLS 5.. _ ~ r ~ cMy ~ FCIUND PROP.COR ~ ~ Q RLS 13901 ~-L'nj F ~ l = 6.05` ~ ~ ~ LOT 6 ~ 9,610.4 Sq.ft. scALt: ~ FOUNQ PRQP.GOR RLS 24318 ~ !rJ ~ I LECENI; 1!7 V) ~ '..1 C.il ~ ¢ P ft ~ EF,' z 4~ FC?, \ 128"`N LOT 11 a SE~ BLK9 ~ 4!1 ~ 2? . ~ ~ ; ' , C;URVC TABLE ° AF~{~Ci ~E~.TA 1 45 OQ' 34.7~I` 33.93~ S52'41'23"W 44't7'42" . ~ G , ; C~(t' ~0 _,3' 3 9.t7' SOa'44'?6°W 51`36'13' ~ b~. a ~ MEMC}RANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commissian FROM: Community Development Department DATE: December 22, 1997 SUBJECT: A request for a conditional use permit, to allow skieriguest parking on weekends and holidays in the Vaii Valley Medicai Center (VVMC) Parking Structure, with vehicular access from the South Frontage Road anly, located at Lot E, Vail Village 2nd filing (Vail Valley Medical Center parking structure). Applicanf: Stan Anderson, Security Coordinator Planner: Reed Onate BACKGROUND AND DESCFiIPTION OF'THE REQUEST The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit in order to ailow the use of the Vaii Vailey Parking Structure for skier/guest parking. The praposal includes 100 parking spaces to be soid on the weekends and holidays on(y. The applicant has indieated that there is a#otal of 330 parking spaces at the Vail Valiey Medical Center; 207 inside the parking structure and 123 in the ~ surfaee lot on the west side of the property. The applicant's survey of parking lat usage indicates #hat the typicai usage an weekends inciudes 40 vehicles parked in the surface lot and 70 inside ttie parking structure (parking counts were taken on Saturday and Sunday, December 6 and 7, 1997). The appiicant's description of the proposai is included as Attachment A. A suppiemental letter from the applicant dated December 17, 1997 is included as Attachment B. In brief, the December 17 letter states that 1) ail vehicle access wouid be thraugh the top structure gate, lacated on the South Frontage Road; 2} once vehicles are parked, pedestrian access is available throughout the structure by ramps, stairs, or elevators; 3) hours of parking fee collection would be Saturdays and Sundays, 8:00 A.M. to 1:00 f'.M.; and 4) access would be controlled by VVMC empioyees, who would aliow vehieles to fiow inta the parking strueture in the case af a traffic backup onta South Frantage Raad. Attachment C is provided for general information regarding VVMC's parking plan for employees. Parking during the +eveekdays at VVMC is highiy impacted and fhe parking plan provides incentives for employees to either use a hospital shuttie, car pool, or use regional transit. !I. ISSUES FC}R DISCU5SION A. Vehicie Access Currently, the primary uehicie access entering and exiting the parking structure is from the South Frontage Road. Two other vehicle access points are lacated on the first levei which are contralled by gates used by ambulance services and maintenance personnei. ~ A parking garage control gate is currently located near the South Frontage Road right-of-way and the West Star Bank driveway access. The space behind the 1 TIiWN *VAIL . . existing entrance control gate can accommodate approximately two vehicies. ~ Backups onto South Frontage Road and/or the blocking of the Wesf Star Bank driveway may occur depending on the frequency of vehicles entering the parking structure. The applicant has verbafiy stated that the entrance gate would remain open and money coliected closer to the interior of the parking structure if vehicle backups occur. B. Pertestrian Access The parking structure's pedestrian access includes driveway ramps, stairwells, and an elevator that is oriented to VVMC facilities. No ciearly designated pedestrian access exists for potential users of the West Meadow Drive bus stop. Access is also available to steps at the south-west carner of the West Star Bank parking lot, which leads to an access route to West Meadow Drive. C. Design Review Temporary or permanent signs advertising the skier/guest parking operation wouid require design appravai. Na boath structures are currently praposed as part of the application. D. Potentia! Benefif5 , Expansion of parking lots available for weekend renta( wou4d reduce parking pressures on Town parking struciures, which would reduce the need for additional public facilities and reduce overflow parking on the Sauth Frantage Road. In ~ addition, the Town would not be liable for any new skierlguest parking provided within VVMC's private parking structure. Itl. GENERAL REV{EW GRiTERiA POR THiS REQUES7 The review criteria for a request af this nature are estab4ished by the Town n( Vail Municipal Code. In additian tn the Conditionai Use criteria, staff has inc4uded criteria from the Zaning Code and the Comprehensive Plan, as we believe this wiil he(p the PEC in its evaluatian of the request. A. THE TAWN QF VAIL MUNICIPAL GODE The Vaii Vailey Medical Center parking structure is located in the General Use (GU) zone district. According to Section 18.36.010 of the zoning cade, the purpase of the GU district is: to provide sites for public and quasi-pubiic uses which, because of their special eharacteristics, cannot be appropriateiy regulated by the devefapment standards prescribed for other zaning districts, and for which development standards especially prescribed for each particular develapment proposal ar project are necessary to a achieve the purposes prescribed in § 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 #ypes of quasi-public uses permitted in the District are appropriately located and designed to meet the needs af residents and visitors to Vaii, to harmonize with surrounding uses, and, in the case of buildings and other structures, to ensure adequate light, air, open spaces, and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of uses. ~ 2 - r' ~ The use of the parking structure for skierlguest parking is permitted in the GU zone district subject ta the issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions af Chapter 18.60. For the PEG's reference, the conditional use peemit purpose statement indicates that: In order to provide the fiexibility 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 iocated properly with respect to the purposes af this title and with respect ta their effects on surrounding properties. The review process prescribed in this chapter is intended to assure compatibility and harmonious developmen# 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 limitatians as the Town may prescribe to insure #hat the location and operation of the conditional uses wiil be in accardance with the development objectives of the Town and r,vill not be detrimentai to other uses or properties. Where conditions cannot be devised, to achieve these objectives, applications for conditional use permits shall be denied. B. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The Vail Comprehensiue Pian indirectiy addresses issues related ta skier/guest parking. The relevant elements and sectioiis are listed below. ~ 1. L.and Use Plan 2.1 The community shoufd emphasize its role as a destination resort while accommodating day visitors. 2.3 The ski area owner, the business community, and the Town leaders shauid work together to imprnve facili#ies for day skiers. 2,8 Day skier needs #or parking and access should be accommodated through creative solutions such as: a) lncrease busing from out of town. b) Expanded points of access to the mountain by adding additianai base portais. c) Continuing to provide temporary surface parking d) Addition of structured parking. 6.3 Services should be adjusted to keep pace with the needs of peak periods, IV. CR1TER1A AND FiNDINGS FOR GOfdDITIONAL USIE RE4UEST Upon review of Section 18.60, the Communi#y Development Department recommends approval af the conditional use permit based uptin the follawing factors: A. Consideration of factors: ~ 1. Relationship and impact of the use on the development objectives of 3 r the 7own. ~ The Tawn of Vail Land Use Plan pramotes this type of impravement. Day skiers and guests would benefit from additional parking. Expansion of parking lots available for weekend rental would reduce parking pressures on Tawn parking structures and reduce parking an the South Frontage Road. 2. