Loading...
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