Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-1127 PECTHIS ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY PUBLIC NOTICE el NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail will hold a ublic hearing in accordance with Section 12 -3 -6 of the Municipal d p g Code of the Town of Vail on November 27, 2000, at 2 :00 P.M. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. In consideration of: A request for a minor subdivision, to allow for the creation of two tracts of land. located at 1778 Vail Valley Drive 1 a currently unplatted tract of land within Section 9, Township 5 South, Range 80 West of the 6' P.M. directly north of Lot 3, Sunburst Filing 3 within the Vail Golf Course. The subject property ( "Vail Golf Course Clubhouse Subdivision") is specifically described as follows: That part of Section 9, Township 5 South, Range 80 West of the 6 1h Principal Meridian, Town of !Vail, Eagle County, Colorado, described as follows: Beginning at the most northerly corner of Lot 3, Sunburst Filing No. 3, according to the final plat for Sunburst Filing No. 3, recorded in Book 263 at Page 429, in the office of the Eagle County, Colorado, Clerk and Recorder, said point also being on the northerly right -of -way line of Sunburst Drive, as shown on said final plat; thence the following two courses along said northerly right -of -way line (1) 119.32 feet along the arc of a curve to the left, having a radius of 135.00 feet, a central angle of 50 °38'21" and a chord that bears N72 0 59'22 "W 115.47 feet: (2) S81 °41'30 "W 187.43; thence, departing said northery right -of -way line, N08 0 18'30 "W 266.90 feet; thence N79 °28'56 "E 939.41 feet; thence S11 °28'38 "E 91.78 feet; thence S40 9"W 490.77 feet, thence S77 0 00'32 "W 165.16 feet to the northerly line of said Lot 3; thence, along said northerly line of Lot 3, 148.02 feet along the arc of a curve to the left, having a radius of 189 10 feet, a central angle of 44 °50'53" and a chord that bears N65 1 08'5£ "W 144.27 feet to the point of beginning, containing 6.47 acres, more or less. Applicant: Vail Junior Hockey Association, Vail Recreation District, Town of Vail Planner: Brent Wilson A request for a work session to discuss the establishment of a Special Development District to allow for the construction of a new conference facility /hotel and conditional use permits to allow for the construction of fractional fee units and Type III employee housing units at 13 Vail Road ! Lots A. B, C, Block 2, Vail Village Filing 2. Applicant: Doramar Hotels represented by the Daymer Corporation Planner: Brent Wilson A request for a final review of a conditional use permit, to allow for the construction of Phase I of Donovan Park improvements a request for rezoning of a portion of Vail Village West Filing 1(including Lot 4, Vail Village West Filing 1 — 1774 Matterhorn Circle) from 'Residential Cluster" to "General Use ", generally located southeast of the intersection of Matterhorn Circle and the South Frontage Road, Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: George Ruther A request for grading in the flood plain, in accordance with Title 14, Town of Vail Code, located at Stephens Park, generally located in the 2400 block of S. Frontage Rd. West/ Unplatted Vail Intermountain. Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Tom Kassmel Planner: Allison Ochs TOWN (OF 4VA& A request for grading in the floodplain, in accordance with Title 14, Town Code, located at 540 S. Frontage Rd. East/ Ford Park, Unplatted. Applicant: Vail Alpine Garden Foundation and Town of Vail, represented by Ry Southard and Todd Oppenheimer. Planner: Ann Kjerulf A request for a worksession to discuss a Major Exterior Alteration, to allow for the redevelopment of the Vail 21 Condominiums, located at 521 E. Lionshead Circle /Lot 3, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 1 "' Filing. Applicant: Vail 21 Condominium Association Planner: Allison Ochs A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for the installation of wireless telecommunications facilities, located at 551 N. Frontage Rd... Red Sandstone Elementary School /Lot 8, Vail Potato Patch Filing 1. Applicant: AT &T Wireless Services, represented by Liberty Wirestar Planner: Ann Kjerulf 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. The public is invited to attend project orientation and the site visits that precede the public hearing in the Town of Vail Community Development Department. Please call 479 -2138 for information. Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479- 2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. Community Development Department Published November 10, 2000 in the Vail Trail. 1 4) L 2 -7 Eb 4 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION PUBLIC MEETING SCHEDULE Monday, November 27, 2000 PROJECT ORIENTATION I - Community Development Dept MEMBERS PRESENT A I itim 1 . Red Sandstone Elementary School — 551 N. Frontage Road 2. Ford Park — 540 S. Frontage Road East 3. Vail 21 Condominiums — 521 E. Lionshead Circle Driver. George NOTE: If the PEC heanng extends until 6:00 p.m., the board may break tor dinrer from 6:00 - 6�30 p.m. 1:00 prn Public Hearing - Town Council Chambers 2:00 prn 1 A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for the instaflation of wireless telecommunications facilities, located at 551 N. Frontage Rd., Red Sandstone Elementary Schocl/Lot 8, Vail Potato Patch Filing 1. Applicant: AT&T Wireless Services, represented by Liberty Wirestar Planner: Ann Kjerulf 2. A request for a work session to discuss the establishment of a Special Development Distftt to allow for the construction of a new conference facility/hotel and conditional use permits to allow for the construction of fractional fee units and Type III employee housing units at 13 Vail Road / Lots A, 8, C, Block 2, Vail Village Filing 2. Applicant: Doramar Hotels, represented by the Daymer Corporation Planner� Brent Wilson 3. A request for a worksession to discuss a Major Exterior Alteration, to allow for the redevelopment of the Vail 21 Condominiums, located at 521 E. Lionshead Circle/Lot 3, Block 1, Vail Lionshead I Filing. Applicant: Vail 21 Condominium Association Planner. Allison Ochs A TOWN OF IVL MEMBERS ABSENT A, PUBLIC WELCOME 12�00 pm h 4. A request for a minor subdivision, to allow for the creation of two tracts of land, located at 1773 Vail Valley Drive / a currently unplatted tract of land within Section 9, Township 5 South, Prange 80 West of the 6' P.M. directly north of Lot 3, Sunburst Filing 3 within the Vail Golf Course. 