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of popuiation, transpartation facilities, utilities, schools, parksand reereation facilities, and other pub[ic facilities needs. This proposal will have little, i# any, negative impact an any of the above stated issues. The proposal will help reduce the need for more public parking faci[ifies, Whi4e staff does noC believe bus service capacity will be a significant issue, the proposal wouid increase #he level of activity at the West Meadow Drive bus stop near VVMC. 3. Effect upon traffic with particufar reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and canvenience, trafific flow and control, access, maneuverabi(ity, and removal of snow fram the street and parking areas. ' incorporation of mitigations shouid eliminate ariy negative effects on traffic, including the existirrg driveway access to West Star Bank and the South Frontage Road public right-of-way. ~ 4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the propased use is to be 4ocated, including the scale and bufk of the propased use in relation ta surrounding uses. The parking structure wou(d not undergo any redesign and there wi11 be no change in its character, scale, or bulk. B. The Planninq and Envirnnmentai Cammission shall make the following findinqs be#ore grantina a conditional USe permit: 1. That the praposed location of the use is in accordance with the purposes of the conditionaf use permit section of the zoning code and #he purposes of #he district in which the site is located. 2. That the proposed location of the use and the canditions under which it wouid be operated ar maintalned would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or wel#are or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable prdvisions of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code. V. STAFF RECOMMENDAT'ION ~ 4 ~ The Cammunity Deveiopment Department recommends approval of the conditional use permit for a weekend skierlguest parking operation subject to #he follawing findings: 1. That the propased lacation of the use is in accordance with the purposes of the canditional use permit section of the zoning code and the purpases of the district in which the site is located. 2. Thaf the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained would nat be detrimental to the public heaith, safety, or welfare or materially injuriaus 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. The recammendations of approval are also subject to the foliawing conditions: 1, That the applicant shall keep the entrance gate open during the skier/guest parking aperation between 8:00 A.M. to 1:00 P.M. Saturdays and Sundays. 2. That the applicant sha11 provide adequate directional signage, including signs that direct pedestrians to the West Meadow Drive bus stap and a Town map mnunted near the stairweli and elevator entrances that highlight skier access to the mountair7 and the In-Town Shuttle Bus_routes and bus stops. ~ 3. That any temporary or permanent promdtional signs shall receive Town design approvais. 4. That any future temporary or permanent booth structure shail receive 1"own design approvais. 5. That this Conditional Use Permit shalC expire after the 1997-98 ski season. Operation of the skier/guest parking lot will require a re-review of parking activities and approva( of a conditional use permit for the 1998-99 ski season. F:IEVERYQNE\PEC\M EM0S197\VVMC.D22 ~ 5 ATTACHMENT A 1, DESCRIPTiON OF THE PROPOSED USE ~ The hospitai is seeking a canditional use permit to seil to the general public access to the parking s#ructure. Use of the structure wouid be on weekends only, when the hospital has ebundant unused parking. Seiling 100 spaces will still allow us to meet patient and employee parking needs. There are 330 available parking spaces; 207 inside structure and 123 in the frant lot. Typicai usage on weekends shows approximately 40 vehicles parked in the front int and 70 inside the parking structure (current count of vehicles is as of December 6, 1997 and December 7, 1997.) il. CONSIDERATIC3N OF FACTORS A. CRITERIA: 1. Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives af the 7'own. Allowing the sale o# existing parking spaces at Vail Valley Medical Center is a positive use of community resources toward its ongoing parking shortage. 2. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transpor#ation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation #acilities, and other public facilities needs. Dis#ribution of the visitor population and reduction af overburden parking facilities ~ would be complimentary to accessing the Town of Vail. 3. Effect upon traffic, with particular reference to cangestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and cantrol, access, maneuverability, and removal af snow from the street and parking areas. A reduction of overflow parking on the Frontage Roads is fareseen. Pedestrian safe#y is complimented by use of the Town af Vail bus located on Meadow Drive. 4. Effect upon the character of the area in which #he praposed use is to be locaked, inciuding the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation #o surrounding uses. By enabling Vail Valley Medical Center to utilize existing parking spaces to meet pubGc needs is a positive use of cammunity resources. This program can relieve congestion on the South Frontage Road and make access to recreational facilities easier for the guest. ~ 0 ATTACHMENT B Vail Va11ey Medrcal Center ~ December 17, 1997 Mika Mollica Community Development Directar 75 S. Frontage Rd. Vail, CO 81657 Dear Mike: In response to our conversation of 12115/97, I am providing the following infarmation to supplement our report for a conditional use permit for parking at Vail Valley Medical Center. The plan to generate revenue by selling 100 spaces ofthe VVMC parking structure would include the following: A) There are na plans to direct vehicle traffic onto ar fram West Meadow Drive. A11 access would be through the top structure gate, located on the South Frontage Road. ~ B) Once vehicles are parked, pede$trian access is available through the structure by ramps, stairs or elevator. A Town of Vail bus stap 'rs located outside the parking structure on West Meadow Drive, C) Hours ofoperation would be Saturdays and Sundays, 8am to lpm. D) Access wi11 be conCrolled by a VVMC employea. In order to reduce the likelihood of a traffic backup onto the Sauth Frontage Road, the employee will allnw vehicles to flow into the structure if necessary. There is also reduced traffic in this area on weekends due to less employees accessing the WestStar Bank property. Please 1et me know if there is any further information yau require for the December 22nd meeting ofthe Planning Commission. Sincerely, Stan Anderson Security Caordinatnr ~ "Your Care Is Our Mission" 181 West Meadow Drive • Vail, Colorado 81657 • 303-476-2451 ATTACHMENT C PAR.~ING PLAN AiND REGIST:R.A"TION FOMM ~ Thc; fa{tvwing information outlines the new parking platt and a registratiort torm is provided on the back. Piease brino che form corripleted when you register. FLEASE AL,".zrEMBE R TD FRo VrDE YoCx DLD s rrcKER :vUM13FR Or'v TIIE FaRWAND RECt3R D Yf3 L'R GA TE C4R_tD.VCAfB'E R IF YG7 U 1L4 tIE AZ READ YBEEX 1SSL`E,t7 01`VE (an Decembcr 3 we will beiyin enruilin-, aIl staff and phvsician5 iit one oF the revised parkizic! optiona. Wetivill be reQisterin~,~ aII vehicfes during the week oF December $ through I'~?. 9:00 a,m, to 8:00 p.m. in the cafeteria.. Rz~;~istration forrns will be distributeci in paychecks on Fridav, December S, and will be delivered on that date to a(I physician offices. Beaver Cree!c empioye4s. pleasa curn in registration forns to the Mzrketing fJff`ice. Ea!,,,:le Doctoe's Ot'tice employees, glease return to Mike 5ch.midt. Ernerald Acres emplouees, plc:ase return to Peaple Care & Developmenc. By, .'vtuctday, L?ecember 15, ali eszxgloyees ot W-NiC, oLiT' t32eCIzC:aI StafS' c1rid thetC Cit1p10vees NiLT_ST have new parking stickers ar 1vi11 be denicd access to on-tampus parkiny. 100% participatian by all staff is essential. PAR.KT:V'G PLAti: 1. AlC VVMC ernplayees, physicians, physician offic.- Omployees, Auxiliary, Chaplains, and [3oard Mertibery will registe: tlletr vehicIes. At the txmc ot reeistration. ~ einployees tvil( ciesionnte one ot rhe fo1lowini parking aptzorts ;3n5 new stirne:s will be issued based on vour selec:tioa: A. Par:c in V''4`.%IC parkingstntccure (on-campus e:r.plovees, physicians. phvsi4ian otficl- ataff otily) via keyear:i access. B. Tfie VVtitC shuttle servic~: becween the Edwards property and the VVMC c;xm,pus will begin Decdmber 15. Snuttle ricle:s will receive a lunch voucher (S3.50 value) for each day they take the shuttle. youchezs will bt gzven to the,=pZoyees by the shuttle driver. Departure schedule from Edwards: fi:I S a.m. 6:30 a.cn. 7:1.; a.m.. 7:30 a.m. Depac~ture sctiedttle trom vv.M(: campus. 