HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-0209 PEC•
•
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 February 9, 1998, at 2:00 P.M. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. In
consideration of:
THIS ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY
PUBLIC NOTICE
A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for four (4) additional offices and one (1) meeting
room to accommodate sports staff, located at the Vail Tennis Center, 700 South Frontage Road
East/Ford Park.
Applicant: Michael Ortiz, Vail Recreation District
Planner: George Ruther
A request for a major amendment to Special Development District #30 (VAC), to allow for a
change in the number of dwelling units/accommodation units and a modification in GRFA,
located at the Vail Athletic Club, 352 E. Meadow Drive/Parcels A & B, Vail Village First Filing.
Applicant: JWT 1987 Limited Partnership, represented by John Perkins
Planner: Mike Mollica
A worksession to discuss the underlying concepts and alternatives relating to height and mass
of buildings (the rationale), including'use of models and other graphics (illustrations), for the
Lionshead Redevelopment Master plan.
Staff: Susan Connelly
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 January 23, 1998 in the Vail Trail,
r0WNOFVAa
Updated 2/41481lam
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
Monday, February 9, 1998
AGENDA
Project Orientation /NO LUNCH - Communitv Development Deaartment
MEMBERS PRESENT
Site Visits :
1. Vail Athletic Club - 352 East Meadow Drive
2. Accardo - 1998 Sunburst Drive
Driver: Mike
1:00 pm
1:15 pm
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 Hearinq - Town Council Chambers 2:00 p.m.
1. A request for a major amendment to, Special Development District #30 (VAC), to allow for
a change in the number of dwelling units/accommodation units and a modification in
GRFA, located at the Vail Athletic Club, 352 E. Meadow Drive/Parcels A & B, Vail Village
First Filing.
Applicant: JWT 1987 Limited Partnership, represented by John Perkins
Planner: Mike Molliea
2. A request for additonal GRFA utilizing the.250 ordinance, to allow for a remodel, located
at 1998 Sunburst Drive/Lot 19, Vail Valley 3rd filing.
Applicant: Nate Accardo, represented by Dale Smith, Fritzlen, Pierce Briner Architects
Planner: Reed 'Onate
3. A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for four (4) additional offices and one (1)
meeting room to accommodate sports staff, located at the Vail Tennis Center, 700 South
Frontage Road East/Ford Park.
Applicant: Michael Ortiz, Vail Recreation District
Planner: George Ruther
TABLED UNTIL FEBRUARY 23, 1998
1
MEMBERS ABSENT
d
1000FYAIG
Updated 214!98 t lam
4. A worksession to discuss the underlying concepts and alternatives relating to height and
mass of buildings (the rationale), including use of models and other graphics
(illustrations), for the L.ionshead Redevelopment Master plan.
Planners: Mike Mollica/Dominic Mauriello
This is a joint worksession with the Vail Town Council on 2/10198 at 2:00 p.m.
5. Approval of January 26, 1998 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 February 6, 1998 in the Vail Trail.
2
Updated 2/10/98 9am
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
Monday, February 9, 1998
FINAL AGENDA
Project Orientation /NO LUNCH - Communitv Development Department
MEMBERS PRESENT
Greg Moffet
Greg Amsden
Galen Aasland
Gene Uselton
Diane Golden
John Schofield
Site Visits :
1. Vail Athletic Club - 352 East Meadow Drive
Driver: Mike
1:30 pm
1:30 pm
01?%.l
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 Hearinq - Town Council Chambers 2:00 p.m.
1. A request for a major amendment to Special Development District #30 (VAC), to allow for
a change in the number of dwelling units/accommodation units and a modification in
GRFA, located at the Vail Athletic Club, 352 E. Meadow Drive/Parcels A & B, Vail Village
First Filing.
Applicant: JWT 1987 Limited Partnership, represented by John Perkins
Planner: Mike Mollica
MOTION: John Schofield SECOND: Gene Uselton VOTE: 6-0
RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF THE APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL TO THE TOWN
COUNCIL
2. A request for additonal GRFA utilizing the 250 ordinance, to allow for a remodel, located at
1998 Sunburst Drive/Lot 19, Vail Valley 3rd-Filing. _-
Applicant: Nate Accardo, represented by Dale Smith, Fritzlen, Pierce Briner Architects
Planner: Reed Onate
TABLED UNTIL FEBRUARY 23, 1998
1
MEMBERS ABSENT
Ann Bishop
,a
TOWN OFVAIL
Updated 2/10/98 9am
3. A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for four (4) additional offices and one (1) meeting
room to accommodate sports staff, located at the Vail Tennis Center, 700 South Frontage Road
E=ast/Ford Park.
Applicant: Michael Ortiz, Vail Recreation District
Planner: George Ruther
TABLED UNTIL. FEBRUARY 23, 1998
4. A worksession to discuss the underlying concepts and alternatives relating to height and
mass of buildings (the rationale), including use of models and other graphics (illustrations),
for the Lionshead Redevelopment Master plan.
Planners: Mike Mollica/Dominic Maurieilo
This is a joint worksession with the Vail Town Council on 2/10/98 at 2:00 p.m.
5. Approval of January 26, 1998 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
n
2
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: February 23, 1998
SUBJECT: A request for a conditional use permit to allow the Vail Recreation District to
construct four new offices and one meeting room to accommodate the sports staff
at the Vail Tennis Center, located at 700 South Frontage Road East/a.k.a. Gerald
R. Ford Park.
Applicant: Vail Recreation District, represented by Mike Ortiz
Planner: George Ruther
1. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
The Vail Recreation District (VRD), represented by Mike Ortiz, is requesting a conditional
use permit, pursuant to Chapter 16 of the Zoning Regulations. This request would allow
the Vail Recreation District to construct four new offices (560 sq. ft.) and one meeting
room in the Vail Tennis Center (all interior construction). The new offices and meeting
room are intended to accommodate the VRD's sports staff. There are currently four
employees working out of the tennis center facility. The total number of employees
working out of the Vail Tennis Center, subject to the issuance of this conditional use
permit, would be nine. The five additional members of the staff are currently using the
offices located in the lower level of the Vail Public Library. The library space is leased by
the VRD from the Town of Vail. The Town Council has expressed an interest in regaining
the use of the library space occupied by the VRD.
II. BACKGROUND
• In January of 1985, the process of creating a master plan for the development of F=ord
Park began. In August of that same year, the Gerald R. Ford Park and Donovan Park
Master Plan was completed. According to the final report prepared by the project
consultant, the Master Plan is intended to direct the future development of the park and
establish guidelines for the implementation of the future improvements to the park.
On March 17, 1997, the Town Council adopted the "Ford Park Management Plan: an
amendment to the Ford Park Master Plan." The purpose of the Ford Park Management
Plan document is to guide the future development of Ford Park.
On February 10, 1998, the VRD appeared before the Town Council with a request to
proceed through the conditional use permit review process. As the properly owner of
Ford Park, the Town Council must grant its permission to allow an applicant to proceed
through the review process. The Town Council approved the VRD's request. The
approval carried with it direction from the Town Council that any negative impact on the
free skier parking (winter) at Ford Park be mitigated. The approval to proceed through
the review process was not a grant of approval of the conditional use permit.
