HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-0222 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 Code of the
Town of Vail on February 22, 1999, at 2:00 P.M. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. In
consideration of:
A request for a rezoning of property located in the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan Area,
in accordance with the attached map to a new zone district entitled Lionshead Mixed Use
District 1 and Lionshead Mixed Use District 2 District, (including, Vail International, Lodge at
Lionshead-Phases 1-I11, Tree Tops, Lionshead Center, Lionshead Arcade, Vail 21, Lion's Pride
Building,. Vantage Point, Lifthouse Condominiums, Westwinds, Sunbird Lodge, Gondola
Building, Landmark Condominiums, Landmark Townhornes, North Day Lot, Lionsquare Lodge,
Lionsquare North, Montaneros, Concert Hall Plaza, Antlers, Marriott, Enzian, Vail Glo Lodge,
Lionshead Inn, Vail Spa, West Day Lot, VA Maintenance Yard and the Amoco Station) and a
rezoning of the Lionshead parking structure from Parking District to General Use .
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: Dominic Mauriello
A request for the establishment of new zone districts entitled Lionshead Mixed Use 1 District
and Lionshead Mixed Use 2 District (Title 12, Zoning), in order to implement the Lionshead
Redevelopment Master Plan.
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: Dominic Mauriello
40 A request for a renewal of (and an amendment to) an existing conditional use permit at the
Lionshead Miniature Golf Course, located at a portion of Tract B & D, Vail Lionshead 15 Filing.
Applicant: Charlie Alexander
Planner: Jeff Hunt
A request for a major amendment to Special Development District No. 7 (The Marriott Hotel), to
allow for the construction of the Gore Creek Club and a remodel to the existing hotel, located at
714 Lionshead Circle / Marriott Mark.
Applicant: HMC Acquisition Properties, Inc., represented by East-West Partners
Planner: George Ruther
A request for a final review of a proposed locker room expansion to the Dobson Ice Arena,
located at 321 E. Lionshead Circle/Lot 1, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 2nd Filing.
Applicant: Vail Recreation District
Planner: George Ruther
A request for the establishment of Special Development District No. 36, to allow for a
commercial expansion, located at 680 W. Lionshead Place/ Lot 3, Block 1, Lionshead Third
Filing.
Applicant: Antlers Condominium Association, represented by Robert Levine
Planner: Jeff Hunt
TdWN
*V
A request for a minor amendment to Special Development District No. 35, Austria Haus, to
amend Section 6 of Ordinance #12, Series of 1997 to clarify a condition of the Ordinance,
located at 242 F. Meadow Drive/ Part of Tract C, Block 5D, Vail Village 1st Filing.
Applicant: Sill Sullivan, representing the Austria Haus Development Group
Planner: George Ruther
A request for an amendment to Special Development District No. 4 (Glen Lyon), revising the
Glen Lyon Office Building site (Area D), located at 1900 S. Frontage Road West/Lot 54, Glen
Lyon Subdivision.
Applicant: Glen Lyon Office Building Partnership, represented by Kurt Segerberg
Planner: Dominic Mauriello
A request for a variance from Section 12-6D-9 (Site Coverage) of the Town of Vail Municipal
Code, to allow for site coverage in excess of 20% and a variance from Section 12-6D-6 (Front
Setbacks) of the Town of Vail Municipal Code, to allow for an encroachment into the front
setback on a Primary/Secondary Residential zoned lot, located at 362 Mill Creek Circle / Lot 9,
Block 1, Vail Village First Filing.
Applicant: Walter Forbes, represented by Gwathmey-Pratt Architects
Planner: Allison Ochs
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 February 5, 1996 in the Vail Trail.
a
i •
LIONSHEAD
REZONINGS Proposed General Use D
Proposed Lionshead Mixed-Use 1
odrr
12 VANTAG ?PGI{JTTRA
PARKING STRUCTURE
VIANDS ............: 395
..............
.«...
.... 4T..«... .....: 't1
IDE • ::... f
PRIDE'
Proposed Lionshead ::...701..
I-70 :. ; .MARK EA61 LIU4anKhly VI 1 lL "ooo
.......
.......... .:-'0::
Mixed-Use 2 District . . . . . . . . . .
- .. .....: -
::: . .
...... ..: : • ARCADE,
........ TRACT -
:.:.. ... . :::. "ENZIAN• :. C/.: :::.. 'SU B{k'fD' :.:
....:NAIL SPA::::.......
. .: AyIOISfYANERQS?:::. .
SHEAp : .
EN7Et? -
....MARR40T Z LIG3NSC3tjUARR 1:::: ::. - - .:
635:...
..TRACT P::....
p,
MAiP#T_SHWEST .................. ... .: LODE--;: :. .
i•.'`?.6ii;iii•".'i°. ... ....... . .... ANTLERS.......... ::GCN
:DAYLOT,...e.«« ................
'?-
f ?L -
823 J .::. .......: :.: 1] :.
S. ?YAG?RD SEWER KIER BRIDGE
TRACT C PLANT
:' ? 896 648
N
w E
S
The Properties outlined on this map
are proposed to be rezoned
.?::::::7
ICE ARENA
321
A50
LGDGEAT: VAILVALLEYI
TREETCri?S I IQNSfiEAQ ';:CENTER
.. y,2 ............ ?..... LIBRARY 181
281
IV 87.
., CWOR
Parcels
Proposed General Use District
Proposed Lionshead Mixed-Use 1 District
Proposed Lionshead Mixed-Use 2 District
/V Gore Creek
E
Dept of Commu&y Development
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
PUBLIC MEETING SCHEDULE
Monday, February 22, 1999
AGENDA
Protect Orientation / PEC LUNCH - Community Develot)ment Department
MEMBERS PRESENT
Site Visits :
1. Forbes - 362 Mill Creek Circle
2. Lionshead Miniature Golf Course-Tract B&D
Driver: George
12:00 p.m.
1:15 p.m.
NOTE: If the PEC hearing extends until 6:00 p.m., the hoard will break for dinner from 6:00 - 6:30 p.m.
Public Hearinq - Town Council Chambers 2:00 p.m.
A request for a renewal of (and an amendment to) an existing conditional use permit at
the Lionshead Miniature Golf Course, located at a portion of Tract B & D, Vail Lionshead
1St Filing.
Applicant: Charlie Alexander
Planner: Jeff Hunt
2. A request for a variance from Section 12-6D-9 (Site Coverage) of the Town of Vail
Municipal Code, to allow for site coverage in excess of 20% and a variance from Section
12-6D-6 (Front Setbacks) of the Town of Vail Municipal Code, to allow for an
encroachment into the front setback on a Primary/Secondary Residential zoned lot,
located at 362 Mill Creek Circle / Lot 9, Block 1, Vail Village First Filing.
Applicant: Walter Forbes, represented by Gwathmey-Pratt Architects
Planner: Allison Ochs
3. A request to amend 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
TOW *YM
MEMBERS ABSENT
4. A request for the establishment of new zone districts entitled Lionshead Mixed Use 1
District and Lionshead Mixed Use 2 District (Title 12, Zoning), in order to implement the
Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. Other modifications are being made to other
sections of Title 12, namely, Chapter 4 Districts Established, Chapter 10 Off-Street
Parking and Loading, Chapter 13 Employee Housing, Chapter 14 Supplemental
Regulations, and Chapter 15 Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA). Additionally Title 11
Sign Regulations and Title 5 Public Health and Safety are being modified.
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: Dominic Mauriello
5. A request for a rezoning of property located in the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan
Area, in accordance with the attached map to a new zone district entitled Lionshead
Mixed Use District 1 and Lionshead Mixed Use District 2 District, (including, Vail
International, Lodge at Lionshead-Phases 1-111, Tree Tops, Lionshead Center, Lionshead
Arcade, Vail 21, Lion's Pride Building, Vantage Point, Lifthouse Condominiums,
Westwinds, Sunbird Lodge, Gondola Building, Landmark Condominiums, Landmark
Townhomes, North Day Lot, Lionsquare Lodge, Lionsquare North, Montanerbs, Concert
Hall Plaza, Antlers, Marriott, Enzian, Vail Glo Lodge, Lionshead Inn, Vail Spa, West Day
Lot, VA Maintenance Yard and the Amoco Station) and a rezoning of the Lionshead
parking structure from Parking District to General Use .
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: Dominic Mauriello
6. A request for the establishment of Special Development District No. 36, to allow for a
commercial expansion, located at 680 W. Lionshead Place/ Lot 3, Block 1, Lionshead
Third Filing.
Applicant: Antlers Condominium Association, represented by Robert LeVine
Planner: Jeff Hunt
TABLED UNTIL MARCH 8, 1999
7. A request for a major amendment to Special Development District No. 7 (The Marriott
Hotel), to allow for the construction of the Gore Creek Club and a remodel to the existing
hotel, located at 714 Lionshead Circle / Marriott Mark.
Applicant: HMC Acquisition Properties, Inc., represented by East-West Partners
Planner: George Ruther
TABLED UNTIL MARCH 8, 999
8. A request for an amendment to Special Development District No. 4 (Glen Lyon), revising
the Glen Lyon Office Building site (Area D), located at 1000 S. Frontage Road West/Lot
54, Glen Lyon Subdivision.
Applicant: Glen Lyon Office Building Partnership, represented by Kurt Segerberg
Planner: Dominic Maurieilo
TABLED UNTIL MARCH 8, 1999
11
2
9. A request for a final review of a proposed locker room expansion to the Dobson Ice
Arena, located at 321 E. Lionshead Circle/Lot 1, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 2"d Filing.
Applicant: Vail Recreation District
Planner: George Ruther
TABLED UNTIL MARCH 8, 1999
10. A request for a minor amendment to Special Development District No. 35, Austria Haus,
to amend Section 6 of Ordinance #12, Series of 1997 to clarify a condition of the
Ordinance, located at 242 E. Meadow Drive/ Part of Tract C, Block 5D, Vail Village 1St
Filing.
Applicant: Bill Sullivan, representing the Austria Haus Development Group
Planner: George Ruther
TABLED UNTIL MARCH 22, 1999
11. Information Update
Three, two-year term PEC vacancies (Greg Moffet, John Schofield and Ann Bishop)
12. Approval of January 25, 1999 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 February 19, 1998 in the Vail Trail
3
m
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
PUBLIC MEETING SCHEDULE
Monday, February 22, 1999
FINAL AGENDA
Proiect Orientation / PEG LUNCH - Communitv Development Deoartment
MEMBERS PRESENT
Greg Moffet
John Schofield
Galen Aasland
Diane Golden
Ann Bishop
Brian Dbyon
Tom Weber
Site Visits :
1. Forbes - 362 Mill Greek Circle
2. Lionshead Miniature Golf Course-Tract B&D
Driver: George
a
NOTE: If the PEC hearing extends until 6:00 p.m., the board will break for dinner from 6:00 - 6:30 p.m.
12;00 p.m.
1:15 p.m.
Public Hearinq - Town Council Chambers 2:00 pm.
1. A request for a renewal of (and an amendment to) an existing conditional use permit at
the Lionshead Miniature Golf Course, located at a portion of Tract B & D, Vail Lionshead
15t Filing.
Applicant: Charlie Alexander
Planner: Jeff Hunt
MOTION: John Schofield SECOND: Diane Golden VOTE: 7-0
APPROVED WITH 3 CONDITIONS:
1. The golf course and climbing wall will be operated in accordance with the descriptions
contained in this memo. _
2. The climbing wall will be setback a minimum of 30' from any bike/ped bath.
3. The bed of the trailer shall face south with the three climbing surfaces to the west,
north and east. This trailer shall be screened by vegetation or other devices subject
to Design Review Board approval
TOWN OF MAIL ?
MEMBERS ABSENT
1
2. A request for a variance from Section 12-6D-9 (Site Coverage) of the Town of Vail
Municipal Code, to allow for site coverage in excess of 20% and a variance from Section
12-6D-6 (Front Setbacks) of the Town of Vail Municipal Code, to allow for an
encroachment into the front setback on a Primary/Secondary Residential zoned lot,
located at 362 Mill Creek Circle / Lot 9, Block 1, Vail Village First Filing.
Applicant: Walter Forbes, represented by Gwathmey-Pratt Architects
Planner: Allison Ochs
MOTION: Ann Bishop SECOND: John Schofield VOTE: 6-0 (Brian Doyon
recused)
TABLED
3. A request for a worksession to discuss an amendment 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 -- NO VOTE
4. A request for the establishment of new zone districts entitled Lionshead Mixed Use 1
District and Lionshead Mixed Use 2 District (Title 12, Zoning), in order to implement the
Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. Other modifications are being made to other
sections of Title 12, namely, Chapter 4 Districts Established, Chapter 10 Off-Street
Parking and Loading, Chapter 13 Employee Housing, Chapter 14 Supplemental
Regulations, and Chapter 15 Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA). Additionally Title 11
Sign Regulations and Title 5 Public Health and Safety are being modified.
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: Dominic Mauriello
MOTION: Galen Aasland SECOND: Ann Bishop VOTE: 7-0
RECOMMENDED APPROVAL (7-0) WITH MODIFICATIONS:
(A copy of the memo will be provided at the scheduled March 3, 1999 Town Council
meeting).
5. A request for a rezoning of property located in the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan
Area, in accordance with the attached map to a new zone district entitled Lionshead
Mixed Use District 1 and Lionshead Mixed Use District 2 District; (including, Vail
International, Lodge at Lionshead-Phases I-fli, Tree Tops, Lionshead Center, Lionshead
Arcade, Vail 21, Lion's Pride Building, Vantage Point, Lifthouse Condominiums,
Westwinds, Sunbird Lodge, Gondola Building, Landmark Condominiums, Landmark
Townhomes, North Day Lot, Lionsquare Lodge, Lionsquaro North, Montaneros, Concert
Hall Plaza, Antlers, Marriott, Enzian, Vail Glo Lodge, Lionshead Inn, Vail Spa, West Day
Lot, VA Maintenance Yard and the Amoco Station) and a rezoning of the Lionshead
parking structure from Parking District to General Use .
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: Dominic Mauriello
MOTION: John Schofield SECOND: Ann Bishop VOTE: 7-0
RECOMMENDED APPROVAL
2
TABLED UNTIL. MARCH 8, 1999
7. A request for a major amendment to Special Development District No. 7 (The Marriott
Hotel), to allow for the construction of the Core Creek Club and a remodel to the existing
hotel, located at 714 Lionshead Circle f Marriott Mark.
Applicant: HMC Acquisition Properties, Inc., represented by Fast-West Partners
Planner: George Ruther
TABLED UNTIL MARCH 8, 1999
A request for a final review of a proposed locker room expansion to the Dobson Ice
Arena, located at 321 E. Lionshead Circle/Lot 1, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 2nd Filing-
Applicant: Vail Recreation District
Planner: George Ruther
TABLED UNTIL MARCH 8, 1999
10. A request for a minor amendment to Special Development District No. 35, Austria Haus,
to amend Section 6 of Ordinance #12, Series of 1997 to clarify a condition of the
Ordinance, located at 242 E. Meadow Drivel Part of Tract C, Block 5D, Vail Village 1st
Filing.
Applicant: Bill Sullivan, representing the Austria Haus Development Group
Planner: George Ruther
TABLED UNTIL MARCH 22, 1999
11. Information Update
Three, two-year term PFC vacancies (Greg Moffet, John Schofield and Ann Bishop)
12. Approval of January 25, 1999 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.
3
Community Develooment Department
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: February 22, 1999
SUBJECT: A request for a renewal (and an amendment to) an existing conditional use
permit at the Lionshead miniature golf course, located on portions of Tract B &
D, Vail Lionshead 1 st Filing.
Applicant: Charlie Alexander
Planner: Jeff Hunt
1. RECOMMENDATION: Based upon this memo, staff recommends approval of the
request, subject to the following findings:
A. That the proposed location of the use is in accordance with the purposes of the
conditional use permit section of the zoning code and the purposes of the district
in which the site is located.
B. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be
operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or
welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.
C. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of
the conditional use permit section of the zoning code.
The recommendation is also subject to the following conditions of approval:
A. The golf course and climbing wall will be operated in accordance with the
descriptions contained in this memo.
B. The climbing wall will be setback a minimum of 30' from any bike/ped bath.
C. The bed of the trailer shall face south with the three climbing surfaces to the
west, north and east. This trailer shall be screened by vegetation or other
devices subject to Design Review Board approval.
11. SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS:
A. Operation of the existing miniature golf course has resulted in little, if any,
conflicts.
B. With conditions of approval, the operation of the golf course and of the climbing
wall should result in little, if any, conflicts.
III. BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION:
The request involves two facilities: a miniature golf course and a climbing wall.
A. MINI-GOLF COURSE:
The first part of the request is to renew the existing conditional use permit for the
miniature golf course; see attached site plans.
The golf course has been considered previously as a public park/recreation
facility, which is listed as a conditional use of the Commercial Core 2 and
AG/Open Space Zone Districts.
