HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-1214 PECTHIS ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY
PUBLIC NOTICE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of
Vail will hold a public hearing in accordance with Section 12-3=6 of the Municipal Cade of the
Town of Vail on December 14, 1998, at 2:00 P.M. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. In
consideration of:
A request to amend the Town's "Public Amin. i,. iodation" Zone District, Chapter 7 and
amendments to Chapter 15, Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA), Town of Vail Municipal
Code.
Applicant: Johannes Faessler, represented by Braun Associates, Inc.
Planner: George Ruther
A request for a minor subdivision to relocate an existing property line, located at 2695 Davos
Trail I Lots 16 and 17, Block B, Vail Ridge.
Applicant: Randall J. Fischer
Planner: Jeff Hunt
A request for a final review for a major amendment to Special Development District #6, Vail
Village Inn, to allow for a hotel redevelopment, located at 100 East Meadow Drive, Lots M and
O, Block 5D, Vail Village 1st.
Applicant: Daymer Corporation, represented by Jay Peterson
Planner: George Ruther
A minor subdivision request for Lot 15, Block 7, Vail Village First Filing, transferring a portion of
Government Lot 3, obtained by the Town of Vail from the United States Forest Service, pursuant
to the Land Ownership Adjustment Agreement, to Lot 1, Block 7, Vail Village First Filing.
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner~ Dominic Maudiello
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-
2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information.
Community Development Department
Published November 27, 1998 in the Vail Trail.
4 y ;:
n11?IVOF Y?tlL'?
PLANNING AND E, . -' -`' -=?JTAL CO1 ? I !N
7?Y
Monday, December 14, 1998
AGENDA
Proiect Orientation I CHRIST As LUNCH Community Develooment De:Jai°tment
MEMBERS PRESENT
Site Visits :
1. Fischer - 2695 Davos Trail
2. Town tour of PA properties
3.
Driver: George
NOTE: If the PEC hearing extends until 6:00 p.m., the board Will break for dinner from 6:00 - 6:30 p.m.
Public Hearinq - Town Council Chambers
12:00 p.m.
-.00 P.M.
2:017 pm.
1. A request for a minor subdivision to relocate an existing property line, located at 2695 Davos Trail I
Lots 16 and 17, Block B, Vail Ridge.
Applicant: Randall J. Fischer
Planner: Jeff Hunt
2. A request for a worksession to discuss amendments to the Town's "Public Accommodation" Zone
District, Chapter 7 and amendments to Chapter 15, Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA), Town of
Vail Municipal Code.
Applicant: Johannes Faessler, represented by Braun Associates, Inc.
Planner: George Ruther
3. A request for a minor subdivision to transfer a portion of Government Lot 3, obtained by the Town
of Vail from the United States Forest Service, pursuant to the Land Ownership Adjustment
Agreement, to Lot 15, Block 7, Vail Village First Filing.
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: Dominic Mauriello
TOWMEMBERS ABSENT
*YK
1
4. A request for a final review for a major amendment to Special Development District 6, Vail Village
Inn, to allow for a hotel redevelopment, located at 100 East Meadow Drive, Lots M and G, Block
5D, Vail Village 1st.
Applicant: Daymer Corporation, represented by Jay Peterson
Planner: George Ruther
TABLED UNTIL 1/'91/99
5. Information Update
6. Approval of November 23, 1993 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 479-2356, Telephone for the Hearing
Impaired, for information.
Community Development Department
Published December 11, 1998 in the Vail Trail
7
•
2
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
Monday, December 14, 1998
FINAL AGENDA
Proiect Orientation/ CHRISTMAS LUNCH - Community Develooment Department 12:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT
Greg Moffet Ann Bishop
John Schofield
Galen Aasland
Diane Golden
Brian. Doyon
Tom Weber
Site Visits : 1:00 P.M.
1. Fischer - 2695 Davos Trail
2. Town tour of PA properties
1
Driver: George
MEOW,
?o _..
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 Hearina e Town Council Chambers 2:00 p.m.
1.. A request for a minor subdivision to relocate an existing property line, located at 2695 Davos Trail /
Lots 16 and 17, Block B, Vail Ridge.
Applicant: Randall J. Fischer
Planner: Jeff Hunt
MOTION: John Schofield SECOND: Diane Golden VOTE: 6-0
APPROVED WITH 2 CONDITIONS:
1. Approval is only for a minor subdivision. Development of either lot requires
approval of any necessary applications.
2. That the existing garage be removed prior to the issuance of a building permit on
Lot 17.
TOWNOFvnu
1
2. A request for a worksession to discuss amendments to the Town's "Public Accommodation" Zone
District, Chapter 7 and amendments to Chapter 15, Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA), Town of
Vail Municipal Code.
Applicant: Johannes Faessler, represented by Braun Associates, Inc.
Planner: George Ruther
WORKSESSION
3. A request for a minor subdivision to transfer a portion of Government Lot 3, obtained by the Town
of Vail from the United States Forest Service, pursuant to the Land Ownership Adjustment
Agreement, to Lot 15, Block 7, Vail Village First Filing.
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: Dominic Mauriello
MOTION: Galen Aasland SECOND: John Schofield VOTE: 6-0
APPROVED
4. A request for a final review for a major amendment to Special Development District #6, Vail Village
Inn, to allow for a hotel redevelopment, located at 100 East Meadow Drive, Lots M and O, Block
5D, Vail Village 1st;
Applicant: Daymer Corporation, represented by Jay Peterson
Planner: George Ruther
TABLED UNTIL 1/11/99
5. Information Update
6. Approval of November 23, 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 479-2356, Telephone for the Hearing
Impaired, for information.
Community Development Department
C]
2
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: . December 14, 1996
SUBJECT: A request for a minor subdivision to relocate an
existing property line, located at 2695 Davos
Trail/Lots 16 & 17, Block B, Vail Ridge
Applicant: Randall Fischer
Planner: Jeff Hunt
1. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST AND BACKGROUND
The applicant, Randall Fischer is requesting a minor subdivision to relocate the common
lot line between lots 16 and 17. The application would provide for an adequate setback
for a garage that is proposed to be attached to the existing dwelling. A copy of the plat
0 is attached for your review.
Both lots are currently being used by one residence. The applicant wants to move the
lot line to allow the existing residence to conform to setback requirements, plus allow for
a new garage on the lot. The proposal results in two conforming lots of 17,031 and
16,596 sq ft.
I1. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
Minor Subdivision Criteria
One of the basic premises of subdivision regulations is that the minimum
standards for the creation of a new lot must be met. This project will be
reviewed under the Minor Subdivision Criteria, pursuant to Title 13,
Subdivision Regulations, of the Town of Vail Municipal Code.
The first set of review criteria to be considered by the Planning and
Environmental Commission for a Minor Subdivision Application are as
outlined in the PtS District, and are as follows:
1. Lot Area - The Town of Vail Municipal Code indicates that the
minimum lot or site area for a lot located within the
Primary/Secondary Residential Zone District, shall be 15,000 sq. ft.
(0.344 acre) of buildable area.
The Municipal Code defines "buildable area" as, r
?_Sv
"any site, lot, parcel or any portion thereof, which does not
contain designated floodplain, red hazard
avalanche, or areas in excess of 40% slope.,,
Staff Response: The proposal would result in the following lot areas:
Lot 16: 17,031 sq ft or 0.391 acres
Lot 17: 16,596 sq ft or 0.361 acres
2. Frontaae - The Vail Municipal Code requires that lots in the .
Primary/Secondary Residential Zone District has a minimum street
frontage of thirty-feet (30').
Staff Response: The proposal would result in the following:
Lot 16 115' of frontage;
Lot 17 118.80' of frontage.
3. Site Dimensions - The Vail Municipal Code requires that each lot be
of a size and shape capable of enclosing a square area, 80 feet on
each side, within its boundaries.
Staff Response: The proposal would result in both lots being capable of
enclosing a square area, 80 feet on each side, within its boundaries.
The second set of review criteria are as outlined in the subdivision purpose
statements and are as follows:
To inform each subdivider of the standards and criteria by which
development and proposals will be evaluated and to provide information
as to the type and extent of improvements required.
2. To provide for the subdivision of property in the future without conflict
with development on adjacent properties.
3. To protect and conserve the value of land throughout the municipality and
the value of buildings and improvements on the land.
4. To insure that subdivision of property is in compliance with the Town
Zoning Ordinance, to achieve a harmonious, convenient, workable
relationship among land uses, consistent with municipal development
objectives.
5. To guide public and private policy and action in order to provide adequate
and efficient transportation, water, sewer, schools, parks, playgrounds,
recreational and other public requirements and facilities and generally to
provide that public facilities will have sufficient capacity to serve the
proposed subdivision.
6. To provide for accurate legal descriptions of newly subdivided land and to
establish reasonable and desirable construction, design standards and
procedures.
7. To prevent the pollution of air, streams, and ponds, to insure adequacy of
drainage facilities, to safeguard the water table and encourage the wise
use and management of natural resources throughout the municipality in
order to preserve the integrity, stability and beauty of the community and
the value of land,
Staff Response: Upon review of the application, staff finds that the
proposal complies with the above criteria.
The third set of review criteria are as outlined in the subdivision regulations and
are as follows:
The burden of proof shall rest with the applicant to show that the application is in
compliance with the intent and -purposes of Title 13, of the Town of Vail Municipal
Code and other pertinent regulations that the PEC deems applicable.
Due consideration shall be given to the recommendations made by public
agencies, utility companies and other agencies consulted.
Staff Response: Applicable agencies were consulted and had no
concern.
2. The Planning & Environmental Commission shall review the application
and consider its appropriateness in regard to Town policies relating to
subdivision control, densities proposed, regulations, ordinances and
resolutions and other applicable documents, environmental integrity and
compatibility with the surrounding uses and other applicable documents,
effects on the aesthetics of the Town.
Staff Response: The proposal is intended to provide for better use of an
existing residence. The proposal meets applicable standards and would
not result in any negative impacts to adjacent properties or public
facilities.
Ill, STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The Community Development Department recommends approval of the minor* Subdivision.
.
Staffs recommendation of approval is based upon the review of the criteria and factors outlined
above in this memorandum.
Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve the applicant's request,
staff would recommend that the Planning and Environmental Commission make the following
finding:
1. Thatthe requested minor subdivision complies with the subdivision regulations
outlined in Title 13, Chapter 4 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code.
e
The recommendation is also subject to the following condition:
1. Approval is only for a minor subdivision. Development of either lot requires
approval of any necessary applications.
11
11
4
•
0
I
MEMORANDUM
TO. Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: December 14, 1998
SUBJECT: A request for a minor subdivision to transfer a portion of Government Lot 3,
obtained by the Town of Vail from the United States Forest Service, pursuant to
the Land Ownership Adjustment Agreement, to Lot 15, Block 7, Vail Village First
Filing.
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: Dominic Mauriello
1. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST AND BACKGROUND
This request takes one lot of the major subdivision approved by the PEC for the Rockledge area
and creates a minor subdivision. This separation is necessary in order to expedite the sale of
this land to Mr. Raether on Lot 15, Block 7, Vail Village First Filing. The dimensions and the
layout of toot 15 remain unchanged from the October 26, 1998 approval. The October 26,1998
memo is attached and provides all of the background and evaluation of criteria on this request.
ii. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of this minor subdivision subject to the following finding:
That the minor subdivision is consistent with the criteria and standards of Title 13,
Subdivision Regulations as addressed in the October 26, 1998 memorandum.
F:\E\'ERYONE`,PECIMEMOS\98\d-aether.doc
T?WNOFVgIL
RAETHER MINOR S[TMMSION
LOT iS BLOCK 7, VAIN VILLAGE rut9T FUJNG and GOVERNMENT IA) T 3
SECTION 7, TOWN&ki e P SOUTH RANGE 80 WEST, 6th PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN
TOWN OF VAIL, COUNTY OF EAGLE, STATE OF COLORADO
LOr:
•• ?'u4i1'liTlR1K"? r...y't AY.tYf. 1{p Y ?Y ?IYw
.. ` RY
' wtaM?Vp'y,„{ #? ¦Mt it l .h d?
rW Yri ar. b sq • 1 !
