Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2000-0313 PEC
THIS 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_g of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail on March 13, 20flQ, at 2:flfl P,M. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. in consideration of: A final review with the Design Review Board to discuss the proposed development plan/master plan and a conditional use permit far a park and recreation facility far an approximately 12 acre unplatted parcel of land zoned General Use and Residential Cluster, commonly referred to as the lower bench of Donovan Park, located south of the South Frontage Road and east and north of Matterhorn Circle. Applicant: Town of VailNail Recreation District Planner: Dominic Mauriello A request for an exterior alteration and a conditional use permit for a fractional fee club and a parking variance, to allow for the redevelopment of the Vail Athletic Club, iocated at 352 East Meadow Drive/A part of Tract 3, Vail Village 15t Filing.. Applicant: VML, L.L.C. Planner: George Ruther A final review of the proposed changes to the Town of Vail's parking pay-in-lieu policy and proposed amendments to Chapter 12-1 f}, Town Code. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Brent Wilson A final review ofi the Town of VaiPs revised parking generation analysis and proposed amendments to Chapter 12-10, Town Code. Applicant: Town of Vaii Planner: Brent Wilson A PEC review of proposed modifications to the Gore Creek Flood Plain, located at the Gore Creek Whitewater Park, Gore Creek PromenaderTraets I & A, Black 5B, Vail Village 15` Filing. Applicant: Vaii Valley Tourism and Ganvention Board Planner: Brent Wilson A request for a minor subdivision, to allow for an amendment to a previously platted building envelope and a revised lot access, iocated at 1452 Lionsridge Loop /Lot 4, Ridge at Vaii. Applicant: Mike Young Planner: George Ruther A request for final review of a proposed major amendment to Special ©evelapment District #4 (Cascade Village), located at 1©flfl S. Frontage Road West (Glen Lyon Office Building)lLat 54, Block K, Glen Lyon Subdivision. Applicant: Dundee Realty, represented by Segerberg Mayhew Architects Planner: George Ruther - ~, P~ /4 I ll Rl7 Q~ T~~ A request far a variance from. Sections 12-6H-~ and 12-14-6, Town of Vai[ Code, to allow for the addition of gross residential floor area and balconies within required setbacks, located at 303 Gore Creek Drive Vail Townhouse #2-Cfl_ot 2, flock 5, Vail Village 1St Filing. Applicant: Vicki Pearson, represented by Ron Diehl, Architect Planner: Ann Itjerulf 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 Tawn of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. Please call 479-2138 for information. Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please calf 479- 2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information, Community ©evelopment Department Published February 25, 2000 in the Vail Trail • • 2 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL GOMMISSION ~, PUBLIC MEETING SGHEDULE Monday, March 13, 2000 AGENDA Proiec# Oriente#ion 1 PEG LUNCH -Community Development Department MEMBERS PRESENT Site Visits : 1. Vail Mountain Schoal - 3160 Katsos Ranch Road 2. Pearson - 303 Gore Creek Drive #2-C 3. Vail Athletic Club - 352 East Meadow Drive 4. Gore Creek Promenade 5. Illig-706 W. Forest Road 6. Donavan Park ~-South Frontage Road and Matterhorn Circle 7. Lot 4, Ridge at Vail -1452 Buffehr Creek Road Driver: George ~~ NOTE: Mf the PEC hearing extends until 6;00 p.m., the bcsard will break far dinner Pram 6:00 - 6:30 p.m. 11:00 p.m. 12:30 p.m. Public Hearing - Tov+rn Council Chambers 2:00 p.m. 1. A request for a minor subdivision, to allow for an amendment to a previously platted building envelope and a revised lot access, located at 1452 Buffehr Creek Rd.1Lot 4, Ridge at Vail. Applicant: Mike Young Planner: George Ruther 2. A request far variances from Section 12-6th-6, and Section 12-14-G, Tawn of Vail Code, to allow for an extended entry, trash enclosure and deck expansion, located at 706 V4f. Forest RoadlLot 9, Block 1, Vail Village 6'~' Filing. Applicant: Cliff Illig, represented by Beth Levine Planner: Allison Ochs 1 ~. .+ TOWN 4F YAIi; MEMBERS ABSENT P~e~~SHfO PUBLISHED 3. A request for a variance from Sections 12-6H-6 and 12-14-8, Town of Vaii Code, to allow far the addition of gross residential floor area and balconies within required setbacks located at 303 Gore Creek Drive, Vail Townhouse #2-G/Lot 2, Block 5, Vail Village 1~ Filing. Applicant: Vicki Pearson, represented by Ran Diehl, Architect Planner: Ann Kjerulf 4. A request for a work session to discuss a proposed major amendment to Special Development District #4 Cascade Village}, located at 1004 S. Frontage Road West (Glen Lyon Office Building}/Lot 54, Block K, Glen Lyon Subdivision.. Applicant: Dundee Realty, represented by Segerberg Mayhew Architects Planner: George Ruther 5. A request far an exterior alteration and a conditional use permit far a fractional fee club and a parking variance, to allow for the redevelopment of the Vail Athletic Club, lacated at 352 East Meadow Drive/A part of Tract B, Vail Village ist Filing. Applicant: VML, L.L.G. Planner: George Ruther 6. A work session to discuss a conditional use permit to allow for a proposed expansion at Vail Mountain School, lacated at 3160 Katsos Ranch Rvad/Part of Lot 12, Block 2, Vail Village 12~h Filing. Applicant: Vail Mountain School, represented by Gwathmey Pratt Schultz. Architects Planner: Brent Wilson 7. A PEC review of proposed modifications to the Gore Greek'Flood Plain, lacated at the Gore Creek Whitewater Park, Gore Creek Promenade/Tracts I & A, Black 5B, Vail Village 1 sc Filing. Applicant; Vail Valley Taurism and Convention Bureau Planner; Brent Wilson 8. A final review of the proposed changes to the Town of Vail"s parking pay-in-lieu policy and proposed amendments to Chapter 12-10, Town Cade. Applicant: Town afi Vail Planner: Brent Wilson 9. Final review of the Town of Vail's revised parking generation analysis and proposed amendments to Chapter t 2-14, Town Code. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Brent Wilson 14. A joint work session with the Design Review Board to discuss the proposed development planlmaster plan and a conditional use permit for a park and recreation facility for an approximately 12 acre unplatted parcel of land zoned General Use and • Residential Cluster, commonly referred to as the lower bench of Donovan Park, located south of the South Frontage Road and east and north of Matterhorn Circle. Applicant: Town of VailNail Recreation District Planner: Dominic Mauriella 2 ~~~ ~ 1 p. Information Update - ~~ ~>~~~ Four, two-year term PEG vacancies - 4Galen Aasland, Brian Dayon, Diane Golden and Tom weber}. PEC R~PRESEMTATIVE AT DRB FQR 2000- Doug Gahill - Jan-Mar 'pp - Apr-Jun 'pp - Jul-Sep 'pp - Oct-Dec `p0 t 1. Approval of February 28, 2pp0 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 F~oad. Please call 479-2138 for information. Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour not'rfication. Please call 479-2356, Telephone far the Hearing Impaired, for infarma#ion. Community Development Department Published March 10, 2000 in the Vail Trail • • PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION • • PUBLIC MEETING SCHEDULE Monday, March i 5, 200D MEETING RESULTS Project Orientaitian ! PEC LUNCH -Community Development Department MEMBERS PRESENT Galen Aasland Brian Dayan Torn Weber Chas Bernhardt Site Visits : 1. Vail Mountain School - 5164 Katsas Ranch Road 2. Pearson - 303 Gare Creek Drive #2-C 3. Vail Athletic Club-352 East Meadow Drive 4. Gore Creek Promenade 5. Illig - 706 W. Forest Road 6. Donovan Park -South Frontage Road and Matterhorn Circle 7. Lot 4, Ridge at Vail -1452 Buffehr Creek Road ~o~ Driver: George NOTE: if the P'EC hearing extends until 8:00 p.m.. the board will break far dinner from 6:00 - 6:30 p.m. 11:00 a.m. 12:30 p.m. Public Hearing -Town Council„chambers 2:40 p.m. 1. A request far a minor subdivision, to allow for an amendment to a previously platted building envelope and a revised lot access, located at 1452 Buffehr Creek Rd./Lot 4, Ridge at Vail. Applicant: Mike Young Planner: George Ruther MOTIQN: Brian Doyon SEGOND; Chas Bernhardt VOTE: 4-0 APPROVED WITH 2 CONDITIONS: That the developer submits a complete set of engineered plans for the required improvements to the private drive. The plans shall be required to comply with the applicable Town of Vail Development Standards. The plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Town of Vail Public Works Department prior to appearing before the Town of Vaii Design Review Board for final review. C~ MEMBERS ABSENT John Schofield Diane G©Iden Doug Cahill ~. li 1~1WN ffF 4'AIL 2. That the developer records an amended plat for Lot 4 with the Eagle County Clerk & Recorder's office prior to the issuance of a building permit. 2. A request for variances from Section 12-fiD-6, and Section 12-14-6, Tvwn of Vail Code, to allow for an extended entry, trash enclosure and deck expansion, located at 7D6 W. Forest RoadfLot 9, Block 1, Vail Village 6`h Filing. Applicant: Cliff lllig, represented by Beth Levine Planner; Allison Ochs MOTION: Brian Doyon SECOND: Chas Bernhardt VOTE: 4-0 APPROVED WITH 1' CONDITION: 1. That a limit of disturbance be established at the rear of the unit and no development is to occur beyond this line in the future. 3. A request for a variance from Sections 12-6H-6 and' 12-14-6, Town of Vail Code, to allow for the addition. of gross residential floor area and balconies within required setbacks located at 303 Gore Creek Drive, Vail Townhouse #2-CILot 2, Block 5, Vail Village 1 ~} Filing. Applicant: Vicki Pearson, represented by Ron Diehl, Architect Planner: Ann Kjerulf MOTION: Tom Weber SECOND: Brian Doyon VOTE: 4-g TABLED 4. A request for a work session to discuss a proposed major amendment to Special Development District #4 {Cascade Village}, located at 1 Q00 S. Frontage Road West {Glen Lyon Office Building)/Lot 54, Block K, Glen Lyon Subdivision. Applicant: Dundee Realty, represented by Segerberg Mayhew Architects Planner: George Ruther WORKSESSION - NO VOTE 5. A request for an exterior alteration and a conditional use permit for a fractional fee club and a parking variance, to allow for the redevelopment of the Vail Athletic Club, located at 352 East Meadow Drive/A part of Tract B, Vail Village 151 Filing. Applicant; VML, L.L.C. Planner: George Ruther MOTION: Brian Doyon SECOND: Chas Bernhardt VOTE: ~_p APPROVED WITH 8 CONDITIONS: 1. That the developer submits a complete set of engineered plans for the required streetscape improvements. The plans shall be required to comply with the applicable Town of Vail Development Standards. The plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Tvwn of Vail Public Works Department prior to appearing before the Town of Vail Design Review Board for final review of the streetscape improvements. The plans shall receive final approval prior to the issuance of a building permit 2. That the developer records adeed-restriction for the new Type Ili Employee Housing Unit in the Vail Athletic Club & Spa with the Eagle County Clerk ~ Recorder's office prior to the issuance of a building permit. 2 3. That the developer submits an application tv the Town of Vail Community Development Department for a conditional use permit to allow for the construction of one new Type II[ Employee Housing Unit in the Vail Athletic Club & Spa and that the permit be approved by the Planning & Environmental Commission prior to the issuance of a building permit. 4. That the developer submits a tree preservation plan to the Town of Vail Community Development Department for review and approval prior to the issuance of a building permit. 5. That the developer submits a construction staging and access plan to the Town of Vail Community Development Department for review and approval prior to the issuance of a building permit. The plan shall include the location of a construction fence and erosion control fence to preserve and protect the Gore Greek riparian corridor. 6. That the developer pays the Tawn of Vail $13,620, as previously agreed to, for previous streetscape improvements already completed by the Town of Vail on behalf of the Vail Athletic Club 8~ Spa. 7. That the developer submits a comprehensive sign and e~rterior lighting program for the Vail Athletic Club ~ Spa to the Tawn of Vail Community Development Department for review and approval prior to the issuance of a building permit. &. That if the her`ght increases after the DRB review, it will come back to the PEC far another review. 6. A work session to discuss a conditional use permit to allow for a proposed expansion at Vail Mountain School, located at 3160 Katsos Ranch RoadlPart of Lot 12, Block 2, Vail Village 12'h Piling. Applicant: Vail Mountain School, represented by Gwathmey Pratt Schultz Architects Planner: Brent Wilson WORKSESSION - NO VOTE 7. A PEC review ofi proposed modifications to the Gare Creek Flood Plain, located at the Gore Creek Whitewater Park, Gvre Creek Promenade/Tracts I & A, Block 5B, Vail Village 1s' Filing. Applicant: Vail Valley Tourism and Convention Bureau Planner: Brent Wilson WaRK5ESSION - NO VOTE B, A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for the conversion of existing hotel rooms into employee housing units, located at 2211 N. Frontage Rd. West Vail Lodge)/Lot 1, Vail dos Schvne #3. Applicant: Recut Corporation Planner Brent Wilson MOTIQN: Brian Doyon SECQND: Chas Bernhardt VOTE: 4-0 APPRQVED W[TIi 1D CONDITIONS; 3 1, The approval will not be valid unless the Vail Town Council approves the pending ' proposal to amend Section 13-7 ("Condominiums and Condominium Conversions") of the Town of Vail Code. This amendment is necessary to allow far the conversion of accommodation units to condominiumized employee housing units. The applicant shall demonstrate compliance with all provisions of the Town of Vail Subdivision Regulations. 2, All employee housing units created with this proposal will be deed-restricted in accordance with the provisions of Section 12-Z 3, Tawn of Vail Code ("Employee Housing"'}, prior to the issuance of a building permit for any improvements on the property. 3. The applicant shall provide the Tawn of Vail a pedestrian easement for the existiing sidewalk located at the south end of the subject property along North Frontage Road. 4. The applicant shall complete and improve the existing unfinished retaining wall at the north end of the subject property. This improvement is subject to approval by the Town's Design Review Board. 5. In accordance with the anticipated impacts generated by the provision of employee housing units upon the Town's transit system, the applicant shall provide a pedestrian stair connection between the berm at the north end of the parking lot and the existing Town of Vail bus stop along Chamonix Lane. This improvement will be contained entirely on both the subject property and the Town of Vai! right-af-way. This improvement is subject to approval by the Town's Design Review Board. 6, Landscaping along the parking area and lot perimeter will be provided in accordance with the provisions of Section 12-1 t, Town of Vail Code {"Design Review"'}. Compliance with these provisions will be determined by the Town`s Design Review Board. 7. The applicant will obtain an encroachment agreement far the placement of any parking facilities within platted easements. Additionally, the proposed parking plan shall comply with the town's development standards and will be approved by staff during the design review process. 8. The applicant shall complete additional exterior improvements (if applicable) tv be determined by the Town's Design Review Board. 3. That the pedestrian path be formalized !n the northwest comer. 10. That There 6e more screening, in the farm of landscaping to the northeast corner of the lot. 9. A final review of the proposed changes to the Town of Vail's parking pay-in-lieu policy and proposed amendments to Chapter 12-10, Town Cade. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Brent Wilson TABLED C7 4 It • 10. Final review of the Town of Vail's revised parking generation analysis and proposed amendments to Chapter 12-10, Town Code. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Brent Wilson TABLED 11. A joint work session with the Design Review Board to discuss the proposed development plan/master plan and a conditional use permit for a park and recreation facility for an approximately i 2 acre unplatted parcel of land zoned General Use and Residential Cluster, commonly referred to as the lower bench of Donovan Park, located south of the South Frontage Road and east and north of Matterhorn Circle. Applicant: Town of VaiWail Recreation District Planner: Dominic Mauriello WORKSESSION - NO VOTE 12. Information Update Four, two-year term PEC vacancies - (Galen Aasiand, Brian Doyon, Diane Golden and Tom Weber). PEC REPRESENTATIVE AT DRB FOR 21a(10- Doug Cahill - Jan-Mar '00 - Apr-Jun '00 - Jul-Sep '00 - Oct-Dec '00 13. Approval of February 28, 2000 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. Please call 479-2138 for information. Sign language interpretation avai]able upon request with 24 hour notification. P9ease call 479-235fi, Telephone for the Hearing IRnpaired, for information. Community Development Department • MEMQRANDClM TC7: Planning & Environmental Commission FRaM: Community Development Department DATE: March 13, 2~g0 SUBJECT: A request for a minor subdivision, pursuant to Chapter 13-4 of the Subdivisian Regulations of the Town of Vail, to allow far the modification of the platted building envelape location for Lat ~, Ridge at Vail Subdivisian, Second Amendment, 1452 Ridge Lane. Applicant: Mike Young Planner: George Bother • 1. DESCRIPTION QF THE MWQR AMENDMENT REQUEST The applicant, Mike Young, is requesting a minor amendment to Lot 4, Ridge at Vail Subdivisian, Second Amendment, to allow for the elimination of the existing bulldirtg envelape. The existing building envelope is generally located at the eastern corner of the lot and is approximately 45 feet by 60 feet in size and comprises 2,4a{~ square feet. The applicant is proposing to eliminate the existing building envelope and apply standard Residential Cluster zone district setback requirements to the lot. The setback requirements for the Residential Cluster zone district are prescribed in Section 12-6E-6 of the Vail Town Code. According to Section 126E-6, the minimum front setback shall be 20 feet and the side and rear setbacks shall be 15 feet. The applicant believes that the imposition of standard setback requirement and the site planning standards afi the adopted design guidelines will ensure that the intent of a building envelope is met. The new location of the proposed residence remains in the eastern comer of the lot to insure views to the Gore Range. A plan illustrating the existing and proposed building locations has been attached for reference. The applicant is also requesting as part of the amendment an increase in allowable GRFA to allow for the construction of a Type II Employee Housing Unit. The total amount of additional GRFA requested. is 5d0 sq. ft. The applicant has also requested an additional 3aQ sq. ft. of garage credit. If approved, the total allowable GRPA for Lat 4 would be increased to 3,125 sq. ft. All other development standards would remain unchanged. II. STAFF RECOMMENDATI(7N The Community Development Department recommends approval of the applicant's request for a minor amendment to Lot 4, Ridge at Vail Subdivisian, Second Amendment to allow for the elimination of the existing building envelope. Staff's recommendation of approval is based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Section IV of this memorandum. F:leueryanelpecMemas 11 ot4Q228(70 ,, 1Y 1~1WN OF PAIL ~ Should the Planning & Environmental Commission choose to approve the minor amendment request, stafif would recommend that the Commission make the following finding, "That the minor amendment complies with the criteria as outlined in section IV of this memorandum acrd the r`ntent of the originally platted building envelope wi11 be met in that a proposal for construction on the site shall be required to comply with Chapter 11 of the Town of Vail Zoning Regulations.'" Should the Planning & Environmental Commission choose to approve the rninar amendment request, staff would recommend that the following conditions be made park of the approval, Thai the developer submits a complete set of engineered plans far the required improvements to the private drive. The plans shall be required to comply with the applicable Town of Vaii Development Standards. The plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Town of Vail Public Works Department prior to appearing before the Town of Vaii Design Review Board for final review. 2. That the developer records an amended plat for Lot 4 with the Eagle County Clerk & Recorder's office prior to the issuance of a building permit. III. BACKGROUND Lot 4, Ridge at Vail, is zoned Residential Cluster according to the Official Town of Vail Zoning Map. However, the Declaration of Protective Covenants for the Ridge at Vail, which was executed on July 29, 198Q, set forth development parameters far ail lots associated with the Ridge at Vail Subdivision. For the most part, these protective covenants are more restrictive than the Residential Cluster zone district development standards. Although the Town of Vail does not enforce private agreements, the applicant has indicated it is his intention to design and build the proposed residence in conformance with these protective covenants. The maximum amount of GRFA which will be constructed on the site is limited by the Second Amendment of the Ridge at Vail plat, to a maximum of 2,40Q square feet. This platted GRFA maximum is more restrictive than the GRFA which could be constructed on this lot under the protective covenants or under Residential Cluster zoning. On January t4, 190, the Town of Vail mailed a letter to the Eagle County Planning Commission commenting on the proposed preliminary plan for The Ridge at Vail WUith regard to Lot 4, the Town of Vail Planning & Environmental Commission had the following comments: The excessive slopes on Lot 4 make it almost unworkable. if Lot 4 were deleted, the road could be shortened and the western n?ost townhouse on Lot 5 could be moved down oft the ridgeline. The architect for the proiecr is confident a well designed building would make Lot 4 acceptable. If Lot 4 is incorporated into Lot 5 and the building design can be tied to condominiumization approvaf, we will review the design more favorably. Rpproval of any building on Lot 4 will be given only if the design is for an unobtrusive building, which steps into the slope and is located on slopes under 40%. F:leverycanelp eclmem os U ot4022860 2 i On February 11, 198Q, the Board of County Commissioners approved the preliminary plan for The Ridge at Vail. The approval was far 6 townhames, 3 duplex lots and one single-family lot (Lot 4). On July 25, 1981, PEC approved a minor subdivision request for Phase 1V of the Valley (The Ridge at Vail), which combined a portion of Lot ~ and 5. Formerly Lot 5 had an "arm" which extended along the top of the ridge to the west along the north side of Lat 4. Far maintenance purposes and to make Lot 4 a more viable lot, this Lvt 5 "arm" was incorporated into Lot 4. A condition of the 1981 approval was that the existing building envelope remain as approved. Prior to the combination of the "arm" of Lat 5 with Lot 4, the area of Lot 4 was 14,41$ sq. ft. In August of 1985, a request to relocate the building envelope was submitted to the Town. This application was later withdrawn. On June .22, 1996, the Town of Vail Planning & Environmental Commission unanimously approved a minor amendment to the building envelope location on Lot 4. In granting an approval, the Gornmission placed the following conditions of approval on the minor amendment: 1. 1Nthin the southern 20 feet a# the proposed building envelope, the roof structure shall not exceed an elevation of 85Q3 feet. 2. On the balance of the site (north portion of the site), the maximum building height shall not exceed 3© feet Pram existing or proposed grade, whichever is mare restrictive. 3. A driveway/garage access envelope shall be indicated on the final amended plat. 4. Any garage associated with the project shall be located in the northeast corner of the site. 5. Allowable GRFA shall not exceed 2,400 sq. ft + 225 sq. ft. credit for a tote! of 2,625 sq. ft. IV. MINUR SUBaIVISION RI*VIEW CRITERIA One basic premise of subdivision regulations is that the minimum standards for the creation of a new Ivt must be met. Although this plat amendment involves a minor re- piatting of an existing building envelope and an amendment to a plat note, there is no other process for review of such a request other than the minor subdivision process. As a result, this project will be reviewed under the same criteria as outlined in Title 13 of the Town of Vaii Municipal Code. The first set of review criteria to be considered by the PEC for a minor subdivision application is as follows. A. Lot Area Although this application will affect the seize of an existing building envelope, there will be no net change to the existing platted lot area for this development. F :leveryonelpeclmem oslJat4022800 B. 1=rvntaae The Vaii Municipal Cade requires that lots in the Residential Cluster zone district have a minimum frontage of 30'. The proposal will not affect the frontage for this lot. C. Site Dimensions The Val Municipal Code requires that each site be of a size and a shape capable of enclosing a square area, 80" on each side, within its boundaries. This application wll not impact this requirement. The second set of review criteria to be considered with a minor subdiviision request is as outlined in the Subdivision Reg~alatiorts, and is as fiollows: The burden of proof shall rest with the applicant to show that the application is in compliance with the intended purpose of Title 13, Chapter 4, the zoning ordinance, and other pertinent regulations tha# the PEC deems applicable. Due consideration shall be given to the recommendations by public agencies, utility companies and other agencies. consulted under Section 13-3-3C. The PEC shall review the application and consider its appropriateness in regard to Town policies relating to subdivision control, densities proposed, regulations, ordinances and resolutions and other applicable documents, effects on the aesthetics of the Town, environmental integrity and compatibility with surrounding uses. The subdivision purpose statements are as (allows: i . To inform each subdivider of the standards and criteria by which development and proposals will be evaluated and to provide irtformatiara as to the type and extent of improvements required. Staff Response: One purpose of subdivision regulations, and any development control, is to establish basic ground rules which the staff, the PEC, the applicant and the community can fallow in the public review process. Although this request does not invatve the creation of a new subdivision or a resubdivisian of an existing parse! of land, id is the appropriate process to amend a plat and building envelope. 2_ To provide far the subdivision of property in the future without conflict with development on adjacent property. Staff Response: The proposed plat amendment does not create any conflict with development on adjacent land. The applicant's request is consistent with the standards applied to other units on the property. • F :leveryan e0p~clm emosV a]402284fl 4 3. To protect and conserve the value of land throughout the municipality and the value of buildings and improvements on the land. Staff Resoonse: Staff believes this proposal will not be detrimental to the value of land throughout Vail, nor will it be detrimental to the value pf land in the immediate area. 4. To insure that subdivision of property is in compliance with the Town Zoning Ordinance, to achieve a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land uses, consistent with municipal development ob~ectiveS. Staff Response: Staff believes the proposed minor amendment will pat preclude a harmonious, convenient and workable relationship among land uses consistent with municipal development objectives. 5. To guide public and private policy and action in order to provide adequate and efficient transportation, water, sewage, schools, parks, playgrounds, recreational and other public requirements and facilities and generally to provide that public facilities will have sufficient capacity to serve the proposed subdivision. Staff Resoonse: The subdivision regulations are intended primarily to address impacts of large-scale subdivisions of property, as opposed to this particular proposal to amend this plat. Staff does not believe this proposal will have any negative impacts on any of the above-listed public facilities. B. To provide for accurate legal descriptions of newly subdivided land and to establish reasonable and desirable construction, design standards and procedures. Staff Response; This goal of the subdivision regulations will not be impacted by the proposed minor amendment. 7. To prevent the pollution of air, streams, and ponds, to assure adequacy of drainage facilities, to safeguard the water table and to encourage the wise use and management of natural resources throughout the municipality in order to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the community and the value of land. Staff Resoonse: This proposal will have no impact on these issues. • F:leveryanelpeclmemasVot4022800 . . • MEM©RANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: March 13, 2000 SUBJECT: A request for variances from Section 12-6D-6, and Section 12-14-6, Town of Vail Code, to allow for an addition and deck expansion, located at 706 W. Forest Raad/Lot 9; Block 1, Vail Village 6tn Filing. Applicant: Cliff Illig, represented by 6eth Levine Planner: Allison Ochs BACKGROUND ANQ DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant, Cliff Illig, represented by Beth Levine, is requesting variances from Sec#ian 12-6D-6, and Section 12-14-fi, Town of Vail Code, #o allow far an extended entry, trash enclosure and deck expansion, located at 706 W. Forest RoadfLot 9, Block 1, Vail Village 6tn Filing. The addition is proposed for only the secondary unit and includes two dormer additions at the basic ado not require a variance), a dormer addition in the front, a trash enclosure beneath an existing deck, an extended entry, and deck expansion. The existing duplex was constructed in 13$0. Because the lot has slopes in excess of 40%, the house is built into the front setback, which was allowed at the time of construction. The primary side of the duplex received a variance in June of 199$ to allow for the enclosure of a deck. within the front setback. ©riginaily, the primary side applied for a variance which would allow for a dormer addition in the front setback. A mo#ion was made by the Planning and Environmen#ai Commission to deny the variance requests. However, the motion failed due to a lack of a second. The applicant then requested to be tabled and the dormer addition in the setback was removed from the proposal. The variance for the deck enclosure was then granted with one condition: That a limit of disturbance line be established at the rear of the unit and na development was to occur beyond this fine in the future. The following is a description of each of the variance requests: • Dormer: adds mass in the setback, but does not alter the existing footprint of the building. (12-6D-6) • Trash Enclosure: decreases side setback from 15' to 6', but is beneath an existing deck. 127.5 sq, ft. of GRFA is added in setbacks. (12-6D-6) • Deck: expands existing front deck around to meet the existing side deck and adds approximately 122 sq. ft, of deck area into front setback. Does not change existing front deck setback. (12-14-6) Entry-way: increases foot print of building, and adds mass in the setback. does not extend past existing building and is in the location of an existing deck. 64 sq. ft. of site coverage and approximately 120 sq. ft. of GRFA is added in the front setback. (12-6D-6) • ._, ,4 1Y}PP.!V QF 4AIL The proposed dormer additions at the rear of the unit do not require a variance. Approximately 35D sq, ft. of GRFA is added from the additions. Reductions of the plans, along with the applicant's statement of request have been attached for reference. Correspondence Pram the adjacent properky owner has also been included for reference. II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends approval of the requested setback variances (sec#ion 12-6D-6 and 92-14-6) to a11aw far the entry addi#ion, trash enclosure, dormer addition, and deck expansion subject to the following findings: That the granting of the setback variance does not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the PrimarylSecondaryIone District. 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the variance is warranted because there are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the Primary/Secondary Residential Zone District. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve these variance requests, staff recommends the following condition: That a limit of disturbance be established at the rear of the unit and no development is to occur beyond this line in the future. III. RQLES 4F THE REVIEWING BOARDS Planning and Environmental Commission: Action: The PEC is responsible for final approvalldenial of a variance. The PEC is responsible for evaluating a proposal for: 7. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity, or to attain the objectives of this Title without grant of special privilege. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utifties, and public safety. 4. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. • Design Review Board: Action: The DRB has NO review authari#y on a variance, but must review any accompanying DRB application. The DRB is responsible for evaluating the DRB proposal for: 1. Architectural compatibility with other structures; the land and surroundings 2. Fitting buildings into landscape 3. Configuration of building and grading of a site which respects the topography 4. Removal/Preservation of trees and native vegetation 5. Adequate provision for snow storage on-site 6, Acceptability of building materials and colors 7. Acceptability of roof elements, eaves, overhangs, and other building forms 8. Provision of landscape and drainage 9. Provision of fencing, walls, and accessory structures 1 {~. Circulation and access to a site including parking, and site distances 11. Provision of outdoor lighting IV. ZONING STATISTICS Lot Size: 58,498 sq. ft. Zoning: Primary/Secondary Residential Hazards: Slopes in excess of 30% Allowed PIS Existing Proposed GRFA: 7,525 sq. ft. Primary 4,430 sq. ft. 6,951 sq. ft. 4,232 sq. ft. 7,303 sq. ft. nv change Secondary 3,(395 sq. ft. 2,719 sq. ft. 3,071 sq. ft. Setbacks: Front: 20' 9' 9' V~les# Side: 15" 15' 6' Rear: 15' 175' 172' Deck: 15' 8' 8' Site Coverage: 8,775 sq. ft. (15%} 3,866 sq. ft. (7°f°) V. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS A. Gonsiderativn of Factors f2egarding the Setback Variances: The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or patentiaf uses and structures in the vicinity. Staff feels that there will be no detriment tv other uses and structures in the vicinity. All of the proposed additions are minimal and will only serve #o enhance the surrounding uses and structures. This proposal will also help to match this unit with the improvements done to the other unit in 1998. Currently, the stain of the siding does not match, nor dv the deck railings. The applicant is proposing to match all materials and colors of the other unit. Staff feels that these improvements will be a benefit to the neighborhood. • , In addition, the Design Review Board conceptually reviewed the plan at its March 1, 2000, meeting and had no negative comments. The QRB has directed staff to `°staff approve" the proposal should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve the variance requests. