Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-0322 PECTHIS ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail will hold a public hearing in accordance with Section 12-3-6 of the Municipal Cade of the Town of Vail on March 22, 1999, at 2:00 P.M. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. In consideration of: A request for a variance from Section 12-6D-6 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code, to allow for an encroachment into the required side setbacks, located at 3003 Bellflower Drive / Lot 9, Block 6, Vail Intermountain. Applicant: Mr. Guillermo Huerta Planner: George Ruther 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 A request for a rezoning from Primary/Secondary Residential to Residential Cluster, located at 2497, 2487, 2435 and 2477 Garmisch Drive/ Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4, Block H, Vail das Schone Filing #2. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Allison Ochs A request for annexation and zoning of outdoor recreation of an unplatted portion of the SE 1/4 SE 1/4 SE 1/4 SW 1/4 of Section 11, Township 5 South, Range 81 West, generally located on the north side of Arosa Drive, and abutting Sunlight north to the east and Town Manager's house to the west. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Allison Ochs A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for the consoiidation.of two dwelling units inthe CCI Zone District, located at 124 E. Meadow Drive / A portion of Lot 5E, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: Alfredo L. Suarez, represented by Fritzler Pierce, Smith 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 March 5, 1998 in the Vail Trail. TOWNO PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION PUBLIC MEETING SCHEDULE Monday, March 22, 1999 AGENDA Proiect Orientation / PEC LUNCH - Communitv Development' Department MEMBERS PRESENT Site Visits 1. Town of Vail - 2477-2497 Garmisch 2. Huerta -- 3003 Bellflower Drive 3. Forbes - 362 Mill Creek Circle Driver: George ?D 12,00 p.m. 1:00 P.M. NOTE: If the PEG hearing extends until 6:00 p.m., the board will break for dinner from 6:00 - 6:30 p.m. Public Hearinq - Town Council Chambers 2:00 p.m. 1. A request for a worksession to amend the Town's "Public Accommodation" Zone District, Chapter 7 and amendments to Chapter 15, Gross Residential Floor Area (GRF'A), Town of Vail Municipal Code. Applicant: Johannes Faessler, represented by Braun Associates, Inc. Planner: George Ruther 2. A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for the consolidation of two dwelling units in the CC2 Zone District, located at 124 E. Meadow Drivel A portion of Lot 5E, ;Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: Alfredo L. Suarez, represented by Fritzlen; Pierce, Smith Architects Planner: Allison. Ochs 3. 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 MEMBERS ABSENT TOWNOFNLI-v 4. A request for a rezoning from Primary/Secondary Residential to Residential Cluster, located at 2497, 2487, 2485 and 2477 Garmisch Drive/ Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4, Block H, Vail das Schone Filing #2. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Allison Ochs 5. A request for annexation and zoning of outdoor recreation of an unplatted portion of the SE 1/4 SE'/? SE 1/4 SW 1/4 of Section 11, Township 5 South, Range 81 West, generally located on the north side of Arosa Drive, and abutting Sunlight north to the east and Town Manager's house to the west. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Allison Ochs 6. A request for a variance from Section 12-6D-6 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code, to allow for an encroachment into the required side setbacks, located at 3003 Bellflower Drive / Lot 9, Block 6, Vail Intermountain. Applicant: Mr. Guillermo Huerta Planner: George Ruther 7. 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, Val Village 1st Filing. Applicant: Bill Sullivan, representing the Austria Haus Development Group Planner: George Ruther "CABLED UNTIL. APRIL 12, 1999 8. 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 APRIL 12, 1999 9. Information Update 10. Approval of March 8, 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 March 19, 1999 in the Vail Trail • 2 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION PUBLIC MEETING SCHEDULE Monday, March 22, 1999 FINAL AGENDA roiect Orientation / PEC LUNCH - Communitv Development Department 12:30 pm. MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT COUNCIL PRESENT Greg Moffet Diane Golden Sybill Navas John Schofield Ann Bishop Ludwig Kurz Galen Aasland Brian Doyon Tom Weber Site Visits 1:30 p.m. 1. Town of Vail -- 2477-2497 Garmisch Driver: George NOTE. If the PEC hearing extends until 6:00 p.m., the board will break for dinner from 6.00 - 6:30 p.m. Public Hearin„ - Town Council Chambers 2:00 p.m. 1. A request for a joint worksession with the Town Council 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 WORKSESSION -- NO VOTE 2. A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for the consolidation of two dwelling units in the CC2 Zone District, located at 124 E. Meadow Drive / A portion of Lot 5E, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: Alfredo L. Suarez, represented by Fritzlen, Pierce, Smith Architects Planner Allison Ochs MOTION: John Schofield SECOND: Brian Doyon VOTE: 4-0 (Tom Weber recused) APPROVED *Ya wo 1 h 3. A request for a rezoning from Primary/Secondary residential to Residential Cluster, located at 2497, 2487, 2485 and 2477 Garmisch Drive/ Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4, Block H, Vail das Schone Piling #2. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Allison Ochs MOTION: John Schofield SECOND: Galen A,asland VOTE: 5-0 RECOMMEND TO COUNCIL WITH 1 CONDITION: That Council use the strongest possible language to ensure that the park area remains as park land/open space. One option is to include it as Charter Open Space. 4. A request for annexation and zoning of outdoor recreation of an unplatted portion of the SE Ifs E I ASE 1/4 SW 1/a of Section 11, Township 5 South, Range 81 West, generally located on the north side of Arosa Drive, and abutting Sunlight north to the east and Town Manager's house to the west. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Allison Ochs MOTION: John Schofield SECOND: Brian Doyon VOTE: 5-0 RECOMMEND TO COUNCIL WITH 1 CONDITION: 1. That Council use the strongest possible language to ensure that the park area remains as park land/open space. One option is to include it as Charter Open Space. 5. 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 1 st Filing. Applicant: Bill Sullivan, representing the Austria Haus Development Group Planner: George Ruther TABLED UNTIL APRIL 12, 1999 6. A request for a final review of a proposed locker room expansiorto the Dobson Ice Arena, located at 321 E. Lionshead Circle/Lot 1, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 2nd Piling. Applicant: Vail Recreation District Planner: George Ruther TABLED UNTIL APRIL 12, 1999 7. A request for a variance from Section 12-6D-6 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code, to allow for an encroachment into the required side setbacks, located at 3003 Bellflower Drive / Lot 9, Block 6, Vail Intermountain. Applicant: Mr. Guillermo Huerta Planner George Ruther TABLED UNTIL APRIL 26,1999 2 8. 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 TABLED INDEFINITELY MOTION: Galen Aasland SECOND: John Schofield VOTE: 5-0 TABLED UNTIL APRIL 12,1999 9. Information Update 10. Approval of March 8, 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 MEMORANDUM Is TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: March 22, 1999 SUBJECT: A request fora worksession to discuss proposed text amendments to the Public Accommodation Zone District regulations amending the, r` . various development standards and revising the development review process Applicant: Johannes Faessier, represented by Tom Braun Planner: George Ruther 1. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST 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. A copy of the minutes from the December 14th meeting is attached for reference. On January 2, 1999, the applicant's representative met with the Planning & Environmental Commission and the Vail 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. On February 22, 1999, the applicant's representative again met with the Planning & Environmental Commission to continue discussion on the proposed amendments to the Public Accommodation Zone District. A copy of the February 22" d meeting minutes have been attached for reference. The following discussion issues were concluded and need no further discussion at this time: Building height shall remain unchanged with a maximum of 48' for sloping roofs and 45' for flat roofs; ? Common area shall no longer be limited to 35%; ? A 10% limitation shall be placed on restaurant and retail development with a conditional use permit required to exceed 10%; ? Setbacks shall be 20' on all sides with the ability to reduce the setback requirement without a variance given that certain criteria are met; • Horizontal zoning should not be implemented. Instead, the market should determine the uses on the different levels of a building; 7OWNOFYk 6 o There should be no limitation on density (dwelling units/acre); and ? The proposed text amendments shall be applicable to all properties currently zoned Public Accommodation. Rezonings should not be required. Further discussion is needed on the following issues: The Commission agreed that, the GRFA, site coverage and landscaping figures should be amended, though a final percentage for each standard was not determined; ? The Commission agreed that the definition of a "lodge" needs to be.amended to further insure that accommodation units are constructed in the Pudic Accommodation Zone District yet a final definition was not concluded. The Commission expressed a need to revise the development review process, but again further discussion is required. The purpose of this joint worksession is to continue the communication between the community, applicant, staff, Planning & Environmental Commission and the Town Council with regard to possible amendments to the Town's Public Accommodation Zone District Regulations. To facilitate this discussion, staff has again identified issues which we believe need to be discussed in greater detail. Each of these issues is discussed in Section III of this memorandum. It is not the intent of this meeting to rehash those issues already discussed and resolved at early meetings. If. 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: Lodc nga 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 February 22nd 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% of the GRFA devoted to condominiums I-] 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 to 70% for accommodation units, FFU's and time shares. Thirty percent of the GRFA would remain available for construction of dwelling units. Staff believes that the 70%/30% split is appropriate given the result of research completed on redevelopment needs of Lionshead. During the Master Plan discussion an increase of 30% over and above existing conditions was identified as necessary to economically achieve redevelopment. In addition to the 30% GRFA allocation for dwelling units, FFU's and other forms of interval ownership will remain available as a financing mechanism for hotel redevelopment 2. Review Process The applicant has proposed an amended development review process. The proposed process would be applicable only to those properties zoned Public Accommodation and is very similar in nature to the current review process utilized by the Town for properties in the core areas. The essence of the amended review process is that proposals for development would be reviewed for compliance with the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan. Historically, the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan has been the planning document used by the Town when reviewing projects in the Village Core. Given the location of the majority of the Public Accommodation zoned properties, relative to the Village Core, it would appear that the Guide Plan would be a reasonable and appropriate tool when reviewing projects in the Public Accommodation Zone District. There are two Public Accommodation zoned properties in the Town that are not located in the general vicinity of the Village Core: The Roost Lodge and The Marriott. Of these two properties, the most problematic with regard to the development review process is the Roost Lodge. The Roost Lodge would need to be reviewed more similarly to other properties in Town that are not within master planned areas. In the case of the Roost Lodge, stag would suggest that the design guidelines outlined in the Zoning Regulations apply to the property. 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 Vail 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. Staff continues to recommend that the existing review process for CC1, CC2, and the Public Accommodation districts be refined to be less arduous and time consuming than the Special Development District process, yet still enable the community to require off- site improvements to public property and employee housing to mitigate the impacts of redevelopment. 3. Development Standards The applicant has proposed numerous changes to the development standards prescribed for the Public Accommodation Zone District. Many of the proposed changes have been discussed and resolved.. The following amendments remain unresolved and are in need of further discussion prior to forwarding a recommendation to the Town Council: • GRFA ratio is increased from 80% (0.80) to 120 % (1.20) An increase in allowable site coverage from 55%o to 70%. (80% currently allowed in CC1 and 70% in CC2). + A decrease in the landscape area requirement from 30% to 20% to correspond with the proposed increase in site coverage. The proposed changes are in response to the findings of the research completed by the applicant of past redevelopment projects. In most instances, applicants for redevelopment in the Public Accommodation Zone District have sought relief from the GRFA, common area, density, site coverage, and setback standards by requesting variances or Special Development Districts. The intent of the proposed changes is to reduce the need for variances and minimize the use of Special Development Districts, while providing the necessary flexibility to redevelop a lodge or hotel property. The intent is to also provide incentives for properties to redevelop. GRFA The majority of the Council and Commission members believe that an increase in GRFA is needed. The applicant's research of recent redevelopment on Public Accommodation Zoned properties indicates that the average GRFA percentage granted is 96%ti. Staff would suggest that the applicant, the Commission and the Council further discuss the proposed amendment to the GRFA percentage and proceed towards determining an appropriate figure. SITE COVERAGE The applicant has proposed to increase the site coverage limitation from 55% to 70%. During the discussions at previous meeting several Commission and Council members expressed a concern that 70% site coverage was too great and would result in negative impacts on landscaping. The average site coverage granted for the most recent redevelopment projects in the Public Accommodation Zone District is approximately 49%. LANDSCAPING A decrease in the current landscape area requirement has been proposed. The decrease in the landscape area requirement is directly correlated to the proposed increase in the site coverage limitation. The applicant has proposed reducing the landscape area requirement from 30% to 20%. A potential benefit of reducing the 4 landscape requirement is an increase in structured, underground parking rather than surface parking lots. III. 