Ill. REVIEW OF THE RELEVANT PLANNING RELATED' DOCUMENTS
The following documents were reviewed by the staff in the preparation of this
memorandum:
1. Town of Vail Municipal Code/Zoning Map.
2. Ford Park Management Plan.
Town of Vail Municipal Code/Zonino Mao
According to the Official Town of Vail Zoning Map, Ford Park is located in the General
Use (GU) Zone District. As stated in the Zoning Regulations, Section 12-9C-1, the
General Use Zone District is intended to:
"provide sites for public and quasi-public uses which, because of their special
characteristics, cannot be appropriately regulated by the development standards
described for other zoning districts, and for which development standards
especially prescribed for each particular development proposal or project are
necessary to achieve the purposes prescribed in Section 12-1-2 (general
provisions) and to provide for the public welfare. The General Use Zone District is
intended to insure the public buildings and grounds in certain types of quasi-public
uses permitted in the District are appropriately located and designed to meet the
needs of residents and visitors to Vail, to harmonize with surrounding uses, and,
in the case of buildings and other structures, to insure adequate light, air, open
spaces, and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of uses."
The General Use Zone District allows for permitted uses, conditional uses, and accessory
uses. In the General Use District, development standards in each of the following
categories shall be prescribed by the PFC:
a. Lot area and site dimensions,
b. Setbacks;
C. Building heights;
d. Density control;
e. Site coverage;
f. Landscaping and site development; and
g. Parking and loading.
The development standards for the General Use Zone District shall be proposed by the applicant
as part of a conditional use permit application. Site specific development standards shall then be
determined by the PFC during the review of the conditional use permit request, in accordance
with Chapter 16 (Conditional Use Permits). Additional regulations pertaining to site development
standards, in the development of the land in the General Use District, are found in Chapter 14
(Supplemental Regulations) of the Zoning Regulations.
Staff believes that the only development standard effected by this conditional use permit
application is parking. -
2
Parking
As previously stated, the parking requirement shall be determined by the PEC. It shall be
the applicant's responsibility to propose a parking plan which, in the opinion of the PEC,
adequately addresses the parking needs for the proposed development.
Historically, parking has proven to be a reoccurring problem at Ford Park. The addition of
sports staff offices at the Vail Tennis Center would no doubt increase the parking demand
on Ford Park, with the greatest concern being the impact on the free winter skier parking.
The staff would recommend that the parking requirements prescribed in Chapter 10 of the
Zoning Regulations be applied to the VRD sports staff office use. According to the
parking requirements, professional offices shall provide 1.0 parking space per 250 square
of net floor area. Rased of these figures, the VRD would be required to provide 3 parking
spaces (560 sq. ft. @ 1 space/250 sq. ft.) for the office use.
The PEC could require that the actual construction of the three new spaces be postponed
until such a time as the Town, and the other users of Ford Park, are ready to implement
the parking lot changes recommended in the Management Plan.
Staff would also suggest that the PEC consider whether it is more appropriate to base
parking needs on the actual number of employees required to successfully staff the
sports office. This method would insure that adequate parking was provided for all
employees. At this time, it is anticipated that five additional employees will be required to
staff the VRD sports office.
Ford Park Management Plan
The Ford Park Management Plan is an amendment to the 1985 Ford Park Master Plan. The
purpose of the Plan is to guide the outcome of future development, formulate design alternatives,
and recommend development guidelines for Ford Park.
The location of the VRD sports staff offices is in general compliance with the Plan. During the
public process for the formulation of the Management Plan, concerns were expressed that no
new buildings should be constructed in Ford Park. Staff believes that the construction of the new
offices within an existing building will have minimal, if any, negative impacts on Ford Park as a
whole.
The following goals and objectives are relevant to this proposal:
Coal #4 Resolve parking shortage and Routh Frontage Road access problems,
4.1 Objective: Develop a Parking Management Plan to include directed
parking, enhanced shuttle bus service and other incentives
to reduce the parking demand.
Action Steo 4.1.4: Improve pedestrian routes to the park by improving
.signs, lighting and pathway design.
3
4.2 Objective: Improve vehicular access from the South Frontage Road
and improve parking lot design to maximize the number of
spaces, aesthetics, and safety, while mitigating
environmental impacts.
Action Stern 4.2.2: Design and construct improvements to all existing
parking areas that maximize the number of parking
spaces with landscape buffering and treating
surface stormwater run-off.
Goal #5 Improve internal pedestrian circulation within Ford Park and the
pedestrian connections between Ford Park and Vail Village.
Policy Statement 14: Any uses added to Ford Park in the future
shall be structured to encourage users or participants to walk or
ride the bus rather than drive.
Policy Statement 15: Pedestrian access to the Park from Vail
Village should be easy and visible. The park shall be as
pedestrian-friendly as possible.
5.2 Objective: Improve pedestrian routes to Ford Park.
5.3 Objective: Improve internal pedestrian circulation within Ford Park.
In response to the goals, objectives and action steps identified above, the Town has
initiated several improvements to Ford Park. Most notably is the construction of a new
pedestrian path from the Vail Transportation Center to Vail Tennis Center this past
summer. The new path was constructed to improve pedestrian routes to Ford Park and
to encourage users and participants to walk to Ford Park rather than arrive by car.
IV. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
Upon review of Chapter 16 of the Zoning Regulations, the Community Development Department
recommends approval of the conditional use permit request to allow for four new offices and one
meeting room to be constructed at the Vail Tennis Center, located in Ford Park, based upon the
following factors:
A. CONSIDERATION OF FACTORS:
1. Relationship and impact of the use on the development objectives of
the Town.
Staff believes the applicant's proposal is in concert with the Town
development objectives and will have minimal, if any, negative impacts on
existing or potential uses in Ford Park. The new offices are intended to
replace the VRD's use of the offices currently located on the lower level of
the Vail Public Library.
E
4
According to the Ford Park Management Plan, in part,
"staff offices for on-site park activities is an allowed use."
and,
"new or changed facilities or uses will not be permitted to curtail
existing public uses or facilities in the Park unless there is a
compelling public interest or adequate alternative facilities are
available to its users."
Staff believes that the additional office use of the Vail Tennis Center will
not curtail any public uses or facilities in Ford Park. Staff believes that the
greatest impact to l=ord Park will be on parking. Staff would recommend
that the parking impact be mitigated by the VRD through off-site parking of
at least five employee vehicles. The off-site employee parking could be
accommodated in the Vail Transportation Center. Employees could park
in the structure and use the new pedestrian path to get to the sports staff
offices. A revised lease agreement between the VRD and the Town would
need to be drafted and executed. This revised agreement would be
reviewed and approved by the Town Council.
Staff would further suggest that the VRD contribute to the construction and
implementation of the recommended improvements to Ford Park as
outlined in the Ford Park Management Plan. The recommended
improvements are outlined in Section 5 of the plan. The extent of
involvement by the VRD should be proportionate to the VRD's impacts on
the park. Possible involvement might include helping to resolve the
parking shortage and South Frontage Road access problems and
improving the internal pedestrian circulation within the park and enhancing
pedestrian connections to the park.
2. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population,
transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation
facilities, and other public facilities needs.
Staff believes that the VRD's proposal will have minimal, negative impacts
on the above-described criteria. As discussed in the previous criteria, staff
believes the greatest impact of the applicant's proposal will be on parking.
However, staff believes that the parking impact can be successfully
mitigated.