3:33 p.m. 4:35 p,m, 5:05 p.m. 5:35 p.m. 7:35 g.m. ' ti O"I°E: StaFf ,vill be avaitable to transport amployees back- to Ecilcards in emerUznt situationsa C. Ca.rpoat {itiinirnum of thr4WVVtitClPhysiiianQf~ic~-ernployeespe: vehicie). Carpoot vehicles will be garked in valet Iot. Carpuo1 pat'ticipants will Cecwive Iunch vou<he:s woetkl S3.50 in the Caiete;ia. Vouchet's will be gfven uut by thc! parkinsz atcendant upon par!cina the vehic!es. D. Bus Trazisportacioii, (Free bus passes will continue t0 6e provided.) ~ Z0°d Z00' aN Ot :6 ~66 91 D3Q 202e QI 30 IkiDZ(I3W A317811 `lIdA E. Otf=!;ite Employee5 (Beaver Creek, Eagle, Emeralcl Acres, Doc:tors OfEcc ot Eagtw) will valet park only w•hen they hatie need to be at thc Niecfical Center. On-~iL P~r in ~ Thz VVNtC parkiti- structure access is onty avaiiable to emplovees with avaIid hospitaI fD durin> assigned shifts. Paricing will be bayed vn availabiiicv. If ciie strttc.ture is tutl, empIovees may Cry the valet 1o[. Parking in the vatet lot will ats4 be based on a,vailabilitv. If both the parlCin~ structure attd the vaIct tc~ts are fuCi, fherl it becarnes the empioyee's responsibilitv to park off site. Employews par`.<in.g vehicles in the strttc;CUre without a vatid tegistrativn, or if not on ducy, will be 5ubjccted Ko a$3UQ iine and disCipllnary action. On weekends, off-duty employees can use the structure fnr skier parking as in the past. B~!,~P~ss Pm~r~tm EreW bus servic;e will cortCinue from ~'rvpsum, Eagie, Avort, anci Leadvifle. TEtis season (97-98) t11e use oF V?.'s Surnmit County shuttle will be aclciQa. P'an5 Futu.re plans include the addition of an "E:cpress Bus Stop" at the Edtivards facility (pcadittg County approval), when r,ve occupy that campus in the spring. ~ .........................................1 .........I P~~RK~i.~. VG REGISTR,A,.TI ~iN FOR~.VI NAiVfE DE P:ARTINfENT V'EI-iIC L.E1?VI~k-KE MODEL YEAR COLQk LIC:ENSE PLA'T'E ~ STATE CURUv"S' STZCkCER 10 GA"FECARD PrLR.I~G PLAN : A BC I) E NEW STICKER. NUN1BER ~ za•d 200'oN zz:6 z6;9T 33C 202.QI 3D `idDIQ3W J,31113(i IIHn MEMORANDUM ~ TO: Pfanning and Environmentai Commisston FROM: Community Development Department t7ATE: December 22, 1997 SUBJECT: A request #or a worksessian to discuss a conditional use permit to construct four multiple-famPly dweHing units and variances from Seetion 18.28.090 (Building Height)s Section 18.28.140 (Landscape Area) and Section 1$.28.070 {Setbaeks}, to a!!ow far cflmmercial and resideniial building expansians, located at 143 E. Meadow Drive (Crossroads East Building) / Lot P, Biock 5D, Vail Village 1 st. Applicant: Crossroads Piaza, Trevina L,P., represented by Bill Pierce Planner: Dominic Mauriello 1. C?ESCRIPTIQN OF THE REQUESTS °fhe appiicant is requesting a conditional use permit in order to canvert existing office space on • the fourth floor, and tQ create a fifth story (laft area) in the building, to accommodate 4 dwelting units. In the Gommercial Service Center (GSG) zone district, mul#iple family dwellings require a conditional use permit, ~ The applicant is also proposing tn expand the commercial (retaiilrestaurant) floor area on the first and second #laors of the buiiding for a tntal commercial floor area expansian of 3,387 sq, ft. Below is a floor by floor descripiion of proposal. Basement Levei: - No Changes 1$t Floor: - 650 sq. ft. of floor area added to the east and west side af the Hubcap Restaurant - 882 sq. ft. of new retail floor area added to existing art gallery (232 sq. ft. of this area is within a proposed tawer on the southwest corner of the building) 2nd Flaor: - 1,855 sq. ft. net retail floor area added on the east, south and west sides of the building (263 sq. ft. of existing retail area is being converted to haHway area). The second story deck/walkway on the east side of the building is removed and floor area added 3rd Floor: - No Changes 4th Fioor: ~ 7,580 sq, ft of commerciai office and common area space is removed from the building - 10,349 sq. ft. of GRFA is added in conjunction with laft space above 1 1OWN *YM In conjunction with these requests, the applicant is requesting a height variance to allow dormers to be added to the building (at an elevation lower than the existing ridge line). This building is ~ currently canstructed at approximately 52' in height and the zone district limits building height to 38` for a sloping raof. Setback variances are aiso being requested to aliow a zero setback in some areas. This zone district requires a 20' setback from ail lot lines. A landscape area variance is also being requested. The propased expansion will reduce the amount of landscape area #ound on-site. The site is currentiy noncon#orming with a total landscape area of 5,289 sq. ft. (15%). The Code requires a minimum of 7,020 sq. ft. (20%), and 4,915 sq. ft. (14°10) is proposed. The appiicant is aiso proposing to improve the entire exteriar of the building by adding windows, auvnings, decks, and generally upgrading the quality of the building materials. 11. BACI<GROUN[3 This buiiding (Crossroads East Building) was approved in 1974 and constructed in 1975. The Crossroads West Bui(ding was already in existence at that time. Crassroads P1aza consists af two separate parcels of land and are considered separate for the purpose of zoning, even though they are generaily perceived as one property. The separate praperties are referred to as the • "East Building" and the "West Building." The CSC zone district existed In #he first Zoning Ordinance adopted by the Tawn in 1969. At that fiime, multipie family uses were listed as a permitted use. There was a front setback of 15" (na other setbacks) and no buiiding height limitation at that time. There was an FAR limitation. ~ In 1973 the Zoning Ordinance was revised and the CSC zone district was changed. Multiple #amily dwellings were listed as a conditional use. Setbacks were modified to 10' an ail lo# lines with an increase of 1' in setback for each 3' the building was over 15' in height. A maximum building height of 35' was added to this district. In 1974, this si#e was approved for development with severai variances including, setbacks and building height, to allow the building #hat exists today. Since 1973, the Zoning Ordinance was modified several times. Today the CSC zone district requires 20' setbacks from all lot lines and restricts buiiding height to 38' far a sloping roof. 2 ~ III. Z()NING ANALYSIS ~ Zoning: CSC Lot Size: 35,100.6 sg. ft. or 0.8058 acres Standard AllowedlRe uired Existin Prgposed Landscaping: 7,020 {20%} 5,289 sq. ft. (15°1p) 4,915 sq. ft. (14%) Building Ht.: 38' sioping 52' sloping 52' sloping 5etbacks: 20' a11 sides 5' west 0' west 0' south/east 0' southieast 15' north 15' north Site Coverage: 26,325.5 sq. ft. (75%) 17,550 sq, ft. (50%) 18,330 sq. ft. (52_2°Id) GRFA: 14,040 sq. ft. (40%) 0 10,349 sq. ft. (29.5%) Dwelling units: 14.6 DU's 0 4 bU's Cammercial Floor Area*: No Limit 45,422 sq. ft. 37,442 sq. ft. Total Floor Area*: Na Limit 45,022 sq. ft. 52,168 sq. ft. ~ Note: *Totai fioor and eommercial filoar areas ine(ude comman areas, hailways, bathrooms, ete. IV. AFPLICABLE LAND USE PLAN POLICIES 1.1 Vail shouid continue to grow in a controlled environment, maintaining a balance between residential, commercial and recreational uses to serve both the visitor and the permanent resident. 3.4 Commercial growth shouid be concentrated in existing commercial areas ta accommodate bo#h ldcal and visitor needs. 5.4 Residential grawth should keep pace with the market place demands for a full range a# housing types. V. APPLIGABL.E VAIL VIL.LAGEMASTER PLA[V OBJEGT11fES AND POLICTES 1.2 Encourage the upgrading and redevelopment of residential and cammercial facilities. 1.2.1 Additional devebpment may be allowed as identified by the Action Plan and as os consistent with the Vai9 Village Master Plan and Urban Design Guide Plan, f 1.3 Enhance new development and redevelopment through public improvements ' done by private developers warking in cooperation with the Tawn. ~ 3 ~ 2.1 Recognize the variety of land uses found in the 10 sub-areas throughaut the Village and allow for development that is campatible with these estabiished land . use patterns. 2.3 increase the number of residential units availabie for short term overnight accommodations. 2.4 Encourage the development af a varie#y af new commercial act'rvity where compatibie with existing land uses. 2.5 Encourage fhe cantinued upgrading, renovation and maintenance of exisCing Iodging and commercial fiacilities to better serve the needs of our guests. 3.1 Physically improve the existing pedestrian ways by landscaping and other improvements. 