The mini-golf course has a lengthy history of temporary conditional use permits
(CUP's) dating back to 1991. The file is available for review in the Community
Development Department. The most recent CUP was granted by the Planning
and Environmental Commission (PEC) on September 23, 1996. The CUP
contained three conditions:
1. That the applicant discontinue off-site advertising, located on bicycle(s)
throughout the Town of Vail. The existing bicycle signs do not meet the
intent of Section 16.24.010 (F) of the Code, which exempts vehicle signs.
2. If the t.ionshead Master Plan required or suggested a different use, the
approval could be subject to a call-up.
3. The approval be granted for a three year time period.
There are no changes proposed to the mini-golf course. The staff memo for the
September 23, 1996 approval describes the use as follows:
The appearance of the new course area will be enhanced with the
addition of sod and numerous flower plantings. In turn, by locating the
miniature golf course in this location, the appearance of the overall area
will be enhanced. An existing split-rail fence is located along the bike
path and Chair 8. This existing fence will be extended around the
perimeter of the entire miniature golf course site. Pedestrian access will
be maintained on both the east and south sides of the course. The golf
course will be illuminated at night by the low level lights approved on April
26, 1993 by the PEC. No music is proposed. The applicant will utilize
the same ticket building and 3 sq. ft. sign that has been used in previous
years. The proposed hours of operation are 9:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.
daily, from May to approximately October 15th, as weather permits. The
applicant has indicated that in the winter, the course will be covered with
snow for the Children's Ski School operations to resume. The ticket
building will be removed prior to the ski season.
D. CLIMBING WALL:
The second part of the request is to add a mobile climbing wall to the conditional
use permit. A similar, though not exact, example is provided in the picture
below:
2
c'
E
(
, 1 q
dam' ? i
The climbing wall is attached to a trailer and has three sides available for
climbing. The fourth side which is not used for climbing, faces the bed of the
trailer and rests on it when the wall is being moved. The trailer can be pulled by
vehicle to change locations. The trailer and wall will be removed during the ski
season. The bed of the trailer would be used for preparing people to climb.
Users will obtain tickets from the golf course ticket booth. Monitors will assist
and supervise the users.
The applicant has stated that he intends to screen the trailer with wood panels
and potted vegetation, and will comply with the directions of the Design Review
Board. The climbing wall would be operated in accordance with the description
of the golf course, noted above, in regards to hours, lighting, etc. The wall is
proposed to be placed in accordance with the attached site plan.
3
IV. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS:
A. CONSIDERATION OF FACTORS:
1. Relationship and impact of the use on the development objectives
of the Town.
The development objectives of the Town of Vail can be found in the
purpose section of the CC2 Zone District, and the Agricultural and Open
Space Zone District, as well as the Zoning Title of the Municipal Code.
The purpose section of the CC2 Zone District calls for a mixture of uses.
The purpose section of AG/OPEN Space calls for certain types of private
recreational facilities. The Purpose Section for the Zoning Title, calls for
the provision of recreational facilities.
Staff believes that this proposal will expand the mixture of uses in the
Lionshead area, as well as provide an additional recreational facility for
visitors and residents of Vail. During the time of its previous operation,
the facility has proven to be a positive addition to the Lionshead area.
The use will continue to comply with the proposed zone district in
Lionshead and the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan.
2. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population,
transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation
facilities, and other public facilities needs.
Staff believes that the proposed conditional use permit will not have any
negative impacts on the above referenced services. Over the past years,
the golf course facility has provided a positive recreational opportunity for
the public. The climbing wall would offer an additional recreation
opportunity for the public.
3. Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion,
automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and
control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the
street and parking areas.
The operation of the golf course has proven to have had no negative
impact on use of the adjacent bike/pedestrian paths. The split-rail fence
along the east and north sides of the proposed golf course separates
users of the paths from users of the golf course.
Climbing wails tend to attract a crowd consisting of parents, friends or
passer-bys, surrounding the facility. The climbing wall facility should be
setback from adjacent bike/ped paths in order to reduce conflicts
between users. The Public Works Department has stated that the
climbing wall facility should have the following setbacks from bike/ped
paths: is
30' for the nearest climbing wall;
10' for the trailer.
4
As proposed in the site plan, the climbing wail would be well over 30' from
any bike/ped path. Flexibility should be allowed in placing the climbing
wall to allow for the best utilization, as long as these setbacks are
complied with.
4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is
to be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in
relation to surrounding uses.
The character of the surrounding area is recreation, residential and
commercial.
The golf course is flush with the ground and does not have any artificial
looking obstacles rising up. The applicant will provide numerous planting
areas for flowers to improve the appearance of the area during the
summer. The course will be covered in the winter with snow to allow
normal ski operations to resume. The Community Development
Department has not received any complaints related to the miniature golf
facility over the past 8 years. Staff believes that the golf facility as
currently operated and as described in this memo is consistent with the
character of the area.
The climbing wall would have a natural, stone-like appearance. The color
would be predominantly gray. The climbing holds that are affixed to the
wail should also be a natural color to have a less visible effect. The belay
anchors should all match and be a dark color. The trailer bed and the
side of the climbing wail that is not climbed on should face to the south to
help provide a more pleasing appearance for pedestrians and users of
the commercial properties, which are predominantly to the north. With
these conditions, staff believes the climbing wall would not have a
negative effect on and would be, consistent with the surrounding area.
E. THE PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION SHALL MAKE THE
FOLLOWING FINDINGS BEFORE GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT:
1. That the proposed location of the use is in accordance with the purposes
of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code and the purposes
of the district in which the site is located.
2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it
would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public
health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or
improvements in the vicinity.
3. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable
provisions of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code.
5
V. LIONSHEAD MASTER PLAN: 0
A. The site is designated as a Resort Retail & Commercial Hub.
Although not retail, the proposal would be commercial in nature. Staff believes
the proposed uses would be consistent with this designation.
B. The site is within a contemplated public view corridor.
The golf course has no upright obstacles. The climbing wall would be about 25'
high and less than 10' wide at the top. Staff believes the uses would have no
significant effect on the view corridor.
C. The site is adjacent to several designated pedestrian paths.
Staff believes that with compliance with the suggested setbacks noted above,
the uses would have no negative effect on these pedestrian paths.
VI.
ZONING ANALYSIS:
ZONING: The golf course would be on land zoned Commercial Core 2 (CC2) and
Agriculture And {open Space (A). The climbing wall would be entirely on CC2 land.
Standard Provision Proposed
Building height: A: 30' or 33' max. none
CC2: 45' or 48 max. approx. 24'
Setbacks: A: 20' fr, 15' side, min. n/a
CC2: 10' min. >30'
Landscape area: A: n/a
CC2: 20% min. see site plan
Parking: The Zoning Code does not provide a specific parking requirement for
these types of recreational facilities. The Zoning Code states that
recreational facilities shall be reviewed by the Planning and
Environmental Commission, and any parking requirements shall be
determined by the PEC. For all prior approvals, the PEC determined that
since the golf course is intended for summer recreation use only, the
applicant would not be required to pay into the parking fund and that the
proposed use would not necessitate parking to be provided. Staff
believes that the climbing wall would fall into a similar situation.
F:/EVERYONE/PEC/MEMOS/99/LH-GOLF
PJ
6
-l,
n .'
,
t, tv
+ . "`"'""'il • e• ? ? `?? ..i i..'r"_.a ':'?i `' . f {??
.
•
° ? (: wti b t` n,y i.?a i d
--
d
?_ .iJ __ - fir, ?' ?? .? .....+.?
it .•..
eo-
l
J;
I
t
„?J,1 j! 1t `?i t
rr
t 6 ?
4 i ? •
f 5
t ,? 5
r.
r ? 1 r + "tt??..it`. ?•ti i`. _i`I?':,,`I`J. :f`, _\J. t
tt ? J -i•? ?(yry -
g • '? ^ ? ? - • .. i? , ?•r?B a ? ; ?itlCgt ?Ay??tS '??a .yraon
ASPHAI f u• :' m
. rP _ s :Y
NEW GONDOLA
M`_
I
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: February 22, 1999
SUBJECT: A request for site coverage variance from Section 12-6D-9 and front
setback variance from Section 12-6D-6 for a residential addition located at
362 Mill Creek Circle / Cot 9, Block 1, Vail Village 1 st.
Applicant: Walter Forbes, represented by Gwathmey Pratt Architects.
Planner: Allison Ochs
DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUESTS
The applicant, Walter Forbes, represented by Gwathmey Pratt Architects, is requesting a site
coverage variance and front setback variance to allow for a residential addition. The variances are
requested to allow the applicant to construct a small addition to the existing kitchen at their residence
located at 362 Mill Creek Circle. The proposed new kitchen addition would be located on the east
side of the property. The addition would encroach up to 2 feet into the setback and is proposed to
be 48 square feet in size.
A written description from the applicant, and a copy of the plans have been attached for reference.
Because the applicant is proposing an increase of .3501o over allowable site coverage (209,o), and a
reduction of 2 ft. in the front setback (20 ft), a site coverage variance of .35% and a front-setback
variance of 2 ft. must be approved by the Planning and Environmental Commission.
11. ZONING STATISTICS
Lot Size: .3214 acres or 14,000 sq. ft.
Zoning: Primary/Secondary Residential
Allowed P/S Existino Proposed
GRFA: 4600 sq. ft. 4504 sq. ft. 4552 sq. ft..
Setbacks:
Front. 20' 21' 18'
Sides: 15' N/C N/C
Site Coverage: 20% 20% 20.35%
2800 sq. ft. 2800 sq. ft. 2850 sq. ft.
III. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
A. Consideration of Factors Reoardino the Site Coverage and Setback Variances:
1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential
uses and structures in the vicinity.
1
TOWN VAVAIL ?
Site Coverage
Staff believes that the requested site coverage increase of .35% will have a
no effect on the existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity.
Setback
Staff believes that the proposed residential addition is compatible with the
surrounding development. Mill Creek Circle follows the lot to the east side of
the residence (see attached plan), therefore the front setback of 20 ft.
extends to what would normally be considered the side of the building.
Because of the current landscaping, the addition is not terribly visible from
surrounding structures.
2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and
enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve
compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or
to attain the objectives of this title without a grant of special privilege,
Site Coverage
Staff believes that an approval of the requested site coverage variance would
result in a grant of special privilege. Staff believes there are no unique
circumstances, nor any extraordinary conditions which impact the applicant's
lot. The maximum site coverage allowed on the applicant's lot is 20%. An
approval of this site coverage variance request is contrary to the intent of the
Municipal Code.
Setback
The requested setback variance is not warranted. Similar to the site
coverage variance, there are no unique circumstances, nor any extraordinary
conditions impacting the applicant's lot. Staff has reviewed the proposal and
visited the site. Based upon our review of the proposal and our site visit, we
do not believe there is a physical hardship which impacts the applicant's
property.
Overall, staff believes that there would be a granting of special privilege if the
variances were approved.
3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of
population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and
utilities, and public safety.
Site Coverage/Setback
Staff does not believe that there will be any negative impacts associated with
this proposal, if constructed, on the above-referenced criteria.
B. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before
2 is
arantina a variance:
1. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege
inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same
district.
2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health,
safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the
vicinity.
3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons:
a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified
regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical
hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title.
b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions
applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally
to other properties in the same zone.
C. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation
would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of
other properties in the same district.
IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION,
The Community Development Department recommends denial of the requested setback variance
and the site coverage variance subject of the following findings:
That the granting of the setback and site coverage variances constitutes a grant of
special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the
Primary/Secondary Zone District.
2. That the strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the setback and site coverage
regulations does not result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship
inconsistent with the development objectives of the Municipal Code or the
Primary/Secondary Zone District.
4. There are not any exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable
to the applicant's property that do not apply generally to other properties in the
Primary/Secondary Zone District.
0 3
16 December 1998
Mr. Dominic Mauriello AICP, Town Planner
Community Development Town of Vail
75 South Frontage Road West
Vail, CO 81657
Re: Forbes Residence - Approval Process
. Application for Variance of Site Coverage
Dear Dominic;
The Forbes have requested that we design a small addition to the existing kitchen at
their Vail Residence. It appears that although we have not used all of the designated
GRFA for this project, we have exceeded the site coverage. Therefore, we are
applying to the Planning i Environmental Commission for a Variance on the Site
Coverage, for an additional 48 sq. ft.
If you should have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely,
Enclosures
Copy. Walter and Caren Forbes
Linda Bedell
n
The relationship of the requested variance -to other existing or potential uses and
structures in the vicinity.
None
The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of
a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of
treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without
grant of special privilege.
None
The effect of the variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation,
traffic facilities, utilities, and public safety.
None
® Now your request complies with Vail's Comprehensive Plan.
None
11
SXISTINQ
0 0 9
a
Awwo
100*
4A
c'
rt??
{) r
LV $r
6Z s
t
r
C]
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: February 22, 1999
SUBJECT: A request for a 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
11
1. DESCRIPTION OF THE REOLIEST
On December 14, 1998, the applicant's representative, Tom Braun, appeared before the
Planning & Environmental Commission with a request for a worksession to discuss text
amendments to the Public Accommodation Zone District. During the meeting, a number
of issues were discussed. The issues included the elimination of the common area
calculation, an increase in allowable GRFA and site coverage, the elimination of the 10%
limitation on retail, restaurant and eating and drinking establishments, a decrease in the
landscape requirement and the elimination of setbacks. A copy of the minutes from the
December 14# meeting is attached for reference.
On January 2, 1999, the applicant's representative met with the Planning &
Environmental Commission and the Mail Town Council for a joint worksession to further
discuss the proposed text amendments. Following a presentation of the issues and
amendments by Tom Braun, the Council and the Commission each agreed that
amendments were needed. Several of the Council members expressed their concern
over the proposed increase in GRFA and the elimination of the setbacks. All members
agreed that additional discussion was needed with regard to the implementation of
setbacks and the 10% limitation on retail uses specifically. Nearly all members present
agreed with tha proposed elimination of the common area limitation.
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. The amendments are not intended to address only those properties owned by the
applicant.
TOWN OF YAIL'
A copy of the original report prepared by Braun Associates, Inc. for the applicant
addressing the proposed amendments and a response letter to the issues raised during
the previous meeting have been attached for reference.
Ili. 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), Ramshorn
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
Staff has identified five 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:
2
1. Lodaina Definition
According to Section 12-2-2 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code, a "lodge" is defined as:
A building or group of associated buildings designed for occupancy primarily as
the temporary lodging place of individuals or families either in accommodation
units or dwelling units, in which the gross residential floor area devoted to
accommodation units exceeds the gross residential floor area devoted to
dwelling units, and in which all such units are operated under a single
management providing the occupants thereof customary hotel services and
facilities.
At the December 14th worksession meeting there was discussion regarding amending
the existing definition of a "lodge" to increase the likelihood that accommodation units
will be constructed and to insure that the intent of the zone district is consistent with
Town objectives. As the definition exists today, a property zoned Public Accommodation
could be constructed with 51 % of the allowable GRFA devoted to accommodation units
and 49/4 of the GRFA devoted to condominiums. Given that the Public Accommodation
Zone District is the only zone district in Town specifically intended to provide sites for
short-term, overnight accommodations, should the definition of a "lodge" be amended to
better insure that accommodation units are built?
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. Staff would ask that the percentage of GRFA be
increased for accommodation units, FFUs and time shares.
2. Review Process
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.
This issue remains unresolved from the December 10 and January 2nd meetings. Staff
would recommend that the applicant, staff and the Commission further discuss this issue
and that direction be provided to the applicant on how to proceed. One point relative to
this issue that was clear from the earlier meetings was that some form of public process
must be available to insure adequate opportunities for community and adjacent property
owner input.
The research completed by the applicant of the recent redevelopment projects in the
Public Accommodation Zone District indicates that the majority of redevelopment was
facilitated by utilizing the Special Development District process. And while utilizing the
Special Development District has been characterized as difficult and arduous, the
process has enabled the community to realize public benefits, which may not have been
possible otherwise. For example, the Austria Haus SDD resulted in substantial public
improvements to Slifer Plaza and East Meadow Drive and created newly deed-restricted
employee housing units. In the absence of the SDD process, it is questioned whether
there remains a clear and reasonable means for the community to involve the private
sector in the construction of off-site public improvements. Most importantly, there must
remain the ability for the Town to require off-site public improvements and employee
housing to mitigate the impact of redevelopment of private property. Much of the Town
of Mail Streetscape Master Plan has been implemented via public/private partnerships
resulting from opportunities created by redevelopment. The creation of deed-restricted
employee housing is more difficult to require and obtain without adopted legislation.
3. Development Standards
The applicant has proposed numerous changes to the development standards
prescribed for the Public Accommodation Zone District. 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 density limitation on accommodation units or fractional fee units.
Instead, the overall bulk and mass controls will be used to regulate the
number of units.
* 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 area requirement from 30% to 20% to
correspond with the proposed increase in site coverage.
4
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, and 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.