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. 11 V! PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION December 14, 1998 Minutes MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Greg Moffet Ann Bishop Russ Forrest John Schofield Dominic Mauriello Galen Aasland George Ruttier [Diane Golden Jeff Hunt Brian Doyon Judy Rodriguez Tom Weber Public Hearinq 2.00 p.m. Greg Moffet called the meeting to order at 2:00 p.m. A request for a minor subdivision to relocate an existing property line, located at 2698 Davos Trail 1 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 uvijiments. John Schofield asked if the applicant agreed to a condition to remove the existing garage. The applicant agreed to the condition. John Schofield made a motion for approval in accordance with the staff memo. Diane Golden seconded the motion. The motion, passed by a vote of 6-0. 2. A request for a worksession to discuss amendments to the Town's "Public Accommodation" Zone District, Chapter 7 and amendments to Chapter 15, Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA), Town of Vail Municipal Code. Applicant: Johannes Faessler, represented by Braun Associates, Inc. Planner: George Ruther Galen Aasiand and Brian Doyon disclosed for the record that they had clients who owned property in that zone district, but they saw no conflict. George Ruther gave an overview of the staff memo. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes December 14,1998 Tom Braun said that Johannes had asked him to research what was wrong with the zone district and he explained they wanted to have dialog with the community. He said it was the Town's lodge zone district and that there were 18 PA properties including the Roost Lodge. He said there had been 9 redevelopments, each one requiring an SOD 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%. 01 He said that would set a framework and was a quick overview. Discussion #1 ,. Uses, Greg Moffet said the current zone district had allowed and conditional uses. Tom Weber said the only uses to be changed were the 10% limit on retail. George Ruther stated the intent of the zone district was to provide lodging properties in the most effective manner possible. He asked the PEC to consider uses such as, churches, medical offices, and private clubs and schools, or if amendments should be made to the use section. Galen Aasland said there was no need for the 10% limitation on retail and restaurants. He said with regard to eliminating anything, we should have some flexibility as we did not want just hotel units, as it was a wonderful thing to work in an office adjacent to the Town. He said he didn't see a large reason to eliminate some of the uses. Greg Moffet said It was a lot easier to keep uses in, since they were conditional. Diane Golden said she was leery of not leaving this in, as she wanted to have anything possible. 2 Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes . December 14,1998 Tom Weber said with regard to the 10%; he hadn't heard why to limit it to 10% and there was no clear argument to do so. George Ruther explained 10% was so one particular use would not dominate the site. Tom Weber said it may be restricting redevelopment when hotels want to provide these amenities for their guests. Greg Moffet said when you restrict it to 10%, you don't meet today's standards. Tom Braun said his premise was what was the problem with 22%n 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. n Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes December 14,1998 3 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 dean to do with the neighborhood. He said the origin of the 10% was to make sure there was a balance for support services for the people in the buildings and he said the philosophy of the Vail Ordinance was not market-driven, but exclusive driven. He said the master planning document didn't speak for major expansions to those properties of several hundred thousand square feet of commercial and the uniqueness of the neighborhoods these are located in had to be respected. Discussion #2 - Review process: George Ruther said staff had to 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 Enruv-cntai Commission Minutes Dw=bcr 14,1998 11 Galen Aasland said not to eliminate the setbacks. He also didn't agree with eliminating everything so it just would go to the DRS, 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 Soo 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 Maurielio said currently a lodge could be built by going through the DRS only. He suggested making some uses conditional uses so that they would come before the PEC Board. He said the way the code treated permitted and conditional uses needed to be looked at. George Ruther explained that a use by right goes right to the DRB. Tom Braun stated that this draft would provide more assurance to guarantee public input. Dominic Mauriello said staff would like to move away from all the Boards looking at an application and there was a section of the code that dealt with 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 PEC or can they go before staff and the DRB. George Ruther summarized the questions that needed to be addressed were: how many hoops would applicants have to jump through and what Boards would they need to go through. Discussion #3 Develooment Standards George Ruther explained that they were proposing to amend the GRFA ratio and so what do we do with all the SDb 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. E Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes December 14,1998 5 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 CC1. Galen Aasland said the Urban Design Guide Plan doesn't address spaces between the buildings. Russ Forrest said impacts would have the adjacents speak up and the intensity of the use would require coming before the Board. Jim Lamont said justification of the setbacks wanted commercial frontage and if confusion resulted, then the Urban Design Guidelines had to be consistent. He said we needed to be conscience of neighborhoods that existed previously and some of the commercial needed to be internal to the building to keep the neighborhood. He said we needed consistency in the planning process. Brian Doyon wanted to see some sort of building to find out what the GRFA really should be. 6 Planning and Environmental. Commission Minutes December 14, 1998 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 CG1 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 Townwide and if we needed a parking 'analysis, the applicant would have to come back next summer. . 3. A request for a minor subdivision to transfer a portion of Government Lot 3, obtained by the Town of Vail from the United States Forest Service, pursuant to the Land Ownership Adjustment Agreement, to Lot 15, Block 7, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Dominic Mauriello Dominic Mauriello gave an overview of the staff memo. Greg Moffet asked for any public or Commissioner's comments. There were no comments. E Planning and Environmental Commission Nfinutes December 1#,1998 7 t Galen Aasland made a motion for approval. John Schofield seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 6-0. 4. A request for a final review for a major amendment to Special Development District #6, Vail Village Inn, to allow for a hotel redevelopment, located of 100 East Meadow Drive, Lots M and D, Block 5D, Vail Village 1st. Applicant: Daymer Corporation, represented by Jay Peterson Planner: George Ruther TABLED UNTIL 1/11199 Brian Doyon made a motion to table item #4. Diane Golden seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 6-0. 5. Information Update Russ Forrest said just as an FYI, that the Lionshead was going to Council for final approval tomorrow. Dominic Mauriello asked the PEC to attend the evening Council meeting, as a major discussion would occur. 6. Approval of November 23, 1998 minutes. John Schofield made a motion for approval, as amended. Diane Golden seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 6-0. Brian Doyon made a motion to adjourn. Diane Golden seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 6-0. The meeting adjourned at 4:15 p.m. 8 Planning and Environmental Commission Mautes December 14,1998 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION February 22, 1999 Minutes MEMBERS PRESENT: Greg Moffet John Schofield Galen Aasland Diane Golden Ann Bishop Brian Doyon Tom Weber Public Hearinq MEMBERS ABSENT: Greg Moffet called the meeting to order at 2:00 p.m. 2:00 p.m. Public Hearinq - Town Council Chambers 2:00 p.m. 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. 1 sr Filing. 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 wall 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' tali perennials and he added that the rock would be 24' tall 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. Charlie Alexander said dismantling would take only a few minutes and employees would be personally trained. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes February 22, 1999 STAFF PRESENT: Russ Forrest Dominic Mauriello George Ruther Jeff Hunt Allison Ochs. Judy Rodriguez 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 I 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 15,000 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 Maurieilo 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. 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 PEG for direction of encouraging up to 50% of a property for condos. Greg Moffet stated those condos would be unrented 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 infer i cation. 11 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 SOD 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 ORB 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- by- 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 CC1 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 SOD process out of play. Tom Braun said, in theory, an SOD any request could come in. Development Standards: George Ruther said this was the 3`d 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 Mofifet 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 Village 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 SOD, 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 gave was placed. He agreed with taking out the 35% common area and bumping up the site coverage. E Planning and Environmental Commission 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°l0, 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 edge 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. Aoolicability 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 15{ floor accommodation units along pedestrian areas in comparison to lawn areas. He suggested that the 15' 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 PEG 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 5 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 SOD for one property owner, representing only one property owner, Mr. Faessler. Kaye Ferry said she was not comfortable with eliminating the 10% 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 SOD 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 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 SOD for one property owner, as an SOD would give back to the flown. 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 D©yon said we are arguing the direct impact meaning. Is Planning and Environmental Commission 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 freight 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 walls. - 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 2nd 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 Minutes 9 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 12-71-1-18, 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 1"' sentence of the Mitigation of Development Impacts and that staff address the proposed GRFA. Galen Aasiand 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. 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 Piling. 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 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 Tom Weber made a motion to table the above items. John Schofield seconded the motion. Planning and Environmental commission 11 Minutes February a 1999 A The motion passed by a vote of 7-0. 11. Information Update Three, two-year term PEC vacancies (Greg Moffet, John Schofield and Ann Bishop) Dominic Mauriello advised the PEC to write letters of interest to Lorelei Donaldson (Town Clerk) expressing interest to repeat terms. He then advised the PEC 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 buss for an update on the community facilities. Huss 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 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE PA ZONE DISTRICT 1/411999, rev. 3/20 Dwelling Common Rest., Retail, Site Building Land- Site Area Unity GRFA Area Recreation Coveraae _$etback ,a Heir lit scams Allowable 251ac 80% 35% of GRFA 10% of GRFA 55% 20120120 45148' 30% Summary of Seven Re-developed Vail Village PA Properties Austria Haus .55 ac 56/ac 146°l, 66% 16% 2'-19' 48' 1 9°T° Bavaria Haus 2.42 ac 22.2/ac :. 0? 65% 12% ? 40 n/a 56' n/`a Christiania .38 ac 35.5/ac 8 5?%' 48% 80/0 39 ©'-15' 44' 3Z/'/" Galatyn Lodge .50 ac 23/ac 9 21 %o n/a 33 %-? 2'-8' 47' Ramshorn 67 ac 31.3/ac < 7 nla n/a 27 7'-10" 42' Tivoli Lodge .40 ac 60/ac n/a nfa n/a 6'-16' n/a .? Vail Athletic Club .69 ac 48.5/ac . '' 112% .. 62%0 102%a 70%° 01-2' 59767' 25% Averages 39.5/ac 96% 52% 47% 25% Other Vail Village PA-Zoned Properties 9 Vail Road .65 ac 41/ac 108,9/6 29%o n/a n/<a 2'-18' n/a n'Ca Talisman 509 ac 31.4/ac 108°{(, n/a n/a 33' 0"- n/a ni First Bank 48 ac 12.5/ac nfa' n/a n/a 43 31-19' n/a 26 Swiss Chalet .78 ac 32/ac 53%a 29% 38 ; 0"-9' n/a rv`L_, Mountain Haus .49 ac 153/ac 390°, n/a 25% g0°;, lest}! 