3.1.1 Private development projects shall incarporate streetscape improvements (such as paver treatments, landscaping, lighting and seating areas), along adjacent pedestrian ways. 3.2.1 Vehicular traffic wiil be eliminated or reduced to absaluteiy minimal necessary levels in the pedestrianized areas of the village. . 3.4.2 Private development projects shall be required to incorporate new sidewalks along streets adjacent to the project as designated in the Vaii Village Master Plan and/or Recreation Traiis MasCer F'lan. ~ VI. ISSUES FOR DISCUSSIC)N Staff and the applicant are laoking for direction an certain key issues oniy. O#her issues will be discussed at future meetings. Staff and the applicant are requesting PEC discussion and direction on the fol(owing issues: i. Gondi#ionat use for 4 dweffing uni#s Unlike other commercial zone districts, the CSC zone district requires a conditional use permit to allow muitiple family dwelling units on-site. There are currently no dweliing units on-site. The CSC zone district contains a density and GRFA allowance. This zone district a(lows 18 dwelling units per acre (subject to a CUP) and 14,040 sq. ft. (40°/fl) of GRFA. The district also restricts dwelling unit square footage to no more than 50% o# the totai floor area of the building. The proposal is to allow 4.96 units per acre (4 units) and 10,349 sq. ft. of GRFA. The proposed floor area for the residential uses is 19.8% ofi the tatal flaor area and therefore does not exceed the 50% limifation. A continuously stated issue in the Town of Vail is the loss of comrnercial office and retail space. The opportunity to live and work in Vail is being reduced by having reduced opportunities far work space in Vail. This proposai wili perpetuate this problem. In additian to the loss of retail space, conversian to condaminiums can also have negative effects. Condominiums are generaily oniy occupied for a few weeks a year (uniess included in a rental pool) and therefore do not add as much value to the local economy as do other short term rental type units. ~ 4 a On the other hand, the applicant has indicated that the 4th fioor of this building is a difficuit space ~ to rent. Partions of this space have low sloping ceilings which do not make them ideal for office use. The applicant has also indicated that in order to generate sufficient funds to pay for renovatians, they need to include dwelling uni#s to provide a necessary cash flow to make improvements to the building that wiil benefit the Town as a whole. The applicant is looking for PEC direction on the acceptability of the proposed conversion of office space to dwelling units an-site. 2. BuiJding height The applicant is requesting a height variance in order to construct dormers an the roaf, below the existing roo# ridge. The existing raof ridge is approximately 52' in height. The proposal will add variety to the roof, however, it wiil alsa increase the bulk and mass of the buiiding. The Vail Village Master F'lan shows this porkion of the site as appropriate for 3-4 story buildings and the narth half of the site (over Garton's Saloon) as appropriate for 5-6 stories (see attached). Staff has requested section drawings of the dwelling units in order to determine if the propased height variance is the minimum necessary to construct "reasonable" dweiling units. The dormers, as proposed, include vaulted areas. The applicant is looking for PEC direction on the acceptability of the proposed dormer additions. 3, Sefbacks ~ The setback regulation is a general regulation which does not take speciai circumstances into account. The variance chapter provides relief #rom the strict and fiterai interpretation af this regulation. Crossroads Plaza is laca#ed adjacent to Vail Village and is very pedestrian in nature. Unlike the CG1 zone district, the CSC zane district requires setbacks. In 1969, when this property was originally zoned, this location was remote from the Village and was an area visited primarily by vehicies rathar than pedestrians. Since that time, the Crossroads Plaza has become mare pedestrian in nature and is now an integral part of the Village experience. In a village setting, it is advantageous tn have storefronts, dining areas, and other uses adjacent to majar pedestrian ways in order to provide interest fior tha pedestrian. The applicant is loolcing for PEC direction on the acceptability of the proposed building setbacks. 4. Landscape area Like most commercial zone districts, the CSC zone district requires that a minimum of 20°l0 ofi the site be landscape area. Landscape areas can be made up of bath "saftscape" and "hardscape." Softscape refers to true landscape areas which contain vegetatifln. Hardscape refers to paved walks, decks, and patios. The code restricts hardscape ta 20°l0 of the total required landscape area. The site is currently nonconforming with respec# to landscaping as 7,020 sq. ft is required and 5,289 sq. ft. is existing on-site. The proposal removes appraximately 374 sq. ft. of landscape area, thereby bringing the total landscape area to 14°la. The landscape area proposed to be removed is the grass area on the south side of the building where the art gallery is now located. Staff is also concerned about removal and impacts to large trees Iocated an-site. Staff has requested that the appiicant address this issue prior to final review. io The applicant is iooking for PEC direction an the acceptability of the proposed landscape 5 t variance. i VIl. CRITERIA AND FINIJtNGS F(7R VARIANCE REQUESTS The code criteria far review of such a request are provided for your information. Since this is a worksession, staff has not addressecf 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 speciai privilege. 3. The effect af the requested variance on light and air, distribution af population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. B. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the followina.findings • befnregranting a variance: 1. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties ciassified in ~ the same district. 2. 7hat the granting of the variance wiii not be detrimental to the public health, safety ar welfare, or materially injurious to properties ar improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the variance is warranted for flne or more of the follawing 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 ar extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other praperties in the same zone. c. The strict interpretation or enfarcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant ofi privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same districC. ~ 6 < < Viil. CRITERIA AND F1NDiNGS F4R CONaITIONAL USE REQUEST ~ The code criteria for review af such a request are provided for your information. Since this is a worksessian, sta#f has not addressed the specific criteria. A. Consideration of factors: 1. Relationship and impact of the use on the deveiopment objectives o# the Town. 2. The effiect of the use on light and air, distribution of popuiation, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation #acilities, and other public faeilities needs. 3. Effect upon traffic wi#h particular reference ta congestion, automotive and pedestrian sa#ety and convenience, traffic flow and cantral, access, maneuverability, and remaval of snow from the street and parking areas. 4. Effect upan the character af the area in which the proposed use is to be located, inciuding the scale and bulk af the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. B. The Planning and Environmen#al Commission shall make the fallowingfindinqs before granting a conditianal use permit: ~ 1, Tha# the proposed lacation 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 whieh it wouid be operated or maintained wouid not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materiaily injurious to praperties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the propased use would comply with each o# the applicable provisions o# the conditional use permit section of the zoning code. IX. STAF'F REGt3MMENDATION Since this is a worksession to discuss the proposed Crossroads (East Suilding), staff wPll not be providing a formal recommendation at this time. Staff will, however, provide a recommendation at the time of final PEC review. F;IEV E RYON E\P E C\M EMOS\971C ROSS R D. D22 ~ 7 ? ~ ~ #1-5 Willow Bridqe Road Walkway A decorative paver pedestrian wa1kway, separated from the street 'Mf,~O and accented by a strong landscaped area ta encaurage C NfEN ~ ~ ~ pedestrian ca.rculation alonc~ ~ Meadaw Drive. Loss of parkinc~ AN ~ W.11.