To help further the goals of the Town and to improve community meeting
room opportunities, staff has suggested to the applicant that they allow a
community meeting room use within their office space. Staff believes
such an arrangement could be coordinated and would result in a positive
impactin terms of meeting our Town's public facility needs.
5
3. Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive
and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control,
access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and
parking areas.
Staff believes there will be minimal, if any, negative impacts on the above-
described criteria
4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to
be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use In
relation to surrounding uses.
The new offices will be located within an existing structure (Vail Tennis
Center). Staff believes this is positive as it does not increase the number
of structures built in Ford Park, nor does it effect the existing open space
areas of the park. {wring the public process for the Ford Park
Management Plan, numerous concerns were raised regarding new
buildings in the park and the negative impacts they would have on open
space.
Staff believes the additional office use will have minimal, if any, negative
impacts on the existing or potential uses of Ford Park. Staff does not
believe that the character of the park will be negatively impacted. The Vail
Tennis Center currently accommodates an office with minimal impacts on
the park. Staff does not believe that the additional offices will effect the
active and passive recreation nature of Ford Park.
B. FINDINGS
The Planning and Environmental Commin Sh Ia I mike the following findings before
arantina a conditional use permit:
1. That the proposed location of the use is in accordance with the purposes
of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code and the purposes
of the district in which the site is located.
2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it
would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public
health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or
improvements in the vicinity.
3. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable
provisions of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code.
E
6
V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The Community Development Department recommends approval of the applicant's
request for a conditional use permit to allow the construction of four new offices and one
meeting room to be located in the Vail Tennis Center in Ford Park subject to the following
findings:
1. That the proposed location of the use is in accordance with the purposes of the
conditional use permit section of the zoning code and the purposes of the General
Use zone district.
2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be
operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or
welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.
3. That the proposed use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of the
conditional use permit section of the zoning code.
Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to grant an approval of the
applicant's request, staff would recommend that the following condition be placed upon
the approval:
1. That the Vail Recreation District require at least five employees to park their
vehicles in the Vail Transportation Center and utilize the pedestrian path to
access the new offices. This would mitigate the increased parking demand
resulting from the issuance of the conditional use permit.
F.\EVERYONE\PEC\MEMOS\98\VRDCUP.223
•
7
iIc "- govt
A ( +
i a
?P f.'
/mot ?CNE?
jY v?- G I n
r
x`. Ill
C ?Y ? ? ? d
?
1 q ? r
r
t,y ? y
`
f
-DO 0
?'
'
! t! ? tt,!
P
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: February 9, 1998
SUBJECT: A request for a Major Amendment to Special Development District #30, Vail
Athletic Club, to allow for modifications to the parking garage, restaurant,
accommodation and dwelling units, and common areas within the building,
located at 352 East Meadow Drive/Parcels A & B, Vail Village 1 st Filing.
Applicant: JWT 1987 Limited Partnership, represented by Stan Cope and
John Perkins
Planners: Mike Mollica/Reed Ohate
I. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
The Vail Athletic Club (JWT 1987 Limited Partnership), represented by Stan Cope and John
Perkins, has submitted a request for a Major Amendment to Special Development District (SDI)
#30 (as amended by Ordinance #2, Series of 1996) to allow for modifications to the parking
garage, restaurant, common areas, and accommodation and dwelling units.
The specific requested modifications to the Vail Athletic Club development plan includes the
following:
*Garage/Ski Storage: The addition of 240 square feet for ski locker storage on the
Garage Level. As a result of interior use changes, a reduction in
the parking requirement from 24 to 22 spaces would allow more
area for trash staging and ski locker storage.
*Restaurant: Increase of 96 sq. ft. of interior restaurant space within a "pop-out"
on the south elevation of the First Floor. Overall, the change to
the restaurant includes an expanded kitchen area and a net
decrease in public seating areas.
*Common Area: Increase of 105 sq, ft. for a maid closet on the Second Floor in an
area previously open to the floor below.
*AUs: Elimination of two accommodation units on the Fourth Floor and
the conversion of a dwelling unit to a "Presidential Suite"
accommodation unit. Due to guest rooms that are accessible via a
stairway to the "Presidential Suite" the net total of accommodation
rooms (and beds) available would not change.
*DUs: Elimination of one dwelling unit (as noted above) and expansion of
one dwelling unit on the Fourth and Fifth Floors, including
expanding exterior walls totaling 62 sq. ft. The eliminated
accommodation units, dwelling unit conversion, hallway
conversion, and wall relocation would create the additional square
footage for the dwelling unit.
Please find attached 8%x11 reductions of the proposed floor plans.
The proposed changes would have minor impacts to the exterior of the building. The proposed
exterior changes include: 1) the addition of a "pop-out" for the restaurant on the south elevation,
2) a 34 sq. ft. expansion of exterior double doors onto the balconies of the Fourth Floor dwelling
unit on the south elevation, and 3) the expansion of 28 square feet of Fifth Floor dwelling unit
space on the north elevation. Overall, the parking requirements for this SDD do not change as a
result of the amendments described above.
An additional change to the Special Development District (SDD) #30 (Ordinance #2, Series of
1996) is proposed concerning the provision and timing of Employee Housing Units. Staff
believes that the need for the employee housing units would come after the Vail Athletic Club is
operational. Thus, a change in the timing of the requirement of the EHU restrictions should
come at the time of the issuance of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy, rather than "Building
Permit" issuance, as the ordinance currently reads. The proposed changes to Section 4.13.10 of
the Ordinance are shown in bolded text below.
The developer shall provide four (4) Type IV Employee Housing Units on-site,
which shall be restricted per §12-13 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code prior to
the release of any Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for the project.
Additionally, the developer shall provide one one-bedroom employee housing unit
and one two-bedroom employee housing unit. These employee housing units
shall be located off-site, shall be located within the Town of Vail municipal
boundary and shall be restricted per §12-13 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code.
The employee housing restriction agreement shall be signed and submitted to the
staff for approval before a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy will be released
for the project. The units shall meet the minimum standards according to Chapter
18.57 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code.
H. AMENDMENT PROCEDURE
The proposed amendments described in Section I are considered to be Major Amendments to
the 1993 approved SDD and subsequent amendments. As stated in the Zoning Code §12-9A-2,
a major amendment is defined as follows:
"Any proposal to change uses; increase gross residential floor area; change the number
of dwelling or accommodation units; modify, enlarge or expand any approved Special
Development District .:."
0
Since the applicant's proposed amendments to the SDD involve changes to gross residential
floor area, as well as density (number of units), the proposal is required to follow the Major SDD
Amendment procedure. The PEC shall provide a recommendation to the Town Council
regarding the proposal. The Town Council shall approve the proposal via two readings of an
ordinance.
Ill. SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT CRITERIA
As provided for in ;12-9A-8 of the Town's Municipal Code, there are nine SDD review criteria
which are to be used to evaluate the merits of a proposed Major SDD Amendment. It should be
noted that the staff analysis of the project's compliance with the SDD review criteria has
only focused on the proposed amendments to the SDD, and not on the balance of the 1993
or 1996 approvals. The review criteria, and the staff's analysis of the proposal's compliance
with the review criteria, are as follows:
A. Design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate environment, neighborhood
and adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building height,
buffer zones, identity, character, visual integrity and orientation.