40 The subject property ( "Vail Golf Course Clubhouse Subdivision ") is specifically described as follows: That part of Section 9, Township 5 South, Range 80 West of the 6' Principal Meridian, Town of Vail, Eagle County, Colorado, described as follows: Beginning at the most northerly corner of Lot 3, Sunburst Filing No. 3, according to the final plat for Sunburst Filing No. 3, recorded in Book 263 at page 429, in the office of the Eagle County, Colorado, Clerk and Recorder said point also being on the northerly right -of -way line of Sunburst Drive, as shown on said final plat thence the following two courses along said northerly right -af -way line: (1) 119.32 feet along the are of a curve to the left, having a radius of 135.00 feet. a central angle of 50 °38'21" and a chord that bears N72 0 59'22 "W 115.47 feet; (2) S81 °41'30 "W 187.43, thence, departing said northerly right -of -way line, N08 8'30"W 266.90 feet: thence N79°28'56 "E 939.41 feet; thence S1 1 0 28'38"E 91.78 feet; thence S40 0 011 9 "W 490.77 feet, thence S77 "00'32 "W 165.16 feet to the northerly line of said Lot 3; thence, along said northerly line of Lot 3, 148.02 feet along the arc of a curve to the left, having a radius of 189.10 feet, a central angle of 44 °50'53" and a chord that bears N65 1 08'56 "W 144 27 feet to the point of beginning, containing 6.47 acres, more or less. Applicant; Vail Junior Hockey Association, Vail Recreation District, Town of Vail Planner: Brent Wilson 5. A request for a minor subdivision, to allow for the vacation of lot lines, located at 2475 Garmisch Lane /Lots 1 -4, Block H, Vail das Schone 'Filing 2. Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Nina Timm Planner: Allison Ochs 6_ A request for a final review of a conditional use permit, to allow for the construction of Phase 49 1 1 of Donovan Park improvements and a request for rezoning of a portion of Vail Village West Filing 1 (including Lot 4, Vail Village West Filing 1 — 1774 Matterhorn Circle) from "Residential Clusterr' to "General Use", generally located southeast of the intersection of Matterhorn Circle and the South Frontage Road. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: George Ruther 7. A request for grading in the floodplain, in accordance with Title 14, Town Cade, located at 540 S. Frontage Rd. East/ Ford Park, Unplatted_ Applicant: Vail Alpine Garden Foundation and Town of Vail, represented by Ry Southard and Todd Oppenheimer. Planner: Ann Kjerulf TABLED UNTIL DECEMBER 11, 2000 8. A request for grading in the flood plain, in accordance with Title 14, Town of Vail Code, located at Stephens Park, generally located in the 2400 block of S. Frontage Rd. West/ Unplatted Vail Intermountain. Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Tom Kassmel Planner: Allison Ochs WITHDRAWN 0 2 • 9. A request for a final review of a minor subdivision, to allow for the reconfiguration and replaffrig of two existing lots and the rezoning of Lots 15 & 16 from Agriculture Open Space and Primary /Secondary Residential to Natural Area Preservation and Primary/Secondary Residential. located at 3686/3896 Lupine Drive /Lots 15 & 16, Bighorn 2 11d Addition. Applicant: Wilson Family Trust. represented by Jay Tschirner, First Land Development, LLC Planner: George Ruther WITHDRAWN 10. A request for a site coverage variance (Section 12 -7A -9) and setback variance (12- 7A -6), Vail Town Code, to allow for a new front entry to the Mountain Haus, located at 292 E. Meadow Drive /Lot 5, Part of Tract B, Vail Village 1" Filing. Applicant: Mountain Haus, represented by Fritzlen Pierce Architects Planner: Bill Gibson WITHDRAWN 40 11. Approval of November 13, 2060 minutes 12. Information Update 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 available upon request with 24 hour noificabon. Please call 479- 2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. Community Development Department Published November 24, 2000 in the Vail Trail 5 s • • PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION MEETING RESULTS Monday, November 27, 2000 PROJECT ORIENTATION 1 - Community Development Dept. PUBLIC WELCOME 12:00 pm MEMBERS PRESENT Galen Aasland Chas Bernhardt Diane Golden John Schofield Brian Doyon Doug Cahill MEMBERS ABSENT Tom Weber Site Visits : 1:Q0 pm 1. Red Sandstone Elementary School — 551 N_ Frontage Road 2_ Ford Park — 540 S. Frontage Road East 3. Vail 21 Condominiums -- 521 E. Lionshead Circle Driver: George NOTE_ If the PEC hearing extends until 6:00 p.m., the board may break for dinner from 5:00 - 6:30 p.m. Public Hearing - Town Council Chambers 2:00 pm A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for the installation of wireless telecommunications facilities, located at 551 N. Frontage Rd., Red Sandstone Elementary School /Lot 8, Vail Potato Patch Filing 1. Applicant: AT &T Wireless Services, represented by Liberty Wirestar Planner: Ann Kjerulf MOTION: John Schofield SECOND: Brian Doyon VOTE: 6 -0 APPROVED WITH 3 CONDITIONS: That the applicant shall plant two six -foot tall coniferous trees prior to June 15, 2001 immediately to the east of the proposed transformer, air - conditioning unit, and generator in order to provide adequate screening for this equipment.. The proposed location of the new trees shall be reviewed by staff prior to planting. 