~. 112E.'C~ '~O ~3e ~'@ZOCc1teC~ 021 S1'~A. 4~\ Special emphasis an 3. 4 , 5.1. . ~ # 1-G Crossroads Inf i11 I C omm e r c i a 1 i n f i 1 l ov e r n ew . ...r.. _ ~i underground parking lat in conjunction with a large public ' p l. a z a w i th gre e n spac e a re a (existing and new parking demand ~ to be provided an site) . Wha.le -~CR093pO,W~ CENTEil configuration of infill may be ~done a number of ways, it is the J~ overall intention to replace 1 existing surface parking with ~ pedestri an corridors into a ~ commercial area, as well as to ; provide a strong building edge an Meadow Drive and streetscape improvements. Improvement of the ~i. AOCw planted buffer adjacent ta the ~ Frontage Road is alsa impo rtant . ; Relocata.on of loading and delivery ; ALISMAN functions and entry to parking ' structure from Frontage Raad is ~ strongly encouraged to reduce ; traffic on Meadaw Drive, Potential ta improve fzre access also exists in the redevelopment scheme. Special emphasis an 2.4, 2.51 2.61 3.1, 4.1, 5.1, 6.1, 6.2. 39 ; ii I'. r~ r I V,k6Ae MeAter ~ LL ' ~6Py ~ Y. - H`'y~--.-J. ~ ~4\'~- -t~ . - ~ ~ - ' - , eY ~ ~ 1 . \ . ~ ~ . J n N4 ~ 4' _ .1~96 " v ~ ~LL ~ ` 6 e 5 - . ~ . , ' - - . ~~~4~~~ y~"~~ ` ~....wecac~,~ rJ.' \.~co . y~ P l ?j~ iot ~1~ ~ ~ .~1'~'~ ~ r ~ " . I ' ' `......r.-:.,~L ~ co . ' . . , LL-_ ,l 4 i - 'G.'~'"~ ` 4 . - LEGEND t( 3"4MAXlMUtv1 RANGE OF BUtLDItV{i HEIGH'C lN STORIES A building story is defined as 9 teat oi height (no roof inciuded). Exact height restrictians wili be determined by zoning. Varied roof heights within range speeilied is deaited Eor each buflding a ~ DEhIflTES EXlSTiNG OR APPRi7VE{] BUCtDiNaS WHlC p0 Nt57 CONFt?RM TO THE GONCEPTUk1. BUiLC1~` HE{GHT PLAN } SHAdING DENO7ES AREAS OF StMtLAR HEIGHT < < i C ~ ! k I I k ~ LEVEL 2s EY,j e174' ~ ( 4 I ~ ~ f ( t _ I ~ I I - - - - - - - - - ~ -j- - - - - p ,e«~.. ~ a~, V3 ~ Q ~ f I ui - - i ~ i CD t AD& 0 < 0 U3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - j ~ tl3 ~ _ _ _ _ ~-----f----- - CC t F i t i I E i e~ LEVEL 2A EL.[SF64' I f ~ C z• ~ ._._._.J._._._._.L._._._. - I I I _ ~ ~-----T- ----T-- t ~ I t I l { f I ~ I C I I ! I i ~ I i f f I f i I I k I i ( - - - - - - - - - - - 4- - - - -6- - - -~--.W._ I ~ ~ I t f I I .»i ~ i ~ l I l i ( ~f i i I I - ~ FRITZLfN LAJ - - 'E- PiERCE BRtNER ~w~e rta~rna. av~w ~ •kcNaTiarS NEri RE3TA4RAM 1tlk5 1.2VELs aao sa. pr. ~ NEW LEYEL l FLOOR PLAN ' rtEA xErA& nits t.EVEZ. = 662 sa.Fr. --e-Aa.F ua'~~=o~ t.EYt~. f ~L. B164' ~I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i EF------ °----t------------- T--- i r I I ~ - - - - - - ' i " ~ ` e fA • ,d ~ } ui ~ Q _ - 711, [ ~1( ~ ~ tn . f ~ ~LEVZa. 5A PL.18te,o` i j { I t ~ ~ f ! ~ _L _ f I f----------° FRITZLEN PI ERCE BRINER C~QQO~C~C~C~C~C~CIC~CIC~~~ ~ 1\ ?~CN12tfti rr~r.a = t LE`?EL 2 FLC3UR f'LAN EXiSTINb RETAIL REI71JGTiOk TNIS LEVEL: 783 SCi.FT'. NE{ ~ NEW RE7AtL 7HI5 LEVEL, 2118 50. PT. 5GA(.~ t/8'-I-O" NEi' REFhIL h=iTYON'FSi[5 LEYEL= t8H5 SQ. Ft. L.EVM 2 ET.. 6f75' I C ~y ti`,~\e~~`.1. \ 1 ~ \y ti \ \ i°------'_ ~ ~ 5TVi7Y 1' i { ~ K 6M#K ( ~ r i KII ~ W7 11 t~ ~ . , r ~ . ~ ;t.,. =s. I~ 8'fVP1' t nen,eoor,, rore~c ~ / r-."'.,"--'---.." ; ~ F 1, ~ ~ ~ - _ - 4-----------, UN 17 1111 F - ! 1 NNJ, 1 ? ~ ~ f LMRKARlh ~ K ~ ~ f ~ 1 ? if F ` , L , I ~ ~ - ~ m ( yr ' ` ~ - r'V1:STtli r~ ~ 1}N( S tq~ I ~Jt7C 6eF t ( ~ 17 1 `.ftf-A I t 4~~I1 ~ j ~ 4 ( ! I KtTGHlN f 51MOX)OK t ~ G y--------~ I ! ( I t L~__..~~ ...__..._...J ~ 4TH LEVEL ~ ~ _ . i t ~ - t 1! ; ~ ~ t ~ 6t/E57 i { ~ ~ i i 5UI'f6 arsxro ~ ~ ~ MA51ER ~ ~ r~ w+" SViTE ~ ~ ; ` ~ U N 7 11 o - ~ 1 ~ - ' i I ~ ~ ~ a wvroe i ~ C . oecicanrw ~ f ' f~ uw~ i r"• r 17 f I( I I ~ i ~ I'~ - - ` - - - - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ( r ~ ~ U1 t d Pb~~1i7 ` il y i i=n`i f v r G ~ ~v ~ 1 i O~CGK ~ ~ 5uU lTzT ~ ~ ~ nCt°w ~ I ~ E ____fi i i ~ ; ims.+ Y i t ' f r ~ 4 ~ 4`--------- •-w-~ i i-°----------°-------------- + ~ tet~mrasal ~ r ~ ~ i 5n1RY ~OA` I ~ 1 ~ I ~ I~~~ t 't t X ~ = - ~ -----u; I t' { ~ ~ } f I . ' ___I ( 5TH LEVEL ~ ~ L - °r"M _ s ~ &CO ~ Q - ' ~ r----- - - rs:cv - a: a ~I - ~ ~ Gcw/G.~ ~waT'l~cnF ~ L1~CJC~1C . ? - - ' I FRiTZLEN I' PtfRCE R ! N E R ~ ~'RQPOSED SOUTH ELEV,qTIQN 8 ~r SCALE, 3f14'- f'-O" 3 , S ~ A I cHiricrs~ ~ . . ~ ~ - ......Wr...y.u t 3 ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ _ ~ ~ . f t-- ( ~ d u1 - - ~ (r. (n co t7vatGR• 0 x ~ f EI= i r-i~ 1i- f _x.~L J!J ~L= ! -A-4 ~ uu., f pt:iJ~ LJFGC,'E ~ fl+ ' e P~.C7.POSEU _U1EST ELEVATIC?N _ ~ FRITZlEN ' P1 ERCE sea~.E: a14c~= r-o' ~ R i N E R I I ~ AICNETIC.S f r.~w+ra ~r.w . ' w ao r w+~r.. . ~.fs..~. ww..` r ~ ~ ( f I ~ ~ Q W ~ ~ lGNJG'~ E:hvaY' KcTir` . ' ^ /.[[°-l~-~IG~"v . Q~/ ~c-..ta fM/cCM'(~.t. UHfT' `4 ~ 0 (r f - ~ x MFI p P P p - ~ / ~ • ` M *m~ \ Lj- - Neu ca-rrw~cr.~- om^~'~Nn; _ ~ Nsu et:v,- 7. zN rt~re. ~ . . tt FRITZLEN Nt_11~:nY!/f.J.CCNG G'jtiF+C.y~:p/./j~ " f PIERCE 0001005Efa EA3T E,LEYi1T„~[Ot~ o BREi`1€R Y F ~,,,,,a2c,k~.~, 'a~ic•- r-a~ . . ~ ~ ~ • I ~ hecnI rieT1 w ~ ~ ~ . F U) ih/GFS ~'~MC~=6 ~ 1 Lil . ~ -_j ~~`~`it~ f, , ~ass~hYwe~• C`iAa L p ~Ir.~ , _ _ ~ ~ ~ PROI°05ED NURTH EL.EVtkTfON ' " scaLE , FRfTZLEN ' ~ PIERCE I ~ BRINER ~ AREH{TtGTi rwrr: aw.u I wr~ ww w~~ I~ P ~ I I~ ~ ~ , LANDMAR1C - VAIL GONdOMItdIUM ASS4C., ING. 610 VVEST LIONSHEAD ClRCLE, VAll, COkflRAD{J 81657 ~ December 12, 1997 Tawn Council Town of Vail 75 Sauth Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 Dear Council Members: Since our letter to the Cauncil dated dctober 3, we have followed with a great deal of interest the development of the Lionshead Master Plan. This past vveekend, Susan Conneily and Ethan Maore presented the status afthe Plan to members ofour Board and owners of units in the Landmark and adjacent properties. Also, on last Friday, Dave Corbin of Vai1 Resorts presented ta our Association the current plans and concept studies for the redevelop- ment ofthe Gondola building and Sunbird Lodge. These concepts are ofconsiderable interest to alt of our 58 residential unit owners, as well as the owners of the Landmark commercial space. We appreciate the efforts being made by the Town and by V.R. in the planning ta provide a framework for future redevelopment of'the Lionshead area which will cornplement Vail Village, and other planned and praposed impravements in the Town of ~ Vaii. Attached to this letter are specific comments regarding the plans as canceived and presented ta aur Board and owners. Althaugh the reactions were favorable to rnuch of the plantiing, several of the praposals were received with cancern. To summarize, briefly: 1. The central throughWtransitway was considered to be an undesirable solutian to the impartant goal of connecting the east and west ends of Lionshead in an efficient and positive way. Buses, or other mass transit vehicles, will tend to disrupt and divide the main pedestrian areas, conflicting with pedestrian movements and activities, rather than enhancxng them. A routing along the periphery of the area, perhaps adjacent to the South Frantage Road, would pravide a better snlution. 2. The propasals for high-density redevelopment afthe Gondola building and Sunbird Lodge, together with planning ,guidelines which wauld encaurage redevelapment of adjacent properties (such as the Montaneros building) to a larger size, were viewed as incompatible with our cancepts of Vail. Those wha have viewed the recent Beaver Creek developments, with its large buildings, narrow pcdestrian ways, and limited mountain views, atrangly favor retention of our present zoning and open space contrals. Such criteria would encaurage development (and redevelopment, where apprapriate) in a manner similar to Vail Village...... a place where pedestrians are not overwhelmed by building mass, size, height, and density. We are deeply concerned about the possible loss ofviecus of the mauntain frnrn ~ ~ ~ vaeious paints fihraughout Lionshead, particularly in the northerly portions, the increased parking and traf~ic requirements, and the ovetwhelriming mass of the proposed new develop- ment. We ask the Council to ponder carefully their vision of the future for Lionshead. Surely what has been developed over the past 20 to 30 years contains much that is good which should be retained. While there are indeed problem areas which need ta be addressed, and some existing buildings, now showing their age, which need to be refurbished, redevel- apment ofthe Lionshead area with massive structures is not needed or desirable. A