0` n/a r!a Villa Vahalla .312 ac 38.4/ac 110% n/a n/a 37 7'-18' n/a Holiday Inn nfa n/a n./a n/a n/a n/a_ n/a n/a Averages 51.3/ac 169% 41% 49% Note: All statistics are from the Vail Village Master Plan and TOV Community development staff memos. MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE; March 22, 1999 SUBJECT: A request for a Conditional Use Permit to eliminate a dwelling unit, located at 124 East Meadow Drive / Lot 5E, Vail Village 1 s`, Applicant: Alfredo Suarez, represented by Bill Pierce of Fritzlen, Fierce, Smith` Planner: Allison Ochs 1, DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant, Alfredo Suarez, represented by Bill Pierce of Fritzlen, Pierce, Smith is requesting a conditional use permit to allow for the elimination of a dwelling unit located in the Village Center Condominiums at 124 East Meadow Dr. The applicant is proposing to eliminate Unit 5F in the Village Center Condominiums. The elimination will be accomplished by connecting Unit 4F with the unit above. The proposed connection will be accommodated by constructing an interior stairway connecting the two units. According to Section 12-7C-3 (Permitted and Conditional Uses), in the CC2 District, permitted and conditional uses for specific floors shall be the same as those permitted in the Commercial Core 1 District. Pursuant to Section 12-7B-5 (Permitted and conditional uses; above 2nd floor)- the following uses shall be permitted on any floor above the 2nd floor above grade subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit. Any permitted or conditional use which eliminates any existing dwelling or accommodation unit, or any portion thereof, shall require a conditional use permit. 11. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends approval of the applicant's request fora conditional use permit to allow for the elimination of one dwelling unit through the connection of two dwelling units at the Village Center Condominiums. Staff's recommendation of approval is based upon our review of the criteria outlined in Section IV of this memorandum. Staff recommends approval of this request subject to the following findings. That the proposed elimination of the dwelling unit is in accordance with the purpose section of the Commercial Core 2 Zone District. 2. That the proposed location of the dwelling unit to be eliminated will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity of the Village Center Condominiums. 3. That the proposed elimination of the dwelling unit complies with each of 70 the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code. lllo- BACKGROUND! In reviewing this conditional use permit request, staff relied upon the goals, policies and objectives outlined in the various Town of Vail planning documents. While the purpose statement of the Commercial Core 2 Zone District specifically references the Vail Lionshead Urban Design Guide Plan, staff feels that due to the location of this property within the Vail Village Master Plan Boundary, it is more appropriate to consider the Vail Land Use Plan and the Vail Village Master Plan. The following is a summary of staff's review of the Town's planning documents: Municipal Code According to Section 12-7C-1, the purpose of the Commercial Core 2 Zone District is intended to: Provide sites for a mixture of multiple-dwellings, lodges and commercial establishments in a clustered, unified development. Commercial Core 2 District in accordance with the Vail Lionshead Urban Design Guide Plan and Design Considerations, as adopted in Section 12-7C-15 of this Article, is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of building and uses and to maintain the desirable qualities of the District by establishing appropriate site development standards Vail Land Use Plan 1.1 Vail should continue to grow in a controlled environment, maintaining a balance between residential, commercial drid recl eational uses to serve both the visitor and the permanent resident. 1.3 The quality of development should be maintained and upgraded whenever possible. 1.4 The original theme of the old Village Core should be carried into new development in the Village Core through continued implementation of the Urban Design Guide Plan. 1.12 Vail should accommodate most of the additional growth in existing developed areas (infill areas). 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. 5.4 Residential growth should beep pace with the market place demands for a full range of housing types. Vail Villaae Master Plan Goal #1 Encourage high quality redevelopment while preserving the unique architectural scale of the Village in order to, sustain its sense of community and identity. 1.2 Gbiective: Encourage the upgrading and redevelopment of residential and commercial facilities. 2 0 IV. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CONSIDERATION CRITERIA AND FINDINGS In accordance with Chapter 16 of the Municipal Code, an application for a conditional use permit within Commercial Core 2, the following development factors shall be applicable, 1. Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town. Staff believes the applicant's request to eliminate a dwelling unit in the pillage Center Condominiums will have minimal negative impacts on the development objectives of the Town. However, staff believes that the proposal will reduce the effective occupancy rate of the two units, which when compounded throughout the Town, could reduce the bed base of the Town. 2. Effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and, other public facilities and public facilities needs. Staff believes the proposed elimination of the dwelling unit will have minimal negative impacts on the above described criteria. 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 streets and parking areas. Staff believes the proposed elimination of the dwelling unit will have no negative impacts on the above described criteria. 4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. No exterior changes are proposed with this request. Therefore, staff believes there will be no negative impacts on the above described criteria. The Plannino and Environmental Commission shall make the followina findings before orantina a conditional use oermit. 1. That the proposed location of the use is in accordance with the purposes of the Zoning Regulations 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 will comply with each of the applicable provisions of the Zoning Regulations. FAEVERYONETMMEMO\8 MAREZ 3 a MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: March 22, 1999 SUBJECT: A request for annexation and zoning of Outdoor Recreation of an unplatted portion of the SE 1/4 SE 1/4 SE 1/4 SW 1/40f Section 11, Township 5 South, Range 81 West, generally located on the north side of Aroa Drive, and abutting Sunlight North to the east and Town Manager's house to the west. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Allison Ochs 1. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The Town of Vail is applying for an annexation and zoning on property which was previously unzoned. This property was obtained by the Town of Vail under the hand Ownership Adjustment Agreement ('LOAA) with the United States Forest Service. The Town of Vail is requesting annexation and zoning of Outdoor Recreation of an unplatted portion of the SE 1/a SE 1/A SE 1/4 SW 1/a of Section 11, Township 5 South, Range 81 West, generally located on the north side of Arosa Drive, and abutting Sunlight North to the east and Town Manager's house to the west (see map). 11. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the annexation and zoning of Outdoor Recreation of the above property subject to the review of the criteria in Section V and the following findings: 1) That the area to be annexed and proposed zone district is compatible with and suitable to adjacent uses, is consistent with the Town's Land Use Plan and Zoning Regulations, and is appropriate for the area. 2) The area proposed for annexation is contiguous to current Town boundaries by not less than 1/6 of the perimeter of the area. 3) A "community of interest" exists between the Town and the area proposed for annexation. 4) No land held in identical ownership will be divided without written consent of the landowner. ,VWNOqll?n? 5) The annexation does not have the effect of extending the municipal boundary more than 3 miles from any point in any one year. 6) That the existing zoning is suitable with the existing land use on the site and adjacent land uses 7) That the zoning is not preventing a convenient workable relationship with land uses consistent with municipal objectives. 8) That the zoning provides for the growth of an orderly, viable community 9) That the change is consistent with the Land Use Plan III. BACKGROUND On February 19, 1997, the Town of Vail and the United States of America, acting through the United States Forest Service, entered into an agreement to exchange approximately 62.268 acres of National Forest Lands for approximately 75.02 acres of non-federal lands in Eagle County. The exchange allowed the Forest Service to resolve encroachments onto the National Forest from 20 landowners, convey 10 parcels to the Town that are encumbered with special uses, and to acquire lands with wildlife or recreation values. The exchange implements the Town of Vail Landownership Adjustment Analysis (attached), and portions of the Town of Vail Comprehensive Open Lands Plan. The Town and the Forest Service have accomplished this by making a land trade of equal value. This is the first in a series of annexation/de-annexation and zoning procedures that the Town of Vail will be pursuing as a result of the land exchange with the United States Forest Service. Staff has decided to proceed with this annexation and zoning recommendation to coincide with the Arosa/Garmisch Employee Housing planning process. This land has been identified as the site of the Arosa/Garmisch neighborhood park. The employee housing and park will be developed simultaneously, as part of the - same development team. The Town Council will draft an annexing ordinance. Following the effective date of annexation, the Council will direct the Planning and Environmental Commission to hold a public meeting to consider the zoning districts to be imposed. The Planning and Environmental Commission can also hold the hearing prior to annexation. However, the proposed zoning will not become final until the annexation ordinance has been passed on final reading. IV. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Annexation The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before recommending an annexation to the Town Council: 0 2 1) The area proposed for annexation must be contiguous to current Town boundaries by not less than 116 of the perimeter of the area. The area proposed for annexation is 2.66 acres or 115,869.6 sq. ft. The total perimeter of the area is 1,364.54 sq. ft. It is adjacent to current Town boundaries by 682.28 sq. ft. or'lz the total perimeter. 2) A "community of interest" must exist between the Town and the area proposed for annexation. A. Area to be annexed must be urban or soon to be urbanized. 8. Area to be annexed must be integrated into or compatible 'with the existing municipality. Because the site it adjacent to Town boundaries on two sides, there exists a physical "community of interest." This site is the proposed location for the ArosalGarmisch neighborhood park. This is a need that has been identified by the Comprehensive Open Lands Plan, along with meeting stated needs in the Common Grounds process. 3) No land held in identical ownership may be divided without written consent of the landowner. The land exchange agreement between the Town of Vail and the United States of America, through the U.S. Forest Service, has been attached for reference. The Town of Vail currently owns this property. 4) No annexation shall take place that has the effect of extending the municipal boundary more than 3 miles from any point in any one year. This annexation extends approximately 460 ft. or .087 of a mile. Zoning The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before recommendation of a zoning designation of Outdoor Recreation to the Town Council: 1) Is the existing zoning suitable with the existing land use on the site and adjacent land uses? The purpose of the zoning request is to allow for the development a neighborhood park, which will require a Conditional Use Permit. Adjacent land to the west is Town property used as the Town Manager's house. Adjacent land to the east is the proposed site of the ArosalGarmisch Employee Housing development. This site is currently zoned Primary/Secondary Residential, but is in the process of rezoning to Residential Cluster. The neighborhood park will extend into these lots. 2) Is the zoning preventing a convenient workable relationship with land uses consistent with municipal objectives. This zoning allows land acquired in the land exchange to be used for a public purpose, a neighborhood park. 3 3) Does the zoning provide for the growth of an orderly, viable community? Zoning of the site as Outdoor Recreation allows for the development of a neighborhood park through a Conditional Use Permit process by restricting development. Parks are an integral part of any community. With the Town of Vail's emphasis on outdoor activities, along with its natural beauty, this zoning helps to provide for and orderly, viable community. 4) Is the change consistent with the Land Use Plan? The following are goals and policies of the Land Use Plan staff believes are related to the proposed zoning: 1.1.1 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. 1.8 Recreational and public facility development on National Forest lands may be permitted where no high hazards exist if: a) Community objectives are met as articulated in the Comprehensive Plan b) The parcel is adjacent to the Town boundaries, with good access. c) The affected neighborhood can be involved in the decision-making process. 2.7 The Town of Vail should improve the existing park and open space lands while continuing to purchase open space. In addition, the following goals and priorities of the Comprehensive Open Lands Plan should be considered: 3. Provide additional recreation facilities . .West Vail, on the north side of the Interstate, could utilize an additional small "packet park" to meet this need." 4 Arosa/Garmisch 2457 246 y ?6 2r' Annexation and Zoning 5 2467 2 2475 2467 4 2477 2.66 acres C; 3 U') 2465 27 CY) 24`r 1 346.29` 2497 D ......,. ......,..........:.,..,:::.?............. . ............ m ..... 5 f 2507 2556 2603 12 2498 13 3 ? 4 1 ° 2449 2517 2508 2 2572 2613 1 10 14 25 2 2 3 2516 2457 2 2566 1 2527 ---- 3 256 9 15 2633 260 1 2518 2459 3 8 261 2575 2526 16 4 2467 24 5 4 6 7 2643 2622 2585 2576 2537 1528 17 2469 23 7 6 5 2653 2632 2605 2585 2547 2558 2477 3 247, 21 19 6 2642 2609 3 2557 25661 2479 -441 2673 2596 4 20 2 12-8B-1 CHAPTERS OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION DISTRICTS ARTICLE B. OUTDOOR RECREATION (OR) DISTRICT SECTION: 12-8B- 1: Purpose 12-8B- 2: Permitted Uses 12-88- 3: Conditional Uses 12-88- 4: Accessory Uses 12-8B- 6: Lot Area And Site Dimensions 12-88- 6: Setbacks 12-88- 7: Height 12-8B- 8: Density 12-8B- 9: Site Coverage 12-8B-10: Landscaping And Site Development 12-8B-11: Parking 12-88-12: Additional Development Standards 12-88-4 Passive outdoor recreation areas and open spaces. (Ord. 21 (1994) § 9) 12-8B-3: CONDITIONAL USES: The following conditional uses shall be permitted, subject to issuance of a con- ditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 16 of this Title: Accessory buildings (permanent and tempo- rary) and uses customarily incidental and accessory to permitted or conditional out- door recreational uses, and necessary for the operation thereof, including restrooms, drinking fountains, bleachers, concessions, storage buildings, and similar uses.. Cemeteries. 