2. The applicant shall receive written approval from the Town of Vail prior to beginning work upon Town -owned property. 3. That the applicant plants additional landscaping if any existing landscaping is disturbed or destroyed during construction. M ax TOWN OF VAIL i r 2. A request for a work session to discuss the establishment of a Special Development District to allow for the construction of a new conference facility /hotel and conditional use permits to allow for the construction of fractional fee units and Type III employee housing units at 13 Vail Road / Lots A, B, C, Block 2, Vail Village Filing 2. Applicant: Doramar Hotels, represented by the Daymer Corporation Planner: Brent Wilson WORKSESSION -- NO VOTE 3. A request for a worksession to discuss a Major Exterior Alteration, to allow for the redevelopment of the Vail 21 Condominiums, located at 521 E. Lionshead Circle]Lot 3, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 1't Filing. Applicant: Vail 21 Condominium Association Planner: Allison Ochs WORKSESSION — NO VOTE 4. A request for a minor subdivision, to allow for the creation of two tracts of land, located at 1778 Vail Valley Drive / a currently unplatted tract of land within Section 9, Township 5 South. Range 80 West of the 6 "' P.M. directly north of Lot 3, Sunburst Filing 3 within the Vail Golf Course. The subject property ( "Vail Golf Course Clubhouse Subdivision ") is specifically described as follows: That part of Section 9, Township 5 South, Range 80 West of the 6 1h Principal Meridian, Town of Vail, Eagle County, Coiorado, described as follows: Beginning at the most northerly corner of Lot 3, Sunburst Filing No. 3, according to the final plat for Sunburst Filing No 3, recorded in Book 263 at Page 429, in the office of the Eagle County, Colorado, Clerk and Recorder, said point also being on the northerly right -of -way line of Sunburst DnVe, as shown on said final plat, thence the following two courses along said northerly right -of -way line: (1) 119.32 feet along the arc of a curve to the left, having a radius of 135.00 feet, a central angle of 50 °38'21" and a chord that bears N72 0 59'22 "W 115.47 feet; (2) S81 0 41'30 "W 187.43; thence, departing said northerly right --of -way line, N08 8'30"W 266.90 feet; thence N79 0 28'56 "E 939.41 feet; thence S1 1 91.78 feet; thence S40°01'1 9"W 490.77 feet, thence S77 0 00'32 "W 165.16 feet to the northerly line of said Lot 3; thence, along said northerly line of Lot 3, 148.02 feet along the arc of a curve to the left, having a radius of 189.10 feet, a central angle of 44 1 50'53" and a chord that bears N65'08'56 "W 144.27 feet to the point of beginning, containing 5.47 arses, more or less. Applicant: Vail Junior Hockey Association, Vail Recreation District, Town of Vail Planner: Brent Wilson MOTION: John Schofield SECOND: Chas Bernhardt VOTE: 6 -0 APPROVED WITH 1 CONDITION: That the applicant records the approved and signed plat with the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder's Office by no later than November 27, 2001 _ 5. A request for a minor subdivision, to allow for the vacation of lot lines, located at 2475 Garmisch Lane /Lots 1 -4, Block H, Vail das Schone Filing 2. Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Nina Timm Planner: Allison Ochs MOTION: John Schofield SECOND: Brian Doyon VOTE. 6 -0 APPROVED • 0 • 2 6. A request for a final review of a conditional use permit, to allow for the construction of Phase I of Donovan Park improvements and a request for rezoning of a portion of Vail Village West Filing 1(including Lot 4, Vail Village West Filing 2 — 1774 Matterhorn Circle) from "Residential Cluster" to "General Use ", generally located southeast of the intersection of Matterhorn Circle and the South Frontage Road_ Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: George Ruther MOTION: John Schofield SECOND: Doug Cahill VOTE: 6 -0 RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL (REZONING): MOTION: John Schofield SECOND: Brian Doyon VOTE: 6 -0 APPROVED WITH 5 CONDITIONS (CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT): That the applicant submits a final Development Plan to the Community Development Department for review and approval by the Town of Vail Planning & Environmental Commission prior to ANY site work being completed on the property. The Development Plan once approved, shall become the Approved Development Plan for the lower bench of Donovan Park and shall prescribe the development standards for the property, pursuant to Section 12 -9C -5 of the Vail Town Code. 2. That the applicant appears before the Vail Town Council for the review and approval of a request to rezone Lot 4, Vail Village West, Filing No. 2 from Residential Cluster zone district to the General Use zone district. 0 3. That the approval of this conditional use permit request is conditioned upon the rezoning of Lot 4, Vail Village West, Filing No. 2. 4. That this conditional approval shall become null and void should the applicant not receive final approval from the Town of Vail Planning & Environmental Commission for an Approved Development Plan. 5. That an additional provision be made for an internal bus stop in the park 7_ A request for grading in the floodplain, in accordance with Title 14, Town Code, located at 540 S_ Frontage Rd. East/ Ford Paris, Unplatted. Applicant_ Vail Alpine Garden Foundation and Town of Vail, represented by Ry Southard and Todd Oppenheimer. Planner: Ann Kjerulf TABLED UNTIL DECEMBER 11, 2000 8. A request for grading in the flood plain, in accordance with Title 14, Town of Vail Code, located at Stephens Dark, generally located in the 2400 block of S. Frontage Rd. West/ Unplatted Vail Intermountain. Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Tom Kassmel Planner: Allison Ochs. WITHDRAWN • A request for a final review of a minor subdivision, to allow for the reconfiguration and replatting of two existing lots and the rezoning of Lots 15 & 16 from Agriculture Open Space and Primary/Secondary Residential to Natural Area Preservation and Primary/Secondary Residential, located at 3886/3896 Lupine Drive /Lots 15 & 16, Bighorn 2` Addition. Applicant_ Wilson Family Trust, represented by ,Jay Tschirner, First Land Development, LLC Planner; George Ruther WITHDRAWN 10. A request for a site coverage variance (Section 12 -7A -9) and setback variance (12- 7A -6), Vail Town Code, to allow for a new front entry to the Mountain Haus, located at 292 E. Meadow Drive /Lot 5, Part of Tract B, Vail Village 1' Filing. Applicant: Mountain Haus, represented by Fritzien Pierce Architects Planner: Bill Gibson WITHDRAWN 11. Approval of November 13, 2000 minutes 12. information Update 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 available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479 -2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. 0 Community Development Department • 4 MEMORANDUM 0 TO: Planning nd Environmental 9 Commission C FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: November 21, 2000 SUBJECT: A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for the installation of wireless telecommunications facilities, located at 551 N. Frontage Rd., Red Sandstone Elementary Schcol /Lot 8, Vail Potato Patch Filing 1. Applicant: AT &T Wireless Services, represented by R.C. Powell, Liberty Wirestar Planner Ann Kjerulf I. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST This proposal involves the removal of 5 existing "omni" antennas and the placement of a new antenna screen structure upon the existing roof of Red Sandstone School. The screen structure would enclose 16 antennas including 4 "omni" antennas. In conjunction with this telecommunication equipment, the applicant is proposing to add a new transformer, a new generator, and a new air conditioning unit in close proximity to the existing AT &T equipment room. Gas and electrical conduit, coax cable duct, and cats line would be installed or relocated as necessary but painted to match the existing building. The telecommunications equipment on the roof would be screened with a modular antenna screen, whose color would match the existing building. The new air - conditioning unit, generator, and transformer would be screened somewhat by existing vegetation. REVIEWING BOARD ROLES - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Order of Review: Generally, applications will be reviewed first by the PEC for acceptability of use and then by the DRS for compliance of proposed buildings and site planning. Planning and Environmental Commission: Action. The PEC is responsible for approval /denial of conditional use permits The PEC is responsible for evaluating a proposal for: 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 facilities and public facilities needs. A TOWN OF VAIL 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. 40 4. Effect upon the character of _ le area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the sale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. 5. Such other factors and criteria as the Commissicn 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. T. Conformance with development standards of zone district including: Lot area and site dimensions, setbacks, building height, density control, site coverage, landscaping and site development, parking and loading, and mitigation of development impacts. Design Review Board: Action: The DRB has no review authority on a Conditional Use Permi#, but must review any accompanying DRB application_ III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Depart ment recommends that the Planning and Environmental Commission approve the applicant's request for a conditional use permit to allow for the installation of the telecommunications equipment on the rooftop and associated generator, air - conditioning unit, and transformer, subject to 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 General Use District. 2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed use 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 of approval: That the applicant shall plant two six -foot tall coniferous trees prior to June 15, 2001 immediately to the east of the proposed transformer, air - conditioning unit, and generator in order to provide adequate screening for this equipment. The proposed location of the new trees shall be reviewed by staff prior to planting. 2. The applicant shall receive written approval from the Town of Vail prior to 40 beginning work upon Town -owned property. M N. REQUIRED CRITERIA AND FINDINGS - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 0 A. CONSIDERATION OF FACTORS. Rela tionship and impact of the use on the development objectives of the Town. The subject property is zoned "General Use," This zone district allows "public utilities installations including transmission lines and appurtenant equipment," subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit. Staff believes this proposed use is a compatible accessory to the established use on the site. Staff believes this use is consistent with the Town's development objectives. 2. The effect of the use on Hght_and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities and other public facilities need Staff believes this use would have a positive impact upon the above- listed facilities by improving telecommunications services in the Vail area. Federal law (Telecommunications Act of 1996) prohibits local zoning authorities from regulation of environmental effects of telecommunication facilities based on radio frequency (RF) emissions. Staff does not anticipate any negative impacts on the above - listed facilities from this proposal. 3. Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestr safety and convenience. traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and parking areas Staff does not believe that the proposed use would negatively affect the believes that the above - listed facilities. 4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located including the scale and bulls of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. Staff believes that the proposed antenna screen structure would have a negligible impact upon the character of the area including the scale and bulk of this structure in relation to surrounding uses. The proposed generator, air - conditioning unit, and transformer would be partially screened by existing vegetation but still within public view hence, staff believes that additional screening should be required. B. FINDINGS The Planning and Environmental C ommission shall make the following findings before granting a conditional use permit: That the proposed location of the use is in accordance with the purposes of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. 2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code. 3 • W } C 1 � �— r 3N1"1 hiY13d0'�d y r 1 1 i i 1 • D r Y Li U) in 1 a z a 0 0 W F U, O J W ° moo d Q L c = Z Z r d [7 S7R> Z U d,� Z C f b I ]I ©L7 7x � w wmm q U T �aJ�oar� O U 4_ < Z �wIaL - a M z a ZLU0Q2 z ,J U a. 6 2 Z �7 U z O z n Fri ff LU W a �fl x N .0 w ar Z Z N � �4 D. s x cn O Z 2 w I I I � r—��r�E� �' I '" O W 0. W. p > I om zo ° I I Z cn z z z° 'z00 w��e I ! �zZ l71 uza aa¢ �ir�� � L§ i �} j bW cmO ° m � W L E J f b I ]I m ,3 G I X >Z 7 a. �d W' X Q °XaU- Er WU 0 I I I I � r—��r�E� �' I '" O W 0. W. p > I om zo ° I I Z cn z z z° 'z00 w��e I ! �zZ l71 uza aa¢ �ir�� � L§ i �} j bW cmO ° m � J Q J U m U tY w 0 Z F Z u 4 7 °Z 4 E d 0 W z Z W ¢ F U Z d C7 D L7 nt W m J 3 F- ? WZ p C Z <1 1 0 0 d 3s zC xZ0? �© g LbZ W w ¢ O 7 -j w Z K7 a CO 4F- 0 Z O a O I L- 0 0 rx } C� L f T z (f W S Z a. �d °XaU- Z U Z :] ZW LL < u Lu J ❑ u z m O z -j Qa swum o .8t J Q J U m U tY w 0 Z F Z u 4 7 °Z 4 E d 0 W z Z W ¢ F U Z d C7 D L7 nt W m J 3 F- ? WZ p C Z <1 1 0 0 d 3s zC xZ0? �© g LbZ W w ¢ O 7 -j w Z K7 a CO 4F- 0 Z O a O I L- 0 0 rx } C� • 0 • � N C 7 W N a Y z " Vl0mai J JI LN � i1• Q F. fCn YJ � a �y�� ate¢ r O yl WI J1 J 2 ' CJ,' Y F m �I ��ZG �M -' a W W LL N F C3 z � a z V a a cv _r r cc �. eo w U d/1 _0 P W w old, is Z #II W f , i I i I E j I w � I i n om U .a,Cro x U7 O t9 S� z W ? '0 w 5z H � ux z D� ot¢ w U' z X m O O- F ur_ >t�vr qc a_U�w �n Z Lu Z Lu w z z0 z LLt UJ# NI w ",51 � 4z�� z z z 0 Z 24�J W t H WJ H 0 J. Q� �f Q a U' z X m O O- F ur_ >t�vr qc a_U�w �n Z Lu Z Lu w z z0 z LLt UJ# NI w 0 TO 33iTri�1 DATE MEMORANDUM Planning and Environmental Commission Department of Community Development November 27, 2000 SUBJECT: A request for a work session to discuss the establishment of a Special Development District to allow for the construction of a new conference facility /hotel and conditional use permits to allow for the construction of fractional fee units and Type III employee housing units at 13 Vail Road / Lots A, B, C, Block 2, Vail Village Filing 2. Applicant: Doramar Hotels, represented by the Daymer Corporation Planner: Brent Wilson INTRODUCTION The purpose of this work session is to provide the applicant and staff with additional direction regarding the major conceptual aspects of this proposal (height, massing, access, etc.). The applicant is proposing a special development district (SDD) where the Chateau at Vail is currently located_ The SDD is intended to facilitate the construction of the Vail Plaza Hotel West, a new mixed -use lodge project. The current (and proposed underlying) zoning for the property is "Public Accommodation." The establishment of a fractional fee club and the construction of Type III employee housing units will also require conditional use permits. On October 24 the applicant appeared before the PEC, DRB and Town Council with a preliminary submittal. Today's revised submittal is in response to the concerns addressed by the various board members on October 24 A synopsis of the issues discussed on October 24` is given in Section V of this memorandum. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The Vail Plaza Hotel West is a mixed -use development proposal. Uses within the 'hotel include residential, commercial and recreation. The proposed plan currently includes a 120 -room hotel, 17 condominiums, 39 fractional fee units, 16 employee housing units, 6,582 square feet of restaurant/bar space, 7,448 square feet of retail space, 22,513 square feet of conference /meeting space, and a 23,801 square foot spa/health club. III. COMPATIBILITY WITH PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION ZONE DISTRICT According to the Official Town of Vail Zoning Map, the applicant's property is zoned Public Accommodation_ Pursuant to the Town of Vail Municipal Code, the Public Accommodation Zone district is intended: • to provide sites for lodges and residential accommodations for visitors, together with such public and semi - public facilities and limited professional offices, medical facilities, private recreation, and related visitor oriented uses as may appropriately be located in the same district. The Public Accommodation district is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space, and other amenities commensurate with lodge uses, and to maintain the desirable resort qualities of the District by establishing appropriate site development standards. Additional nonresidential uses are permitted as conditional uses which enhance