-------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------
Yvwww iSUr' Y _ ii' OY?NS _ _ dffifRC 6t?#N7' «.. « _ ^ _.. _ _
Mi ,µy __ .. _.. _.....y t Y1'LY71'f «.. _.__,. _ ?• pfrhll(M rKY/' .r.M
t Y
tt { IKY
5 1
t
aNW? WyA??lw0 ZMKmaile W An W. L wY? 1? ?Y rra i Yr
{Il?iayV YylrY9Sy1Ay?I ?l?n?i0.'. ??ii' .i.lla ?+•. ?'aR ?i??w"Y N N tlN
1#iY O fhtrN 11Y iIlY11?'?.YMl4.'. {.! i l1Y h KIIM * MNU/ 9 YMt
i? //A • Aa
RAIi>/ mtYtl
tort ? CAM
f Y1t?Mi Ylbwy w. ?i#b>F wit ! ? ntl ?y r.ra
Ir a#4 N W R i?YY1r f{ tyal'M i wMt ?w !P yr.
NMI n Ivy ey riYe ,.
? wKrr.tww.
P0- w-#/y A.D. ra 10
fm Ki a W®'rri fYw i Yt?
tr ...u wY.l.
• a.. wy
win w
SLRw
ify w+w nNlr.t' w trwrrtr Dray r ya • r ?. !9.
tI IWQ t, inl- Yy Ila. fl. JY1l'w yiyy W M itlrY r fw K m Y. wt RSL# rfne •a.y.
if/w. y M N lilt vx -
Iw e..,lt? rut
M to-br itA.-
atw
+lti+rYt iq.{ ? rwr+.t K' w *tn 1t MY Iti?Wn wt . lrrr? vw
RR11': M to 1w.
f#ti tTiGu. mv.Y ? r?n.T'vys rywi trr . tw?r..w!
iaratna ? ttia um
r ry...w enn w Y+' ?tia g#ti
7Me f/?t +t? ?' nw.l fn tlaW fYy ??rMim WM
/K w,.
ik
rrr ?r #K ri nDr. lY qt? si pe ilrs u..TNra br?'A. NW?.it
q,° rf«?? ate. t+v'??:""` ra.. s a .a 1+? t r'?Kai r
!#ti ta.r. Y+#wrYOrK rs
i NNO#r#1 WAWM MW
' $ ki aiow
mm
W Li. swY/ K 1/ Y 7/R MMY. M tl! 1r1 if
EMI
r.S? ?ir fly
W a4rw rfYr.f Y S?i ak# Jr+f ynp?tgi?t tlMy?y?? aY r
wY •i rYaYa L'ya
/YKS. Alai Lm ur RAR imoR Y
UY Y n/Ya a. rt. Y?r?rsa.
LR / 7//KM. K. new i>n117CT TOWN OF V:EL
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: October 26, 1998
SUBJECT:
A rezoning and major subdivision for property previously unzoned and owned by
the United States Forest Service and transferred to the Town of Vail, pursuant to
the Land Ownership Adjustment Agreement to Primary/Secondary Residential
District and Natural Area Preservation District (NAPD), for property located at
Rockledge Road/ Lots 2, 4, 7, 8A, 9A, and 15, Block 7 Vail Village First Filing;
Lots 3A and 3B, Resubdivision of Lot 3 Block 7 Vail Village First Filing; Lot 10A,
Resubdivision of Lot 10 Block 7 Vail Village First Filing; Lot 13B Resubdivision of
Lot 13 Block 7 Vail Village First Filing; and Government Lot 3, all in Section 7,
Township 5 South, Range 80 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian.
And
A rezoning and major subdivision for property previously unzoned and owned by
the United States Forest Service and transferred to the Town of Vail, pursuant to
the Land Ownership Adjustment Agreement to primary/Secondary Residential
District and Natural Area Preservation District (NAPD), for property located at
Ptarmingan Road/ Lots 1 through 6, Block 5, Vail Village Seventh Filing, and
Government Lot 3; all in Section 8, Township 5 South, Range 80 West of the
Sixth Principal Meridian.
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: Dominic Mauriello
I. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST AND BACKGROUND
The zoning request has been slightly revised since your recommendation of approval on July 7,
1998. Additionally, this proposal includes a request for a major resubdivision of lots on
Ptarmigan and Rockledge Roads. The changes in the rezoning are a result of fine tuning of the
proposed plats.
The Town of Vail is applying for zoning on property which was previously unzoned. This property
was obtained by the Town of Vail under the Land Ownership Adjustment Agreement (LOAA)
with the United States Forest Service. A portion of the land is proposed to be zoned
Primary/Secondary Residential. The Town is working with adjacent property owners who may
purchase this land from the Town. The remaining area will be zoned Natural Area Preservation
District which does not allow for development.
0
TOWNOFVAIG
11. BACKGROUND
This proposed resubdivision and zoning change is a one of the final steps in a Land Exchange
with the US Forest Service and the Town of Vail. The basic purpose of the exchange is to
remove Forest System lands from within the Town boundary and to acquire Forest System
Lands that have public or private improvements. One of the critical reasons why the Forest
Service was interested in the Exchange was to address private and public encroachments on US
Forest Service Lands. Lands owned by the Forest Service on Rockledge Road and Ptarmigan
Road were the major issues of concern regarding encroachments.
In the early 90's, the Vail Town Council directed staff to begin working with the Forest Service to
address encroachments on Forest System lands and to identify ways to discourage private
exchanges around the Town of Vail. On Rockledge Road residents requested that the Town
initiate an exchange to address encroachments on Forest System lands. Residents on
Ptarmigan were very interested in protecting a 4.25 acre parcel on the South Side of Ptarmigan
Rd. In 1994, the community completed the Vail Comprehensive Open Space Plan which
identified properties that should be considered for a land exchange. In June, 1995 the Town of
Vail and the U.S. Forest Service signed an agreement to initiate a land exchange. The original
proposal for the land exchange involved 4 parcels of TOV land totaling 77 acres and 11 parcels
of USFS lands totaling 110 acres. The exchange removes Forest Service lands from within the
Town of Vail and involves a number of de-annexation actions to remove areas the Town of Vail
would not acquire.
In December of 1997, the Town and Forest Service exchanged titles to the involved parcels of
land and now owns the lands identified in exhibits attached located on Rockledge and Ptarmigan
Rd. Throughout the land exchange the Town has worked with property owners on Ptarmigan and
Rockledge to develop a means for residents to acquire the land where they have physical
improvements on Forest Service lands. This subdivision is now occurring simultaneously with the
zoning application. Lands conveyed to private property owners will be deed restricted so that
development can not occur on any land the Town acquired from the Forest Service and is noted
on the plat as well. However, the Town believes that the zoning on the property that will be
conveyed to adjacent property owners needs to have the same zoning to take advantage of
additional GRFA and site coverage. This will involve zoning that land which will be conveyed.to
adjacent property owners to the Primary/Secondary District. Tract A on both plats and the parcel
on the south side of Ptarmigan Road will, ,however, be zoned to Natural Area Preservation
District since the intention with these parcels has always been to be maintained as open space.
III. CRITERIA
The PEC shall make the following findings before granting approval of a zone change request:
1) Is the existing zoning suitable with the existing land use on the site and adjacent
land uses?
The purpose of this major subdivision and rezoning is to address private encroachments
on what is now Town of Vail property. The rezoning will be consistent with the zoning
directly adjacent to the exchange properties on Rockledge Road and Ptarmigan Road.
2) Is the amendment preventing a convenient workable relationship with land uses 1101
2
40
consistent with municipal objectives.
The amendment will facilitate legal access to both Rockledge and Ptarmigan roads.
Completing this exchange and conveying the encroached upon lands to the adjacent
property owners fulfills long stated objectives identified in the Land Ownership Adjustment .
Agreement, the Land Use Plan, and the Comprehensive Open Lands Plan.
3) Does the rezoning provide for the growth of an orderly viable community?
Addressing long standing private encroachments on public property helps to support a
viable orderly community by not having private residential structures exist without legal
access and clouded titles.
4) Is the change consistent with the Land Use Plan?
Section 1.9 of the Land Use Plan on page 7 states that National Forest land which is
exchanged soled or otherwise falls into private ownership should remain as open space
and not be zoned for private development. This reference refers to private exchanges.
The exchange with the Forest Service with the Town was a public exchange to protect
open space that may have been disposed off by the USFS. The 4.25 acres of open
space acquired from the Forest Service on the south side of Ptarmigan Road will be
protected by deed restrictions and zoning. The land conveyed to individual home owners
will also be deed restricted and will not allow development on lands acquired from the
Forest Service. This zoning request will facilitate the resolution of long standing
encroachments of private roads, structures, landscaping on public property. On page 10
of the Land Use Plan, the Plan acknowledges that the Town and the USFS need to work
together to address lands that were identified for possible disposal. Lands on Ptarmigan
Road and Rockledge Road were designated as such because of the private and public
encroachments on these properties. This subdivision and rezoning will help facilitate the
resolution of these encroachments.
IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of this major subdivision and zoning requests subject to the
following finding:
That the proposed zone districts are compatible with and suitable to adjacent uses, are
consistent with the Town's Land Use Plan and Zoning Regulations, and are appropriate
for the area and that the major subdivision is consistent with the criteria and standards of
Title 13, Subdivision Regulations.
•
F.v,EVER'ONE\PECWEMOS\98\TOVRE026.DOC
3
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: December 14, 1998
SUBJECT: A request fora. worksession to discuss proposed text amendments to
the Public Accommodation Zone District regulations amending the ' ,
various development standards and revising the development review
process
Applicant: Johannes Faessler, represented by Tom Braun
Planner: George Ruther
1. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
The applicant, Johannes Faessler, represented by Tom Braun of Braun Associates, inc.,
is requesting a worksession with the Planning & Environmental Commission to discuss
amendments to the Public Accommodation Zone District. In a report prepared by the
applicant's representative, two problems have been identified with the existing Public
Accommodation Zone District. One of the underlying problems that the applicant has
identified is that the existing development standards (GRFA, density, setbacks, etc.) do
not allow the flexibility necessary to develop a viable, high quality lodge.
A second problem that was identified is the current development review process, Since
the existing development standards of the Public Accommodation Zone District appear
to be outdated, a majority of the recent proposals for redevelopment in the Public
Accommodation Zone District have been requests for Special Development Districts.
Special Development Districts have been utilized for redevelopment as a means of
achieving the necessary flexibility needed to develop a viable, high quality lodge. One
need not look very far to see that the special development district review process is a
very difficult and arduous process rarely ending in a true win-win situation. Several
problems identified by the applicant with the current development review process for
special development districts include potential inequities in the review process, ill-
defined development standards, uncertainty in the decision-making process, and the
vast amounts of time and energy required of the process itself.
This memorandum provides a brief history of the Public Accommodation Zone
District and identifies issues for discussion. The purpose of this worksession is to
open a line of communication between the community, applicant, staff and the
Planning & Environmental Commission with regard to possible amendments to
the Town°s Public Accommodation Zone District Regulations. To facilitate this
discussion, staff has identified four issues which we believe need to be discussed
in greater detail. Each of these issues is discussed in Section Ill of this
memorandum.
To WY OF *V
While the applicant proposing the amendments to the Public Accommodation Zone
District is Johannes Faessler, representing Sonnenalp Resort, the proposed
amendments are intended to address the Public Accommodation Zone District town-
wide, and are not intended to address only those properties owned by the applicant.
A copy of the report prepared by Braun Associates, Inc. for the applicant addressing the
proposed amendments has been attached for reference.
ll. BACKGROUND
According to Section 12-7A-1 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code, the purpose of the
Public Accommodation Zone District is,
"intended to provide sites for lodges and residential accommodations for visitors,
together with such public and semi-public facilities and limited professional
offices, medical facilities, private recreation, and related visitor oriented uses as
may appropriately be located in the same district. The Public Accommodation
District is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space, and other amenities
commensurate with lodge uses, and to maintain the desirable resort qualities of
the District by establishing appropriate site development standards. Additional
nonresidential uses are permitted as conditional uses which enhance the nature
of Vail as a winter and summer recreation and vacation community, and where
permitted are intended to function compatibly with the high density lodging
character of the District. The Public Accommodation District is intended to
provide sites for lodging units at densities not to exceed twenty five (25) dwelling
units per acre. (Ord. 30(1977) § 7: Ord. 8(1973) § 7. 100)."