12-88-1: PURPOSE: The Outdoor Recre- ation District is intended to pre- serve undeveloped or open space lands from intensive development while permitting outdoor recreational activities that provide opportunities for active and passive recre- ation areas, facilities and uses. (Oral. 21(1994) § 9) 12-88-2: PERMITTED USES: The follow- ing uses shall be permitted in the OR District: Bicycle paths and pedestrian walkways Interpretive nature walks. Nature preserves. Equestrian trails, used only to access Na- tional forest system lands. Public parks and active public outdoor rec- reation areas and uses, excluding buildings. Ski lifts, tows. and runs. Well water treatment facilities. (Ord. 21(1994) § 9) 12-8B-4: ACCESSORY USES: The follow- ing accessory uses shall be permitted in the OR District: Accessory uses in the OR-District are sub- ject to conditional use permit review in Torun of Vail 0 • 12-8B-4 accordance with the provisions of Chapter 16 of this Title. (Ord. 21(1994) § 9) 12-88-5: LOT AREA AND SITE DIMEN- SIONS: Not applicable in the OR District. (Ord. 21(1994) § 9) 12-88-6: SETBACKS: In the OR District, the minimum setback shall be twenty feet (20') from all property lines, except as may be further restricted by the Planning and Environmental Cornmission.in conjunction with the issuance of a condi- tional use permit in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 16 of this Title. (Ord. 21(1994) § 9) 12-88-7 HEIGHT: For a flat roof or man- sard roof, the height of buildings shall not exceed twenty one feet (21'). For a sloping roof, the height of buildings shall not exceed twenty four feet (24'). (Ord. 21(1994) § 9) 12-8B-8: DENSITY. Not applicable in the OR District. (Ord_ 21(1994) § 9) 12-8B-9: SITE COVERAGE: Site cover- age shall not exceed five percent (5%n) of the. total site area. (Ord. 21(1994) § 9) 12-813-10: LANDSCAPING AND SITE DE- VELOPMENT: Landscape re- quirements shall be determined by the Design Review Board in accordance with Chapter 11 of this Title. (Ord. 21(1994) § 9) 12-8B-12 12-88-11: PARKING: Off-street parking shall be provided in accordance with Chapter 10 of this Title. (Ord. 21(1994) § 9) 12-8B-12: ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS: Additional regula- tions pertaining to site development stan- dards and the development of land in the' Outdoor Recreation District are found in Chapter 14 of this Title. (Ord. 21(1994) § 9) Town of Vail 11 EXCHANGE AGREEMENT This Exchange Agreement, made this 19? day cf 5 r? r'i 195?, between the Town of Vail, a municipal corporation, whose address is 7S South Frontage Road, Vail, Colorado 81645, hereinafter referred to as the Landowner, and the United States of America, acting by and through the Forest Service,. Department of Agriculture, in consideration of the appraisals by the parties hereto of the land or interest in land herein described and other good and valuable considerations, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, do hereby severally agree as follows: W ITNE S S ETH : Pursuant to the General Exchange Act of March 20, 1922, as amended (42 Stat. 465) and the Act of October 21, 1976 (90 Stat. 2743), the Landowner does hereby agree to convey to the United States of America the real property described in Schedule "A'{ enclosed hereto and made a part hereof. In exchange therefore, the United States of America agrees to convey to the Landowner by Patent issued by the Department of the interior, the real property described in Schedule "B" enclosed hereto and made a part hereof. There will be no need to equalize values pursuant to Section 206(b) of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1716) since the values were determined to be equal. The agreed to values for this exchange are: Property of the Landowner: $4,502,000 y` Property of the United States-; $4,502,000 First, the Landowner, agrees to convey by Warranty Deed in accordance with Department of Justice standards when requested by the Forest Service, the lands or interest in lands described in Schedule "A" to the United States of America and its assigns, together with necessary documents required to convey good title, free from all encumbrances except those set forth in Schedule "A." second, the Landowner agrees to deliver all necessary documents to the Forest Suberviscr, White River National Forest, who will act as escrow holder. Third, the Landowner agrees to furnish title evidence on the real property described in Schedule "A" in a form satisfactory to the Office of the General counsel of the United States Department of Agriculture and pay any escrow expenses incurred herein. Fourth, the Landowner agrees to de-annex all remaining National Forest system land within the corporate boundary of the Town of Vail within one year of the closing of this land exchange. This paragraph ONLY of this Exchange Agreement shall survive closing until the de-annexation has occured and consititues a contractual obligation on the part of the Town of Vail. When title has been accepted by the Forest Service, the United states of America agrees to convey by patent the real property described in schedule "B," subject to any encumbrances noted therein. 111*1 I 11I 1 I I 111111 111 111 OMB No. 0596-0105 (05-31-98) 6689 03/17/1997 02:28P 8720 P718 23 1 of 15 R 76,00 D 0.00 N 0.00 Eagle, Colorado C C'> LZ • 2 Both parties agree not to do, or suffer others to do, any act by which the value of the real property which is the subject of the Agreement may be diminished or further encumbered. In the event any such loss or damage occurs from any cause, including acts of God, to the real property described in Schedules "A" or "B,"1 prior to execution of deed or issuance of patent, _ t_er party may refuse without liability to complete the exchange. This Agreement will be terminated in the event that either party cannot convey a good and sufficient title to the real property agreed to be exchan,e-_?. This Agreement is legally binding on all parties, subject to the terms a.d. conditions herein and may only be amended or terminated by mutual consent-'. • Pursuant to an agreement between the Landowner and Vail Associates, Inc., the Landowner agrees to include a covenant in regard to ski area operations in all future conveyances of the Federal land (described as Lot 3, sec. 7, T. 5 S., R_ 80 W., 6th P.M.) to be acquired by the Landowner. The specific language of the covenant shall be agreed to between the Landowner and Vail Associates, TIC No member of Congress, or Resident Commissioner, shall be admitted to any share or part of this agreement or to any benefit that may arise therefrom unless it is made with a corporation for its general benefit (18 U.S.C. 431, 433). IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Landowner, by.its duly authorized representative, and the Regional Forester, acting for and on behalf of the Forest Service, USDA, have executed this Agreement this tq-t, day of TOWN OF VAIL, a municipal corporation 1111 11151 11111111111111 11111111 5689 03117/1597 02:28P B720 P718 23 of 13 R 76.00 D e.00 N 0.00 Eagle, Colorado BY: • -TS : ?? f) t. 3 fi/ rf f? 12? FOREST SERVICE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE BY: ?- /ill rf } ELiz Tt1 ES'III,,L Regional Forester Rocky Mountain Region, R-2 Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 4 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instruct-cns, searching existing data sources,, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Department of Agriculture, Clearance Officer, OIR.M, Room 40A-W, Washington, D.C. 20250; and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (OM$ NO. 0596 ©105), Vashington, D.C. 20503. FS C' .2 3 ' AC`_,LN70Wv.Es>GMENT State cf } /??? ) SS: County of ) On this YJA day of fei;-'c tQAL./ , 1997, before me, Lt! ' 1L1`ClI£'Cn'I ?,. a Notary Public in and for saLl State, personally appeared /QD t° lfJ. tt?e?C tlY¢c as Trw-m- lMana._t -ZA for the Town of Vail <:? mr e: pal corporation. C IN WITNESS WiEI2E0 I hereunto set my hand And- D ( !, 7 • G Y 2 i r ,,GF w "?' 1 O Nota??? WJ. 5 ature Holly L. McCutcheon My Commission expires: Nntatp13hl1, 75 S. Frontage Rd. Vail, CO 81657 My Commission Expires 01/07/99 ACKNOWLEDGMENT State of Colorado } } SS: County of Jefferson) On this I day of t's?r,AAr Q 1997, before me, T )A4E i?AN1R1'? a Notary Public in and for said/State, personally appeared Pif7FF ESC?tL IN WITNESS W14EREOF, I hereunto set my hand and official seal. DAVE DAMRONY NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF COLORADO Notary Public Signature My Commission expires:c3a? 61111 11111111 11 111 fill I fill 11 889 03/17/199702:28P B720 P718 23 3 of 15 R 76.00 D 0,00 N 0.00 Eagle, Colorado 0 NA2It3NAS, FOREST MARAGEMt?vi ACT ANALYSIS, TOWN OF' VAIL I,AN!?OWNERSB?P ADJUSTMSl3'S White River National Forest. Holy. Gross Ranger District prepared by 1RICaARD PHELp District Lands Off'cer Recommended by WILLIAM 4K. WOOD District nger roved by I y ?. Approved _ II 'LASALLE ?TO J. rest Supervisor NATIONAL FOREST MANAGEMENT ROT ANALYSIS Town of Vail Landownership Adjustment 1. PU"OSE AND NEED: The Forest Service Manual (FSM 5407.1) directs that the Forest Supervisor shall prepare and maintain appropriate written material to implement landownership adjustment actions and rights-bf-way procurement in conformance with the Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest- Plan) . The manual further directs that each National Forest will prepare a Landownership Adjustment Analysis for :incorporation into the Forest Plan as an amendment. The White River National Forest Management Plan gives direction with identified strategies to guide the decision maker in considering land adjustment offers, and as a tool in the management of the National Forest. These strategies consider acquisition and conveyance criteria. The management plan does not present specific strategies for areas that have complex ownership patterns and associated high land values. The 8oly Gross Ranger District identified three areas where these conditions exist: the Town of Vail, Town of Minturn; and the Edwards, Town of Avon, and Eagle.-Vail area. This document presents the possible management practices for a landownership adjustment strategy in the Town of Vail area. Therefore, this Landownership Adjustment Analysis is needed to: 1. Incorporate the respective purposes of laws which authorize land purchases, donations, sales, and exchanges along with implementing regulations in the Code of Federal Regulations (36 CFR 254), Objectives and Policies in FSM 5400,. and the White River Resource Management Plan (LMP). 2. Display the strategy for landownership adjustments on the White River National Forest in the vicinity of the Town of Vail. 3. Provide a basis for cost effective lands management decisions by displaying lands whose acquisition or conveyance will contribute toward accomplishment of the objectives developed to implement the Forest Land and Resource Management and community objectives. II. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT In May of 1991 the Town of Vail and the Forest Service formed a working group to develop a draft landownership adjustment analysis. The working group consisted of representatives from the flown of Vail, Eagle county, and the Forest Service. The group shared planning documents, conducted site e 2 77 visits, and discussed landownership opportunities and concerns. The group initially developed several statements describing a desired future condition for landownership patterns and adjustments. Possible management practices were then developed based on the desired future condition. A. narrative description and a map depicting the location of these management practices was subsequently developed. This draft information was the subject of three public meetings hosted by the Town of Vail and the Forest Service. The first meeting was a presentation of the desired future. condition and possible management practices at a regular session of the Town of Vail Planning and Environmental C6mmission. Several members of the Town Council and interested residents were present at this meeting. Later this same information was presented at a special evening meeting. This meeting was well attended by interested residents and business representatives. The third meeting was a final presentation of the specific parcel research to the Vail Town Council. Many of the comments and concerns received at the meeting were incorporated into the final draft. ITZ.EXISTING CONDITION The Town of Vail is an internationally renowned four season resort. The municipal boundaries are essentially surrounded by National Forest System lands. Presently, the private land within the flown is about 90 percent developed. Real estate values are high. The potential to create additional private land suitable for development creates a highly comvetitive and speculative environment. Conversely, the purchase and preservation of land to be used as open space has been a high priority for the Town of Vail. As a result, proposed landownership adjustments within and adjacent to the Town of Vail are often highly controversial. Forest service administrative decisions have been repeatedly appealed by the Town of Vail and its citizens. Civil lawsuits have resulted when appellants failed to get relief through the administrative process. Landownership adjustment proponents have also pursued legislative action to consummate exchange proposals. Landownership adjustments are costly and time consuming. The most recent adjustment was, a conveyance of two parcels to the Town of Vail under the authorities of both the Sisk and Townsite Acts. This process took: just over ten years from the time of proposal to completion. The cost to both the Town and the Forest Service was very high. A portion of the original proposal is still being contested in civil court. The National Forest System lands surrounding the Town of Vail are highly regarded by residents and visitors for their recreation, scenic, and wilderness values. The White River National Forest completed a Land Classification Plan in 1969. This plan focused on acquisition priorities. In 1977, an amendment t-; 3 to the 1965 Land Classification Plan was approved that allowed for the conveyance of two parcels for urban expansion and to improve the public administration of the parcels. The amendment stated that, "if the tracts were traded and developed it would be with the general commitment and approval of the city and county governments." This decision helped to reinforce a strong role for the Town of Vail and Eagle County in Forest Service land ownership decisions. in January of 1980, District Ranger Nunn submitted a Petition of Annexation to the Town of Vail for eight parcels of National Forest System Lands totalling 138 acres, more or less.