Setbacks
During the two previous meetings, the Commission and the Council each expressed
concern with regard to the proposed setback and GRFA amendments. The applicant's
proposal is to establish setbacks based upon an approved site development plan. The
approach proposed by the applicant is very similar to the way setbacks are established
in the General Use Zone District. It is important to note that the applicant is not
proposing that there be no setbacks, Instead, the applicant is proposing that setbacks be
more flexible and less arbitrary. If the Commission believes that utilizing an approach to
establishing setbacks similar to the approach used in the General Use Zone District is
appropriate, staff would recommend that the applicant and the Commission discuss
possible criteria that could be used in the development review process to establish
setback requirements.
40 The following criteria are listed for consideration;
1. Proximity to riparian corridors and other geologically or environmentally sensitive
areas;
. Proximity to pedestrian sidewalks and malls;
3. Relationship to existing development on adjoining properties;
4. Compatibility to uses on adjoining properties;
5. Impact on the streetscape;
6. Availability of light, air and open space;
7. Adequacy and the provision of landscaping.
GRFA
The majority of the Council members believed that the increase in GRFA from the
current 80% (0.8:1) to 120% (1.2:1) may be too much. The applicant's research of
recent redevelopment on Public Accommodation Zoned properties indicates that the
proposed increase in GRFA may not be enough if, in fact, it is believed that the recently
redeveloped properties resulted in quality development. Staff would suggest that the
applicant and the Commission further discuss the proposed amendment to the GRFA
percentage and proceed towards determining an appropriate figure.
Buildina Heioht
Presently, building height in the Public Accommodation Zone District is calculated by
subtracting the proposed roof heights from either the existing or finished grades,
whichever is greater, underneath and around the building. The maximum building height
is 48' for sloping roofs and 45' for flat roofs. The applicant has proposed to amend the
method of calculating building height.
Instead of calculating the maximum building height to the roof ridge elevation, the
applicant is proposing that the maximum building height be measured to the mid-point of
the roof between the roof eave and the roof ridge. The maximum allowable heights
would remain 48' and 45' respectively. It is believed that this method of building height
calculation more accurately measures the vertical mass of the building. Unlike the
current method of building height calculation, the applicant's proposed method does not
factor in the relatively small amount of vertical building mass that exists in the upper half
of a sloping roof.
The proposed method of building height calculation would increase the overall building
height in the Public Accommodation Zone District. The amount of increase in height is
dependent upon the proposed pitch of a roof. As an example, if a 6112 roof pitch were
proposed on a building, the mid-point of the roof would be limited to 43' in height and the
resulting ridge point would be approximately 51' in height. A 12/12 roof pitch with a mid-
point of 48' would result in a ridge point height of 54'.
As was discussed at length during the Lionshead Master Flan process, industry
standards and guest expectations for lodging units have increased since the PA
Development Standards were adopted. Two-hundred fifty square foot rooms with seven
and one-half foot ceilings no longer meet the expectations of our resort guests. While the
applicant is not proposing an amendment to the height limitations in the Public
Accommodation Zone District, the proposed change in building height methodology
would result in an increase in overall building height.
The staff would recommend that the applicant and Commission discuss the possible
effects of amending the building height calculation methodology for buildings in the
Public Accommodation Zone District. To aid in the discussion staff has identified a list of
possible effects below:
1, Increased height permits the construction of "quality" hotel rooms.
2. The new methodology encourages the construction of buildings with sloping
roofs.
3. The new methodology more accurately measures the vertical mass of a building.
4. The resulting increase in building height may adversely impact views from public
areas.
5. Increased shading of public areas may occur.
6. While the maximum calculated height of buildings would not change, the new
methodology would create taller buildings.
4. ADDlicability of the Reaulations
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.
E
Staff would again 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.
5. Horizontal Zonina
The permitted, conditional and accessory uses allowed in the Public Accommodation
Zone District are not regulated horizontally throughout the varying levels of a building.
For example, unlike the regulations in the Commercial Core I and proposed Lionshead
Zone District, the allowable uses are not regulated by floor level ( 1 s` floor retail, 2" d floor
office, Td floor residential, etc.) Given the development objectives of the Town and the
proximity of the Public Accommodation zoned properties relative to the commercial
cores, staff believes that the applicant, staff and Commission should discuss the merits
of implementing horizontal zoning in the Public Accommodation Zone District. To aid in
the discussion, staff has identified a partial list of pros/cons of implementing horizontal
zoning below:
Pros
1. Insures that activity generating uses are operated at the street-level.
2. Provides hotel-types of amenities (shops, restaurants, etc.) to the guests of the
hotel
3. Creates additional leaseabie retail square footage in the community.
4. Expands the Town's commercial core areas.
5. Ensures the creation of short-term accommodation units.
Cons
1. Reduces flexibility in determining the building's greatest potential.
2. Intensifies the use of the property.
3. Expands the Town's commercial core areas.
4. Limits the demands of the market.
VII. 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.
0
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
December 14, 1995
Minutes
Public Hearinq,
Greg Moffet called the meeting to order at 2.09 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 2595
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.
1
Pbanning 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 40
clear argument to do so.
George Huther 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.
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
Pkuning and Environmental Commission
Minutes
December 14, 1998
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 PEC 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 orocess:
George Ruther said staff had to make 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
Minutes
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 SDD
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 PFG 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 non-conforming uses. He asked if it was a
permitted use and square footage was being added, would the applicant really need to come
before the PFG 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 GRFA 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, 1998
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 PEC, 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 CCt.
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.
Planning and Environmental Commission
Minutes
December 14, 1998
Russ 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 living. 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 it.
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 Townwiide 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 /ail from the United States Forest Service, pursuant to the Land Ownership
Adjustment Agreement, to Lot 15, Block 7, Mail "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.
7
Planning and Environmental Commission
Minutes
December 14, 1998
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 0, Block 5D, Mail Village 1st.
Applicant: Daymer Corporation, represented by Jay Peterson
Planner: George Ruther
TABLED UNTIL 1/11/99
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 L.ionshead 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 28, 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.
r
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
? IIAI; I ' C a
BA 11/ BRAUN A ,?SOact, 1A
PLANNING and COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
February 2, 1999
George Ruther
Town of Vail
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, CO 81657
RE: PA Zone District Amendments/February 22"d PEC Work Session
Dear George:
As per our discussion last week, I have prepared the attached report to provide a framework from
which to discuss this proposal with the Commission at their work session on the 22"d. This report
utilizes a format similar to the manner in which we presented proposed amendments in our
original submittal. This report includes the amendments originally proposed for the PA District,
summarizes issues raised during work sessions with the PEC and Town Council, and presents
our response to these issues.
We heard a number of very positive ideas at the past two work sessions and propose to
incorporate many of these ideas into our formal application. There appears to be less consensus
on other elements of our amendment proposal and we look forward to discussing these with you
and the PEC over the coming weeks.
Sincerely,
Thomas A. Braun, AICP
Encl.
CC: Johannes Faessler
v
Minturn Ironworks Building Phone - 970.827.5797
201 Main Street, 2nd Floor fax - 970.827.5507
Post Office Box 776 www.braunassociates.com
Minturn, Colorado 81645
The following outline provides a framework for how a new PA zone district, i.e. Public
Accommodation-I could be structured. This outline follows the same format that was used for
the original amendments proposed for the PA district so that a comparison can be made between
what was originally proposed (this text is in italics), comments made at previous work sessions,
and the applicant's response to these comments.
PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION-1
A. Aonlicability
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.
Changes To Existing PA Zone District
This new section establishes a linkage between the development standards
and review procedures outlined below with the PA properties indicated on
the Vail Village Area Public Accommodation Zoned Properties Map.
Issues Discussed During Work Sessions
The originally proposed approach for implementing the amendments involved
creating a " sub-section" within the existing PA district. Input indicated that this
approach was confusing, did not include the Roost Lodge, and would unilaterally
establish the new development standards on property that may be inappropriate
for such standards.
Applicant's Response
The comments raised are valid. Amendments to the PA district will be re-
structured to establish a new zone district, i.e. Public Accommodation-1. This
approach will require a property to be re-zoned in order to utilize the new
development standards. As such, this section will not be necessary.
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.
Issues Discussed During Work Sessions
While not specifically discussed during the work sessions, this purpose section
was written to reflect the proposed " sub-section" within the PA district. With the
anticipated changes in the implementation of these amendments (see above
section), the purpose section will need to be re-written.
Applicant's Response
The purpose section will be re-written to more appropriately reflect the purpose of
the new PA-I District.
C. Permitted Uses
The following uses shall be permitted in PA-zoned properties located within the Vail
Village Area:
1. Lodges, 4v g ve; ssc: eatii, &41.11. 1 1., f-eereational or emcz'!
f z urr. ,?n'o, ?c t oc Tifzg na.l;lge-t
ns tt t£ 3 fii t;? Sim a :nqy ie4e a ?f a-a
Changes 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.
Issues Discussed During Work Sessions
Eliminating the 10% limitation on retail square footage raised a number of
concerns. Foremost among these was the potential for a PA property to have a
very significant amount of retail space. Concern that the PA district would
essentially become another M district was also discussed.
Applicant's Response
It was not the intent of this amendment to allow for a PA property to be developed
predominantly as a retail center. Rather, the intent was to not arbitrarily limit
retail, restaurant and recreation uses to 10% of the allowable GRFA. Our
response to concerns raised during previous work sessions is to maintain the 10%
limitation on retail as a permitted use and "categorize" restaurant and recreation
uses as common area. This would eliminate the arbitrary 10% limitation on
restaurant and recreation uses. Retail square footage in excess of 10% of
allowable GRFA would be made a conditional use to allow for cases where
additional retail square footage may be at,p upriate.
D. Conditional Uses
The following conditional uses shall be permitted in PA-zoned properties located within
the Vail Village Area.
1. Bed and breakfasts as further regulated by Section 1214-18 of this tide.
2. Churches.
3. Eating, drinking, recreational, or retail establishments not occupying more than
ten percent (1 D%) 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 III 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 .d'A Zone District
This section is identical to the existing PA Zone District.
Issues Discussed During Work Sessions
There was much discussion during the PEC work session regarding the
appropriateness of some conditional uses. For example, is a business offices
acceptable in a zone district that is intended for lodging activity?
Applicant's Response
While the suitability of many of these conditional uses are questionable,
arguments could also be made as to why each of these should be left in the code
as conditional uses. We have made no changes to existing conditional uses.
As described in section C. above, one refinement we expect to make in our formal
application is to add retail square footage in excess of 10% of allowable GRFA as
a conditional use
E. Accessorv Uses
The following accessory uses shall be permitted in PA-zoned properties located within
the Vail Village Area:
1. Dome 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 District
This section makes "accessory eating, drinking and recreational
uses " an accessory use with no limitation as to floor area.
Issues Discussed During Work Sessions
As described in Section C. above, concerns were raised regarding no limitation to
retail square footage.
Applicant's Response
In keeping with refinements described in Section C. above, we anticipate
amending this section such that eating, drinking and recreational uses are
accessory. Detail -uses will be covered by permitted and conditional uses.
F. Exterior Alterations or Modifications
1. Subject to .review: The construction of a new budding, the alteration of an
existing building which adds or removes any enclosed floor 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 the following..
(1) Completed application form, filing fee, and a list of all owners of
property located adjacent to the subject parcel. Afling fee shall
not be collected for any exterior alteration-which is only for the
addition of an exterior dining deck; however, all other applicable
fees shall be required. The owners list shall include the names of
all owners, their mailing 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 proposal
complies with the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and the
Vail Village Design Considerations, the Vail Village Master Plan,
Streetseape Master Plan and any other relevant sections of the
Vail Comprehensive Plan.
(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 (I " -= 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 " = 109, a roof height plan and existing and proposed
building elevations at a minimum scale of one-eighth inch equals
one foot (118" =1). 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.
(b) Sun/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 that the proposed addition has no impact on the
existing sunlshade pattern. The following sun angle shall be used
when preparing this analysis:
SnrinQ,lFall Equinox Sun Angle
10: 00 A.M 400 east of south, 50 declination
2: 00 P.M. 420 west of south, 500 declination
Winter Solstice Sun Angle
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 (1/4" = 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.
(9) 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; that the architectural or massing model shall be
submitted no later than three (3) weeks prior to the first 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 for modifications to existing
6
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 feet or less on a designated submittal date and will be
reviewed by the Planning and Environmental Commission at any
of its regularly scheduled meetings.
d. Work 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 Planning 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, to include, but not be limited to the following urban
design considerations: pedestrian ization, vehicular penetration,
Streetscape framework, street enclosure, street edge, views,
serviceldelivery and sunlshade analysis; architectural considerations; and
that the proposal substantially complies with all other elements of the Vail
Comprehensive Plan.
7
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
improvements including siting, building setbacks, bulk, height, building
bulk and mass, site improvements and landscaping.
h. Lapse QfApproval: 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 permit 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 Vail 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
M properties will be used and as such this change ensures PEC review of all
development proposals on PA zoned properties located in Vail Village.
Issues Discussed During Work Sessions
While there was discussion about the review process, there were no specific
concerns with utilizing the Urban Design Guide Plan as a framework for this
review.
Applicant's Response
At this time we are not suggesting any changes to this section. There have been
comments by the staff regarding how the review process could be streamlined.
We will continue to work with the staff toward developing a streamlined review
process with amble assurances for public involvement.
G. 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.
Issues Discussed) During Work Sessions
There were no issues discussed with this existing section.
Applicant's Response
No refinements are contemplated for this section.
H. Setbacks
In the PA District, Me mittimunift,9tit :9etbaek;9haH be fit,
(209, L-t (00
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 2Q' setback requirement and establishes
setback requirements based on compliance with the Urban Design Guide Plan.
The proposed section is identical to the setback section of CCI
Issues Discussed. During Work Sessions
The concept of having no prescribed setbacks generated much discussion during
the work sessions. Many noted the benefits of providing flexibility with setbacks.
However, there were concerns expressed with how having no prescribed setbacks
could impact adjacent property.
Applicant's Response
The intention of this amendment was to provide flexibility with setbacks to allow
buildings to be designed with respect to their site and their relationship to
surrounding properties, not with respect to arbitrary setback standards. Relating
setbacks to the Urban Design Guide Plan was done to ensure that building
setbacks would "further the goals of the Guide Plan and result in a positive
improvement to the Village and the streetscape. Inherent in relying on the Urban
Design Guide Plan as the basis for determining appropriate setbacks is the
possibility of the PEC approving a building with less than 20' setbacks while at
the same time the PEC could require setbacks greater than 20'. The flexibility
afforded by this section can go both ways.
It is anticipated that refinements to this section will state that "setbacks in the
PA-1 district shall be determined by the PEC based on conformance with the
Urban Design Guide Plan" .
11
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.
Issues Discussed. During Work Sessions
While no change was proposed to this section, there was some discussion as to
whether a slight increase to the 48' height limit may be appropriate.
Applicant's Response
No changes were originally proposed to the existing 48'height limit. However,
one idea that was discussed during the work sessions is to measure building height
from the mid-point between the eave line and the ridge line (in lieu of measuring
to the ridge line). This change would provide an incentive for more steeply
pitched roofs while not allowing for appreciably more building mass.
This issue warrants more discussion with the PEC.
I Density Control
No more than eiglPy-} 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 number of accommodation units
or fractional fee units.
Changes to Existing PA Zone District
This section increases allowable GRFA from .8 of buildable site area to 1.2 of
buildable site area and eliminates limitations on the total number of
accommodation and fractional fee units. The increase to allowable GRFA 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 development of such units.
Issues Discussed. During Work Sessions
The most significant issue discussed with regard to not counting/limiting the
number of units was with regard to ffu's. Most Commissioner's seemed
comfortable with an increase to allowable GRFA, and a number of
Commissioner's questions whether the proposed increase to 1.2:1 is large enough.
10
Applicant's Response
This section is probably the most significant of all contemplated amendments.
Additional discussion of both density and GRFA is warranted. No refinements
are proposed at this time.
K Site Coverage
Site coverage shall not exceedfiftyfimvepet;eent ° seventy (70%) of the total site
area, except as may be established pursuant to the hail Village Urban Design Guide Plan
and Design Considerations.
Changes to Existing PA Zane District
This section increases site coverage from 55% to 70% and establishes the Urban
Design Guide Plan as applicable review criteria.
Issues Discussed During Work Sessions
Questions were raised regarding whether it is necessary to increase allowable site
coverage.
Applicant's Response
The proposed amendments to site coverage will provide benefits similar to
proposed amendments to setbacks by allowing greater latitude in the design of
buildings. As with proposed amendments to setbacks, proposed amendments still
provide the PFC the control to limit site coverage to something less than 70%
based on a project's compliance with the Urban Design Guide Plan.
An indirect benefit of this amendment is that if a project were to develop at 70%
site coverage, it would all but guarantee that all required parking would be
enclosed within a building. For example, if 70% of a site is covered by buildings,
20% would be required to be landscaped, leaving only 10% of the site for
driveways and surface parking. Realistically, this would only allow room for
driveway access to a parking structure and a limited number of drop-off spaces.