Minimal architectural changes are proposed to the design of the building. The overall
scale, and mass and bulk of the proposed structure will generally remain as it was
approved in 1993 and subsequently amended. The primary roof forms (and building
height) will also remain as approved in 1993. The following outlines the areas where
there are proposed changes to the architectural design of the structure:
- Restaurant "pop out" (south elevation).
- Fourth Floor balcony door expansion (south elevation).
- Fifth Floor dwelling unit expansion (north elevation).
Staff does not believe these changes will significantly affect the bulk and scale of the
building. The restaurant "pop-out" will expand the building on the south elevation by 96
sq. ft., however, staff believes the site coverage is generally imperceivable as the
restaurant area is located over a building mass below. The exterior expansion on two of
the Fourth Floor dwelling unit balconies totals 34 sq. ft. The exterior expansion of one
wall on the Fifth Floor of the same dwelling unit totals 28 sq. ft. Staff believes these
expansions are minimal, architecturally, but they would add GRFA as discussed below.
S. Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and workable
relationship with surrounding uses and activity.
The general uses within the redeveloped Vail Athletic Club (VAC) are not proposed to
change. While one accommodation unit would be eliminated, the overall number of
accommodation unit beds (rooms) would not change due to an expanded "Presidential
Suite." Staff is comfortable with this reconfiguration of accommodation and dwelling
units.
Given that the applicant is generally working within the confines of the 1993
approved building envelope, the staff views the proposed interior changes as
minimal. Alternatively, staff cannot support exterior dwelling unit alterations on
the Fourth and Fifth Floors that would add approximately 62 sq. ft. of GRFA (34
sq. ft, for two balcony door expansions plus 28 sq. ft added by expanding a north
wall one foot).
3
While the expansions would enhance the dwelling units value, the overall benefit
to the public is not clearly apparent. The increase in GRFA density beyond the
approved Fourth and Fifth door building envelope is not an integral necessity
associated with the function or use of the condominium dwelling unit. Expansions
within existing interior spaces are found by staff to be acceptable given the shift in
density within the building envelope and incorporation of common area square
footage.
C. Compliance with parking and loading requirements as outlined in Chapter 18.52.
Staff believes that the proposed amendments to the SDD are in compliance with this
criteria. The Town's zoning requirement is for a total of 22 parking spaces to be provided
on the site. This proposal would reduce the number of required parking spaces from 24
to 22. Staff supports this reduction in on-site parking. The reduction of two spaces would
allow for improved trash and recycling storage access and a 240 sq. ft. ski locker area.
Previous design solutions proposed by the applicant included moving the trash storage to
the alley access between the Vail Athletic Club and the Mountain House. Staff opposed
this previous trash location due to potential land use conflicts with the neighboring
residential uses.
D. Conformity with applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, Town policies
and Urban Design Plans.
VAIL LAND USE PLAN
The goals contained in the Vail Land Use Plan are to be used as the Town's policy
guidelines during the review process for new or amended development proposals. The
staff considered the following Land Use Plan Goals/Policies during the initial review of the
1993 SDD establishment for the Vail Athletic Club, and further, staff believes that these
goals and policies continue to be applicable with regard to the current Major SDD
Amendment proposal:
1?1 Vail should continue to grow in a controlled environment, maintaining a
balance between residential, commercial and recreational uses to serve
both the visitor and the permanent resident.
1__3 The quality of development should be maintained and upgraded whenever
possible.
3.33 Hotels are important to the continued success of the Town of Vail,
therefore conversion to condominiums should be discouraged.
44=2 Increased density in the core areas is acceptable so long as the existing
character of each area is preserved through implementation of the Urban
Design Guide Plan and the Vail Village Master Plan.
4_.3 The ambiance of the Village is important to the identity of Vail and should
be preserved. (Scale, alpine character, small town feeling, mountains,
natural setting, intimate size, cosmopolitan feeling, environmental quality.)
C]
4
With the exception of the exterior expansion to the Fourth/Fifth Floor dwelling unit, staff
believes that the proposed Major SDD Amendment application meets the goals and
policies of the Land Use Plan as described above.
VAIL VILLAGE MASTER PLAN
The staff believes that the 1993 approval for the redevelopment of the Vail Athletic Club
carried out many of the goals and objectives contained in the Vail Village Master Flan.
Additionally, the staff believes that the current Major SDD Amendment proposal also
furthers the following Master Plan's goals and objectives:
Goal #1 -Encourage high quality redevelopment while preserving the unique architectural
scale of the Village in order to sustain its sense of community and identity.
CObiective 1.2 - Encourage the upgrading and redevelopment of residential and
commercial facilities.
Goal #2 - To foster a strong tourist industry and promote year-round economic health and
viability for the Village and for the community as a whole.
Qbiective 2.3 - Increase the number of residential units available for short term
overnight accommodations.
Policv 2.3.1 - The development of short term accommodation units is
strongly encouraged. Residential units that are developed above existing
density levels are required to be designed or managed in a manner that
makes them available for short term overnight rental.
Obiective 2.5 - Encourage the continued upgrading, renovation and maintenance
of existing lodging and commercial facilities to better serve the needs of our
guests.
Goal #5 - Increase and improve the capacity, efficiency, and aesthetics of the
transportation and circulation system throughout the Village.
Policv 5.1.5 - Redevelopment projects shall be strongly encouraged to
provide underground or visually concealed parking.
The staff believes that the proposed Major SDD Amendment application meets the Vail
Village Master Plan goals, objectives, and policies as described above.
E. Identification and mitigation of natural and/or geologic hazards that affect the
property on which the special development district is proposed.
Although this project is located adjacent to Gore Creek, no portion of the proposal
encroaches into the fifty-foot stream setback, nor into the 100-year floodplain. There are
no other natural and/or geologic hazards that affect tl iu p, operty. _ __ -
F. Site plan, building design and location and open space provisions designed to
produce a functional development responsive and sensitive to natural features,
vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the community.
5
Although this criteria was discussed extensively during the 1993 review, staff believes
that the proposed Major SDD Amendment will have no negative impacts on this criteria.
G. A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and
off-site traffic circulation.
The staff believes that the proposed Major SDD Amendment will have no impacts on this
criteria.
H. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and
preserve natural features, recreation, views and functions.
Again, the staff believes that the proposed Major SDD Amendment will have no impacts
on this criteria.
Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional and
efficient relationship throughout the development of the special development
district.
Phase I of the VAC redevelopment has been completed (Club Levels - lowest two floors).
The balance of the redevelopment is considered Phase II.
IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The Community Development Department staff believes that the applicant's proposed
modifications are consistent with the criteria outlined in §12-9A-8 of the Municipal Code with the
exception of a 62 sq. ft. expansion of exterior GRFA proposed for the Fourth and Fifth Floor
dwelling unit. Staff recommends denial of the proposed 62 sq. ft. of additional GRFA mentioned
above, and furthermore, staff recommends approval of the remaining elements of the applicant's
request for a Major Amendment to Special Development District #30 (including Ordinance #2,
Series of 1996) as detailed in Section I of this staff memo.
E
6
6W[P.