According to the Official Zoning Map, there are eighteen properties in the Town of Vail
zoned Public Accommodation. These properties are generally located around the
periphery of the village commercial core area and include the Austria Haus*, Bavaria
Haus, Chateau at Vail (Holiday Inn), Christiania Lodge*, First Bank of Vail, Galatyn
Lodge*, Lot P-3, Marriott, Mountain Haus, 9 Vail Road (Holiday House), Ramshom
Condominiums*, -Swiss Chalet, Roost Lodge, Talisman, Tivoli Lodge, Vail Athletic Club*,
Vail Village Inn*, and Villa Valhalla. Of these eighteen properties, seven have received
approvals for special development districts and have been identified with an asterisk (*)
A copy of the existing development standards prescribed for the Public Accommodation
Zone District and a map illustrating the locations of the properties zoned Public
Accommodation can be found on pages 7 & 9 of the applicant's report.
The applicant has prepared a development history of the eighteen properties located in
the Public Accommodation Zone District and has provided several conclusions based
upon the development history. This information can be found on pages 10 through 14 of
the applicant's report. The report demonstrates the validity of many of the problems
identified with the existing development standards and the current development review
process.
Ill. DISCUSSION ISSUES
Again, the purpose of this worksession is to open up a dialogue between the community,
applicant, staff and the Planning & Environmental Commission with regard to possible
amendments to the Town's Public Accommodation Zone District. To facilitate this
discussion, staff has identified four issues which we believe need to be discussed and.
addressed prior to the Commission making its final recommendation to the Town Council
on the proposed amendments. The following discussion issues have been identified:
Uses
Sections 12-7A-2, 12-7A-3 & 12-7A-4 of the Municipal Code prescribe the permitted,
conditional and accessory uses in the Public Accommodation Zone District. According
to the purpose statement of the Public Accommodation Zone District, in park, the intent
of the district is to provide sites for lodges and residential accommodations for our
guests and visitors. To date, the applicant has proposed only to amend the permitted
use section of the regulation. The proposed amendment would remove the 10% floor
area limitation currently placed on accessory eating, drinking, recreational or retail
establishments.
Upon reviewing the existing conditional and accessory uses, staff believes there may be
an opportunity to make further amendments to the use sections. Specifically, staff would
recommend that the applicant, staff, and Planning & Environmental Commission
consider the elimination of churches, hospitals, medical and dental clinics, medical
centers, private clubs and public and private schools as conditional uses in the Public
Accommodation Zone District. If the intent of the district is to provide sites for lodges
and residential accommodations for our visitors and guests, we believe these uses may
be in direct conflict with the intent of the district. Staff believes that the allowable uses,
whether permitted, conditional, or accessory, should be of the type which directly benefit
the intent of the district and meet the development objectives of the Town.
2. Review Process
The applicant'has proposed an amended development review process. "The proposed
process would be applicable only to those properties zoned Public Accommodation and
is very similar in nature to the current review process utilized by the Town for properties
in the core areas. The essence of the amended review process is that proposals for
development would be reviewed for compliance with the Vail Village Urban Design
Guide Plan. Historically, the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan has been the
planning document used by the Town when reviewing projects in the Village Core.
Given the location of the majority of the Public Accommodation zoned properties,
relative to the Village Core, it would appear that the Guide Plan would be a Treasonable
and appropriate tool to use when reviewing projects in the Public Accommodation Zone
District.
There are two Public Accommodation zoned properties in the Town that are not located
in the general vicinity of the Village Core; The Roost Lodge and The Marriott. Of these
two properties, the most problematic with regard to the development review process is
the Roost Lodge. The Roost Lodge would need to be reviewed more similarly to other
properties in Town that are not within master planned areas. In the case of the Roost
Lodge, staff would suggest that the design guidelines outlined in the Zoning Regulations
apply to the property. 10
While the Marriott is not approximate to the Village, it is within the Lionshead Master
Plan area. As such, the Lionshead Master Plan and the design guidelines contained
within will adequately address the redevelopment issues of that building and future
rezoning of that property would likely result in a new zone district, hence no longer
zoned Public Accommodation. Staff would recommend that the existing review process
for CC1, CC2, and the Public Accommodation districts be refined to be less arduous. .
3. Development Standards
The applicant has proposed numerous changes to the development standards
prescribed for the Public Accommodation Zone District. These changes are summarized
on pages 16 & 17 and illustrated on pages 30 through 32 of the report, The following list
highlights the amendments:
GRFA ratio is increased from 80% (0.80) to 120 % (1.20)
The 35% common area limitation is eliminated.
The 10% limitation on accessory eating and drinking establishments and
retail is eliminated.
+ There is no limitation on accommodation units or fractional fee units. Instead,
the overall bulk and mass controls will be used to regulate the number of
units.
s An increase in allowable site coverage from 50% to 70%. (80% currently
allowed in CC1 and 70% in CC2).
The elimination of the minimum setback requirements currently prescribed.
Setback requirements would be determined by the Planning & Environmental
Commission similar to the General Use Zone District and in accordance with
the Urban Design Guide Plan.
A decrease in the landscape requirement from 30% to 20% to correspond
with the proposed increase in site coverage.
The proposed changes are in response to the findings of the research completed by the
applicant of past redevelopment projects. In most instances, applicants for
redevelopment in'the Public Accommodation Zone District have sought relief from the
GRFA, common area, density, site coverage and setback standards by requesting
variances or special development districts. The intent of the proposed changes is to
reduce the need for variances and minimize the use of special development districts
while providing the necessary flexibility to redevelop a lodge or hotel property. The
intent is to also provide incentives for properties to redevelop.
Staff would recommend that the applicant, staff and Planning & Environmental
Commission discuss the proposed amendments and determine if the amendments are
necessary and appropriate, and whether additional amendments or changes are
required. For example, the applicant is not proposing to amend the building height
limitation. However, as a result of discussions during the development of the Lionshead
Master Plan, the Town has determined that increased floor to ceiling heights are
necessary to achieve current industry standards and to meet guest expectations.
4. Aoolicabilitv of the Regulations
The applicant has suggested the possible need to apply the proposed amended
regulations to the Public Accommodation Zone District only to those properties in the
general vicinity, of Vail Village. In effect, this would exclude the Marriott and the Roost
Lodge from realizing the benefits of the proposed amendments.
Staff would suggest the applicant and the Commission discuss the validity of applying
the proposed amendments to all properties zoned Public Accommodation in the Town of
Vail. Again, as stated previously, a redevelopment on the site of the Marriott would be
reviewed under the guidelines prescribed within the Lionshead Master Plan. The Roost
Lodge would be the only property which, would be reviewed in the absence of a master
plan.
VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
As this a worksession to discuss possible text amendments to the Public
Accommodation Zone District regulations amending the various development standards
and revising the development review process, staff will not be providing a formal
recommendation at this time. However, at the time of final review by the Planning and
Environmental Commission, staff will provide its recommendation.
•
r
"all
"'PR'OPOSEvD l'vdE "MENT&'.?:-
'j,
.'
t
VUBLIC -% 'Js:'u.COlV-o-L :
??,(p
.
t:
DIST
ON
Fr
1' V i
4
`r 3
C
C
t
a
? t?cto?e 199.E
r
s Y
t
6 i F
G J
-
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS O THE
1BT.,TC ACCOMMODATION ( ) ZONE DISTRICT
Prepared For:
Sonnenalp Resort of Vail
20 Vail Road
Vail, CO 81657
Prepared By:
Braun Associates, Inc.
P.O. Box 776
Minturn, CO 81645
(970) 827-5797
October 1998
TA LE OF C0NTENT S ..
I . INTRODUCTION I
11. PROBLEM STATEMENT 3
IIL ASSUMPTIONS S
IV. ABOUT THE PA ZONE DISTRICT 6
V. RECENT DEVELOPMENT HISTORY OF THE PA ZONE DISTRICT 10
VI. CONCLUSIONS 13
VII. OVERVIEW OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE PA ZONE
DISTRICT 15
VIII. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO PA ZONE DISTRICT 18
IX. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE DEFINITION OF GRFA 33
EXHIBITS
VAIL VILLAGE AREA PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION ZONED
PROPERTIES 9
Amendments to PA Zone District
October 1998
1. INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this report is to provide background information on proposed amendments to the
Town of Vail's Public Accommodation (PA) Zone District and a related amendment to the
definition of GRFA for lodging facilities. This report and proposed amendments have been
prepared by Braun Associates, Inc. for the Sonnenalp Resort at Vail. While this report has been
commissioned by the Sonnenalp, proposed amendments address the PA zone district and do not
focus specifically on PA property owned by the Sonnenalp.
This report presents a brief development history of PA zoned properties in Vail, identifies issues
with the current PA Zone District and establishes assumptions pertaining to lodging facilities in
Vail. The findings made as a result of this evaluation conclude that the PA None District 16 in need
of refinement. These findings provide the basis for specific amendments that are proposed for the
PA district.
This report includes the following sections.
I. Introduetion/Pumose of this Resort
This section provides an introduction to this proposal and an outline of this report.
11. Problem Statement
The two underlying problems with the PA Zone District and the Town's development
review process are summarized in this section.
III. Assumstions
This section lists assumptions that have been made regarding the Town's overall
development objectives and other factors relative to the PA Zone District.
IV. About the PA Zone District
A brief history of the PA Zone District, the purpose of the District, a list of properties
currently zoned PA and the level of development permitted by the PA Zone District are
outlined in this section.
V. Recent Develof),,, , I of the PA Zutie Disi.rtct
A synopsis of recent development activity in PA zoned properties is provided in this
section.
Amendments to PA Zone District
October 1998
1
I
VI. Conclusions
This section summarizes the findings of this report, identifies specific elements of the PA
Zone District that warrant further evaluation and outlines the rationale for the amendments
proposed for the PA district.
VII. Overview of Proposed Amendments
An overview of amendments proposed to the PA zone district is provided in this section.
VIII. Proposed Amendments to PA Zone District
Specific amendments proposed to the PA Zone District are presented in this section.. In
order to understand proposed amendments, all new text and changes to the existing PA
zone district are indicated by italics and all text deleted from the existing PA zone district is
indicated by
IX. Prooosed Amendments to the Definition of GRFA
A related amendment to the definition of GRFA for lodging facilities is presented in this
section.
E
Amendments to PA Zone District
October 1998 2
1, F ? 13LEM STATEMENT
Two distinct, yet related problems have prompted the need for this evaluation of the PA Zone
District. The underlying problem that has been identified with the PA Zone District is that existing
development standards do not allow the flexibility necessary to develop a viable, high quality
lodging facility. The related problem is that the "t'own's development review system does not
include a well-defined, workable process for seeping relief from the standards of the PA zone
district.
Existing PA Standards
Standards for lodging facilities have been established by the market place and these
standards are dramatically different today than they were twenty to thirty years ago. This is
particularly true in high-profile resort communities such as Vail. These differences are
reflected in people's expectations regarding the size of rooms, the quality of lobby and
interior spaces, the number and type of dinning options, the size and availability of meeting
facilities and indoor recreational amenities. For example, twenty years ago a comfortably-
sized lodge room was approximately 300 square feet in size. Today, the minimum size of a
high-quality lodge room is in the range of 450-500 square feet. In addition, there is great
demand for one and two-bedroom suites which require even more square footage. While
today the typical lodge guest in Vail is willing to spend far more for their lodging than they
were in the past, they also expect much more from their stay in terms of the size of their
room and the overall quality and type of lodge facilities.