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achiieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without a grant of special priivilege. Due to the extremely steep slopes in this neighborhood, staff feels that there are extreme circumstances which warrant the requested variances. Staff feels that it is important to minimize site disturbance to these extremely steep slopes at the rear of the house, which pushes development to the front of the house. The house was originally allowed in the fron# setback. due to these steep stapes. There are other residences in this neighborhood that encroach into setbacks, via either variances or built under regulations which allowed these encroachments, including lots 10, 12, and 13. The other unit at this local"ion received a valiance to enclose an existing deck in the front setback. While staff recognizes that these requests are beyond a deck enclosure, the proposal does not encroach any further into the front setback than the existing building. Staff does not believe that this is a grant of special privilege. 3. The effect of the requested variance an light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. S#aff does not believe that there will be any negative impacts associated with this proposal, if constructed, an the above-referenced criteria. B. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the fallowing findings before granting a variance: 1. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, ar materially injurious to properties or improvements in the VEClrllty. 3. That the variance is warranted far one or more of the following reasons. a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result. in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. • b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicai,le to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone- c. The strict interpretation ar enforcement of the specitled regulation would deprive the applicant of ,privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. • • Beth Levine, Architect P.O.Box 1825 Avon, LO 81620 (970)926-5099 (phone) (970)926-2993 (fax) Tllig Residence Remodel 706 W. Forest Road Vail, CO 81657 Lot: 9 Block: 1 Filing: Vail Village 6''' Parcel.: 210107211022 Written Statement 1-31-UU The Duplex at 7I}6 Forest Road was remodeled on the east side in 1498. The owner of the west half would like to remodel the west side. The east side did an extensive remodel and thus left the west half looking very poorly because the east side no longer matches the west side. Cliff Illig's intent of his remodel is to make both sides look like a common home again. Cliffs intention is to match all the east halfs new details with regard to railings, color and expansive dormers. Thus, the west half would like to have a variance for an expanded entrance and a trash enclosure as was done on the east half The remodel on the west half will help the entire structure to comply with the T,o.V. regulations by making bath halves read as one structure again. There will be no further effect of light, air, distribution of population, transpartatiorl, traffic facilities, utilities or public safety on Forest Road as a result of this addition. • ~+.., v, ~ , u r"'Y ~_ • - ~ _ - y is yil ~~ ~V r /~~ z ~: 4 ~yl ~ ~ "' --- _ at l``` 'a ... ~i•. 1f y ` s. r/P ~\ i ^p } - ~,-~ t ~ 21~;, ; s '• ~°~a ~,~ :3 ~ , !w u~ ~ f .yi ~ ~ l , ~ ~-.. r ~V4i J 5, f 1}1`~'~ Y y14.dy5 hl•G~. ~ .Y.t f~ ~ ~' ~-. . ail ~~~~y-~~~ ~y ,V ~~ \, ~. ~ ~}! r ., s ~ 11 ~`~ +. Lam-, ~ -`-_ ~ l 4~^ l1~ .ti}1 ~/ ay ~.. ... ,~~ i~~ ~ _ F i9~ _ i i~ ~t r~ F~ - - j ~ • ~.M .... 1` ,i ' ~...` ' t ~ ~ l Y ~ S ~j~ i1~ n ~> l A ~ ~ ~t ~~ ~ ~• ~r ~` ,5~ ~\F'. 1 a155 ~.,.A.~• \ J\.l 't\l .~ p1 ~~`,V ~ ~. _ ~ 4 , ~ .rte' '~. ~5 `l ~~`, .w ~ \` C~ ~ \µ ~ Y ~/ ~{~ p', 7 t,`yo ,- L - ' ` Y ~`''•~, ,, . • l , 5 ~~ ~~ I ~ : l \ utl } 1} 1 r -1t. 16 ~~ ~~ 1~ ~ r ~. • t ~.- ~ . ~ ~ U 4 ~ ~ ~{-. I ` 1 °,`i p ` ~~~` 1 r,~ ~ 1 4 4 ti~ 5 ...' 5t~ `a r~~~~. - ~ ~ ,! . I.~ U ` _~y ~ {~q `Ia _ c`~G.~ Wes; C bt ,~-,~~ erg}"~~~ ~J 0~ ~~~ ~~~ y,gt a °S' ~ ~ T- ~_, . ~ ~~~ ~- ti Y °j n w- ..~._ _..~.. ---__..___ ~ ' . ._~4 ~, '° ~ u ~ Z !if ~ .~. ~ fir 71 _yf V ~ •!' .c rl~ _ _ ~r, L~~ ~ ~ 7 ! ~ I'." ~` ~ _ ., .~ ~Y II ~q ~. i Y ~ ~ • ~;~ r ~ ~ rya w5 0. + ~, , ? r~ ~~ ~ •t I . ~~ ~ ~ # J~1 ~~ ----~----_._ _. _. __ i _~ I' ~ »n _ ~ '~, ~ i w r C~ ~ T ~ ~~ A L ''..J JJJ... .+ :6 ~ ; ~ L ,¢ ;;R • _ 3. ,_ .:.._.._ IG--~_ ~ ~---------~ ~ i ~ ; ~i ~ ~ "° 1. d~ ~ r ~ ~~ ~+ ~k x a ~~~7~ .~ ~x,w~ Beth Levine, Architect P.O. Box 1875 ~'hotographs of Existing Duplex 1-31-00 Avon, CO 81620 ~"he rernodel of the west half of the duplex, the {970)926-~U99 (phone] 111ig Residence, will he built tc~ match the remodel (970)926-2993 (fax} dare in 1998 on the east half of the duplex. Illig Residence Remodel 7U6 W. Forest Road Vai I, CO $1657 Lat: 9 Block: [ Filing: Vail Village 6'~ Parcel :21010721 1022 • '~ +_ _ ~ ( - .. F ~ x .. f ~'~"""" ,r,... -• . - .. ,,~ +~+' . at" ~ y ~° r~ .`~ a ice. ~~,?" ~~ ~J~ .. ~.-~h7."sE- + ~y~ ~ ~~ ttt ~~ ~, j ~~~ U ~../ G~i~w • L: ,~ , '~-~ r i~ ':-~ • • NSA ~nv~stmenfs~ lnrrs~ February 12, 2004 By Certifed Mail-Return Receipt Requested ~C~~~~ F ~ e 1 ~ 2a0a ~~ ~,~~l=ast Preserve c®t~rt ~,r~enwUOCI Village, CCU 80121 303-770-0779 Fax; 303-770-$918 Planning and Envixonrr-ental Co«u~dssian--Please Distribute to All Members Town of Vail 75 South Franta.ge Road 'Vail, COS 1657 Re: 706 Forest Road, Vail, CO Lot 9, Block 1, Vail Village 6th Filing ?06 Forest Road is a property zoned primary-secondary. 't~Ve are the owners of the primary unit at this address. In today's mail, we received notice from the Town of Vail that the owner of the secondary unit is going before this Ca-„~,,ission on February 28, 2001!, seeking a variance in the Town of Vail Code. VVe understand that the Commission does not want to get in the middle of disputes between adjoining landowners. However, we need to make the Co~~u~,ission aware of the fact that the applicant may not have the legal right to proceed with his application for several reasons. We are not merely the adjoining landowners but may in fact be the joint landowners to the property affected by the application. Since the applicant has failed to. provide -us .with .hi,s~rr~pased plans, we have to ~~ly upon the description in the Town's notice that indicates the affected property may be awned jointly with us. When the property was developed, the owners of each unit unit received sole title to the portion of the property them- unit encompassed, with the remaining exterior property being conveyed jointly to both unit owners. To the extent the applicant is attempting to extend the secondary unit into the existing land outside the unit walls, we may in fact be co-owners of the property ai~'ected by the application and, as such, do not agree to o~- otherwise support such application. • • Further, the Townhouse Declaration which encumbers this property requires the consent of the adjoining owner before any +~xterior modifications can be made to the property. The applicant has failed to comply wit1~ this requirement. T1~e applicant has failed to provide us with the relevant irdormation, including architectural plans, f©r us to review, comment on or approve. Having failed to comply with this. fundamental requirement that governs any improvement of the property, the applicant is premature in subnutting this matter to tlxe Commission at this time. We respectfully request that the Corntnission deny this application and otherwise table this matter until t11e applicant has complied with all of the legal requirements to proceed with any exterior work on this property as well as the applicant being able to establish that he has exclusive title to the property on which this work is proposed to be done. Due to prior out-of--town co«~~,itments, we will not be able to attend this hearing to voice these rxaatters in person but request that the issues raised in this letter be heard and relied upon in denying the application. Respectfully submitted., NSA Investments, lnc. - ~ ~~~ ~~ By: I'~ancy S. Adam, President. • MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: March 13, 2{}00 SUBJECT: A request for a variance from Sections 12-6H-6 and 12-14-~i, Town of Vail Code,. to allow for' the addition of gross residential floor area and balconies within required setbacks located at 303 Gore Creek Drive, Vaii Rowhouse #f2-C 1 Lot 2, Block 5, Vaii Village 1st. Applicant: Vicki Pearson, represented by Ron Diehl Planner: Ann Kjerulf f. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant, Vicki Pearson, is proposing a remodel of Vail Rowhouse Unit #2-G. The proposal calls for the addition of gross residential floor area under the 250 ordinance, the relocation of a staircase above an existing shed, and the construction of a deck at the rear of the borne adjacent to Gore Greek and Mill Creek. All improvements would occur above grade as the applicant awns the second and third stories of the building being remodelled. The first floor of the building is a separate unit with a different owner. The Vail Rowhouses were constructed prior to the adoption of zoning regulations and are legally non-conforming in many respects. Due to the existing non-conformity with regard to setbacks, the applicant's proposal requires three variances: The applicant is requesting a r;side setback) variance from section 12-6H-fi in order to relocate a staircase to the west side of the building and bring it into compliance with the uniform building code. The construction of the staircase would further the existing encroachment of the building iota the required 20 foot side setback in the high-density multiple-family ~i-~DMF) zone. The building is presently 15 feet from the property line vn the west side of the property and the construction of the s#aircase above an existing shed would require the building envelope be shifted 2.5 feet closer to the property line resulting in a setback of 12.5 feet. This would also further the existing encroachment of the building envelope into the Mill Creek stream setback from 5 feet to 7.5 feet. 2. The applicant is requesting a second (rear setback) variance from section 12-5H-6 in order to construct a turret feature on the main and upper levels of the building as well as two bay windows on the upper level. These features would result in the addition of building mass. The construction of the turret would increase the existing non-conforming setback from fi.9 fee# to 4.5 feet. 3. The applicant is also requesting a variance from section 12-14-~+ of the supplementary regulations to allow an above-grade deck to encroach more than 5 feet into both the 24 foot required side and rear setbacks in the high-density multiple-family zone. The deck, if built as • .~ ,t TOYS' OF F;4~ 1~ proposed, would be located S feet from rear property line, a 1S foot encroachment in#o the rear setback, It would be approximately 13 feet from the property line on the west side and located completely within the 30 foot Mill Creek stream setback. II. STAFF RIECDMMENDATIQN Staff recommends approval of the request fora (side setback) variance from section 12-6H- 6 to relocate a stairway and bring it into compliance with the tJBC. Staff also recommends approval of the request far a variance from section 12-14-5 for the construction of the deck. These recommendations are based on the following findings: That the granting of the variance from sections 12-6H-6 and 12-14-6 does. not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the High- Density Multiple-Family Zone District. 2. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the applicant's property that do not apply generally to other properties in the High-Density Multiple-Family Zane District. 3. That the granting of the variance will not be de#rimental to the public health, safety or welfare, ar materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 4. With respect to the construction of a deck, that the strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. Staff recommends denial of the request fora {rear setback} variance from section 12-SH-6 to add GRFA and building mass in the rear setback subject to the following findings: That the granting of the variance from sections 12-5H-6 and 12-14-6 would constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limits#ions on other properties in the High-Density Multiple-Family Zone District. 2. That the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would not resul# in practical difficulty or unnecessary physics! hardship inconsistent with the objectives of the Title. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve any or all of these variance requests, staff recommends the following conditions: That the applicant shall be allowed to add no mare than 2SD square feet of GRFA as indicated in the Town of Vail Code and that floor plans will comply with this regulation prior to review by the Design Review Board. 2. That the applicant shall receive al! required condominium association approvals prior to review by the ^esign Review board. 3. That the applicant shall receive approval from all relevant utility authorities prior to any renovation activities in the 10 foot utility easement at the rear of the property. III. ROLES t]F THE REVIEWING Bt.IARDS Planning and Environmental Gommissian~ Action: The PEC is responsible far final approvalidenial of a variance. The PEG is responsible for evaluating a proposal for: 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing ar potential uses and structures in the vicinity. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity, or to attain the objectives of this Title without gran# of special privilege. 3. The effect of the requested variance an light and air, distribution of papulatian, transportation and #raffic facilities, public facili#ies and utilities, and public safety.. 4. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. Design Review Board: Aetian: The l~RB has 1V0 review aufharify on a variance, but must review any accompanying L]RB application. The DRB is respansible for evaluating the D'RB proposal for: 1. Architectural compatibility with other structures, the Sand and surroundings 2. Fitting buildings into landscape 3. Configuration of building and grading of a site which respects the topography 4, RemovalCPreservation of trees and native vegetation 5. Adequa#e provision for snow storage on-site 6. Acceptability of building materials and colors 7. Accep#ability of roof elements, eaves, overhangs, and other building forms 8. Provision of landscape and drainage 9. Provision of fencing, walls, and accessary structures 1(7. Circulation and access to a site including parking, and site distances 11. Provision of outdoor lighting IV. 20NING STATISTICS Lot Size: 16,a5g sq. ft_ 2aning: High Density Multiple Family (HDMF) GRFA: Setbacks: Front: Sides: Rear: Site Coverage: Allowed/Required Existing 250 sq.ft. addition 2t7' 24' 2{}' 9 S' 2t}' fi.9' 8827.5 (55%) 6959 (43°l0 Proaased 3©9 sq. fit. no change 'I Z.5° 4.5' 7116 (44°Jo) 3 V. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS A. Consideration of Factors Reaardina the Site Caveraae and Setback Variances: The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. With the exception of the proposal to add building mass in the rear setback, staff believes that the proposed residential addition is comps#ible with the surrounding development. The Vail Rawhouses have a variety of architectural styles and materials and are legally non-conforming structures. Recognizing the existing non-conformities, staff has supported variance requests in the past. For instance, a side setback variance was granted to lot 11 in 1984 and a variance was also granted to lot 13 in 1993 in order for a deck to encroach further into a rear setback than would normally be permitted in the HDMF zone. Staff does not support the addition of GR1=A and building mass in the rear setback as there are other locations in the applicant's residence where GRFA could be added without the need for a variance. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without a grant of special privilege. The requested variances would allow the applicant to remodel an aged structure bringing it into compliance with the building code and improving its physical appearance which is highly visible from the Covered Bridge, a major pedestrian thoroughfare. However, the addition of the turret would increase the building envelope and encroachment. into the rear setback having an overall impact an bulk and mass and light and air into adjacent buildings. With respect to the proposed deck, under normal circumstances; a deck at a height of more than 5 feet would be allowed to project up to 5 feet or half way into a required setback. The applicant is proposing an above grade deck which projects 4 feet from the main level with no impact to the site below in the rear setback. In the side setback, the applicant has attempted to keep the deck in line with the exis#ing shed to minimize the impact of the deck on overal mass. Granting of the requested side setback variance far the relocation of the staircase and variance from the supplemental regulation far the construction of the deck would not constitute a grant of special priviledge to the applicant. Granting of the requested rear setback variance far addition of bulk and mass in the rear of the property, adjacent to Gore Greek, would constitute a grant of special priviledge. From an overall perspective, there has been a strong effort to minimize site disturbance while improving the visual appearance of the building and.. allowing the applicant reasonable enjoyment of her property. • • 3. The effect of the requested variance o~n fight and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and pui~lic safety. With respect to the addition of GRFA in the rear setback, staff believes that the resulting bulk and mass would have a negative impact an light and air for adjacent properties. 8. The Piannina and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before arantino a variance: 1. That. the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on o#her properties classified in the same district. 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, ar materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the variance is warranted far qne or mere of the following reasons: a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. b, There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances ar conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. c. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of ether properties in the same district. ,,~ J J ~~ ~ t i r r u s ~ ~° ` ~ ~ ~~~ N _ ti ~ a ~t ~ o ~_ ~' ~ ~ ~ ~' 1 ~ `~ ac ~, ~~ r L 'S ~ ~ i ?. t ~~~' ~ ~ _ ~. -_ ~ °~ ' `~ Z ~ ~ ~ w ~, ~ `r +w ~ " 7 .., s 'x o y.'0 J a Y wd ~~ ~ j~ ~ ~ ~, ~ ~__-+ r_- Y- 1 _ t s h. ~ ~~ ~ ~~ r F i ., ~y~ i ~~ '' `~ 1 { s ~ ' ~\ ~ ~ ~ ,, ., ~~ ~ ~ ~I~ -~ .~ , ,, ~~ i ~ -jF' iL ~ e~ ;~ ~ ~ `. i ~ ~ ~ ~ ,~ .t i__ ,.. '1 __ _ ~ N ti-•~ ~"" F ~I I~ ~~ -. f ° ~~ ~~ ~~ _ -! ~~ ----. .I ~ ?~~. f~ v,. ~+ ° $ - a- . _ ~~ ~ ~~ • ~ I ~ ' t '~ ~ t. ~ ~` ~,o ~ -~ '' ,_ ~ i_. ~ ~ ~ . j. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~; .~ - ,. ~a _ ,. ~ ~ ~F ~'~ ~* ~ ~.~ m ~~ its o c-il ~'~L~ i I~~ _~ l- ~I . ~~ i1~ 'v~ i ~,, i q!~~h~ ~I lip _~~i, t4 "7G 0 k- d } J ~~ - ~~ ~~~~ ~u~ Da ~~ ,, , ~~f -. ,~-,~~ µ`~ I~. MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FRAM: Community development Department DATE: March 13, 2bbb SL9BJECT: A request for a worksessian to discuss a proposed major amendment to Special Development District No. 4 (Gascade Village), revising the Glen Lyon Office Building site {Area D), located at 1 bbb S. Frontage Road West/Lot 54, Glen Lyon Subdivision. Applicant: Dundee Realty, represented by Segerberg- Mayhew Architects Planner: George Rather I. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applioant, Dundee Realty, represented by Segerberg-Mayhew Architects is requesting a major amendment to SDD #4, Development Area D. The purpose of this request is to allow far the modification to the approval granted by the Town last year for the expansion to the existing building (Ord. No,14, Series of 1999). The applicant is proposing to construct a 37,088 sq. ft. (gross) office 'building addition to the east of the existing building, a 3,270 sq, ft. modification to the existing building by adding hallways and an elevator, and two EHU's (1,127 sq. ft. and 738 sq. ft.). The resulting total ieaseable area of the building is 35,741 sq. ft. which requires a tote! of 147 parking spaces. The new building is proposed to be constructed above two levels of a parking structure containing 121 parking spaces. The east end of the site will also contain a surface parking lot (with a level of parking below) of 20 parking spaces, for a total of 142 parking spaces. The proposal also includes aligning the entrance of the parking lot with that of the Vail Professional Building directly across the street and re-striping of the traffic lanes on the South Frontage Road to accommodate turn lanes and bike lanes. The purpose of this worksession meeting is to 1. review the proposed development standards for the Glen Lyon Office Building, 2. discuss the employee housing requirements of the project, and 3. present the comments of the Town Council and Qeskgn Review Board worksessions. 11, EAGKGROUND The original Cascade Village SDD was approved in 1976 and has since been amended several times. The development plan approved in 1988 for this area included additional office space and a micro-brewery. ~. TOWN Oi VAIL in 1999, the PEC and Vail Town Council approved a major amendment to 5DD #4 to allow fora proposed expansion to the existing Glen l yon Gffice Building. Please refer to the Zoning Analysis for a comparison of the previous approval to the present proposal. III. PROJECT PROS AND CONS Bene#its • Provides a substantial increase in office space in the Town of Vail • Improves and redevelops an unsightly area and older building in the Town of Vail • The 2000 proposal has an overall reduction in traffic impact and volume from the 1999 approval • The project generally complies with the Town. of Vail Land Use Plan Negatives • The building is substan#ially larger than the previous approvals lV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION As this is a request for a worksessian to discuss the proposed major amendment, staff will not be forwarding a recommendation to the PEC at this time. Staff will provide a recommendation at the time of final review. The final review is currently scheduled far Monday, February 28, 2Q00. 11. DISCUSSION ISSUES Staff has identified a number of issues that should be discussed in greater detail between the applicant, staff and the Commission. Those issues are listed below: 1. Pre3posed Development Standards The 2400 proposal results in various changes to the development standards permitted by the 1999 approval. The most notable changes are an eleven foot reduction in the Gore Creek stream setback, 6 fewer parking spaces than required by Code, and four new dwelling units on the top floor of the building. Staff would suggest that the applicant and Commission discuss the appropriateness of the proposed changes to the development standards. Staff would recommend that the applicant be required to maintain the 50-foot setback from the centerline of Gore Creek. Zoning Analysis The development statistics for the proposed buildings in Area D are shown below (Note: Deviations from the 7999 SDD approval are indicated in BALD) Zoning: There is na underlying zoning prescribed for this 5DD t_ot Area: 78,307.8 sq. ft. 2 • Standard Height: 1999 SDD Approval 72' maximum Setbacks: Per development plan: I~ : 1 S: 10' E: 155' W: 135' Stream Setback: Site Coverage: landscaping: Parking: Commercial Floor Area: 55' 30% (23,492 5q. ft,) 59.7% {46,757.81 sq. ft-) 143 required per code 147 provided. 35,741 sq. ft. totallleaseabie 37,088 sq. ft. totallgross {14,000 sq. ft. gross existing) Density: G Ft FA: Loading and Delivery; 2. Employee Housing 0 C~ Us 2 EHUs D U - 0 sq. ft. EHU - 1,865 sq. ft. 1 berth required per code 20D4 SDD Proposal 72' maximum iv: rr.J'l/~f~~r! E: 164"(+9') W: 151 "(+16') 50' (-5 feet) 29.4% {23,037 sq. ft.} 60.9% (47,678.81 sq. ft,} (+921 Sq. ft.) 147 required per cede 142 provided {-6 spaces) 34,300 sq. ft. totalfleasable {-1,441 sq. ft.) 4 DUs (+4} 2 EHUs DU - 8,000 sq. ft. {+ $,17QQ) EHU - 1,865 sq. ft 1 berth provided The applicant is proposing the same quantity of employee housing units {2 EHUs) as was previously approved. The scale of the project and the type of use proposed will not generate as many employees as the previous 1988 approval, since that project included a micro-brewery and restaurant. The applicant has been working with the 2 EHU requirement for the past several years. A recent study {June 1998} on Town of Vail businesses shows that professional offices in Vail, on average, operate with 5.86 employees per 1,000 sq. ft. of net leaseable floor area. With other SDD projects the Town Council has required that 30% of the demand generated be accommodated either on-site or off-site, in the form of deed restricted housing. The currently accepted standard for minimum square footage of housing required per person is 350 sq. ft. If we apply these numbers to this project we find the following: Employee Housing Generation 25,241 sq. ft. {net leaseable floor area) x 5.86 employees/1,000 sq. ft. = 148 employees 3 Employees to provide housing for = 148 x 30°/d = 44.4 X45} ernpioyees Translates to 15,544 sq. ft. of housing Staff would suggest that the applicant and Commission discuss the appropriateness of providing more employee housing units in the building. A review of the plans indicates that a large portion of the top floor of the building could be used for residential purposes. 3. Vail Tawn CounciillD~esign Review Board On Tuesday, February 15 and Wednesday, March 1, the applicant met with the Vail Town Council and the Design Review Board. The following is summary of the comments and input provided by each of the respective boards: Vail Town Council - (Individual Member Comments) • The scale and mass of the building needs to be reduced and stepped down at the east and west ends as suggested by the Design Review Board, • The stream setback shall not be encroached upon. • The employee housing unit requirement as determined. by the Employee generation Analysis shall apply.. • No tree lass shall be permitted along the south side of the new building. • Remove the old building and start from "scratch". • An increased number of employee housing units should be provided. • Incorporate the old building into the new building. Design Review Board • Mare articulation should be provided along the south and north sides of the buildings. • The old building should either be better incorporated into the overall design or the buildings should be physically separated shave grade. • The east and west ends of the new building should be stepped down to reduce the perceived height and mass of the building. • The openings to the parking structure should be better screened from public view. • The use of stone and the mixture of proposed exterior building materials is good. • A tree preservation plan shall be required. • The dormers help to break up the roof. Look at using more or larger dormers to further disguise the roof size. • The vehicular and guest front entrances should be better designed and detailed to create a greater sense of arrival. VI. REVIEW CRITERIA FOR THIS RIEGIUEST Titlel2, Chapter 9 of the Town Code provides for the establishment of Special Development Districts in the Town of Vail. According to Section 12-9A-1, the purpose of a Special Development District is: • 4 To encourage flexibility and creativity in the development of land, in order to promote its most appropriate use; to improve the design character and quality of the new development within the Tawn; to facilitate the adequate and economical provision of streets and utilities; to preserve the natural and scenic features of open space areas; and to further the overall goals of the community as stated in the Vail Comprehensive Plan. An approved development plan fora 5peciai Development District, in conjunction with the properties underlying zone district, shall establish the requirements for guiding development and uses of property included in the Special Development District. The Town Code provides nine design criteria, which shall be used as the principal criteria in evaluating the merits of the proposed Special Development District. It shat! be the burden of the applicant to demonstrate that submittal material and the proposed development plan comply with each of the fallowing standards, ar demonstrate that one or more of them is not applicable, or that a practical solution consistent with the public interest has been achieved. Staff will provide a review of the nine criteria at the time of final review. A. Design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate environment, neighborhood and adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones, identity, character, visual integrity and orientation. B. Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. C. Compliance with parking and Loading requirements as outlined in Title 12, Chapter 10, of the Town Code. D. Conformity with the applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, Tawn policies and Urban Design Plan. E. Identification and mitigation ofi nature! and/ar geologic hazards that affect the property on which the special development district is proposed, F. Site plan, building design and location and open space provisions designed to produce a functional development responsive and sensitive to natural features, vegetation and overall aesthetic quality ofi the community. G. A circulation system designed for bath. vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and off-site traffic circulation. H. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and preserve natural features, recreation, views and functions. I. Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional and efficient relationship throughout the development of the specie! development district. 5 ~~= _ =t 1'13 If 1' ( :li) y'p~. ~ - ~#d-a ICI ~: - ~3. I I s ~i 3 T ,tl 11)t r11 r !S(F{i f fe ~1=3:a1„ ~ a~ ,I ~~ r_ t 0 d 0 f...l~ L i _J' ~ ~^ (~ ~ ~ LL. ~ a I . ~ ~0 ~ ,,,J L.L ~; > ' i J p , .- W 1 1 I i f ~~ ~~ Jo U ~a ~~ C ~b ,~~ 4~C,1U7 71vn Rp~ /~ /yOpYp~1Mry371J1JNON3^M~l/!~IypIS-tliPull~°}ry(~ J IYIV ~~f Iq aJ177~ IVl//4 I IV] IJ ~_ _ II ~~ C ~ - ~ l~ ~ c 1I~IIIIj y 111 [[ j 111 If)AF 1;){3r )~€ ! Ilr '~ I e 1 1 !' Pa t € 1 ~ r i ~ ~ a , Ifl)t f111kf11Peultl! ~ I[~~i)Itl(~Ilhhlll 4)111)11 , fpI 41 II ss0 Fttk I PiltrrNl7mL iaNr,»,H.If.bn. .~. ,. ~ ~ ®~ c3 ~~ J ~ ~. ~ ~ ~ , _ C 4~' , I ~ ~i i I1j4 1 t1 ~("y'Ir'ilitll~l IilSiy~ I1` 11 ~ !: i( P~~)1~1:t,1111C~) II)6t~1~)I:aw,rF,unllill{~~II I i • ~, ! : . ~ i = I[1„a13se,letlur 6.b.lnirrv3#tel€Itrit€,,,,t i,,,, f ~.f) , i i 11~ ; 1 ~ ! ~r 4 !~ 9 ~ ~ I ~ lr 1 Ir ~ ~ fl E~11~Iia11~~IIr~~.Eii ilriill ~ 1~9f111t~l~!'tiiF3ii1 `--- - - _.... a 31rr4km3Cirthru7.pAUrw 14rtr1dti~ : ) ; yy ! . i ; i I ~ 1 IF 1 i 1 ~II ¢ i € ~3) i t ~({ ~ E I ~ r 1 t r11~ I ~~I~,Ir~~;11;i11i1E~~ll'll(lfiss~~!)r~1~~)f!It3~11 ~,til I I 1, ulfuErr rn1t331:SPtrurY r}ef3:r3,;#r. €)rll. ~ r, s ~ ~ [N u Ali 1 1=! 1 ~' I , 1II ~! ..[+ -: ...rte -rr~ 1 ~. ~ilklil!"s~ ~1~i1111iC1)lltill~3ltt~f(kii~lll(91~t,~ll; l,t.,,tn13 maul f,r I f .133 €,P1311r#7.tllrl till tll#1,1 I I I t) )1 1 i 1 3 ,)#r ~h 1 I )~II ! r I I r1~F 'fr' r I i`,r1 )~i ~, I _ ~k'.>> I '*' T ~~1~II! ' 11111~EIIf1 ~ , ~CI Illrf~i~?r)1'Itl ! PIf11~1~1 Ili ~ 1)I. ~lil i , ~"' G.`~ ~~,-- c~ _ -_I Thal ah6 1rMtrrl r„rt,l n.r1Lt1 r,. Ln' my ! I 6 ! I ~ II I1 I S f~ I I ~ EI~11)I ) 3)14 l it 1 1( ) ~ li t#1 1 1 I it ~¢ ; a ' I€ I 1 i ~_,.. - - _ lSs k r:1 .. ! i r 1 r !11 1 I i f~ ~111iii1111~11Irantfinl~)III~)I~911t()II`~I(I i~rrlli) i Islffhtl,rlv.~€[rldauPtlrrSl9rllrle€ In ~ fidilrr - -..- ~ ~ [[ 1 11 II .j,+ !I \~iiirrli Mil. ~6 '~ I -- - ( Ii11I If ('f) 1{~ 1 ~ ~ ~ 1 1 ~ 1 h'1 ? (r ~ I 1 ~ I + it.1)r. a i ~~. 1u1 II 1 lll) i 1 1 111I1 lrah6lrlh,arumfllsttr: ' Islil I I1111111i111 frlLl.llh6tnr61! 4 ~ (- , ~ s i~ t I i' a ' i# , fq Y ~ f ~ i ; a E ~ ] t i' f ~1 Il € I , ~ Iif 1P i 1 4 ~ ~ ~~ i 1l~G8d~e1.f£o~. ..~. z p ! I ~~ 1 , 1) ))1111 ~I111 391~)) II~~ l li3llillf3l! `~~I~IIIIII if 11[11 l3111}nr63t,irtld.itearl)illSll! li,!!t,[[as i '"1` ' ~ j ~ I ! ~ ~ I i _ 6 I I' r 11 • I ' s+! ~ 1 ,E --1 I II(I11111l~I1~1~)i4IIIf1111131ri11i1~1~1C111(111(±)111;1 l 3 3 I ! i, 4 ~ r ~) : ( 1 ; €1; i 1 1r3 1w#IIrliNol:d r l 111 FEVIG iinhh'NdlarYll i [ ' ~ „ it I I j ~ I ~ f 1 1 • • ~ N ~.II ~~~I~ ~ _~ 1~I GLEI~LYONOFFICEH[JCLDnIG 'I ~ p,~ ;` ~_ ~~ ,Q ~~I € ~ _ I WO $W U (k{7R~MAGe ROAR • I i5 l 1 ~~ f I~ ~.. u I c ... 9 ll ~ .~ ,4 `~~ ~, ~ ~~ ` , 3'. _ ~~ IY L ~^- ~~ 4~ °°°'''''°~~~I 4-~ -O a I t-O i ~ A 4 fir- -,-~ !: ~` a--v ~` { e i w~J ~~ ~'--~ ~ ;; ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ s 1, .~ I ,~~a ~1 '~ ~-~. ~_`^ ~' ~ ~~~~ ~~ _~~b m ;r ,{ I, m ~, e91 ~~~ 5 y 5~~ II~ #m ~S --~ ~~ i __~ ' i 'S _ _.--.--~-- - - - ____~ ~.-- --'~ ~_~ _ .-_ ___r I^ ill __ ~ F€f; t~ ~~ GLEN LYON OFFICE BUILDING i ~~ ,~i~ 'a,~~ ~ g3 ~ { iooo sOUir+rsoNrwr,~agno ~' ii'. :='st~ 1~;.~~' 3s r--- - i --- - ~~r~' ~ l ~.-i ^ ~.~~_~ __ ~~ 1 - _ ~° ,. ~. ~. ~-- II- '~ ~ _ t~ '»vuu fff L...° o .ry.. ; •_n _ ~ _ .~ ~-~ ++ _ ..... ~~ ~c,l ~E`' i . _..... °~ j ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ .~~ ~- ~,_ ti. a ~_ i.~ R _. ~---~, .n~ ,;. ~ 1. ~, '/j'+,~ 4~~ I ~I~ l~~~ 'm ~_ k. -- - _... - .- '~ ~ 4 O(IVMU163 "I!Vh -.~ E ~'~-6 i I ~ av<lx 3avtn~oxa r,xnersnos~ r ------~ I I I I I I i I t I i I I I 1 ~ I I d s a~ I Ue I ~ i I i al` I i I ~ V eA`-, " I I I s r- ~ p r?~ I ~I a -- = r ~. , ._ - a ~. -L ;' 3 ~'` } L( ~I ` ~ .+__J a 41 - 7 r:~~ - .. ~,i a o--~ - c~ - ~ r i ~ I I I I I I I I I I I I i F I t I I V I ~+ I I :~ c~--- ; ._ i' O"'---L ~' ti ~: ,, ~. . f~-~ ,, ?~-i - a '~ - i -- -- ~ -_IIE e I =,1~~ T ~~ k -- I I - r I --- - I ~ ~, rn ,} ----`1 I I I I I I I I I I 3 i I I I ®Ci1 I ~ i *~ ~ ~~ ~ l i Y Y i I,~ g a I it I i i I I I I I I G ___~.r.e ., ., _.J 1 ql ~~ ~"i ~I ~ 5 C11; ~~" JW n, ~_Ic\ a l E r..__...__, i I I I I I I I .a I I I I I I I I I I - y ~ a+ a i ~ C: ;, ii ~ I I I ~` ~ 1 i I I ' a_' I I i " 7 f _ / c~--- - I a.._~ ~ i -~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~- ~f ~ I I a°-±- I tl 4a a ~~._~ __ ` 5 ~.. ~ f i -- ~~ i D } ~~ 4 r~_1 I 1 ~g }- • I I ~ I I ~ I I I I I I I I I i 6 ~_ ~~- I I r I I I i I I I ! I .._-~I • • • ~ E ii )" . [s 5 j. ~ ~ ~ _ - ~ '' ' is3m avow a~rlrroH~ ~ilr~os ouue 3JQQ7 ~~Ij3CJ NQ,{7 A737J e p 0 4 + ~, k ~~ ~ ;8i +T. ;~ Q 0 l~ l I p~, f ii ~ c ~'~ ~~ _~ ' y 'i,- ?'S _ il~ ~ I L~iJll~td I I: i _;-- ~~ _! ~~, ~- ~, I i ~- e_ ! €_ ' ~ u ~ i t __. I i ...__..... I I. ~ `~ I I °T.._ k~kp r -~ ~ o Ei dS3m 4~[3H 33ViNOH34 1 S l~, ' i ~ ~ j j :~ ~E E-' - ., t:I pops LLf D ~ JN[~"I[fl8 3~13~0 h1QA"~ hi~7;?f ~ I j , I ° ~ I? ! ' ~ ~~ _ _. . ~ E ~~` '-~ p ,. Fl~r ~ r :4 ~'g ~ +~ ~ ~ ]'i 7t t ~ `. ~ i ~ l I !! 1" ` I I I ~+ rd ~ i i _ ~, ~~ ~~ ' I, ' I its ~ a i s.. 1, ~, C p ¢; f ~ I ~ , ~V7?r=~ 1, ~ e ~ . 1J+ ~! i $~i i ~~ °I ~ ~ w w ~ 9 ) 1 JJ j~ I A ~ Fl 3 4:: '1 re . z ; A~.~ r A '~' ), ~r ~'~{ $'d ~F ~ d T'€ ~'~ ~ P~ ~! ,~j. ~4 t=_ i h ~ I~vI-R ~~ ~t .'~~ I ~ ~ ~~~ I ~ i ~ ~~ ~~ ~ P ~ ~ ~1 a o- d !0~ I I ld~l ~ , ~' ~ ~I Z 7i ~ ~~ ~ ~ r... ~ 1` ,~ w~ ~ ~ ~ ~: 1 ±`.: -' ;,~ _~ ,: ]]y~:FF f~, L~ ~ 2~ , ~ ii. . 5. ~a t~s ~ S 1 } s i a f } ~~ I ~. u ~I~ O, • • • ~ ~ .__ Q ' _ ... 7 .._-__ ^_. ; , i X 4 . _. R_ __--__ IE ~ .-_~ -:pr:; ~. ! ~ tIW4345 1nn vOif3?YIN ~ 4 M Yf i , 4 ~ ~ tv ( i €~ fl 4 F900 4 I ~ "_, a ~ {~~,I n (} (± f ~ f ~ h f I {, ~°~~E(''y 19V~'J~~I la ~~~~~41 fVll M1~ ' ~ . ~ iV] 1.1 { fi I r i ~~III !.?'. . 4 . E ~i~ ! ~~ ~,.. 1'. r_ I `~ I ~ 1 ~ / ~/, ~1 ~ /_ 1 . /I / ~/ f i, 'l I I I 1 ' '~ ' 4 ~ ;a~ ~~ ~ g ~,~ y ~ f ,9 t~ i ~. I ~;~ ~~ ~8 I s I t i ~ w~ `3 r~ ~ y i ~, -~ ~, 6 I ~` 4 ' I~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ i ^ ~~~ ~~ ~ ~w I ~~ ~ ~ i f ~ i 'J I ~, 1 y ~~ ~.~ j t } ~? , 1 . i ~ ~ f .~ r ~ ~` u f ~.,. ~ .r..,,~ - -- MEIUJORANDUIiA TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: March 13, 2000 SUBJECT: A request for a fnak review of a major exterior alteration and conditional use permit to allow for the redevelopment of the Vail Athletic Club & Spa, located at 352 East Meadow Drive/a part of Tract B, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: Ron Byrne, d.b.a. VML, L.L.C., represented by Tom Braun Planner: George Ruther I. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant, Ron Byrne, represented by Tom Braun, is requesting a major exterior alteration and conditional use permit to allow for the redevelopment of the Vail Athletic Club & Spa. The Vail Athletic Club & Spa is located at 352 East Meadow Drive at the intersection of East Meadow Drive and Vail Valley Drive. The proposed redevelopment of the Vail Athletic Club & Spa includes a major renovation and upgrading of the existing building along with several exterior additions to the existing structure. The new exterior additions are generally located an the south, west and north sides of the building. due to the configuration and design of the existing structure, the majority of the new square footage being added is atop existing building foundation and is in the form of infill development. The applicant is proposing to redevelopment the existing hotel in accordance with the development standards prescribed for the Public Accommodation Zone District. If the proposal is approved, the existing Special Development District will be abandoned. The major elements of the redevelopment proposal include: • The complete renovation of the exterior of the building. The renovation introduces a new architectural style for the building. The proposed improvements to the exterior include a combination of stone, wood siding, stucco and timbers. The new architectural style is more in keeping with the goals of the Val! Village Master Plan and l~rban Design Considerations. • A complete remodel of the interior of the hotel. The remodel to the interior includes a newly designed restaurant and bar, lobby, front desk., health club and meeting space. • Moditicatians to the existing accommodation units {20} and the creation of 10 new accommodation units. The average size of the 30 accommodation units is aver 500 square feet per room. • The creation of a fractional fee club operation. The proposed club will include a total of seven new fractional fee chub units. The size of the club units varying between two and three bedroom units. Operation of the club will be in accordance with the provisions outlined in Chapter 16 of the Zoning Regulations. • The addition a# two, new free-market, for-sale condominiums. The new condominiums will be located on the top floor of the hotel. There are two dwelling units existing in the hotel. ~ ``~~ ~x TOWN OF YAIL The construction of one, new on-site employee housing unit. The new unit will be in addition to the four units already on-site. As a result of the proposed remodel each of the existing employee units will be remodeled and upgraded. The on-site units will provide deed- restricted housing #ar up to ten employees. The implementation of the suggested streetscape improvements along Vail Valley Drive and East Meadow Drive. !1. STAFF RECO'MMFNDATION The Community Development Department recommends approval of the applicant's request for a major exterior al#eration and conditional use permit to allow for the redevelopment of the Vail Athletic Club & Spa, located at 352 East Meadow Drive. Staff's recommendation of approval is based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Sections V & VI of this memorandum. Should the Planning & Environmental Commission chaase to approve the major exterior alteration and conditional use permit request, staff would recommend that the Commission make the following findings, `That the major exterior alteration and conditional use permit requests carrrply with the criteria as outlined in Sections V & Vi of this memorandum. Specifically, the request for 131 % GRFA, 63°! site coverage and the variati©rrs from the setback requirements meet the goals and the intent of the Vail Vr'llage Master Plan and Urban Design CQnsideratians" Should the Planning & Environmental Commission chaase to approve the applicant's request, staff would recommend that the fallowing conditions be made part of the approval: That the developer submits a complete set of engineered plans for the required streetscape improvements. The plans shall be required to comply with the applicable Town of Vail Development Standards. The plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Town of Vail Public Works Department prior to appearing before the Town of Vail Design Review Board for final review of the streetscape improvements. The plans shall receive final approval prior to the issuance of a building permit ~. That the developer records adeed-restriction for the new Type lil Employee Housing Unit in the Vail Athletic Ciub & Spa with the Eagle County Clerk & Recorder's office prior to the issuance of a building permit. 3. That. the developer submits an application to the Town of Vail Community Development Department far a conditional use permit to allow for the construction of one new Type ill Employee Housing Unit in the Vail Athletic Ciub & Spa and that the permit be approved by the Planning & Environmental Commission prior to the issuance of a building permit. 4. That the developer submits a tree preservation plan to the Town of Vail Community Development Department far review and approval prior to the issuance of a building permit. 5. That the developer submits a construction staging and access plan to the Town of Vail Community Development Department for review and approval prior to the issuance of a building permit. The plan shall include the location of a construction fence and erosion control fence to presence and. protect the Gore Creek riparian corridor. 2 6. That the developer pays the Town of Vail $13,62Q, as previously agreed to, for previous streetscape improvements already completed by the Town of Vail on behalf of the Vail Athletic Club & Spa. 7. That the developer submits a comprehensive sign and exterior lighting program for the Vail Athletic Club & Spa to the Town of Vail Community Development Department for review and approval prior to the issuance of a building permit. III.. BACKGROUND November 1993 -The Vail Town Council approved Ordinance No. 27, Series of 1993, establishing Special Development District No. 30, Vail Athletic Club. The establishment of Special Development District No. 30 allowed for up to 52 accommodation units, 4 dwelling units and 4 employee housing units. The total allowable GRFA was 32,282 square feet with an additional 17,Q00 square feet permitted for restaurant, club, lobby, etc. The underlying zoning for the property is Public Accommodation January 1996 -The Vail Town Council approved Ordinance No. 2, Series of 1996, amending the Approved Development Plan for Special Development District Na 30. The amending ordinance increased the number of allowable accommodation units to 55 and increased allowable GRFA to 34,605 square feet. There was no change to the number of dwelling units or employee housing units. March 1997 -The Planning & Environmental Commission approved a minor amendment to Special Development District No. 30. The minor amendment allowed far modifications to the parking garage, restaurant, common areas and the balconies and decks of the accommodation and dwelling units. May 4 1999 _ The Vail Town Council denied Ordinance Nv. 12, Series of 1999, amending the Approved Development Plan far Special Development District Na. 30. Had it been approved, the amending ordinance would have permitted an a reduction in the number of accommodation units from 54 to 46 and increased the number of dwelling units back to four as originaAy approved. October 1899-The Vail Town Council approved Ordinance No. 23, Series of 1999, amending the prescribed development standards for the Public Accommodation Zone District and estabiishing a revised development review process. The approved amendments, in part, increased allowable GRFA to 15Q°1© of the site area, increased site coverage from 55% to 65°fa, eliminated AU's/EHU's/FFU's from the density calculation, and changed the definition of a "lodge". The building height, landscape and parking requirements remained unchanged. 1V. PROS AND CONS Benefi#s • Provides an increase in the number of shcrt-term accommodations in the Town of Vaii • Improves and redevelops an older building in the Town of Vail • The project complies with the Town of Vail land Use Plan • The recommended streetscape improvements will be implemented An increased occupancy potential due to the operation of the fractional fee club • The construction of up to two new employee beds in the Viiiage 3 • The redevelopment of an existing building that currently does not comply with many of the development objectives of the Vail Village Master Plan and Urban Design Considerations The elimination of a Special Development Distriot negatives • The loss of meeting room space in Vaii • The loss of health club square footage and other similar amenities • The loss of several existing trees V. MAJOR EXTERIOR ALTERATION The development review process for the proposed redevelopment of the Vail Athletic Club & Spa is established in the Town of Vail Zoning Regulations. According to Section t 2-7A-12, "The construction of a new building or the alteration of an existing building shall be reviewed by the Design Review Board in accordance with Chapter 1 i of the Zoning Regulations. However, any project which adds additional dwelling units, accommadatiarr units, fractional fee club units, arry project that adds mare than 1,000 square feet of cr~mmercial floor area or common s,aace, or any project which has substantial off-site impacts (as determined by the Administrator) shall be reviewed by the Planning & Environmental Commission as a major exterior alteration in accordance with thr"s Chapter and Section 12-3-6 of the Tawn Code. " Staff has determined that this request is a major exterior alteration, since the redevelopment application includes an increase in the number of dwelling units, accommodation units, fractional fee club units, and employee housing units to the site. Vail Village Master Plan According to the Vaii Village Master Plan, Action Plan, the Vail Athletic Club & Spa is located within the East Meadow Drive Sub-area ~5-1 ). The only recommended action in the Subarea is the completion of the streamwalk. The streamwalk has long since been completed. No further improvements are required. Pursuant to the other elements of the Master Plan, the Vail Athletic Club & Spa is located in the periphery area surrounding the Vipage (Land Use Plan), already exceeds the conceptualized height {Conceptual Building Height Plan), has no negative impacts on the proposed open space of Vail Village (Open Space Plan), and fronts upon a street devoted to accvmrnadating both vehicular and pedestrian traffic (Parking and Circulation Plan}. Goals for Vail Village are summarized in six major goal statements. The goal statements are designed to establish a framework, or direction, far future development of the Village. The goals, along with the established objectives and policies are to be used in evaluating a proposal during the development review process. The following goals, objectives and policies have been identified: 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. 4 • 1.1 Objective: Implement a cansistent Development Review Process to reinforce the character of the Village. 1.1.1 Policy: Development and improvement projects approved in the Vikiage shall be consistent with the goals, objectives, policies and design considerations as outlined in the Vail Village Master Plan and Urban Design Guide Plan. 1.2 Objective: Encourage the upgrading and redevelopment of residential and commercial facilities. 1.2.1 Palicv: Additional development may be allowed as identjfjed by the action plan as is consistent with the Vail Village Master Plan and Urban Design Guide Plan. 1.3 Objective: l=nhance new development and redevelopment through public improvements done by private developers working in cooperation with the Town. 1.3.1 Palicv: Public improvements shall be developed with the participation of the private sector working with the Tawn. L' Goal #2 Ta foster a Strang tourist industry and promote year-round economic health and viability for the Village and for the community as a whole. 2.1 Objective: Recognize the variety of land uses found in the 1©sub- areas throughout the Village and allow for development that is compatible with these established land use patterns. 2.1.1 PoGcv: The zoning code and development review criteria Shall be consistent with the overall goals and objectives of the Vail Village Master Plan. 2.3 Objective: increase the number of residential units available far short- term, overnight accommodations. 2.3.1 Palicv: The development of short-term accommodation units is strongly encouraged. Residential units that are developed above existing density levels are required to be designed ar managed in a manner that makes them available for short-term overnight rental. 2.4 Objective: Encourage the development of a variety of new commercial activity where compatible with existing land uses. • 2.4.1 Policy: Commercial infill development cansistent with 5 established horizontal zoning regulations shall be encouraged to provide activity generators, accessible greenspaces, public plazas, and streetscape improvements to the pedestrian network throughout the Village. 2.5 Objective: Encourage the continued upgrading, renovation and maintenance of existing lodging and commercial facilities to better serve the needs of our guests. 2.5.1 Policv: Recreation amenities, common areas, meeting facilities and other amenities shall be preserved and enhanced as a part of any redevelopment of lodging properties. 2.5.2 Policv:. The Town will use the maximum flexibility possible in the interpretation of building and fire codes in order to facilitate building renovations without compromising life, health and safety considerations. 2.8 Objective: Encourage the development of affordable housing units through the efforts of the private sector. 2.6.2 Policv: Employee housing shall be developed with appropriate restrictions sa as to insure their availability and affordability to the local work force. 2.8.3 Policv: The Tawn of Vail may facilitate in the development of affordable housing by providing limited assistance. Goal #3 To recognize as a top priority the enharacernent of the walking experience thraughout the Village, 3.1 Objective: Physically improve the existing pedestrian ways by landscaping and other improvements. 3.1.1 Policv: Private development projects shall incorporate streetscape improvements (such as paver treatments, landscaping, lighting and seating areas), along adjacent pedestrian ways. 3.1.2 Policv: Public art shalt be encouraged at appropriate locations throughout the Town. 3.1.3 Policv: Flowers, trees, water features and' other landscaping shall be encouraged throughout the Town in locations adjacent ta, or visible from, public areas. 3.2 Objective: Minimize the amount of vehicular traffic in the Village to the 6 greatest extent possible. 3,2.1 Policv: Vehicular traffic will be eliminated or reduced to absolutely minimal necessary levels in the pedestrianized areas of the Village. 3.3 Obiective: Encourage a wide variety of activities, events and street life along pedestrian ways and plazas. 3.3.2 Policv: Outdoor dining is an important streetscape feature and shall be encouraged in commercial infill or redevelopment projects. 3.4 ~]biective: ©evelap additional sidewalks, pedestrian-only walkways and accessible green space areas, including packet parks and stream access. 3.4.1 Policv: Physical improvements to property adjacent to stream tracts shall not further restrict public access. 3.4.2 Policv: Private development projects shall be required to incorporate new sidewalks along streets adjacent to the project as designated in the Vail Village Master Plan and/or Recreation Trails Master Plan. Goal #4 To preserve existing open space areas and expand green space opportunities. 4.1 Objective: Improve existing open space areas and create new plazas with green space and pocket parks. Recognize the different roles of each type of open space in forming the overall fabric of the Village. 4,1.3 Policv: With the exception of ski base-related facilities, existing natural open space areas at the Lase of Vail Mountain and throughout Vail Village shall be preserved as open space. Goal #5 Increase and irnprove the capacity, efficiency and aesthetics of the transportation and circulation system throughout the Village. 5.1 Objective: Meet parking demands with public and private parking facilities. 5.1.1 Policv: .For new development that is located outside of the Commercial Core 1 Zone District, on~site parking shall be provided (rather than paying into the parking fund) to meet any additional parking demand as required by the Zoning Code, 5.1.5 Policv: Redevelopment projects shall be strongly encouraged to provide underground or visually 77 concealed parking. 5.2 Objective: Encourage the use of public transportation to minimize the use of private automobiles throughout Vail. 5.2.2 Policv: The Town shall faciCitate and encourage the operation of private shuttle vans outside of the pedestrianized care area. 5.3 Objective: Concentrate the majority of interconnecting transit activity at the periphery of the Village to minimize vehicular traffic in pedestrianized areas. Goal #fi To insure the continued improvement of the vital operational elements of the Village. 6.1 Objective: Provide service and delivery facilities far existing and new development. 6.2 C3bjective: Provide #or the safe and efficient functions of fire, police and public utilities within the context of an aesthetically pleasing resort setting. 6.2.1 Poljcv: Development projects and other improvements in Vail Village shall be reviewed by respective Town departments to identify both the impacts of the proposal and potential mitigating measures. fi_2.2 Paliev: Minor improvements (landscaping, decorative paving, open dining decks, etc.y, may be permitted on Town of Vail land or right-of-way with review and approval by the Town Council and Planning and Environmental Commission when applicable) provided that Town operations such as snow removal, street maintenance and fire department access and operation are able to be maintained at current levels. Special design (i.e heated pavementy, maintenance fees„ or other considerations may be required to offset impacts an Town services. Public Accommodation Zone District The following development standards apply to this request: USES The only permitted uses in the zone district are "cadges". A lodge is defined as a building designed far temporary lodging of individuals or families in which the GRFA devoted to accommodation units or fractional fee club units is equal to or greater than 70% of the total GRFA. The existing building is currently non-conforming with regard to the new definition of a lodge. In the existing building 54% of the total GRFA is devoted to accommodation units. This figure includes 20 accommodation units and seven "lock-off" units attached to the existing dwelling 8 units. As a result of the proposed redevelopment, 67°1° of the total GRFA will be devoted to accommodation units and fractional fee club units. This figure includes a total of 30 accommodation units and seven fractional fee club units. While this figure remains non- conforming, the proposal represents a significant increase in the amount of total GRFA devoted to accommodation unit and fractional fee club unit square footage on the property. However, in accordance with the recently adopted language for the zone district, more than 70% of the "new" GRFA resulting from this proposal is devoted to accommodation units or fractional. fee club units. Therefore, the proposal complies with the provisions of the Public Accommodation zone district with regard to uses and GRFA. 5ET8ACK~ The minimum setback requirements for the property are twenty feet on al[ sizes. However, at the discretion of the Planning & l=nvironmental Commission, variations to the setback standards may be granted, subject to the applicant demonstrating compliance with the following criteria: i. Proposed building setbacks provide necessary separation between buildings and riparian areas.. geologr`cally sensitive areas and other environmentally sensitive areas. 2. Proposed building setbacks comply with applicable elements of the Vail Village Urban 17esign Guide Plan and Design Considerations. 3. Proposed building setbacks will provide adequate availability of light, air and open space. ~. Proposed building setbacks will provide a compatible relationship with buildings and uses on adjacent pr®perties. 5. Proposed building setbacks will result in creative design solutions or ether public benefits that could not otherwise be achieved by conformance with prescribed setback standards. The existing building encroaches into the required twenty-foot setbacks on all sides of the property. The applicant is proposing additional encroachments. The additional encroachments are requested pursuant to the criteria listed above. The areas of additional encroachment include the expanded restaurant on the south east. comer of the building, the bay windows on the south side of the building and the new permanent front entry feature on the north side of the building. The encroachments are shown on the attached reduced plans.. Staff believes that the proposed encroachments are warranted since they comply with setback criteria identified in the Zoning Regulations. Specifically, the proposed expansions an the south side of the building do not encroach into the 50-foot stream setback, nor do they negatively impact any geologically sensitive areas {flaodplain}. Furthermore, the expansions will not negatively impact the residential uses located to the west of the property (Mountain Haus} as the distance between the buildings continues to adequately provide far light, air and open spaces. Lastly, the residential uses of the Vail Athletic Glub & Spa do not differ from the residential uses of the Mountain Haus, and therefore, the use remains compatible with the uses on adjacent properties. To further insure that the uses remain compatible, the applicant has located the outdoor pool and restaurant on the east end of the development site where they will be operated away from the Mountain Haus and the grade change of the site separates them from the Cornice Building. Staff believes that the proposed setbacks result in a creative design solutions and are beneficial to the public. HIEi~GHT According to the Zoning Regulations, the building height for a building with a flat roof or mansard roof shall not exceed farky-five feet (45"}. For a sloping roof, the height of buildings shall not exceed forty-eight feet {4$'}. The existing height of the building currently exceeds 48'. The overall height of the building will not be increased as a result of the redevelopment proposal. 9 DENSITY caNTR4L Pursuant to the Zoning Regulations, up to one hundred and fifty (150} square feet of gross residential floor area {GRFA) may be permitted for each one hundred {100) square feet of buildable site area. The final determination of allowable gross residential floor area shag be made by the Planning & Environmental Commission in accordance with Section 12-7A-12: Exterior Alterations or Modifications. Specifically, in determining allowable grass residential floor area the Planning & Environmental Commission shall make a finding that proposed gross residential floor area is in conformance with applicable elements of the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and the Urban Design Considerations. Total density shall not exceed twenty five (25) dwelling units per acre of buildable site area. For the purposes of calculating density, employee housing units, accommodation units and fractional fee club units shall not be counted towards density. Staff has reviewed the redevelopment proposal for compliance with the density control regulations. The overall density of the property wil! be 5.9 dwelling units per acre {4 du's X 1.48 acres}. The maximum allowable density is 25 dwelling units per acre. There is approximately 21,000 square feet of GRFA {70%) in the existing building. This includes square footage devoted to AU's, DU's and EHU's. If approved the GRFA square footage would increase to 39,935 square feet (131%}. The proposed square footage includes the 30 accommodation units 7 fractional fee club units, 4 dwelling units and 5 employee housing units. Most importantly, of the additional square footage (18,345 sq. ft.} being added, 70.1 % (12,851 sq. ft.) is devoted to accommodation units and fractional fee club units and the remaining 29.9°/4 (5,494 sq. ft.) is devoted to the 4 dwelling units. The numbers are exclusive of the EHU square footage in the building. According to the staff analysis the proposal fully complies with the density control regulations. SITE COVERAG€ Site coverage shall not exceed sixty-five {65%) of the total site area. Final determination of allowable site coverage shall be made by the Planning & Environmental Commission andlor the Design Review Board in accordance with Section 12-7A-12: Exterior Alterations or Modifications. Specifically, in determining allowable site coverage the Planning & Environmental Commission andlor the Design Review Board shall make a finding that proposed site coverage is in conformance with applicable elements of the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and Design Considerations. The staff has reviewed the proposal for compliance with the site coverage limitation of 65°lo(max.}. The applicant is proposing to increase the amount of site coverage by 2,082 square Beet. The existing site coverage is approximately 54% or 16,083 square feet and the proposed site coverage will be 61% or 18,145 sq. ft. Staff believes that the proposal. complies with the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and Urban Design Considerations since all of the required parking is enclosed in an existing parking structure and the proposal fully complies with the landscape area requirement. LANDSCAPING AND S~TE DEVEI_QPMENT In accordance with the Zoning Regulations, at least thirty percent (30%} or $,924 square feet of the total site area shall be landscaped. The applicant is proposing that approximately 32% or 9,519 square feet of the site will be landscaped area. Staff believes the applicant has complied with the landscape requirement. PARKING AND LQADING off-street parking and loading shall be provided in accordance with Chapter 10 of the Zoning Regulations. At least seventy five percent {75°1°) of the ret~uired parlUng shall be located within the main building or buildings and hidden from public view. No at grade or above grade surface parking or leading area shat! be located in any required front setback area. Below grade 10 underground structured parking and short-term guest loading and drop-off shall be permitted in the required front setback subject to the approval of the Planning & Environmental Commission and/or the Design Review Board. Staff has reviewed the proposed off-street parking and loading for the Vail Athletic Club & Spa to insure compliance with the prescribed regulations. According to the staff analysis, the applicant's proposal fully complies with the regulations, Over the years parking variances have been granted for the Vail Athletic Club & Spa. The variances were approved by the Town of Vail Planning & Environmental Commission in accordance with the provisions of the Town Code. Due to the granting of the parking variances a legal,. non-conforming, situation has resulted. For purposes of this analysis, the parking requirement has been evaluated based upon the existing and approved parking situation. There are 22 valet parking spaces on the site today. As a result of the proposed changes to the building there would be a net decrease in the parking requirement of fi parking spaces. The elimination of 2.548 square feet of meeting room space (-21 spaces) and the conversion of 7 hotel dwelling units (-14 spaces) to accommodation uni#s significantly contributes to the net reduction. The result is an overall reduction. in the parking requirement far the site. However, since much of the parking requirement has been addressed as a result of the granting of parking variances in the past, the will be no loss of parking on the site. The applicant has proposed to provide space for a short-term guest loading and drop-off at the new front entry. The loading and delivery area will continue to be located at the west of the building. No loading and delivery will be permitted from Vail Valley Drive. Overall, staff believes that the applicant's proposal fully complies wi#h the parking and loading requirements. ~ITIGATIOM ~OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACTS ccording to the Town Code, property awnersldevelopers shall also be responsible far mitigating direct impacts of their development on public infrastructure and in all cases mitigation shall bear a reasonable relation to the development impacts. Impacts may be determined based an reports prepared by qualified consultants. The extent at mitigation and public amenity improvements shall be balanced with the goals of redevelopment and will be determined by the Planning and Environmental Commission in review of development projects and conditional use permits. Substantial off-site impacts may include, but are not limited to, the following: deed restricted employee housing, roadway improvements, pedestrian walkway improvements, streetscape improvements, stream tractfbank restoration, loading/delivery, public art improvements, and similar improvements. The intent of this section is to only require mitigation for large-scale redevelopment/deveiopment projects that produce substantial off-site impacts. Staff has determined that the redevelopment proposal is a large-scale redevelopment project, and therefore, the mitigation of development impacts shall apply. The applicant has proposed various streetscape and employee housing improvements. The streetscape improvements that shall be required are identified in the Town of Vail streetscape Master Plan. The applicant is proposing to construct the required improvements. The improvements to be constructed by the applicant include the heating of the sidewalk on the north side of bast Meadow Drive from the east parking structure portal to the portal located immediately to the west of the west property line and the sidewalk from the front entrance to the hotel to the north end of the bridge on Vail Valley Drive. Also included will be the installation of Town of Vail street lights, as identified on the site plan. The applicant shall be required to submit a complete set of civil engineered drawings for the review and approval of the Town of Vail Design Review Board and Public Works Department, prior to the issuance of a building permit. Other improvements include the application and. continuation of tine stone veneer into the east portal of the parking structure. The stone veneer shall be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Board. The applicant is proposing to provide five deed-restricted employee hauling units in the hotel A total of 1,479 square feet of GRFA will be used to construct the units. This is an increase of one unit and 2D9 square feet of deed-restricted space over what is existing today. In determining compliance with this criteria staff completed an Employee Housing Generation Analysis to determine the incremental number of new employees that may be generated as a result of the hotel redevelopment. The results of our analysis are listed below; Emnlovee Generation Analysis a) Health Club = 18,552 sq. ft. a~(1.2511000 sq. fit.) =23.2 employees b) RestaurantlBar = 2,372 sq. ft. ~(6.5f1000 sq. ft.) -15,4 employees c) Lodging = 37 units ~a (1.00/unit) = 37 employees d) Multi-Family VDU) = 4 units [7a (.4funit) =1.6 employees Total Employees = 77.2 employees ~- 68 existing employees) = 68 employees (X 0.30 multiplier) = 3 sinew" employees C~amgliance with the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan The following summarizes the redevelopment proposal's compliance with the applicable elements of the Urban Design Considerations of the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan: Pedestrianization The Club is located on streets with separated pedestrian walks. As part of the review of previous SDD proposals, a number of improvements were contemplated for the walkways around the project. Foremost among these were heating portions of the sidewalk and eliminating the sidewalk west of the entry to the Club. The idea behind this change was to direct pedestrians to the sidewalk on the north side of tPte street. These changes are Included as elements of this development proposal and are depicted on the preliminary landscape plan. S#reetscape Framework The replacement of the sidewalk west of the entry to the Club will result in increased landscape and planter area. The restaurant expansion on the south side of the building will create an area of interest and activity along the street and the Gore Creek trail corridor. Street Edge Proposed expansions and cantilevers to the building will break up the mass of the existing building and add variety, visual interest and greater articulation to the building. These expansions along the street will maintain the vast majority of the mature trees that currently surround the building. The proposed expansions will conform wi#h the new offset requirements recently adopted for the PA zone district (no less than 50°/4 if the building offset at least 5 feet). VI. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Upon review of Chapter 16 of the Zoning Regulations, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the request for a conditional use permit to allow for the operation of a 12 fractional fee club within the Vail Athletic Glob & Spa based upon the following factors: A. Consideration of Factors: Before acting on a conditional use permit application, the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) shall consider the factors with respect t^ the proposed use: 1. t~elationsh'rp and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town, In January of 1887, the Vail Town Council adopted Ordinance lVo. 22, Series off 996. In part, this ordinance amended the Public Accommodation Zone Qistrict allowing fractional fee clubs as a conditional use and set forth criteria for the Commission to consider when evaluating such a request. Since that time the Austria Haus Club redevelopment project has been completed and the Gore Creek Cfub has been approved by the Town. The Austria Haus contains 28 fractional fee club units and the Gore Creek Club has been approved to construct fib units. The applicant is requesting the issuance of a conditional use permit to allow for the operation of a fractional fee club within the Vail Athletic Ciub Spa. The proposed club would be comprised of 7 two and three bedroom club units. These units would range in size from 1,154 square to 1,373 square feet. The auerage club unit size is approximately 1,504 square feet in size. According to the applicant, the ownership of the club units will meet the minimum requirements of fractional fee club units in terms of intervals Through the adoption of Ordinance No. 22, Series of 1996, the Town further recognized the need for lodging alternatives for our guests and visitors. In passing the ordinance the Town Council found that quality fractional fee clubs are an appropriate means of increasing occupancy rates, maintaining and enhancing short-term rental availability and diversifying the resort Cadging market product within. the Town of Vail. Equally as important, the Council believed that fractional fee clubs were simply another of many forms of public accommodations. It has been a Fong held belief that in order for the Town to remain competitive and on the leading edge of resort development: that alternative lodging opportunities must be created and creative financing vehicles for hotel redevelopment must be implemented. Staff believes that the conditional use permit for a fractional fee club within the Vail Athletic Cfub & Spa wilC be beneficial to the Tawn and will have a positive impact on the development objectives of the Community. 2, The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities needs. Staff believes that this review criteria has been satisfied as previously discussed in Sectr'on V ofi this memorandum. 3. Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and "" 13 parking areas, Staff believes that this review criteria has been satisfied as previously discussed in V of this memorandum. 