8t6.
c9MR?tx;
PC?S JNS
Va A e '"'I't0't}? Q
0
Q) 0
0 4.f T-y
--, -) .sic anc ?enovation
w
? g
w Drive
V
?? a
Vat'- - W
..' Co-orado
1
U
aacPru
SUBMITTAL FOR
MAJOR AI I END ENT
TO THE S.D.D. ZONE DISTRICT
JANUARY 12, 1998
r
E
•
77
} I IUlgp fR YAS E '?•..r.' \v- IF1wR +IH qO fX x t'bb - I V
,
}i J L
} , { ?--`nom ? ?
? r
f
.. ? -. I I I I I I`} ? ? C
L--J - I
----- --- _-
V
?._ ?w
------------
l
FIf>•
4 Jf /h? Fi?vF'
& Sae4 : t' - W-0'
1
B
J Ii, 12
k.
fMEO
f
?F DATE: JIM lime }
OF1' I
OF'. !
A E OP"
i
(D T
sl k ffi ,/Y f?
( C t- l f l 1 k
f ? }`I ?. J?Y I IKf IjY L ro UY - N-ft ,K t W?,f UY M-Y )/!' _ f-f tf-N' _ Cd I
? r k i I I I
1 I 1 1 f r?l }
t0
W-T T,e:. to
%
_ .r
_ I -? --? ---- -
CID
/ _II
1 _ I I , ' I
' f . 111
} I r V? r } ?7.?p -- r
toc.crt .ewl ?} ? / 1 ( P IIrij'I-' 7?i
a ? I ? ? ?* ?' n _ }?, i C i r 1 ' l LJ ? C , Q ? o• ? ? ?'il(_- r-? t
{ --- - - - -- - - ; - r ?, _ -
p eoanaw c I m I 1 E'
CM)
?ro«?I 1 f
- ----- ------- ------------ -- ----- ----------
CED MD
F w;tr
J?
14
f2 f3
r
}S-1C I. bY.7
r
4
a
k
4
I
!t ?
f,?NiP4Ct:
Pk W.*M:
a
a
i
ag
ed ?
a r
tlFi
G
!? - c _ --
ow Ca Cff)
• '". _ r V 104[5 ? _ _ > m ? i
® r F i ?i. ? __-. .. I ` 1 WTCC ? - - • ? -_ SW?'aE4 i - ?„ tl?
_` a UvR
1 fc?
" k i i 11 ,syc? fL1 (ENSQ _ . j ? ' k=. Y *onrr j 1? i $
CED
CMD
D s
cm , 1 cc?+m4 ? . I _
L G6 t 6G W Ilpp} i - 0!4%W ilA k IJtOCfa V av ipmFS fp4 a x004 -? _ O ... _- _ b E} f u
P
* . _ f 1 QTR t C.4' El G.7. CE
?, Hors i ( i t ? 1 `°? ? ? .. ? b .7? I . !
R_ \
WAM
-------- MOO,
- -? -- I----- ?'= I --- - I- t - _ o C f
9
L ____-_o.__,.____ rry}??,?
' -------•.•. -4 6AIEa lAY 12 199&
A
C
i
d
9
fi
i
Cf: 6
CM RM PM
UPP(P ir,?? aue
stun ewr
5
r
F F t. i 1 1 .. i i 1
F J I I{ft t I!I - ? f I II
I
I f 1 t 1, 1` I 1 f I 1
i r
f I 1 I '1 F I 1 F I 1
r) Ik tfn? 3 1 +) 5? 6O { r ?a y 64 9 ip f[ ty it ?HEOM-
1 R i F t i 1 ? f 7 I
`;, I I I- I I I I 4???I ? I
1 I [ t 1 1 _ 1.__._ I_ n' t 1
I 1 I f
r I 1 ?S ?_ I i I
CMD
. [`.? ` ? f F uLCH. ?I t il?iCEt ? ? ? F r ? 11 f
p.FCt I
t
l ? ® I
MD (ED
I it
f 6 _
_ e
6W
1 0 l '
CED
IF ? F t ?? ? 7 eS N.r .I ?I. `f
C?
`oMD,?oo.-
LL,
C}- - - -- j -- -
€ k_ _ a?.fn.mf - m cm)
`l
CLND
. CTS t L' ??I f t
0 -._ -... '' ? ( F ? G£SM'%YI dX91HCfM CLFSiM.Wt li.CS?PIXaI L,. ?-' - 1? - I ? i
CM)
I 4 F I 1 t f` --
p--?-l--I --I---_ ---- --? - --- ---I----------1=1?t? ---
z
{
i
f
ik
4
Ht
O
0
_ €r
- -C?}
knttE: avv n. rash
z
€f a
I
Fps, PLNp
PFCPM PLAN
p IL
ULU
sf tfx'r a• ? -
? t{
I I rl I 1 I I
' I 1 4 I I 1 +
I C I I C I I
I t ! 1 t I
! t 1 t 4 4 ?
:I I C I r I i
. C? I I I I
1 I f t 1 1 1
` 1 I 1 4 C li
F_ i? !it ( li
I la> I I? t ? f
3y
o ? T.
f4 f{t
I 4
t 1
I I
1 I
rt4 ? 18 71 tT 13 _ ???
a '
I t r
? . ': r U C•?I
Gant
-'- n .L.
I
i wlsr? ? 3 I CU
I t
i 9
4
! I
I
i
O ? H I
OEFRE I
l
i ..
i?
F m -- -- E =
IP941
,I
II 1
ID-01 k?
I
dJ6* GUE Q1E5 EU4]tHt1W
cm aD
aas*xona <??
I t 1 i 1 f ll
s
s
cm cm CEM CM)
I,
_ . h z: y F auwx: raocw LL
CWCXED,
S@1°pa? ----
ox?
OAT- M 12. 1998 !
OF: L
i
9E000 FLOM {
P9C9osto PW
11
1- - +
(D I
FF
177, 41
7
I
71
cm?
S
IL
LF
ILI
L?6?:) Iq (D Z.-
'La-I'D cxm I I
4 77
Twd MW -
No, 4
I or., 6,
Im RM
PRWOUD PLAK
4 1 ( I
i I 1 I Y
?I? I I I
i I I 1 1
1 1 { [
O- { .{ - ?- I lIlk{If !I1 ? ? k ! I?
1 1 11 E I ..-
i Y T 1
1
It
i F 4 1 I
I
I i
t
1 ?{
F
{
! 1
{ I
Q
I
1
I ]A
C
I Y
1 i
I
I
k
I I ? I
Q la a
4a
13 W,
IxNlarrr?
raEVe>K.ws:
a
a
I
I Y
i i 1
1 a
'
I
i ? 1 tt
(} I
I I I I
t f ? E
' -,k ;l - 1
1
1 I t ;! -- -- ---? j
cTiD J
11
l
I
? t i ? ?? ? NI
W PPlaca?i t>rm
f
a
O'q X eel
?- (
CAI k'd?w
f I I ?' it I CNECXEU k
II
DATE- m ,3, I"a
s
IOF
TOWN FEOM
PROPOSED PL M
I!P f I
roqt'jc4mK C,Nda. De-Iz+l'j
» ADDED SQIFOCTAGE - 104
» TOTAL SQ/FOOTAGE » 5,464
31ONDI PENTHOUSE
DESIGN ALTERNATE 4
r-Au Valr-W
tx.Ms NORTH
4
{ r -,
j
45TH FLOOR
_
I ? F
?0
µ tt fU1S
C7 I t
(p.y} f ? j } F h I
JI'gl'23 "' i Ic17Cwx7'i t i I 1 ,/???