Review Process Alternatives
Over the past decade, a significant number of PA properties have been upgraded and
expanded (additional information regarding the re-development of PA zoned property is
provid-- ' below in Section V.). By and large, each of these re-developments have involved
additional floor area devoted to lodge rooms or other guest service facilities such as
lobbies, meeting facilities, restaurants or other on-site amenities. These re-developments
have also included overall upgrades to the design and aesthetics of these lodges.
ill 1110sc ca es, FA z011e;ci prOpezzies Lhat have been re-developed were at or over
developm nt 1- the PA Zone District. As such; the majority of these re-
developments have utilized the Special Development District (SDD) process to obtain
Amendments to PA Zone District
October 1998
development approvals. Over the years the SDD process has come under increased
scrutiny and particularly in the recent past, SDD's have proven to be an arduous process
for the applicant, the staff, the decision-makers and the public. Problems that have
frequently been cited with SDD's include the potential for inequities in the review process,
ill-defined development standards, uncertainty in when and how decisions are made, and
the tremendous amount of time and energy required by all involved in the process.
The difficulties with the SDD process seemed to come to a head during the review of the
Austrian Haus in 1997. While today there appears to be a very strong consensus in
support of the project that was ultimately approved by the Town Council, much has been
made of the difficult and at times contentious process that evolved during the review of this
application. By all accounts the building now under construction will be a positive addition
to the community and one that will meet the goals of both the town and the developer.
However, if nothing else the review of the Austria Haus demonstrated that there must be a
better way to facilitate the review of proposal to upgrade lodging facilities in the Town.
E
Amendments to PA Zone District
October 1998 4
11.1. ASSUMPTIONS
A number of assumptions, or "givens" have been made relative to this evaluation of the PA Zone
District. These assumptions include:
The underlying intent of the PA Zone District is valid - a zone district designed specifically
for lodge development is critically important to the Town's l.i°7f-.J.ihood and character;
The re-development and upgrading of lodge facilities should be encouraged;
Lased on the existing level of development found on most PA parcels, the existing
development standards outlined in the PA Zone District allow little latitude, and little
incentive, for the re--development of lodge facilities in a manner that will satisfy the
expectations of the marketplace;
® Over time, additional PA zoned properties will be candidates for re-development and
upgrading;
If PA zoned properties are permitted to re-develop in a manner that exceeds allowable
development standards, provisions must be in place to provide the Town with the controls
necessary to ensure that such re-developments make a positive contribution to the
community.
u
Amendments to PA Zone District
October 1998 5
IV. ABOUT THE PA ZONE DISTRIC'T'
The Public Accommodation District (PA) zone district was established by the Ordinance #7 of
1969, the ordinance; which enacted the Town's first zoning regulations. In addition to "hotels,
motels and lodges", the original PA district also allowed "single-family and two-family dwellings"
and "professional, service and business offices and studios" as uses by right. The first PA Zone
District did not include a purpose statement. However, multi-family dwellings were not permitted
in this district and as such it could be inferred that the original intent of the district was for
overnight guest facilities. The allowable floor area ratio was 1.5:1 and there were no limits on the
total number of units or on the amount of square footage devoted to accessory uses such as
restaurants or common spaces.
Ordinance #19 of 1976 enacted comprehensive amendments to the Town's zoning code. This
ordinance limited permitted uses in the PA Zone District to "=lodges, including accessory eating,
drinking, restaurant, recreational and retail establishments not to exceed 20 percent of the total
gross residential floor area of the main building". Limiting permitted uses to "lodges" firmly
established the PA Zone District as the Town's lodging zone district. Gross residential floor area
was reduced to .8 of the total site area and there were still no limits on the total allowable number
of units per acre. While records are somewhat inconclusive, it appears that a maximum density of
25 dwelling units per acre was added to the PA Zone District by Ordinance #30 of 1977. At the
same time, the definition section of the zoning code was modified such that accommodation units
were calculated at .5 dwelling units.
There are currently eighteen Public Accommodation zoned properties in the Town of Vail:
1) Austria Haus*
2) Bavarian Haus
3) Chateau at Vail
4) Christiania Lodge*
5) First Bank of Vail
6) Galatyn Lodge*
7) Lot P-3 (VA/Christiania 2 ` Z ,'
8) Marriott*
9) Fountain Haus
10) 9 Vail Road
11) Ramshorn*
12) Swiss Chalet
13) The Roost Lodge
Amendments to PA Zone District
October 1998
6
I ,v.
14) Talisman
15) Tivoli Lodge
16) Vail Athletic Club*
17) Vail Village Inn*
18) Villa Vahalla
* = properties that have received SDD approval
V?Tith the exception of the Roost Lodge and the Marriott, all PA parcels are located in the Vail
Village area. PA zoned properties extend from just west of Vail Road to Golden Peak and tend to
be located on the perimeter of Commercial Core I, the core area of Vail Village. Refer to the
attached map of Vail Village Area Public Accommodation Zoned Properties for an indication of
where PA zoned properties are located.
The following summarizes the existing development standards for the PA Zone District:
Uses Lodges, along with accessory eating, drinking, recreation or retail
establishments within main building not occupying more than 10% of the
total GRFA on the site.
Density ?5 dwelling units per acre, or 50 accommodation units per acre of buildable
site area.
GRFA .8 of the total buildable site area, provided at least 50% of the allowable
GRFA is devoted to lodge rooms:
Common Area The definition of GRFA excludes from calculation as GRFA all common
areas (hallways, lobby areas, recreation facilities, m"tin", facilities, office
space, etc.) up to 35% of the total allowable GRFA. Common area in
excess of 35% counts as GRFA.
Site Coverage Up to 55% of the site may be covered by ?ings.
Building Height Up to 45' for flat roof and 48' for pitched roofs. -
In order to understand these development standards, the following development could occur on a
PA parcel one acre (43,560 square feet) in size:
Density- 50 accommodation units
GRFA- 34,848 square feet
Common area- 12,196 square feet
Retail, rest., etc- Up to 3,484 square feet (this square footage. is calculated as GRFA)
Site coverage- Up to 23,958 square feet of the site may be covered by buildings
Amendments to PA Zone District
October 1998 7
The total amount of building square footage permitted by the PA Zone District on a one-acre lot is
47,044 square feet (34,848 square feet of allowable GRFA and 12,196 square feet of allowable
common area). This equates to a total floor area ratio of just over 1:1 (1.08:1). In order to put
these numbers into perspective, consider a project on a one-acre lot that utilizes all allowable floor
area (47,044 square feet) and all allowable site coverage (23,958 square feet). All of this floor area
could be accommodated in just a two-story building.
Refer to the summary of re-developed PA properties for a better understanding of the relationship
between the allowable level of development in the PA Zone District and projects that have been
approved in the recent past.
Amendments to PA Zone Ds
Zone District
October 1998 8
-,;T7777-77777
it
N.T.S.
NOTES:
i) All property boundaries are aft, uA;.,ate.
2) The Roost Lodge in West Vail and the
Marriot Hotel are also zoned PA.
CCIT
u HDMF g
I t PS/2->~AM
Open Space
Other (Parking, General Use)
}
E
V. RECENT DEVELOPMENT HISTORY OF THE PA ZONE DISTRICT
The First Bank of Vail, the Villa Vahalla and Lot P-3 (the VA/Christiania parking lot) are the only
three PA parcels that have not been developed as lodges. Nine of the fifteen PA parcels that have
been developed as lodges (60%) have been re-developed in the recent past t .sing either the SDD or
variance process. Only two PA properties, the Tivoli Lodge and the Bavaria Ilaus, have been re-
developed in the recent past without utilizing the SDD process. However, both the Tivoli and the
Bavaria Haus relied on approvals of numerous variance requests in order to allow for their
respective re-developments in the late 1980's.
The following table lists all PA zoned property, when the last major re-development of the property
occurred, whether the re-development is in compliance with PA development standards, and the
specific deviations to the PA Zone District that were approved to facilitate the re-development.
LAST MAJOR COMPLIANCE W/ APPROVED
PROPERTY RE-DEVELOPMENT PA STANDARDS DEVIATIONS
Austria Haus* 1995 NO/SDD#35 GRFA, density, common
area, setbacks, site coverage,
landscaping, retail
Bavaria Haus 1991 NO(variances) Common area, parking,
height
Chateau at Vail N/A N/A N/A
Christiania Lodge* 1990 NO/SDD#28 GRFA, density, common
area, setbacks
First Bank N/A N/A N/A
Galatyn Lodge* 1988 NO/SDD#19 GRFA, setbacks, definition
Lot P-3 N/A NIA NIA
Marriott 1981 N0/SDD#7 Density, height
Mountain Haus N/A N/A N/A
9 Vail Road N/A N/A N/A
Ramshorn* 1988 NO/SDD#17 Density, parking, definition
Swiss Chalet N/A N/A N/A
The Roost Lodge N/A N/A N/A
Talisman N/A N/A N/A
Tivoli Lodge 1989 NO(variances) GRFA, density, setbacks,
parking
Vail Athletic Club* 1998 NO/SDD#30 GRFA, density, site
coverage, setbacks, height,
common area, retail
Vail Village Inn* 1992 NO/SDD#6 Density, mixed-use
Villa Vahalla N/A N/A N/A
Amendments to PA Zone District
October 1998 to
The following is a brief summary of the nine PA properties that have re-developed in the recent
past:
Austria Haus
This recently approved SDD allowed deviations to GRFA, density, common area and retail
square footage, site coverage and setbacks. Approved GRFA is 197% of allowable,
dwelling units are 149% of allowable, common area is 116% of allowable, site coverage is
130% of allowable and retail/commercial space is 166% of allowable. Public benefits of
the project include the upgrading of an existing lodge, streetscape improvements, increased
bed base and development of retail space along Meadow Drive.
Bavaria Haus
An SDD initially proposed for the re-development of the Bavaria Haus was withdrawn and
the project was redeveloped in 1988 after variance approvals for building height, parking
and common area. The property is within allowable GRFA and density levels, however
the common area with the Bavaria Haus is 136% of allowable common area.
0 Christiania
This SDD allowed for the addition of dwelling units, common area, bar space and enclosed
parking. The approved GRFA is 107% of allowable, density is 150% of allowable and
common area is 137% of allowable. An EHU, enclosed parking, paved parking,
landscaping and a path along Mill Creek are public benefits of the project.*
Galatvn Lodffe
This SDD approved setback encroachments, slight increase to allowable GRFA and a
deviation to the definition of a lodge (ratio of GRFA allocated to accommodation units vs.
dwelling units). Public benefits included two restricted employee units, underground
parking, streetscape improvements and a bus stop.*
Ramshorn
Density 126% of allowable, a reduction in required parking and a slight deviation to the
definition of a lodge were approved by this SDD. Public benefits included use restrictions
on dwelling units and a sidewalk along Vail Valley Drive.*
Amendments to PA Zone District
October 1998
11
Tivoli,
An SDD initially proposed for the re-development of the Tivoli was withdrawn and the
project was redeveloped in 1988-89 after variance approvals for setbacks, parking design,
density (120% of allowable) and GRFA(120% of allowable).
Vail Athletic Club
This recently approved SDD allowed deviations to GRFA, density, common area and retail
square footage, site coverage and setbacks. Approved GRFA is 141% of allowable,
dwelling units are 188% of allowable, site coverage is 127% of allowable, common area is
176% of allowable and retail/commercial space is 133% of allowable. Public benefits of
the project include the addition of six EHU's and streetscape improvements.*
Vail Village Inn and Marriott
Both of these SDD's were originally approved in the mid-70's and have been amended
many times over the past twenty years. These project differ somewhat from other
examples listed above in that the original SDD set the stage for the ultimate development of
the property and subsequent amendments essentially facilitated the phased development of
the project as opposed to the re-developliwat of the project.
* = indicates public benefits are based on a Town of Vail Community Development Summary
of SDD's.
This table and these summaries demonstrate a very clear pattern for PA zoned properties that have
been re-developed in the recent past. Each of the nine re-developed PA properties have relied on
either the SDD process or on variances in order to obtain development approvals. Not a single PA
property has initiated a mlljor c-?lcvclop aorat v;ltliout SDD or variance approvals. This pattern
alone indicates that existing PA --ing standards are "°out of sync" with the type of lodge re-
developments that have been done in Vail. The Town's approval of all nine re-developments
would indicate that each of these projects included enough in the way of "public benefit" to warrant
approval - essentially the Town has determined in all nine cases that the community benefits of
upgrading lodge facilities outweighs the strict and literal adherence to the PA development
standards.