Current regulations allow 55% of the site to be covered by buildings and require
30% of the site to be landscaped, leaving up to 15% of the site that can be used for
parking. While the proposed amendment allows for greater building coverage, it
can actually result in a decrease in the amount of site area used for driveways and
surface parking.
L. Landscaving and Site Develovment
At least re; Lem 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.
11
Changes to existing PA Zone 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.
Issues Discussed During Work Sessions
Concerns with the proposed reduction in landscaping parallel concerns with the
proposed increase to site coverage.
Applicant's Response
For the reasons outlined in Section K. above, no refinements are contemplated at
this time to the proposed change to landscaping.
M. Parking and Loading
Off-street parking and loading shall be provided in accordance with Chapter 10 of this
Title. At least seventy five percent (7501o) 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 PA Zone District
This section is identical to the existing PA Zone District.
Issues Discussed During Work Sessions
While comments were made that parking requirements should be evaluated, it
appeared that most were in agreement that parking requirements should be
considered as a part of the town's efforts scheduled for this summer.
Applicant's Response
No changes are contemplated for this section.
E
12
E
E
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 patios shall also be included in GRFA, unless they meet the
provisions of subsection Al, or 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)
SECTION IX. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 15
2. Multiple-Family Structures: Within buildings containing more than two (2)
allowable dwellings or accommodation units, the following additional areas 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 (35%) 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.
(4) Common heating, cooling or ventilation systems, solar rock
storage 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.
(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 IV "Employee
Housing Unit (EHU)" 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 III or
Type IV EHUs which exceeds the sixty percent (60%) maximum
of allowed common area shall be included in the calculation of
13
GRl?A. 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.
£ 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. Roofed or covered decks, porches, terraces, patios or similar features or
spaces with no more than three (3) exterior walls and a minimum opening
of not less than twenty five percent (25%) of the lineal perimeter of the
area of 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 (3') in height and support
posts with 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
apply. 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.
14
0 9 0
PROPOSED IMEND ENT T THE PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION ZONE DISTRICT
/14/1999
Summary of Seven Re-Developed Vail Village PA Properties
Dwelling Common Rest,, Retail, Site Building
Site Area Units GRFA Area Recreation Coverage Setbacks Height
Allowable 25/ac 80% 35% of GRFA 10% of GRFA 55% 20120120 45`/48'
Austria Maus .55 ac 561ac 146% 66% 16% 73% 2'®19' 48`
Bavaria Haas 2.024 ac 22.2lac 66.6010 64.90% 12.30% 25.70% nla 56'
Christiania .38 ac 35.5lac 85% 48.10% 8% 39% 01-15' 44'
Galatyn Lodge .50 ac 231ac 92% 21% nla 32.80% 2'-8' 47'
Rarnshorn .67 ac 31.3lac 72% nla nla n1a nla 42'
Tivoli Lodge .40 ac 601ac 96% nla nla n1a 6'-16' nla
flail Athletic Club .69 ac 48.51ac 112% 61.70% 102% 70% 01-2' 59'167'
Note: All statistics are from TOV Community Development staff memos.
.0
n
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: February 22, 1999
SUBJECT: A request for the establishment of new zone districts entitled
Lionshead Mixed Use 1 District and Lionshead Mixed Use 2 District
(Title 12, Zoning), in order to implement the Lionshead Redevelopment
Master Plan. Other modifications are being made to other sections of Title
12, namely, Chapter 4 Districts Established, Chapter 10 Off-Street Parking
and Loading, Chapter 13 Employee Housing, Chapter 14 Supplemental
Regulations, and Chapter 15 Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA).
Additionally Title 11 Sign Regulations and Title 5 Public Health and Safety
are being modified.
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: Dominic Mauriello
Ib DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
The Town is proposing two new zone districts, Lionshead Mixed Use 1 (LMU1) District
and Lionshead Mixed Use 2 (LMU2) District in order to implement the Lionshead
Redevelopment Master Plan. This proposal is proposed in conjunction with a request to
rezone the Lionshead area which is a separate agenda item. LMU1 affects the majority
of the Lionshead area and LMU2 affects those parcels located in the west end of
Lionshead (i.e., Holy Cross Parcel, Amoco, and the VA maintenance yard).
ll, STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The Community Development Department is recommending that the Planning and
Environmental Commission recommend approval of the Lionshead Mixed Use 1 District
and the Lionshead Mixed Use 2 District to the Town Council, subject to following findings:
1. That the proposed zone districts are consistent with the Lionshead
Redevelopment Master Plan.
2. That the proposed zone districts are consistent and compatible with existing
and potential uses and generally in keeping with the character of the
neighborhood and adjacent properties.
F:\EVERYONETEC\MEMOS\99\LIONZON2.DOC
1 TOROF AIL
B >
Ill. DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL
The proposed LMU1 District is very similar to the Commercial Core 2 District that exists in
Lionshead today.
Section 12-71-11-1: Purpose
This section has been developed to reference the goals and objectives of the Lionshead
Redevelopment Master Plan.
Section 12-7H-2: Permitted and Conditional Uses; Basement or Garden Leval
This section is very similar to CC2. Some additional uses have been added to the
conditional use section such as lodges, conference facilities and dwelling units. Currently
in CC2, these uses are not permitted on this level of the building. Staff is proposing to
include them here since many properties in Lionshead are condominium buildings with
dwelling units on garden levels and first floors. By listing these uses as a conditional use,
the PEC Will review the potential locations of such uses to determine if they are
appropriate given the goals of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan.
Section 12-71-1-3: Permitted and Conditional Uses; First Floor or Street Level
Again, this section is very similar to the CC2 District. As discussed above, residential
uses and lodge uses have been added as conditional uses to accommodate those
properties which are not located in the pedestrian retail areas.
E
Section 12-71-11-4: Permitted and Conditional Uses; Second Floor and Above
One major difference between this proposal and the CC2 district, is the CC2 district treats
the second floor separately from the third floor and above. This proposal does not
distinguish between the second and third floors. The major difference in allowed uses in
the CC2 zone between the second and third floors is that offices and retail uses require a
conditional use permit on the third floor and above. The LMU1 district allows office uses,
retail, dwelling units, etc. as a permitted use on the second floor and above.
Section 12-711-5: Conditional Uses; Generally
This section remains mostly the same as CC2 with the addition of "private outdoor
recreation facilities.,,
Section 12-71-11-6: Accessory Uses
This section is similar to CC2 with the addition of loading and delivery facilities, and
office, lobbies, laundry facilities which are commonly used in the operation of hotels.
Section 12-71-11-7: Exterior Alterations or Modifications
This section has been changed substantially from the CC2 district. As proposed, if a
project does not involve the addition of dwelling units, accommodation units, fractional
fee club units, timeshare units, does not involve the addition of more than 1,000 sq. ft. of
commercial floor area or common space, or a project which does not have "substantial"
off-site impacts, then that project can be reviewed directly by the Design Review Board
(DRB decisions are subject to call-up by the Town Council).
Hence, a project which fails the above test, must be reviewed by the Planning and
Environmental Commission as a major exterior alteration. This process is unchanged
from the CC2 zone district, other than eliminating any special submittal dates. PEC
decisions are subject to call-up by the Town Council.
F:\EVERYONE\PEC\MEMOS\99\LIONZON2.DOC
2
Section 12-7Hs8: Compliance Burden
This section is very similar to the CC2 zone, except now referencing the Lionshead
Redevelopment Master Plan.
Section 12-7H-9: Lot Area and Site Dimensions
This section remains unchanged from CC2.
Section 12-7H-10: Setbacks
This section is modified slightly from the CC2 zone by referencing the Lionshead
Redevelopment Master Plan and build-to lines.
Section 12-7H-11: Height and Bulk
This section establishes the average building height of 71' with a maximum height of 82',
and references the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan for the specifics of the
building height measurement and design guidelines. A statement is provided to ensure
flexibility with respect to existing buildings and redevelopment projects. Additionally,
architectural projections and landmark features are permitted to exceed the 82.5'
limitation, per the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan.
Section 12-7H-12: Density (dwelling units per acre)
This section implements the density criteria established in the Master Plan. It allows for a
33% increase over the existing development or 35 dwelling units per acre, whichever is
greater. It also allows EHUs, accommodation units, timeshare units and fractional fee
club units to not be counted as density. This section also allows a "lodge dwelling unit" to
be counted as'/4 of a dwelling unit.
Section 12-7H-13: Cross Residential Floor Area
This section implements the GRFA recommendations of the Master Plan. GRFA is
proposed at 250 sq. ft. per each 100 sq. ft. (250%) of lot area (as currently calculated) or
a 33% increase over what is existing, whichever is greater.
Section 12-7H-14: Site Coverage
This section remains unchanged from the CC2 zone district.
Section 12-7H-15: Landscaping and Site Development
This section remains unchanged from the CC2 zone district.
Section 12-7H-16: Larking and Loading
This section remains unchanged from the CC2 zone district.
Section 12-7H-17: Location of Business Activity
This section remains unchanged from the CC2 zone district.
Section 12-7H-18: Mitigation of Development Impacts
This is a new section. This section provides the expectation to applicants and property
owners that they will be responsible for mitigating any new impacts created on public
infrastructure caused by their development/redevelopment. The PEC will be charged with
determining the extent of impacts based on reports prepared by staff or qualified
consultants.
F:AEVERYONE\PEC\MEMOS\99\L IONZON2.DOC
3
Lionshead Mixed Use 2 District
The Lionshead Mixed Use 2 District only varies from the LMU-1 District by the addition of
gasoline and service stations, vehicle maintenance, service, repair, fueling, and storage,
and storage and warehousing all listed as conditional uses. See attached.
Additional Code Changes:
Title 12 Zoning Regulations:
Proposed definitions have been developed for commercial ski storage, personal services,
and lodge dwelling unit. These definitions are attached.
Chapter 4 Districts Established
Section 12-4-1: Designated
This section is being modified to add Lionshead Mixed Use 1 District and Lionshead
Mixed Use 2 District to the inclusive of all zones districts established by the zoning code.
Chapter 10 Off-Street Parking and Loading
Section 12-10-17: Leasing of Parking Spaces
This section is being amended to add Lionshead Mixed Use 1 District and Lionshead
Mixed Use 2 District as districts where leasing of parking spaces may occur.
Chapter 13 Employee Housing
Section 12-13-6: Type III Employee Housing Unit
This section is being modified to add Lionshead Mixed Use 1 District and Lionshead
Mixed Use 2 District to the list of zone districts where Type III EHUs are allowed as a
permitted use.
Section 12-13-7 Type IV Employee Housing Unit
This section is being modified to add Lionshead Mixed Use 1 District and Lionshead
Mixed Use 2 District to the list of zone districts where Type IV FHUs are allowed as a
permitted use.
Chapter 14 Supplemental Regulations
Section. 12-14-19 Satellite Dish Antennas
This section is being modified to add Lionshead Mixed Use 1 District and Lionshead
Mixed Use 2 District to the areas where satellite dishes must be enclosed.
Chapter 15 Caress Residential Floor Area
Section 12-15-3. Definition, Calculation, and Exclusions
This section has been modified to eliminate the 35% of GRFA limitation on common area.
This change allows the development of common area without limitation on projects
throughout the Town of Vail.
Section 12-15-2: GRFA Requirements by Zone District
This section is being modified to add LMU-1 and LMU-2 districts to the GRFA table with a
250% ratio of GRFA.
C]
FAEVERPONE\PEC\MEMOS\99\LIONZON2.DOC
4
Title 11 Sign Regulations:
Chapter 4 Sign Categories
Section 11n-4A-1o Signs Permitted in Zoning Districts
This section is being amended to add Lionshead Mixed Use 1 District and Lionshead
Mixed Use 2 District to the list of zone districts.
Title 5 Public Health and Safety:
Chapter 1 Public Nuisances
Section 5-1-7: Noise Prohibited
This section is being modified to add Lionshead Mixed Use 1 District to the area where it
is unlawful for a truck to idle unattended.
1-1
E:\EVERYONE\PEO\MEMOS\99\LIONZON2.DOC
5
Attachment
Proposed Text Changes
Revised February 22, 1999
ARTICLE H. LIONSHEAD MIXED USE 1 (LMU-1) DISTRICT
SECTION:
12-711-1: Purpose
12-711-2: Permitted and. Conditional Uses; Basement Or Garden Level:
12-711-3: Permitted and Conditional Uses; First Floor Or Street Level:
12-711-4: Permitted and Conditional Uses; Second. Floor and Alcove:
12-711-: Conditional Uses; Generally
12-7H-6: Accessory Uses
12-7H-7: Exterior Alterations Or Modifications
12-711-8: Compliance Burden
12-7H-9: Lot Area and Site Dimensions
12-7H-10: Setbacks
12-7H-1: PURPOSE:
The Lionshead Mixed Use 1 District is intended to provide sites for a mixture of multiple-family
dwellings, lodges, hotels, fractional fee clubs, timeshares, lodge dwelling units, restaurants,
offices, skier services, and commercial establishments in a clustered, unified development.
Lionshead Mixed Use 1 District, in accordance with the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan,
is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space and other amenities appropriate to the
permitted types of buildings and uses and to maintain the desirable qualities of the District by
establishing appropriate site development standards. This district is meant to encourage and
provide incentives for redevelopment in accordance with the Lionshead Redevelopment Master
Plan.
11
This zone district was specifically developed to provide incentives for properties to redevelop.
The ultimate goal of these incentives is to create a economically vibrant lodging, housing, and
commercial core area. The incentives in this zone district include increases in allowable gross
residential floor area, building height, and density over the previously established zoning in the
Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan study area. The primary goal of the incentives is to create
economic conditions favorable to inducing private redevelopment consistent with the Lionshead
Redevelopment Master Plan. Additionally, the incentives are created to help finance public off-
site improvements adjacent to redevelopment projects. With any development/redevelopment
proposal taking advantage of the incentives created herein, the following amenities will be
evaluated: streetscape improvements, pedestrian/bicycle access, public plaza redeveluptuent,
public art, roadway improvements, and similar improvements.
12-7II-2: PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES; BASEMENT OR GARDEN
LEVEL:
A. Definition: The "basement" or "garden level" shall be defined as that floor of a building
that is entirely or substantially below grade.
B. Permitted Uses: The following uses shall be permitted in basement or garden levels within
a structure:
Banks and financial institutions.
Commercial ski storage.
Eating and drinking establishments.
Public or private lockers and storage.
Personal services and repair shops.
Professional offices, business offices and studios.
Recreation facilities.
Retail establishments.
Skier ticketing, ski school, skier services, and dayeare.
Additional uses determined to be similar to permitted uses described in this subsection, in
accordance with the provisions of Section 12-3-4 of this Title.
C. Conditional Uses: The following uses shall be permitted in basement or garden levels
within a structure, subject to issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the
provisions of Chapter 16 of this Title:
Conference facilities and meeting rooms.
Liquor stores.
Lodges and accommodation units.
Major arcade.
plultiple-family residential dwelling units, timeshare units, fractional fee clubs, lodge
dwelling units, and employee housing units (Type III (EH-C7) as provided in Section
12-13-6 of this Title and Type IV (EHU) as provided in Section 12-13-7 of this
Title).
Radio, TV stores, and repair shops.
Theaters.
n
2
12-7II-3: PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES; FIRST FLOOR OR STREET
LEVEL-
A. Definition: The "first floor" or "street level" shall be defined as that floor of the building
that is located at grade or street level along a pedestrian way.
B. Permitted Uses: The following uses shall be permitted on the first floor or street level
within a structure:
Eating and drinking establishments.
Recreation facilities.
Retail stores and establishments.
Skier ticketing, ski school, skier services, and daycare.
Travel agencies.
Additional uses determined to be similar to permitted uses described in this subsection, in
accordance with the provisions of Section 12-3-4 of this Title.
C. Conditional Uses: The following uses shall be permitted on the first floor or street level
floor within a structure, subject to issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the
provisions of Chapter 16 of this Title:
Banks and financial institutions.
Barbershops, beauty shops and beauty parlors.
Conference facilities and meeting rooms.
Liquor stores.
Lodges and accommodation units.
Multiple-family residential dwelling units, timeshare units, fractional fee clubs, lodge
dwelling units, and employee housing units (Type III (EHU) as provided in Section
12-13-6 of this Title and Type IV (EHU) as provided in Section 12-13-7 of this
Title).
Radio, TV stores, and repair shops.
12-711-4: PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES; SECOND FLOOR AND ABOVE:
A. Permitted Uses; Exception: The following uses shall be permitted on those floors above
the first floor within a structure:
Banks and financial institutions.
Conference facilities and meeting rooms.
Eating and drinking establishments.
Lodges and accommodation units.
Multiple-family residential dwelling units, timeshare units, fractional fee clubs, lodge
dwelling units, and employee housing units (Type III (EHU) as provided in Section
1213-6 of this Title and Type IV (EHU) as provided in Section 12-13-7 of this
Title).
Personal services and repair shops.
Professional offices, business offices and studios.
n
3
Recreation facilities.
Retail establishments.
Skier ticketing, ski school, skier services, and daycare.