1 I 1 xG70.04M [ L__ 1
IvNNt< r iNHO t i Y '
I
II
eb KMxY j 4 ; ? `
j//'(t{ a'si t
V L V V 1
t
i ,
V
-------------------------
t-
0 ------?
t
1
t
t y ? /! TV -. __
II'
C?
PENT kOk15E { Jt' 1_ y i
5?TE {{ ? %? t
s stvor} 1
t
s ?
i I
? ? fr
,
hF
x-?
E I / c
rt-- t? y i rs,ossF y i
I 4 y
e? tl yy I
CONDOMINIUM f r
.? ?
i0,
_ "T`I ?I I t l i t Ilt I.?- ------------I I (t I_
4TH ROOK
7t4 - 17 *F?
3
i ? I ! I
I l f f i I f ? f t ?
! i I 1 r 1 f ! ? ? , ?
I
I I I I G I [ I I f I
i i i i? ? f f f f f s
i i i i i s s s .s s ?
1
I f! f I I _-I L --- !
j
1 i ! r ! r !?. '? I e
C9D
a?aaow I
{ I e 9?moa ILI;
?
f f f f ? f [ ' ,
1 I ? k ! !( YI
??'`
El
I I I i I 1 I I
I
r 1 [ i ? I '
I
I
Po
e?1?F
a
f
!
f
!
i
i
i a
1
f o
f
f{{
1
s
a
4
r
F
6
Y
(???^?? `? 0 0 (~U 0 0 0 _(?lJ tr'IK4utU._.
IX - . -o
•
•
? I
a?
a?
ix K',1?1
3&?X
R _.
MAW, kd"
C41ECXEOI
j DATE: ? 17. 1996
C 16F 6
4?E: ff
1
FFM FLOOR
PROPOSED PLW
E
ff
MEMORANDUM
TO: Vail Town Council
Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Lionshead Master Plan Team
DATE: February 10, 1998
SUBJECT: Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan
LIONSHEAD REDEVELOPMENT MASTER PLAN
Height and Mass
Process Goal
E
To review and discuss a variety of alternatives, based upon different philosophies and
methodologies, which defines the allowable building height and general massing in the
Lionshead Redevelopment study area:
1. Appropriate height and mass, as it relates to the quality of public spaces.
2. Appropriate height and mass, in relationship to the surrounding buildings and
overall context of Lionshead.
1. Aonroach 1 - This is the no-action alternative.
1. Retain the existing CC2 height limitations (45' for a flat roof/48' for a sloping roof).
Issues for discussion:
1. The existing Commercial Core 2 Zone District provides few incentives for the
redevelopment of existing properties within the Lionshead study area. This is
primarily because the majority of the existing properties are already exceeding
many, if not all, of the development standards of that zone district.
2. Many existing properties wishing to redevelop will not be able to rebuild to their
existing density, due to the following factors:
A. Many properties are currently in excess of building height and density
regulations.
B. Due to increases in the standard boor-to-floor construction heights in the
lodging industry, a building in compliance with the current height limits will
not be able to rebuild the existing number of stories.
f:Aeveryone\council\memos\lionrmp.210 1
IL Anoroach 2
1. Modify the permitted height limitations in Commercial Core 2 to reflect the current
industry standard for floor-to-floor construction heights:
A. Staff believes that the intent of the 45' and 48' height limitation in the
Commercial Core 2 zone district, is to allow a 5-story building to be
constructed, with a 9' floor-to-floor section.
B. There is no question that the industry standard for the floor-to-floor heights
has increased, however, the specific dimension or range needs to be
determined.
C. For example: Using the original 5-story intent of the CC2 zoning, and using
a 10'-11' floor-to-floor height, a new by-right height limitation could be 50'-
55', plus a roof (64).
2. Existing structures which are in excess of the CC2 height regulations would be
permitted to redevelop back to:
A. Their existing height and density (a specific elevation, not necessarily the
number of stories).
B. The new by-right height limitation, if said limitation is greater than the
existing height of the structure.
Issues for discussion:
1. The floor-to-floor height for structures will need to be specifically defined.
2. Should existing structures currently in excess of the permitted CC2 height
limitation be permitted to redevelop back to their existing height? Currently, this
can only occur if the structure was destroyed by "an act of God," which is a
standard in the Town's non-conforming use regulation.
III. Augroach 3
1. Adjust the permitted height limits based upon specific geographic locations,
according to pre-set aesthetic and visual criteria (i.e public view corridors,
sun/shade, landmarks, etc.):
A. Determination of concept:
a. Building height slopes down from the South Frontage Road
(greatest height) towards Gore Creek (lowest height).
b. Building heights are highest closest to Gore Creek, then slope
down as they approach the South Frontage Road.
c. Lowest building heights adjacent to the public spaces, such as
the mall or retail areas.
f:\everyone\council\memos\lionrmp.210 2 0
B. Contextual relationship - Building heights are considered with regard to
their proximity to existing building heights.
C. Building heights are considered in relationship to the overall Lionshead
area, as viewed from the ski mountain, 1-70 and the South Frontage Road.
Issues for discussion:
1. This approach is vulnerable to the argument that certain properties are given
greater development rights than other properties.
IV. ADoroach 4
Create a maximum "allowed by-right" height limit, based upon 5-stories at a 10'-
11' floor-to-floor dimension .
2. Allow any existing structure which is currently over the CC2 height limitation to
redevelop back to their existing building height elevation.
3. Height bonus - Create an additional maximum building height elevation, that
buildings can be constructed to, based upon compliance with documented
performance-based criteria that advance community objectives:
A. Creation of Accommodation Units.
B. Creation of Fractional Ownership Units.
C. Creation of Employee or Local's Housing.
D. Enhancement of adjacent public spaces (snowmelt, site amenities, etc.).
E. Enhancement of the Lionshead pedestrian and vehicular circulation
systems.
F. Ability to enhance the natural environment.
4. The height bonus (an exact elevation) will be determined based upon geographic
location, according to pre-set criteria:
A. Determination of concept:
a. Building height slopes down from the South Frontage Road
(greatest height) towards Gore Creek (lowest height).
b. Building heights are highest closest to Gore Creek, then slope
down as they approach the South Frontage Road.
c. Lowest building heights adjacent to the public spaces, such as
the mall or retail areas. -
B. Building heights have a contextual relationship to existing building heights.
0 f:\everyone\council\memos\lionrmp.210 3
-,0 r
C. Building heights are considered with regards to their relationship to the
overall Lionshead area, as viewed from the ski mountain, 1-70 and the
South Frontage Road.
Issues for discussion:
1. "Fair and equal" by-right permitted heights are established.
2. The additional height bonus is based upon compliance with specific performance
criteria, therefore still being equally applied.