4. Effect upon the charac#er 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. Staff believes that this review criteria has been satisfied as previously discussed in Section V of this memorandum. S. Prior to the approval of a conditional use permit for atime-share estate, fractional fee, fractional fee club, or time-share license proposal, the following shall be considered: a. If the proposal for a fractional fee club is a redevelopment of an existing facility, the fractional fee club shall maintain an equivalency of accommodation units as presently existing. Equivalency shall be maintained either by an equal number of units or by square footage. If the proposal is a new development, it shall. provide a# least as much accommodation unit GRFA as fractional fee club unit GRFA. The Vail Athletic Club & Spa proposal is a redevelopment of an existing hotel. The proposed hotel shall be required to maintain an equivalency of the presently existing number of accommodation units. The applicant is proposing to meet the equivalency requirement by replacing a greater of accommodation units. According to information on file in the Community nevelopmenf Department 2fl accommodation units exist today. The applicant is proposing to replace and/or remodel the existing units with 3U new hotel rooms totaling approximately 12,851 square feet. b. Lock-off units and lock-off unit square footage shall not be included in the calculation when determining the equivalency of existing accommodation units or equivalency of existing square footage. No lock-off units are proposed. c. The ability of the proposed projec# to create and maintain a high Level of occupancy. The fractional fee club component of the Vail Athletic Club & Spa proposal is intended to provide additional hotel and "hotel-type" accommodation units in the Town of Vail. The applicant is proposing to incorporate 7 member-owned club units {fractional fee club units}, with 3fl new accommodation (hotel} rooms. Although not in the present design, staff believes that lock-off units provide an additional community benefit of added "pillows". If a fractional fee club unit owner purchases an interest in a multiple bedroom unit, and does not desire to utilize all the bedrooms, they can then have the opportunity of returning the unused bedrooms flock-offs} to a rental program. 14 Staff feels that by providing lock-off units, and managing the availability of the lock-off units in a rental program when not in use, a fractional fee club project can significantly increase the availability of accommodation units in the Town of Vail. Staff would recommend that the applicant provide "iock- off" opportunities into the design of the fractional fee club units. Through our research on the fractional fee issue back in t 996, staff then identified some potential positive impacts of fractional fee units in the Town of Vaii. Ay Activity during the "shoulder seasons" tends to increase due to an increase in year-round occupancy; B) The attraction of revenue-generating tourists; G) The officent utilization of resources. This is the "warm beds" concept; D) More pride of ownership and community buy-in with fractional fee club units than with accommodation units; E) Increased levels of occupancy;. and F) Increased resort exposure due to the extensive number of interval owners. Staff believes these potential positive impacts are still true today. d. Employee housing may be required as part of any new or redevelopment fractional fee club project requesting density over that allowed by zoning. The number of employee housing units will be consistent with employee impacts that are expected as a result of the project. The staff included the fractional fee club units into the calculation of the employee generation resulting from the proposed major exterior alteration and conditional use permit requests. Based strictly on the number of club units, the development will generate a need for 7 "new" employees. When the multiplier of Q.30 is factored in, 2.1 of the "new" employees which the developer must provide deed-restricted housing for, are generated by the fractional fee club. e. The applican# shall submit to the Town a list of all owners of existing units within the project or building; in written statements from 144°/0 of the owners of existing units indicating their approval, without condition, of the proposed fractional fee club. No written approval shall be valid i# it is signed by the owner more than 6D days prior to the date of filing the application for a conditional use. The applicant, Ron Bryne, d.b.a. VML, L.L.G., and represented by Tom Braun, has written legal authority to act an the behalf of the owners of the property. No other written approval is required. • 15 i• ., z ~`~~'- , :. ...- ~~ ~ ,~- ~~ r~'i v'~ .3 ,.- °iA i~~~r t,~ ~~: . ~. ~~ l ~i i ~ ' a o U ~ 0 1 ;,'I I o ` U ¢ , .~ ~? i ~ 4' yoo w ~ ~~ 5 i~ i~ o ~aotsuedx3 ~ ` ~ uoaenoaa~ P~1e ~t~~iq~~d j~~ ~ ~ `~~ ~ j ~k ~ Lp t~ ~ 1 ~y- ~~~i t, xt,^',, '~ ~ ~, ~~ 1 .W I _ ,~ y ~ ~ - ~ '' - ~ ~ ....r ` .~' ~ ~ . - ., 4,,,e _ , ~ (~ ~~ w ~ ~ :- ~ -~ n ~ ~ - _ t---. _ ~w t~ `~ -~ _.~..~._-~----, ~ _~ 7 ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~~ r --- i~ + ~ ~n . ,. ~~ ~ ~^ ~ .~; ! t ~r e, ~i I '! i ~; , `i :, -m-- _}»._- ~ i. ~ .~ ~ &t .~ ~.. _. ~ ,. ~ 4 ~. ' t ~y L {J 15 '~ ` 4 4 M f ~~i(t ~ ~{ ~1 Y ~ ~ ~ ~ ~µ ~., 1 ~L ~ S 1 ~ ~ S~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ '~ '~ Y 1 ° ~i ~ ~ ~ ra ry Sri . - - ~~ ( i ~ ` ,, fj ~~ a ! r t, a ~ ~ c ~. N ~ _ ~ ~ ~ }i ~ ,Lys" y~~y~ _~ ~ ,1 Y _ _ t .a~ .<.--~• .~a ~ t. ,.~ a ~: ~L ....1 ..4 a ~ --- '; ,~ r~ ~.~^ ~ L~. ~ -, ~ ~~ . , . ~~~~ ~~~ ~ ~~. ~ . t ~ ~ •~ ~ ~ ~ _ ;; ~ ' --~. ~ ~i S - '+ ~ ~ _.(`~ _ war' ~«•,•~,r~^~ .`' `' ~~ ,. _ _ :, •. ~ ~~ - `~ i.~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ i ~~ ~,~ 9 ~ ~, ~~ • • 1 Q ~ ~ • I I I I~ I 'I I I I I ~, ~~ I ~. i 7 ~ ~ I 1 ~` III I I 7 ! I ,i 1 11 17 I ~ I i II j i i ,,I ~ I ~~'~-_ _~ ~ i ~. ~' r~ ~x` f ~ ' ~ I ~` i 4tE ` t~ ty II kt R I I I t I I ~ l 9 ~ ~~ ~ ~. I ' ~ ~~ 1 I 71 f ~~~ ,I ~~ ~~ y f ~1 !Y I ~°~;l ~ .I~ ~ 4 1 ,II ~ Si ~. !. j ~~ 7 l~ ' .~ I i ,~ i ', .~ ~ - ~7 ,~ ~I i i -~ li ~ k ~ ~ ~•~ 7 l If1 ll ~ i 7 7 I '~ _~, i I 1 i I ii -1 ~~ ~[~ ~~y ~s ~.!' ~I QI ,5~~~ tr~~ ~i <~ ~i: ~~ ~ . . - . ;~ , ~ -- .-may-r ~ -~~ ~ ~'J' ~ ~,~~i~ .~ `~ ~. _"`- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~:~~~ =. ~. ~ ~ i ~ ~ ,~~ ,. . - t, a i7 v i ` ~~1 ~ , Y A 3 _ •-~Cti~-... ~` p `~. ~`i 1~ ~ ~~ l ~! ~ , ~~~~~ ~., ! ~~ ~i ~~~ ~ ~ ~~,,, , ~! ~. I ~~ sir ~r~, ~ ~ !. R ~ y .~ .y ~_ .. , ~; ,{ ... _-- - '.,r r' -V~ ~. ~ ~d tt ~~ c .~ ~` 1 ~'~ Cf ~~ 4 • • i r ~ I i j i L' ~ ~ I Z O Q >' w w r '~ • nr w rr'.'~nZJa ~ I~4~ qn~~ ~~ai'~#~i II~A I ~ ... ~~ ,.~. 1 A A ~~ ~' i~~ ®§ ~~ ~- ~~ .~r~1 x• L' ~.~ i ~ it ~ ' Q +'. I• i i (~ I i' I I ~. I t Yi 1~ ~ii i ` _,i F ." ,. R. t ~~ i ~. . ~~ =~ • • s i9~~ gnia ~~ai~l~ it~Q 1 ~ ~ 0 0 o a oo a ~ o0 0 0 1 -,~ c '~ `! I 4 li O o - ~;- j Y . ~ \f ~ I ~ ~~ ~ _ .11 y g3 O ~~}} v O \ ~` \\ ~~ ~, 1 ~ ~I~N4tll F ' ~ € i~ i 1 E m LL 0, + ID ~' u ~`~ ~ ~ ~F ~~ '~ - °~ ___ I ~ [ J 'ri~f~i ~~ ._ E _~ tl0 tii i ~ a i ~ • • • R lt~~ -, ~i o- Q C a C? ~~~ ~ i ~ , a ~ ~oQ vs a u~- .~b ., ,.^.~, ~ i g j 013 '~ P ,...o ~. ~t~i3 ~i~ai~~ itBQ ~ J O ~ t~ 00 O Cd ~ Q C} ~ ~\ I _ ~R.. ~ ~. , .l w-n - tO fi~ I N 4~ ,kr iii i-i I L~ -i ~ M H ~I ~a _ _ 3 1 - I ~~ i O i ~ t , ~ "~ E J p II '1 I~ ~ i i p i j ( l_1ll11L~~~ ~~~ ~» ___-:_~ _ _ ~~~_k - ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~f L w•s~ ~ .,. ~ >. ~ ~ r 0... ~ yi rs a rr ,!, i. Ors .a Q l[.. Q N 7 I m J U S ,~l~ i I ~!~' ~`~ ,~~i ~~ .~ ~r~'~~: N~ts3a aildw3N~s ~ ~ 4 ~f~~... _ gnZ~ ~IS~°lris'~' 'IT4'A ~ ~ ~ Q oo ~ o 0o Q s sn M i ~ t ~ ~ 1 rr ~ jn Na '•, '"f - i ~ r ti xn ~ >~ i I it ~ I ~ _- ~ ~ r` C~ ._ --~ { y ty k$~iE j ~ r ~ ~ ~' ` ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ N '- ~ ~ ~~ ~3 Vl ~ S.i 4 ,¢w ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~~ ~~E ~ ~ ~ ~ lfl I i ~~ ~ ,~ ~ ~ i ~~. ~ ~ 1 J '~= r ;I ~~ ® 1 l ~ b 1 11 ~~ ~~ i ' i ! I [ f ~ 9 ` 1 ~ ~ . f ,~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ 7 -~ ' ~ k ~ k G 1~ ~ ~~',4 ~ A FF j j ~ L a ~ ~~ ~ i ~ 1 ~ ° 1 ~ ® ~ } I k ~ II i ~ ~: E ~~ - "o i e~ 4 ~F. ~ ^ i ~ V r-r "" • aavao~o~ iron ~»..,~;;,.:~ i ~ ~~~ gnz~ ~i.~~xs~ ~n~n ~ ~ ~~ O CQ G OQ O _ Q t~0_ C] - Q i. ~ ,~~.,w ,, E ~f ~ i ~' I f Vk ~ __ ~ _ ~I~~~I ~~ ~ ', y \ i ~ I I I 1 E ~ ,. I ~ '' ~$ ~" Q C C) O O C7 - ~ 3i a _ ~', ~ I - 1 _ ~ 0 •• ~ ~ M I ~ ~ ~_ I ~ ~. z { I I~ a~ IIr o ~~ i ~/ ~ Ir i t~AP :~~,~ ~~a r-, ~ o -- ----- - - _ i ~ ~~l~ /r ! ,~, ~ , i ~ ~ ' ~ '~ l~~i~ ~: a~-!~ ~ a~x rx .~w 1 ~~-a ~ ,view '~ s-+~ ~ ,rx ri f rw b ~ ~ .v~ rw~ }, a o ~ ~ o b K ~ i ~ ~ ~° ° r'~ o „_ rr rv ~a ~s tM ' l _ _._ _~.~' II 1~ ~, k._ ~I ~~1Mr'1F 4J j1 1 j I ~ \ ` M1~ `~ 1~ ~ ~ 1 I nl~ W d ~ ~i I 0 4 ~-y # V y _~--' MEMQRANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FR~UM: Community aeveiopment Department DATE: March 13, 2000 SUBJECT: A request for a worksession to discuss a proposed long range development master plan for Vail Mountain School, located at 3160 Katsos Ranch RoadfPart of Lot 12, Block 2, Vail Village 12`" Filing. Applicant: Vail Mountain School, represented by Gwathmey Prai# Schultz ,Architects 'Planner: Brent Wilson I. BACKER©UND AND DESCRIPI-1©N ~F THE REQUEST The following is a brief synopsis of Vail Mountain School development over the last 20 years: 1979 -original 2-story building constructed 1984 -north classrooms and rockfall berm constructed (berm is no longer necessary) 1983 -gymnasium and stage addition constructed 1992 -additional story added to existing building 1995 -library expansion 1993 -- temporary classroom structure added On June 8"', 1993, the Vail Town Council discussed the PEG's decision to approvE a conditional use permit (CUP) to allow for the addition of a temporary classroom structure at Vail Mountain School. The council agreed the GUP could be extended for an additional year if the applicant presented a master plan to the council within the next year. The applicant has requested a worksession today to present this proposed master plan to the PEG. The Vail Town Council reviewed the plan at their March 7'~' meeting and expressed unanimous support for the plan. The plan involves significant improvements constructed in two separate phases. Phase I improvements include the removal of the existing temporary classroom structure, construction of an eight-classroom wing to the north of the existing building, an elevator connection to all floors„ and a reconfiguration of the existing parking area to allow for the addition of a °drop off` lane and 30 additional parking spaces. Phase II improvements involve the addition of a 300-seat auditorium, faculty housing, additional classrooms south of the gymnasium and additional parking. Peter Abuisi (Vail Mountain School Headmaster) and Scott Lindall (Gwathmey Pratt Schultz Architects) will present an overview of planned improvements and long-range goals for the school. p~O~CYa '~Ib`/~ ;~ ks, ~ ~ Q i ~. ~~ ¢NOF~ h40 J ~aN~t yyJ} Q}~ pp~JI-~ I~s~} 2 3 o s g t t ~~ ~ . ~I i !. 9:: . ,a. ~ a+ -~ is ,~ ~~, L 1 S i r ~' C "~~' 1- k ~ ~ ~~: ~ ~~ ~~.. ~t k ~ ~ c ~~ f ~ ~}, n ~~ : 1 2° ~l ~ ~ ~°', ft ~ ~ r~ ni Kw& Yi * ~ ,~ i f 3 f n o 4 I ~ ~ ~ ~~ a,. 5 • R ~ ' t 4~ ' S Y ~.:a~ pry ~ g ~: V ~ J ~ 1 1 ~ R toll ~ Q1 a O (1 ~ ~ p 7iyj~ • ~ ~ I N ~ ~ O ~~ 1 , ~ ~ ~~ ~ _ _~ ~ ~.~~ i~ ~~ "~' n ~ ~ ~" = l - ~[ ~ `~~~~ sl ~ '~~ ~ ~ g ~ ~ i i ~ ~ 1~ ~ a '1 ' 1 ~ ~ ~ 1 s4J E i ~f `~~~ ..ems ~ _ ~1~ .per +.~r `~~ b ~~ ~,~ , f 3 ~~ (" { ` _ a ~^~' .~ MEMORANDUM Td: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM; Community Development Department DATE: March 13, 200{} SUBJECT; A PEC worksession to review proposed modifications to the Gore Creek Flood Plain, located at the Gore Creek Whitewater Park, Gore Creek Promenade 1 Tracts 1 & A, Block 5B, Vail Village 1st Filing.. Applicant: Vail Valley Tourism and Convention Bureau (VVTCB} and the Town of Vail Planner: Brent Wilson I. BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The Vail Valley Tourism and Convention Bureau (VVTCB) and the Town of Vail are proposing to enhance the amenities currently available to boaters on Gore Creek adjacent to the Gore Creek Promenade. Each year, the WTCB organizes the Jeep Whitewater Festival and hosts events at the Gore Creek Promenade area where spectators gather along the International and pedestrian bridges to observe the competition and suppor# boaters. This proposal is an effort to create better kayakerfrafter features in the area as well as promote Vail as a water sports destination. Qn February 29th, the Vail Town Council approved the expenditure of significant RETT funds for this project. The proposal calls for the placement of 3 "drop structures" in Gore Creek between the international Bridge and the Creekside building and additional restoration of the stream bank in areas of need. The drop structures consist of a semi-circle series of natural boulders and below-grade anchors. The hydraulicsfwaves created by the structures will serve as a whitewater amenity while the deepened pools created are intended to provide additional trout habitat. In association with this project, the Town will implement its approved landscape plan for Gore Creek Promenade. Pursuant to Section 12-21-10, Town of Vail Code, the Town of Vail and VVTCB are requesting PEC review of the proposed modifications within the Gore Creek flood plain. The pending environmental impact study will include approvals from the US Army Corps of Engineers and Colorado Division of Wildlife to ensure compliance with federal and state regulations concerning wetlands, water quality,. trout habitat and flood plain modifications. A complete floodplain study is currently underway by the Town's flood plain consultant. Eagle River Water and Sanitation District holds water rights along this portion of Gore Creek and their board of directors voted to grant the town subordinate water rights to ensure adequate flow to make the "`whitewater park" feasible during low-flaw periods. The purpose of this meeting is to provide a public forum for discussion of this proposal and to ensure that any applicable environmental impacts have been appropriately mitigated. The Vail Town Council directed staff to pursue construction and completion of this project (if feasible} prior to the Jeep Whitewater festival in N1ay of this year. Recreation Engineering and Planning (consultant) estimafes the project will take less than 2 weeks to construct. II. STAFF RECOMiMEN®ATION Staff will foruvard a recommendation to the PEC once the pending environmental impact study is complete. lll. REVlEW1NG BOARQ ROLE The PEC will be asked to render an approval or denial of this request to modify the Gore Creek (load plain at a future public hearing based on the following objective; That the proposed location of the flood plain modification 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. • • ~,,~..~ ~ • itecr-eati an Ong i r~ri n~ €. P! ca ~ n i ng $ March, 2.4U0 Mr. Mike Clat~ey U.S_ Army Ceres ofEngineers Regulatory Branch: ~40Z Mood Avenue, rio. Z42 Grand ]unction, CO 81501 Dear Mr. Claffey: 4fi5 grapntrae Averu~.~ i3ouJd¢t'. Color-adn S e ~ o z C3O3~ 545-58$3 Phone/Fnx Qn behal~F of the town of Vail, I am requestsng aathariration to proceed with the canstruCtiox~ of aclaatic habitat restoration and whitewater boatung rmprrrvements on Gore Creek, Fagle County, Colarado_ ~P-ttached, you will hnd: (!~ the completed Engineering Fonm 435; (2) a report which describes the project in greater detail; az~d {3) copies of the transmit#al letter that was sent to ether resource agencies soliciting their review and response to the application. 'T'he "l'own of Vail hopes to receive authorisation for this project using Regional Permit No. CO-(7Y'l: -©169.A. We would greatly ap,~~ t...iate whatever effort you o~nuld make towards issuing an authorizatiatt to proceed as quickly as possible, Thank you izx advance for your attention ~ this matter. Please cortt3ct ms if you have any questions or require further information. Sincerely, ~'~ Gary M. Lacy, p.E. cc' Nancy Bern Todd opgenh;etmer Brent Wilson • Pout-It' Fax No#e ~' ~~.r7- G~i ~~~ F~ • °19b -~99 r.~~-,.~ F~, .~ ~.~~ ~. -~~- ~axs i[ rr rr MAR-'@9-@@ THU 11;39 AM RECREATION/ENGINEERING 3@3 54~ ~xstso r.~+t ~,,7~'., ~C~'t~Ci~lU-61 ~~l~C l~lt'l~l~ ~ (~'~+ACt1`'1l~`'~C~ . ¢85 Arcapaha¢ Av¢n~ie i3auld~r, Colarndo $ o?~ 02 C303} 545-5883 Ph~n¢/Fc=x S l'vlarc}t, 2~€?0 Mr. Bill Ctaric Colorado Divisiorx of Wildlife 71 I Independent Ave, Grand Junction CC7~ $1505 Dear: ~}n behalf cif the Town of Vail, I am hereby requesting your review of the enc]osed X04 pernait a~plicatipn for construction of ixtstream habitax structures artd whitewater boating improvements on Gore Creek, It is intended that y©ur revicw complies with the procedures sat forth in the regional pexmit for instream habitat improvement, CO-(}YT- 0169A. Please send your corrunents directly to Mike Clsffey at the Coxps of Engineers itt Grand Janetion with a copy to me if possible. Thank you in advance for your attention to this matter. Please contact me if yvu have any questions or require further information. Sincerely, ~~ Gary M. Lacy, p.l . cc: Mike Claffey, U, s..Arrny Corps of Engineer Town of Vail. • n MAR-09-00 THU 11:30 AM RECREATIONiENGINEERING 303 545 5883 • ~,,,~,~`, d'~ Recrecttivn Ong i nt~r~ng $~ T~ta n n i ng ,~ 48 rs ArQpa~hoe Avenue t'~c3uld¢r, Gaiorado 8 0 3 a Z C3d3~ 545-5883 Phon¢/fnx 8 March, 200(3 Mr. Bit1 Andre Calaraclo Division of Wildlife P Q Box 633 Mintern, CO S 1645 Dear Mir. Andre: On behalf of the Town of Vai1,1 am hereby requesting your review of the enclosed 404 permit application for construction of instream habitat structures and whitewater basting improvements on Gore Creek, 1t is intended. that your review complies with the procedures set forth in the regional permit for instream habitat impravement, CO-OYT- t3169A, r~ U Please send your comments directly to Mike Cla#i'ey at the Carps a:f Engimeers irx Grand Junction with a copy to me if possible. Thank you in advance for your attention to this matter. Please contact me if you have any questions or require further infarmation. Sixxce ely, //!` Gary M. Lacy, P.~. cc: Mike Claffey, U.5_ Army Corps of Bngineers Towtz of Vail Bill Clark, Colorado Division of Wildlife P. 03 • ~,..~ d'~ Re~~cxti o n Ong s neeri ng ~'# a n n ~ ~~ ~. 485 Arapahoe Auenue 6au1d¢r. CvJcsi~do 8 ~ ~ 02 t3p3'1545-5883 Pl,onc/Fcu: 8 March, 20(}(1 Mr. Jun Green Calarado Historical Society 1300 Eroadway .Denver, CQ $0203 Dean Mr. ~nteen: t]n behalf of the town of Vail, z am hereby requesting your review of the enclosed 404 permit application for construction o#'insir~cam habitat structures and whitewater boats;tig improvements an Gore Creek. Jt is intended that your review complies with the procedures set forth in the regional permit for instream habitat improvement, CO-~3YT- Ol,b9A. Please send yowr comments directly to Mike Claffey at the Carps of Engineers in Grand Junction with a copy to me if possible. Thank yon in advance for your attention to this matter. please contact me if yQU Have any questions or require further information. Sincerel , Gary Iv,[. Lacy, P.E. cc: Mike Claffey, U`_S. Army Corps of Engineers Town of Vail • C A SF~, r if3N ~U4 REGZ~fJNAL PERMIT APPI.ICA-'x'ION FOR GORE CREE~i PRBPA.~tED FOR: 7owtt o~ Nail ],309 Elkhorn Dr. Vats, Cfl 8165? FREPARFD BY: Recreation Engineering & Flanning 485 Arapahos Boaddsr, CQ 80302 Phone 303.545-5883 March 8, 2000 • r~a~-e T~-BI,E OF C4NTF.N'~S Preface I. INTR(7DUCTION IL PCXRPOSE III. LOG,A.TION I'lT, EXISTING CQNDITIC3NS ~''. PROPOSED PLAN A. Boulder ~1-baaxls B. Riffle Roughness Boulders C. l3oulcler Edge Ali. CONSTRUCTI[3N SCHEIJT7LE VfI. CQORDINATI+C)N'UVIT~ QTR AGENCIES List of Fires Figure X :Pro}ect loc~rtt~n rnap Figure 2: Play view of habitat restoration iz~aprovezxaez~ts Figure 3: Plan and prof ~e view of a bauldea: ~]'-bam Figtue 4: Boulder Edge • • • PREFACE Tlxe followin$ materials are submitted in antieipatton of receiving a Section 404 Kegianal Permit to conduct in-stream warl< in Gore Crock designed to impxave aquatic l,alaitat and r~rhitewater baatiug. The following materials have been included for your review. 1. A comple#ed application forrny 4345 2. A amap iAnstrating the location of the proposed worm 3, A set of drawings illustrating proposed activities im plan. and detail view 4. Information regarding types and tluantities of materials S. Anticipated starting and completion dates. This application has been prepared accvrcliug to the guidelines provided in the Public Notice C+D-dY'T-~ 169A, Regional Permit far Stream I-Iabitat Improv+eme~nt Struc#w~es within ttte State of Colorado. MAR-69-00 THU f1:33 AM ~F2ECREATIONr~NGIN€ERING 303 545 58133 ~,. Re~xanrai ~ t?;srharge ^i`v L ~ ~`~rk,c~` ~Q.r4G~r1s'~iGr to ~ ~'~rt~i~n, s'~r//t ~/~' r~+s d7/~ A~ QCt ~I~ {~1 G~ i 22. 1'~rpe(ej at mlatar;at Bakq aisrxrsr~ed and the nmcwnt at ~adr Type in Cubic Yams _ c.~~~iC ocrr,~s Pte` 5~'r,~c.`~re t~ ~~+~[. grow7`t~ 6c~w~~,/~~~ rx l ~ry~. l ~~-y~~ ~'~`~$~ ~~+f ahrs f ~'~o' u ~' tau (dam -froe. 29Surface Araa in Acres atVVen~nds cr Other Waters Fined a« uw~oi+n.l .. _ .,.~, ,._ 2i. Is My Pctran of itra Nryrit AJrond•~ Goittipiam7 Yes no ~r - I1= Yt=s. DE:iGR18E rlt~ CL>wAPLE7ED WORK 25. Addretaes of Adlalriltlg Rrapergl Ouvrters i.easasr:, E4C. Wtsase Property Adjoins the W, ,:....1(@ nsare then r~r'1 ba entt:red here, pears atlaCtt a itspWemennt f'ctlj. fir! l ~ '~c~o ~a~ ~/~.s~ 2tt. nesrriha any advarsq mrater quatlty impscit that rnetr reautt frdm the proposed adiv~r at,ch a: irscreased us~ldrOr or aruslon. Haw tans wee sins impacts orcrri 7~aP<e C.fJ~ ~~ b~ lh f~r~r ~e+~-~BM''etr~ ~et~~i~i7~~, q~`~r~'t,~ E~s3~r~yy°'r ~j ~~ d.(.1,~ 7`Q r ~ tr4/I J`i~ lp~le /~t-~/l~' ~c.,~ i l I~ i ~--~ p~~-.~ ~S d{ rPsul~ t~ t - ~ roJ,PC~ . 27. oesr~itse mettwds us be used to prevent water qualbty impacx9 which mrdd erhrkre snA1h iUalMrEnl of State designated t'rstrery. re_ ~x:..s, ~4^ttart, water auppty a atner uses ~~t~~r ~sr ~ d ]~ fJl d!1c~ r~r,~~ Lu ~ / ( +~e d"on~e l~r ~ '~~/ c.~r~~~r~f !r P~~t~ w ; ~ ~ ~4 ~. ~ b~~fe ~'r c; ~~ 1'~« pvc,Z`' ~ roc r-€~rr~i~ ~# ,~~+~~~Ies , ~~ List of QthEY Certineagana tY ApprovetrJt7eniels Received fiprrt ottrer Federal. State ttr lagl A~atcles !ar Work DesCritied in This AppitcatJOn. - AGENCY TYP~APPR4YAL' IOENTiFtCA710NNLNNBER pAl'~EAPPt.tF13 6ATEAYPROVED OATEDF.AIt~D ti ;~ 'Would ' e twt ie rot r to m~t ng, butldirtg and flood Flain p b. ~. on b herEliy nta~a pear pemtira b aulFraraY the v~bad~kSlhls apacanon. l GFrtiCy lifat the ltdblrrra,Uan in this apprkatlan is r-0mprete and accurale_ I hrL~f! certify that 1 Aassess life ardtsority is underlaka the wrak dee+rlibed herein or em acllnq as the duty au 'zed agenl of the appACanL /' ~~~ SiG~1TtJRE t?J: APPLICANT 1 DATE _ 51 itE i)F AG NY DA7S ti The appfieatla+ mypt 6s s4ynetl by the parstxt who desirxa io undai the p ...„: 1 activity (applicant} or it may t1e sipnetl 4Y a duly autfrari=ed a9ert if the 7taLrarrerx in bto' tilled aut and slgnad. k 7B U.S.C. Sian 1001 pravidee 1k+st wltaevar. In arty mercer wJUslrt fife Jurlsdittlon of Arty department ar agency of the united states k ~ ~ ` ., >r and vriufuly 1'ais+ttes up any t,ir$ srYreme. ar alsgutses Srt9aterial tact rx makes any terse, C+crttaus a heudutent rslatrmenU or representations etrniices or uses cry false writing ar rte t6 Certtain any false, bC$tloif! or fraudrdent statametttrs or entry, shop be fined riot mare Inan L10,gOD er urprimoned net more titan Eve Years ar loom. F"~0t9 -. - LLS.GPC1a. __„_ M1AR-09-00 THU l 1 ;S3 AM RECREATIONrENGIIVEERING 303 545 58tB3 p. 89 I. I1~T~4~lUUC'I70N The Totivn o>' Vail has initiated an in-strum project tv improve habitat and boating characteristics along a 1!S mile reach of Gore Creek in Vail, Colorado. IL PURPOSE The overall project is to improve aquatic acrd riparian habitat conditions $ad whitewater basting characteristics by: (1) The creation ofself-sc~unng pools between riffle areas; {2) Stabilizing streambanks; and (3} Planting and preserving riparian vegetation to e~abance overhead cover sand shading. Specificalay, impmvemez~ts requiring fill include: ~} Constxuction of 3 boulder V-Dams to create self-scouaring plunge pools and to dissipate stream energy. Flwage po415 excavated below each V-Darn will improve the pool to ritl}e:ratior- of the reach, provide high quality dish habitat, and be scaurecf of sediment during high flows; 2) .4.dditior~ of'large riffle boulders below and within pools to improve macrainvertebrate habitat. 3} Boulder edge acrd riparian terraces to provide for erosion protection and planting areas. IIL LOCATION The proposed project is located in Vail, Colorado in Township SS, RBUW ,Section $.. N. EXYSTIENG CUNDITIQNS existing conditions along Gory Creek c~,n be Characterized as moderately distu.~.~ ~1 The historic streambed and ripariatc zone leave been damaged by channelization, urban encroachmectt, and fill. Pool to ri£lle ration is low, and there are few existing pools. The riparian habitat shaditag fimction is tn~ixed, and a portion of the south streambank is eroding. MAR-09-00 THU 11:34 AM RECREATIL]NiENGINEERiNiG,_ 3B3 545 5883 P. 1@ a ~1~Q1~" ~.I+7~.4J~V A variety of improvements have been selected to improve the condition of Gaye Creels. Figure 2 illustratres the locations of structures that are planned for implcmentatiarz. A description of each of the techniques subject to Section 4Q4 regutation~ follows. A,. Boulder V-Dams Three boulder V-Dams will be constructed using three to five food diameter boulders at each location, V-Dams will generally extend across the entire channel and be anchored to each streambanls (Figure 4}. Boulders will be stabilized with. con~~~k. grout to insurae they will withstand flood flows. All boulders will be placed. such that their tog surfaces match flush to the existing channel invert. A four foot deep pool will be excavated below each sttvcture, with pool depth: gradually decreasing in the downstream direction to faun the pool fallout ~'he resulting pool will prgvide plunge pool habitat and wil l be scoured of sediment during high haws. The drag associated with each V-Dam will dissipate stream energy and aerate the water. B. Riffle RauQhness Batslders Four to six foot diameter rifle roughness boulders will be placed at various locations '~ below thalweg and plunge pools to enhance the quality of the riffle. These boulder3 will increase channel roughness and improve macroinveartebtate aquatic habitat, Qraantities of boulders placed at each location will range between l S and45 cubic yards. C. Strearnbanlc St~bi1ization Portions of both stTeambanks will be stabilized. See figure 3. A. Xow of florae-foot diameter lwulders will be placed at the toe of the new streamlaattk below the ordinary high water liuQe_ This boulder tae a,~nounts to one-third of a cubic yard of material placed per lineal foot of strrarnbanlc. YL CO~iSTRiTti,'i ii3N 5~,.,ri~DULE Project constnaction is anticipated to hegira in Apri12U00 and be complete by May 13, ~OQO ,during low flow periods. Constrttctiar- will not begin. until afier April 6,2040 sa as tq twt interfere with a planned fish count. '~I. C[l-DRAIlYA,T)EON WITH UTRER AGEiw1~,~~,5 This report is beitt~ sent concurrently to the CDOWand SI~PU. ., ~' ' r. ~ . ~~.~_ . ~!I%' ,~, t , r ~`~; J i J -i"~ {_ ~, ;j t + 1, ., `% ~, ~. ~' ~~ ~ ~ . ~ .; s ~• ~ 1 ~ k' ~f`~J` ~ ~I`'1 l~+,,+ ~ IM ~' 4 A' s~F 4~' ~ Ate' l~ ~ ' i _.,,,,,.. ~ ~~' ~,ti ~~ ~'~ t i ~ ., ~ . . ~ ~ ,~ :-~: i 1; ~~ ,~J ', ,-~-x~ 4 ~ `'~ 'tie • r~ N ' ZT'd ;~ .`~'Z i~ . 1 ~ ~ 5 ^~ ~ ' ..~~1 •- ..~ ~i, P~"7 • ~ P +~~~ ' .' f `S '~ ~' . ti" ~ t £®8S S4S £0£ JNI2i33NI L ~~ :~ y o~ r .. . ~/ /. ' ' ~~ ~ e z i ~ f t e ~; 1 P 1 ~+ A J .~ 4 ~ --- m r d N _~ __SJ~. a L 5 .-~, :ii"nHi ®e-6e-aaw R-0J-010;7.~`THiU 11 :36 FiM RECREATIONiENGINEERING 303 545 5863 . y'. ~Y .. t . ~~ •'~=•~V'~C~'~ir1,~PlUf~gc ~Po~~ ~r (Zip ~~.nN v~G-N fi*+r>~ • .. ... .~,C ., H~ Bau'Iders wi~-hi'n .. ' " th~nncl to~be ptac~d ~ . ecrti re ~ at ar belgw ~ • ex~n~ th~nr7el inarer~ ~ F-Sh bundles ~. ~, !~ ~ '~ •'~ ~nha~iC~ b~~ . ~ ~ ~ St'a~iili~.e r„ var. b R~ ff l ~ ~~ tfi ~~. o° ~ boulder 1 - ~. . .. ••, ~ . . ~;, • S'~RE~1 • Hy ' '` r ~U1~}'~2 bOUIdGr dEa. ' H = Rr1~1~vC',Hi~h 1. r RCi~t~~'e LQN' • ~ANR V~uETATcVE 7REATNtitrN~' NOr('. Sfi:oVti'1J ~'~~'fT7,.~~U>~f.C~P ~~Ofl1.~ Rf~E PRO~~ue Yi~w (Nrs~j .. ~ , ~~ . '7 ~ ~ .. .~ ~ Final 7aiJo~rt `'~ 3 1 stoic ~. • . Y ~ J~~ u f~~ ~ ~~ooL Boulder ~ . (. -,, ~ ' ~ ..~. • ~ ~F'ound~~~~vn~ ~''~~ _ „ 4 NOTE:Ad~ust r`il~c • ~• .bt~uld~rs as~~_ ~ ._ ~, eJc~~~tiQn ~o ne~~ss3r ...~ • m~inr,~ir~ ~¢~ pa~~l -~ ~: ~'. ~ . ' Add ~: dc,~th at lotii' flour ~~,. • - instrc~m c~vc~' , . after ~~dv~GiQr~ A[~h 57R~A1vSep.Nl~: cav~f't v~GL7AT~oN ~ , , ;,• v = v~rlablC .. •~~ri FxGUR~ ~ :Flan and pro~f.le view o~ a boulder V-dam, P. 13 ~~;-~. ~:,. ~~, . "sx ~ 'rr . 4 ~~ -_~~~~ ~ . 'r K* p}~ ~/y r {~'! aw .fir +ry~. '~J ~ • e •''^~ (rVY1~iM ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ r ~% v Q ~,~~ o~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ „~ WCL ~. ~ ~~ ~ b - `~ . ~~ ~~ ~' ~ ~. `~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~. ~ ~ Wl ~~ ~~ .. ~ ~' K~ { ~ ~~ {' c • MEMl7RANDUM TC?: Planning and Environmental Commission FR{]M: Community Development Department DATE: March 13, 20iJ0 SUEJECT: A request far a canditianal use permit, to allow far the conversion of existing hotel rooms into employee housing units, located at 2211 N. Frantage Rd. (West Vail Ladge)ITract C, Vail dos Schone #1; Lots 1, 2 and 3, Vail dos Schone #3. Applicant: React Corporation Planner Bren# Wilson I, BACKGROUND AND l3ESCRIPTIC)N ~OF TFIE REQUEST March 13th Update - On February 28`fi, the PEC conceptually reviewed the applicant's proposal and requested the following items: ^ A pedestrian access and circulation plan -the applicant has submitted a plan indicating locations of ingress and egress throughout the Building exterior and access to adjacent properties. ^ A landscape plan o per the PEC's request, the applicant has submitted a plan that demonstrates the placement of additional landscaping along property boundaries and within the parking areas. Examples of other mixed use aroiects -the applicant will be pr©viding a report to the PEC an March 13`h. Staff believes the Town has acicnowiedged the compatibility of EHU's with other uses far years, For example, the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan provides specific incentives for the addition of EHU's to existing commercial and residential projects. Successful examples of this type of project in Vail include the Vail dos Schone building, Vail Camrnans and the Austria Haus, Additionally, the applicable Commercial Core III zoning idenitfies EHU's as a compatible use with other commercial uses, subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit. y Sample condominium declarationsldocuments ~ the applicant's attorney is drafting these items and they will be presented to the PEC on March 13"'. The applicant is requesting final review of this request at today's meeting- Project History The West Vail Lodge property,. constructed in 1979 under Eagle County jurisdiction, includes $3 accommodation units (hotel rooms}, 19 dwelling units and significant commercial floor area. In the 1980's, the Town of Vail annexed the property and applied Commercial Core III zoning. This zoning designation does not allow dwelling units or accommodation units as a use and the property has been rendered non-conforming ever since its annexation into the town. In 1991, the Vail Town Council approved a special development district (SDD) at the site to allow for the addition of a new three-story building containing 37 Type III employee housing units. This project was never constructed and the approved SDD became null and void in '1994. The applicant's reques# involves the conversion of the existing 83 hotel rooms into 43 one-bedroom Type III employee housing units (including an on-site manager's unit). Additionally, the owner proposes to add additional commercia[ square footage at the lowest level and provide life-safety improvements to the existing 19free-market condominiums at the upper levels. Existing meeting room space would be converted into 16 covered parking spaces in conjunction with this application. The employee housing units would range in size from 550-772 square feet with full kitchen and bathroom facilities. In addition to the walk-in closets provided in each unit, the applicant proposes 1,72Q square feet of common tenant storage space. ~n-site amenities proposed include an exerciselsauna facility, ski lockers, a laundry facility and a pool area. The PEC is b€~ing asked to review the conditional use permit request to allow for the creation of the employee housing units. The other aspects of this proposal (commercial expansion and upgrading of dwelling units) are either permitted by right under applicable zoning or are "grandfathered." II. REVIEWING BUARd ROLES - CONDITIiDNAI_ USE PERAAIT Under of Review: Generally, applications will be reviewed first by the PEG for acceptability of use and then by the DRB far compliance of proposed buildings and site planning. Planninct and Environmental Commissiian: Action: The PEG is responsible for final approval/denial of CUP, The PEC is responsible for evaluating a proposal for; Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Tawn_ 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. 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. 4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be lace#ed, inckuding the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. 5. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed use. 2 ~i. The environmental impact report concerning the proposed use, if an environmental impact report is required by Chapter 12 of this Title, Conformance with development standards of zone district - Lot area - Setbacks - Building Height - Density - GRFA - Site coverage - Landscape area - Parking and loading - Mitigation of development impacts Design Review Board: Action: The DRB has NO review au>fhori#y an a CUP, but must review any accompanying DRS application. The DRB is responsible far evaluating the DRB proposal for: - ArchitecturaE compatibility with other structures, the land and surroundings - Fitting buildings into landscape - Configuration of building and grading of a site which respects the topography - Removal/Preservation of trees and native vegetation - Adequate provision for snow storage on-site - Acceptability of building materials and colors - Acceptability of roof elements, eaves, overhangs, and other building forms - Prevision of landscape and drainage - Provision of fencing, walls, and accessory structures - Circulation and access to a site including parking, and site distances - Location and design of satellite dishes - Provision of outdoor lighting - The design of parks Staff: The staff is responsible far ensuring that all submittal requirements are provided and plans conform to the technical requirements of the Zoning Regulations. The staff also advises the appfcant as to compliance with the design guidelines. Staff provides a staff memo containing background on the property and provides a staff evaluation of the project with respect to the required criteria and findings, and a 3 recommendation on approval, approval with conditians, or denial. Staff also facilitates the review process. Town Council: Actions of DRB or PEC maybe appealed to the Town Council or by the Town Council. Town Council evaluates whether ar not the I'EC or DRB erred with approvals or denials and can uphold, uphold wi#h modifications, or overturn the board's decision. IIL STAFF F2ECL3MMENDATI01~ The Community Development Department recommends approval of the applicant's rettuest for a conditional use permit to allow for the conversion of existing hotel rooms into employee housing units, based on the following findings: That the proposed location of the use is in accordance with the purposes of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. 2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimen#al to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code. If the Planning and Environmental Commission chooses to approve this request, staff recommends the following conditions be placed on the approval: 1. The approval will not be valid unless the Vaii Town Council approves the pending proposal to amend Section 13-7 {"Condominiums and Condominium Conversions"} of the Town of Vail Code. This amendment is necessary to allow for the conversion of accommodation units to condominiumized employee housing units. The applicant shall demonstrate compliance with ail provisions of the Town of Vail Subdivision Regulations. 2. All employee housing units created with this proposal will be deed-restricted in accordance with the provisions of Section 12-13, Town of Vail Code ("Employee Housing"'}, prior to the issuance of a building permit for any improvements an the property. 