the nature of Vail as a winter and summer recreation and vacation community, and where permitted are to function compatibly with the high density lodging character of the District. IV. The Public Accommodation Zone District is intended to provide sites for lodging units with densities not to exceed 25 dwelling units per acre. The Public Accommodation Zone District, prior to January 21, 1997, did not permit interval ownership. On January 21, 1997, the town Council adopted regulations allowing interval ownership subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit. Previously, interval ownership was only allowed as a conditional use in the High density Multi - family Zone District. On October 5, 1999, the Vail Town Council approved {ordinance No. 23, Series of 1999, amending the development standards prescribed in the Public Accommodation Zone District. The amendments included an increase in allowable GRFA up to 150 %, an increase in site coverage, the elimination of AU`s and FFU's in the calculation of density, revised setback requirements, and other various aspects in the development of properties zoned Public Accommodation. The allowable building height, landscape area and limitation on commercial square footage remained unchanged. THE SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT ESTABLISHMENT PROCESS Chapter 12 -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: 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 Town; 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 for a Special 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. An approved development plan is the principal document in guiding the development, uses, and activities of the Special Development District. The development plan shall contain all relevant material and information necessary to establish the parameters with which the special 2 development district shall adhere. The development plan may consist of, but not be limited to: the approved site plan; floor plans, building sections, and elevations: vicinity plan; parking plan, preliminary open space /landscape plan; densities; and permitted, conditional, and accessory uses. The determination of permitted, conditional and accessory uses shall be made by the Planning and Environmental Commission and Town Council as part of the formal review of the proposed development plan. Unless further restricted through the review of the proposed special development district, permitted, conditional and accessory uses shall be limited to those permitted, conditional and accessory uses in the property's underlying zone 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 shall be the burden of the applicant to demonstrate that submittal material and the proposed development plan comply with each of the following standards, or demonstrate that one or more of them is not applicable, or that a practical solution consistent with the public interest has been achieved. The nine SDD review criteria are referenced below: 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 Chapter 12 -10 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code. D. Conformity with the applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, Town policies and Urban Design Plan. E. Identification and mitigation of natural and/or 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 of the community. G. A circulation system designed for both 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. Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional and efficient relationship throughout the development of the special development district. • V. PREVIOUS DISCUSSION ISSUES Listed below is a synopsis of the concerns expressed by the three boards at the previous meeting on October 24th: Special Development District - Some deviations from the underlying zoning may be acceptable. However, any proposal for a special development district should incorporate the Vail Village Inn property as well_ The Town boards believe the sharing of infrastructure between both projects could be of substantial benefit to both the developer and the public. Also, an incorporation of the gas station property into the design would be a great addition to the overall plan (if possible). Height - Some deviation in building height may be acceptable. It is recommended that the highest portions of the building are placed on the north side (along the frontage road) with a gradual stepping down of the massing towards West Meadow Drive. Bulk and Mass - The overall scale of the current proposal is inconsistent with the established character of the area. A "breaking up" of the primary roof ridges would help scale down the mass. The project should read as an assemblage of buildings rather than one large structure. Traffic and Access - Every effort should be made to keep all vehicular traffic off of West Meadow Drive. It is recommended that primary vehicular access is placed along the frontage road. Some limited accessory traffic along Vail Road may be acceptable. Adequate pedestrian access and circulation throughout the site should be demonstrated. Setbacks — The setback encroachments proposed below grade are a good solution to meeting the hotel's operational needs_ However, it is recommended that the minimum setbacks above grade are maintained. This is especially relevant along West Meadow Drive where the pedestrian scale and neighborhood character should be respected. Landscaping — In accordance with the provisions of the Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan, additional landscaping must be provided. An amount consistent with the provisions of the Public Accommodation zone district would be adequate. Neighborhood Context — It is recommended that additional meetings with neighboring property owners are scheduled in order to address their concerns. Employee