3. The key to the success of this approach is two-fold:
A. Establishment of the height bonus.
B. Establishment of specifically defined performance criteria, which would be
used to determine the appropriate heights on all parcels within the
Lionshead Redevelopment study area.
fi:\everyone\council\memos\lionrmp.210 4 110
LIONSHEAD - BUILDING HEIGHT ANALYSIS
--.?._- - „------.._.-- - - ----- - '---. --
-- --- --- --- -- ------------- 'r ---- -- -'? --- --- --
Permitted Vail Lodge st Lodge at Treetans van 21 lion's Pride Lionshead Lionhead Vintage Point Lifthouse Weatnind Gondola
Heights international Lionshead Lioushead BaWng Arcade Center Condominiums Balidint
PhaseA&2 Phase3 Existing Existing Existing Existing
Fld top=45' Existing Height=74' Height=38' Fang Z-"9 Existing Height=72' Existing Height-56' Existing
Sloping top=48' Height-59.8' Existing Existing Varin?26) Variance-:(IM Height-32' Height-33' Height-V Vwim-=(241 Height--W V- -'- fig) Height=50'
VarW==(12y Height=51' Height=W V-,".....--16' V-.W..._ l5` V,.;......_ "5) Varian-=(2) Varian-M
Var6ce=(3) Variance=5' Elevation: 8199' Elevation: 8198' E1evatiow 8233' Elevnt - 8219'
Et , 8220' EL.....:....: 81V Elevation: 8I7S EL 8182' Elevation: 8190 E1 . ? 8177
Elevation: 8184' Elevation: 8178'
--. ?......?_??-.?..?.--.
...--?.- i. --- ...?....?- - - - - - - -
Permitted, Lxn4awk Sunliird Lodge Lion Square Landmark Con.ert Han hiontaneros Lion Squire VallOo, Lodge Antlers Lionshead lan RuAan hiarriot Vall Sot
HelAhfs Townhomes Lodgt Tower Plaza North Phase 4 Condominiums Coxdoml
Existing Phases 1-3 Existing. Existing Existing Existing Existing
Flattop=45' Existing LTeight--55' Existing e Height-43' Existing Haight--48` Height-74' Height`-80' Existing Height-79' Existing
Sloping top 48' Height=36 Variance=(7' Existing Height4T Height=2;" Variance=5' Hoight-41' Variance=9 Varier--(26) Vari-e=(32) Height-54' Varian 31) Height-52'
Variance-12' Height=49' Variance=(34) Variance=21' V-? -_T Nratianee V";, - 4)
Elevation: 8195' Varisnce=(lD Elevation: 8183' Elevation: 8205' Elevation: 8189' Elevation: 8244' Elevation: 8211'
Elevation. 8200' Elevation: 8240' Elevation: 8177 Elevation: 8173' Elevation: 8204' Elevation: 82021
Elevation: 8173'
GINNY CULP
2960E Manns Ranch Road
Vail, CO 81657
n
E
n
?o
February 1, 1998
Dear Town Council Members,
I've taken a vacation from town politics because I get too emotionally involved in the issues.
Watching the town boards and town council continually disregard their constituency in favor
of those wanting economic advantage gives me a little insight into the militia movement. As a
citizen, I wonder "What will it take for these people to listen and make decisions that reflect
the majority's will?". I think the answer is courage and an ability to take a broad, long-range
view of Vail.
I am worried that the PEC and the Council are so "into" the process of the Lionshead Master
Plan that the larger picture has been obscured. You are fed information and recom in cnclations
a little at a time and you approve the recommendations. For example, one of the undCrlying
principals of the Lionshead process is that Lionshead needs a larger bed base. You readily
adopted that suggestion. But does it really need "more" or does it just need "better".
Occupancy rates, I believe, are under 70% in the Lionshead area. So....does that suggest that
we need more? Are we proposing to build the church for Easter? We know we are going to
get some additional beds because Vail Resorts is going to build on their site. We don't need to
allow bigger and bigger buildings because we need more beds! And besides, remember when
the TOV jumped into bed with VA to endorse the Category III proposal.-VA swore they
didn't want more skiers, they simply wanted a better experience for the skiers who were here!
It was a way to take the sharpness out of the peaks and valleys of ski season. If we build more
and more beds. ..won't that undermine the experience of those who are here during the
peaks? Or is that the plan....that it will be so crowded and hassled during, for example, the
Christmas holiday, that people will swear off coming here at Christmas ever again. Under
this scenario, there is a big assumption being made .... that they will come here again at a less
crowded time of the ski season and thereby bolster the numbers at non peak times. I suggest
many of them will swear off coming to Vail, period.
One of the commitments made to Vail Tomorrow by the Council and the Community - -
Development Department was that, in the Lionshead redevelopment process, resource
capacity would be used in the decision making process. We are very close to making real
decisions on the redevelopment. I have yet to see any capacity figures. Am I missing them?
One of the problems with doing a superficial capacity study (i.e. calling ERW&SD and saying
"Hey, can you support 500 more beds in the Town of Vail?"), the operators always say "Sure
we can!". I think the questions asked should revolve around what our current capacity is (as
our facilities exist now) and what it will actually cost to do whatever it takes to service 500
970-476-6157 H 970476-2492 0 970479-9487 H Fax
more beds? Then I think any development/redevelopment approvals ought to have the
developers stepping up to take on a very large part of those costs.
The Town Council regularly laments the lack of locals living in the Town of Vail. That
sounds good. However, I think that the Council regularly discounts/ignores the people who
are here now. High priority is given to the people who might come if we'd only make things
nicer for them! For example, the Austria Haus redevelopment project broke all the rules, but,
by God, the homeowner who tries to add on 275 sq. ft. will be run through the mill. Now,
for Vail Resorts, we are going to redo the design guidelines, but for many years, input from
local, year round residents has not made a dent in the guidelines. See what I mean?
It is my belief that the neighborhoods within the TOV are going to become more and more
popular as the density of the lower valley becomes down right obnoxious. I urge you to
represent your constituency and cap our density at reasonable levels. And once you know
what the capacity of some of our resources are.....decide to use it for local people, not people
who come here for a week of skiing a year or for a four day convention. Make the locals who
do live in the TON' feel like they are who you care about most. Maybe then Vail will be more
attractive to year-round residents.
•
970476-6157 H 970-476-2492 0 970479-94137 H Fax
January 26, 1998
Vail Town Council
75 S. Frontage Road
Vail, CO 81657
To Whom It May Concern:
As the owner of unit 504 in Vantage Point Condominiums, I was very concerned to hear that the
'T'own of Vail is considering altering the building zoning regulations so that Vail Associates can
redevelop its property in Lionshead.
According to preliminary plans presented by Dave Corbin from Vail Associates at our recent
Homeowner's Meeting, the peak height of their proposed building would be ninety-three feet. As
I understand, the current height restrictions in Lionshead is forty-eight feet. To almost double the
current height restrictions is absurd.
The most common complaint I have heard regarding the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan
is, "don't create another Beaver Creek in Lionshead", by allowing tall buildings to create a view
block of the surrounding mountains. Currently Lionshead has a very open feeling with the best
views of the ski mountain. Allowing the building code to increase height would be devastating to
Lionshead.
I would like to go on record as a homeowner in Lionshead, that I am opposed to any increase in
height restrictions to the current building codes.
Sincerely,
kcC) t .> W
Karen Walsey
KW:dmd
cc: Planning and Environmental Commission
E
RECEIVED FEB
GENERAL PROPELLER COMPANY
CORPORATE OFFICE
1410 EIGHTH AVENUE EAST
BRADENTON. F'x omDA 34208
EOAGE W RAUCH
CHAIRMAN
February 2, 1998
Vail Town council
75 S, Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen,
Here is my suggestion on the Lionshead Master Plan as a property owner in that area:
1. Make it the best project in the world-the location is fantastic.
Xt, . ?i
TELEPHONE (941) 748.1577
FAX (941) 7474636
2. Leave plenty of room for skiers to load and unload. For example, insure that the new
building is built up rather than out, and because of the continually increasing skier
traffic, make sure that the new building does not come out as far as the old gondola
building does on the south side.