project of the size, height, density, and overwhelming mass contemplated by Vail Resorts in the center of Lionshead rvill have a negative impact on all existing buildings adjacent to the develaprnent. Indeed, the proposed renovation and reconstruction ofthe Landmark Town- homes, previously under consideratian by the Landmark Board and owners, has been tabled pending the resolution of tllese issues. No property owner will proceed with the substantial expenditures required for such a project when faced with a proposal af such an overwhelming size directly to the south. We ask the Council to cantinue discussions on the Master Plan, with additional hearings on the various alternatives, beyond the current deadline in order to permit further consideration of these important issues. These issues are vital to us all; they wi11 guide Lionshead for the foreseeable future. It is essential that all aspects of the proposals and theiT ~ impacts be fuily explored and evaluated before decisions are reached. Thank you far considering our concerns. We look forward ta continuing our partici- pation in the planning pracess, and wi1l respond promptly to issues which r7ve believe to be crucial to the future viability, success, and healthy growth of Lionshead and the Town of Vail. Very truly yours, r VUI~Aju -~%P ' . . • E,-- ~AN4----' V ~ XAl JJraw- ~ C_~>.a„" The Baard of Directors of the Landrnark-Vail Condaminium Association, Inc. ~ cc: Planning and Environmental Comrnission . e. Lionshead Itedevelopment lYiaster Plan: Corramenks and Concerns 1. East-West 'X'ransit Carridor: Aza irnpraved cannection between the east and west Lionshead areas is an impartan:t goal of the platning program. Westerpy properties, including the ~ Marriott, Vail Spa, and Atatlers buildings, are separated from the rest of Lionshead, and increasing traffic on West Lionshead Circle will further divide the area, especially for pedestrians. Routing of a bus-way, or other transit systern, thraugh the heart af Lionshead, tiowever, will negatively impact pedestrians and pedestrian activities in the center area. Such a ' routing would alsa negatively impact the Landmark building, by removing the commercial portion of the building, including the recreational deck, swimming paot, and two hot tubs. No suitable replacement site for these facilities has been faund. A central transit routing would introduce noise and conflict inta the central area, which should be restricted ta pedestrians to the extent possible. Alternatively, a routing alang the periphery af Lionshead, adjacent to the South Frantage Road far example, would meet the transportation needs and enhance the pedestrian quality of the central area. 2. VA Development. The focus of Lionshead should be towards the mountain, with buiiding heights and rnasses sloping down towards the gondoia, quad-chair, and Gore Creek. Designs should encourage pedestrian flows which recognize this focal point, with open views towards the Creek and mauntain, and with opporiunities provided for public spaces, such as those which now exist irnmediately southeast ofthe Landznark and adjacent ta the Lionshead clack tower. The proposal by Vail Resorts impases an enormous group of buildings in this , critical area., effective(y blocking out the rest of Lionshead, with heights of up ta turice those existing nour for the Sunbird Ladge and gandola building. These huge buildings will averwhelm pedestrians, block rnountain views, introduce heavy traffic flows on West Lionshead Circle (further separating the westerly properties from the rest of Lianshead), and irnpose visual and ~ physical barriers to the rest af Lionshead. Building heights which are perhaps twa stories adjacent to pedestrian ways, stepping back to maximuzn heights of faur stories, would be in keeping with current developments in the Vail Village area. Redevelopments can still be accomplished in an attractive, effective way, as has been seen with the Sonnenalp and Austria Haus projects. The renovation afthe Westwind building in Lionshead is another example of the way in which existing buildings can be brought up to date. A simiiar project for the Landmark Towrihomes is under considerati4n, but has been shetved pending resolution ofthe Master Plan and V.R. development. 3. k'arking and Traffic: The Master Plan proposals for redevelopment of the Lionshead area, and the V.R, conceptual plan for the Sunbird Lodge and gandola building area, will produce a large increase in vehicular traffie on West Lionshead Circle. This will further isolate the westerly properties, making pedestrian access ta the core of Lionshead frtam this area even more difficult and dangerous. 'Z'he increased traffic will be a combination of cars and buses required for transport of hotel and condominium owners and tenants, service vehicles, and V.R. employees to the core area, plus those generated by increases in size and density of ather existirig buildings as suggested by the 1Vlaster Plan. Redevelopment to current zoziing criteria would not pose such a threat. We believe the Plan should include additianal off-street parking where feasible, including an additional floor on the Transportation Center building and possible development of employee parking at the west end of Lionshead. Propasals to reduce current parking requirernents should be resisted, and new developments should be required to provide ~ adequate on-site paxking. A transit stop and drop-off point for skiers to the narth of the Landmark seems ta be an excellent solution to paart of the problem. ~ Town of Vail Council December 12, 1997 ~ Planning and Environmental Commissian Tawn of Vail 75 S. Frontage Road Vail, CC3 81657 Dear Sirs: Thank ydu far your response to my letter afTDecember 10 that Suzanne Srlverthorn ofthe Towm of Vail Gornmunity Tnformation Office kindly sent me toc3a.y. I appreciate the fact that the transportation charette was developed in July, 1997. However, it is my understanding that September 18 was really the first time for public input. As a second home owner in Vail, the publicity afthese transit aptions has not been as pubiic a$ I believe they need ta be. As I mentioned in my letter of December 10, there has been little information along these lines on your Master Plan website or in the'Vail Trail. In order to preserve a tranquil and atpine ambiance for Lionshead, I believe it is irnportant that bus and car traffic be restricted ta the autskirts afLionshead rather than running through Lionshead. I am troubled by alternatives and language that reserves a right-of- way for bus traffic through Lianshead. Tnstead, I think it is much more impartant far the "Lianshead experience" that such a corridar be reserved salely for pedestrian traffic, and ' not the other uray around. Once again, I urge yau to revisit your Catnmunity Wish List where the call for separating pedestrian and bus traffic in Lionshead is loud and clear. ~ The community has asked that the number ofvehicles in Lionshead be reduced nat increased. A dedicated traffic pattern around Lionshead, rather than through ity would seem to be the most appropriate way of achieving these aims ifwe are to preserve a mountain-like setting as opposed to forcing an urban experience on us. SincerelY, 3~~ AnCto~7. usalacchi, Ph.D • 141068 William St. Laurel MD 20707 ~ . ~ Town af Vail Council December 10, 1997 ~ Planning and Environmental Comrnission Town of Vail 75 S. Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 Dear Sirs, I thought the concept of a company town was fading away in America. Obviously, it is alivs and well 'rn Vail Colorado. A.s one afthe original contributars to the Camrnunity VVish List for the Lionshead 1Viaster Plan, I feel cornpelled to express my concern for the rnanner in which this process has evalved over the last several months. T am deeply troubled by the manner in which the Tawn of Vail Cauncil has approached and publiciZed its deliberutions or a transpertat:4n plan. I presently subscribe to the Vail Trail and I have been checking the Mastcr Plan website an a weekly basis. Yet, there has been little infarmation regarding how you arrived at this concept ofa "bold stroke" central transit spine? The overall concept of routing bus traffic through Lionshead seerns ludicrous when there is a frantage raad just one block away. Rather than a"bold stroke", the construction ofbus corridor through Lionshead appears to be more of a"siash and burn" tactic. I find it particularly interesting that such a concept is in direct canflict and violation with the views expressed in your Community Wish List. Under the categories of TransportationfCirculation there is nothing mentioned ar even remataly suggesting the ~ need for enhanced bus traffic thraugh Lionshead. To the contrary, the community has expressed a need "for a pedestrian carridor, to revise tawn bus routing to avoid conflict with pedestrians, to separate pedestrian and vehicular traffic, and to reduce vehicular presence in Lionshead". Y'our "bold stroke" flies in the face of what the citizenry has asked for. Sa much for the input from the community. Maybe the citizens of Aspen were right when they characterized Vail as a place where "A Highway Runs Through It", Next, we can anticipate keeping up the tradition when Lionshead will be knawn as a place where "A Bus Runs Thraugh Tt". I was skeptical about this entire process fram the very beginning when it was clear that Vail Associates was one ofthe financial contributors to the master planning process. This is such a blatant conflict of interest that it is both laughable and sad. It has now become obvious that the only way to finance redevelopment is to increase density. Until wbich time that the Vaii Associate development plans for high-density construction are made public you will continue to appear as mere puppets of The Campany. S~ erely, ~ Antonia . Busalacchi, Ph.I). 14106B William Street Laurel MD 20770 cc: Vail I)aily ~ Vail Trail MEMQRAMDIJIVI ~ TO: Tawn Council FROM: Community C7evelopment Departmerit DATE: December 16, 1997 RE: Lionshead Master Pian - Summary of PEC meeting (12f8/97) C3utstanding Issues: 1. Transit Corridor G. Aasland - Impor#ant to connect east and west ends. Ann - Laok at a dedicated transit IR-0-W. Diane - Keep a corridor in the forefront, Jahn S. - Echaed Galena undertake an infarmational campaign in favor. Gene U. -Likes the central transit cariidar - future technology. Important to recognize the wishes of second homeawners - make sure they receive communicatian. ~ Greg A. -[Questions about use of S. Frontage road?] Lamant - Four roundabouts: at two intersections and at entrance to IVlunicipal Building and at parking struci:ure. Keep the flaw going. L.ook at advanced technnlagy - silent, May want ta keep some R-O-W through core (reservation). Greg M. - Don'# abandon fihe cancept of acorridor through LH. Has concern with current technology - noise and smell - nat a big street - something more intimate - bury the transit (or pieces of it) - moving ramps. PEC Pollina - Re: Maintain same version o# central corridor. 7-0 Yes Galen John S. Greg M. Gene U. Ann B. Greg A. Diane 2. Parkinq - AdditionaI deck on Lionshead parking structure - IncentivTZe private beyond required - West end structure - Employee housing-reduced requirement/ra#io ~ 1 John S. - Additional deck is do-able - consider views from the north side of I-70. - Additional structure is required. Skeptical of reducing EHU parking. ~ Gene - Rdditional deck and vvest end structure goad. - Remote parkinglbus for emplayees Greg A. - In favor uf additional deck - Reserve the south end for employee housing. - A little hesitant on parking structures - aesthetics. - EHU parking ratio - do not lower requirement. Ga1en - Not a huge fan of additional deck. - Could only reduce EHU parking ra#io if remote parking lat. ann -Abstain from giving any comments. - Needs mare information on technolog}r. Diane - Additional deck ok - keep in mind Givic opporkunities on charter bus lot, - Skeptical re. EHU parking ratio reduction Greg M. - Consider additional deck. - Consider West end struc#ure. - Consider lower parking ratios fior EHU'S. - Consider incenting additional private pravision. GaIen - Not if incentive is artother floor added to buildings. ~ Ann - Consider incentives. Diane - Consider incentives. John - Consider incentives. Gene U. - Consider ineentives. Greg A. - Only zoning or money incentives. In favor of monetary, not zoning. Lamont - EVHO concerned re: cast-benefits. Seasonal employees don't necessarily need cars. Noise on S. Frontage Rd. by increasing trafficlWest end structure-if accompanieti by I-70 off ramp. 3. . Re^alfqnment of S. Frontage Road Ann - Q. What does "Prnblematic" mean? Galen - Q. Pumping diesel fuel up onto mountain - feasible? - ETHAN: up to EPA and USFS. Lamont - Intercannectedness that we cannot avoid, - Get VA ta deal with it -or West End notion fails - West End is the strength. ~ - VAIL VILL.RGE MASTER PL.AN - NUT A REDEVELOPMENI` PLAN. 2 Galen - Entrance ta West. ~ Ann - Lamont's comments summarize her position. Greg M - Great idea if problems can be overcome. Fuel tanks arrd lirtes wil,l Ieak. 4. VA Gonce,pt is Separate 5. Private Praperty Rights vs. Cammunity Policv Objectives L.amont - Condo units sold subject #o a concept. -"Much mare fundamental and prafaund in#erest - enjoyment of private pr~~erty•" - Disagrees an fundamental issue re: Mauntain Haus would have been qui#e different on appeal. -"Increasing tax base" is not a reason to do this master plan. - Le# bureaueracy shrink - if 97% built oufi. - Put it to a vote. - People don't understand the implications. - People think things are fine. John S. - Will ruffle sarrre feathers no matter what yau do. - Existing buifdings exceed zoning. - Changing zoning now is na shock. - Adjust zoning to bring into line with current reality. ~ Ger?e U. - Find out what the majority of the property ouuners think. - lncorporate 4heir thinking; shor# af 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 tirne on developing a plan if not backed by #he public. Galen - Need to upda#e i#, - Can only consider ublic view corridors. - Letters - private views - reasonable concern to have view cornpletely built out. - Gonsider uiews of nan-resident taxpayers. Ann - Jim Lamont's issues - fair and equal treatment. -"To my mind, the private interests are the rnost impnrtant.,, Diane - Redevelopment of LH could have a great positive impact on tovvn as a whole. - Distribute summary of letters. Greg A. - Find out from more of the owners. Geoff Wright - Destination resorts. - Coneern among ownership - 95°lo very cancerned. ~ - Density and height - Ghanging from what it is to closer to Beaver Creek image. 3 - His job. Protect praperky va(ues (no# concerned) plus enjoyment of ~ property. - Additional meetings over the hoGdays. Greg M. - VA use by right - analysis af sq. ft, possible? - Can't take their private praperty rights away. - Non-conformities lost if changed, generated. [Greg A. left - 4:05 p.m.] 6, Height/Nlass Geoff Wright - Nis ownership does hape for improvemen#s, just not totally at their expense. - Came to samething reasonable. - Maybe five stories instead of nine. Anne Essen - Excited to see vuhat has happened in the process. - Go forrward to make some changes. - Our last best hope to inject more community in Vail. - Year-round vitality. - House 60% of employees. Ginny Gulp - Concerns with density and massing a'Ia BC. - Not one client has said a good thing about BC. - Claustrophobic -"Can't fake in the mountain experience.,' ~ - Resource capacity - Three hundred more units wi11 #rigger a$15M water treatment plant improvement - who pays? Ghiqui Hoffman - Emp(oyee housing - 1mpact on density. - Don't haue employees for the businesses there. - Probably dawn style - over LH struc#ures and West end. - Build whatever water treatment is necessary. Ga1en - BC buildings are just too big - River Run, too, "and too filat.,, - Does not want nine story buildings. - More scared about height than density. Ann - Our job is ta suggest issues for Council to consider. - Laok aIsa at Arrowhead 45'- 90" tall and densities increased. - Bill Pierce build first building in Arrawhead - quality! C}iane - Be careful abou# height. - Not so worried about the density. - Let's put people in there - vitality! Jahn S. - Remember when property values went down. - Rare to have progress without prablems. - Because of extent of non-conformities, a change in zoning is in crrder. - Fort Gallin$ - Land Develapment Guidance System - throws out traditianal Zoning - poin#s system. ~ - Perhaps a vote is in order - DOA vote. (Property awners and leaseholders and residents). 