Amendments to PA Zone District m
October 1998 12
VI. CONCLUSIONS
The following conclusions have been derived from the evaluation presented above:
1) In the past ten years every major re-developments of PA properties has utilized either the
SDD or variance process;
2) Every re-development of PA property in the past ten years has received approval by the
Town to exceed or deviate from at least one of the following development standards:
0 GRFA
a Density
6 Common area
O Retail, commercial square footage
m Parking
a Setbacks
0 Site coverage
s Height
• Definition of lodge
E
n
The vast majority of these redevelopments have exceeded allowable GRFA, density and
r.ncd Y_ f., ;ant atnount.
3) The PA development standards appear to establish arbitrary limits for how a lodging
property can be developed and these limits are not consistent with the type of development
necessary to create quality lodging facilities in today's market place.
4) The Town has demonstrated a willingness to not only consider but approve lodge re-
developments that exceed allowable development standards provided public benefits are
provided by the project.
5) By virtue of the "final products" provided by PA re-developments, it has been
demonstrated that through the review process it is feasible to design and construct projects
that may exceed arbitrary development standards yet "fit" with the feel and character of
Vail's built environment.
6) The review process could be made smoother for all concerned if the number and extent of
"unknowns" could be reduced. For example, proponents of a project struggle with the
unknown level of development that may be approved and the public improvements that may
be required to obtain project approval while the Town struggles with proposed levels of
development, its relationship to allowable development, and the ever present "precedent"
issue.
Amendments to PA Zone District
October 1998
13
A -
E
It seems readily apparent that existing PA development standards warrant modification to ensure
that they are consistent with the needs of the lodging community and with community-aide goals.
In addition, there is a need for a more refined review process to facilitate the redevelopment of
lodge properties.
Amendments to PA Zone District
October 1998 14
VII, OVERVIEW OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
Specific amendments proposed to the PA Zone District and a related amendment to the definition of
GRPA are found in the following two sections of this report. In order to understand proposed
amendments in the context of existing zoning regulations, all new text and changes to existing
regulations are indicated by italics text and all text deleted from existing regulations are indicated
by t. A brief summary of proposed changes is also provided at the end of each section.
The following summarizes the major elements of proposed amendments to the PA zone district and
outlines the basis for such amendments.
1 } Applicable Properties
Proposed amendments will apply to all PA properties located in the Vail Village area.
Applicable properties include those PA zoned properties as indicated on the Vail Village PA
and PA/SDD Zoned Properties Map. Proposed amendments will not apply to the Marriott
and the Roost. It is assumed that the Lionshead Master Plan process will more
appropriately address the Marriott property. The Roost property has been excluded from
is these amendments because its West Vail location is not consistent with the characteristics of
PA properties located in Vail Village.
2) lmplementation
Proposed amendments will be implemented with the addition of a new section within the
PA zone district entitled 12-7A-12; Public Accommodation Properties Located in Vail
Village. This section establishes development standards that will apply to these properties
and a review process for such properties. Upon adoption, the provisions of this new
section will apply to all existing PA properties located in Vail Village. There will be no
need to re-zone individual PA properties in order to apply the proposed development
standards and review process.
3) Review Process
History has demonstrated that the Town's review process has been quite successful in
ensuring new development be of high quality and provide positive community benefits.
That said, history has also demonstrated a pattern of PA properties relying on the SDD and
variance review process, which has resulted in a level of frustration for both the Town and
Amendments to PA Zone District
October 1998 15
the applicant. The review process proposed for PA properties in Vail Village is intended to
provide a degree of flexibility for the applicant, establish a review process that will consider
characteristics of the site and surrounding areas, and provide the Town with defined criteria
for evaluating development proposals. As a major element of this amendment process, it is
important that the review process establish a level playing field with some degree of
predictability so that the Town and applicant have an idea of expectations going into the
process.
As proposed, this review process for PA properties located within the Vail Village area will
utilize the criteria and review process outlined by the Mail Village Urban Design Guide
Plan. The Urban Deign Guide Plan has served the Town well for over 15 years and has
proven to be an effective tool for reviewing development proposals in the Village Area..
While currently the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan technically applies only to
properties in the Commercial Core T zone district, the Guide Plan maps and design criteria
are applicable to a larger area and in fact over the past few years the Town has used the
Guide Plan to review development proposals on properties located outside of the CCI
district. Utilization of the Guide Plan will provide an excellent framework for reviewing
0 development proposals for PA properties located witlriai the Vail Village area
4) Development Standards
A number of changes are proposed to uses and development standards for PA properties
located in the Vail Village Area. In keeping with the format of the CCI zone district and the
Urban Design Guide Plan, many of the development standards proposed for PA Properties
located in Vail Village reference the Urban Design Guide Plan and Design Considerations.
The following summarize amendments proposed to development standards:
GRFA ratio is increased from .8 to 1.2 site area. This amendment is intended to
allow increased flexibility in the design of lodging facilities and is also consistent
with the amount of GRFA approved for recent development projects in the PA Zone
District. GRFA will be regulated by the overall bulk and mass controls established
by the Urban Design Guide Plan.
The 35% limitation on common spaces is eliminated. This amendment will
eliminate a zoning control that restricts the development of common facilities such
as lobbies, spas and meeting rooms - uses typically associated with the
development of quality lodging facilities. "Common" floor area will be regulated
Amendments to PA Zone District
October 1998 16
I
by the overall bulk and mass controls established by zoning standards and the
Urban Design Guide Plan. This amendment will be accomplished by modifying the
definition of GRFA pertaining to common area within buildings that contain more
than two units. A new paragraph has been added to this section which excludes
lodges from the 35% limitation. The 35% limitation will remain in place for multi-
family buildings which do not meet the definition of lodge (i.e. condominiums).
The 10% limitation on retail and restaurants is eliminated. This floor area will be
re-ulated by the overall bulk and mass controls established by the Urban Design
Guide Plan.
• There is no limit on a.u.'s or fractional fee units. This change is consistent with the
recommendations of the Lionshead Master Plan and is seen as an incentive for the
development of such units. The total number of units on a property will be
regulated by limitations on GRFA, bulk and mass design controls and requirement.
Site coverage increases from 50% to 70%. This amendment will allow increased
flexibility in site development and is consistent with existing site coverage
regulations in Lionshead. The Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan will also be
used to evaluate the appropriateness of site coverage proposed for new
rii? ? lolz??e}rt.
• Arbitrary setbacks requirements are eliminated, setbacks will be determined based
on compliance with Urban Design Guide Plan Criteria and Design Considerations.
This change is intended to encourage building design that responds to site
conditions, public street and surrounding buildings.
Amendments to PA Zone District
October 1998 17
SECTION VIII. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 7
COMMERCIAL AND BUSINESS DISTRICTS
ARTICLE A. PUBLIC ACCOTMMODATION (PA) DISTRICT
SECTION:
12-7A-1: Purpose
12-7A-2: Permitted Uses
12-7A-3: Conditional Uses
12-7A-4: Accessory Uses
12-7A-5: Lot Area And Site Dimensions
12-7A-6: Setbacks
12-7A-7: Height
12-7A-8: Density Control
12-7A-9: Site Coverage
12-7A-10: Landscaping And Site Development
12-7A-11: Parking And Loading
12-7A-12 Public Accommodation Properties Located in Vail Village
12-7A-1: PURPOSE:
The Public Accommodation District is intended to provide sites for lodges and residential
accommodations for visitors, together with such public and semi-public facilities and limited
professional offices, medical facilities, private recreation, and related visitor oriented uses as may
appropriately be located in the same district. The Public Accommodation District is intended to
ensure adequate light, air, open space, and other amenities commensurate with lodge uses, and to
maintain the desirable resort qualities of the District by establishing appropriate site development
standards. Additional nonresidential uses are permitted as conditional uses which enhance the
nature of Vail as a winter and summer recreation and vacation community, and where permitted are
intended to function compatibly with the high density lodging character of the District. The Public
Accommodation District is intended to provide sites for lodging units at densities not to exceed
twenty five (25) dwelling units per acre. (Ord. 30(1977) ' 7: Ord. 8(1973) '7.100)
Amendments to PA Zone District
October 1998 1
12-7A-2: PERMn'i'tD USE'S:,
The following uses shall be permitted in the PA District:
Lodges, including accessory eating, drinking, recreational or retail establishments located within
the principal use and not occupying more than ten percent (10%) of the total gross residential floor
area of the main structure or structures on the site; additional accessory dining areas may be located
on an outdoor deck, porch or terrace.(Ord. 37(1980 7: Ord. 19(1976) ' 8: Ord. 8(1973) ' 7.200)
12-7A-3: CONDITIONAL USES:
The following conditional uses shall be permitted in the PA. District, subject to issuance of a
conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 16 of this Title:
Bed and breakfast, as further regulated by Section 12-14-18 of this Title.
Churches.
Eating, drinking, recreational, or retail establishments not occupying more than ten percent (10%)
of the total gross residential floor area of a main structure or structures located on the site in a
nonconforming multi-family dwelling.
Fractional fee club as further regulated by Section 12-16-6A.7 of this Title.
Hospitals, medical and dental clinics, and medical centers.
Major arcade, so long as it does not have any exterior frontage on any public way, street,
walkway, or mall area.
Private clubs and civic, cultural and fraternal organizations.
Professional and business offices.
Public buildings, grounds and facilities.
Public or commercial parking facilities or structures.
Public or private schools.
Public park and recreational facilities.
Public transportation terminals.
Public utility and public service uses.
Ski lifts and tows.
Theaters, meeting rooms, and convention facilities.
Type III employee housing unit as provided in Section 12-13-6 of this Title.
Type IV employee housing unit as provided in Section 12-13-7 of this Title.
(Ord. 22(1996) '2: Ord. 8(1992) ' 19: Ord. 31(1989) '7: Ord. 3 (1985?? 1: Ord. 27(1982) ' 1(b):
Ord. 6(1982) ' 8(a): Ord. 8(1981) ' 2: Ord. 26(1980) ' 2: Ord, 8(1973) '7-300)
Amendments to PA Zone District
October 1998 19
12-7A-4: ACCESSORY USES:
The following accessory uses shall be permitted in the PA District:
Home occupations, subject to issuance of a home occupation permit in accordance with the
provisions of Section 12-14-12 of this Title.
Minor arcade.
Swimming pools, tennis courts, patios, or other recreation facilities customarily incidental to
permitted lodge uses.
Other uses customarily incidental and accessory to permitted or conditional uses, and necessary for
the operation thereof. (Ord. 6(1982)'8(b): Ord. 8(1973)'7.400)
12-7A-5: LOT AREA AND SITE DIMENSIONS:
The minimum lot or site area shall be ten thousand (10,000) square feet of buildable area and each
site shall have a minimum frontage of thirty feet (30'). Each site shall be of a size and shape
capable of enclosing a square area ei ty ,t (80') on each side within its boundaries. (Ord.
12(1978) ' 3)
12-7A-6: SETBACKS:
In the PA District, the minimum font setback shall be twenty feet (20'), the minimum side setback
shall be twenty feet (20'), and the minimum rear setback shall be twenty feet (20').
(Ord. 50(1978) '2)
12-7A-7: HEIGHT:
For a flat roof or mansard roof, the height of buildings shall not exceed forty five feet (45'). For a
sloping roof, the height of buildings shall not exceed forty eight feet (48'). (Ord. 37(1980) 2)
12-7A-8: DENSITY CONTROL:
Not more than eighty (80) square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA) shall be permitted for
each one hundred (100) square feet of buildable site area. Not more than eighty (80) square feet of
gross residential floor area shall be permitted for each one hundred (100) square feet of buildable
site area for any conditional use as listed in Section 12-7A-3 of this Article. The total density for
permitted uses, conditional uses, and accessory uses shall not exceed eighty (80) square feet of
gross floor area for each one hundred (100) square feet of buildable site area. Total density shall
not exceed twenty five (25) dwelling units per-acre of buildable site area. (Ord. 50(1978) ' 19:
Ord. 12(1978) ' 2)
Amendments to PA Zone District
October 1998 20
12-7A-9: SITE COVERAGE:
Site coverage shall not exceed fifty five percent (55%) of the total site area. (Ord. 17(1991) '7:
Ord. 8(1973) ' 7.507)
12-7A-10: LANDSCAPING AND SITE DEVELOPMENT:
At least thirty percent (30%) of the total site area shall be landscaped. The rninimum width and
length of any area qualifying as landscaping shall be fifteen feet (15') with a minimum area not less
than three hundred (300) square feet. (Ord. 19 (1976)' 8: Ord. 8 (1973)'7.509)
1.2-7A-11: PARKING AND LOADING:
Off-street parking and loading shall be provided in accordance with Chapter 10 of this 'T'itle. At
least seventy five percent (75%) of the required parking shall be located within the main building or
buildings and hidden from public view. No parking or loading area shall be located in any required
front setback area. (Ord. 19(1976) ' 8: Ord. 8(1973) '7.510)
NOTE: Sections 12-7A-1-11 above apply to PA zoned properties located
outside of the Vail Village area (the 1v arriott and the Roost). No
changes are proposed to these sections.