- In February the Vail Town Council passed an ordinance annexing these parcels. The Town passed an ordinance in April that zoned three of the subject parcels, approximately 36 acres, as Public Use District and the remaining parcels, approximately 102 acres, as Green Belt and Natural open space. The Forest Service maintains that Ranger Nunn lacked the authority to petition for annexation and therefore the agency does not recognize the action. The annexation and zoning of National Forest System lands by the Town of Vail continues to be a point of contention that further complicates management of adjoining lands. The current Forest Plan, published in 1984, identifies specific management requirements for individual areas within the Forest. A management area prescription was developed for each area. The management area prescriptions for National Forest System lands adjacent to the Town of Vail are summarized below. A detailed description and the location,of these management areas are found in Appendix A: Town of Vail Landownership Adjustment Map. Winter Snorts Site (1BI: Management emphasis provides for downhill skiing on existing sites and maintains selected inventoried sites-for future downhill skiing recreation,oppcrtunities. semi-nrimitive Motorized Recreation 12AI_: Management emphasis is for semi-primitive motorized recreation opportunities such as snowmobiling, four-wheel driving, and motorcycling both on and off roads and trails. Semi-primitive. Non-motorized Recreation 13AI: Management emphasis is for semi-primitive, nonmotorized recreation on both roaded and unroaded areas. Non-forested Wildlife Winter Rance (SA1: Management emphasis is on winter range for deer, elk, pronghorns, bighorn sheep, and mountain goats. Wood Fiber Production 17EI: Management emphasis is on wood fiber production and utilization of large roundwood of a size and quality suitable for sawtimber. 4 • Wilderness Semi-primitive t8C): Management emphasis is for the protection and perpetuation of essentially natural bio-physical conditions. A survey of the Town of Vail and National rarest boundary was conducted by the Forest Srvice in 1991 and numerous title claims were identified. These title claims range from portions of homes and"private roads to landscapiig and outdoor lighting on lands identified as part of the National Forest, System. Portions of National Forest trails "and trailheads appear to be located on private property or Town of Vail owned hands. National Forest System lands adjacent to the Town of Vail host numerous components of the-t'own's utility infrastructure. Water tanks, powerlines, sewer lines, electronic sites, and roads are a few examples. IV. DESIRED FL.LwPS CONDITION. The Forest Service defines the desired future condition of the landownership pattern as that pattern expected to result if the goals and objectives of the Forest Plan are achieved. Chapter 3 of the Forest Plan outlines broad goals for the Lands program: --Acquire private lands within wilderness. Consolidate National Forest Ownership Patterns. -Acquire necessary rights-of-way to facilitate management of the Forest including public access to National Forest System lands.. -Pursue opportunities to make landownership adjustments to iW .:ove management efficiency for both National Forest System land and intermingled private lauds to meet high priority resource management objectives. National policy prescribes that Landownership Adjustment Analyses shall classify lands for acquisition or conveyance to achieve the following objectives: 1. Enable the Forest/Grassland to implement a proactive land acquisition and conveyance program; 2. Enable the Forest/Grassland to achieve the legislative objectives for" which it was established; 3. Enable the Forest Service to acquire lands valuable for recreation, wildlife habitat, wilderness, and other natural resource management purposes; Ide r, • 4. Enable the Forest Service to respond to direction given by Congress for establishment of classified areas such as wilderness, national recreation areas, and scenic rivers; 5. consolidate landownership to improve operating efficiency, -improve efficiency for the development of private lands, and improve opportunities for community expansion; 6. Reduce the need for and number of rights--of-way to provide for public access to National Forest System land and private access to inholdings; 7. Reduce the miles of private/Forest Service property line and to reduce the miles of property boundary survey, posting, and maintenance; a. Reduce special use permit administration; 9. Conveyance of lands, especially near communities, that are encumbered with private uses and where acquisition of other lands can better serve the public interest; 10. Improve opportunities for agency and private partners to provide recreational, wildlife, and other natural resource services; 11. Maintain and improve the ability to acquire key parcels through the Land and Water Conservation Fund Composite Program; 12. Reconcile Recreation Composite Plans with the Forest Plan. Lender Management Requirements in the Forest Direction section of Chapter 3 in the Forest Plan, General Direction statements describe the priorities_ for landownership adjustments: 1. Classify lands for acquisition or to acquire interests where lands have been identified as more valuable for National Forest purposes, or where current or potential use of private lands would adversely affect National Forest values and where acquisition would not transfer impacts to another site according to the following priorities: a. In designated wilderness areas and other Congressionally classified areas. b. Where lands or rights-of-way are needed to meet resource management goals and objectivities, C. Lands which provide habitat for threatened and endangered species of animals and plants. f, a , 6 d. Lands which include floodplain or wetlands. e. on lands having outstanding scenic values or critical ecosystems, when these resources are threatened by change of use or when management may be enhanced by public ownership. f. Lands which are National Forest in character that provide essential big game winter range and are valuable for other National Forest purposes. 2. Classify lands for conveyance according to the following priorities: a. To states, counties, cities, or other federal agencies when conveyance will serve a greater public interest. b. In small parcels intermingled with mineral or homestead patents. C. Suitable for development by the private sector, if development (residential, agricultural, industrial, recreational, etc.) is in the public interest. d. When critical or unique resources (wetlands, flood plains, essential big game winter range, threatened or endangered species habitat, historical or cultural resources, critical ecosystems, etc.) only when effects are mitigated by reserving interest to protect the resource, or by exchange where other critical resources to be acquired are considered to be of equal or greater value. In addition, the Forest Service Manual direction is to avoid the disposal of National Forest System Lands occupied under term permit unless the existing permitted use can be accommodated by agreement with the permiittee. These term permits were issued and are administered based on a favorable determination that such facilities are in the public interest. In many cases, these lands contain permanent improvements crucial to the operation of the permit and may best be managed under the private ownership of the permittee. The needs and concerns of local communities are an important component in determining the desired future condition of landownership patterns along common boundaries. The Town of Vail landownership working group formulated a set of goals for the desired future condition based on a ten year planning horizon: ' 1. That there be no National Forest System lands within the municipal limits of the Town of Vail. 2. That the Forest Service survey, identify, and maintain the common boundary of the Town of Vail and the Forest Service and that both i agencies share in the enforcement of regulat ions' pertaining to the boundary. The boundary has been simplified where possible, irregularities have been reduced or eliminated. 3. That all land exchanges and purchases optimize both local and national public benefit. Conflicts with local interests are recognized in the decision making process of all land exchanges and purchases, and all efforts are made to address and minimize those conflicts. 4. That all lands acquired by the Town of Vail are used for public purposes such as open space, employee housing (per Town of Vail Employee Housing ordinance), recreation or for the rdsolution of unauthorized uses. 5. That the Town of Vail, Eagle County, or the Forest Service acquire all privately owned tracts, parcels, and previously unplatted lands adjacent to, and outside of, the common Town of Vail and Forest Service boundary. These lands are transferred to the National Forest System, Eagle County, or the Town of Vail where joint objectives are satisfied. t 5. That public access to National Forest System lands be maintained or improved. New access points meet Town of Vail and Forest service needs. 7. That National Forest System lands within the study area that are encumbered with abandoned uses, unauthorized uses; or infrastructure related facilities are reduced or eliminated. 3. That the Town of Vail and National Forest recreation opportunities are jointly planned and integrated. 4. That all unincorporated, platted residential areas within the study area are annexed within the municipal limits of the Town of Vail. 10. That the wood fiber production emphasis management area .(7E), as identified in the Forest Plan, that can be viewed from the Town of . Vail be replaced by a recreation emphasis prescription. 11. That new developments are discouraged an private lands that exist outside and adjacent to the Town of Vail. The above statements represent both goals that the Town of Vail, Eagle County, and the Forest Service will pursue in partnership, others are individual goals. For example, the discouragement of new developments on private lands (item 11) is outside the jurisdiction of the Forest Service and would be the burden of the Town of Vail and Eagle County. 1 a • V. POSSIBLE MAWAGE?s.i PRACTICES: Differences between the existing conditions and the desired future conditions indicate a potential opportunity or the need to take actions to achieve the goals and objectives of the Forest Plan. The means to achieve the desired future conditions are possible management practices. Comparing the existing condition of landownership within the Town of Vail s4e^ial Study Area to National Forest policy; the goal and objectives found in the Forest Plan; and the desired future condition statements developed by the Town of Vail working group yields several potential opportunities for landownership management: 1. Eliminate National Forest system lands within the Town of Vail. 2. Improve opportunities for local governments to acquire and preserve open space. 3. The Forest Service, Town of Vail, and. Eagle county shall consider land-use objectives established on lands administered by the other parties in their management practices. 4. Reduce the number of National Forest special use permits for Town of Vail infrastructure facilities. 5. Resolve all title claims and eliminate all encroachments involving National Forest System lands. 6. Eliminate Town of Vail zoning of National Forest System lands. 7. Jointly plan and integrate recreation opportunities and facilities. a. Improve or maintain public access to National Forest System lands. New access points should meet Town of Vail and Forest Service objectives. 9. Reduce the private and National Forest boundary to reduce the extent of property boundary survey, posting, and maintenance. 10. Jointly enforce regulations pertaining to the management of the common boundary. 11. That all land exchanges and purchases optimize both local and national public benefit. Conflicts with local interests are recognized in the decision making process of all land exchanges and purchases, and all efforts are made to address and minimize those conflicts. + is t The range csf possible management practices or authorities for landownership adjustments include the purchase of ncn-Federal lands, donation of non-Federal lands, exchange, sale of Federal lands to municipalities, and legislated adjustments. The Town of Vail landownership working group applied these authorities to the Town of Vail study area in an attempt to take advantage of the opportunities identified above. The result was a narrative and map describing desired management practices for landownership adjustments (see.Attachment A). Once a landownership adjustment is proposed, a parcel specific environmental analysis will be conducted. This analysis must include a determination of public interest and must consider a reasonable range of alternatives, including no'action. The management practice identified for the subject parcel(s) (see Attachment A) would be one of the alternatives considered in detail. The Forest Service decision maker may then choose all or portions of any alternative considered. VI. FOREST PLAN CONSISTENCY: The management practices identified above comply with the directives of the White River Forest Land and Resource Management Plan and with all legislative authorities. The selected management practices are within the public interest. 10 • I ATTACHMENT A Narrative and Map of Possible Management Practices 9 11 -1 s E Parcel 9: This parcel is located along Gore Creek near the interstate 70 right of way and contains National Forest System Lands. that have been annexed by the Town of Vail. Size: 40 acres Encumberances: Easement issued by the Department of Transportation for Interstate 70 and a right-cf-way issued by the Forest Service for. Highway 6 (Bighorn Road) Zoning: Greenbelt and Natural Open Space District Hazards: 100-year floodplain along Gore Creek, two areas of medium severity rockfall hazard. The Town of Vail's Snow Avalanche Hazard does not include this parcel Unique Resource Values: wetlands along Gore Creek Possible Management Practices: Conveyance to the Town of Vail. The Forest Service would need to reserve access to the Gore Creek campground and would need to reserve trailhead parking and access to trailhead Parcel G: This parcel is located immediately north of Prima Court and contains National Forest System Lands that have been annexed by the Town of Vail. Size: 5 acres Encumberances: Easement issued by'the Department of Transportation for .Interstate 70 and a right-of-way issued by the Forest Service for Highway 6 (Bighorn Road) Zoning: Greenbelt and Natural Open Space. District Hazards: Portion of parcel within medium severity rock-fall hazard Unique Resource Values: Potential wetlands Possible Management Practice: Conveyance to the Town of Vail Parcels G-2, G-3. G-4, and G-5: These four triangular shaped parcels are located north of the Interstate 70 right of way and contain National. Forest .System Lands that have been annexed by the Town of Vail. The intent of the annex-az:ion was to capture the'Interstate 70 easement. Size: Undetermined Encumberances: easement issued by the Department of Transportation for Interstate 70 Zoning: None Hazards: Parcel G-2 is within a high severity rockfall Unique Resource Values: None identified Possible Management Practices: Conveyance to the Town } zone of Vail 12 I Parcel F: This 'Parcel is located at the north end of Booth Falls Road and ~ contains National Forest System Lands that have been annexed by the Town of Vail. Size: 14.8 acres Encumberances: Upper Eagle Valley Water and Sanitation District has a water storage facility on the parcel under special use permit Zoning: Public Use District, Town of Vail is considering rezoning' to Agriculture and open Space Hazards: High severity rockfall zone, high hazard debris flow zone Unique Resource Values: None identified Possible Management Practice: conveyance to the Town of Vail for the southern port-.on of the,parcel and deannexation for the northern portion. The Forest Service would need to reserve access and trailhead parking for the Booth creek trail Parcel E: This parcel is located at 1278 Vail Valley Drive and contains National Forest System Lands that have been annexed by the Town of Vail.