3. The applicant shall provide the Town of Vail a pedestrian easement for the existing sidewalk located at the south end of the subject property along North Frontage Road. 4. The applicant shall complete and improve the existing unfinished retaining wall at the north end of the subject property. This improvement is subject to approval by the Town's Design Review Board. 5. In accordance with the anticipated impacts generated by the provision of employee housing units upon the Town's transit system, the applicant shall provide a pedestrian stair connection between the berm at the north end of the parking lot and the existing Town of Vail bus stop along Chamonix Lane. This improvement will be contained entirely on both the subject property and the Town of Vail right-of-way. This improvement is subject to approval by the Town's Design Review Board. 4 6. Landscaping along the parking area. and !ot perimeter will be provided in accordance with the provisions of Section 12-11, Town of Vail Code ("Design Review"). Compliance with these provisions will be determined by the Town's Design Review Board. 7. The applicant will obtain an encroachment agreement for the placement of any parking facilities within platted easements.. additionally, the proposed parking plan shall comply with the town's development standards and will be approved by staff during the design review process. 8. The applicant shall complete additional exterior improvements {if applicable} to be determined by the Town's design Review Board. IV. Z~NlNG ANALYSIS Under the applicable Commercial Core III (CC3} zoning, the following non-conformities currently exist: ^ Use {residential dwelling units} ^ Use (accommodation units} ^ Density {unitslacre} ^ Landscaping ^ Parking located within required setbacks Since the property was developed under Eagle County jurisdiction, the existing building has been granted a legal non-conforming {"grandfathered"} status. Type III employee housing units are a conditional use in the Commercial Core III zone district- Lot Area: Buildable Lot Area: Density: Allowed {CC3}: Existing: Proposed: GRFA: Allowed (CC3}: Existing; Proposed: Commercial Floor Area: Allowed (CC3}: Existing: Proposed: Setbacks: Required (CC3}: Existing: Proposed: 3.949 acres or 172,018 sq. ft. 3.890 acres or 169,448 sq. ft. 92 EHU's = 46 equivalent d.u.'s 19 d.u.'s and 83 a.u.'s = G0.5 equivalent d.u.'s 19 d.u.'s and 41 EHU's = 39.5 equivalent d.u.°s 50,834 sq. ft. 43,532 sq. ft. no change" No limit 17,252 sq. ft. 20,826 sq. ft. 20' on all sides 20' on all sides ~~ no change -` ~. T~1W.+JOFY~1lL ~ J~ Site Coverage: Allowed ~CC3}: Existing: Proposed: Parkino: Required (CC3}: ExlSting: Proposed: 40% or F8,807 sq. ft. 20.1 % yr 34,576 sq. ft. no change 181 spaces 191 spaces 207 spaces Landsear~inq: Y A, 1, Required (CC3}: 25% {min.} of site area or 48,395 sq. ft. Proposed: 29% of site area or 49,987 sq. ft. ~` GRFA associated with Type III EHU's is excluded *" Interior landscape requirement for parking lot is not met. REQUIRED CRJTERIA AND FINDINGS - Cr7NDITIONAL USE PERMIT CONSIDERATION OF FACTORS: Relatianshio and imoac# of the use on the develaoment abiectives afthe Town. The Vail Land Use Plan identifies the subject property as part of the "Community Commercial" zone. This land use designation is intended to "meet consumer demands from community residents." The key goals outlined for commercial uses in this zone are as follows: 1 } Commeroiai strip development should be avoided. 2} Commercial growth should be concentrated primarily in existing. commercial areas to accommodate both local and visitor needs. 3} New hotels should continue to be located primarily in the Village and Lionshead areas. Staff believes this proposal would impact the foAowing goals and policies identified in the Vail Land Use Plan: 1.1 Vail should confinue to grow in a controlled environment maintaining a balance between residential, commercial and recreational uses to serve both the visitor and the permanent resident 1.12 Vail should accommodate mast of the additional growth in existing developed areas (infill areas). Staff 'Response Staff believes the proposed amendment would help facilitate the location of employee housing units within the Town of Vail (a high Council priority} at an existing infill location. Staff believes affordable employee housing is essential for the provision of services that bath residents and visitors expect. Staff also believes the benefits of employee housing may outweigh the need far accommodation units at this location. 3.1' The hotel bed base should be preserved and used more effleienfJy_ 6 • • 3.2 The Village and Lionshead areas are the best location for hotels to serve the future needs of the destination skiers. 3.3 Hotels are important to the continued success of the Town of Vail, therefore conversion to condominiums should be discouraged .3.4 Commercial growth should be concentrated in existing commercial areas to accommodate Moth local and visitor needs. Staff Resaonse Although the Land Use Plan identities lodging unit preservation as a high priority, it also identifies appropriate locations for accommodation units (the Village and Lionshead}. Staff believes these policies should be used to identify whether a proposed conversion is consistent with master planning objectives. Although the conversion of any accommodation unit within Vail's core areas should be highly discouraged, staff believes the subject property may be an appropriate location for employee housing. 5.1 Additional resr`dential growth should continue to occur primarily in existing, platted areas and as appropriate in new areas where high hazards do not exist. 5.3 Affordable employee housing should be made available through private efforts, assisted by limited incentives, provided by the Town of Vail with appropriate restrictions. 5.4 Residential growth shoudd keep pace with market place demands for a full range of housing types. 5.5 The existing employee housing base should be preserved and upgraded. Additional employee housing needs should be accommodated at varied sites throughout the community. Staff Resaonse Staff believes this proposal furthers the above-listed goals by providing additional opportunities for locals/employee housing within the town limits at an existing infill location. 6.1 Services should keep pace with increased growth. Staff Resoonse Staff believes the provision of employee housing is vital if Vail is to provide services consistent with the demand created by residents and visitors. 2, The effect of the use an light and air. distribution of oooulation. transaortation facilities. utilities. ;~r:haols parks and recreation facilities. and other r~ublic facilities needs, The subject property is located in a developed "infill'" area with access to al! of the above-listed facilities and services. Staff believes the reduction in units with this proposal will havE a positive impact on these facilities while in the increase in commercial floor area (17%} wiCl have a limited incremental impact on the above-listed facilities. 7 I` 3. Effect ur~on traffic with particular reference to congestion. automofive and pedestrian safety and convenience. traffic flow and control. access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and parking areas. Traffic Flow - "`Attachment 1" references iTE's (Institute of Transportation Engineers} projected traffic impacts for the existing and proposed uses at the site. According to ITE calculations, we should anticipate a 1 Q% decrease in traffic generation based on proposed uses. This is due largely to the decrease (over 5Q%} in the number of employee housing units proposed compared to existing acoommodation units. Additionally, staff anticipates a higher usage of town transit (West Vail Red and Green routes} by potential local employees. Staff believes this pr©posal would have a positive impact on traffic flow in the area. Parking -Based on the proposed land uses, the Town of Vail Code requires 184 parking spaces. The applicant is proposing 2fl7 spaces on site. Snow storage requirements wilt be addressed as part of the design review process. 4. Effect uuon the rharac:ter of the area in which the proposed use is to be located. incl~~dinq_the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. The applicant is not proposing any changes to the buck, mess or location of the existing building. B. FINDINGS The Planning and Environmental ~;ommission shall make the following findings before granting a conditional use r~ermit: That the proposed location of the use is in accordance with the purposes of the conditional use permit section of the Zoning code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. 2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained would not be de#rimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code. 8 r Q? _ v b' 0.m'l N ~ ~ N ~ N ~ e~j r N ~ r G r (Q ~ N r ~` N Cfl N Q ~ 90 ~ LCD r i'') Q ~ LL LL ~ 4 D ~ O O O d r~ r r V "~ Lr7 `+ tf] 00 O ~ tJZ'. xr~m0 __ N ~_ Z6 ~6 ~ ~ 'o ~ C ~ ~ Cp .~ ~ 0 r L C N ~ ~ ~ G p ~ L ~} ~ ~ ~ ~, o C~ ~ .~ a as _' ~ m `~ wQ~ Q ~ ._ L.L 2 ~ _ Q O O N ('7 C`'7 N :'~'7 00 OD N Cfl ` ~' N tt ) N ' ,~ ? r [~ ~ r L~ r QQ ~"~ ~ ~ '~ a m ~ ' ~ ..J d v~ ra ~ C~J ~ O N ~ F Q ~ :: ~" a.-:.Q Q ~.. ~ Q Q Q ~ CI) O O 7 O O " ~ ~ 4 d ~ ~ 0 C Q ~ ~ Q 4 fl U C37 ~. O -~ Q Ga r~ ti v c ..... j ~ lf? CA D at tt~ ~ v. oo ci CL Lf i f4 ~+ d N v ~ -C3 ~ C (f7 (Q O ~ ~ C3 ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ 'L~ c ~ ~-~: ~. C i ~ C t'J ~ . X71 ~ .,. ~ ~ ~ CT} ~. ~ _ D ~ ~ £U ~ L,i,J :. U q7 a ~ m c_3 (7 C'} ,~ sn ~ _ ~ n, ~ ~ m 'm ~ L . N N/ y~ /~ LL 1 Sl N ~ ~ [~ d O d N ~ P'3 .. N C'7 CO CJ ~^ ~ r i .~ p} ~.{..~ C O C~ Cl) tt3 H O S~II W ~L. v n~ U 7 •I • H • vv 11Vest Vail edge 2211 N . Frontage Road Lot 1 Tract K} ,Vail das 5chone #3 • Vicinity Map DR. Zp ..r 1 -r • • r . •.t s January ~ I, ?Oa0 Russell Forest,. Dominic Mauriello, Nina Tim IJepartznent of Community Development Town of Vail 75 . Frontage Road Vail Colorado Dear Planners, FRITZLEN PIERCE 5M1TH ARCH 1 7 E C T 5 Following is a summary of 1'EC Application far the 'J~Jest Vail Lodge Redevelopment. Current and Prnpased Uses The West Vail Lodge is located at the intersection of the I-70 West Vail exit and the iVorth Frontage Road. The site currently has 19 dwelling Units and 97 accommodation units that are rented as hotel rooms to area visitors. The 19 units were platted as separate condominiums prior to purchase by the current owner. There are also muting rooms and other commercial uses within the existing building. The underlying zoning is Commercial Core III. The hotel operation has continued to decline, losing revenues in the last two years. There are a number of reasons believed to be the cause. - The property has been difficult to market to prospective guests as an independent operator due to the increasing competition from central reservations systems. - The physical building configuration for hotel use has become obsolescent. The room size, function and context no longer meet market demands. Guest expectations have changed as new development adjacent Vail has molded the hotel market. The West Vail Lodge was originally built to attract short term visitors familiar with a motel experience. Qver the past two decades bath Vail's visitors and landscape have changed considerably. It is unlikely that the West Vail Lodge could be successfully renovated as a hotel given the existing constraints and be economically viable. On the other hand the retail operations have continued to be economically viable, probably due to the continued expansion of cotrlmercial properties in the West Vail area, Given those parameters the owner, React corporation is proposing an adaptive re-use that would match the current building configuration and meet market demand. React is proposing to convert the 97 existing hotel rooms into ~9 one bcdroum )/HUs as defined by the Town of Vail zoning code. They are proposing to sell the existing 19 condominium units with no deed restrictions and leave the existing retail in its current configuration. Z©ning Status T::1(1002 -West Vai] Lode Redevelap~a~entlPn~ject Carrespandencel`rown of VaillE'GCOt27.wpd P1~nning i Architecture • Interiors 7 650 East Vail Valley Drive (allridge C-1 • Vail, CO 8'1657 • fps colorado,net • fax i97o) 476-4301 • (470) 476-6342 •,~ In 199U The West Fail Lodge had a ~7 unit employee housing proposal approved through a Special Development District {SDD} rezoning. The project was never initiated. The proposed ~'7 units exceeded the underlying allowed density and square footage for the CCIII zone district and therefore a zone change was required to add the housing. The Town of Vail found it desirable to approve the additional density because additional employee housing is a stated political goal of the town as well as the county. In 1992 Reaut Corporation became involved in the property and took full ownership in 1994 after the previous owner defaulted an financial obligations. In 1994, the Reaut Corporation again applied f`ar the employee housing addition that had been approved through the 199 SDD. As Paul remembers it ,the SDD approvals lapsed and the SDD application had to be reinitiated. `I'hc planner assigned to the project was .lim Curnutte. The SDD was initiated but not completed. It is our understanding the property afi this tune does not have an approved SDD and that the CCIII is the applicable zoning. Zoning Application -Conditional Use As I understand it Employee Elousing is a conditional use allowed in CC3. It is m}r understanding that the this would require a separate application and two hearings in front of the planning commission for approval. The existing retail is clearly defined as an allowed use but I am unclear on the residential and hotel. Section 12-7D-7 adopted by ordinance in 1981 addresses allowed residential density in CC3 but there is no direct reference to it as an allowed use. Zoning. Application. SDD It appears that there may not be an applicable SDD for this project. If that is so, then there is no need to rraake an SDD related application since the proposed change in use is allowed by the underlay zone district. If there is an existing SDD it may no longer be relevant and more expedient to rely on the standards defined by the underlay zone district. Condominium Conversion In conclusion it is the goal of the Reaut Corporation to revitalize the property with a use that has been identified by the community as a priority and also has strong market demand. I am including a site plan and elevation photo for additional clan#ication 'Vac look forward to your feedback. Sincere~~, ~_ ~,~•nn F itzlen AlA v'" IC!.0002 -West VaiiE I,adae Redea~eloQmcn!'sPraject Ct~rres~ondence~'!'gv`~n of Vaii1PEC0127.wpd • , ~,,,. s ~ ~ +~ t0 ~ ~ 6.{ Y. Al V °' A ~ ~ ~'.~~~ p ~ C d .a 'G '~ .~ ~ _. y !~ pG ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~ W ~ o ~~ ~ ~ L .~ ~~,~/ `f. ~ W 01O~M'~~+--+p p,--iQQQ©OO ~~ ~~~ ~~ (l1 (J7 ~ ~ Q1 tl~ ~ U cL c c ~ ~ cu '~ ~ cu T~7T~j~i~ ~ vJ u7 cn ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C]C OC 61xJ J ~ ~ t+n V7 ~ f'~ GO C3ti C'~ ,-i N M 0 0 +o o r, ,-~ ,-~ ,-, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ d t~'o ~ :~ o ~ 'C a fd C C7 C ~l ~ 'C ~ ~ Qr ~ OC ~ ~ LQ ~ Q1 'i;J a .~ ~ a L 0 ~ ~ 0 o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ M 0 o ~ o 0 Lf1 O Q r~ rti ~ ~-~. ~ f-~-. r-`. ~3 "CS 't3 "Cf 'C3 -II' ~ m CO pp q] m m m r-I ,--~ T-{ rl .--I yr-I r-i ~ W LLJ ~ W LL1 N W W W T-I N fr1 d" N ['~ C~ ~ p ~] p Q ~ ~ N N N N N N N N N N . O O O ~ _ ~ W c ~ ~ C ... ~ C 'O ~ d ~ W ~•• f~ ~ GO J O t`d l ~ ~ ~ +4. l • ~- r -,l ~k. ~~~~~ ~~ s __ ~, ~_~___ ~~~~~,~, -~ i____ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~, ~I I ~ N ~` ;~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . __ _ __ ~ ._ ~ ~ ~ C~ t ~ -~ ~ ~ ~ ~ l!? ~ ~ ~ lQ ~ lid ~ .C ~ • EL ~y ~ ~ N ~ C ° Q ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ E ~ ~ ~ = U rrrr^ . 47 • ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ w o G / =~ O ~ S I~= O = ~ Ll~! W ~ W W M ~l.l M ~!.} ~ .°~ CV C] O M Q .~ ~ N .-i COQ ,-i @~ "p 47 ,. f1'`'i M M ---. . M C~ (~ J } .--t ~~1 ,~ ~- ,, ,. I ~ - - - cV : t ~ ~ w ~ t- ~ :: ~ r cr ~ O ~ cn ~ O ~ `I _. ~ ~ p J CY ~ O J ~ f~ Ql ._ ~ e--~1 ~ ~_; --- Q O _ ~ 1 '~ ~ -~} m ~ 'I ~ -- ~. ® -- ~ ~~°-----'-ter _ I .~--i _ ~~ ~ ~ ~ r'i i ..~..__...__~ A lQ ~ f ® ~ _ r. ~t- c~ ~--; .~ m s rn ` ~. ~ rv ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i 1 _. . ___ - _._.~. '____._-1 Vf .4 i4 a .... ~ W ~ ~ a L d W ~,D OQ ~ In Imo. ~` ('y M N Lf') OQ CT} LD lQ r-. .-. rr ,rr ,.-. ,r-~ ~ T,3 Z7 ~ ~ I,L C~1 ~ ~ m m ~] ~ ~ N ~ cv d- d- N N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1~ v~ ~ ~ ~ rn ~ 2 LL ~ ~ ~ LL LL ~ ~; W +--i N ~ (v7 ~ *-~ i N C7 O ~ O ,-t ~ .--i ~I tt' b' ~ ~t d" [t ;, ~ ,~-- ~ '; ~ } ~J Q TI ~ ~*- .. ' ' ~ 0 E 0 0 L ~i Q J ~ J ~ Q C Q r ~ ~ C O U ~~ Y ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q C ~ p1 ~ __ J E C? 0 L J ~' • ~ ~ '~. ~ C3 w e~ J [~'' 'Lf i' I i if ' -- A; ll~.. __.. _. ~_. f ~. ....... ~_, ~ ~ ~ (T ~ In l.f~ r-~, r-,, ~ .-. ~ .--, ~ ,-~, ~ .-. .-. N N N ~ ~ ~ CV d- d' N N N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,-+ sv ~ o •-+ o ,~ t.r~ ~n un ~n u~ u~1 cal ~~v L ; ~ ~I ~, -..~ , I - ,...e ..s... .-. ii 7 ~I ~ ~, ~ a L ~ r A L ! M W d +-+ ~ _O Q ~ -. fl a c a x L 0? ~ `'` a E ~' ~ o ^ l r MW W v ' Q ~ O _ Q ~ d ~ L~ ..,. ~. _~ ~; ~ ~ ~ ~ V ~ ~ ~ L rC1 L ~ C3'1 J ~ {/) a i ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~.. L ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ L fs lQ ~ rl ~ QO M ~ CL ,-~ i i 3e f e ~. S I ' ~~n~J, P. . ~ ~;~_ :,; .lye ~~~~ ~ M l:' ~p S ~ :~~ r ~` ~~.~, ' ~ f • t ~ y-J~~ ~iJ~ Yy µ1 ~R el ~f FF '~; '.~ J~ y~ ~ ` 1 1~ ~ ~ s '- - ~ l v r. -.~. ~' ;~ .. ~:~ d, .. ~, a .IIGiY" ~~ ~ ~" ~n : s~ t W rr~ ~V ~ W ~ _ ~ O 'y/ ~ ~ ~ L d ..~ ~ '~ C Q .~ ° a ~ ~„ w-- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ L r q y w (( ~~ V ~ L ~. rl,,' r • • _. ,, ~y,. F~ ~ h eb', } ~, ~ ! ~g i ~~ t ~{ u , ~ ~ t I ~ '.r~ ~ _. I^ ,, ~~ 1~ ~~ ~~ firth ` 4~v, ' I~~ ~~ ~ P+; - ~;~ ~ ~ 1 .11 . r~ 1 ~~ ' ~~~ ~y u 6 1k p s , :.i ~ ~ .. r. ` ~ ~~ °[[~~~~ 7~~ a'~~+ .~k I ^ 1 w Y~ ...~ W ~~ o a ~ ~ ~w ~ A '~ W iD ~ C ~ ""' C C p C ~` (~ ~ •~;, ~ ~ ~ ~, ~ ~ ° ~ ~ m Q i ~ ~- ~ J ~ O ~ U '~'' O _ p ~ .U ~ z ~ ~ cn W r Cdl ~ a "€f r ~ .~.,, i ~~,~, • f• e ~~g e,, jr r .'~•'.. b ~'. ~, ., ~•.~ ... ~ . ~ 1 -~_M, ~:~ µ •i ,. __1 `~ ~ ~--1 h .i 7 tl L ~_ ~ .~ ~"- ~ ~ ~ a~ h1 .~ 11- ,. `, ~F` ;x ~~ ~q , ~ ~ ~ t I ~~ t ; ~ , ~ ~ , Ott,; , v ~ 9 ~ r~r-t~• ~ ;~~ -~ _` -~ ~. ~ ~ ~, ~ , a ~ k g_ ~ ~ _- . ~ ~ _. ~ _ .. ~ ~ ~a'~ ~~ 6 ~{ 1, ~ _ ,~ ~~ i. ..,. ., ham'' r r ~+~'" ~~ ~ t-w.:..-.~.. ~ . 4~ j ~.5±-....1 1 ,c t a ~, `e'rr`".'--`+:.+-.~.,_,.,~,. "'1,,. ` .j ~~ ~ f °.... ~'. ~ { ~., .._ ._ .. • _ f ~ ~ ~ _~ ~ ~ ~.. + '+,.. ~. .. A +~ ~ ,~ , ~ ;k,rA ~ +, ~ ""~ttt~~ ~ ~ t ~ ~ ` ~ ~, ~ 1 ~ ~~ sa.. o " ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ '~ o~, ~ ;~ . ; '~ ~ '~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~'. 'w ~ q~ ~ ~ ~ k ~ ~. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~' as °~.;. °.~ ~ ',~ ~;~,.. ~: ,„,,.r Q a ~ C`] ~ ;' "C5 L-„ ~ ~ d ~ ~ .~ ~ h u MEMORANDUM T4: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development DATE;: March 13, 20x0 SUBJECT: A request for final review of proposed changes to the Town of Vail's parking .pay- in-lieu policy and proposed text amendments to Chapter 12-10, Town Code. Planner: Brent Wilson BACKGROUND AN© DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST PEC Update: On February 14th, the PEC conceptually reviewed the proposed changes to the Town's "parking pay-in-lieu" policy and provided specific direction to staff. Staff has completed the applicable maps (based on the PEC's comments) and is requesting final review of this proposal today. In conjunction with the proposed "special review" option far properties not identified for pay-in-lieu applicability within the commercial care areas, staff has developed review criteria to be used in the evaluation of such requests. Applicants requesting special review for parking-pay-lieu applicability shall demonstrate compliance with the objectives outlined in the Vail Village Master Plan or the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan and the pedestranization, vehicle penetration and streetscape framework objectives outlined in the Vail Village Urban. Design Guide Plan, as referenced in the amended code excerpt (Attachment "A"). These concepts and objectives are attached far reference. Proposed changes to the program are indicated on the attached maps and revised Cade text. I-listorv of the Program The Town's zoning code has allowed far certain exemptions from an-site parking requirements since 1973. In 1982, in conjunction with the Vail Village and Lionshead Urban Design Guide Plans, the Town established its current "parking pay-in-lieu" program -thereby allowing property owners to pay a fee in exchange for a reduction in on-site parking. The program's primary purpose was to minimize vehicular traffic in the Town's pedestrianized commercial areas while allowing property owners some flexibility in the provision of required parking created by infill development end redevelopment. Currently, all properties that are zoned CCI, CCIi or LI-iMU-1 (Vail Village and Eionshead) have the ability to participate in the Town's pay-in-Dieu program -regardless of their location. The PEC and Vail Tawn Council have expressed a desire to re- evaluate the program in an effort to promote the original goals outlined in the Vail Village and Lionshead Design Guide Plans. Staff has reviewed the applicability of the program to each affected property anct is requesting final review from the PEC. The proposed Page I o1~3 V"~,Vr1iLIDA"I'AIEVEKYC7N~1PFC1~,~EMOS1001PPIL2.DC)C ~~,^, ~~~i ~ .x rawNV~ v~liL~ revisions are based upon the following observations: The current "pay-in-lieu" policy allows any property (with appropriate zoning} the ability to locate required parking off-site. However, #here are many properties (particularly in Lionshead}that are located a considerable distance from pedestrianized areas. Additionally, many of these properties have direct vehicular access from areas that have little or no impact on pedestrian zones. Allowing these properties to pay-in-lieu is inconsistent with the original goals of the program. ^ There may be other properties that do not currently have the ability to pay-in-lieu that warrant special review. Many properties (along Meadow Drive, for example} exhibit some or ail of the characteristics outlined for pedestrian zones under the original program. Certain properties that have direct vehicular access within the core areas should pay-in-lieu. The Gasthof Gramshammer, for example, has direct vehicular access along Gore Creek Drive -one of Van's primary pedestrian zones (the Town has approved an-site parking on this property}, Staff believes the pay-in-lieu option would be preferable over on-site parking at that location given the pedestrian- oriented nature of Gore Creek Drive. II. STAF1= RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning and Environmental Commission recommend approval of the proposed code amendments to the Vail Town Council, pursuant to the following findings: That the proposed code amendments further the development objectives of the Town of Vail. 2. That the proposed amendments are in keeping with the purpose and intent of the Vail Land Use Plan and all other applicable master planning documents. ~. That the health, safety, welfare and interests of the community are being met by the adoption and implementation of the proposed code amendments. III. RQLES OF THE REViEWtNG BOARDS Planning and. Environmental Commission: Actiar~: The PEG is advisory to fhe Town Council. The PEC shall review the proposal for and make a recommendation to the Town Council on the compatibility of the proposed text changes for consistency with the Vail Comprehensive Plans and impact on the general welfare of the community. `;tV.AI1.1F7ATA'~,F.V ERY(3NL`•Pf:C'.MF.f41DS10p~P1']L'.D(?C Staff: The staff is responsible for ensuring that all submittal requirements are provided. The staff advises the applicant as to compliance with the Zoning and Subdivision Regulations. Staff provides analyses and recommendations to the PEC and Town Council on any text proposal. Town Council: Action: 7~he Town Council is responsible >For llnal approval/denial on code amendments. The Town CounciB shall review and approve the proposal based on the compatibility of the proposed text changes for consistency with the Vail Comprehensive Plans and impact on the general welfare of the community. ~esian Review Board: Action: The L)RB has N[? review authority on cads amendments. Ill. FINDINGS A synopsis of staff and PEC findings are outlined in the attached maps. Large versions of the maps will be on display at the March 13`h PEC meeting. Proposed text amendments (Chapter 12-10, Town of Vail Cade) are included as "Appendix A". Additional proposed changes include: An amendment to Section 12-10-18 ("Variances). This section states that any property receiving a parking variance shall contribute to the Town's parking fund.. Essentially, this would allow any property in Town to take advantage of the pay-in- lieu policy. Staff believes this provision is inconsistent with the original intent of the program. Additionally, the new °special review" provision will provide the flexibility necessary to evaluate those projects that truly warrant consideration for the program, while the traditional variance process will still be available for all other properties. • Amendments to Section 12-1©-10 ("Parking Requirements Schedule"}. Staff is currently reviewing data provided by our consultant for re-evaluation of our required parking schedule. Proposed amendments include the creation of a separate parking schedule for properties within the core areas. • Yag~ 3 of 3 1V.n1 L`.DATAIEWERYONE',YEC:'~.yt E~iOS'~00'~.~'Y f I ?.IOC APPENDIX "A" -PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENTS Added text is shcawn in bold and underlined type; deleted text is showvn in~fi-iv,l~,~r type 12-10-16: EXEMPT AR'I`AS; PARKING FUND ESTABLISHED; A. Criteria: The Town Council by resolution may exempt certain areas frarn the off- street parking and loading requirements of this Chapter if alternative means will meet the off-street parking and loading needs of all uses in the area. Prior to exempting any area from the off-street parking and loading requirements, the Council shall determine the following; That the exemption is in the interests of the area to be exempted and in the interests of the Town at large. 2. That the exemption will not confer any special privilege or benefit upon properties or improvements in the area to be exempted, which privilege or benefit is not conferred on similarly situated properties elsewhere in the Town. 3. That the exemption will not be detrimental to adjacent properties or irnpravements in the vicinity of the area to be exempted. 4. That suitable and adequate means will exist for provision of public, community, group or common parking facilities; for prevision of adequate loading facilities and far a system for distribution and pickup of goods; and far financing, operating and maintaining such facilities; and that such parking, loading and distribution facilities shall be fully adequate to meet the existing and projected needs generated by all uses in the area to be exempted.. B. Parking Fund; ',~cici C~c 1, C~;r:w,e~ia~-Safe t, crd-Li~rr~!:Yad A4i~i~t~ lose-1, ~:cre,-t~-ew•:~~rt a~-app#+u~~;~c Properties located in the Lionshead and Vail Village core areas i'as delineated on the tpwn's "Vail Village Parking Pav-in-Lieu Zone" and "~.ionshead Parking Pav-in-Lieu Zane" mar~sl shall be eligible for consideration to contribute to the Town Parking Fund, hereby established, for the purpose of meeting the demand and requirements for vehicle parking. Certain grgperties are located in areas delineated as "special review aaolicabilitv." These nronerties are subiect to the criteria located in subsection "C" of this section. At such time as any property owner or other applicant proposes to develop or redevelop a parce9 of property within an exempt area which would require parking and/or loading areas, the owner or applicant shall pay to the Town the parking fee hereinafter required. The Parking Fund established in this Section shall receive and disburse funds for the purpose of conducting parking studies or evaluations, construction of parking facilities, the maintenance of parking facilities, the payment of bonds or other indebtedness for parking facilities, and administrative services relating to parking. 2. The parking fee to be paid by any owner or applicant shall be determined by the Town Council. 3. if any parking funds have been paid in accordance with this Section and if subsequent thereto a special or general improvement dis#rict is formed and assessments levied for the purpose of paying for parking improvements, the payor shall be credited against the assessment with the amount previously paid. 4. The parking fee to be paid by any owner or applicant is hereby determined to be fifteen thousand dollars ($15,00~.{~0) per space. This fee shall be automatically increased annually by the percentage the Consumer !Price Index of the City of Denver has increased aver each successive year. 5. For additions or enlargements of any existing building or change of use that would increase the total number of parking spaces required, an additional parking fee will be required only for such addition, enlargement or change and not far the entire building or use. No refunds will be paid by the Town to the applicant ar awner. 6. The awner or applicant has the option of paying the total parking fee at the time of building permit or paying over a five (5) year period. If the latter course is taken, the first payment sha[I be paid on or before the date the building permit is issued. Four (4) more annual payments will be due to the Town an the anniversary of the building permit. Interest of ten percent (10%) per annum shall be paid by the applicant an the unpaid balance_ If the owner or applicant does choose to pay the fee over a period of time, he or she shall be required to sign a promissory note which describes the total fee due, the schedule of payments, and the interest due. Promissory note forms are available at the offices of the Department of Communt}r Development. 7. V+Jhen a fractional number of spaces results from the application of the requirements schedule {Section 12-10-10 of this Chapter) the parking fee will be calculated using that fraction. This applies only to the calculation of the parking f~:e and not for an-site requirements, (Ord, 3(1999) § 11: Qrd. 10(1994) § 1: Qrd. 6(1991 } § 1: Ord. 30(1982) § 1: Ord. 47(1979) § 1: Qrd. 8{1973)+3 14.800} G. Special Review: Anv pror~ertv within the Vail Villase or Lionshead commercial core areas (as defined on the Town's "Gore Area Parkins Schedule" mans. incorporated by reference] that is no# eligible for the "pav-in-lieu" option may apply to the Town's Planning and Environmental Commission far "sn~r:ial review" in order to arovide recauired narking off- site pursuant to the provisions of this tit{e. Applicants reauestina special review far narking-~-lieu auplicability shall demonstrate compliance with the c~biectives outlined in the Vail Village Master Plan or the ~ionshead. Redevelopment Master Plan and the pedestrianization, vehicle penetration, and streetscape framework objectives outlined in the Vail Village Urban, Desion Guide Plan. 12-1 d-1 $: VARIANCES: ~-- ~~*ri~-ne!^~ ;~ rA~t~~ ~,, r-~!-aaMt~-~-~f if::.. T~~~ rt"r~,a-fie ,, ~~(_'!-ic~t... rn ~+ ~nr~ d~sxr .c ~,i Variances from the c~rovisions of. this chanter shall follow the procedures set forth in Title '!2. Chanter 77 of this Code. • • ~~ e Pw `i6~ ,~ ~ r' ~! ~ ~ Q J~ N j • J ~, ,~ ~ I .~ ~' ~ ,,r ~ ~l ,_ ,~ ~ ' ,~ ;~ 4i -_ } .~ ab 3'nrk~ r- ~ ~ ~ ~+ ~~,' A »~ U Q N .~ (U V rr 0 tt a~ c c~ a. a 0 L :. :, ::j ::... l~ u I i ill A ^ 1 .~ .~ ~- "ri 'Z3 ~.~ -- i"r=! ', ~~ 111111 ~~ J ~. ~. ~-- ~~ ~ ~~~ (=L~-=.+ ~d~.:,~ ~i i `~ a i 1 l ~ 3 i ~r~ e ' '._ a 1 r 'x1 1 Y _~ °` 1 ~ ¢ : ,~~ F e ~~ f~ ~~~` '~~ ~ ,~,Y .. ~ ~~~ 4 f y~ _~ r~ V ^~ W .~ ~U cU U? ,~ ~'yD I..1~ .~k J .__ //--~~ LL Cf) 0 • • ~ ij„1 t * a ~ i/ i~ y s vs a +O~S~D~~aT~~3~ F~~~s~R1~r~rzArro~a All new ar expansion construction shfluld anticipate the appropriate level of pedQStrianization adjacent to the site. A major abject~ve for Vail Village is to encQUrac~e pedestrian ci rcul atian through an intercvnnecteci network of safe, pleasant pedestrian ways. Many of the improvements recognized in the 1lrban nesign Guide Plans, and accompanying Design Considerations, are to reinforce and expand the quality to pedestrian walkways throughout the Village. Since vehicular traffic cannot be removed from certain streets (bus routes, delivery access) a totally car-free pedestrian system is not achieveable tt~roughaut the entire Village. therefore several levels of pedestrianixatian are proposed: 1. pedestrian-only streets J Yf i t i ~~ ,~ raic~Fl, rar~'B` 1 ~ ~ /J/ . IA f 1 ~'~ ~Y f V ~. ~ r Z. pedestrian streets with . limited delivery trafficw with sufficient width for unimpeded pedestrian walking 3. separated pedestrian walks where street width and traffic v,~i ume (trucks F ' shutt7 a bt,~s, etc ~ preclude point vehiclelpedestrian use of the resadway 4_ primary vehicular rautes- minimal pedestrian development confined to wide shoulder, sidewalk, or separate pathway. .The Framework Circulation flan, and 'sub-area Guide Plans designate the specific type of street develop- ment- deli red far u~a jor stretrts i n Vail Village. • ~1a1k. ~a<.5 .. .. ~ i ~~tviAA 2Z' . ~( ~ i 7f~, ~`"t 14 I ~ f i ~ ~~, r~ ~e lda~ ~ai~ k'; Si~{e ~~: ,i 1 ~~~{ ~ ~ ~ ~~ $t~r ~©~ ~~ 2 VESICLE AENETRA7It7N zo t#~e maximum extent possible.ail non-resident traffic should be ranted along the Frontage Road to Yail Pillage/ llafi Lionstiead parking structures. ' 1n conjunction with pedestrianizativn -objectives, major emphasis is focussed upon reducing auto penetration into the center of Lhe Yiliage. Pail Raad and Yaii Yalie,Y drive wi3i continue -- ?.g nerve a s tide major routes for service and resident access to the 1 'Yi 11 age. Road constrictions, traffic circles, signage, and other measures are indicated in The Guide Plans to visually and physically discourage all taut essential vehicle penetration beyond the Frontage Road. Alter-native access points and private parking relocatir~n, where feasible, should be Considered to further reduce traffic conflicts in the Pillage. C. STREE75CAP~ ~'RAME~iORK Ta improve the quality of the walking experience and give continuity to the pedestrian ways, as a continuous system, two general types 'of improve- ments adjacent tc~ the waikWays are considEred: 7. f~pen space & landscaping - berms, grass, flowers and tree p]:nting ns a soft, rolarfvl fra~a-e+vark 1-it~kage aloes ~destrlan routes; - errd Maras end parse green spaces-~s open nodes and focal..paints along those t~avt~es. • r ~+~n3ge anc~ tt~ `'~.~ Co,~fta~fr~ ~ ,p'ltntMl3,~ #rattp~s ~~Q ~;rra~e _ t 4~nsfr~i`+on~ fv ~.;triGt a ; ~ ~~~~ a~ ~~ ~ ~n~~ ~~ ~~~ ~ ~~ ~- 2. Infi11 commercial storefronts - ""`~". expansion of existing buildings, or new infilT devetaprnent to create new commercial activity generators to give street life and visual i~,terest, as attrac- tions at 3cey locations along pedestrian routes. • 3 :- -~ ~--~ ~'~'' ,t, _ ~_ ~~ R - ~~ 3~ - -- __ _ -~ y1 ~ ~ ~~ ~ -~ -~ yG ~ 4`1 • \.._. NOTENTSAL ~AFYKINCs 3E~fHATH P7iRK ~ • c~5<~~ '-+Y~ V'_V ~-`'F't ~~~ /** ~ `' art~~. `~"~\ •~ iii-. ~, ~~ '~~ ~~r°~ x ~ ~-, ,~r ~ ~ l ~ti~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ 1 "" ~ .ate ~ *F. ~ ~.~ ~,~ ~ 7J . (~,~ ~ ~ ~ ` s l / /~/fl' ,` ~ _ _ ~ " sai ~~ -"'"'~ -~ f f f 1--- ~. f i ` fff- 1 r ~• F i ~ / . ~,'; ~-~~~ PARKING AND r;-' ,: ~' ~IRCULATIC]N ~~- PLAN VAIL VILLAGE PLA,~{ LEGEIIIl7 ~ { PEDESTRIAN 1 ,~~,r:, ;; ~.