Housirg — some off -site housing may be acceptable. However, it is recommended that the units be placed at the Chateau Vail and Vail Village Inn locations. Down - valley housing units are not a consideration at this point. VI. CURRENT DISCUSSION ISSUES Staff has completed a preliminary review of the plans submitted for the development of the Vail Plaza Hotel West. Upon the completion of our review, a number of issues with regard to the proposal have been identified. The Community Development Department recommends that the Planning & Environmental Commission, the staff and the applicant engage in a dialogue on the issues that have been identified. • 4 1. SDD Establishment — Although the PEC and Town Council expressed a desire to see both the VVI and the Chateau properties in the context of this proposal, staff believes it is necessary to ensure each independent hotel proposal has sufficient infrastructure to function as a "stand alone" project (should ownership of either project ever transfer in the future). Question Does the PEC want to see the proposal address the placement of infrastructure on both sites or is the Chateau site alone the appropriate context for this SDD? 2. Access and Load ing /I:Delivery West Meadow Drive - All traffic has been removed from West Meadow Drive. South Frontacte_Road - Primary guest traffic is proposed to enter and exit off of the South Frontage Road and delivery traffic access is proposed off of Vail Road. Staff believes the current proposal is consistent with the direction given to the applicant thus far with regard to these concerns. However, given the turning radius and grade differential proposed, staff believes it may be necessary to push the proposed entry a few feet south (with building area cantilevered above). This would allow a better access drive layout (similar to what exists at the Sonnenalp along Vail Road). Additionally, the placement of the portcochere entry one level higher than proposed (at the same elevation as the frontage road) may alleviate some of the grade issues at the parking ramps. Vail Road - It is not clear whether or not a sizeable truck will be able to negotiate the layout proposed for the access off of Vail Road. Additionally, this access drive should also provide a significant pedestrian connection between the west wing and other properties along Vail Road. It has not yet been indicated on the plans where bus parking would be accommodated. Question Is a shared delivery access /pedestrian way feasible off of Vail Road given the narrow configuration of the lot adjacent to 9 Vail Road and Alpine Standard? 3. Bulk, Mass and Building Configuration Pursuant to the direction given on October 24` the applicant has lowered the proposed building height approximately seven feet along the frontage road (to 77.5') and approximately 8.25 feet along the West Meadow Drive frontage (to 64.25'). The existing height of the primary roof ridgeline on the Chateau is 58 feet. Staff believes this is more compatible with the established character of the area, but additional roof /massing modifications may be necessary along West Meadow Drive. Additionally, pursuant to the direction given on October 24 staff believes the building should read as an assemblage of structures, with a more broken roof plane along the primary ridges. As mentioned previously, staff believes the portion of the building along West Meadow Drive should have more of a north /south alignment in order to open up the proposed atrium area and provide more light and air. This may also allow for additional pedestrian penetration through the site_ An urban design consultant will be providing an independent review of the design elements of this proposal in the next two- weeks. This will be presented to the PEC at our next meeting for this item. • 4. Deviations from Underlying Public Accommodation Zoning 0 The following is a brief synopsis of the proposal's deviations from underlyinq_zoning ■ Height — 77.5' top of ridge; 88.75" arch. projections (48' max. allowed). ■ Setbacks — There are some setback encroachments below grade. However, the PEC and Town Council have stated below -grade setback encroachments are acceptable, Above - grade, the building footprint is within the minimum required setbacks while the portcochere entry overhang on the north fagade abuts the northern property boundary. ■ Parking - Although the applicant is utilizing the parking requirements outlined in the town code for most of the uses on site, there is a discrepancy between the applicant's and staff's numbers with regard to the spa/health club facility. Staff has compiled parking requirements for these uses from other Rocky Mountain resorts and will be providing a formal recommendation to the PEC on parking numbers at our next meeting. ■ Landscaping - although a detailed landscape plan was not available at the drafting of this memo, it appears the proposal now comes significantly closer to compliance with minimum landscaping requirements under the PA zoning. According to the applicant's landscape area analysis, the current proposal provides a landscape area of 29% (this figure only includes landscape areas X15' in width). The PA zoning requires a minimum landscape area of 30% of total site area_ 5. Employee Generation 0 For a point of reference, both the "middle range" of employee generation rates for the proposed development and the "staff recommended" rates from the previous Vail Village Inn proposal are provided. Additionally, the applicant has provided projected rates (attached). Staff Recommended Rates from previous VVI prolposal —1999 Staff's recommended rates are based upon the following factors: 1. the type of retail and commercial use proposed in the commercial space within the Vail Plaza Hotel; 2. the size of the Vail Plaza Hotel lodging component; 