4 - If we aren't going to change the zoning, might as well stop right now. ~ Gene U - Pol( the property owners. - What they are going to get and what it vvauld cos# them. - In favor of voluntary solutians vs. Government edicts. Greg M. -Current zoning - VA can rebuild and nat replace a singie EHU. - Can kill property values even in thPs market. - Keep the process going -zoning and needs changing - focus onquality. Lamont -"Zoning„ and "flexibility" = rezaning parcel by parcel is not acceptable. -Camp. approach is favored - Town-wide, nat just LH. - EHU requirements - Community-wide, not jus# LH. - SDD is torturing exactions--instead, standards - applied equally. - Resource capacit}r not adequately dealt with. - lJndertaking an initiative - fiund jointly for LH and Village. - Na separate funding or tax base. - Systemic issues not being deaft with equally by a1i who wouid be funding it. - Truck parking - include in rezoning d On-site parking - Landscaping Closing Comments John S. - Critical that Council moue forward with due dispatch or wiN 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. - C}pportuni#y to create needed improvements for our town, Greg M. - VA "has a ton of use by right" in front of everyone"s buildings, - Undersfiand the implications. [2:25 p.m. - S:OU p.m.] ~ f:leveryone\pec\rrlinutesTH.d08 5 4 . I,.w. ..m. PLANNING AND ENVIRONIVLENTAL, CONIMISSION ~ December 22, 1997 M[nutes MEMBERS PRESENT: NLEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF: Greg Maffet Ann Bishop Mike Mollica Greg Amsden Dominic Mauriello Galen Aasland Reed Onate Gene Uselton Susan Connelly Diane Golden Christie Barton John Schofield Patty McKenny Pubiic Hearin9 The meeting was called to order by Greg Moffet at 2:00 p.m. 1. A request for a subdivision, to correct an existing right-of-way encroachment, located at 2702 Larkspur LanelLot 6, Block 3, Vail Intermountain. Applicant: Kathy Mauzy/Town of Vail ~ Planner: Dominic Mauriello Greg Moffet asked for public camment. There was none. Ga1en Aasland commented that he thaught this would carrect the problem. John Schofield made a motion in accnrdance with the staff memo. Galen Aasland seconded the motion. The motion passed by a 5-1-1 vate (Amsden abstain; Bishdp absent). 2. A request for a conditional use permit to allow skier/guest parking on weekends and holidays in the VVMC Parking Stn.tcture; with vehicular access from the South Frontage Road on1y, located at Lot E, Vail Village 2nd. Applicant: Vail Clinic, Inc., represented by Stan Anderson Planner: Reed Onate Greg Moffet asked for public comment. Planning and Enviranmental Commission ~ Minutes December 22,1997 1 Dan Feeney, head ofmaintenance for VVMC, was present to answer questions. Jim Lamont, East Village Homeawners Associatian, Inc., commented on his concerns, such as the ~ impacts an street$, the bus stops, the neighbors, and noted that he submitted a letter about them to the Commission and staff, Joan Norris commented on her concerns regarding possible congestian and access. John Schafield asked the applicant to address the issues identified above. Dan Feeney responded to some of the ctincerns identified. John Schofield asked for a sign plan or proposal. Gene Uselton asked about parking collections and fees. Dan Feeney noted that collections would occur between 8 am and 1 pm and fees were proposed to be a flat rate. Greg Amsden asked that an additional sign be included in the parking lot. Galen Aasland expressed a concern about the speed ofvehicles. He thought this effort however, represented an example of sharing responsibitities far a"town-wide need." He agreed that it should be reviewed in one year. Diane Galden expressed a concern about people walking around the hospital and haped that ~ directians would be pravided for those whn were lost. Jim L,amont also commented on the fact that the parking structure was designed to support the hospital, not the ski areas. He noted that the original approval for the structure did nnt include "parkin; far skiers." roan Norris expressed opposition to this conditional use permit allowing skier/guest parking in the VVMC parking structure. Greg Moffet agreed with the one-year condition on this prdposaL He favored the idea of providing this space for skiers/guests as it would possibly remove some of the cars parked on the Frontage Road. Jahn Schofield made a motian in accordance with the staffinemo, including the recommended conditions outlined below. 1. That the applicant shall keep the entrance gate open during the skier/guest parking operation between 8:00 A.M, to 1:00 P.M. Saturdays and Sundays. Planning and Environmental Commission Mitlutes . Deceinber 22, 1997 2 ~ 2. That the applicant sha11 provide a comprehensive sign pragram, including signs that direct pedestrians to the West Meadow Drive bus stop and a Town map mounted near the stairwell entrances that highlight skier access to tha mountain, the in-Town Shuttle Bus routeslstaps, and parking and access restrictions on the West Meadow Drive VVMC alley access. 3. That any temporary or permanent promotional signs shali receive Town design approvals. 4. That any future temporary or permanent booth structure shall receive Town design approvals. 5. That this Conditionat Use Permit shali expire after the 1997-98 ski season. Operation of the skierlguest parking lot will require a re-review of parking activities and approval of a conditional use permit for the 1998-99 ski season. Diane Golden seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 6-0-1 (Bishop absent). 3. A request for a work session to discuss a conditional use permit to construct four multiple-fanlily dwelling units and variances from Section 1$.28.090 (Building Height), ~ Section 18.28.140 (Landscape Area) and Sectian 18.28.070 (Setbacks), to allow for commercial and residential expansion, located at 143 E. Meadow Drive (Crossroads East Building)ILot P, Block SD, Vail Vi11age 1 st. Applicant: Crossroads Plaza, Trevina L.P., represented by Bi11 Pierce Planner: Dominic Mauriello Dominic Mauriello provided the overview of the staff memo. He reminded the Commission that the applicant was interested in general direction regarding the foliowing faur areas: conditional use permit for four dwelling units, building height, setbacks, and landscape area. Dominic reviewed each area in detail. A short break was taken (2:00 pm to 2:15 pm). Bill Pierce, applicant, introduced other representatives on this project: Maxine Miller, representative ofTrevina, L.P. (the owner ofthe commercial space), Ken Overstreet and Lynn Fritzlen, both representatives of the architectural firm. He explained the Crossroads proposal and renovation oppot-tunity with the property. Planning and Environmental Commission ~ Minutes December 22, 1997 3 .P yGalen Aasland indicated that he liked the drawings, but that this renovation did nat really comply ~ with the Tawn's comprehensive plans, i.e. residential does not include local renters or buyers. He did not see grounds for reconfiguring the prnperty into dwelling units. John Schofield cammented on the fact that he did not really think all variances were possible. He encouraged the re-development approach far this project. Gene Uselton encouraged and Iiked the idea of renovation. He subgested that maybe the applicant consider working with Garton's ta improve the overall image of the building as well. C"rreg Arrtsden shared his skepticism about whether or nnt the project met the variance criteria. Greg MofFet agreed with Greg Amsden on the project meeting the variance criteria. He would rather not see office space lost for dwelling units. Again, there was discussion regarding the manner in which this praject should proceed, i.e. whether with variances and conditional use permits or rezoning. Lynn Fritzlen, Project Architect, commented an renovation projects and the difficulties encountered, especially with multiple owners. Maxine Miller, representing the commercial owners, Trevina L.P., stated that the office space in this building was not really aceeptable. ~ In summary, the Commissian expressed overall support for the renovation of Crossroads, but also expressed concern for the manner of requesting variances to accamplish their goals. The Commissian asked the applicant to consider using the Special Development District and rezaning in their appr6ach on this project with the Town, 4. A request for a canditional use permit, to allow for the construction of a temporary structure to accommodate a winter sleigh ride operatian at Golden peak Ski base, located at 458 Vial Valley Drive/Tract F, Vail Village Sth Filing. Applicant: Vail Associates, represented by Brian McCartney Planner: George Ruther WITHDRAWN 5. Approval af December 8, 1997 minutes. 7ohn Schofield moved to approve the minutes. Planning & Environmental Commissian Minutes December 22, 1997 ~ 4 ~ . Gene Uselton seconded the motion. ~ The minutes passed by a 6-0 vote (Bishop absent). The meeting adjourned at 4:45 pm. ~ Planning & Environmental Commission Minutes ~ December 22,1997 5