3. Already during the busy times we are seeing a lack of open space for skier loading
and unloading around chair lift 8 and the new gondola. Give some exceptions for
height in order to make the project financially feasible for the developer to set the
new building back 30-40 feet from the current southern end of the old gondola.
Best wishes.
Sincerely yours,
A-.,, c rc-ti?
GWR/ma
E
Essex
Corporation
DECEIVED FEB
6 198
KEVIN E. CROWE
CHAIRMAN AND
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
February 2, 1998
Town of Vail
Town Council
Vail, Colorado 81657
Dear Sirs:
As a property owner in Vail since 1968,1 was very disturbed to learn about the new plans
to route buses through Lionshead Plaza and to build seven and eight story buildings at the
foot of the mountain. I understand that other people share my strong negative opinion of
bus traffic through Lionshead, and so I will focus more here on the building height and
density issue.
I realize there is a need to build something in place of the old gondola building, but we do
not need to build a "concrete wall" between Lionshead Plaza and the mountain. It would
do very little for the aesthetics of Lionshead, and certainly would increase the traffic
density and probably block the lovely views of many loyal and dedicated residents and
investors in the Lionshead area.
Please do not let the Plaster Plan turn Lionshead into the site of seven and eight story
concrete towers, just to satisfy the economic needs of some developers who probably
don't live there. It would forever change the look and character of that area that has been
so well received by visitors and residents.
Sincerely,
cc: Vail Daily Newspaper
825 THIRD AVENUE - NEW YORK. NEW YORK 10022 + 212-371-0303
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
February 9, 1998
Minutes
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Greg Moffet
Greg Amsden
Galen Aasland
Gene Uselton
Diane Golden
John Schofield
MEMBERS ASSENT:
Ann Bishop
STAFF PRESENT:
Mike Mollica
Reed Onate
Judy Rodriguez
Public Hearinq
The meeting was called to order by Greg Moffet at 2:00 p.m.
2:00 p.m.
A request for a major amendment to Special Development District #30 (VAC), to allow for
a change in the number of dwelling units/accommodation units and a modification in
GRFA, located at the Vail Athletic Club, 352 E. Meadow Drive/Parcels A & B, Vail Village
First Filing.
Applicant: JWT 1987 Limited Partnership, represented by John Perkins
Planner: Mike Mollica
Reed Onate gave an overview of the staff memo.
Greg Moffet asked if the applicant had anything to add.
Stan Cope stated he would be available for questions.
Greg Moffet asked for any public comments. There were none.
Mike Mollica stated for the record that he received a fax from Jack Lambert, General Manager for
the Mountain Haus, saying that he was concerned about a trash enclosure on the southwest
corner of building which would affect the Mountain Haus. However, Mike said the trash
enclosure was withdrawn from the application.
Galen Aasland said the application was consistent with the criteria and he had no problem with
the additional two balconies, as they would make it more interesting. He did not agree with the
additional square footage on the Fifth Floor north elevation. He said this application was within
the intent of the SDD.
Diane Golden asked if the AU's would have lock-off ability.
Stan Cope said no,-but a-luxury hotel should have a presidential suite and it was not unusual to
have 2 bedrooms in this suite.
Diane Golden asked if a presidential suite is rented out more frequently.
Stan Cope said yes, with it rented more in the summer for top end conferences.
Planning and Environmental Commission
Minutes
February 9, 1998
John Schofield had no comments.
Gene Uselton asked where the extra 62 sq, ft. was.
Stan Cope said it was within the unit.
Gene Uselton asked if it was important to the project.
Stan Cope said the room needed 18" to make it more functional, with no change in price because
of the additional sq. footage.
Greg Amsden had no comments.
Greg Moffet was in agreement with Galen and also had no problem with the balconies. He was
more concerned with adding GRFA on the north side.
Stan Cope explained that since the approval in 1993, the DU sq footages have gone up and
down. He said he didn't believe this was outside the original intent.
Greg Moffet asked if the 18" would be extended out on the 5th floor.
John Perkins, the architect for the Vail Athletic Club, said there would be minimal effect on bulk,
because it happens on the east end and dies into the elevator mass and so will never be
perceived as a change in plane. He said the upper bedroom needed the extra space to be
functional. He said it will not be seen as cantilevered and that the roof line was not changing.
Lynn Fritzlen and Ken Overstreet, architects for the condominium owner, explained the plans to
the PEC.
John Perkins said it was using dead space.
Ken Overstreet said the wall was T6".
Lynn Fritzlen explained when working on renovation projects, some things just don't line up.
John Schofield made a motion for a recommendation, as requested by the applicant, to the Town
Council.
Gene Uselton seconded the motion.
The motion passed by a vote of 6-0.
2. A request for additional GRFA utilizing the 250 ordinance, to allow for a remodel, located
at 1998 Sunburst Drive/Lot 19, Vail Valley 3rd Filing.
Applicant: Nate Accardo, represented by Dale Smith, Fritzlen, Pierce Rriner Architects
Planner: Reed Onate
TABLED UNTIL FEBRUARY 23, 1998
Planning and Environmental Commission
Minutes
February 9, 1998
2
3. A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for four (4) additional offices and one (1)
meeting room to accommodate sports staff, located at the Vail Tennis Center, 700 South
Frontage Road East/Ford Park.
Applicant: Michael Ortiz, Vail Recreation District
Planner: George Ruther
TABLED UNTIL. FEBRUARY 23, 1998
John Schofield made a motion to table agenda items #2 and #3.
Greg Amsden seconded the motion.
The motion passed by a vote of 6-0.
4. A worksession to discuss the underlying concepts and alternatives relating to height and
mass of buildings (the rationale), including use of models and other graphics
(illustrations), for the Lionshead Redevelopment Master plan.
Planners: Mike Mollica/Dominic Mauriello
This is a joint worksession with the Vail Town Council on 2/10198 at 2:00 p.m.
5. Approval of January 26, 1998 minutes.
Diane Golden approved the minutes as amended.
Greg Amsden seconded the motion.
The motion passed by a vote of 5-0-1. Gene Uselton abstained.
Diane Golden gave an information update on the AIPP meeting with the neighbors. She said the
construction schedule was discussed and a model shown at the meeting.
Mike Mollica explained that the Lionshead worksession with the Town Council would kick-off at
2:15pm and would be an educational meeting. He said they were not proposing any one
alternative, but there were four alternatives to address the mass and bulk. He said he wanted to
make sure that the PEC was clear and would have one or two other opportunities for their
recommendation to Council. He said there would be a scale model here tomorrow. He advised
of Council's new format limiting public input at the worksessions. He said public input should
occur at the evening meetings, as the worksession was for Council discussion and education
primarily.
Greg Amsden made a motion to adjourn.
Gene Uselton seconded the motion.
The motion passed by a vote of 6-0.
The meeting adjourned at 2:30 pm.
Planning and Environmental Commission
Minutes 3
February 9, 1998