The provisions of Section 12-7A-12 below will apply to PA properties
located within the Vail Village Area. While all of this section is new,
it closely follows the content and format of sections 1-11 above. In
order to understand p: a, erl amendments, .all , text and cl .nl : s
to the existing PA zone district are indicated by italics and all text
deleted from the existing PA zone district is indicated by t +out.
12-7A-.12 PUBLIC ACCOILM l?ATI€91V PRC?PERTIES1(J('A 1E17 IN VAIL VILLAGE:
A. Aanlicability
The following development standards shall apply to all PA-zoned properties as indicated on
the Vail Village Area Public Accommodation Zoned Properties Map. The development
standards outlined below shall supersede the provisions of sections 12-7A-1 through
12-7A-11 above.
Amendments to PA Zone District
October 1998 21
LI
Changes To Existing IAA one 'District
This new section establishes a linkage between the development
standards and review procedures outlined below with the PA
properties indicated on the Mail Village Area Public Accommodation
Zoned Properties Map.
B. Puroose
The design of built improvements and the pedestrian orientation of the Vail Village Area is
unique to Vail and is one of the community's defining characteristics. The purpose of the
development standards outlined in this section is to establish development standards that will
allow design flexibility and creativity in the development and re-development of PA zoned
properties in the Vail Village Area while also establishing review criteria and a review
process that will ensure that new development is consistent with the unique design
characteristics of Vail Village. Further, the purpose of this section is to provide incentives
for the continued upgrading and redevelopment of PA zoned properties located in the Vail
Village Area. This will be accomplished by establishing the Vail Village Urban Design
Guide Plan and Design Considerations as review criteria for development of PA-zoned
properties located within the Vail Village Area.
Changes To Existing PA. Zone District
This new section states the purpose of the development standards and
review procedures outlined in this section.
C . Permitted Uses,
The following uses shall be permitted in PA-zoned properties located within the Vail Village
Area:
1. L,odges,-.:c?a4 g ae2 -aerj Ong;, ' av Jna' r r^ ^' t?
Amendments to PA Zone District
October 1998 22
0 --
t : .ages to Existing PA Zone District
This section eliminates the 10% limit on accessory eating, drinking,
recreational and retail uses. These uses are now listed as "accessory
uses" and would be permitted with no limitation to floor area.
D. Conditional Uses
The following conditional uses shall be permitted in PA-zoned properties located within the
Vail Village Area:
I . Bed and breakfasts as further regulated by Section 12-14-18 of this title.
2. Churches.
3. Eating, drinking, recreational, or retail establishments not occupying more than ten
percent (10%) of the total gross residential floor area of a main structure or structures
located on the site in a nonconforming multi-family dwelling.
4. Fractional fee club as further regulated by Section 12-16-6A7 of this Title.
5. Hospitals, medical and dental clinics, and medical centers
6. Major arcade, so long as it does no have any exterior frontage on any public way,
street, walkway or mall area.
7. Private clubs and civic, cultural and fraternal organizations.
8. Professional and business offices.
9. Public buildings, grounds and facilities.
10. Public or commercial parking facilities or structures.
11. Public or private schools.
12. Public park and recreation facilities.
13. Public transportation terminals.
14. Public utility and public service uses.
15. Ski lifts and tows.
16. Theaters, meeting rooms, and convention facilities.
17. Type IH employee housing unit and provided in Section 12-13-6 of this Title.
18. Type IV employee housing unit as provided in Section 12-13-7 of this Title.
Changes to Existing PA
Zane District
This section is identical to the existing PA Zone District.
Amendments to PA Zone District
October 1998 23
A
E. Accessorv Uses
The following conditional uses shall be permitted in PA-zoned properties located within the
Dail Village Area:
1. Lorne occupations subject to issuance of a home occupation permit in accordance
with the provisions of Section 12-14-12 of this Title.
2. Minor Arcade.
3. Swimming pools, tennis courts, patios, or other recreational facilities customarily
incidental to permitted lodge uses.
4. Eating, drinking, recreational and retail uses
5. Other uses customarily incidental and accessory to permitted or conditional uses, and
necessary for the operation thereof.
Changes to Existing PA Zane Dilstrict
This section makes "accessory eating, drinking and recreational uses"
an accessory use with no limitation as to floor area.
F. Exterior Alterations or Modifications
1. Subject to Review: The construction of a new building, the alteration of an existing
building which adds or removes any enclosed f lour area, the alteration of an existing
building which modifies exterior rooflines, the replacement of an existing building,
the addition of a new outdoor dining deck or the modification of an existing outdoor
dining deck shall be subject to review by the Planning and Environmental
Commission (PEC) as follows:
a. Application: An application shall be made by the owner of the building or the
building owner's authorized agent or representative on a form provided by
the Administrator. Any application for condominiumized buildings shall be
authorized by the condominium association in conformity with all pertinent
requirements of the condominium association's declarations.
b. Application; Contents: An application for an exterior alteration shall include
t?,,; J; ollowing:
(1) Completed application form, filing fee, and a list of all owners of
property located adjacent to the subject parcel. A filing fee shall not be
collected for any exterior alteration which is only for the addition of
Amendments to PA Zone District
October 1998 24
an exterior dining deck; however, all other applicable fees shall be
required. The owners list shall include the names of all owners, their
-nailing address, a legal description of the property owned by each,
and a general description of the property (including the name of the
property, if applicable), and the name and mailing address of the
condominium association's representative (if applicable). Said names
and addresses shall be obtained from the current tax records of Eagle
County as they appeared not more than thirty (30) days prior to the
application submittal date.
(2) A written statement describing the proposal and how the proposed
complies with the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and the Vail
Village Design Considerations, the Vail Village Master Plan,
Streetscape Master ',' in and any other relevant sections of the Vail
Comprehensive Plait.
(3) A survey stamped by a licensed surveyor indicating existing
conditions on the property including the location of
improvements, topography, and natural features.
(4) A current title report to verify ownership, easements, and other
encumbrances, including Schedules A and B.
(5) Existing and proposed site plan at a scale of one inch equals ten feet
(1 " =10'), a vicinity plan at an appropriate scale to adequately show
the project location in relationship to the surrounding area, a
landscape plan at a scale of one inch equals ten feet (I " =10'), a roof
height plan and existing and proposed building elevations at a
minimum scale of one-eighth inch equals one foot (118" = I'). The
material listed above shall include adjacent buildings and
improvements as necessary to demonstrate the project's compliance
with urban design criteria as set forth in the Vail Village Urban
Design Guide Plan, Vail Village Design Considerations, and any
other relevant sections of the Vail Comprehensive Plan.
(6) Szin/shade analysis of the existing and proposed building for the
springlfall equinox (March 21/September 23) and winter solstice
(December 21) at ten o'clock (10:00) A.M. and two o'clock (2:00)
P.M.unless the Department of Community Development determines
Amendments to PA Zone District
October 1998 25
I
that the proposed addition has no impact on the existing sunshade
pattern. The following sun angle shall be used when preparing this
analysis:
Shrine Fall Eauinox Sun Anele
10:00 A.M. 400 east of south, 50 declination
2:00 P.M. 420 west of south, 500 declination
Winter Solstice Sun Anele
10:00 A.M. 300 east of south, 200 declination
2:00 P.M. 300 west of south, 200 declination
(7) Existing and proposed floor plans at a scale of one-fourth inch equals
one foot (114" = I) and a square footage analysis of all existing and
proposed uses.
(8) An architectural or massing model of the proposed development. Said
model shall include buildings and major site improvements on
adjacent properties as deemed necessary by the Administrator. The
scale of the model shall be as determined by the Administrator.
() Photo overlays andlor other graphic material to demonstrate the
special relationship of the proposed development to adjacent
properties, public spaces, and adopted views per Chapter 22 of this
Title.
(10) Any additional information or material as deemed necessary by the
Administrator or the Town Planning and Environmental Commission
(PEC). The Administrator or the Planning and Environmental
Commission may, at his/her or their discretion, waive certain
submittal requirements if it is determined that the requirements are not
relevant to the proposed development nor applicable to the urban
design criteria, as set forth in the Vail Village Urban Design Guide
Plan and Vail Village Design Considerations and any other relevant
sections of the Vail Comprehensive Plan.
C. Application Date And Procedures: Complete applications for major exterior
alterations shall be submitted biannually on or before the fourth Monday of
February or the fourth Monday of September. Submittal requirements shall
include all information listed in subsection 1. b above; provided, however,
Amendments to PA Zone District
October 1998
26
I
that the architectural or massing model shall be submitted no later than three
(3) weeks prior to the f arst formal public hearing of the Planning and
Environmental Commission. No public hearings or work sessions shall be
scheduled regarding exterior alterations prior to the biannual submittal date
deadlines. At the next regularly scheduled Planning and Environmental
Commission meeting following the submittal dates listed above, the
Administrator shall inform the Planning and Environmental Commission of
all exterior alteration submittals. The Administrator shall commence with the
review of exterior alterations following this initial Planning and
Environmental Commission meeting.
(1) A property owner may apply for a major exterior alteration (greater
than 100 square feet) in any year in which he or she shall submit an
application on the February or September dates as set forth in
subsection 1. c above. Said application shall be termed a "major
exterior alteration. "
(2) Notwithstanding the foregoing, applications for the alteration of an
existing building which adds or removes any enclosed floor area of
not more than one hundred feet (100'), applications to alter the
exterior roof lines of an existing building, applications for new
outdoor dining decks and applications far modifications to existing
dining decks may be submitted on a designated submittal date for any
regularly scheduled Planning and Environmental Commission
meeting. Said applications shall be termed "minor exterior alteration
The review procedures for a minor exterior alteration shall be as
outlined in this Section. All enclosed floor area for an expansion or
deletion pursuant to subsection 1.b.(2) shall be physically and
structurally part of an existing or new building and shall not be a
freestanding structure.
(3) A single property owner may submit an exterior alteration proposal
which removes or encloses floor area of one hundred (100) square
a designated submittal date and will be reviewed by the.
Planning and Environmental Commission at any of its regularly
scheduled meetings.
Amendments to PA Zone District
October 1998
27
-
d. Mork Sessions: If requested by either the applicant or the Administrator, all
submittals shall proceed to a work session with the Planning and
Environmental Commission. The Administrator shall'schedule the work
session at a regularly scheduled Planning and Environmental Commission
meeting and shall cause notice of the hearing to be sent to all adjacent
property owners in accordance with subsection 12-3-6C of this Title.
Following the work session, and the submittal of any additional material that
may be required, the Administrator shall schedule a formal public hearing
before the Planning and Environmental Commission in accordance with
subsection 12-3-6C of this Title.
e. Hearing: The public hearing before the :Manning and Environmental
Commission shall be held in accordance with Section 12-3-6 of this Title.