Additional uses determined to be similar to permitted uses described in this subsection, in
accordance with the provisions of Section 12-3-4 of this Title.
R. Conditional Uses: The following uses shall be permuted on second floors and higher
above grade, subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions
of Chapter 16 of this Title:
Liquor stores.
Radio, TV stores, and repair shops.
Theaters.
12-7111-5: CONDITIONAL USES, GENERALLY (on all levels of a building or outside of a
building):
The following conditional uses shall be permitted, subject to issuance of a conditional use permnit
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.
Brew pubs.
Coin-operated laundries.
Commercial storage.
Public or private parking lots.
Public buildings, grounds, and facilities.
Public park and recreation facilities.
Public utility and public service uses.
Private outdoor recreation facilities, as a primary use.
Ski lifts and tows.
Television stations.
12-711-6: ACCESSORY USES:
The following accessory uses shall be permitted in the Lionshead Mixed Use 1 District:
Home occupations, subject to issuance of a home occupation permit in accordance with
the provisions of Section 12-14-12 of this Title.
Loading and delivery and parking facilities customarily incidental and accessory to
permitted and conditional uses.
Minor arcade.
Outdoor dining areas operated in conjunction with permitted eating and drinking
establishments.
0 Swimming pools, tennis courts, patios or other recreation facilities customarily incidental
4
to permitted. residential or lodge uses.
Offices, lobbies, laundry, and other facilities customarily incidental and accessory to
hotels, lodges, and multiple-family uses.
Other uses customarily incidental and accessory to permitted or conditional uses, and
necessary for the operation thereof.
12-711-7: EXTERIOR ALTERATIONS OR MODIFICATIONS:
Review Required: The construction of a new building or the alteration of an existing building shall
be reviewed by the Design Review Board in accordance with Chapter 12-11 of the Zoning
Regulations. However, any project which adds additional dwelling units, accommodation units,
fractional fee club units, timeshare units, any project which adds more than 1,000 sq. ft. of
commercial floor area or common space, or any project which has substantial off site impacts (as
determined by the Administrator) shall be reviewed by the Planning and Environmental
Commission as a Major Exterior Alteration in accordance with this Chapter and Section 12-3-6:
Hearings. Any project which requires a conditional use permit shall also obtain approval of the
Planning and Environmental Commission in accordance with Chapter 12-16 of the Zoning
Regulations. Complete applications for major exterior alterations shall be submitted in
accordance with administrative schedules developed by the Community Development Department
for Planning and Environmental Commission and Design Review Board review. The following
submittal items are required:
1. 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.
2. Application, Contents: An application for an exterior alteration shall include the
following:
a. Completed application form, filing fee, and a list of all owners of property
located adjacent to the subject parcel. The owners list shall include the names of
all owners, their mailing 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.
b. A written statement describing the proposal and how the proposal complies with
the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan and any other relevant sections of the
Vail Comprehensive Plan.
5
c. A survey stamped by a licensed surveyor indicating existing conditions on the
property including the location of improvements, topography, and natural features.
d. A current title report to verify ownership, easements, and other encumbrances,
including Schedules A and B3.
e. Existing and proposed site plan at a minimum scale of one inch equals 20 feet
(1" = 20'), a vicinity plan at an appropriate scale to adequately show the project
location in relationship to the surrounding area, a landscape plan at a minimum
scale of one inch equals 20 feet (1" = 20'), a roof height plan and existing and
proposed building elevations at a minimum scale of one-eighth inch equals one
foot (1/8" = 1'). The material listed above shall include adjacent buildings and
improvements as necessary to demonstrate the project's compliance with the
L,ionshead Redevelopment Master Plan.
f. Sun/shade analysis of the existing and proposed building for the spring/fall
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 that the proposed addition has no impact on
the existing sun/shade pattern. The following sun angle shall be used when
preparing this analysis:
Spring/Fall
Equinox Sun Angle
10:00 A.M. 40° east of south, 50° declination
2:00 P.M. 42° west of south, 50° declination
Winter
Solstice Sun Angle
10:00 A.M. 30° east of south, 20° declination
2:00 P.M. 30° west of south, 20° declination
g. Existing and proposed floor plans at a minimum scale of one-fourth inch equals
one foot (1/4" = 1`) and a square footage analysis of all existing and proposed uses.
h. An architectural or massing model of the proposed level. p.1-ent. 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.
i. Photo overlays and/or 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.
0 j. Parking needs assessment and vehicular circulation analysis, prepared by a
6
qualified professional.
k. 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
Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan.
4. Work Sessions/Conceptual Review: If requested by either the applicant or the
Administrator, submittals may proceed to a work session with the Planning and
Environmental Commission, a conceptual review with the Design Review Board, or a
worksession with the Town Council.
5. Hearing: The public hearing before the Planning and Environmental Counuission 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.
6. Lapse Of Approval: Approval of an exterior alteration as prescribed by this Article shall
lapse and become void two (2) years following the date of approval by the Design Review
Board unless, prior to the expiration, a building permit is issued and construction is
commenced and diligently pursued to completion. Administrative extensions shall be
allowed for reasonable and unexpected delays as long as code provisions affecting the
proposal have not changed.
12-711-$: COMPLIANCE BURDEN:
It shall be the burden of the applicant to prove by a preponderance of the evidence before the
Planning and Environmental Commission and the Design Review Board that the proposed
exterior alteration or new development is in compliance with the purposes of the Lionshead
Mixed Use 1 District, that the proposal is consistent with applicable elements of the Lionshead
Redevelopment Master Plan and that the proposal does not otherwise have a significant negative
affects on the character of the neighborhood, and that the proposal substantially complies with
other applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan.
12-711-9: LOT AREA AND Snz DIMENSIONS:
The minimum lot or site area shall be ten thousand (10,000 square feet of buildable area.
v
7
12-711-10: SETBACKS:
The minimum building setbacks shall be ten feet (10') unless otherwise specified in the Lionshead
Redevelopment Mauer Flan as a build-to line.
12-711-11: HEIGHT AND BULK:
Buildings shall have an average building height of 71' with a maximum height of 82e5', as further
defined by the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. All development shall cutuply with the
design guidelines and standards found in the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. Flexibility
with the standard, as incorporated in the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Flan, shall be afforded
to redevelopment projects which meet the intent of design guidelines, as reviewed and approved
by the Design Review Board.
12-7II-12: DENSITY (dwelling units per acre):
Unless otherwise specified in the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Flan, not more than a 33%
increase over the existing number of dwelling units on a property or 35 dwelling units per acre,
whichever is greater shall be allowed. For the purpose of calculating density, employee housing
units, accommodation units, timeshare units, and fractional fee club units shall not be counted as
dwelling units. Additionally, a lodge dwelling unit, as defined herein, shall be counted as 25% of
a dwelling unit for the purpose of calculating density.
12-7II-13: GROSS RESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA (GRFA):
Unless otherwise specified in the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, not more than 250 sq.
ft. of gross residential floor area shall be allowed for each 100 sq. ft. of buildable site area, or an
increase of 33% over the existing GRFA found on the property, whichever is greater. Multiple-
family dwelling units in this zone district shall not be entitled to additional Gross Residential Floor
Area under the 250 Ordinance, Section 1215-5, of the Municipal Code.
12®711-14: SITE COVERAGE:
Site coverage shall not exceed seventy percent (70%) of the total site area, unless otherwise
specified in the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan.
12-7II-15: LANDSCAPING AND SITE DEVELOPMENT:
At least twenty percent (20%) of the total site area shall be landscaped, unless otherwise specified
in the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan.
12-711-16: PARKING AND LOADING:
Off-street parking and loading shall be provided in accordance with Chapter 10 of this Title. At
least one-half (1I2-) the required parking shall be located within the main building or buildings.
12-7II-17: LOCATION OF BUSINESS ACTIVITY:
A. Limitations; Exception: All offices, businesses and services permitted by zone district,
shall be operated and conducted entirely within a building, except for permitted unenclosed
parking or loading areas, the outdoor display of goods, or outdoor restaurant seating.
P. Outdoor Displays: The area to be used for outdoor display must be located directly in
front of the establishment displaying the goods and entirely upon the establishment's own
property. Sidewalks, building entrances and exits, driveways and streets shall not be obstructed by
outdoor display.
12-711-18: MITIGATION OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACTS:
Property owners/developers shall also be responsible for mitigating impacts of their development
on public infrastructure. Impacts may be determined based on reports prepared by qualified
consultants. The extent of mitigation and public amenity improvements shall be balanced with the
goals of redevelvpuient and will be determined by the Planning and Environmental Coma-fission in
review of development projects and conditional use permits. Mitigation of impacts may include,
but is not limited to, the following: roadway improvements, pedestrian walkway improvements,
streetscape improvements, public art improvements, and similar improvements.
E
9
ARTICLE I. LIONSIIEAD MIXED USE 2 (LMU-2) DISTRICT
SECTION:
12-7I-1: Purpose
12-7I-2: Permitted and Conditional Uses, Easement Or Garden Level:
12-7I-3: Permitted and Conditional Uses; first floor Or Street Level:
12-7I-4: Permitted and Conditional Uses; Second Floor and Above:
12-7I-5: Conditional Uses; Generally
12-7I-6: Accessory Uses
12-7I-7: Exterior Alterations Or Modifications
12-7I-8: Compliance Burden
12-7I-9: Lot Area and Site ]Dimensions
12-71-10: Setbacks
12-7I-11: Height and Bulk
12-7I-12: Density (dwelling units per acre)
12-7I-13: Gross Residential Floor Area (GII.PA)
12-71-14: Site Coverage
12-7I-15: Landscaping and Site development
12-7I-16: Parking and Loading
12-7I-17: Location Of Business Activity
12-7I-18: Mitigation of Development Impacts
11
12-7I-1: PURPOSE:
The Lionshead Mixed Use 2 District is intended to provide sites for a mixture of multiple-family
dwellings, lodges, hotels, fractional fee clubs, timeshares, lodge dwelling units, restaurants,
offices, skier services, light industrial activities, and commercial establishments in a clustered,
unified development. Lionshead Mixed Use 2 District, in accordance with the Lionshead
Redevelopment Master Plan, is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space and other
amenities appropriate to the permitted types of buildings and uses and to maintain the desirable
qualities of the District by establishing appropriate site development standards. This district is
meant to encourage and provide incentives for redevelopment in accordance with the Lionshead
Redevelopment Master Plan.
This zone district was specifically developed to provide incentives for properties to redevelop.
The ultimate goal of these incentives is to create a economically vibrant lodging, housing, and
commercial core area. The incentives in this zone district include increases in allowable gross
residential floor area, building height, and density over the previously established zoning in
Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan study area. The primary goal of the incentives is to create
economic conditions favorable to inducing private redevelopment consistent with the Lionshead
Redevelopment Master Plan. Additionally, the incentives are created to help finance public, off-
site, improvements adjacent to redevelopment projects. Public amenities which will be evaluated
with redevelopment proposals taking advantage of the incentives created herein may include:
streetscape improvements, pedestrian/bicycle access, public plaza redevelopment, public art,
10
roadway improvements, and similar improvements. 0
12-71-2: PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES; BASEMENT OR GARDEN LEVEL:
A. Definition: The "basement" or "garden level" shall be defined as that floor of a building
that is entirely or substantially below grade.
B. Permitted Uses: The following uses shall be permitted in basement or garden levels within
a structure:
Banks and financial institutions.
Commercial ski storage.
Eating and drinking establishments.
Public or private lockers and storage.
Personal services and repair shops.
Professional offices, business offices and studios.
Recreation facilities.
Retail establishments.
Skier ticketing, ski school, skier services, and daycare.
Additional uses determined to be similar to permitted uses described in this subsection, in
accordance with the provisions of Section 12-3-4 of this Title.
D. Conditional Uses: The following uses shall be permitted in basement or garden levels
within a structure, subject to issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the
provisions of Chapter 16 of this Title:
Conference facilities and meeting rooms.
Liquor stores.
Lodges and accommodation units.
Major arcade.
Multiple-family residential dwelling units, timeshare units, fractional fee clubs, lodge
dwelling units, and employee housing units (Type H€ (EHU) as provided in Section
12-13-6 of this Title and Type IV (EHU) as provided in Section 12-13-7 of this
Title).
Radio, TV stores, and repair shops.
Theaters.
12-71-3: PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES; F'IRS'T FLOOR OR STREET
LEVEL:
A. Definition: The "first floor" or "street level" shall be defined as that floor of the building
that is located at grade or street level along a pedestrian way.
B. Permitted Uses: The following uses shall be permitted on the first floor or street level
within a structure:
C
11
Eating and drinking establishments.
Recreation facilities.
Retail stores and establishments.
Skier ticketing, ski school, skier services, and daycare.
Travel agencies.
Additional uses determined to be similar to permitted uses described in this subsection, in
accordance with the provisions of Section 12-3-4 of this Title.
C. Conditional Uses: The following uses shall be permitted on the first floor or street level
floor within a structure, subject to issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the
provisions of Chapter 16 of this Title:
Banks and financial institutions.
Barbershops, beauty shops and beauty parlors.
Conference facilities and meeting rooms.
Liquor stores.
Lodges and accommodation units.
Multiple-family residential dwelling units, timeshare units, fractional fee clubs, lodge
dwelling units, and employee housing units (Type III (EHU) as provided in Section
12-13-6 of this Title and Type TV (EHU) as provided in Section 12-13-7 of this
Title).
Radio, TV stores, and repair shops.
12-71-4: PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES; SECOND FLOOR AND ABOVE:
A. Permitted Uses; Exception: The following uses shall be permitted on those floors above
the first floor within a structure:
Banks and financial institutions.
Conference facilities and meeting rooms.
Eating and drinking establishments.
Lodges and accommodation units.
Multiple-family residential dwelling units, timeshare units, fractional fee clubs, lodge
dwelling units, and employee housing units (Type III (EHU) as provided in Section
12-13-6 of this Title and Type IV (EHU) as provided in Section 12-13-7 of this
Title).
Personal services and repair shops.
Professional offices, business offices and studios.
Recreation facilities.
Retail establishments.
Skier ticketing, ski school, skier services, and daycare.
Additional uses determined to be similar to permitted uses described in this subsection, in
accordance with the provisions of Section 12-3-4 of this Title.
0 B. Conditional Uses: The following uses shall be permitted on second floors and higher
12
above grade, subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions
of Chapter 16 of this Title:
Liquor stores.
Radio, TV stores, and repair shops.
Theaters.
12m7I-5: CONDITIONAL USES; GENERALLY (on all levels of a building or outside of a
building):
The following conditional uses shall be permitted, 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 1214-18 of this Title.
Brew pubs.
Coin-operated laundries.
Commercial storage.
Gasoline and service stations.
Public or private parking lots.
Public buildings, grounds, and facilities.
Public park and recreation facilities.
Public utility and public service uses.
Private outdoor recreation facilities, as a primary use.
Ski lifts and tows.
Television stations.
Vehicle maintenance, service, repair, storage, and fueling.
Warehousing.
12-7I-6: ACCESSORY USES;
The following accessory uses shall be permitted in the Lionshead Mixed Use 2 District:
Dome occupations, subject to issuance of a home occupation permit in accordance with
the provisions of Section 12-14-12 of this Title.
Loading and delivery and parking facilities customarily incidental and accessory to
permitted and conditional uses.
Minor arcade.
Outdoor dining areas operated in conjunction with permitted eating and drinking
establishments.
C
Swimming pools, tennis courts, patios or other recreation facilities customarily incidental
to permitted residential or lodge uses.
Offices, lobbies, laundry, and other facilities customarily incidental and accessory to
hotels, lodges, and multiple-family uses.
Other uses customarily incidental and accessory to permitted or conditional uses, and
13
0 necessary for the operation thereof.
12-7I-7: EXTERIOR ALTERATIONS OR MODIFICATIONS:
Review Required: The construction of a new building or the alteration of an existing building shall
be reviewed by the Design Review Board in accordance with Chapter 12-11 of the Zoning
Regulations. However, any project which adds additional dwelling units, accommodation units,
fractional fee club units, timeshare units, any project which adds more than 1,000 sq. ft. of
commercial floor area or common space, or any project which has substantial off-site impacts (as
determined by the Administrator) shall be reviewed by the Planning and Environmental
Commission as a Major Exterior Alteration in accordance with this Chapter and Section 12-3-6:
Hearings. Any project which requires a conditional use permit shall also obtain approval of the
Planning and Environmental Commission in accordance with Chapter 12-16 of the Zoning
Regulations. Complete applications for major exterior alterations shall be submitted in
accordance with administrative schedules developed by the Community Development Department
for Planning and Environmental Commission and Design Review Board review. The following
submittal items are required:
1. 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.
2. Application; Contents: An application for an exterior alteration shall include the
following:
a. Completed application form, filing fee, and a list of all owners of property
located adjacent to the subject parcel. The owners list shall include the names of
all owners, their mailing 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.
b. A written statement describing the proposal and how the proposal complies with
the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan and any other relevant sections of the
Vail Comprehensive Plan.
c. A survey stamped by a licensed surveyor indicating existing conditions on the
property including the location of improvements, topography, and natural features.