~~plaN 4 ~~ 1NtErPm. WAY ~xAeAeNrs PAYf+I • MEMIC?RANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Gommission FROM: Community Development l7ATE: March 13, 2000 SUBJECT: A request for a Tina! review of the Town of Vail's Core Area Parking Analysis and proposed amendments tv Chapter 12-10, Town of Vail Code. Planner. Brent Wilson I. BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTIQN OF THE REQUEST PEC Updatle: On February 14`h, the PEC conceptually reviewed the proposed amendments to the Town's parking regulations and voiced the following concerns: ^ Private oarkina generation vs. public day skier oarkina demand -Although the PEC acknowledged a desire to amend the parking requirements for private businesses within Vail's commercial core areas in order to provide an incentive for redevelopment and more accurately reflect actual parking generated, the commission was generally wary about relaxing private parking requirements without any planned' additions of day skier parking -especially given the recent expansion of the ski area. Staff respvnse_ The purpose of this study is to examine the parking demand genera#ed by individual businesses in the core areas. This proposal would amend the zoning regulations to limit the required parking for private businesses in core areas to what they generate based gn land use and square footage. We believe day skier parking issues should be addressed by the Town of Vail and Vail Resorts as a separate agreement vn skier parking demands. The Town is currently working with a consultant to address management and potential additions of day skier parking within the town. An overview of this day skier parking analysis is being presented to the Town Council on March 215` and the study should be completed in June of this year. Staff believes it would be inappropriate to require local businesses to be burdened by day skier parking demands. ^ Identfvina where Pxi~tino Harkin is underutilized -the PEC expressed a concern that existing privately-held parking spaces are frequently used inefficiently. Staff response -based on conversations with property managers and developers around town (as well as field observations), we believe parking for residential condominiums and accommodation units has been over-assessed within core areas in the past. Many properties in town (Village Center condos, the Antlers, the Austria Haus) have under-utilized an site parking facilities. The fact that privately-held spaces are under-utilized supports the argument that the Tawn is over-assessing Page I nf`6 ~~. F;IFVERY©IWL11'ECIMEMOS1QOlYRKCiGEh12.I~0~ TIJ~YNOFYAIL businesses in the two commercial Dore areas. Please refer to the attached letter from Rob Levine (Antlers} an this issue. ^ Residential oarkina reauirements -the PEC expressed concerns that the proposed residential dwelling unit parking requirement is too low. Staff resoonse -Major factors that influence parking demand for dwelling units in the care areas include: parking turnover ratios, alternate sources of transportation and variable occupancy rates. Given the fact that. almost three-fourths of the dwelling units in Vail are held by absentee owners, staff believes peak dwelling unit occupancies within the core areas rarely, if ever, approach 1 d©°I°. When the consultant examined parking generation by dwelling units within Vail, he factored in the use of shuttle services, the proximity of the airport, and skier visitation patterns. ^ A chance in calculation methodoloav from net floor area to cross floor area -the P'EC expressed a concern that businesses would be assessed a greater parking requirement based on the use of gross Haar area calculations. Staff resoanse - al! proposed parking requirements have been adjusted rased on this methadolgy with no increases proposed due to calculation methodology. Since the changes are from net floor area to gross floor area, the actual change in parking requirements is a slight reduction. History of the orooosal During the summer of 1999, the Town hired the firm of Felsburg, Holt & IJllevig to conduct an in-depth analysis of parking generation in Vail's commercial core areas. The primary purpose of the study was to determine the influence of external factors (mixed uses, transitlpedestrian trips, hourly variations in business activity} on parking generation. Currently, the Town's parking regulations do not account for #hese factors and assess parking requirements strictly by land use type and square footage. Given the inability of many properties in Vail Village and Lionshead to provide on-si#e parking and the Town's $17,917 per space parking pay-in-lieu fee, staff realized a need to produce a more realistic assessment of parking generation in these areas. Over the past six months, the consultant examined data involving a number of factors influencing parking generation in Vail. Skier visits, parking structure transactions, land uses per square foot, parking turnover ratios (length of stay}, and traffic (automobile, transit and pedestrian) counts were referenced and incorporated into a model. This model was used to determine a more accurate assessment of parking generation in the Town's commercial core areas. The consultant's recommendatianscre outlined in Section [V of this memorandum. It is important to note these recommendations are applicable only to those properties that exhibit the characteristics outlined above (mixed uses, transit/pedestrian trips, hourly variations in business activity}. Many areas of Vail {outside Vail Village and Lionshead} da not exhibit these characteristics and it would be inappropriate to apply these same rates at other locations. A copy of the consultant's study and findings has been included in your packet far reference. Pa~~ 2 of b F:1F. V ER'YUNk~:'~P F.C1M Gib1C751U01PRKGGEN?.DC)C II. ROLES OF THE REVIEWING BOARDS Planning and Environmental Commission: Action: The PEC is advisory to the Town Cauncil. The PEC shall review the proposal for and make a recommendation to the Town Council an the compatibility of the proposed text changes for consistency with the Vail Comprehensive Plans and impact on the general welfare of the community, Staff: The staff is responsible for ensuring that all submittal requirements are provided. The staff advises. the applicant. as to compliance with the Zoning and Subdivision Regulations. Staff provides analyses and recommendations to the PEC and Town Council on any text proposal. Town Council: Action: The Town Council is responsible for frnal approvailder~iai an code amendments. The Town Council shall review and approve the proposal based on the compatibility of the proposed text changes for consistency with the Vail Comprehensive Plans and impact on the general welfare of the community. Design Review Board: Action: The DRB has NO review authority on code amendments. 111. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning and Environmental Commission recommend approval of the proposed code amendments to the Vail Town Council, pursuant to the following findings: 1. That the proposed code amendments further the development objectives of the Town of Vail. 2. That the proposed amendments are in keeping with the purpose and intent of the Vail Land tJse Plan and all other applicable master planning documents. 3. That the health, safety, welfare and interests of the community are being met by the adoption and implementation of the proposed code amendments. lV. FINDINGS The following table is a summary of the consultant's recommended parking rates for specifc uses within the Town's commercial core areas. A comparison between the Town's current rates and the consultant's recommended rates is listed and reductions/additions to parking ratios are listed where applicable. Page 3 of 6 ':tEVF:RYpNE`,PEC'~MNM()5100!PkKGGEN2.[7C)C Table 2.7 -- Current and Suggested Parking 14'ates (Comrnerciaf Core Areas Dnly) Land Use Residential"` I tlotel'* I Conference Facility General Retail"'"` Office"* p Restaurant Bank/Finance*'`* ~ Current Requirement 2.0+ spaceslunit 1.0 spaceslunit 1 space l 8 seats 3.33 spaces 1 KSF 4 spaces /KSF Suggested Requirement 1.4 spaceslunit j 0.7 spaces/unit J 1 space / 11 seats 2.3 spaces /KSF ~ 2.7 spaces 1 KSF space / 8 seats 1 space / 12 seats 5 spaces 1 KSF ~ 3.7 spaces /KSF J IncreaselDecrease 30% decrease' 30% decrease** 37.5% decrease 30°l° decrease`*" 32.5% decrease""'` 5©% decrease 26% decrease*~`~ Assumes an average unit size of 500-1,999 square feet. Currently includes timeshares and Fl=U's. "" Assumes an accommodation unit size of at least S00 square feet. Gurrerrt requirement is 0.4 spaces/unit, plus 0.1 space%aclr 100 square feet of GRFA, with a max,of 1,p space/unit. For parking purposes, timeshares/FFU's will be considered as AU's. "' involves a change in calculation fmm `net floor area" to 'gross floor area. " "KSF*' = 1,000 square feet For Example For a point of reference, a recently constructed project (the Vail Village Club) is shown based on existing and proposed parking schedule applicability.. Required Parkins for 1997 Vail Village Club Prooosal Retail = 3,594 sq. ft. c = Office = 94 sq. ft. _ Restaurant/Club = 5,717 sq. ft. (381 seats) - Total = Grand Total 11.98 parking spaces 0.3'8 parking spaces 47.64 narking spaces 60.00 parking spaces -27 larandfathered soacesl* 33.00 oarkina spaces oav-in-lieu Hvoothetical Required Parkins for Vail Village Club l)ndPr Proposed Parking Standards Fetail = 3,594 sq. ft. - - - 8.26 parking spaces Office = 94 sq. ft. = 0.25 parking spaces RestaurantlClub = 5,717 sq. ft. (381 seats) - 31.75 narking spaces Total = 40.26 parking spaces -27 larandfathered soaces~* Grand Total - 13.26 r~arkina spaces pav-in-lieu This represents a difference of 19.74 pay-in-lieu spaces or $353,680,79 (based on current pay- in-lieu rates). • Page 4 of 6 F:1G V ER Y C7N Et.P E:C1M ~M(75~40'+P R K GG E N?. DOC V. Parking ~4vaiiabiiity Table 2.2 - Parking Availability by Location LocationlType Private Lionshead Spaces Public Lionshead Spaces Private Vail Village Spaces Public Vail Villacie Spaces (Total Available Spaces # of Percent of Total Spaces 995 21% 1,300 28% 1228 26% 12ao 25°i° I 4,723 100'% About 47°!° of the available parking in Vail Village and Lionshead is supplied privately. The vast majority of these privately-held spaces are devoted to residential uses. DISCUSSIC)N ITEMIS Overall, the consultant's recommended parking rates represent a 31 °!o reduction (including a sligh# reduction due to the change from net to grass Hoar area calculations) in the amount of required parking for private uses in Vail Village and Lionshead compared to our current regulations. Table 3,7 - Currenf versus Proposed Parking Requirements Land Use Quantity Current Requirement Residential Units 2,148 units 3,222 Retail 151,475 sf _ 504 Restaurant 82,127 sf 257 Office 45,000 sf 180 Bank 2,460 sf 12 Total Required ~ ~ q,175 Spaces Recommended Requirement 2,235 351 180 125 9 2,900 As depicted in Table 2.2, there are about 4,723 total parking spaces in Vail Village and Lionshead. It is imporkant to note, however, that a large percentage of these spaces (47°!°) are privately-held and devoted primarily to private residential uses. There are only about 2,500 public parking spaces in the care areas to serve day skiers and their associated trips -with another 250 spaces outside the core areas at Ford Park. Pav-in-lieu Sites - at~glicability The Town Council has expressed a concern that properties in the core area should be supplying on-site parking whenever possible and that the pay-in-lieu option should only be available to those sites that lie within pedestrian zones. Staff is in the process of evaluating the Page S °f 6 F:1E V ERYpN£'+PECIMEM(7514©1FRKGGEN?.Il(~C proximity of core area properties to publiclprivate roads in an effort to determine the mast appropriate areas. far the pay-in-lieu option. A detailed analysis of this issue will be presented to the PEC and Council concurrent with this item. • rscr 6 ~rh F':+.E V L• Rt'C5N F1~ ECIMEMC)51001PRKGG EN?. DOC' Ti U[e ~. nr,JVG+4 r_c~iiic 4-7l V-'++`.+'+lYV IU. Wlflllf'iFifil VQ V 1 V e .aa rage • A~ITLER~ AT ~l~L 680 w. L.i~nshead Place Vail,. Co 81657 970-476-2471 97Q-4F6-4146 fax www.antleravail.car~n _. February 17, 2000 Members of the PEC, I understand that you are considering a change in the ,parking requirements for the Town of /ail. As you may remember, the approval last year for our upcoming redevelopment included a parking variance for about five spots. We made the claim last year, and still maintain, that our actual need for parking is FAR less than the Town`s requirements. To that end, and in the interest of making an informed decision, I'd like to ask you to swing by the Antlers once or twice during the next few weeks and take a quick look at our parking lot. This morning when l puf9ed in, there were about twenty-five empty spats, and our occupancy last night was 83°~. That's a typical situation. As you would expect at this time of year, we are between 90 and 10Q percent occupied far all of the next two weeks. If you came during the day, you'll see a dozen or so cars belonging to employees (but guests will be coming and going. 13uring the evening, you'll see only guests (and undoubtedly some "crashers"). I know this isn`t scientific, but 1 don't know how else to impress on you the fact that we're being asked to provide much more parking than we need. Incidentally, we currently have 7fl condominiums and 70 parking spots (regardless of what the records show ... you can count 'em). As you wilt see, that's mare than enough parking. V~With our new 24 condominiums and 7 EFiU's we are required to provide 140- some parking spaces+ Ouch, I beg you to come by to see for yourself, and then please oh please apply the "cowman sense" test to this issue. Thanks, I~ob Lune General Manager • ~ ::~~~ r 1 ~~ v r ~ ~ ~~ P ~ ~ 1' 1 Y ~~ )(j f ~ ~ ,~ ~ ;{~ .~ ~ ! ~ ~; ~ r ' ~' ..• ~~,~ ~ ~ t~. f f tj 4 d L ~+ a I' ': ~ ri IJj a j ~~ .~~- / -~~ 1l+ ~~ i ~, ~ ~, ''~ a / 4• , yyy {{{ .. ~1 ~ ~---- T ~ ~ . ~~.{~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~, .; .~;-., . _ ({{ 4 i%I l~ d ~ f ~"_'~ ~ ~` s ~ a si 4 ~ `~x .,~` r + r"~- -` 3 . ~ ~ i~ 3~ 1 ,j ~ 7 f 8 ~ W L~ W .~ ~- O 1 ~'~ ~ ~, y ~ .t ~ t ~~~-~ APPENDIX "A" CHAPTER 10 OFF-STREET PARKING AND LDADfNG SECTION: Added text is shown in bold' and underlined type; deleted text is shrrwn in s#~is,ke~ type 12-10-1: Purpose 12-10-2: Applicability 12-10-3: Existing Facilities 12-10-4: Additions Or Changes 12-1p-5: Construction And Maintenance 12-10-6: Parking; Off-Site And Joint Facilities 12-10-7: Standards; Authority To Adjust 12-10-8: Parking Standards 12-10-9: Loading Standards 12-10-10: Parking Requirements Schedule 12-10-11: Parking Schedule Applicability 12-10-12: Credit For Multiple Use Parking Facilities 12-10-13: Loading Requirements Schedule 12-10-14: Loading Schedule Applicability 12-10-15: Credit For Mul#iple-Use Loading Facilities 12-10-16: Exempt Areas; Parking Fund Established 12-10-17: Leasing of Parking Spaces 12-10-1$: Variances 12-10-'# : I~URPOSE: In order to alleviate progressively or to prevent traffic congestion and shortage of on-street parking areas, off-street parking and loading facilities shall be provided incidental to new structures, enlargements of existing structures or a conversion to a new use which requires additional parking under this Chapter. The number of parking spaces and loading berths prescribed in this Chapter shall be in proportion to the need for such facilities created by the • particular type of use. Off-street parking and loading areas are to be designed, maintained and operated in a manner that wlll ensure their usefulness, pr©tect the public safety, and, where appropriate, insulate surrounding land uses from their impact. In certain districts, all ar a portion of the parking spaces prescribed by this Chapter are required to be within the main building in order to avoid ar to minimize the adverse visual impact of large concentrations or exposed parking and of separate garage or carport structures. (Ord. 26(1982) ~ 1: Ord. 19(1976) § 12: Ord. 8(1973) § 14.1QU). 12-10-2: APPLICABILITY: Off-street parking and loading space shall be provided for any new building, for any addition or enlargement of an existing building or for any conversion of uses which requires additional parking under this Chapter. (Ord. 26{1982} § 2: Ord. 19{1976} ~ 12: Ord. 8{1973) § 14.200}. 12-10-3: EXISTING FACILITEES: Off-street parking and loading facilities used far off-s#reet parking and Loading an the effective date hereof shall not be reduced in capacity to less than the number of spaces prescribed in this Chapter, or reduced in area or number to less than the minimum standards prescribed in this Chapter. (Ord. 26{1982) § 3: Ord. 19{1976) ~ 12: Ord. 8(1973) § 14.2Q1). 12-10-4: ADDITIONS iDR CHANGES: For additions or enlargements of any existing building or change of use that would increase the total number of parking spaces required, the additional parking shall be required only for such addition, enlargement or change and not far the entire building or use. (Ord. 19(1976) § 12: Ord. 8{1973) § 14.202) 12-10-5: CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE: All off-street parking and loading facilities required by this Chapter shall be,constructed and maintained in accordance with the minimum standards for such fiacilities prescribed by this Chapter, and shall be maintained free of accumulated snow or other materials preventing full use and occupancy of the facilities in accordance with the intent of this Chapter, except far temporary periods of short duration in event of heavy or unusual snowfall. (Ord. 8(1973) ~ '14.300) 12-10-6: PARFCING; OFF-SITE AND JOINT FACILITIES: All parking and loading facilities required by this Chapter shall be located on the same site as the use for which they are required, provided that the Tawn Council may permit off-site or jointly used parking facilities if located within three hundred feet (300') of the use served, Authority to permit off-site or joint parking facilities shall not extend to parking spaces required by this Title to be located within the main building on a site, but may extend to parking spaces permitted to be unenclosed. Prior to permitting off-site or joint parking facilities, the Council shall determine that the proposed location of the parking facilities and the prospective operation and maintenance of the facilities will fulfill the purposes of this Chapter, will be as useable and convenient as parking facilities located on the site of the use, and will not cause traffic congestion or an unsightly concentration of parked cars. The Council may require such legal instruments as it deems necessary to ensure unified operation and control of joint parking facilities or to ensure the continuation of such facilities, including evidence of ownership, long-term lease, or easement. (Ord. 8(1973) ~ 14.400) 12-1 U-7: STANDARDS; AUTHORITY TO ADJUST: Parking standards shall be those provided in Title 14, ®evelopment Standards. The standards set out in Title 14 shall govern the design and construction of all off-street parking and loading facilities, whether required by this Chapter or provided in addition to the requirements of this Chapter. Minor adjustments of the dimensions prescribed in this Chapter may be authorized by the Administrator if consistent with generally recognized design standards for off-street parking and loading facilities. (Ord. 8(1973) § 14.500) 12-10-9: LOADING STANDARDS: Standards for off-street loading shall be as follows: A. Location: All off-street loading berths shall be located on the same lot as the use served, but not in the required front setback. Off-street loading berths shall be provided in addition to required off-street parking and shall not be located within accessways. B. Size: Each required loading berth shall be not less than twelve feet wide, twenty five feet long„ and if enclosed andlor covered, fourteen feet high (12' x 25' x 14'). Adequate turning and maneuvering space shall be ,provided within the lot lines. C. Access: Accessways not less than ten feet {10') ar more than twenty feet (2©') in width shall connect all loading berths to a street or alley. Such accessways may coincide with accessways to parking fac9l~ties. (Ord. 26(1982) § 5: Ord. 8(1973) § 14.502) 12-1t)-10: PARKING REQUIREMENTS SCHEDULE: Off-street parking requirements shall be determined in accordance with the following schedule: • A. The following schedule applies to properties within Vaii's "Gommercial Core Areas" (as defined on the Town of Vail Gommercial Core Area Parking Zones Map, incorporated by reference). Use Parking Requirement Dwelling Unit ' 1.4 spaces per dwelling unit (Accommodation Unit 0.7 spaces per accommodation unit Hotels with Convention Facilities 0.7 spaces per accommodation unit, plus 1.0 space per 11 seats denoted to meetingllecture seating I Banks and Financial Institutions 3.7 spaces per 1,000 gross square feet 'Eating and Drinking Establishments 1.0 space per 12 seats Hospitals 1.0 space per patient bed plus 1 space per i 150 square feet of grass floor area I Medical and Dental Offices 2.7 spaces per 1,000 gross square feet Other Professional and Business Offices 2.7 spaces per 1,000 gross square feet ~uick~ervice Food 1 Convenience Stores 1 5 spaces per 1,000 gross square feet ~ Recreational Facilities, Public or Private Parking requirements to be determined by j the Planning and Environmental Cammission - AthleticlGym .Parking requirements to be determined by the Planning and Environmental Commission .General Retail Stares, Personal Services and Repair Shops 2.3 spaces per 1,000 gross square feet -Furniture Store i - Art Gallery - tracery Store Meeting Rooms, Convention Facilities 1.0 space per 11 seats Movie Theaters 1.0 space per 8 seats i Any Use Not Listed Parking requirements to be determined by the Planning and Environmental 4 Cammission For the nurnoses of calculating aarkina requirements. timeshare units. fret#ional fee uni#s. and other forms of interval ownership units are considered "accammoda#ion units." • B. The fallowing schedule will apply to properties outside Vail's `Commercial Core Areas'" (as defined on the Town of Vail Cormercial Core Area Parking Zones Map, incorporated by reference}: Use (Dwelling Unit If gross residential floor area is 500 square feet or less: II# gross residential floor area is over 500 square feet up to 2,000 square feet: If grass residential floor area is 2,000 square feet or more per dwelling unit: Accommodation Unit Banks and Financial Institutions Parking Requirement 1.5 spaces per uni# 2 spaces per dwelling unit; 2.5 spaces per dwelling unit 0.4 space per accommodation unit, plus 0.1 space per each 100 square feet of gross residential floor area, with a maximum of 1.0 space per unit 1 space per 200 gross square feet and t7rinking Establishments Medical and Dental Offices Qther Professional and Business Offices Quick-Service Food 1 Convenience Stores Recreational Facilities, Public or Private - AthletiiGGym General Retail Stores, Personal Services and Repair Shops ~ -Furniture Store -Art Gallery -Grocery Store Gas Station* -with automotive service -with sit down dining Theaters, Meeting Rooms, Convention Facilities Any Use Not t_isted 1 space per 8 seats 1 space per patient bed, plus 1 space per 150 square feet of gross floor area 1 space per 200 grass square feet 1 space per 250 gross square feet 1.0 space per each 200 square feet of gross floor area for the first 1,000 square feet of gross floor area: 1.0 space per 300 square feet for gross floor area above 1,000 square feet Parking requirements to be determined by the Planning and Environmental Commission 4.5 spaces per 1,000 gross square feet 1 space per 300 gross square fleet 1.5 spaces ,per 1,000 gross square feet 1 ~5 spaces per 1,000 gross square feet 3.5 spaces per 1,000 gross. square feet 1 space per pump 1 space per pump + 3 spaces per bay 1 space per pump + 1 space per $ seats 1.0 space per $ seats Parking requirements to be determined by the Planning and Environmen#al Commission *Total vehicle storaae an site may not exceed 150% of the minimum required narking • For the qurnoses of calculating narking requirements. timeshare units, fractional fee units. and other farms of interval ownershia units are considered "aceommodatian units.",(Ord. 26(1982) § 6: Ord. 8(1973) § 14.601). 12-10-11: PARKING SCHEDULE APPLICABILITY: Where fractional requirements result #rom application of the schedule, the #raction shall bs raised to the next whale number. (Ord, 50(1978) § 10) 12-10-12: CREDIT FOR MULTIPLE USE PARKING FACILITIES: A. Aaolicabiliity: This schedule will aealy to those oror~erties which lie outside the Town's commercial care (as det!ned an the Town of Vail Commercial Core Area Parking Zones Mao. incoroarated by referencel. The credit for multiple uses is not available to these aronerties utilizing the care area Dorking schedule." B. Multiple Use. Credit Schedule:. Where a single parking facility serves more than one use, the total parking requirement #or all uses may be reduced in accordance with the #ollawing schedule: Total Requirement Permitted Reduction Determined Per To Determine Multiple Section 12-10-10 Use Parking Requirement 1 to 100 spaces Na reduction 101 to 204 spaces 2.5 percent 201 to 300 spaces 5.0 percent 301 to 400 spaces 7.5 percent 401 to 500 spaces 10.0 percent 501 to 600 spaces 12.5 percent 601 to 700 spaces 15.0 percent 701 to 800 spaces 17.5 percent 801 to 900 spaces 20.0 percent • 901 to 1,000 spaces Over 1,000 spaces 22.5 percent 25.0 percent (Ord_ 8(1973) ~ 14.603} 12-1(1-13: LOAI]ING REQUIREMENTS SCHEDULE: Off-street loading requirements shall be de#errnined in accordance with the following schedule Use Lodges with over 10,000 square feet total floor area, including accessory uses within the lodge Loadina Requirement One loading berth for uses up to 75,000 square feet total area, plus one additional berth for each 25,000 square feet total floor area in excess of 75,000 square feet Multiple-family dwellings with over 20,000 square feet gross residential floor area Professional and business offices, banks, and frnancial institutions with over 10,000 square feet total floor area Retail stores, personal services, repair shops, eating and drinking establishments and all other commercial or service uses with aver 2,000 square feet total floor area Any use listed as a conditional use Any use not listed, if such use required the recurring receipt or distribution of goods or equipment by truck (Ord. 8(1973) ~ 14.701} One loading berth for uses up to 100,000 square feet gross residential floor area, plus one additional berth for each 50,000 square feet gross residential floor area in excess of 100,000 square feet One loading berth One loading berth for uses up to 10,000 square feet total floor area, plus one additional berth for each. 5,000 square feet total floor area in excess of 10,000 square feet Loading facilities requirement to be determined by the Town Council as a condition of the conditional use permit, but not less than the comparable requirement prescribed above One loading berth, plus additional berths prescribed by the Tawn Council upon determination of need 12-iQ-14: LOADING SCHEDULE APPLICABILITY: Where fractional requirements result from application of the schedule, the fraction shall be raised to the next whole number. (Ord. 5Cf{1978} § 10) 12-10-1 ~: CREDIT FOR MULTIPLE-USE LOADING FACILITIES: Where a single off-street loading facility serves more than one use, the number of off-street loading berths may be reduced in accordance with the following schedule: Total Requirement Reduced Determined Per Requirement With Section 12-1(}-13 Multirale Use 1 berth 1 berth 2 berths 1 berth 3 berths 2 berths 4 berths 2 berths 5 berths 6 b h 3 berths ert s 3 berths 7 berths 4 berths 8 berths 4 berths 9 or more berths 5 berths (Ord. 8(1973) ~ 14,703} 12-10-18: EXEMPT AREAS: PARKING FUND ESTABLISHED -PLEASE REFER TO APPENDIX °'A" ON THE "PARKING PAY-IN-LIEU" MEMO. NO OTHER CHANGES ARE PROPOSED FOR THIS CODE SECTION. 12-10-17: LEASING OF PARKING SPACES: A. General: No owner, occupant or building manager, or their respective agent or representative, shall lease, rent, convey or restrict the use of any parking space, spaces or area to any person other than a tenant, occupant or user of the building for which the space, spaces or area are required to be provided by the zoning ordinances or regulations of the Town except as may be specifically provided in this Section_ B~ Lease Qualifications; Application To Lease: A parking space, spaces or areas may be leased by the owner, occupant or building manager thereof in accordance with the following: Any owner, occupant or building manager who owns, occupies or manages ten {10} or more private parking spaces located in Commercial Core 1, Commercial Core 2, Commercial Core 3, High Density Multiple-Family, Public Accommodations, Lionshead Mixed Use 1, Lionshead Mixed Use 2 or Special Development Zvne Districts and provides sufficient parking for use by employees may apply to the Administrator of the Town for a permit to lease parking spaces. 2. Application shall be made on a form provided by the Administrator and upon approval of the application by the Administrator a leasing permit shall be issued with or without condition as determined by the Administrator. if the Town staff determines that the lease proposal results in a visual impact to surrounding streets or property, the Administrator may condition the approval with a requirement that the applicant install landscaping on the site to improve the visual appearance of the parking area. If said private parking spaces are located vn the common area or grounds of any condominium project, written approval of the condominium association {if any) wilt be required on this application. 3. The Administrator may request that an applicant conduct a parking utilization study to determine the difference between the average capacity of the lot and the peak day utilization, and such o#her information as may be necessary far the proper consideration of the application. 4. The proposed lease agreement shall be for the period of not less than one month nor greater than twelve {12} months. When requested, the Administrator may extend the lease agreement for an additional twelve {12} months sa long as the conditions relating to the parking spaces have not significantly changed. Any applicant wishing for an extension to an established lease agreement, must submit an application to the Administrator no later than two {2} weeks prior to the termination of the existing approval. 5. No applicant shall be permitted to lease more than sixty percent {60%} of the parking spaces which is the difference between the average capacity of the lot and the peak day utilisation as determined by the Administrator. 6. No applicant who is operating a private parking area charging an hourly fee on the effective date hereof shall be eligible for approval of his or her application. 7. Parking required for any use in accordance with this Title may not be satisfied by the leasing of space from another person under the provisions of this Section. 8. It shall be the responsibility of the owner, occupant or building manager who has leased spaces to others to provide adequate and proper signs therefor and to see that the leased spaces are used and occupied in accordance with the lease agreement. 9. Leasing shall be permitted for short-term parking only, and shall be prohibited for long-term storage of vehicles by individuals or companies. 1~1. Car rental agencies may lease parking spaces only in the CC3 Zone district, and shall be limited to a maximum of fifteen {15} parking spaces per site. Each site may be allowed a maximum of one lease for a car rental agency. {Ord. 3{1999} § 5: Ord, 47(1981} ~ 1: Ord. 31{1985} § 1: Ord. 34{1977} § 1} 12-10-18: VARIANCES; ~r,~l~~-. .~.~rinn .,1....k .. ...~ ~. 1 ~ hr. .ir~rl fn n~r.tri h.. .}n ~ -- ~iu.~~~llr...,-~-~~tl~l., Tl~u 6~r,~1 _ ::~i~ fM~a~r's-Rcrl~i::~ P~-d, -~e set-#er-~ i~~ C~c~iic.. 1~' 19~i cf iG~S'°~~~~t~-(~'' ~~,^T~} ~ ~. Variances from the ~arovisions of this chanter shall follow the arocedures set forth in Title 12. Chanter 17 of this Cade. • ALTERNATIVE PARKING RATIU ANALYSIS FUR THE VAIL VILLAGE AND LIUNSHEAD CORE AREAS !N VAIL, CULURADO 1 Prepared for: Town of Vail 75 South Frontage 'Road Vail, Colorado 81657 ' Prepared by: Felsburg Holt & Ullevig ' Greenwood Corporate Plaza 7951 E. Maplewood Ave. Ste. 2C?0 Englewood, Colorado 8(}111 X303} 7Z1-1440 'Engineer: Charles M. Buck, P.E. Principal: Arnold J. Ullevig, P.E. NovemE~er, 1'999 FHU Re#erence No. J9-137 r 1~ TABLE O~ C~I~TENTS Pacae EXECUTIVESUMMAI~Y ............................................. i I. INTR07UCTIQN ...............................................1 A. Background ....... : ........ ........... . ......... ....... , B. Study Purpose ..... .... 1 If. EXISTING CONDITIOt+lS ...... . ............. . .................... "~ A. Parking Characteristics 4 B. Land Use ..............................................6 fll. PARKING STANQARDS ........................................1d Af~DENDUM • -.J i LIST {3F FlGU~iES ~ Page ' 1 Vicinit Ma . 2 y p J * • ' .. ~ . • . , , ~ . • . 2 . Parking Transactions by Month: Vaii Transportation Center & ~ Lionshead Structures , . . ............... . . .................. . 5 3 Vail Villa e C A . g ore rea .......... . ............................. . .. ~ 4. Lionshead Core Area ...................... 8 ........ . .......... . . LIST ~F TABLES 1. 2. Parking Transactions by Month .... . ...................... . . . ...... 4 Parking by Length of Stay ............. . . ............ . ............ fi 3. 4. 5. fi. Existing Land Uses -Vail Viiiage And Lionshead ......... . .. .......... Parking Rates ............................................... Recommended Core Area Parking Rates .. . .................... . ..... Calculated Parking Requirements -Vail Village and Lionshead .............. . 6 10 ~ 1 12 1 ~~ r EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Currently, the Town of Vail requires new development ar redevelopment to provide far parking based on requirements contained in the Town's standards, The concern has been expressed that, due to the mix ref uses and modal split characteristics, these standards may net be applicable within the Vail Village and Lionshead core areas. Typically, such combined land uses result in reduced demand for parking, based on: Higher levels of mu#ti-purpose trip making, wheee a single vehicle trip is made to complete two or more trip purposes. • The proximity and viability of alternative transportation modes. • Hourly variations in the peak accumulation of parked vehicles between different land uses wi~ich tends to reduce the aggregate parking demand of the core area. The following report documents the analytical process used to develop alternative parking generation rates specific to the Vail Village and Lionshead care areas. The analyses utilized ~ 998/ 999 ski season data provided by the Town, including daily skier activity, parking transactions at both VTC and Lionshead parking structures, and existing land uses within the Vail Village and Lionshead core areas. The above data were supplemented with available information from the Institute of Transportation engineers (ITEI and the Urban Land Institute {ULl) on shared parking far mixed use developments. A comparative evaluation with previous transportation engineering efforts in other Coloreds resort towns was also utilized. The resultant parking rates, documented below, are intended to be applied only to development occurring within the Vail Village and Lionshead core areas; the use of these rates in aut{ying areas would underestimate potential parking demands and could exacerbate any existing parking shortages. Recommended Core Area Parking Rates Land Use Residential Hotel ~-{otel with Convention Faci4ities General Retail Office Restaurant i Bank/Finance 1 .4 spaces per Dwelling Unit 0.7 spaces per Accommodation Unit 0.7 spaces per Accommodation Unit, plus 1 ,0 space per 11 Seats devoted to meetingllecture seating ~.3 spaces per 1,Q00 Square Feet 2.7 spaces per 1 ,0©Q Square Feet 1 .0 space per 1 Z Seats 3.7 spaces per 1,[~Q{3 Square Feet For purposes of parking requirements, time share and fractional fee units will be considered as accommodation units, • r1 L J w I. INTRO©UCTIQN A. Background The Tawn of Vail is one of Colorado's premier mountain resort communities. Located along I- 70 just west of the Continental Divide, Vail provides unique year-round recreation opportunities, with emphasis on winter ski activity. Vail is one of the most recognized destination ski resorts °sn the state, and has hosted international ski competitions. Continuin rowth, and the h sisal settin of Vail have challen ed the communit to develo gg p Y 9 g Y p and maintain one of the most innovative and successful multi-modal, pedestrian oriented transportation systems. The Vaii transit system is the second most utilized in the state, and consists of a core area shuttle coordinated with bus service to/from outlying areas An extensive system of pedestrian/bicycle trails enhances multi-modalism while providing ~I ~ recreational opportunities. Central parking facilities provide an interface between vehicular i travel and pedestrian access to the core areas of Vail Village and Lionshead. Vail Village and Lionshead are located south of l-~0 along the south frontage road, as depicted in Figure 1 . Each afi these pedestrian oriented care areas consists of a mix of residential, accommodation, commerciallretail, and restaurant uses. At Vail Village, the Vaii Transportation. ~ ~ Center (VTC1 parking structure provides 1,2©0 parking for these uses, as well as for day skiers during the winter. A 1,3C}0 space structure accommodates similar parking needs within Lionshead. ~~ B. Study Purpose Currently, new development or redevelopment within Vail Village and Lionshead is assessed parking impact flees by the Town of Vail based on requirements contained in the Town's standards. Due to the mix of uses and modal split characteristics, the concern has been expressed that these standards may not be applicable in these care areas. !n these multi-use areas, the concept of "shared" parking may provide alternative standards. `typically, two or more land uses in close proximity t^ each other may share the same parking supply without conflict or encroachment. This is often due to the difference in peak parking demand between the uses; for example, parking spaces used during the day by office workers may be used during the evening hours by restaurant patrons. In addition, related land uses can result in multiple-purpose trip making, in which a single parking space satisfies several trip purposes. An example of this might be a shopping excursion with visits to severs! retail establishments and a restaurant for lunch. With the close proximity of uses, the vehicle is parked once, and the remainder of the trips within the multi-use area are accomplished either on foot or via transit. Similar parking relationships between hotels and nearby restaurants has also been documented. Shared parking concepts are applicable in multi-use areas with the following. characteristics: • Mix of uses in close proximity. • Continuous pedestrian connection. • Strong transit element. `r ~ ~'1 ~ --~ C ~' ~ , C ~_ a ~A 4 > ~ ti ~ t ~j v~'v"'rs' ~ 1 ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ m vs '~ p z e x, r. 9p ~ t ~ 4 ~ ~ N7 WXh I hQ ~1~ m Y ( 1 ~ ~ i ~ & ~ 4 1 ~ f t~ e ~D 71 r ~'`'``--..m m ~y .,, m ~ v ; }" m ~m ~3 -w '3 'c7 ~O N+ ^~ o~ ~~ ~~ m ea m As both Vail Village and Lionshead exhibit these characteristics, the purpose of this study is to develop alternative parking generation rates specific to these core areas. The analyses documented in this report are based on 1998/1999 ski season data provided by the Town, including; • Skier visits per day. • Parking transactions at both VTC and Lionshead parking structures • Existinru land uses vuithin the Vail Village and Lionshead core areas. The above data were supplemented with available information on parking and shared panting from the Institute of l"ransportatian Engineers and the Urban Land Institute. Previous transportation engineering efforts in other Colorado resort towns were also referenced. 