The Planning and Environmental Commission may approve the application as
submitted, approve the application with conditions or modifications, or deny
the application. The decision of the Planning and Environmental Commission
may be appealed to the Town Council in accordance with Section 12-3-3 of
this Title.
f. Compliance With Applicable Comprehensive Plans: It shall be the burden of
the applicant to prove by a preponderance of the evidence before the Planning
and Environmental Commission that the proposed exterior alteration is in
compliance with the purposes of the PA Zone District as specified in Section
12-7A-12 B. of this Article, that the proposal is consistent with applicable
elements of the Vail Village Master Plan, the Town of Vail Streetscape Master
Plan, and the Vail Comprehensive Plan; and that the proposal does not
otherwise negatively alter the character of the neighborhood. Further, that
the proposal substantially complies with the Val Village Urban Design Guide
Plan and the Vail Village Design Considerations, io 1;zclude, but not be
limited to the following urban design considerations: pedestrianization,
vehicular penetration, streetscape framework, street enclosure, street edge,
views, serviceldelivery and sunshade analysis; architectural considerations;
and that the proposal substantially complies with all other elements of the Vail
Comprehensive Plan.
g. Approval: Approval of an exterior alteration under subsection F. 1. e. and f
above shall constitute approval of the basic form and location of
Amendments to PA Zone District
October 1998 28
improvements including siting, building setbacks, bulk, height, building bulb
and mass, site improvements and landscaping.
It. Lapse Of Approval: Approval of a major or minor exterior alterations
prescribed by this Article shall lapse and become void two ('2) years
following the date of approval of the major or minor exterior alteration by the
Planning and Environmental Commission unless, prior to the expiration, a
building pennit is issued and construction is commenced and diligently
pursued to completion,
i. Design Review Board Review: Any modification or change to the exterior
facade of a building or to a site shall be reviewed by the Design Review
Board in accordance with Chapter 11 of this Title.
2. Compliance Burden: It shall be the burden of the applicant to prove by a
preponderance of the evidence before the Design Review Board that the proposed
building modification is in compliance with the purposes of the PA Zone District as
specified in Section 12-7A-12 B. of this Article; that the proposal substantially
complies with the Gail Village Design Considerations or that the proposal does not
otherwise alter the character of the neighborhood.
Changes to Existing PA Zone District
This change establishes the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and
Design Considerations as the primary review criteria for development
of PA zoned properties located in Vail Village. The same review
process currently in place for CCI properties will be used and as such
this change ensures PEC review of all development proposals on PA
zoned properties located in Vail Village.
Amendments to PA Zone District
October 1998 29
U. Lot Area and Site Dimensions
The minimum lot or site area shall be ten thousand (10,000) square feet of buildable area and
each site shall have a minimum frontage of thirty feet (30'). Each site shall be of a size and
shape capable of enclosing a square area eighty feet (80') on each side within its boundaries.
Changes to Existing PA Zone District
This section is identical to the existing PA Zone District.
H. Setbacks
In the PA District, Cher--= ,i ?e _x fr3 tbac-k rhal1, bq- t` i aty f"c'ti"-.t the M _
k?ha?l 12e .:wn?rIt; ?-?
aback shall b-2 t,, t 2Q'), ar:d4he rnsni4iraAn rear setbay * , f
there shall be no required setbacks except as may be established pursuant to the Vail Village
Urban Design Guide Plan and Design Considerations.
Changes to Existing PA Zone District
This section eliminates the arbitrary 20' setback requirement and
establishes setback requirements based on compliance with the Urban
Design Guide Plan. The proposed 5?,.;tion is identical to the suLback
section of CCI.
I. Height
For a flat or mansard roof, the height of buildings shall not exceed forty-five (45') feet. For
a sloping roof, the height of buildings shall not exceed forty-eight (48') feet.
Changes to Existing PA Zone District
This section is identical to the existing PA Zone District.
J .. Density Control
No more than one hundred twenty (120) square feet of gross residential floor area shall be
permitted for each one hundred (100) square feet of buildable site area. Density shall not
exceed twenty-five (25) dwelling units per acre of buildable site area, provided however
there shall be no limit as to the total numbe( accommodation units or fractional fee units.
Amendments to PA Zone District
October 1998 30
Changes to Existing f'A 'Zone District
This section increas,., u. " ;-vable G A from .8 of buildable site area
to 1.2 of buildable site ar- u and eliminates limitations on the total
number of accommodation and fractional fee units. The increase to
allowable GIFA is consistent with the amount of GRFA that has been
approved in PA redevelopments over the past few years. Excluding
accommodation units and fractional fee units from calculation as
dwelling units is consistent with the recommendations of the
Lionshead Master Plan and is considered an incentive for the
deveiopment of such units.
t Site Coverage
Site coverage shall not exceed ? X55% seventy (70%) of the total site area,
except as may be established pursuant to the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and
Design Considerations.
Changes to Existing PA Zone District
This section increases site coverage from 55% to 70% and establishes
the Urban Design Guide Plan as applicable review criteria.
L. Landscaning and Site Development
At least 14i y percont- twenty percent (20%) of the total site area shall be landscaped;
unless otherwise specified in the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and Design
Considerations.. The minimum width and length of any area qualifying as landscaping shall
be fifteen feet (15') with a minimum area not less than three hundred (300) square feet.
Changes to Existing PA Zane District
This section decreases landscape requirements from 30% to 20% of the
site area, unless otherwise specified in the Vail Village Urban Design
Guide Plan and Design Considerations. This change is in response to
the proposed increase to allowable site area.
Amendments to PA Zone District
October 1998 31
I -
Parking and Loading
Off-street parking and loading shall be provided in accordance with Chapter 10 of this Title.
At least seventy five percent (75%) of the required parking shall be located within the main
building or buildings and hidden from public view. No parking or loading area shall be
located in any required front setback area.
Changes to Existing A Zone District
This section is identical to the existing PA Zone District.
Amendments to PA Zone District
October 1998 32
SECTION IX. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 15
GROSS RESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA
12-15-3: GRFA DEFINITION. CALCULATION. AND EXCLUSIONS:
A. Gross Residential Floor Area Defined: The total square footage of all levels of a building, as
measured at the inside face of the exterior walls (i.e., not including furring, sheetrock,
plaster and other similar wall finishes). GRFA shall include, but not be limited to, elevator
shafts and stairwells at each level, lofts, fireplaces, bay windows, mechanical chases, vents,
and storage areas. Attics, crawl spaces and roofed or covered decks, porches, terraces or
GT-
patios shall also be included in GRFA, unless they meet the provisions of subsection Al,
2 or 3 below.
1. Single-Family, Two-Family, And Primary/Secondary Structures:
(No changes to this section pertaining to single-family, Two-family and
Primary/Secondary structures)
2. Multiple-Family Structures: Within buildings containing more than two (2) allowable
dwellings or accommodation units, the following additional - r--f shall be excluded
from calculation as GRFA. GRFA shall be calculated by measuring the total square
footage of a building as set forth herein. Excluded areas as set forth shall then be
deducted from the total square footage:
a. Enclosed garages to accommodate on-site parking requirements.
b. All or part of the following spaces, provided such spaces are common spaces
and that the total square footage of all the following spaces shall not exceed
thirty five percent (3510) of the allowable GRFA permitted on the lot. Any
square footage which exceeds the thirty five percent (35%) maximum shall be
included in the calculation of GRFA.
(1) Common hallways, stairways, elevator shafts and airlocks.
(2) Common lobby areas.
(3) Common enclosed recreation facilities.
? ) ?..,0111MOn ileating, cowing or veihiiwawr, y z?.?, ovs i Zvi . btorage
areas, or other mechanical systems. Square footage excluded from
calculation as GRFA shall be the minimum square footage required to
allow for the maintenance and operation of such mechanical systems.
Amendments to PA Zone District
October 1998 33
I -
(5) Common closet and storage areas, providing access to such areas is
from common hallways only.
(6) Meeting and convention facilities.
(7) Office space, provided such space is used exclusively for the
management and operation of on-site facilities.
(8) Floor area to be used in a Type III or a Type ICJ "Employee Housing
Unit (FIIU)" as defined and restricted by Chapter 13 of this Title,
provided said EHU floor area shall not exceed sixty percent (60%) of
the thirty five percent (35%) common area allowance defined above.
Any square footage for the Type 1111 or Type IV EHUs which exceeds
the sixty percent (60%) maximum of allowed common area shall be
included in the calculation of GRFA. If a property owner allocates
common area for the purpose of employee housing, and subsequently
requests a common area variance, the Town shall require that the
housing area be converted back to common uses and that the
employee housing units be replaced within the Town.
C. All or part of an airlock within an accommodation or dwelling unit not
exceeding a maximum of twenty five (25) square feet, providing such unit
has direct access to the outdoors.
d. Overlapping stairways within an accommodation unit or dwelling unit shall
only be counted at the lowest level.
e. Attic space with a ceiling height of five feet (5') or less, as measured from the
top side of the structural members of the floor to the underside of the
structural members of the roof directly above. Attic areas created by
construction of a roof with truss-type members will be excluded from
calculation as GRFA, provided the trusses are spaced no greater than thirty
inches (30") apart.
f. Crawl spaces accessible through an opening not greater than twelve (12)
square feet in area, with five feet (5) or less of ceiling height, as measured
from the surface of the earth to the underside of structural floor members of
the floor/ceiling assembly above.
g. Rooted or coverea decks, porches, terraces, patios or similar features or
spaces with no more than three (3) exterior waiis and a minimum opening of
not less than twenty five percent (25%) of the lineal perimeter of the area of
Amendments to PA Zone District
October 1998 34
Y wv
' said deck., porch, terrace, patio, or similar feature or space, provided the
opening is contiguous and fully open from floor to ceiling, with an allowance
for a railing of up to three feet (Y) in height and support posts vii th a
diameter of eighteen inches (18") or less which are spaced no closer than ten
feet (10') apart. The space between the posts shall be measured from the
outer surface of the post.
3. Lodges: Within buildings that conform to the definition of "Lodge" as set forth in
Section 12-2-2, the excluded areas as set forth in Paragraph 2 b. (1-8) above shall
apple. Provided, however, that there shall be no limitation as to the total square
footage of common area or the percentage of common area as related to allowable
GRFA.
Amendments to PA Zone District
October 1998 35
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
December 14, 1998
Minutes
MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT:
Greg Moffet Ann Bishop
John Schofield
Galen Aasland
Diane Golden
Brian Doyon
Tom Weber
Public Hearinq
Greg Moffet called the meeting to order at 2:00 p.m.
STAFF PRESENT:
Russ Forrest
Dominic Mauriello
George Ruther
Jeff Hunt
Judy Rodriguez
2:00 p.m.
1, A request for a minor subdivision to relocate an existing property line, located at 2695
Davos Trail / Lots 16 and 17, Block B, Vail Ridge.
Applicant: Randall J. Fischer
Planner: Jeff Hunt
Jeff Hunt gave an overview of the staff memo.
Greg Moffet asked if the applicant or public had any comments. There were no comments.
John Schofield asked if the applicant agreed to a condition to remove the existing garage. The
applicant agreed to the condition.
John Schofield made a motion for approval in accordance with the staff memo.
Diane Golden seconded the motion.
The motion passed by a vote of 6-0.
2. A request for a worksession to discuss amendments to the Town's "Public
Accommodation" Zone District, Chapter 7 and amendments to Chapter 15, Gross
Residential Floor Area (GRFA), Town of Vail Municipal Code.
Applicant: Johannes Faessler; represented by Braun Associates, Inc.
Planner: George Ruther
Galen Aasland and Brian Doyon disclosed for the record that they had clients who owned
property in that zone district, but they saw no conflict.
George Ruther gave an overview of the staff memo.
1
Planning and Environmental. Commission
Minutes
December 14, 1998
Tom Braun said that Johannes had asked him to research what was wrong with the zone district
and he explained they wanted to have dialog with the community. He said it was the Town's
lodge zone district and that there were 18 PA properties including the Roost Lodge. He said
there had been 9 redevelopments, each one requiring an SDD request. He said that all the
redevelopments had required some exception to the code and all the redevelopments had to go
through some kind of process. He said that consumers were demanding larger suites and that.
the market demanded those kind of facilities along with the accessory types of uses which
strained the amount of square footage you had to work with.
He said that using 35 % for common area, there would be fewer rooms, since there were so
many constraints and they needed to find a solution for a better framework. He then said that the
PA district was important to the Town , and that the solution should provide flexibility with
controls. He said that assuming more PA properties would redevelop, the existing PA standards
represented too many constraints. He then went into a discussion of the proposed amendments
to the PA District, which excluded the Roost and the Marriott, as the Marriott was included in the
Lionshead Master Plan. He explained the review process was using the tool of the Vail Village
Urban Design Guide Plan and they were hanging their hat on that process to be the tool, which
would spell the end result of what would happen on that property. He proceeded to go over the
development standards to be changed:
• Increase GRFA from .8 to 1.2
• Eliminate limitation to common area, retail, etc.