0 d. A current title report to verify ownership, easements, and other encumbrances,
14
including Schedules A and B3.
e. Existing and proposed site plan at a minimum scale of one inch equals 20 feet
0" = 20'), a vicinity plan at an appropriate scale to adequately show the project
location in relationship to the surrounding area, a landscape plan at a minimum
scale of one inch equals 20 feet (1" = 20'), a roof height plan and existing and
proposed building elevations at a minimum scale of one-eighth inch equals one
foot (1/8" = V). The material listed above shall include adjacent buildings and
improvements as necessary to demonstrate the project's compliance with the
Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan.
f. Sun/shade analysis of the existing and proposed building for the spring/fall
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 that the proposed addition has no impact on
the existing sun/shade pattern. The following sun angle shall be used when
preparing this analysis:
Spring/Fall
Equinox Sun Angle
10:00 A.M. 40° east of south, 50° declination
2:00 P.M.
Winter 42° west of south, 50° declination
Solstice Sun Angle
10:00 A.M. 30° east of south, 20° declination
2:00 P.M. 30° west of south, 20° declination
g. Existing and proposed floor plans at a minimum scale of one-fourth inch equals
one foot (1/4" = 1') and a square footage analysis of all existing and proposed uses.
h. 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.
i. Photo overlays and/or 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.
j. Parking needs assessment and vehicular circulation analysis, prepared by a
qualified professional.
k. Any additional information or material as deemed necessary by the
Administrator or the Town Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC). The
15
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
Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan.
4. Work Sessions/Conceptual Review: If requested by either the applicant or the
Administrator, submittals may proceed to a work session with the Planning and
Environmental Commission, a conceptual review with the Design Review Board, or a
worksession with the Town Council.
5. Hearing: The public hearing before the Planning 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.
6. Lapse Of Approval: Approval of an exterior alteration as prescribed by this Article shall
lapse and become void two (2) years following the date of approval by the Design Review
Board unless, prior to the expiration, a building permit is issued and construction is
commenced and diligently pursued to completion. Administrative extensions shall be
allowed for reasonable and unexpected delays as long as code provisions affecting the
proposal have not changed.
12-7I-8: COMPLIANCE BURDEN:
It shall be the burden of the applicant to prove by a preponderance of the evidence before the
Planning and Environmental Commission and the Design Review Board that the proposed
exterior alteration or new development is in compliance with the purposes of the Lionshead
Mixed Use 2 District, that the proposal is consistent with applicable elements of the Lionshead
Redevelopment Master Plan and that the proposal does not otherwise have a significant negative
affects on the character of the neighborhood, and that the proposal substantially complies with
other applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan.
12-71-9: LOT AREA AND SITE DIMENSIONS:
The minimum lot or site area shall be ten thousand (10,000) square feet of buildable area.
12-71-10: SETBACKS:
The minimum building setbacks shall be ten feet (10') unless otherwise specified in the Lionshead
Redevelopment Master Plan as a build-to line.
•
16
12-7I-11: HEIGHT A BULK:
Buildings shall have an average building height of 71' with a maximum height of 82.5', as further
defined by the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. All development shall comply with the
design guidelines and standards found in the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. Flexibility
with the standard, as incorporated in the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, shall be afforded
to redevelopment projects which meet the intent of design guidelines, as reviewed and approved
by the Design Review Board.
12-7I-12: DENSITY (dwelling units per acre):
Unless otherwise specified in the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, not more than a 33%
increase over the existing number of dwelling units on a property or 35 dwelling units per acre,
whichever is greater shall be allowed. For the purpose of calculating density, employee housing
units, accommodation units, timeshare units, and fractional fee club units shall not be counted as
dwelling units. Additionally, a lodge dwelling unit, as defined herein, shall be counted as 25% of
a dwelling unit for the purpose of calculating density.
12-7I-13: GROSS RESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA (GRFA):
Unless otherwise specified in the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, not more than 250 sq.
ft. of gross residential floor area shall be allowed for each 100 sq. ft. of buildable site area, or an
increase of 33% over the existing CRFA found on the property, whichever is greater. Multiple-
family dwelling units in this zone district shall not be entitled to additional Cross Residential Floor
Area under the 250 Ordinance, Section 12-15-5, of the Municipal Code.
12-7I-14: SITE COVERAGE:
Site coverage shall not exceed seventy percent (70%) of the total site area, unless otherwise
specified in the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan.
12-71-15: LANDSCAPING AND SITE DEVELOPMENT:
At least twenty percent (20%) of the total site area shall be landscaped, unless otherwise specified
in the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan.
12-7I-16: PARKING AND LOADING:
Off-street parking and loading shall be provided in accordance with Chapter 10 of this Title. At
least one-half (1/2) the required parking shall be located within the main building or buildings.
11
17
12-71-17: LOCATION OF BUSINESS ACTIVITY:
A. Limitations; Exception: All offices, businesses and services permitted by zone district,
shall be operated and conducted entirely within a building, except for permitted unenclosed
parking or loading areas, the outdoor display of goods, or outdoor restaurant seating.
B. Outdoor Displays: The area to be used for outdoor display must be located directly in
front of the establishment displaying the goods and entirely upon the establishment's own
property. Sidewalks, building entrances and exits, driveways and streets shall not be obstructed by
outdoor display.
I2-71-I8: MITIGATION OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACTS:
Property owners/developers shall also be responsible for mitigating impacts of their development
on public infrastructure. Impacts may be determined based on reports prepared by qualified
consultants. The extent of mitigation and public amenity improvements shall be balanced with the
goals of redevelopment and will be determined by the Planning and Environmental Commission in
review of development projects and conditional use permits. Mitigation of impacts may include,
but is not limited to, the following: roadway improvements, pedestrian walkway improvements,
streetscape improvements, public art improvements, and similar improvements.
E
18
Proposed Amendments to Other Sections of Code 0
(Note: Text which is i&l is being deleted and text which is underlined is being added.)
Title 12 Zoning
Chapter 2
Section 12-2-2: Definitions
Commercial Ski Storage: Storage for equipment (skis, snowboards, boots and poles) and/or
clothing used in skiing-related sports, which is available to the public or members, operated by a
business, club or government organization, and where a fee is charged for hourly, daily, monthly,
seasonal or annual usage. Ski storage that is part of a lodge, or dwelling unit, in which a fee is not
charged, is not considered commercial ski storage.
Personal Services: A commercial business where a service is offered to the customer including
beauty and barber shops, tailor shops, and similar services.
Lodge dwelling unit: A small dwelling unit with limited kitchen and floor area and which contains
650 sq. ft. or less of floor area and is intended to be rented on a short term basis.
Chapter 4 Districts Established
Section 12-4-1: Designated
Add: Lionshead Mixed Use I District (LMU-1)
Lionshead Mixed Use 2 District (LMU-2)
Chapter 10 Off'Street Parking and Loading
Section 12-10-17: Leasing of Parking Spaces
Modify B(l) as follows:
B. Lease Qualifications; Application To Lease: A parking space, spaces or areas may be
leased by the owner, occupant or building manager thereof in accordance with the following.
Any owner, occupant or building manager who owns, occupies or manages ten (10) or
more private parking spaces located in Commercial Core 1, Commercial Core 2,
Commercial Core 3, High Density Multiple-Family, Public Accommodations.,
Lionshead Mixed Use 1, Lionshead Mixed Use 2 or special development zone
districts and provides sufficient parking for use by employees may apply to the
Administrator of the Town for a permit to lease parking spaces.
Chapter 13 Employee Housing
Section 12-13-6: Type III Employee Housing Unit
Modify B(1 and 3) as follows (modify summary table as necessary):
B. General Conditions:
1. It shall be a conditional use in the Residential Cluster, Low Density Multiple-Family,
Medium Density Multiple-Family, High Density Multiple-Family, Public Accommodation,
Commercial Core 1, Commercial Core II, Commercial Core III, Commercial Service
Center, Arterial Business District, Parking District, General Use, and Ski Base/Recreation
19
Zone Districts. It shall be a permitted use in Lionshead Mixed Use 1 and Lionshead
Mixed Use 2 zone districts.
3. It shall be counted as five-tenths (0.5) dwelling unit for the purposes of calculating
density, unless located in the Lionshead Mixed Use I or Lionshead Mixed Use 2 zone
districts, where it is not counted as density,. The number of Type III employee housing
units shall be determined by the Planning and Environmental Commission as part of the
conditional use permit review process set forth in Section 12-16-6, "Criteria; Findings" of
this Title, if amlicable.
Section 12-13-7 Type IV Employee Housing Unit
Modify B(I and 3) as follows (modify summary table as necessary):
B. General Conditions:
It shall be a conditional use in the Residential Cluster, Low Density Multiple-Family,
Medium Density Multiple-Family, High Density Multiple-Family, Public
Accommodation, Commercial Core 1, Commercial Core 2, Commercial Core 3,
Commercial Service Center, Arterial Business District, Parking District, General Use,
and Ski/Base Recreation Zone Districts. It shall be a permitted use in Lionshead
Mixed Use I and Lionshead Mixed Use 2 zone districts.
3. It shall be counted as 0.333 of a dwelling unit for the purposes of calculating density,
unless located in the Lionshead Mixed Use 1 or Lionshead Mixed Use 2 zone districts,
where it is not counted as density. The number of Type IV employee housing units shall
be determined by the Planning and Environmental Commission as part of the conditional
use permits review process set forth in Section 12-16-6 of this Title, if applicable.
Chapter 14 Supplemental Regulations
Section I2-14-I9 Satellite Dish Antennas
Modify D(l)(i) as follows:
D. Compliance With Requirements, Variance:
1. Requirements: Satellite dish antennas shall comply with the following requirements:
i. Due to the special aesthetic importance of the core areas of the Town,
exterior installations of satellite dish antennas in Commercial Cores 1, aRd
2, Lionshead Mixed Use 1, and Lionshead Mixed Use 2 zone districts
shall be permitted only if screened by some type of enclosing structure.
Said structures required to enclose a satellite dish antenna in these areas
shall comply with all applicable zoning regulations and shall be
architecturally compatible with the existing structure.
•
20
Chapter 15 Gross Residential Floor Area
Section 12-15-3: Definition, Calculation, and Exclusions
Modify 2(b) as follows:
Multiple-Family Structures: Within buildings containing more than two (2) allowable dwellings or
accommodation units, the following additional areas 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, aff
Ye f etage of al the f 11 g opase shall not o eed thiF `r 12 pcreant {\35°sl a4he
,y
allowable-G A pe1?ed -r 41,e 1„+ A„ a F?n+ m Axhic1, n zdc tha thi ty w eea4
50/) F3i?t:C'c:?S13 iirtli ;nclmd2d in 44t
(1) Common hallways, stairways, elevator shafts and airlocks.
(2) Common lobby areas.
(3) Common enclosed recreation facilities.
(4) Common heating, cooling or ventilation systems, solar rock storage areas,
or other mechanical systems. r -lcu4atk cc
A-shall ba the min .., +a
(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 IV "Employee Housing Unit
C. All or part of an airlock within an accommodation or dwelling unit not exceeding a
21
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.
v
E
g. Roofed or covered decks, porches, terraces, patios or similar features or spaces
with no more than three (3) exterior walls and a minimum opening of not less than twenty
five percent (25%) of the lineal perimeter of the area of 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 (T) in height and support posts
with 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.
Section 12-15-2: GRFA Requirements by Zone District"
Modify by adding Lionshead Mixed Use 1 and Lionshead Mixed Use 2 zone districts to table as
follows:
Zone Districts
LMU-1
Lionshead Mixed Use 1
LMU-2
Lionshead Mixed Use 2
Title 11 Sign Regulations:
GRFA
Ratioll'ercentaize GRFA Credits
250% of buildable lot area None
250% of buildable lot area None
Chapter 4 Sign Categories
Section 11-4.-1: Signs Permitted in Zoning Districts
Add Lionshead Mixed Use I and Lionshead Mixed Use 2 zone districts to first section, first
column of table in same section with CCI and CC2.
22
Title S Public Health and Safety 40
Chapter I Public Nuisances
Section 5-1-7: Noise Prohibited
Modify G(3)(b) as follows:
G. Motor Vehicle Noise:
b. Notwithstanding subsection G3a above, it shall be unlawful for any person to
permit any idling whatsoever of the engine of any unattended bus, truck or any
motor vehicle, except for refrigeration vehicles, within the Lionshead Mixed Use
1, Lionshead Mixed Use 2, Commercial Core 1 or the Commercial Core 2 Zone
Districts of the Town.
F:\EVERYONE\DOM\LION 1EAD\ZONING\LMulrev2,.doc
23
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
PROM: Community Development Department
DATE: February 22, 1999
SUBJECT: A request for a rezoning of property located in the Lionshead Redevelopment
Master Plan Area, in accordance with the attached map to a new zone district
entitled Lionshead Mixed Use 1 District and Lionshead Mixed Use 2 District,
(including, Vail International, Lodge at Lionshead-Phases i-III, Tree Tops,
Lionshead Center, Lionshead Arcade, Vail 21, Lion's Pride Building, Vantage
Point, Lifthouse Condominiums, Westwinds, Sunbird Lodge, Gondola Building,
Landmark Condominiums, Landmark Townhomes, North Day Lot, Lionsquare
Lodge, Lionsquare North, Montaneros, Concert Hall Plaza, Antlers, Marriott,
Enzian, Vail Glo Lodge, Lionshead Inn, Vail Spa, West Day Lot, VA Maintenance
Yard and the Amoco Station) and a rezoning of the Lionshead parking structure
from Parking District to General Use .
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: Dominic Mauriello
0 1. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
The Town of Vail is proposing to rezone the Lionshead area in accordance with the
attached map in order to bring the zoning in Lionshead into conformance with the
Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. The Town is proposing 2 zoning districts,
Lionshead Mixed Use 1 (LMU-1) District and Lionshead Mixed Use 2 (LMU-2)
District. LMU-1 affects the majority of the Lionshead area and LMU-2 affects those
parcels located in the west end of Lionshead (i.e., Holy Cross Parcel, Amoco, and the
VA maintenance yard). A detailed description of the proposed zone districts is
included in a separate memo on another agenda item. Please refer to this additional
memorandum.
The proposal also includes a rezoning of the Lionshead Parking Structure and
adjacent Tract E from Parking District to General Use District. A copy of the
General Use and Parking districts are attached for your reference.
lla STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The Community Development Department is recommending that the Planning and Environmental
Commission recommend approval of the proposed rezonings (in accordance with the map
provided) to the Town Council, subject to following findings:
1. That the zone districts are consistent with the Lionshead Redevelopment Master
Plan.
F:\EVERYONE\PEC\MEMOS\99\LIONZONI.DOC
1 TOW*VAIL
2. That the zone districts are consistent and compatible with existing and potential
uses and generally in keeping with the character of the neighborhood and
adjacent properties,
III. CRITERIA
The PRC shall make the following findings before granting approval of a zone change request:
1) is the proposed zoning suitable with the existing lend use on the site and adjacent
land uses?
The proposed zone districts for the Lionshead area implement the Lionshead
Redevelopment Master Plan which was adopted on December 15, 1998. The master
plan determined the community objectives, appropriate uses, development standards,
and design standards for the area. The proposed zone districts are compatible with the
existing uses and accommodates potential future uses. The proposed zone districts will
assist in the redevelopment of the Lionshead area and improve the character of the area.
2) Is the amendment preventing a convenient workable relationship with land uses
consistent with municipal objectives.
The proposed amendment does not prevent a workable relationship with land uses
consistent with municipal objectives. The Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan
documents the community's objectives for the Lionshead area and the proposed zone
districts implement the recommendations and objectives of this plan.
3) Does the rezoning provide for the growth of an orderly viable community?
The proposed rezonings in the Lionshead area provide for an orderly viable community.
The Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan provides for a 20 + year growth for
Lionshead and the proposed rezonings implement the contemplated growth of the area.
4) Is the change consistent with the Land Use Plan?
The Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan and hence the implementation of this plan by
the rezoning of the Lionshead area are consistent with the Vail Land Use Plan. The Vail
Land Use Plan was adopted in 1986 and has not been revised to reflect new community
goals or land use patterns over the past 13 years. However, the proposed rezonings are
consistent with this document. The Lionshead area was designated as a Tourist
Commercial area which focuses on products and services for the guest. The proposed
rezonings provide for this tourist based development. Staff believes the following goals
are implemented by the rezoning of these areas of Lionshead
General Growth/Development
1.1 Vail should continue to grow in a controlled environment, maintaining a balance
between residential, commercial and recreational uses to serve both the visitor
and the permanent resident.
1.2 The quality of the environment including air, water and other natural resources
should be protected as the Town grows.
FAEVE RYON E\PEC\MEMOS\99\LIO NZON 1.DOC
2
1.3 The quality of development should be maintained and upgraded whenever
possible.
1.5 Commercial strip development of the Valley should be avoided.
1.10 Development of Town owned lands by the Town of Vail (other than parks and
open space) may be permitted where no high hazards exist, if such development
is for public use.