- size: 10 acres Encumberances: Town of Vail has purchased the northern one third of the parcel that included a golf course maintenance facility Zoning: Greenbelt and Natural Open Space District Hazards: High and moderate hazard debris avalanche zones; medium severity rockfall hazard zone; and possible snow avalanche influence zone Unique Resource Values: None identified Possible Management Practice: Conveyance to the Town of Vail for the northern portion of the parcel (accomplished) and deannexation for the southern portion Parcel D: This parcel is located immediately south of Ptarmigan Road and contains National Forest System lands that have been annexed by the Town of Vail. Size: 5 acres Encumberances: Ptarmigan Road crosses the northern portion of the parcel Zoning: Greenbelt and Natural Open Space District Hazards: High hazard debris avalanche zone; medium severity rockfall hazard zone; and possible snow avalanche influence zone Unique Resource Values: None identified Possible Management Practice: Conveyance to the Town of Vail for the northwest portion of the parcel and deannexation for the remaining portion t= 11 Parcel C: This parcel is located immediately south cf Rockledge Road and contains National Forest System Lands that have been annexed by the Town of Vail. Size: 11.5 acres ?. Encumberances: The entire parcel is within the Vaal Associates ski area permit. An unauthorized diversion structure exists near the center of the northern boundary. An unauthorized-driveway and numerous, landscape improvements occur on the western portion. Portions of Rockledge Road are also located on the western portion of the parcel. zoning: Greenbelt open space District Hazards: The southeastern portion of the parcel is located within a medium severity rock fall hazard zone Unique Resource Values: None identified Possible Management Practice: Conveyance to the Town of Vail, with private participation, of the western-portion of the parcel, up to the western boundary of the adjacent Lot 1. Since this parcel is within a winter sports special use permit, it is intended that this conveyance would occur with the concurrence of the permittee, and that it would include only that portion of the parcel that is currently encumbered with improvements. The desired management practice for the remaining eastern portion is conveyance to the permittee since this parcel also lies within the winter sports special use permit. It is intended that this conveyance would occur only with the participation and concurrence of the Town of Vail. Such conveyance would be subject to agreement on a conceptual master plan to be implemented once the parcel is no longer in federal ownership. The conceptual master plan must accommodate the existing permitted uses and facilities and provide desired access for the permittee and the Town of'Vail. Parcel B: This parcel is located immediately north of the main Vail Interstate 70 interchange and contains National Forest System Lands that have been annexed by the Town of Vail. Size: 40+ acres Encumberances: Public right of way, special use permit for horse stables and trail rides, and numerous utility corridors Zoning: Agricultural and open Space Hazards: 100-year floodplain (Straddle Creek), moderate hazard debris flow area, medium severity rockfall zone Unique Resource Values: Potential wetlands Possible Management Practice: Conveyance to the Town of.Vail *** Status Change: conveyed to the Town of Vail *** 1 14 • Parcel A: This parcel is located immediately north of Vail View Drive and west of Potato Patch Drive and contains National Forest System Lands that have been annexed by the Town of Vail. size: 11 acres Encumberances: Vail Valley Drive and Potato Patch Drive both traverse this parcel Zoning: Public Use District Hazards: 1070-year floodplain (Fed Sandstone Creek) and medium and high severity rockfall zones. Unique Resource 'values: Potential wetlands Possible Management Practicer Conveyance to the Town of Vail of the southeast half of the parcel and deannexaton for the remaining northwestern portion Vail das Schone Parcel: This parcel is located northeast of lots 1, 2, 3, and 4, Block H, Vail Das Schone Filing No. 2. The parcel is entirely National Forest System Lands. Size: Not determined Encumberances: None Zoning: None Hazards: None identified Unique Resource Values: None identified Possible Management Practice: Conveyance to the Town of Vail. Vail Heights Parcel: These two triangular-shaped parcels are located to the north of the Vail Heights subdivision in West Vail. The Eagle County Assessor is unsure of ownership and believes that the Town of Vail may be the owner. Size: Not determined Encumberances: None Zoning: None Hazards: None :identified k Unique Resource Values: None identified Possible Management Practice: If the Town of Vail acquires the property, then the Town would convey to the Forest Service. 11 Ladner Parce2:'.This unplatted, private parcel is located north of Lots 8 and 9, Block A, Vail Midge (Cortina Lane). This parcel is located outside of the municipal boundaries of the Town of Vail. Size: 7.2 acres Encumberances: None identified Zoning: Resource (County Zoning) Hazards: None identified Unique Resource Values: None identified Passible Management Practices If the Town of Vail acquires the property, then the'Town would convey to the Forest service. *** Status Update: Town of Vail is in the process of acquiring*** East Vail Water Tank Parcel: Upper Eagle Valley Water District needs to expand current storage facility. This expansion may encumber National Forest System Lands. Eagle County Assessor is unsure of ownership. Size: Undetermined pending proposal Encumberances: None Zoning: None Hazards: High and moderate hazard debris flow zones, medium severity rockfall hazard zone, and high hazard snow avalanche zone Unique Resource Values: None identified Possible Management Practice: Convey a parcel sufficient to allow for needed expansion to the Town of Vail or Water District Ulbrich Properties !Lots 16, 19, and 211: These three lots are privately owned and are located within the Town of Vail municipal boundary in the West Vail area. The lots are immediately,, north of 1-70 and west of the Vail Ridge Subdivision. Size: Lot 16 is 17.53 acres, Lot 19 is 15.41 acres, Lot 21 is 13.47 acres Encumberances: Forest Service road and trail easements Zoning: Hillside Residential (Nov. 17, 1987) Hazards: High and moderate hazard debris flow zones, high severity rockfall hazard zone in the southern portion of Lot 21 Unique Resource Values: None identified Possible Management Practice: If the Town of Vail acquires these parcels, then the Town would convey to the Forest Service i Si 16 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: March 22, 1999 SUBJECT: A request for a rezoning from property owned by the Town of Vail zoned Primary/Secondary to Residential Cluster located at 2497, 2487, 2485 and 2477 Garmisch Drive/ Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4, Block H, Vail das Schone Filing #2. Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Andy Knudtsen and Nina Timm Planner: Allison Ochs 1. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The Town of Vail is applying for a rezoning on property which is currently zoned Primary/Secondary Residential to Residential Cluster. This property, located at at 2497, 2487, 2485 and 2477 Garmisch Drive/ Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4, Block H, Vail das Schone Filing #2, is owned by the Town of Vail, and is the site of the proposed Arosa/Garmsch Employee Housing and neighborhood park. The current plan for these four lots is to construct a 4-plex and duplex primarily on lots 2, 8, and 4. A neighborhood park is planned for lot i and the soon-to-be-annexed land to the west. The park will require a Conditional Use Permit. The site plan is still in the preliminary stage (see attached). . Ill. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of this rezoning request subject to review in Section V and the following finding: That the proposed zone district is compatible with and suitable to adjacent uses, is consistent with the Town's Land Use Plan and Zoning Regulations, and is appropriate for the area. 111. BACKGROUND The Town of Vail purchased these four lots from two families in 1990° When purchasing these lots. Council identified them to include a neighborhood park, open space, or employee housing. The 1994 Cu,, prehensive Open Land Plan states that the land should be used for a public use, which includes employee housing. Neighborhood participation for proposals on this site began in October of 1998 and continued through November with neighborhood meetings with designers. Council approved the development of six units and a neighborhood park on November 17, 1998. Can January 20, 1999; the site plan was brought to the Design Review Board for a conceptual review. On January 20; 1999, Council approved the concept of a 4-pier and duplex on the east side of the lot, with the neighborhood park on the west side of the lots and on the land to be acquired in the land exchange with the U. S. Forest Service. TolvvofvM,l'' IV. ZONING ANALYSIS Lot Size. Lot 1:.26 acres (11,325.5 sq. ft.) Lot 2: .45 acres (19,602 sq. ft.) Lot 3:.24 acres (10,454.4 sq. ft.) Lot 4:.24 acres (10,454.4 sq. ft.) Total Area of Site. 1.19 acres or 51,838.4 sq. ft. Total Buildable Area. 1.19 acres or 51,836.4 sq. ft. Standard Setbacks: Heiqht: Dwelling Units: GRFA: Current Zonirrq: Ply C Proposed Zoninq: RC 20715715' 1 20715715' 30733' 130733' i 2 du's. per site, with 1 on than 15,000 • Total of 5 du's allowed allowable EHU's) 25% of first 15,000 10% of next 15,000 5% over 30,000 425 sq. ft. per allowable du • Total of 14,394.1 sq. ft. Site Coverage. 20% of total site area Total of 10,367 so. ft. V. CRITERIA. 25% of buildable area 225 sq. ft. per constructed single family or duplex Total of 12,959 sq. ft. • 25% of total site area • 12,959.1 sq. ft. The PEC shall make the following findings before granting approval of a zone change request: 1) Is the existing zoning suitable with the existing land use on the site and adjacent land uses? The purpose of the rezoning is to allow for the development of six employee housing units and a neighborhood park. Each of the units will be sold to qualified buyers selected through a lottery process. Currently the four undeveloped lots are zoned Primary/Secondary. Adjacent land to the west is currently U.S. Forest Service land soon to be annexed into the Town of Vail through the land exchange. This property is the proposed site of the Arosa/Garmisch Park and is proposed to be zoned Outdoor Recreation. Adjacent land` to the east (lots 5 and 6) is currently zoned Primary/Secondary. The current use of this property is Sunlight North, a 9-unit residential complex. 2) Is the amendment preventing a convenient workable relationship with land uses consistent with municipal objectives. This rezoning allows for the development of six employee housing units, in a duplex and 4m Alex formation. The provision of employee housing is a Town objective stated in the Land Use Plan and the Municipal Code. lots less • 6 du's per buildable acre Total of 7.14 du's allowed (plus 4 2 ) Does the rezoning provide for the growth of an orderly viable community? The Town recognizes that a permanent, year-round population plays an important role in sustaining a healthy, viable community. To encourage employees to remain within the Town, the Town is taking an active step to provide quality housing for its workforce. Residential Cluster zoning allows for a clustered development of 6 units on these lots, increasing the area available for the neighborhood park. Staff believes the cluster approach for this land to be a more efficient and orderly approach to housing than development as single family and duplex homes. 4) Is the change consistent with the Land Use Plan? The following are goals and policies of the Land Use Plan staff believes are related to the proposed rezoning: 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. 1.13 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. 1.11 Town owned lands shall not be sold to a private entity, long term leased to a public entity or converted to a private use without a public hearing process. 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 Affordable employee housing should be made available through private etforts, assisted by limited incentives, provided by the Town of Vail, with appropriate restrictions. 5.3_ The existing employee housing base should be preserved and upgraded. Additional employee housing needs should be accommodated at varied sites throughout the community. VAI LDATA\EV ER YON E\P EC\M EMOS\99\AR OS A n 3 Residential Cluster SECTION: 12-6E-1: Purpose 12-6E-2: Permitted Uses 12-6E-3: Conditional Uses 12-6E-4: Accessory Uses 12-6E-5: Lot Area And Site Dimensions 126E-6: Setbacks 12-6E-7: Height 12-6E-8: Density Control 12-6E-9: Site Coverage 12-6E-10: Landscaping And Site Development 126E-11: Parking 12-6E-1: PURPOSE: The Residential Cluster District is intended to provide sites for single-family, two-family, and multiple- family dwellings at a density not exceeding six (6) dwelling units per acre, together with such public facilities as may appropriately be located in the same district. The Residential Cluster District is intended to ensure adequate light, air, privacy and open space for each dwelling, commensurate with residential occupancy, and to maintain the desirable residential qualities of the District by establishing appropriate site development standards. 12-6E-2: FERMI i i ?-D USES: The following uses shall be permitted in the RC District: Multiple-family residential dwellings, including attached or row dwellings and condominium dwellings with no more than four (4) units in any new building. . Single-family residential dwellings. Two-family_ residential dwellings. 12-6E-3: CONDITIONAL USES: The following conditional uses shall be permitted in the RC District, subject to issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 16 of this Title: Bed and breakfast as further regulated by Section 12-14-18 of this Title. Dog kennel. Private clubs. Public buildings, grounds and facilities. Public or private schools.. Public park and recreation facilities. Public utility and public service uses. Ski lifts and tows. Type III employee housing unit (EHU) as provided in Section 12-13-6 of this Title. Type 1V employee housing unit (EHU) as provided in Section 12-13-7 of this Title. 12-6E-4: ACCESSORY USES: The following accessory uses shall be permitted in the RC District: Home occupations, subject to issuance of a home occupation permit in accord with the provisions of Section 12-14-12 of this Title. Private greenhouses, tool sheds, playhouses, attached garages or carports, swimming pools, patios, or recreation facilities customarily incidental to single-family, two-family or low density multiple-family residential uses. Other uses customarily incidental and accessory to permitted or conditional uses, and necessary for the operation thereof. 