• No limit to A.U.'s and F.F.U.'s.
• Setbacks as per Urban Design Guide Plan.
• Increase site coverage from 55% to 70%.
• Decrease landscaping from 30% to 20%.
He said that would set a framework and was a quick overview.
Discussion #1 - Uses:
Greg Moffet said the current zone district had allowed and conditional uses.
Tom Weber said the only uses to be changed were the 10% limit on retail.
George Ruther stated the intent of the zone district was to provide lodging properties in the most
effective manner possible. He asked the PEC to consider uses such as, churches, medical
offices, and private clubs and schools, or if amendments should be made to the use section.
Galen Aasland said there was no need for the 10% limitation on retail and restaurants. He said
with regard to eliminating anything, we should have some flexibility as we did not want just hotel
units, as it was a wonderful thing to work in an office adjacent to the Town. He said he didn't see
a large reason to eliminate some of the uses.
Greg Moffet said It was a lot easier to keep uses in, since they were conditional.
Diane Golden said she was leery of not leaving this in, as she wanted to have anything possible.
2
Planning and Environmental Commission
Minutes
December 14,1998
Tom Weber said with regard to the 10%; he hadn't heard why to limit it to 10% and there was no
clear argument to do so.
George Ruther explained 10% was so one particular use would not dominate the site.
Tom Weber said it may be restricting redevelopment when hotels want to provide these
amenities for their guests.
Greg Moffet said when you restrict it to 10%, you don't meet today's standards.
Tom Braun said his premise was what was the problem with 22% or 12%.
Diane Golden asked, why put a limit on it.
Galen Aasland stated that 70% would do away with a bed base to support these services.
Greg Moffet said food and beverage operations don't make enough to pay the rent to be on
Bridge Street and as a "stand alone" they would not make economic sense.
Dominic Mauriello said it was a good idea to have these uses on the first floor of buildings, more
spread over the Town and not confined to Bridge St.
Tom Weber said he heard the arguments to take it out, but he wanted to think about it, but he
questioned how valid these public buildings were as a conditional use.
0 Greg Moffet said there was no use by right.
Tom Weber said everything needs to be conditional use.
Dominic Mauriello said any of the properties could have a public transportation facility on their
property.
Tom Weber said most of the public uses could be taken out.
Brian Doyon said the market would dictate the 10%, but Churches should be out and he had no
problem with private clubs or cultural facilities. He said a use for a private condo association
would be defeating the purpose of being a lodge, if you cant get a reservation there. He said that
public amenities were expensive and it was pointless to add all of these as a conditional use.
John Schofield said 10% was too arbitrary and to let the market dictate. He said the conditional
uses make sense.
Greg Moffet said to get rid of the 10%, as learning centers are private schools and offices are
nice downtown. He said he didn't see imposing on people to change the code to permit the use
and so he suggested leaving the conditional uses in.
Tom Weber asked if there was a possibility the 10% would affect the neighbors.
3
Planning and Environmental Commission
Minutes
December 14,1998
<t*
Russ Forrest said the conditional use permit would monitor that.
Tom Weber said if you want to get rid of the 10%, the neighboring properties might object,
assuming that the neighbors wouldn't have a problem with the use,
Greg Moffet stated that the CC1 encourages food and beverage operations.
Tom Weber said there was a point where you could have too much eating, drinking & retail
establishments.
Greg Moffet summarized the PBC agreed to lose the 10%, except for Tom, but everyone thought
to keep conditional uses.
Greg Moffet asked for any public comments.
Jim Lamont said that 10% had a great deal to do with the neighborhood. He said the origin of
the 10% was to make sure there was a balance for support services for the people in the
buildings and he said the philosophy of the Vail Ordinance was not market-driven, but exclusive
driven. He said the master planning document didn't speak for major expansions to those
properties of several hundred thousand square feet of commercial and the uniqueness of the
neighborhoods these are located in had to be respected.
Discussion #2 -- Review process:
George Ruther said staff had to snake it less arduous and more clear.
Greg Moffet asked for any public comments.
Jim Lamont said as long as the appeals process was in place, he had no comments.
Tom Braun said the wild card was the Roost and so it was excluded from this amendment and
the Marriott was included in the Lionshead Redevelopment.
George Ruther said public participation was important in any redevelopment and to not just have
the Boards review redevelopment because of off-site parking and other issues.
Tom Weber said he would need more time and in terms of the Roost Lodge, he didn't necessarily
see the need to break the Roost out. He said not to go through a rezoning process that would be
costly to give the Roost a new zone district.
Brian Doyon agreed with Tom and said most of the issues should be covered if it was done right.
He said the review process was getting streamlined. He said we were very aware of the process
and we are constantly trying to change it, so he didn't see much need for any major changes.
John Schofield said he saw no great purpose in removing the Roost and there was no logic to
single out the Roost just because it was not in this area. ,
4
Planning and Environmental Commission
1Vlinutes
December 14,1998
Galen Aasland said not to eliminate the setbacks. He also didn't agree with eliminating
everything so it just would go to the DRB, because there would be no public process. He said he
wanted the majority of the properties to have hotel units.
Diane Golden said it was interesting to have PA zones next to high density zones that had
restrictions.
George Ruther said PA was the one district that required 50% lodges.
Diane Golden thought the review process was fine and wanted to keep the Roost in the PA Zone
District.
Greg Moffet said we are now taking steps to change the review process and he said the SAD
process didn't work, as it was too arduous. He said as long as we can keep the Roost a lodging
building, he didn't care how it was zoned.
Dominic Mauriello said currently a lodge could be built by going through the DRB only. He
suggested making some uses conditional uses so that they would come before the PEC Board.
He said the way the code treated permitted and conditional uses needed to be looked at.
George Ruther explained that a use by right goes right to the DRB.
Tom Braun stated that this draft would provide more assurance to guarantee public input.
Dominic Mauriello said staff would like to move away from all the Boards looking at an application
and there was a section of the code that dealt with nonconforming uses. He asked if it was a
permitted use and square footage was being added, would the applicant really need to come
before the PEC or can they go before staff and the DRB.
George Ruther summarized the questions that needed to be addressed were: how many hoops
would applicants have to jump through and what Boards would they need to go through.
Discussion #3 - Develooment Standards
George Ruther explained that they were proposing to amend the GREA ratio and so what do we
do with all the SDD requests.
John Schofield thought that SDD's still had a place.
George Ruther said SDD's have been identified as being problematic and difficult for the staff
and the public to go through and he asked if we had gone far enough when redoing the
standards.
Greg Moffet said that GRFA was not germane enough for the PA Zone District.
Brian Doyon asked what it would take for redevelopment.
Russ Forrest said Tom Braun could do an analysis.
5
Planning and Environmental Commission
Minutes
December 14,1995
,v
Greg Moffet asked for any public comments.
Galen Aasland agreed with John regarding GRFA.
Jim Lamont asked if the GRFA included any common area penalty. He suggested setting the
GRFA numbers to take out the common area penalty.
George Ruther said, no.
Galen Aasland said he would like to see standards for everybody that comes in for a change in
the buildings. He agreed with everything else, except for the setbacks, but there was no
application for changing height.
Tom Braun said, no, but let's discuss if height should be included.
Galen Aasland said he wanted the height left as it was and the setback affected adjacent
properties. He said variances were needed on setbacks, so it would become a public review.
Diane Golden said she hates to use the word eliminated and she didn't like the decrease in the
landscape.
Greg Moffet said if there was more building, there would be less landscaping.
Tom Weber agreed with Diane in things not being eliminated, but he would like to come up with
something that worked, as he said they might get in trouble with completely eliminating. He said
we have just required the applicant to come in to the PBC, which takes a step backwards.
Tom Braun said we were trying to eliminate uncertainty.
Tom Weber said we should conceive a path of least restriction, where an applicant could just go
through the DRB.
George Ruther said with an SDD, all the development standards go out the door.
Tom Braun said the Urban Design Guide Plan only refers to the M.
Galen Aasland said the Urban Design Guide Plan doesn't address spaces between the buildings.
Russ Forrest said impacts would have the adjacents speak up and the intensity of the use would
require coming before the Board.
Jim Lamont said justification of the setbacks wanted commercial frontage and if confusion
resulted, then the Urban Design Guidelines had to be consistent. He said we needed to be
conscience of neighborhoods that existed previously and some of the commercial needed to be
internal to the building to keep the neighborhood. He said we needed consistency in the planning
process.
Brian Doyon wanted to see some sort of building to find out what the GRFA really should be.
6
Planning and Environmental. Commission
Minutes
December 14, 1998
Fuss Forrest said staff will continue to say that GRFA, as it related to commercial use, was the
least useful development tool.
Brian Doyon said he would still like to see the model and the site coverage change was a good
idea.
John Schofield said by modifying accessory uses, we would go to bulk and mass and the bulk
and mass should control. He said setbacks where necessary and parking standards needed to
be addressed as a development standard, for example, in the CC1 with parking on site, or pay-
in-lieu. He said this needed to be part of this package.
Dominic Mauriello said staff would be studying parking in the Town, since they received a $3000
grant from Northwest COG.
John Schofield said if we started changing ratios, we would have to look at parking and loading
and delivery.
Greg Moffet asked what do we want, as Council wanted live beds and this was a good first step,
He said if the purpose was to increase the bed base, we then needed to figure out how to get
more beds. He said ceiling heights didn't cut it and we don't need GRFA. He said we cannot
embrace the past, but need to compete in the real world and make a livings He said we needed
to book groups in April and May and FFU's needed some kind of limit. He liked the idea of GU
zone standards, if we clearly delineated the roles of the bodies in this process. He suggested
delineated this as it related to this zone district. He said to figure out how to solve the problem
and then execute its
is Jim Lamont said if we were going to change the GRFA system, everyone should get it back, not
just in the PA and we needed to know the consequences of it. He said he didn't understand the
distinction of common areas or hallways being the same as conference rooms and the 50%
relationship of AU's and FFU's. He said there was no sense in units per acre, and it was a
market force. He said he didn't know about site coverage, and there was a value of the 20'
setback between buildings, such as with the case of the Austria Haus. He said people were
going to be concerned that this was universal enough and not just applying to Johannes. He
said he would like to see centralized parking structures and he would rather have parking on-site.
Dominic Mauriello said we can't lump GRFA Townwide and if we needed a parking analysis, the
applicant would have to come back next summer.
3. A request for a minor subdivision to transfer a portion of Government Lot 3, obtained by
the Town of Vail from the United States Forest Service, pursuant to the Land Ownership
Adjustment Agreement, to Lot 15, Block 7, Vail Village First Filing.
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: Dominic Mauriello
Dominic Mauriello gave an overview of the staff memo.
Greg Moffet asked for any public or Commissioner's comments. There were no comments.
Planning and Environmental Commission
Minutes
December 14, 1998
?t
Galen Aasland made a motion for approval.
John Schofield seconded the motion.
The motion passed by a vote of 6-0.
4. A request for a final review for a major amendment to Special Development District #6,
Vail Village Inn, to allow for a hotel redevelopment, located at 100 East Meadow Drive,
Lots M and O, Block 5D, Vail Village 1st.
Applicant: Daymer Corporation, represented by Jay Peterson
Planner: George Ruther
TABLED UNTIL 1/9'1199
Brian Doyon made a motion to table item #4.
Diane Golden seconded the motion.
The motion passed by a vote of 6-0.
5. Information Update
Russ Forrest said just as an FYI, that the Lionshead was going to Council for final approval
tomorrow.
Dominic Mauriello asked the PEC to attend the evening Council meeting, as a major discussion
would occur.
6. Approval of November 23, 1998 minutes.
John Schofield made a motion for approval, as amended.
Diane Golden seconded the motion.
The motion passed by a vote of 6-0.
Brian Doyon made a motion to adjourn.
Diane Golden seconded the motion.
The motion passed by a vote of 6-0.
The meeting adjourned at 4:15 p.m.
8
Planning and Environmental Commission
Minutes
December 14,1998