1.12 Vail should accommodate most of the additional growth in existing developed
areas (infili areas).
2. Skier/Tourist Concerns
2.1 The community should emphasize its role as a destination resort while
accommodating day visitors.
2.2 The ski area owner, the business community and the Town leaders should work
together closely to make existing facilities and the Town function more effectively.
2.3 The ski area owner, the business community and the Town leaders should work
together to improve facilities for day skiers.
C
3. Commercial
3.1 The hotel bed base should be preserved and used more efficiently.
3.2 The Village and Lionshead areas are the best location for hotels to serve the
future needs of the destination skiers.
3.3 Hotels are important to the continued success of the Town of Vail, therefore
conversion to condominiums should be discouraged.
3.4 Commercial growth should be concentrated in existing commercial areas to
accommodate both local and visitor needs.
3.5 Entertainment oriented businesses and cultural activities should be encouraged in
the core areas to create diversity. More night time businesses, on-going events
and sanctioned "street happenings" should be encouraged.
4. Village Core/Lionshead
4.1 Future commercial development should continue to occur primarily in existing
commercial areas. Future commercial development in the Core areas needs to
be carefully controlled to facilitate access and delivery.
4.2 Increased density in the Core areas is acceptable so long as the existing
character of each area is preserved through implementation of the Urban Design
Guide Plan and the Vail Village Master Plan.
F:\EVERYONE\PEC\MEMOS\99\L IONZON1.DOC
3
. Residential 4)
5.1 Additional residential growth should continue to occur primarily in existing, platted
areas and as appropriate in new areas where high hazards do not exist.
5.2 Quality time share units should be accommodated to help keep occupancy rates
up.
5.3 Affordable employee housing should be made available through private efforts,
assisted by limited incentives, provided by the Town of Vail, with appropriate
restrictions.
5.4 Residential growth should keep pace with the market place demands for a full
range of housing types.
5.5 The existing employee housing base should be preserved and upgraded.
Additional employee housing needs should be accommodated at varied sites
throughout the community.
v
Pj
F:AEMERYONE\PEC\MEMOS\99\LIONZON1.DOc
4
0 0 9 v
LIONSHEAD
REZONINGS
Proposed Lionshead Mixed-Use 1
Proposed Lionshead
Mixed-Use 2 District
--''--J a
Proposed General Use D
PARKING STRUCTURE
395
.. , ....... f:flDGE Ax
METOPS :::UQN$HFAQ
'452 ...............
i i Parcels
j Proposed General Use District
I, Proposed Lionshead Mixed-Use 1 District
Proposed Lionshead Mixed-Use 2 District
Gore Creek
Dept of t: ommumty Devetopmem
The Properties outlined on this map s
are proposed to be rezoned
12-95-1 12-95-4
CHAPTER 9
SPECIAL AND MISCELLANEOUS DISTRICTS
ARTICLE B. PARKING (P) DISTRICT
SECTION:
12-95-1: Purpose
12-913-2: Permitted Uses
12-913-3: Conditional Uses
12.98-4: Accessory Uses
Major arcade.
Private or public off-street vehicle parking
structures.
Private or public parks and recreational
facilities.
12-913-1: PURPOSE: The Parking District
is intended to provide sites for
private or public unstructured off-street
vehicle parking and conditionally to provide
for private or public off-street vehicle park-
ing structures and private or public parks
and recreational facilities. The Parking
District is intended to allow such uses while
ensuring adequate light, air, privacy and
open space for each valid use in adjacent
areas. (Ord. 4(1992) § 1: Ord. 2(1976) § 3:
Ord. 8(1973) § 24.100)
12-98-2: PERMITTED USES: The follow-
ing uses shall be permitted in
the P District:
Private or public unstructured gaff-street
vehicle parking. (Ord. 4(1992) § 1: Ord.
2(1976) § 3: Ord. 8(1973) § 24.200)
12-98-3: CONDITIONAL USES: The
following conditional uses shall
be permitted subject to issuance of a condi-
tional use permit in accordance with the
provisions of Chapter 16 of this Title:
Public uses, private office and commercial
uses that are transportation, tourist or Town
related and that are accessory to a parking
structure.
Temporary construction staging sites. For
the purposes of this Section, a temporary
construction staging site shall- mean a site
on which, for a temporary period of time,
construction materials, heavy construction
equipment, vehicles and construction trail-
ers may be stored.
Type III employee housing unit as provided
in Section 12-13-6 of this Title.
Type Ill employee housing unit as provided
in Section '12-13-7 of this Title. (Ord.
8(1992) § 36: Ord. -4(1992) § 1: Ord.
6(1982) § 2(a): Ord. 33{1981) § 1: Ord.
2(1976) § 3: Ord; 8(1973) § 24.300)
12-913-4: ACCESSORY USES:
Minor arcade. (Ord. 4(1992) § 1: Ord.
6(1982) § 2(b): Ord. 2(1976) § 3: Ord.
8(1973) § 24.400)
n
u
n
Town of Vail
,.e
12-9C-1 12-9C-3
11
CHAPTER 9
SPECIAL AND MISCELLANEOUS DISTRICTS
ARTICLE C. GENERAL USE (GU) DISTRICT
SECTION:
12-9C-1: Purpose
12-9C-2: Permitted Uses
12-9C-3: Conditional Uses
12-9C-4: Accessory Uses
12-9C-5: Development Standards
12-9C-6: Additional Development
Standards
12-9C-1: PURPOSE: The General Use
District is intended to provide
sites fior public and quasi-public uses
which, because of their special characteris-
tics, cannot be appropriately regulated by
the development standards prescribed for
other zoning districts, and for which devel-
opment standards especially prescribed for
each particular development proposal or
project are necessary to achieve the pur-
poses prescribed in Section 12-1-2 of this
Title and to provide for the public welfare.
The General Use District is intended to
ensure that public buildings and grounds
and certain types of quasi-public uses per-
mitted in the District are appropriately locat-
ed and designed to meet the needs of resi-
dents and visitors to Vail, to harmonize with
surrounding uses, and, in the case of build-
ings and other structures, to ensure ade-
quate light, air, open spaces, and other
amenities appropriate to the permitted
types of uses. (Ord. 21(1994) § 10)
12-9C-2: PERMIT API) USES: The follow-
ing uses shall be permitted in
the GU District:
Passive outdoor recreation areas, and open
space.
Pedestrian and bike paths. (Ord. 21(1994)
§ 10)
12-9C-3: CONDITIONAL USES:
A. Generally: The following conditional
uses shall be permitted in the GU
District, subject to "issuance of a con-
ditional use permit in accordance with
the provisions of Chapter 16 of this
Title:
Churches.
Equestrian trails.
Golf courses.
Helipad for emergency and/or commu-
nity use".
Hospitals, medical and dental facili-
ties, clinics, rehabilitation centers,
clinical pharmacies, and ambulance
facilities.
Major arcade.
Plant and tree nurseries, and associ-
ated structures, excluding the sale of
1-1
Town of Nail
12-9C-3 12-9C-5
trees or other nursery products,
grown, produced or made on the pre-
mises.
Public and private parks and active
outdoor recreation areas, facilities and
uses.
Public and private schools and educa-
tional institutions.
Public and quasi-public indoor com-
munity facility.
Public buildings and grounds.
Public parking facilities and structures.
Public theaters, meeting rooms and
convention facilities. -
Public tourist/guest service related
facilities.
Public transportation terminals.
Public utilities installations including
transmission lines and appurtenant
equipment.
Seasonal structures or uses to accom-
modate educational, recreational or
cultural activities.
Ski lifts, tows and runs:
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.
Water and sewage treatment plants,
1. Lot area and site dimensions.
2. Setbacks.
E
Proximity To Parking Required: The
following conditional uses shall be
permitted in accordance with the issu-
ance of a conditional use permit, pro-
vided such use is accessory to a park-
ing structure:
Offices.
Restaurants.
Ski and bike storage facilities.
Sundries shops.
Tourist/guest service related facilities.
Transit/shuttle services. (Ord.
21(1994) § 19)
12-9C-4: ACCESSORY USES: The follow-
ing accessory uses shall be
permitted in the GU District:
Minor arcade.
Other uses customarily incidental and ac-
cessory to permitted or conditional uses,
and necessary for the operation thereof,
with the exception of buildings. . (Ord.
21(1994) § 10)
12-9C-5: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS:
A. Prescribed By Planning And Environ-
mental Commission: In the General
Use District, development standards
in each of the following categories
shall be as prescribed by the Planning
and Environmental Commission:
"own of Vail
12-9C-5
0 3. Building height.
4. Density control.
5. Site coverage.
6. Landscaping and site development.
7. Parking and loading.
D. Reviewed By Planning And Environ-
mental Commission: Development
standards shall be proposed by the
applicant as a part of a conditional
use permit application. Site specific
development standards shall then be
determined by the Planning and Envi-
ronmental Commission during the
review of the conditional use request
in accordance with the provisions of
Chapter 16 of this Title. (Ord.
21(1994) § 10)
12-9C-6: ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS: Additional regula-
tions pertaining to site development stan-
dards and the development of land in the
General Use District are found in Chapter
14 of this Title. (Ord. 21(1994) § 10)
12-9C-6
Town of Vail
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
February 22, 1999
Minutes
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Greg Moffet
John Schofield
Galen Aasland
Diane Golden
Ann Bishop
Brian Doyon
Tom Weber
MEMBERS ABSENT:
STAFF PRESENT:
Russ Forrest
Dominic Mauriello
George Ruther
Jeff Hunt
Allison Ochs
Judy Rodriguez
Public Hearinq
Greg Moffet called the meeting to order at 2:00 p.m.
Public Hearinq - Town Council Chambers
2.00 p.m.
2:00 p.m.
A request for a renewal of (and an amendment to) an existing conditional use permit at
the Lionshead Miniature Golf Course, located at a portion of Tract B & D, Vail Lionshead
1't Filing.
fL
E Charlie Alexander said dismantling would take only a few minutes and employees would be
Applicant: Charlie Alexander
Planner: Jeff Hunt
Jeff Hunt gave an overview of the staff memo.
Greg Moffet asked if the applicant had any comments. He did not.
Greg Moffet asked for any public comment. There was no public comment.
Brian Doyon asked what would happen to the wail at night.
Charlie Alexander said it laid down flat.
John Schofield asked how the applicant proposed to screen the area.
Charlie Alexander said when the fence went into the ground, it would be covered with 4' tall
perennials and he added that the rock would be 24' tail.
John Schofield encouraged the applicant to stay as far away from the bike path as possible.
Galen Aasland said there should be no parking condition attached to this request.
Ann Bishop echoed Galen's comments.
Diane Golden asked how long it would take to dismantle it and how the employees would be
trained in the dismantling.
personally trained.
Planning and Environmental Commission
Minutes
February 22, 1999
1
Greg Moffet stated that the applicant did a fantastic job he said he was in favor of granting a
conditional use permit because the application met all the criteria.
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 7-0.
2. A request for a variance from Section 12-6D-9 (Site Coverage) of the Town of Vail
Municipal Code, to allow for site coverage in excess of 20% and a variance from Section
12-6D-6 (Front Setbacks) of the Town of Vail Municipal Code, to allow for an
encroachment into the front setback on a Primary/Secondary Residential zoned lot,
located at 362 Mill Creek Circle / Lot 9, Block 1, Vail Village First Filing.
Applicant: Walter Forbes, represented by Gwathmey-Pratt Architects
Planner: Allison Ochs
Brian Doyon recused himself from this item because of a conflict.
Allison Ochs gave an overview of the staff memo.
Greg Moffet asked if the applicant had anything to add.
Ned Gwathmey, representing the applicant, stated that the site was a constraint since it was
14,000 sq. ft. and the applicant was asking for less space than the size of a table.
Greg Moffet asked for any public comment. There was no public comment.
Galen Aasland said, given the lot was under 16,000 sq. ft. before the Town adopted the
ordinance, if the applicant had built this before the garage and the applicant was requesting a
garage with this application, the Town would have supported the garage. He said the applicant's
requests were backwards, but he was not, however, in favor of granting the setback variance.
Ann Bishop said she was in support of this request and was against the staff recommendation.
Diane Golden said she thought it made sense and was reasonable, however, felt it was a grant
of special privilege and asked to be convinced by her fellow Commissioners.
Tom Weber agreed with Galen, but felt the setback was a self-inflicted hardship.
Allison Ochs stated that the DRB granted approval in 1992.
Dominic Mauriello said lot size was recommended for approval when it was annexed from the
County.
Ned Gwathmey stated the issue of the setback was a negative point and he asked if the two
requests could he separated and then he requested to table this whole issue.
John Schofield said if the zoning change occurred after, he would support it, as it created a
hardship by going backwards.
Greg Moffet disagreed and said both requests were a grant of special privilege. He explained
that if all the lots in Town were built out, we would be at the edge of all the lot lines.
Planning and Environmental Commission 2
Minutes
February 22, 1999
Ann Bishop moved to table this item.
0 John Schofield seconded the motion.
The motion passed by a vote of 6-0.
3. A request to amend 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
George Ruther gave an overview of the staff memo and advised that this would be a
recommendation to the Town Council.
Greg Moffet asked if the applicant had anything to add.
Tom Braun said he had not proposed a change in the percentages of the initial application, but
that just came up in discussions and he had just heard the numbers for the first time today.
Greg Moffet asked for any public input. There was no public input.
Lodoino Definition:
Tom Weber said the numbers were not appropriate, because of the give & take aspect of recent
applications.
Russ Forrest said we did group units that provided accommodation units for guests during the
Lionshead process.
Brian Doyon agreed with Tom Weber on the numbers issue and said he hadn't seen any
numbers to make a decision either way.
George Ruther asked the PEC for direction of encouraging up to 50% of a property for condos.
Greg Moffet stated those condos would be unrested second homes.
Brian Doyon said we need to have numbers on total units and he would like more information.
He said more condos (penthouses) would be needed to make redevelopment work.
John Schofield asked how there would be assurance for accommodation units to remain au's
instead of turning them into dwelling units. He wanted more than 51% GRFA for au's.
Galen Aasland said beds needed to be replaced per sq. ft.
Ann Bishop agreed with the other Commissioners comments and agreed with Galen's
comments.
Diane Golden said her goal was to have more people living in Vail and that she would need more
information.
C
Planning and Environmental Commission 3
Minutes
February 22, 1999
Greg Moffet said 51 % was not enough for au's and there needed to be a sq. ft. replacement of
hotel beds. He said if ffu's were permitted to be built, we would need condos, as it can't all be
ffu's.
Review Process:
George Ruther gave an overview of the review process changes.
Tom Braun explained that various zone districts could be requested by various properties. He
said a new zone district with amended development standards had been created and would have
to go to Council. He said if a property was not contemplating redevelopment, the property would
not have to rezone.
Tom Weber asked if we were creating a zone district that not all properties could fit in and then
this would not be too much different from an SDD process. He said this would not be
streamlining, but just formalizing. He said he saw problems with the code not working now and
the problem was that a PA 1,2 and 3 could happen, since so many properties are so different.
George Ruther said there would be more detail on how to implement the standards.
Dominic Mauriello said we wanted to reduce reliance on the SDD process, but not eliminate it.
George Ruther said this was to be looked at collectively for all 18 properties.
Tom Braun said an amendment would change the underlying zoning, but that it could go right to
the DRB and rely on the design guidelines, as this was putting some teeth into the review
process.
George Ruther said at the December 14, 1998 meeting, the PEC expressed needing a public
hearing.
Greg Moffet asked if we wanted to have a CC1 style process where everything was subject to
review. He then asked for any public comment regarding the review process. There were no
comments.
Galen Aasland said he was against the "one at a time" process and that zoning should apply
generally to this district. He thought that this was very appropriate and what has been written
was very good. He thought it was appropriate that the staff writes the final recommendation,
rather than the applicant and that it was appropriate that it be looked at like a CC1.
Ann Bishop said the underlying zoning was not working appropriately and so she was in favor of
the staff's recommendation, but she would like to hear Jim Lamont's comments.
Diane Golden said the review process should apply to all 18 properties and we need the CC1
style.
Tom Weber said there was some merit to another zone district, but we needed standards to
address all the properties, even with their differences. He mentioned the review process design-
byw- right if revising the code and there was no use revising the code, if the developers still
needed to come in. He felt there should be a way for developers to have a route to take.
Brian Doyon said he agreed to make the zone district work better and suggested not having more
boards brought in to get an approval. He felt that not all the cards were on the table for this and
would like to see more general language.
Planning and Environmental Commission 4
Minutes
February 22, 1999
John Schofield said that creating a new zone would offset an option, but would make this more
arduous. He said he would like to see, speaking from a developers standpoint, that if he met the
criteria, he would know exactly where he stood.
Greg Moffet said he does not want to see a design review come out of this. He said he was
comfortable with the CG1 review process, as they did not protract into 6 month ordeals, such as
the Golden Bear.
Dominic Mauriello mentioned that some types would allow the PEC to be the approval Board,
taking the SDD process out of play.