4 12-6E-5: LOT AREA AND SITE DIMENSIONS: The minimum lot or site area shall be fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet, containing no less than eight thousand (8,000) square feet of buildable area. 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. 12-6E-6: SETBACKS: In the RC District, the minimum front setback shall be twenty feet (20'), the minimum side setback shall be fifteen feet (15'), and the minimum rear setback shall be fifteen feet (15'). 12-6E-7: HEIGHT: For a flat roof or mansard roof, the height of buildings shall not exceed thirty feet (30'). For a sloping roof, the height of buildings shall not exceed thirty three feet (33'). 12-6E-8: DENSITY CONTROL: A. Gross Residential Floor Area: Not more than twenty five (25) square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA) shall be permitted for each one hundred (100) square feet of buildable site area; provided, however, that single-family and two-family dwelling units constructed in the Residential Cluster District shall be entitled to an additional two hundred twenty five (225) square feet of gross residential floor area (QRFA) per constructed dwelling unit. Total density shall not exceed six (6) dwelling units per acre of buildable site area. B. Exemptions: All projects that have received final Design Review Board approval as of December 19, 1978, shall be exempt from the changes in this Section as long as the project commences within one year from the date of final approval. If the project is to be developed in stages, each stage shall be commenced within one year after the completion of the previous stage. 12-6E-9: SITE COVERAGE: Site coverage shall not exceed twenty five percent (25%) of the total site area. 12-6E-10: LANDSCAPING AND SITE DEVELOPMENT: At least sixty percent (60%) of each site shall be landscaped. 12-6E-11: PARKING: Off-street parking shall be provided in accordance with Chapter 10 of this Title. No parking shall be located in any required front setback area, except as may be specifically authorized in accordance with Chapter 17 of this Title. At least one parking space per dwelling unit shall be located within the main building or buildings or within an accessory garage whenever the development is reasonable and appropriate for the site and is required by the Design Review Board. 5 Ole All tt9 a " a f? - r > iV 1 a - •i. ? - a"haa ay?a -• to r Op a .01 4 " .01 100, -00' 000 - a oll 127 7 r 4 ` j , sr ?Y?. y y -! r a F ti, e ? ''t 4 " a •. " • . ?' dry /y p/? 2* ? v y a f 29- - 241 Jew ! M ,." - "Nest Vail TOV f r ?- ' j? 1 Owned Land Topography Topography Roads f Vegetation , f , ?. t , 1 l / !F f / /? ;Lot yf ?' F r ?/ . ?_?r / `? J e040 Lot #4 ?f f , 10, =S { Lot #1 ,rte ee { .w dot h meps Isle ?y ....._..,. _ _+.---1' - . - - / .?j .. r 4.... NOT'proportioW to reify v 7990 IN, f i rseo r A OF VAIL: k, TO October 1998 t March 22, 1999 To. Town of Vail PEC R-- : k-zoning o ' 6 rirzsii LTI"ve -Iots 1,2,3,4, Ezoc1- T' , V c?1:. has Gi?{3ii`m lil g This past weep I spoke with several TOV officials and former PEC members. I was told that the duties of the PEC members are to review the applications to see if they meet current laws, conform to the surrounding lands, and also to take into consideration the wishes of the neighbors. 1. Background and legal a: These lots were purchased with the intention of housing and a park, per council minutes. b. These lots were purchased partially with RETT funds. c. The RETT fund ordinance allows for reimbursement with General funds, but as of my last conversation with the finance department, after several months of research, they have not been able to confirm that the reimbursements were made within the allowable time frame. d. The RETT fund ordinance 426 page 2 paragraph 1 states "Whereas ... it is the intention of the Town Council that at such time as sufficient parcels of property have been acquired, that portion of the tax shall cease." e. Colorado Constitution, via the TABOR amendment, does NOT allow any new RETT funds to be created, even with the vote of the people. f: The TOV receives about $3 million each year from the NETT, which is primarily paid for by the big dealers and developers. g. When I spoke with Steve Thomson, head financial accountant for the TOV, he said that if we were to loose the RETT, those monies could be made up by increasing the property taxes. h. Colorado case law clearly shows that deed restrictions generally can not be upheld more than 25 or 30 years. This can be fiirther researched under "rules against perpetuity" and alienability of property" II. Consequences of developing these lots into tax subsidized, deed restricted units. a. Loss of the RETT . Due to purchasing the property w/ RETT funds, then using it for purposes clearly not recreational will cause "Sunshing" of the tax b. Drastically increased property taxes. c. After 25 or 30 years, the properties will no longer be deed restricted, we will be in the same housing situation, and we will have lost (at the current income level) $90 million. 0 III. Neiwhborhood input. a. At a TOV inspired meeting at the West Vail Inn, approx. 40 neighbors attended. 1 person, who ` >.r es at the bottom of the h- 17i vhe Vail Com w~ rv .. w .. pzr? ect, 1 couple who lives at the west end of Arosa Drive thought the project had some merit, but needed to be reviewed., and the remaining of the 40 neighbors were very much opposed to the deve opment. IV. Conclusion You, as the PEC, are at the very beginning of this process. If you allow this development, you will be in party with the ethers pushing this project, and you will be part of the cause of the above mentioned consequences. You have the ability to make recommendations to SAVE the town app ox. 90 million over the next 30 years, plus the costs of the development, and to help those who are seeking alternatives to the current housing situation. Sincerely: (y t r ?, C4 ? Pe v-P )n:i'e 40 Chas Bernhardt Intermountain Homeowner March 12, 1999 ???•? a-J & HINDMAN, X. via Facsimile atul First Class Mail Jerry G.M. orten Town Council Thomas 1. Hindman Town of Vail My'a 1. Lansky 75 S. Frontage Road Lauva K. sanch'4 Co 81657 Vail L aitroi G. Holmes , Laum J. Qibson Jonny't_F rujii Re. opposition of the candy minium associations to proposed housing on top of any V10=4 M, l4oaeell new Lionshead parking structure Out Fite Nos. 9278-9001 and 9262-9001 a1'?rlltmn H. Short Of Counsel To wham it may concern: 1099 Eighteenth Street Our firm represents the Sun Vail Condominium Association and the Lion,Shead Suite 2750 Arcade Building Condominium Association. These two Associations have asked Denver, CO w2u-t927 our firm to inform the Town of Vail that they object to any new employee sM92.9999 housing as might be constructed on top bf or as a part of any new Lionshead toll free MU09.1242 parking structure. fax 303/295.2176 e-mail The Associations we represent object to any employee housing being included hoa.law@ortentiindmatt.coni in the Lionshead parking structure due to the guest experience and owner www.ortenhindiron.com experience expected at the condominium communities, and expected in the Lionshead core area. The Lionshead area should not bear the brunt of employee housing development for the village or within the town. Our clients also understand that a major c. L.A.i,ercial property owner, Robert Lazier, is also opposed to employee housing in any renovated parking structure at Lionshead, ox in the core area of Lionshead. Additionally, out clicnts understand that several other owner associations in the area are also opposed to proposed employee housing at any renovation of the Lionshead parking structure. Further, if employee housing is to be included within any renovations to the. Lionshead parking structure, the Associations request that any new employee housing be proportionate in size, quality, and visual appearance to other new employee housing as might be approved by the town in other locations within the town. Here also, there is concern chat within the Lionshead area that a lesser degree of architectural finish and duality of employee housing might, be allowed and constructed, than for public improvements or might occur within the village. The concern of the Associations is that the Lionshead area not be treated with any less quality as other areas of Vail. Our clients would like to be involved in any community planning process, work sessions, task forces, or other mechanisms that the town might pursue in attempting to accomplish employee housing in the Lionshead area. In this regard, please do not hesitate to contact the Sinn Vail Condominium Association and the Lionshead Arcade Building Condominium Association Associations, in care of their managing agent, Kit Williams, at P.O. Box 3622, Making ca Di f erencc a irh Covenants 011tl Communities MAR 12 199 03.59PM ORTEN AND HINDMAN P.3/3 .Atrot-nets at Law Paget Board of Directors Town of Vail March 12,1959 Vail, Colorado 81650, telephone number (970) 476-0690 (extension 1). Vqy truly yours, N, P.C. jCM01 ,enC G Greg Nloffer; Chairman/Planning and Environmental Commission Board of Dltecrom Sun Vail Condominium Asp mWtitm. ch, Kit Williams Board of llirectom Licroshead Arode BnildinL+ C?~rtd?Snin'srtn+ AsAoeibrinn. & Kit Williams Lodges at Lionshead Vail lutgroarional Robetr Lazier Wei CLIEMASUNVAILMW 91 ?J PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMIS,5ICN March 22, 1999 Minutes MEMBERS PRESENT.MEMBERS ABSENT: COUNCIL PRESENT`. STAFF PRESENT: Greg Moffet Diane Golden Sybill Navis George Ruther John Schofield Ann Bishop Ludwig Kurz Allison Ochs Galen Aasland Judy Rodriguez Brian Doyon Tom Weber Public Hearing 2:00 p.m. Greg Moffet called the meeting to order at 2:00 p.m. 1. A request for a joint workse sion with the Town Council to amend the Towns "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. Tom Braun, representing the applicant, said the purpose of the district was for short-term accommodation units. He said all the properties were SDD's already. Greg Moffet asked for any public comments. Jim Lamont, representing the East Village Homeowner's Association, suggested relative to Johannes proposal, there was more of an affinity between the Talisman, Austria Haus and Sonnenalp, than the Holiday Inn site. He said the Tivoli neighborhood did not want to change. He said however, that they wanted equal treatment with GRFA, but did not want commercial. He said he had no problem with or,-street commercial, from pedestrian precincts, with no variable setbacks outside the pedestrian precincts. He said they wanted to preserve the character of the neighborhood. Greg Moffet suggested adding a conditional use to have it in keeping with the neighborhood.. Jim Lamont said the setback issue does come into consideration with private property and should not be a variable issue, but on Town rights-of-ways there should be flexibility. Regarding impact fees, he said they had to be generally applied or have an overall impact fee ordinance so the suburbs and inner cities would get treated the same. He said public expenditures were being dealt with here. He suggested refining the language down, as it was obtuse. TOWMOF N 1 Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes March 22,1999 4- Tom Weber asked if there was a need to go beyond what the Streetscape Master Plan mandated Jim Lamont said, yes. He said there was only one property in Lionshead that was a PA and said To be careful careful in taking out .a standard that was common to all zone districts. He said that this may not be the correct ordinance. He said the parking was critical because if it changed across the board, it would change the economics of redevelopment and the developers would need to know as soon as possible. He said he and Dave Corbin had talked to over 40 property owners, who agreed that the commercial area was failing, being dusty, dirty and loaded with delivery trucks. He said if the parking requirement was reduced, it would be a win/win situation. LODGING DEFINITION: Greg Moffet asked for any public comments. Bob Lazier, owner of the Tivoli Lodge and some commercial downtown, said the Town could use some new hotel rooms, but warned against stifling developers, as there was a huge need for 500-1000 beds. He said there appeared to be a movement towards the Holiday Inn site. He said we seem to be trying to put everything in a basket, so that all are treated equally, which is not necessary, as long as they are treated fairly. He said the character of Tivoli was very different from the economics of the Sonnenalp and that commercial was not needed, as it was walking distance to the Village. He said to put all public accommodations under one umbrella would be difficult. He said the height requirement of 48' limited the Tivoli. He said he was addressing this philosophically and advised not to get bogged down with specifics. Tom Weber said George was going in the right direction. Brian Doyon said it was in the right direction, but would like to see the duration of time for FFU's. George Ruther explained that there was a minimum 1 night ownership and a maximum of 1/12th night ownership. Brian Doyon said the FFU definition was his only concern. John Schofield suggested looking to the use definition of an accommodation unit vs. a dwelling unit. He said the short-term warm beds or the 70% use made sense, but he didn't know about enforcement, but to accomplish the objective of warm beds/short term, 70% was good. He asked if there was currently a 24-hr. desk requirement under lodges and if not it might be something to consider. He then asked if all the current accommodations in the PA Zone District had 24-hr. desks. He said this was focusing on the quality of the amenities, to recognize it as a lodge. He said the language was directed towards the use of the unit. Galen Aasland agreed with John that the purpose of the district was short-term units. He said the smaller hotels would potentially still work without a front desk and he was comfortable with the 70%, but there needed to be flexibility to encourage redevelopment. Greg Moffet said to add a provision that the number of AU's needed to be replaced. He said the 24-hr. desk was appropriate most of the time and that there was a difference between a front desk and a 24-hr. desk. Planning and Environmental Commission 2 Minutes March 22, 1999 Bob Lazier gave the Willows as an example of having a front desk. Greg Moffet suggested requiring people to keep beds in the live bed pool, but he wouldn't know how to enforce this. George Ruther stated that the FFU does not count towards the equivalency and asked how to ensure that these units would get used more like hotel rooms, rather than condos. Greg Moffet said that in no case could AU square footage be removed. He said there could be fewer larger units, as was one in the Austria Haus. George said this was an and/or situation with the property owner. REVIEW PROCESS: George Ruther gave an overview of the review process. Tom Braun suggested not fewer meetings ; just not 6-8 worksessions on the larger projects and to have projects finish out closer to where they would end up. Greg Moffet asked for any public comments. There were no public comments. Galen Aasland said he agreed with what the PEC talked about, and agrees to have adjacent property owners notified. He said he liked the format to deed restrict employee housing and would like to see some kind of scenario set up so as to not be a surprise to the developer. 