3 fl. EXISTING CONDITIONS .41, Parking Characteristics As previously stated, the VTC structure contains 1,240 parking spaces {including 1$ handicap spaces}, and the Lionshead structure contains 1,300 spaces {including 16 handicap spaces}. Ford Park, a ski season temporary parking location, accommodates approximately 250 vehicles, bringing the total formal public parking supply within Vail to about 2,750 spaces. In addition to this public parking supply, private parking is also provided within the care areas. Based on data provided by the Town, the private parking supply in Vail Village is 1,228 spaces, with 995 private parking spaces in Lionshead. The demand for parking in Vail varies considerably between seasons, with the peak ski season creating the highest demands. This demand is accommodated through a variety of public and private parking facilities. During peak times, public facilities such as the VTC and Lionshead structures, as wel[ as the temporary parking lot in Ford Park, approach capacity. Vlfhen the capacity of these three locations is exceeded, overflow parking occurs along the Frontage Road. Available parking data for the structures at VTC and Lionshead consist of the number of transactions conducted at each location per day during the 1998/1999 ski season. Each transaction represents a single vehicle's stay within a parking facility. Table 1 summarizes these data by month. Table 1. Parking Transactions by Month Location Parking Transactions {i ~ November 9 December ~ .fan March VTC 14,734 x3,179 I 55,170 52,79$ ~ 60,141 26,441 Lionshead 7,467 33,505 36,599 34,fi76 41,844 18,31 1 1. 1998/1999 ski season data. Figure 2 graphically depicts the monthly parking transactions for both VTC and Lionshead structures the 1998f1999 ski season. As shown, parki~~g transactions peaked in March, with (0,141 transactions at the VTC and 41,844 transactions at Lionshead. This peak coincides with the highest month for skier activity based on proprietary skier visitation data information rovided by the resort, The peak ski day occurred an Saturday, February 13, 1999. On this date, the VTC recorded 2,042 parking transactions, and Lionshead recorded 1,394 transactions. The 15th highest ski day, typically used for planning purposes in Vail, occurred on Sunday, February 7, 1999. On this date, the VTC recorded 1,96E parking transactions, and Lionshead recorded 1,392 transactions. • • 4 -~% FELS$URG E~ C) L T ~: LLLEVPG ~oooa ~aoao 5aaoo a.oaoo saooo 20000 ~ 0000 0 ~- Dec. Jars. Fefa. ~ 998 i ~ 999 SKf SEASQN LEGEND = Vail 7rans~ortation Center ~~ r~ ~.:,,:, .: ~ = Lionshead Figure 2 r ~ _ Vail Parking GenBraq~Ora 84-737' Bl31lJ99 Parking Transactions ay Month: Vail Transportation Center &Lionshead Structures ~J ov Mar. Historic length of stay data for parking in both the VTC and Lionshead structures was provided by the Town, as summarized in Table 2. Table 2. Parking by 1~ength of Stay Location ~ Average Length of Stay in Hours 11 p 0-1.5 ~ 1.5-2 ~ 2-3 ~ 3-4 ~ 4-5 ~ 5-6 ~ 6-7 ~ 7~8 I 8-9 ~ 9-11 ( 11 -~ 1lTC ~ 32°1° 10°./0 15°l0 + 8°,~ 6% 6°10 7°,~ 6°J° 4% 3°!0 3°Jo Lionshead 1 37°.°0 7% 1(J% ~ 7°.~b 7% 8% 9% 8% I 4°~6 2% 1°1° 7. Based on 1998/1997 ski season data. As shown, approximately 35 percent of al! parking transactions were for length of stays of 1.5 hours or less. Typically, durations of 4 hours or less would be primarily attributable to commercial development. Day skier parking duration would be expected to fall within the 4 to 9 hour range, and residentiallaccommodaton uses would account #or most of the stays in excess of 9 hours. 8. Land Use The core areas of Vail Village and Lionshead are depicted in Figures 3 and 4, respectively. Existing Sand use data within the core areas were provided by the Town of Vail, as summarized in Table 3. Table 3. Existing Land lJses -Vail Village And i.ionshead Land Use ~ Vail Village + Lionshead ~ Totaf Reside ntial/Accommodation (1) 1,190 Units 958 Units 2,148 Units Retail 83,558 SF 67,922 SF 15i ,475 SF Restaurant 58,93Q Si` 23,197 SF $2,127 SF r Office 22,640 SF 22,4dQ SF 45,DQ0 SF Bank 1,94Q SF 52t~ SF 2,46(3 SF 1 . Based on observations of the Town, residential units , fractional feeJtimeshare ;.rniis, and lodging accommodation units have similar functional characteristics within the core areas. • 6 q ~~~ i~ n ~Y. ~:YA /1 ~ ~ ,~ / ~~ i i~l ~` _° ~ ~ _~ ~ / / ~~~ ~ ,~ w v; ~~~ ....~ .J ~~ i ~~ ~~ ' "~ f r i i 1 I A r' i - i ~~ u I ~ d~ ~ " (I\ w I ~/ ~ ~ ~ ~ li ~ a fU ~3] RS .~ ~~ 0 2 _~ ~_ i ~ '`~ `t ~ ~I a. ~~ U~U ,~~..~ ca ,~ ~~ -~n-~0`' u~~ ~i.. ~~ k i '~ r i `~,'~ ~ s i eC ~ ~ ~_ s ++~~ ~ i fyj i ' '" 1 i ~ - ~ i e _ S o d \2 3 M~ ~ i '~l 1 -a' ~+ .F1~ ~l ' I ~ . [ Y = I ~ 5 1-~i; E: :~ ~1 ,~ _ ~~ = E tt c~5 a~ ~ ~ d ~ i~ 0 cv U7 C m m a 6 ~> ~~ 0 z 8 As shown, these core areas consist of a mix of residential and commercial uses. As previously discussed, such combined land uses result in higher levels of multi-purpose trip making, where a single vehicle trip is made to complete two or more trip purposes. This results in a reduced demand far parking space from what might be expected in areas of less intense development. These core area uses are also seen to generate less demand for parking than similar uses in ~ other areas of Vail due to the proximity and viability of alternative transportation modes. Additionally, hourly variations in the peal4 accumulation of parked vehicles between different land uses tends to reduce the aggregate parking demand of the core area; this phenomenon is termed "shared parking"'. The Urban Land ]nstitute tULI} and the Institute of Transportation 1"ngineers ~IT~} have published extensive data on shared parking far mixed use clevefopments. This concept, in conjunction with the forgoing data, has been utilized in this analysis. • 9 ~dl. BARKING STANDARDS The following table is a corrmparison of parking rates #rom various sources for existing and potential uses within the core areas of Vail Village and Lionshead. Table 4. Parking Rates Parking Rates Expressed in Spaces per Unit Land Use j 1TE (1) Breckinridge Breckinridge Town of Vail Standards (2) Dore (3) (4) . ,-- i i Residential 1 .7 11DU 1.51DU 7 .1/DU 7.5-2.5/DU* ~ Hotel 0.52/AU 7.0/AU 1 .1/AU 1 .fl1AU (max) Convention Facility 0.87 /AU * * Special Review 3.7/KSF 118 Seats General Retail 3.231KSF 2.51KSF 7.4/KSF 3.33fKSF j ( Office 2791KSF 2.51KSF 1 .41KSF 4.O1KSl= ~ Restaurant 15) 113.57 Seats 114 Seats 117.74 Seats 118 Seats 9.08/KSF 6.251KSF 3.5/KSF 3.7 2/KSF Bank/Finance 4.23/KSF 2.5/KSF 1.91KSF S.OIKSF 1. PARKING GENERATION, 2nd Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 1987. 2. Town of Sreckinridge, Colorado Off_Street Parking Ordinance. 3. Downtown Breckinridge Multi-Use Area Parking Ratios, DOWNTOWN PARKING STUDY, Felsburg Holt & Ullevig, 1995. 4. Town of Vail Parking Regulations. 5. Rates shown are per seat and per KSF. The KSF rates are based on 40 SF per seat (typical}. '~ Dependent on gross square footage of dwelling unit. * * Hotel with convention facility. The applicability of the current Town of Vail parking requirements were evaluated as they relate to the core area uses: • `=(oSlLentjai ! ne current parking requirements are high Tor GOCE ar2a5, ranging front 1.5 spaces to 2.5 spaces per dwelling unit dependant on the size of the unit. However, within the core areas, size of the dwelling unit is seen to have rr',inimal effect on parking demand; these units are typically occupied by a single family with a single vehicle. It is, therefore, suggested that the residential parking requirement within the core areas be reduced to 1 .4 spaces per dwelling unit. • • 10 ~ Hotel. The current hotel parking requirements are 0.4 space per accornmodat'ron, plus 0.1 space for each 10U square feet of floor area, with a maximum of 1.0 space per accommodation unit. For the care areas, a requirement of 0.7 space per accommodation unit is suggested, with no adjustment for the size of the unit. Time share and fractional fee residential units would also be considered as accommodation units with a parking requirement of 0,7 space per unit. For hotels with convention facilities, an additional requirement of 1.0 space per 11 seats is indicated to accommodate meeting attendees who are not staying at the hotel. • Retail. The current requirement of 3.33 spaces per 1 ,000 square feet (i .0 space per 300 square feet) is high for care areas. A reduced parking requirement of 2.3 spaces per 1,000 square feet is suggested for the Vaii `tillage and Lionshead core areas, • ©ffice. The current requirement of 4.0 spaces per 1,000 square feet (1.0 space per 250 square feet} is typical for general office developments in suburban areas and is high for core areas. 1t is suggested that a reduced parking requirement of 2.7 spaces per 1,000 square feet is appropriate for the Vail Village and Lionshead care areas, • Restaurant. Town regulations currently require 1 .0 space per 8 seats, based on seating capacity or an 6uilding~ Code occupancy standards (whichever is higher}. This parking requirement is generally consistent with measured parking demands. However, an adjusted parking requirement of 1.0 space per 12 seats is suggested for the Vail Village and Lionshead core areas to be consistent with other adjustments. • Bank/Financial Institutions. The current requirement of 5.0 spaces per 1,000 square feet (1.0 space per 200 square feet} is typical for standard urban developments but high for denser resort areas. A reduced parking requirement of 3,7 spaces per 1,000 square feet is suggested for core areas. The above parking rates, recommended for use in the Vail Village and Lionshead core areas, are summarized in Table 5. Table 5. Recommended Care Area Parking Rates Land Use Residential Hotel ' F-?otel Wwitn Cor~ventifln Facilities General Retail Office Restaurant BankfFinance Parking Rate 1.4 spaces per Dv~~elling Unit 0.7 spaces per Accamrraodatinn Unit 0.7 spaces per Accommodation Unit. plus 1.0 space per 11 Seats devoted to meetingllecture seating 23 spaces per ? ,000 Square Feet 2.7 spaces per 1,000 Square Feet 1.0 space per i 2 Seats 3.7 spaces t]er 1 ,OOC} Square Feet ~' For purposes of parking requirements, time share and fractional fee units will tie considered as accomrncadation units. 11 The above parking rates are intended to be applied anly to development occurring within the Vaii Viilage and Lionshead core areas, previously illustrated in Figures 3 and 4. The use of these rates in outlying areas would underestimate potential parking demands and could exacerbate current parking shortages. These rates were developed based on the density and mix of uses within these areas with adjustments to reflect socio-political perceptions in Vail. As a means of comparison, the aggregate parking requirements were calculated for the land uses in Vail Village and Lionshead using both the recommended core area parking rates and the current rates from the Town of Vail regulations. TafJle 6 summarizes this comparison. Table 6. CaEculated Parking Requirements - Vai! Village and Lionshead Parking Spaces Required Land Use Quantity Current Rates ~ Recommended Rates Residenti a1/~4ccommodation Retail Restaurant Office Bank ** ~«** 2,148 Units 3,222* 151,475 SF 504 82,127 SF*** 257 45,(}00 SF I 18Q 2,46© SF ~ 12 2,235** 351 1801 125 91 2,90© Tota! ~ 4,175-~ Estimated average rate of 1.5 spaces per dwelling unit.. Estimated average rate of 1.04 spaces per dwelling unit. Estimated 1 seat per 40 SF (typicatl results in 2,053 seats. It can be seen that, using the recommended core area rates, the combined parking space requirement for Vail Village and Lionshead would EJe 2,900 spaces. This parking requirement is 1,275 spaces less than the current regulations would indicate, representing an approximate 31 percent reduction. L' 12 The f©Ifowing table is a comparison of current Town cf Vaif parking regulations to parking generation rates contained in PAR'Itl'NG GENERAT!(~N, 2nd Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 1987. The ITE rates are based on an average of data collected nationwide; and, as such, may not be appropriate far application in Vail or c*het resort areas. This table is, therefore, intended for comparison purposes only, • • C~MPARISC?hl OF PARKfNG RATi=S: VAIL STANDARDS VERSUS ITE +~ ~! Land Use dwelling Unit Accommodaticn Unit Banks & Financial Institutions (i.e., Savings & Loanl l Eating and Drinking establishments Hospitals Medical and Dental Offices I, Oilier Professional and Business Offices L7uick-.~iervice FaadA ~ Convenience Stores Recreational Facilities, Public or Private Retai! Stores, Personal Services & Repair 5haps TEteater,, Meetinr~ Rooms, Convention Facilities Warehousing Any Use Not Listed Current Town of Vail Requirements If gross residential floor area is 500 square feet or less: 1.5 spaces per dwelling unit. !# grass residential floor area is over 500 square feet up to 2,000 square feet: 2 spaces per dwelling unit. I; gross residential floor area is 2,000 square feet or more per dwelling unit: Z.5 spaces per dwelling unit. 0.4 space per accommodation unit, plus 0.1 space per each 100 square feet of gross residential floor area, with a maximum of 1.0 spaces per unit, 1.0 space per each 200 square feet of net floor area. 1.0 space per each 8 seats, based on seating capacity or Building Code occupancy standards, whichever is more restrictive. tTE Parking aeration Rates 1.04 Space per D.U. ;LowlMid-Rise Apartment) 0.88 Space per D.U. (High-Rise Apartment] 1 .1 1 Space per D.U. ;Flesidential Condominium) 4.81 Space per Room (Convention Hotel) 0.52 Space per Room ;Non-Convention Hotel} 0.63 space per 1,000 SF ;Wa)k-in Oniy Bank} 4.23 Spaces per 1,000 SF [Walk-In/Drive-In Bank} 1 Space per 2.63 Seats {l~uaiity Restaurant) 1 Space per 3.57 Seats (Family Restaurant} 1.0 space per patient bed plus 1 space I 1 .79 Spaces per Bed (Hospitaq per 150 square feet of net floor area. 1.0 spaces per each 200 square feet of 4.1 1 Spaces per 1,x00 SF [MedicallE}ental not floor area. I C)inielOffice) 1 1.0 spaces per each 250 square feet of 2.79 Spaces per 1,000 SF (General Office net floor area. Building) 1,0 spaces per each 200 square. feat of 1 1 ,68 Spaces per 1,000 SF (Fast Faad net floor area for the first 1,000 square Restaurant wJo Drive-In Window) feet of net floor area; 1 .0 spaces per 300 square feet for net floor area above 1,000 square feet. Parking shall be required. Amount to be determined by the Planning and Environmental Commission No data, i .0 space per each 3t)0 square filet of net flcor area. 1.0 space per each 8 scats, based on seating capacity or building occupancy standards, whichever is more restrictive.. 1.0 space per each 1,000 square feet of net floor area. Parking requirements to be determined by the Planning & Environmental Commission 3.Z3 Spaces cer 1 ,rJ00 SF (Sitoppif'9 Center} 1 Space per 5,26 Seats (Movie Theater) 0.50 Space per 1,000 SF (Warehousing) r MEMORAI~QUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission and Design Review Board FROM: Community Development Department DATE: March 13, 2000 SUBJECT: A joint worksession with the Design Review Board to discuss the proposed development plan/master plan and a conditional use permit for a park and recreation facility for an approximately 12 acre unplatted parcel of land coned General Use and Residential Cluster, commonly referred to as the lower bench of Donovan Park, located south of the South Frontage Road and east and north of Matterhorn Circle. Applicant. Town of VailNaii Recreation District Planner: Dominic Mauriello 1. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The Town of Vail is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to construct a park and recreational facilities as well as pre-school facilities on the approximately 12.3 acre site • known as the lower bench of the John F. Donovan Park. The plan includes: • a soccer field • recreation areas, playground equipment, and park shelters • restroom facilities • a park pavilion • a multipurpose recreational facility housing gymnastic, yoga, dance and other functions • basketballlice rink • children's center housing Camp Vail and other multipurpose activities • Learning TreeIABC School The improvements also include parking; drop-off and loading zones; loading and delivery; bus stop facilities; improvements to the S, Frontage Road; and a pedestrian bridge aver the creek. A general site plan has been attached. However., the consultant team will present more detailed plans and overlays at the meeting, The PEC and the DRB last reviewed this proposal at a joint worksession on February 14, 2000. The Town Council reviewed the proposal on February 15, 2000. Below is a summary of comments made: • The PEC and DRB suggested that the design team consider accessing the site from Matterhorn Circle. The Town Council in consideration of the comments from the PEC and DRB, decided that accessing the site from Matterhorn Circle presented problems with respect to neighborhood traffic congestion and major environmental impacts to Gore Creek and directed to consultant team to continue with access from the South Frontage Road. ,~ ~,. ~ TUWMU6'Vii~L L~ ... • incorporate playgrounds, picnic areas, a basketball court, trail connections, and other outdoor spaces graphically on the plan. These have been included in the plan. • Maintain the traillriparian areas and the area in the South East corner of the site referred to as the "`preserve." Relocate same of the parking to the east end of the site to provide adequate parking for field uses and playground activities. The parking layout has been modified to reflect this improvement. • Improve the soccer field and surrounding areas to improve spectator needs. This has been modified on the plan. The original plan contemplated a larger NCAA soccer field. However, the design team reduced the field to a size for youth programs (age i 6 and under) due to site constraints, The VRD has expressed a continued desire far the larger size field. The consultant team will present same alternatives with respect to field size and related impacts to the site. Investigate reducing the size allocated to the community pavilion. • Cantinas to investigate other sites in Town for the location of a gymnastics facility. The Consultant team is investigating other locations, however, a facility remains programmed on this site far planning purposes. Consider the needs for bus circulation on the site. The revised plan includes access for buses with a dedicated egress on the west end of the site. II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION As this is a worksession to discuss the proposed improvements, na staff recommendation has been provided. The staff is kooking far direction and comments from the PEC and DRB in preparation far a final review of the plan. 111. ROLES OF REVIEWING BOARDS ~+~ CQndi#iona! Use Permi# {CUP) Order of Review: Generally, applications wil! be reviewed first by the PFC for acceptability of crse and Then by the 1786 for compliance of proposed b~rildings and site plannr'ng. Plannina and Environmen#al Commission; Action:. The PEC is responsible for final approval/denial of CUP. The PEC is responsible for evaluating a proposal far: 1. Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives ofi the Town. ~. Effect of the use an light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities and public facili#ies needs. 3. Effect upon traffic, with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safe#y and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the streets and parking areas. 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. ~. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed use. 6. The environmental impact report concerning the proposed use, if an environmental impact report is required by Chapter 12 of this Title. Conformance with development standards of zone district or es#ablish standards in the case of GU zone district a Lot area - Setbacks - Building Heigh# - Density - GR'PA - Site coverage Landscape area Parking and loading Design Review Board: Action: The DRB has NO review authority on a CUP, lout must review any accompanying DRB application. The DRB is responsible for evaluating the aRB proposal for: - Architectural compatibility with other structures, the land and surroundings - Fitting buildings into landscape - Configuration of building and grading of a site which respects the topography - Removal/Preservation of trees and native vegetation - Adequate provision far snow storage on-site - Acceptability of building materials and colors - Acceptability of root elements, eaves, overhangs, and other building forms - Provision of landscape and drainage - Provision of fencing, walls: and accessory structures - Circulation and access to a site including parking, and site distances - Location and design of satellite dishes - Provision of outdoor lighting - The design of parks Staff: The staff is responsible for ensuring that all submittal requirements are provided and plans conform to the technical requirements of the Zoning Regulations. The staff also advises the applicant as to compliance with the design guidelines. Staff provides a staff memo containing background on the property and provides a staff evaluation of the project with respect to the required criteria and findings, and a recommendation on approval, approval with conditions, or denial. Staff also facilitates the review process. IV. BACKGROUND The entire 51 acre parcel known as the John P. Donovan Park was acquired in 1980. A master plan far development of the site was adopted in 1085 which recommended a balifield, play areas, picnic shelters, a basketball court, a skating pond, volleyball courts, and parking an the lower bench and a cemetery, open space and hiking trails on the middle and upper benches. That master plan, now 15 years aid, was never implemented. Community facilities and park development were determined to be two of the top issues resulting from the Vail Tomorrow and Common Ground processes which have occurred over the past 3 years. 4n September 21, 1999, the Town Council decided to move forward with a process to determine which uses are appropriate and compatible with the Donovan Park site. The Tawn Council and the Vail Recreation District Board have directed staff to move forward with the fallowing uses to be included in the master plan generally in order of priority: Parts use and soccer field ~+- Pavilion Multi-recreational space {gymnastics, yoga, martial arts, etc.) (may be considered on other sites) Children's Center (day camp, year-round youth enrichment programs and mufti-purposelgeneratonal actirrity rooms) +' Gymnasium Indoor poaf (25 meter by 25 yard} ABCILearning Tree Pre-schools Publrc Input On January 5th and 6th of this year, public open houses were held at the Red Sandstone Elementary School. The input received from the public at these meeting indicates the following levels of support far differing uses by those present at these open hawses: Strong Support: +` Outdoor components splay fields, soccer field, picnic areas, shelters, and natural open space) Gymnastics Facilities ~` Community Pavilion with kitchen Preschool Facility Indoor pool (strongest support for a smaller 25 meter pool for community and with lap ability v. a competition level pool} Mixed Support: Gymnasium <*~ Children`s Center (day camp, year-round youth enrichment programs and mu~ti- purpase/generational activity rooms} Climbing Wall Limited Support: ~- Employee Klausing (an-site) On February 15, 2000, following input from the public, the PEC and the DRB, the Town Council directed the consultant team to pursue the plan for alternative "C." On February 28, 2004, a public open house was conducted at the Library to review more refinements to the preferred alternative. Additional public comment was taken at that meeting and is attached to this memorandum. V. GENERAL USE ZGNE DISTRICT RE(~UIREMENTS -PEC REVIEW Sections 12-4C-2 & 0 outline the permitted and conditional uses allowed in the Genera! Use Zone District. The following are listed as conditional uses in the General Use Zane District: - Public and private parks and active outdoor recreation areas, facilities, and uses. - Public and private schools and educational institutions. -Public and quasi-public indoor community facility. -Public buildings and grounds. - Public theaters, meeting rooms, and convention facilities. All of the uses proposed for this site fall into one of these categories. Section 12-9C-5 of the Zoning Regulations outlines the standards for developments in the General Use zone District. The Zoning Regulations state: In the General Use Zone District, development standards in each of the fallowing categories shall be prescribed by the Planning and Environmental Commission: 1. Lot area and site dimensions 2. Setbacks 3. Building Height ~. Density Control (dwelling units and GRFA) 5. Site Coverage 6. Landscaping and site development 7. Parking and loading VI. CONDITIpNAL U5E PERMIT C{]NSIDERATI4N CRITERIA AND FINDINGS in accordance with Chapter 16 of the Municipal Code, an application for a conditional use permit within General Use District, the following development factors shall be applicable. Staff has not addressed these factors at this time, however, at final review these criteria will be addressed. ~. Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives 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 faciiitiies and public facilities needs. 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. 4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. The Planninca and 1=nvircnmental Commission shall make the fallawina findings before --- c~rantina a conditional use aermit: 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, ar 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. • • Donavan Park FEBRUARY 28, 2QQ4 PUBLI+V INPUT' 1. Buildings must be first glass and maintained! 2. Too bad that "Community Park" has changed to community facility. Mave camponents back to Hub Site. Overall uses are inappropriate. 3. Concern over traffic. 4. RETT Concerns 5. ABC School and Learning Tree will never leave Mountain Bell sate. 6. Gan the Community Pavil'ran be smaller? 7. Youth facilities will be used. 8. ©utdoor restraams are important. 0. What are programmed spaces and haw da they relate to other town facilities? 10. Can spaces be overlapped? More efficient? 11. Is park available far public use? Very important. 12. Land cast -propose space far community. 13. Community pavilion is extremely important. 14. No outdoor lighting at enclosed playground. 15. Is open field large enough for kids to throw Frisbee? 16. Pool could be used by everyone-important community element. 17. Internal path is good± 18. Childcare center is not appropriate far atown-wide recreational facility. it takes away space Pram the recreation/youth directed facility. ABG school is a private enterprise. Insurance, parking, rules and regulations will negatively impact the plan. 19. We all need to support the families and young children in Vail. A childcare center is appropriate, and is needed in this space. 20. There is real concern about the sources of funding for this project: 1} as it na longer has employee housing; 2} it is geared really for local use -not tourist. Can we really afford this dream legally? 21. Sa pleased to see daycare component -similar to affardabde housing, if we want it 'rn Vail we (TOV} must'"subsidize" it. 22. It is not being mentioned enough -the intrinsic value of this site as being undisturbed original condition Vail Valley floor -not recreated, but the pristine environment which we have ekiminated everywhere else. This is a true park if this element is preserved. What is Webster's Dictionary definition of a park? Unorganized play needs precedence on this site. F:IEVERYQNEIPECIMEMOS1001©anav313.doc • 'Nif]E?3ED 30UTH FRONT6 _ k WI i H OEOICATEO RIG's-'t' !-iAND TURNf~ RARM f3US STOF - PRESERVE .]£tEA ?ARK AND SOCCsR rIEL6 C}EOtCAiEp BUS,'>,I `-,4FROVF.: >,'_.- _ c~aivN T `A;+:`i'I J I'~ 1 i. '~' c~rrE~ RI?ARIAN c~Ri'zl~afZ PEB@STR1A' °v+aY ~I Qi1e~4 Ai'CC1liEGtS, ~c]Sr~45i .ae550G;iZLca, ~r.~,~yr /Lg. !~i}11 ~ r`i` .a, >> rr _ -°-..._ri__.»._.. ~~ To The'1~layor anal Vail Town Council Rte: Doztovan Park 1'rt~posed Developirtent f ~~~~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~GG~ `vVe have attended all. the public carnznunity meetings and have some thoughts that tike want to share with you. The footprint is significantly altered it the ~,D00 or so sq feet allocated to a day care center is climinai~d. The resulting change could allow for a s4cond basketball court or orher zecreationai feature. y y Wfiat we perceive we hear from the design team are architec.ura[ visions of a dramatic locking structure that will "'make a staterncnt" rather than a basic structure. Please rerncrnber that the Ferfor~ning Arts Confer was defeatc;d because the physical structure became 5c ~>ranel3ose that the willingness to pay for it dial not e:~ist among the voters. We do not want history to repeat itself: • No question that we need a plac; fi)r the yotmgsters of Vail and the valley to congregate and ,participate in sports as well as othc. rec dcp't activities. loo question that we need a cornmuruty multi use rneetin.g place. Rio question that instoa.d of a "dump" for construction materials we need a park along a creek that is available for residents to enjoy. Thc;re also exists a variable of the 4ymnastics going to the hub or water dept site. Vi7ere this to happen there would be more outdoor space available and less sq footage of construction to pay tor. ~iVith the high costs of building around here, are residents willing to pav for a private learnhag c:.nter for pre school children?Wc certainly are notl We'll pay for public athletic facilities, cor~arnuruity uses space, youth orientated indoor.-outdoor programs space, lout not for a child care center unless the TC)V or the rec departn-~ent plan to run it... and we don't think such plans are in the crustal ball! We encourage you to make a ci~:~;ision that Donovan Parr be redeve~aped in the spirit that vas intended. l~ lot of time and energy has been spent addressing issues accomplished with `? multi puxpose buildings... one for the comrrzunity meeting site and the other for a combination gym, gymnastics, and youthi`childrer~s activiti~:s center. Dave the schools where then are. When and if the iVlt bell site is desi~r~;ated for housing, the school site can be integrated into it. surraurzdin~~ a cxhild care facility.--this time and energy needs tee be redirected towards a realistic iaci~ity that wvill earn voter suppc~r£.--without eater support wve will once a_tiain head back to the drawing} beard. { ;~ 5~.1V~ ~'T ~F we"d like yr~u ?o rrzai;.e the decision tc~ remove an ear3y childhaod facility, that is private: ~t rur~, and vsrhich wvi~~ ine: ease construction costs as weii as reciuc° autdoc~r recreadar~ spa~;c, frern the Lan~:v~an Park recreational plan, ~Ve alsc °ncaurwge gran to keep reminding the planning learns *hat this is a public project anu cost wiii most assuredly be an ?sstac with the voters. The lauilciings on this site n~:e not'°zral~:e a statement"' they ne.:d to be-clesi~7ned to function ~:vell and ~e ~;ast effective. Approved March 27, 2.000 PLANNING AND EN1/1RONMENTAL GOMMiSSION March 13, 2000 Minutes MEMBERS PRESE=NT Galen Aasland Brian Doyon Tom Weber Chas Bernhardt MEMBERS ABSENT: John 5chofieid Diane Golden Doug Cahill STAFF PRESENT: Dominic Mauriello George Ruttier Brent Wilson Allison Ochs Ann Kjeruifi Judy Rodriguez Todd C}ppenheimer Pvfalic Hearing Galen Aasland called the meeting to order at 2:00 p.m. 2:L10 p.m. 1. A request for a minor subdivision, to allow for an amendment to a previously platted building envelope and a revised lot access, located at 1452 i3uffehr Greek Rd./Lot 4, Ridge at Vail. , Applicant: Mike Young Planner: George Ruttier • George Ruttier gave an overview of the staff memo.. Galen Aasland asked if the applicant or public had any comments. There were no applicant or public comments. Tom Weber had no comments. Brian Doyon had no comments. Chas Bernhardt had no comments. Galen Aasland summarized the conditions and asked if the applicant was in agreement with the conditions. Briars Doyon made a motion for approval, in accordance with the staff memo. Chas Bernhardt seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 4-0. 2. A request for variances from Section 12-6D-6, and Section 12-14-6, Town of Vail Code, to allow for an extended entry, trash enclosure and deck expansion, located at 706 W. Forest RoadlLot 9, 131ock 1, Vail Village fi`" Filing. Applicant: Cliff Illig, represented by Beth Levine Planner: Allison Ochs Allison t7chs gave an overview of the staff memo. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes March 13, 2000 1 ~' Lu~~ Apiaroved March 27, 2000 Galen Aasland asked if the applicant had any comments. Beth Levine, representing the applicant passed out and explained photographs she passed around to the PEC. Galen Aasland asked for any public comments. There were no public comments. Chas Bernhardt said there was no conflict with this application. Tom Weber stated the application met the criteria. Brian Doyon asked if the applicant was aware of the no disturbance zone and mentioned that this was no different then the other half of the duplex. Galen Aasland said he saw no special privilege. Brian Doyon made a motion for approval, in accordance with the staff memo. Chas Bernhardt seconded the motion. Lynn Fritzlen said she was here on behalf of Nancy Adam, who was an adjacent property owner. She said Nancy Adam was not comfortable with the variance, but has not had an opportunity to meet with the neighbor.. She said Nancy thought the front variance was on commonly owned land and she requested the expansion be on the owner's footprint. She said Nancy recognized the variance was being addressed, but the trash enclosure was too large and she would like it scaled down. Lynn then submitted a letter from the property owner. Galen Aasland suggested withdrawing the motion, until the letter was read and discussed. Following the PEC reviewing the fetter, Galen. asked if Lynn Fritzlen had anything to add. Lynn Fritzlen requested making the variance approval contingent on neighbor approval. Allison Ochs stated that this was not a requirement of the code. Galen Aasland asked if the applicant or public had any more comments and, based on the new information, if the Commissioners had any further comments. Brian Dayan said this was not a grant of special privilege. He said the neighbor dispute was a party wall agreement, in which case the P'EC could not make judgement on. Chas Bernhardt agreed that this was out ofi the jurisdiction of the PEC. Tom Weiner agreed. Galen Aasland agreed. l~rian Doyon made a motion, in accordance with the staff memo. Chas Bernhardt seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 4-0. Planning and Environmental Cgnrrni5sign 2 Minutes March 13, 2flflfl Approved March 27, 2004 3. A request far a variance from Sections 12-6H~~ and 12-14-8, Town of Vail Cade, to allow for the addition of gross residential floor area and balconies within required setbacks, located at 303 Gore Creek Drive, Vail Townhouse #2-GOLot 2, Block 5, Vaii Village 1St Filing. Applicant: Vicki Pearson, represented by Ron Diehl, Architect Planner: Ann Kjerulf Ann Kjerulf gave an overview of the staff memo, Galen Aasland asked if the applicant had any comments. Vickie Pearson, the applicant, showed photographs of the property in the 6p's. She said this will be postcard quality, as she plans on doing top of the fine redevelopment. She said it could be a spectacular building and would like to keep the architectural feature in the corner of the building and would be getting the Condo Association's letter of approval. Ron Diehl, the builder and designer on the project, stated there was a hardship, as it was in the 20' setback and therefore, had to change the massing of the building. He mentioned people crossing the bridge would see this structure and he would like to impress them. He said they could add additional square footage in the master, but the massing would have to change. Galen Aasland asked far any public comment. There was no public comment. Tom Weber said there was a hardship with this site and he was in favor of the turret, as it was a nice feature. Brian Doyon asked if other properties in the Rowhouses ar Texas Townhomes were granted GRFA in the rear setback. Ann Kjerulf said, not that she was aware of. Brian Doyon said he was in agreement with the staff memo and said he knew there were other liside setback) variances given to the neighbors Chas Bernhardt said when the building was first built, there were no restrictions as are in place naw_ He said there were several properties in the neighborhood that had received variances, and so he agreed with the staff memo. He mentioned that the architectural feature was an asset to the property. Galen Aasland said he agreed with Chas and also agreed that the tower would flit. Ann Kjerulf clarified that it was not in the stream setback, just in the rear setback to the property line. Galen Aasland said he could support this application. Tam Weber made a motion for approval, in accordance with the staff memo, with the exception of the staff denial with the conditions. Chas Bernhardt seconded the mvtian. Galen Aasland asked if there were any similar rear setbacks. Ann Kjerulf said, no, not in the file.. Planning and En~viranmental Commission 3 Minutes March 13; 2~Qo Approved March 27, 2000 Dominic Mauriello advised the PEC that there would not have had to be a previous variance, as long as this met the criteria. He mentioned that other properties up and down the street have enjoyed different levels of encroachment. Chas Bernhardt said it was not creating any hardship on light and space. Galen Aasland asked for clarification of the stream setbacks. He said that he could not support the proposed encroachment into the stream setback. The motion failed by a vote of 2-2. Brian Doyon made a motion for denial regarding the rear setback. The motion failed far lack of a second. Tom Weber suggested the applicant come back to the next meeting when there were more Commissioners present. The applicant requested tabling this item. Tom Weber made a motion to table this item until the next meeting. Brian Dayvn seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 4-0. 4. A request for a work session to discuss a proposed major amendment to Special Development District #4 (Cascade Village), located at 1{}©0 S. Frontage Road West (Glen Lyon Office Building}/Lot 54, Block K, Glen Lyon Subdivision. Applicant; Dundee Realty, represented by Segerberg Mayhew Architects Planner: George Rusher Greg Finch, of Dundee Realty, summarized the old and new parts of the proposal. Kurt Segerberg, representing the applicant, showed the site plan and how they tried to reduce the bulk and mass of the building along the ends of the building. We said by turning some of the spaces up on the 4'h level they could reduce the mass. He said he increased the pitch on the ends and added. a hipped roof. He said some of the materials were more lodge in feeling and that the height of the building had not been increased, He said they pulled the building back to meet the 50' stream setback and would have an arborist on site to save the trees and mitigate the trees that couldn't be saved, He said the overall ground level of the project had remained the same. Chas Bernhardt asked far information on employee generation. Greg Finch said they were mixing employee housing with high-end housing . George Rusher gave an overview of the staff memo. Fie said the employee housing square footage breakdown was on page 3 of the staff memo. Galen Aasland asked for any public comment. There was no public comment. • Rlanning and Environmental Carnmission 4 Minutes March 13, 2000 Approved March 27, 2000 Chas Bernhardt said he liked the roofline, but had 2 main concerns. He said, regarding the employee housing units, that this development would generate new employees and the applicant would need to house them. He said the 50' stream setback was a minimum requirement and made a lot of sense in the main areas of Town, but because of the steepness in this plan, the setback should be a lot more. He said the PEC had been asking for cross sections, showing the elevation change, but we have not seen that yet. Greg Finch explained this project was scrunched between the stream and the street. Chas Bernhardt said that although he was very lenient, he felt this was way too steep for only a 5d' setback. Tom Weber said he too was concerned with the stream. He suggested taking the building down, instead of up. He suggested taking out the material down to the stream making the outdoor space usable and it would also solve the grading problem. He thought this would have less creek disturbance. He said he didn't see much reasoning with requiring more EHU's, since office space was so needed. Brian Doyon said the project was visually much better,. but he would like to see a grading plan and cross section for the street corridor. He said it would be a substantial amount of grade and he didn't feet any trees would be able to be saved. He said he would like mare EHU's and the parking requirement met; the same as we hold everybody to when a redevelopment project is done. He said the '99 approval allowed the bulk and mass, since offices were important. He said the bulk and mass had gone up with not much justification. for this narrow lot. He said he would approve a 55' stream setback, with the building stepping down two stories. He thought the garage had to be ail underground or else lose two stories from the top. He said EHU's don't go well with high-end real estate. Galen Aasland agreed with his fellow Commissioner's. He said the applicant was told to add a huge increase in office space as a benefit to the Town, as requested by Council, in exchange for the mass and bulk in the building. He said this revised application subverts the process, distorts goals and was totally inappropriate. Kurt Segerberg said this was the best use of this site and it was the same office space that the Town wanted. He said he thought this was Doming together and so he is pretty amazed at how the PEC is now reacting to this project; Greg Finch said we can°t make it work then, since the condos make it work. Dominic MaurieAo said it was unfortunate since we just spent the last year an this and now we are back to square one. Kurt Segerberg stated that the height of the building was the same height. Brian Doyon said he would be more amiable to this proposal if there was mare office space and less condos. He said there is nothing that spans the Frontage Road the way this dues anywhere in the Town and what you are asking from us is too dense. 5. A request for an exterior alteration and a condi#ionai use permit for a fractional fee club and a parking variance, to allow far the redevelopment of the Vail A#hletic Club, located at X52 East Meadow Drive/A part of Tract B, Vail Village 1 sc Filing. Applicant: VML, L.L.C. Planning and environmental Commission 5 Minutes March 13, 2aaa Approved March 27, 2000 Planner: George Ruther George Ruther gave an overview of the staff memo. He explained the site plan where the additions were being added. Galen Aasland said they were not asking for any change in height. He then asked George to explain the dormers. George Ruther explained the floor plans. Tam Braun said most of the addition was being done internally, with a reshuffling of uses. Galen Aasland asked about the elevator. Ray Story said they would put in a faster elevator with an override. Brian Doyon asked about the retaining wall and if it would be removed. Tom Braun said, yes.. Art Abplanalp asked for the roof elevation to be measured. George Ruther stated that, according to the Code, architectural projection would be determined by the DRB, ar 2b% of the allowable height of the building. Dominic Mauriello stated that the Marriott was just approved, using this formula for architectural projection. Galen Aasland asked if the applicant could mark the additional encroachments vn the plan. Torn Braun explained the project as a high-end boutique-type hotel within the parameters of the new PA Zone district. He said there were essentially 4 areas of expansion and explained the setbacks. He explained the pop-out area for the manager's unit. Brian Doyon asked about the stream setback corridor. Galen Aasland asked about the 2fl AU's and 7 or 27 DU's. He then asked for any public comment, Ron Robertson, a 5-month resident of the Mountain Haus, owner of the top mountain and east- facing unit, said he purchased his unit for the view of the Gore Range. He said he and i f other owners on the east side of the Mountain Haus would have views impacted. He suggested more time for the Mountain Haus owners to go over the pros. and cons. He said he was concerned about moving anything an the west side of the building, closer to the Mountain Haus.. He thought it wrong not to do a sunlshade analysis just because it didn't exceed the ridge line. He said the elevator and anything above the dormers would affect his view. Art Abplanalp, representing Mr. Robertson, said this was a tremendous improvement and he just had a few issues. He stated that one of the problems with the application was that there was na architectural model and according to the Code, there was supposed to be one. He said the north tower, characterized as an entry feature with two levels of GRFA above it, impacted the sunlshade on East Meadow Drive. Ne said the impact was not from the ridge line, but from the fewer. He said the shadows would be east by the Tower in the morning and in the afternoon by the Mountain Haus, rotating throughout the day and the impact here was 300' long with the sun Plannirtig and Environmental commission 6 Minutes March l3, 2000 Approved March 27, 2fl0o never reaching it. George Ruther said about 6fl0 sq. ft. of sidewalk on the north side of East Meadow Drive would be heated. Art Abplanaip asked what the impact was, as it would eliminate the sun that is there now and encouraged a study done before final recommendation. He suggested a less aggressive answer by realigning the front and taking away the tower. He stated there were options available that. could eliminate the shadow question 6 months of the year. He asked about the necessity of expanding into the setback and that the elevator housing was a similar issue. He said he would like to see the plans internally consistent. He again said that with the elimination of the Tower, the sun/shade issue might go away altogether. He said you could still get the GRt=A by not building a new building, or Tower. He said the height was a sensitive issue and nothing in the way of height should be changed. He said one of the criteria was light, air and open space and until the sun/shade analysis was done, this criteria could not be satisfied. George Ruther said no portion of the building exceeds height allowances and is by right. Everything is in compliance with the height allowances. Tom Weber asked about the model. George Ruther said the applicant was hoping to have a model here. Tom Braun said there was a provision for staff to waive it not pertinent the sun shade analysis. He said the shade impact from the tower was negligible. + George Ruther read from the Code saying that the sun/shade considerations are not °intended to restrict building heights." He said shade already exists on the north side of the building, and #hat was why staff had required sidewalk heating. He said the landscape berm would be impacted, not the road, since that was already shaded. He said, regarding the impact on views, that only views in the 5-6 protected view corridors were protected. Ran Byme, the developer of the hotel, gave a history of the project and said they had to work within the box to minimize the impacts. He said they did not want to have another Mountain Haus and that this building did not need any more studies. Tom Weber said the building had a very nice feel, but asked where guests would gulf in to check in. Tom Braun explained the guest check-in, as well as the loading and delivery. Tom Weber suggested discouraging people from pulling in and backing out. He asked George about the off-site mitigations, being a requirement of 5DD's, as he felt this was burdening the applicant with off-site mitigations. George Ruther explained the streetscape improvements and that one of the Town's goals was to seek partnership with the developer. Tom Weber said the Code encourages the partnership; it does not require it. Dominic Maurieilo, said the staff recommendation was agreeable to the applicant with mitigation for any impacts. George Ruther summarized the off-site improvements. He said that about 125 lineal feet of Planning and environmental Gommission 7 Minutes March 13, 24©0 Approved March 27, 2QQQ sidewalk was the new improvement and he then explained the wainscot made of rock veneer. Tom W eber said the tower piece was crucial to the identity of the entry, but he wou#d like to remove the cupola. He said he was in favor of this project.. Brian Doyon thanked the applicant and George and agreed with Tom on the cupola. He said the entry was appropriate and mentioned that the Mountain Haus and Austria Haus enjoyed the privilege of being in the setback. He said, regarding the sun/shade, that the street would always be in the shade and we didn't need an analysis. He agreed that views couldn't be protected, since this was not an adopted view corridor. He stated if the height changed, it would need to come back in front of the PEC. Chas Bernhardt said the sunlshade analysis would have little effect. He agreed with Brian on the tower being important. He said this offered relief and was what the PA Zoning was about. Galen Aasiand said this does what we anticipated according to the changes in the PA Zoning and we really do need to see a mode! for a building that is a half block. long, as it also helps for the public. He did say that he felt comfortable, since the ridge heights weren't changing. He said the sidewalk was a fair tradeoff for the developer to pay for. He suggested keeping the elevator 2' lower. He said he was ok with the tower on this building, as it was essential. Brian Doyon made motion for approval, in accordance with the staff memo, with the additional condition that if the height increases after DRB, it would have to come back to the PEC . Chas Bernhardt seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 4-0. 6. A work session to discuss a conditional use permit to allow for a proposed expansion at Vail Mountain School, located at 3160 Katsos Ranch Road/Part of Lot 12, Block 2, Vail Village 12~' Filing. Applicant: Vail Mountain School,. represented by Gwathmey Pratt Schultr Architects Planner: Brent Wilson Brent Uli'ilson gave an overview of the staff memo. Brian Doyon recused himself' as his company was working on this. He said the final rewiew would be on March 27. Ned Gwathmey stated the present number of the student body was 244. He said about another 30,000 sq. ft. would be added, as now the classrooms were Oda-500 sq, ft and very small. He said the need was for technical classrooms, which would be about 900 sq. ft. The 300 sq. ft. auditorium was well received by the community and it would be ADA accessible and about the size of the Cascade theater. Scott 'Lindall summarized Phase I, and. said that adding the North addition would replace the modular classroom. He said other major items would be to remove the berm. He said the second phase would be the Master Plan, which would include faculty housing and the auditorium. Ned Gwathmey said they were dissuaded from altering the existing bus stop and would keep the bike path as a pedestrian path.. Scott Lindall summarized how the site would react to the removal of the berm and sa"rd there Planning and Environmental Commission $ Minutes March 13, 20QQ Approved March 27, 200 would be very little impact on the neighbors. Brent Wilson. said the air conditioning mechanical would be screened, which was the biggest complaint from the neighbors, Chas Bernhardt asked about the time frame. Scott Lindall said the temporary classroom was scheduled tv be removed by July, 2441. Tom Weber said his main concern was with access, because the drop-off lane was too close to where the curb cut is. He suggested studying it and booking at alternate routes looping back, or removing the interior connection to the housing elements and then adding a separate curbcut. Ned Gwathmey said there were administrative ways to control the drop-off. Tom Weber said this was the only challenge to solve this traffic problem and he asked about a left- tum lane into the parking lot. Ned Gwathmey said there was no money for that. He said the number of kids driving to school would increase, as they were increasing the upper levels. Brent Wilson said a parking analysis would be provided at final review. Tom Weber said the bike path was used by kids as a circulation path. Galen Aasland asked about the entrances to the auditorium and mentioned that the housing needed its own entrance with landscaping, so the teachers weren't tied. to the school. He suggested a barbecue area and volleyball court. He said he would like as few entrances vn the frontage road as possible. He then asked about mitigation for disturbance to the neighborhood. He said the parking needed to be broken up and barriers put up across the bike path, as it is useless. Ned Gwathmey asked about Phase ! EHtJ requirement, that the new development triggered. Brent Wilson said he would go over that with him. Galen Aasland said they would have to be treated like all other applicants. He then asked for any public input. There was no public input. 7. A PEC review of proposed modifications to the Gore Creek l=lvod Plain, located at the Gore Creek. Whitewater Park, Gore Creek Promenade/Tracts I ~ A, Block 5B, 'Vail Village 1St Filing. Applicant: Va`rl Valley Tourism and Convention Bureau Planner: Brent Wilson Brent Wilson gave an overview of the staff memo. He said a flood plain analysis would be forthcoming. Tadd ©ppenheimer said there was a several foot thick slab under the pedestrian bridge and to remove it was not in the scope of this project. He said it was too early to define what tv do about getting rid of some of the concrete, although some of it could be incorporated into the whitewater work. Planning and Environmental Cornmissian 9 Minutes March 13, 204© Approved March 27, 2000 Galen Aasland asked if they were fake rocks. • Gary Lacey said the placement of large boulders were configured in such a way as to create interesting waves. The pools would be scoured out naturally to keep them deep.. He explained them being anchored into the banks and grouted into place with concrete that was not visible, He said it would be a different character than what was there now and after construction, it would show a lot of water. He said it would not impact the 100-year flood profile. He went on ro explain, using a rendering, the beach area with shallow water for kids. Chas Bernhardt asked what would happen to the Rubber Duck Race and if ii would be too dangerous for kids. Gary Lacy said this would improve the safety. Galen Aasland asked if kids would be sucked under into the pools. Gary Lacy said a body, tubers, or logs would flush right through. Brian Doyon asked about the time-frame. Gary Lacy said it was designed and if permitted, it would be constructed prior to run-off this year: if not, then in the fall. He explained that from crest to the crest was 18 inches. Todd Qppenheimer said the rendering was only conceptual at this point. He said the creek would go fram a ripple to a pool and the character of the creek would be changed Joe! Heath, Vice President of the VVTCB, supported this to bring locals back to Vail Village and stated that this section was the best piece of water. Galen Aasland asked for any public comments. W. Bar, representing Noel, one of the shops on Gore Creek Drive, said that the $300,000 spent was not providing much profit to the Vail Village. He said it would take 200 years to get a return on the investment. He said the Town of Vail has failed local shopkeepers, since they couldn't put signs in their windows and the sales tax income was always negative. He said $300,000 spent on rocks was materially injurious to the shopkeepers. He said he would rather have lighting and heated streets and relax restrictions on special sale events. He said they used to be the backbone of successful towns and the money should be channeled into useful projects. Galen Aasland said it was not the purview of the PEC how much the Town spends on this, just the zoning and whether the project met the intent of the zoning. He suggested taking the money issue to the Town Council, as it was out of our purview. Kaye Ferry, representing the Village Merchants, said W. Bar doesn't represent the merchants in Vail Village. She said the rocks were not an answer, but added to create a more inviting environment. She said although lights were important, they don't need to be connected to this. She then said the merchants in Vaii Village were in favor of this. Chris Amoroso, from Mountain quest Sports, said this was overwhelmingly positive by taking a non-productive time of year and getting people excited about being here. He said these parks were taking off and Denver was building three of them. He said people will want to host events here because of this. He said the sport was taking off with people embracing it. Planning and Environmental Commission 10 Minutes March 13, 2000 Approved March 27, 2000 Dike Duffy, an owner of a Kayaking shop in Eagle Vail, stated that $300,000 to pay for rocks was not that much and (here may be rock donations. He said this would cause free publicity for Vail and would be a world class arena for rodeos. He said people will watch for hours and it will get people back in Town. Doug Fenne, from Edwards, spoke in support of this. He said if the creek keeps flowing, he wouldn't have to go to Shoshone. Byron Hoyle, a former resident of Vail since1971, who now resides in Eagle, said he would love to see this Kayak park go into effect. Tim Kennedy, from Vail Timberline Tours, stated that Gore Creek was a gem when running anal it would be a fantastic way to see the Village and wound draw a crowd. Diane Johnson stated that she has seen the Golden Park and she thought this sport was cool and said she would watch. She did say that It would change the character and she would like to see more than 3 drops, as Golden had 7 and Boulder had 12. Mike Duffy, wi#h Alpine Kayaks, said when the creek is flowing it will increase the fish habitat and control erasion. Tom Boyd said he grew up in the Vail Valley and works with the Vail Daily. He said he could sit in one rapid for 8-9 hours straight. He said this was a very popular and enjoyable sport. He said that this Town did not. welcome Kayakers and this was a way to change its reputation, as the location was perfect. Nikki Beyers, from Slifer Management Village Center Homeowner's Association, said they were adamantly against this and that this presentation was premature, since the Corps of Engineers report wasn't in yet. She said the homeowners were concerned with the low beach area on the north side. She said the creek would be louder and they were concerned about the safety of the children. She said she was also concerned if this was an allowable use of the Rhea Funds. Kaye Ferry said if we listened to the property owners, nothing would get done. Joel Heath, from VVTCB, said that construction access would all be dune on the river. Galen Aasland asked if the beach would be removed an the north side. Gary Lacey said the development would only occur an Town property. Brian Doyan said there were cars involved with Kayaking. Tam Weber said he was concerned with the debris flow in the runoff season and questioned who would maintain this. Todd Oppenheimer said there would not be a big increase in maintenance. Tom 'Weber said we needed to identify a circulation access that was not on the north side. He asked how it would be policed and if it would be too small. He said the demand was outstanding and he could see frustration from people wanting to share this all at once. He asked about the feasibility of expansion up or downstream and thought that needed to be part of the plan now. He asked how liability would work far this. Planning and J=n~rironmenta! Commission 11 Minutes March 13, 2000 Approved March 27, 2000 Brent Wilson said liability was assumed to be the same, as long as it was like any other feature in the creek. Tom Weber said he was in favor of this. Brian Doyan said he was not sure if the welcome sign to Vail should say amusement park 2404, welcome to Vail. He stated that our natural resources keep on getting hammered and to destroy another creek corridor and turn it into an amusement park; this was not the appropriate place. He said he might support it, depending on what the EIS or Army Corps of Engineers says. He said he was sure stairs would be needed for high and low runoffs and said that this was only a 240-yard stretch, Chas Bemhardt said you have shown how much fun it can be. He said this wasn't a retirement community and said lots of you came back to Vail showing interest. Galen Aasland thanked the public and said anything we can do to bring more people in Town was a good thing. He said he had concerns with just 3 pools and would like to see something above this. He thought 5-7 pools with some kind of transmission. He stated that everyone owned the property down by the river; not gust the adgacents. He said not to have any grout visible. Chris Amoroso said kayakers would help enforce the rules. 8. A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for the conversion of existing hotel rooms into employee housing units, located at 2211 N. Frontage Rd. (West Vail Lodge)ILot 1, Vail dos Schone #3. Applicant: Recut Corporation Planner Brent Wilson Brent Wilson gave an overview of the staff memo. Galen Aasland asked if the applicant had anything to add. Lynn Fritzlen showed the proposed site plan, landscape plan and identified the pedestrian routes. Chas Bernhardt asked for some coniferous trees mixed in with the deciduous trees for winter buffering. Lynn Fritzlen said we would address those issues at the DFiB level. She said a total of ~2 new trees were being proposed along with 12 conifers. She said they were taking out two conifers and replacing them, per the Town Code requirement. She showed the roof line, as adding more definition to the building. She also addressed the EHU's and said they wanted to incorporate the EHU's into the mixed use housing, so it wouldn't became ghettoized. Bruce Chapman explained the proposed draft of the Condo Decs, showing how 3 uses were integrated into one association; free market, commercial and EHU's. He said the commercial and free market units would have the most interest in making sure the units were kept up and would also have the most votes in the association. Torn Weber asked if these votes were a majority on budgets, etc, Planning and Environmental Commission 12 Minutes March 13, 2oaa Approved March 27, 2000 Bruce Chapman said there would be a Board of Directors and an annual Homeowner's meeting. He said the commercial and free market units would have a different perspective on maintaining the property, rather than the EHU's and would be more willing to spend the money. He also said included in the declaration, were the Type III employee housing covenants. Tom Weber asked if there was something in the Dees about excessive noise. Galen Aasland asked for any public comment. There were no public comments. Chas Bernhardt said he liked the approved landscape plan and was in favor of this. Tom Weber said the landscaping plan helped and he said he was in favor of this, with a stipulation for the DRB to create residential character. Brian Doyan had no comments. Galen Aasland said that at the last meeting he had requested a pedestrian easement across the northwest corner be provided, more landscape buffer in the east and to have Tom Moorhead review the Dacs. Brent Wilson said the only PEG issue was the conditional use for the AU's converting to EHU's . Brian Doyon made a motion for approval, in accordance with the staff memo and with Galen's 2 conditions; that the pedestrian path in the northwest corner be formalized and that there be more screening, in the form of landscaping to the northeast comer of the lot. Chas Bernhardt seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 4-0 9. A final review of the proposed changes to the Town of Vail's parking pay-in-lieu policy and proposed amendments to Chapter 12-1 Q, Town Code. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Brent Wilson 10. Final review of the Town of Vail's revised parking generation analysis and proposed amendments to Chapter 12-10, Town Cade. Applicant; Town of Vail Planner: Brent Wilson Chas Bernhardt made a motion to table items #9 and #1 Q. Tom Weber seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 4-0. 11. A joint work session with the Design Review Board to discuss the proposed development plan/master plan and a conditional use permit for a park and recreation facility for an approximately 12 acre unplatted parcel of land zoned General Use and Residential Cluster, commonly referred to as the lower bench of Donovan Park, located south of the Planning and Environmental Commission 13 Minutes March 13, 2000 Approved March 27, 200© South Frontage Road and east and north of Matterhorn Circle. Applicant: Town of VailNail Recreation District Planner: Dominic Mauriello Dominic Maurieilo said Alternative C was the preferred alternative. He then gave an overview of the staff memo Otis Odell introduced Ethan Moore. Ethan Moore explained the soccer field dimensions of 150x300 and stated there were two revisions since the last time it was presented. He said a bunker had been created as a natural grandstand in lieu of putting a fence around the field. He said an enhanced barrier, 6 'tall, would be needed to screen the parking . Brian Doyon asked about the height by the golf course. Tom Weber asked if this could be converted into a softball field. Dominic Mauriello said the neighborhood would like to throw a Frisbee and not be dedicated to just soccer or lacrosse, but the VRD would like it to be for youth soccer. Ethan Moore explained that the buflding footprint had been reduced and the fields increased. He explained the bus stop on the site and the impactor use on the existing bus stop and also said #hat the grading on the site would be different . Brian Doyen asked who the bus riders would be. Ethan Moore said he didn't anticipate the bus ridership would be greatly increased. He said walking from the existing bustop would be an add'rtionai 250', or a 1000' hike to get to the buildings. He said they would recommend net having an internal bus, as it would introduce a lot of grading issues. Tom Weber asked about the grading and ponding effect on the soccer field. Chas Bernhardt agreed that the bus didn't need to be on the site. Tom Weber agreed that the bus didn't need to be on the site. Brian Doyon said it was semi-appropriate for a bus to be there, but not that important. Galen Aasland said more buses turning on the Frontage Rd. would mean more accidents and so he was not in favor of this. 1=than Moore explained the parking on the site. Scott Smith, of Suzake Associates, said they wanted to maximize the green. He summarized the layout of the program on the site and said it was driven by solar orientation on the entryways to the buildings. He demonstrated the possibilities of the programs with or without the ABC and Learning Tree Schools. Tom Weber asked about stacking elements on top of the parking. Planning and Environmental Commission 14 Minutes March 13, 20DO Approved March 27, 2004 Scott Smith stated that this parking deck was the least expensive, as well as out of view. Otis Odell said that surface and water issues would make a parking structure operationally expensive. Ethan Moore said there were benefits to having everything vn the same level. Galen Aasland asked for any public comments. There were no public comments. Tom Weber said he would still like the parking buried, but liked the way the parking screened the building from the Frontage Rvad. Brian Doyon said they were on the track with eliminating some of the programs. He thought business in a park was not a good mix. He also didn't think that buses should be in the area. He said he would like trees to define a gravel surface or naturalized parking area, He said he liked the stacking of the elements with some terracing of the activity centers. He said he was in favor of Scheme 3 _ Chas Bernhardt said he was in favor of stacking the building, the soccer field and. the parking Int should be built in year 1. He said the Pavilion could be built the second year. He asked about the size of the Pavilion. Otis Odell said tht: Pavilion would be 12,000 sq. #t. vn one level. Galen Aasland said he liked the parking and the idea of the plaza, though he didn't agree with the flat earth idea of the plaza. He said he was Interested in what would happen with the bike path and he didn't feel the bus should go through. 12. Information Update Four, two-year team PEC vacancies - {Galen Aasland, Brian Doyon, Diane Golden and Tom Weber), PEC REPRESI=NTATIVE AT DRB FOR 2~t)0- Doug Cahill - Jan-Mar'00 - Apr-Jun '00 - Jul-Sep '00 - Oct-Dec `DO Chas Bernhardt made a motion to table assigning the PEC reps until the next meeting 6rian Doyon seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 4-0. 13. Approval of February 28, 2000 minutes. Chas Bernhardt had changes. Chas Bernhardt made a motion to approve the amended minutes. Tom Weber seconded the motion. Planning and Environmental Commission 3.5 Minutes March 13, 2flflfl Approved Mare 27, 2000 The motion passed by a vote of 3-1 (©oyon recused~ Chas Sernhardt made a motion to adjourn. Tom Weber seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 4-0. The meeting adjourned at 9:45 p.m. • 'Planning and €nvironrrsental Commission ~~ Minutes March 13, 2000