Tom Braun said, in theory, an SDD any request could come in.
Development Standards:
George Ruther said this was the 3rd time we had seen setback, GRFA and building height
changes.
Tom Braun said we were not saying no setbacks, but setbacks with a purpose. He then showed
an illustration of a 6:12 roof pitch vs. a 3:12 roof pitch and said there needed to be dialog if the
Town was encouraging steeper pitched roofs.
Greg Moffet asked for any public comments. There were no comments.
Galen Aasland said the GRFA ratio needed to be changed and since this dealt with reality, it was
appropriate to change. He said he was for eliminating the 35% common area, the 10% in dining,
the density limitation and agreed to the 50-70% increase in site coverage. He also said he was
ok with decreasing the landscaping requirement. He did say that the consistent height in the
pillage gave it its charm. He said, speaking as a developer, that the mid-height scheme could be
manipulated and would be a disadvantage to the Town. He said adjacent properties have relied
on setbacks between buildings and they were beneficial. He mentioned that under the current
zoning system, it was difficult without an SDD, but he would like to change the zoning, rather
than have no setbacks. He said the PA should be 20'20'20', but relief may be requested without
a variance from the PEC using criteria along with the 7 that staff had shown on page 5.
Ann Bishop agreed with the development standards, building heights and -maintaining the levels
stated in the memo. She said she also agreed with Galen's language about the setbacks.
Diane Golden also agreed with the development standards and Galen's language regarding
setbacks. She thought that the building height should stay the same, as well as the site
coverage, but she was concerned with going from 30%-20% in the landscape requirement. She
felt an increase in GRFA to 120% was ok.
Tom Weber voiced his concern on evaluating the code with just the summary and he didn't agree
with adjusting the volumes on GRFA. He agreed with Galen to have setbacks as a starting point.
He said he was having a hard time with eliminating the 10% dining. He asked using the
definition of a lodge, was it necessarily in the character of development to take out the 10%
altogether and so he had a problem taking it out. He thought by increasing GRFA to 120%, we
still were going to have variances, so it still wouldn't hit the mark by what's out there now. He felt
the building height should be kept as written. He said regarding the distinction between the eave
height and the roof height, a distinction would need to be made where the eave was placed. He
agreed with taking out the 35% common area and bumping up the site coverage.
Planning and Environmental Commission 5
Minutes
February 22, 1999
Brian Doyon said not to play around with the eave height and by changing where we are
measuring, it wouldn't change that much. He said setbacks needed to be established, with the
applicant requesting to change them because of view corridor issues. He said Galen's solution
would require the applicant to come in, which would not help the process. He said he agreed
with the GRFA and to leave the common area up to the applicant, as well as the 10% accessory
uses. He said he was ok to increase site coverage to 70%, but not ok with decreasing
landscaping. He stated that the cost to put a parking structure under a building was prohibitive,
and not realistic to encourage redevelopment. He said this was creating more hardscapes with a
Lionshead image.
John Schofield said he was in favor of eliminating the 35% and 10% and that the site coverage
and landscaping requirements go hand in hand with site coverage. He felt setbacks definitely
could be a number less than 20'. He said to throw out GRFA and let developers do what they
wanted. He felt that eave height made more sense than ridge height, allowing more creativity.
Greg Moffet said yes to 35% and 10% and he preferred setbacks for the General Use standard.
He agreed with John and Diane regarding GRFA. He said that 120% was a weak attempt to
solve the problem and he liked the proposal for building height, as well as increasing site
coverage.
ADolicability of regulations.
George Ruther said this was discussed at the first review and should apply to all properties.
Horizontal zoning:
George Ruther said it was important to have development on the site be short term
accommodations.
Greg Moffet asked for any public comments. There was none.
Tom Weber said horizontal zoning might deter development.
Brian Doyon said to let the market dictate how applicants would set up their building.
John Schofield said let the market dictate.
Galen Aasland said he saw some merit to real estate in Town and to let the market dictate.
Diane Golden said to let the market dictate.
Greg Moffet said to accept the fact that zoning doesn't permit the market to dictate for the
greater public purpose when we apply rules across the entire zone district. He said we could not
permit more t-shirt shops when we need more bed base.
Dominic Mauriello said sometimes the market dictates but we may want to discourage 1 st floor
accommodation units along pedestrian areas in comparison to lawn areas. He suggested that
the 1 St and upper floors may need to be dictated and not make it burdensome on the applicant.
Greg Moffet asked for any public comments.
Joe Staufer, former owner of the Vail Village Inn, said he was approached by a time share buyer,
but he thought the PEC and Council would never go for a time share. He said time share was an
incentive to every property owner to upgrade their property and it would be profitable. He said
that proliferation of commercial space was not in the best interest to the Town. He said the
Planning and Environmental Commission 6
Minutes
February 22, 1999
charm of Vail was seeing flowers, trees and grass and if the landscaping requirement was
reduced, you would be taking some of the charm that is Vail. He said the amendments don't fit
all eighteen property owners and that this was an SDD for one property owner, representing only
one property owner, Mr. Faessler.
Kaye Ferry said she was not comfortable with eliminating the 100/0 limitation for business. She
said she was in favor of more hotel rooms, but the intent was to get more activity on the streets.
She said she was more concerned about not losing live beds in the process of these transitions.
She agreed with John not to pursue GRFA any longer and she said to strive to make the
changes that will accommodate the largest number of people.
Hans Woldrich said when landscaping is decreased, you will have a paved Town, which should
not even be considered.
Jim Lamont said he received several letters and they were not in the packet.
George Ruther said the letters were addressed to the Council.
Jim Lamont said all letters should be available to the public. He said he was trying to make the
distinction between the Urban Design Guidelines and the Master Plan, as he didn't know where
those boundaries were.
Russ Forrest said this information could be provided to him.
Jim Lamont stated that he believed an SDD was for large blocks of property. He said because of
the sheer size, that special consideration should be given. He said if we now visit the same
subject as the VVI and change it for the Austria Haus behind gates, he can't see why there is a
distinction made. He said the development standards were shared consistently in different zone
40 districts., and an established pedestrian precinct needs to happen. He stated that setbacks
reduced on the street would be ok, but not between properties. He thought mixed uses and
horizontal zoning made sense to tradeoff, but why did we want to expand a CC1. He said
loading and delivery needed to be addressed, as the Bavaria Haus had 18-wheelers blocking the
road to address the Austria Haus. He said we needed a vision in order to solve the problem. He
asked how many times do we need to tell you we don't want GRFA and we shouldn't be
discussing height, because we have already decided on 11' floor to floor in Lionshead, so that
height standard should apply. He stated that if height is changed, it would need to be changed in
every zone district. He asked if 11' was appropriate for Lionshead, why then is it not for
everywhere else?
Russ Forrest asked Jim if a limit should be placed on the number of floors based on the 11'
height.
Jim Lamont said we have got to evaluate whether preserving the character of Vail Village is a
good argument. He said the Tivoli, Christiania and Villa Valhalla don't want anything to do with
this proposal, as they were very happy with how they can redevelop. He stated he didn't mind if
this application was for Mr. Faessler, but let's call a spade a spade. He said there was a big
difference with what Joe Staufer got and what Johannes Faessler was getting.
Galen Aasland questioned that if the property owners that Jim mentioned had written letters, you
would have fthought they would have been forwarded to us.
Jim Lamont said he would deliver the message to them.
Joe Staufer said he had told Johannes that he was in support of using an SDD for one property
owner, as an SDD would give back to the Town.
Planning and Environmental Commission 7
Minutes
February 22, 1999
Greg Moffet asked staff if there were any studies showing what had happened to the live bed
base.
Russ Forrest said we had sheer numbers for accommodation units, but that Chris Cares had
survey numbers.
Greg Moffet said the bed base was gone and he would like to see the numbers.
4. A request for the establishment of new zone districts entitled Lionshead Mixed Use 1
District and Lionshead Mixed Use 2 District (Title 12, Zoning), in order to implement the
Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. Other modifications are being made to other
sections of Title 12, namely, Chapter 4 Districts Established, Chapter 10 Off-Street
Parking and Loading, Chapter 13 Employee Housing, Chapter 14 Supplemental
Regulations, and Chapter 15 Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA). Additionally Title 11
Sign Regulations and Title 5 Public Health and Safety are being modified.
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: Dominic Mauriello
Dominic Mauriello gave an overview of the staff memo.
Russ Forrest explained the new section, Mitigation of Development Impacts and adjacent public
improvements could be addressed through this mechanism, but not to overburden the applicant,
or prevent redevelopment.
Greg Moffet asked for any public comments.
Jim Lamont said he had not had a chance to review this, but was looking for the consistency
between Lionshead and Vail Village.
Dave Corbin of Vail Associates, said he was concerned with today's permitted uses becoming
conditional uses in the west end and that we wouldn't have the benefit of uses being
grandfathered, such as the cat service yard being moved to the Holy Cross site. He said VA
would no longer have this use-by-right, and VA was in the process of studying how to do this
right now.
Dominic Mauriello said modifications or location changes would come in under conditional uses,
as they today in Lionshead.
Dave Corbin said he was pleased with this otherwise.
Henry Pratt said it was his understanding that the zoning ordinance was intended to be use-by-
right. He said the mitigation impact paragraph turned it into an SDD .
Russ Forrest said you still could have an SDD application and by changing the use-by-right, we
would still need the ability to collect from impacts of the uses.
Dominic Mauriello said employee generation will be in another ordinance.
Russ Forrest said it should be balanced with incentive to encourage redevelopment.
Brian Doyon said we are arguing the direct impact meaning.
Planning and Environmental Commission 8
Minutes
February 22, 1999
Jim Lamont asked if the public was paying for infrastructure. He said the open impact fee was
nebulous and needed to be defined through an impact fee ordinance, as what you are doing may
not be legal.
Russ Forrest said it was legal as a general nexus.
Jim Lamont said we cannot tax ourselves back into success. He said he was nervous about how
far we were taxing the developer.
Dominic Mauriello said this was no different from an SDD.
Galen Aasland asked about the language regarding the maximum average building height and
asked how many times a year could the 1,000 sq. ft threshold be used. Galen Aasland asked
how Chapter 10 dealt with parking and loading.
Dominic Mauriello said that we have a grant to fund a parking study. He said if there was not
land for parking, it would be either parking pay-in-lieu, or off-site. He said they recognized that
the parking regs were a disincentive to redevelopment.
Galen Aasland asked about GRFA on page 21, 8c and 8d as not treating single-family and
multiple-family the same.
Dominic Mauriello said that was a good question and if we were not going to regulate common
area, maybe we should just look at floor plate or the outside wails.
Galen Aasland asked if this affected all of Town, had the Town been given proper notice.
Dominic Mauriello said if we start counting on every level, it would impact the applicant's ability to
do additions in the future.
Galen Aasland said we are trying to get consistent zoning throughout and this perpetuates
differences.
Russ Forrest said direction has come from Council and he disagreed with Jim, as the Council
was moving incrementally with GRFA with the design standards. He suggested putting it in the
form of a motion to forward to Council.
Galen Aasland suggested changing Chapter 15, so that the two chapters were consistent.
Ann Bishop said she was concerned with the tax implications on developers on page 18.
Diane Golden said she had no comments.
Tom Weber suggested modifying the development impacts and would like to add streamtract
improvements.
Brian Doyon wanted to see "banks" as a use-by-right on the first level of a building and financial
institutions on the 2" d level . He mentioned under 12-7h7, the studies show the winter solstice at
10am (if the sun is even up) and at 2pm as the sun casting shadows. He questioned if this was
appropriate and suggested a different time or perhaps switching to 4pm, when a business does
business. He thought public art improvements was actually private art and needed to quantify it
more.
Greg Moffet proposed the language in all cases shall be very reasonable, with relation to
development impacts, with reasonable as a standard used in all law.
Planning and Environmental Commission 9
Minutes
February 22, 1999
Galen Aasland asked if Tom Moorhead could see this.
John Schofield said this needed a tweak, but would recommend approval subject to all the
comments made.
Greg Moffet said, regarding 12-7H-18, every time we lament the fact that the code is against the
applicant, we have tried to micro-manage by ordinance. He said to the extent we can leave this
to the public, he was very comfortable with 18.
Chuck Madison suggested adding the word "direct" before impact in paragraph 18.
Galen Aasland said, regarding GRFA, that proper notification needed to be required.
Dominic Mauriello said an ordinance was needed to make it consistent for single-family and
multiple-family, so the single-family could be notified.
Greg Moffet suggested adding the word direct in the 1St sentence of the Mitigation of
Development Impacts and that staff address the proposed GRFA.
Galen Aasland made a motion to recommend approval on both zone districts, incorporating the
comments and changes and in accordance with findings in the staff memo.
Ann Bishop seconded the motion.
The motion passed by a vote of 7-0.
5. A request for a rezoning of property located in the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan
Area, in accordance with the attached map to a new zone district entitled Lionshead
Mixed Use District 1 and Lionshead Mixed Use District 2 District, (including, Vail
International, Lodge at Lionshead- Phases 1-111, Tree Tops, Lionshead Center, Lionshead
Arcade, Vail 21, Lion's Pride Building, Vantage Point, Lifthouse Condominiums,
Westwinds, Sunbird Lodge, Gondola Building, Landmark Condominiums, Landmark
Townhomes, North Day Lot, Lionsquare Lodge, Lionsquare North, Montaneros, Concert
Hall Plaza, Antlers, Marriott, Enzian, Vail Glo Lodge, Lionshead Inn, Vail Spa, West Day
Lot, VA Maintenance Yard and the Amoco Station) and a rezoning of the Lionshead
parking structure from Parking District to General Use .
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner; Dominic Mauriello
Dominic Mauriello gave an overview of the staff memo.
Brian Doyon had no comments.
John Schofield had no comments.
Galen Aasland asked if page 2 was from the Land Use Plan.
Ann Bishop had no comments.
Diane Golden had no comments.
Greg Moffet asked if the tennis court site should be discussed in the community facility study. He
then asked for any public comments. There were no public comments.
Planning and Environmental Commission 10
Minutes
February 22, 1999
John Schofield made a motion to recommend approval, in accordance with the staff memo.
Is Ann Bishop seconded the motion.
The motion passed by a vote of 7-0.
6. A request for the establishment of Special Development District No. 36, to allow for a
commercial expansion, located at 680 W. Lionshead Place/ Lot 3, Block 1, Lionshead
Third Filing.
Applicant: Antlers Condominium Association, represented by Robert Levine
Planner: Jeff Hunt
TABLED UNTIL MARCH 8, 1999 .
7. A request for a major amendment to Special Development District No. 7 (The Marriott
Hotel), to allow for the construction of the Gore Creek Club and a remodel to the existing
hotel, located at 714 Lionshead Circle / Marriott Mark.
Applicant: HMC Acquisition Properties, Inc., represented by East-West Partners
Planner: George Ruther
TABLED UNTIL MARCH 8, 1999
8. A request for an amendment to Special Development District No. 4 (Glen Lyon), revising
the Glen Lyon Office Building site (Area D), located at 1000 S. Frontage Road West/Lot
54, Glen Lyon Subdivision.
Applicant: Glen Lyon Office Building Partnership, represented by Kurt Segerberg
Planner: Dominic Mauriello
TABLED UNTIL MARCH 8, 1999
9. A request for a final review of a proposed locker room expansion to the Dobson Ice
Arena, located at 321 E. Lionshead Circle/Lot 1, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 2nd Filing.
Applicant: Vail Recreation District
Planner: George Ruther
TABLED UNTIL. MARCH 8,1999
10. A request for a minor amendment to Special Development District No. 35, Austria Haus,
to amend Section 6 of Ordinance #12, Series of 1997 to clarify a condition of the
Ordinance, located at 242 E. Meadow Drive/ Part of Tract C, Block 5D, Vail Village 1St
Filing.
Applicant: Bill Sullivan, representing the Austria Haus Development Group
Planner: George Ruther
TABLED UNTIL MARCH 22,1999
Tom Weber made a motion to table the above items.
John Schofield seconded the motion.
Planning and Environmental Commission 11
Minutes
February 22, 1999
i'
The motion passed by a vote of 7-0.
11. Information Update
Three, two-year term PFC vacancies (Greg Moffet, John Schofield and Ann Bishop)
Dominic Mauriello advised the PFC to write letters of interest to Lorelei Donaldson (Town Clerk)
expressing interest to repeat terms. He then advised the PEG that Brent Alm would not be
running again for the DRB.
12. Approval of January 25, 1999 minutes.
Tom Weber abstained from minute corrections, as he was absent.
Galen Aasland had changes.
John Schofield made a motion for approval of the minutes.
Brian Doyon seconded the motion.
The motion passed by a vote of 6-0.
Greg Moffet asked Russ for an update on the community facilities.
Russ Forrest said they were looking at 8 different sites, with a green light from Council.
Ann Bishop made a motion to adjourn.
Diane Golden seconded the motion.
The motion passed by a vote of 7-0.
The meeting adjourned at 6:20pm.
Planning and Environmental Commission 12
Minutes
February 22, 1999