0 Tom Weber said it needed to get-as close to a design-by-right process as possible. Brian Doyon agreed with Galen. He said the PEC would like to take some of the issues and make the decisions and not have to go to Council since they were planning issues. He does not like two groups reviewing requests. He then gave the example of the Austria Haus, with the PFC giving approval and Council turning it down. John Schofield said to refine it have zoning and design criteria so applications can go right to the DRB. He said if it went into setbacks, then it would need to go before the PEC. Greg Moffet said he preferred to see requests reviewed more closely to the GU process.. He said everybody would benefit if a Council review was at their option. He said that developers now go thru the PEC and then have to start all over with worksessions with Council. He said he would like to see a list of factors that have to be considered, such as setbacks, etc., and if we could take mandatory Council review out of the process, then it would be streamlined. George Ruther summarized the PEC comments that if an applicant was not asking for any Deviation, he could go right to the DRB if all development standards were met. He said the minute they wanted to vary, the PEC kicks in. He said if the development standards were met, there seemed to be a clear path to move forward with the project. Tom Weber asked if there shouldn't be a development-by-right path. Greg Moffet said there were too many subjective factors for a build-by-right. Planning and E. N ? ..mental Commission 3 Minutes March 22, 1999 Galen Aasland` said for any major redevelopment, it was important for Council to have some review. Tom Weber said with a well written zone ordinance, you have a design-by-right path. George Ruther said in a GU zone, the underlying thread is that all the properties are unique, as all development standards are set by the P'EC. Greg Moffet said the beauty of it was it doesn't have to overcome special privilege. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS: Tom Braun said Jim Lamont said to leave the EVHA property owners alone, as they didn't want to change. He said he was not advocating Jim's position. John Schofield said he didn't understand how someone wouldn't want to change to the new zoning-. Brian Doyon agreed. Greg Moffet said Jim asked to include in the process a consideration of the characteristics of the neighborhood. George Ruther said it was already in the conditional use as a broad base. Greg Moffet said he suspected Jim was concerned about drawing night traffic to the base of the buildings in this neighborhood. He said we have a zone district that doesn't work, but we wanted to encourage redevelopment and not make the process so onerous that nobody will undertake it. George Ruther said we were not rezoning, just amending it and the goal of this project was to identity text amendments. He said we were creating PA 1-PA18 or creating a zone district unique to that parcel. He thought we might need to invite each property owner or have a representative sent to understand which way to go. Tom Braun showed a slide presentation. George Ruther said regarding GRFA, that the applicant has proposed to have it increased and the PEC would like to see it eliminated. Greg Moffet said, for the record, he just received proposed amendments to the PA Zone District. He then asked for any public comments. There were no public comments. Greg Moffet said he wanted to eliminate GRFA. John Schofield said he too wanted to eliminated GRFA, but with the DRB guidelines, he thought GRFA could be eliminated. Tom Weber agreed, but asked if this should be treated like setbacks. Planning and Environmental Commission 4 Minutes March 22, 3999 Galen Aasland said it was not appropriate to take GRFA out of one district. John Schofield said Gross "residential" is not talking about "accommodation." Greg Moffet said he would love to see a study of the short-term bed base over the last 20 yearn, as he could predict a drop of 60%. He said we needed a product to compete with Whistler, and everytime we add an artificial constraint, we lose that ability. Greg Moffet said that Council has stated that they don't want to eliminate GRFA. Tom Weber asked if 120% is enough to incent development, as the Town has identified that we need to increase GRFA. Greg Moffet said we are adding a 50% component and that this was as much push as you can get, or how much Council can get without getting screamed at. Tom Braun said it comes down to GRFA vs. common area. Galen Aasland said 120% is politically doable. George Ruther said density has been thrown out the door, as it was increasing the intensity of the use on the site. Greg Moffet said he was willing to recommend 120% to Council as a total package and guideline and you wouldn't need a compelling reason to go over GRFA with criteria, when demonstrating why. John Schofield said as long as Council knows that at least 3 of the PEC (John Schofield, Greg Moffet and Diane Golden)are in favor of doing away with GRFA. Tom Weber said why not keep it at 80% with the benefit of acquiring public benefits. Greg Moffet said you can't build anything with that and it then becomes artificial. George Ruther reminded the PEC that 120% would be our maximum, but to the developer it's the minimum and realizing this, he asked how flexible was it. Greg Moffet said if this provides incentive for redevelopment, then he wanted to see it. He said we were killing our economy and our public policy objective was for more live beds. SITE COVERAGE AND LANDSCAPING. Tom Weber said he didn't think we should go as high as CC1 and CC2. Tom Braun said it was a development driven decision and it carne back to flexibility. He advised to give them the chance because everyone would benefit. Tom Weber said as long as 65% works well with 30% landscaping. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes March 22, 1999 Greg Moffet, using the Holiday House as an example, said maybe we should revisit the parking issue, as it related to AU's. George Ruther stated AU's required one space per unit. Tom Braun said the parking requirement fell apart for the lodges, as Lodges get dinged for the restaurants, etc. Greg Moffet said a lot of properties are surrounded by CC1 and that parking was prohibited in the CC1. He said we need to lighten up a lot on parking and maybe make it a flexible part of the process. Brian Doyon said to keep landscaping where it is. John Schofield said he would tend to keep landscaping in the 25%-30% range, rather than parking. Galen Aasland agreed with John. Greg Moffet said to treat this like it was a flexible criteria to be considered. George Ruther said a change was needed for the definition of an AU and DU. Greg Moffet said the consensus among the Board members was to treat FFU's like AU's, rather than DU's Tom Weber said a consideration for streetscape should be included. Galen Aasland said he was still concerned the unsolvable parking problem such as the coaxed out Christiania and would like to see some of those properties be able to pay-in-lieu. George Ruther summarized to relieve applicant from requiring parking on-site. 2. A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for the consolidation of two dwelling units in the CC2 Zone District, located at 124 E. Meadow Drivel A portion of Lot 5E, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: Alfredo L. Suarez, represented by Fritzlen, Pierce, Smith Architects Planner: Allison Ochs Tom Weber recused himself. Allison Ochs gave an overview of the staff memo. Greg Moffet asked for any public, applicant or Commission comments. There were no comments. John Schofield made a motion for approval. Brian Doyon seconded the motion. Planning and Environmental Commission 6 Minutes March 22, 1999 4 The motion passed by a vote of 4-0. 3. A request for a rezoning from Primary/Secondary Residential to Residential Cluster, located at 2497, 2487, 2485 and 2477 Garmisch Drivel Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4, Block H, Vail das Schone Filing #2. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner. Allison Ochs Allison Ochs gave an overview of the staff memo- Galen Aasland stated for the record that he lived about 3 lots over from this property, but that he saw no conflict. Andy Knudtsen said he was no longer with the Town of Vail, but that the Town of Vail retained him to take two projects through the process. He said that the Town had explored how to make it ail work and Council felt strongest that there be housing on one side of the site and the park on the other side of the site. He said there had been some compromise and the design worked best with the neighborhood and the topography. He said that 72% of homes in Vail were owned by second homeowners and Town would like to get more full time residents. Chas Bernhardt handed out a letter that explained how these parcels were purchased with RHETT funds. He stated at a recent neighborhood meeting of about 40 people, 38 were not in favor of this project. He said the risks of losing that RHETT fund was not worth the consequences. Karen Scheidegger, an owner of some lots in the vicinity, stated she was opposed to this as it was purchased with RHt I funds for a park. She said that had she known she could have built a cluster of townhomes when it was zoned Primary/Secondary, she would have and she asked why the Town was able to do this. Brian Doyon said the Town was downzoning and creating a park as well. Greg Moffet said he is concerned about the duration and strength of a deed restriction. Andy Knudtsen said the Town would retain ownership, which would strengthen the deed restriction. Tom Weber thanked the two public entries that made comments. He then said he was not informed or experienced regarding RHETT funds. George Ruther said Tom Moorhead would respond to the letter with the Town's stance in the matter. Greg Moffet said the Commission had no authority to rezone, only to recommend the rezoning to Council. Tom Weber said the new zoning was consistent with what was happening over there and this was a very nice plan balancing the open space with the need for employee housing. Planning and Environmental Commission 7 Minutes March 22, 1999 Brian Doyon said he was at the neighborhood. meeting and was familiar with the RHETT funds, but was concerned about the reimbursement of the taxes back to the taxpayer. He said he was in favor of this and if the 38 neighbors were opposed, they would have been at this meeting. Andy Knudtsen said they had documentation that 80% of the RHETT had been reimbursed back to the taxpayers. John Schofield said the public concern was a tax matter and this is not a PEC matter, He said Karen was concerned with downzoning,. Karen Schdeigger stated it was not right to have a cluster development, when it was zoned Primary/Secondary. Allison Ochs stated that at Neighborhood meetings, the neighborhood goals were to cluster. Galen Aasland responded to Karen Scheidegger to look at this lot as encumbered, s the Town owned the property underneath and adjacent to this was an SDD. He said the cluster was goad for the neighborhood, as it was keeping the development in one small comer of the property and provided a huge amount of open space to the Town. Greg Moffet said this application clearly satisfied the finding the PEG is required to make. He said to those folks opposed to the Town developing their lands, to buy the land as a neighborhood and dedicate it to open space. He said he was in favor of deed covenal 11b, but something stronger was needed to keep the open portion of the lots open. He suggested a condition be that the proportion of the parcel be dedicated to open space and have a conservation deed restriction placed on it, or something similar as it needed a very durable legal restriction. Andy Knudtsen suggested the possibility of making this Charter Open Space. John Schofield made a motion with the condition that Council use the strongest possible language to ensure that the park area remains as park land/open space and one option was to include it as Charter Open Space. Galen Aasland seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 5-0. 4. A request for annexation and zoning of out door recreation of an unplatted portion of the SE I ASE its SE 1/4 SW 1/4 of Section 11, Township 5 South, Range 81 West, generally located on the north side of Arosa drive, and abutting Sunlight north to the east and Town Manager's house to the west. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Allison Ochs Allison Ochs gave an overview of the staff memo. Andy Knudtsen said this went hand in hand with the previous request. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes March 22, 1999 r? ?J Greg Moffet asked for any public comment. There was no public comment. Karen Scheidegger asked if there was a guarantee that this land would be left open as open space. Allison Ochs said it would be rezoned outdoor recreation at this time, but could be rezoned in the future. Greg Moffet said we could include a condition making it Charter Open Space, which would require a vote of the public, to make sure it was kept a park. John Schofield made a motion for approval. Brian Doyon seconded the motion. John Schofield amended the motion add a condition that Council use the strongest possible language to ensure that the park area remains as park land/open space. One option was to include it as Charter Open Space. Brian Doyon seconded the amended motion. The motion passed by a vote of 5-0. 5. 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 15` Filing. Applicant: Bill Sullivan, representing the Austria Haus Development Group Planner: George Ruther TABLED UNTIL APRIL 12, 1999 6. 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"a Filing. Applicant: Vail Recreation District Planner: George Ruther TABLED UNTIL APRIL 12, 1999 7. A request for a variance from Section 12-6D-6 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code, to allow for an encroachment into the required side setbacks, located at 3003 Bellflower Drive / Lot 9, Block 6, Vail Intermountain. Applicant: Mr. Guillermo Huerta Planner: George Ruther TABLED UNTIL APRIL. 26, 1999 Planning and Environmental Commission 9 Minutes March 22, 1999 8. 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 Piling. Applicant: Walter Forbes, represented by Gwathmey-Pratt Architects Planner; Allison Ochs TABLED INDEFINITELY Tom Weber made a motion to table the above items. Galen Aasland seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 5-0. Galen Aasland made a motion to table item #8 until April 121h. John Schofield seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 5-0. 9. Information Update 10. Approval of March 8, 1999 minutes. Brian Doyon abstained and John Schofield had corrections. John Schofield made a motion for approval as amended, Tom Weber seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 5-0. Chas Bernhardt read the RHITT ordinance . Greg Moffet explained "thereas" doesn't rule, but where it begins "Now therefore" does. Galen Aasland made a motion to adjourn. Brian Doyon seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 5-0. The meeting adjourned at 5:10 p.m. Planning and Environmental Commission 10 Minutes March 22, 1999