3. the level of services and amenities proposed by the developers for the guests of the Vail Plaza Hotel; and 4. the result of research completed by Town of Vail staff of similar hotel operations in the Vail Valley. a) Retail /Service Commercial = 7,448 sq. ft. @ (0.5/1000 sq. ft.) = 48.4 employees (middle of range) b) Health Club = 23,801 sq. ft. @ (1.5/1000 sq. ft.) = 35.7 employees (top of range) • C) Restaurant /Lounge /Kitchen = 6,582 sq. ft. @ (6.511000 sq. ft.) = 42.8 employees (middle of range) d) Conference Center = 22,513 sq. ft. @ (1 /1000 sq. ft.) = 22.5 employees (range does not vary) e) Lodging = 120 units @ (125 /unit) = 150.0 employees (top of range) f) Multi Family (Club Units) - 17 units @ (.4 /unit) = 6.8 employees (range does not vary) g) Fractional Fee Units = 39 units @ (.4 /unit) = 15.6 employees (range does not vary) Total = 321.8 employees ( -79 existing employees) - 242.8 employees (x.3 = 72.8) "Lodging has a particularly large variation of employees per room, depending upon factors such as size of facility and level of service /support services and amenities provided Middle of Range Calculations (source: Town of Vail Employee Generation Report) a) Retail /Service Commercial = 7,448 sq. ft. @ (6.511000 sq. ft.) = 48.4 employees b) Health Club = 23,801 sq. ft. @ (1.25/1000 sq. ft.) = 29.8 employees c) Restaurant/LoungelKitchen = 6,582 sq. ft. @ (6.511000 sq. ft.) = 42.8 employees d) Conference Center 22,513 sq, ft. @ (1/1000 sq. ft.) = 22.5 employees e) Lodging = 124 units @ (.75 /unit) = 90.0 employees f) Multi - Family Units 17 units @ (_4lunit) = 6.8 employees L ' N g) Fractional Fee Units = 39 units @ (. = 15 employees Total Employees = 255.9 employees (- 79 existing employees) = 176.9 employees (x .3 = 53 employees) lll. Typically, the Town has requested that a developer provide housing for 30% of the anticipated number of employees generated by an SDD proposal. In this case, the preliminary "middle range" calculations would suggest a need for 53 beds (based on a 30% factor), while the "recommended range" calculations would suggest a need for 73 beds (based on a 30% factor). The applicant is proposing 16 employee housing units on site with a total of 36 beds. Questions Approximately how many beds should the applicant provide? Is on -site housing the only acceptable solution for this proposal? 5. Landscaping and Streetscaping Although an overall landscape plan was not available at the drafting of this memo, staff believes the proposed landscaping and streetscaping along West Meadow Drive is consistent with the general concepts outlined in the Town's Streetscape Master Plan (a more detailed streetscape plan for the entire road is forthcoming). However, as mentioned previously, staff believes the pedestrian /atrium area should be opened up to provide a more inviting pedestrian experience. This should also improve the traffic and visibility of the proposed retail areas surrounding the atrium. PRELIMINARY ZONING SUMMARY Density: Accommodation Units: 120 units Fractional Fee Units: 39 units Dwelling Units: 17 units Employee Housing Units: 16 units Density Allowed: Density Proposed: GRFA: Site Coverage: Landscaping: Height: Parking: 58 units 17 units" Allowed /Required 151,710 sf up to 65% 30% min. up to 48' max. per Chapter 12 -10 Proposed 151,700 sf approx. 60% (66% below) to be determined 77.5' to be determined * for the purposes of calculating density, EFlUs, AUs, and FFUs shall not be counted towards density. • • 1.1 VII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION As this is a worksession discussion, the [department of Community Development will not be forwarding a recommendation at this time. A formal recommendation will be provided at the time of a final review. • • 7_ ! WSJ 51 la 1 1 P4 1 ai � b � cn G� I i + r 1 � r r v Q a s d 0 F F C 1* Im C> " u � � J CN 1 /A V z I 0 T u0 o o +l I ; K s n M !11 Li o d Ln _� r ai CU A vi 14 i d — — —— R G d � u ° t I � I I I I I I N E II � a x � t I I x 1 I + I E • • r i A� i ` '1I111Yltlll111 � cR�. rs4� ' _ � �� �� � * • 1, F •�• MI , oil • r„ Ir. i.1♦ � d i,. _ r r- 11 �i `r,. �: .. � l 1 !I ' 1!11 r ,a� II .r. ,.n Ilil n��5 1111 r�� •� i ��.�� � � IIII II IIIIlIff fl - 1 dddda � � � � _ Ir .. Ili �ir�� 311�� r■ x3111 �rl �w ;; ��� �• ti 1 11 �,� 1 11 11 \11 ..r, WT r.. Lr) Ln Ln Q CA _ U J I W zeI ZMI I 1 -k I15I`1!21 m! IIa La a 0 Q P Q Q O O M ill $ pixg (I � e { i2 e 10 � 1 f 1 0 c© 0 L) _ U J � a 0 V Q fd N Q .'S u$ - E Z - z R � 0 o iS LLJ N< 1 .50 0 f 1 I 1 1 f f f r/ R \\ �%P f ® � r l II J d !C -1 I .. ! r -a i ■ i -- ^ lfrl! �t • I' 3 t f`f a 0 c© 0 L) _ U J � a 0 V Q fd N Q .'S u$ - E Z - z R � 0 o iS LLJ N< 1 .50 0 f 1 I 1 1 f f f r/ R \\ �%P f ® � Lt') � ca Q (� n L r tb U R O ° a (C r4 ©ll� �U.1 > z 0 �?°# la N Al Ll 0 0 o y � II � r LL _ u f Qom) LJ LA EA 4=4 C' a. COO ❑ r COD n m 8 a ❑ ❑ ® 1 0 ^ _ f �u c =E O + > ! ❑ ❑ b El r r � i D ❑ b F � f r O 0 a- I 4 I - b - cc:U O t O:? ccn (1 �� tltl X Mt r r r r r f. WS I 1 I 1 0 0 o Cl a u 4 1'i ■ f � J • 1 � N a L IA Z 11 1 fll ! 1 � 1 J oe /s Qo U CIA o o � o a Li r _ Q o Q° Qo Q o Q Q° ° o Q ° O o © t ❑ ❑a Q J c R� Q.. ° Ln Q ai u �n l Klk NiM 0 o 0 0 N T O Z O o 7z H cPo U • C f GI! C c 4 `n j Q U w i 9 E t ED Il (E3 El 6 ® EE E3 I i I I c� EB EB W W E E W � C O o I ® E13 � f �'il - z X0 `6 N(I:L i it iE1CIG1i } W Q 014 t!! � c IE • tl� Q • i V .t d3 a Ln n tn �II�iY •� J }+ p r �77pp +�� MFI Fil I I xi CIS IB Elm Emu C S ® e IBM ° . ;a— V a ow Olm K k t y _ E � � d LiJ � > z C31 C13 ® 3m 3m b a 8 - F Alf 9 t 1. `= =�1■■� :. �■ �■ _ . .r� ■� : ��J ! II II � �_ � r . u� le � s c Z r qi v1 ( p � t! d [ 0 F� 'd N C U Z a u ZZ N o 10 • 1� 1� �1 \ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 � i � II III s c Z r qi v1 ( p � t! d [ 0 F� 'd N C U Z a u ZZ N o 10 • E ° as - °a ^ c u V a -a® EM ® 19 (3) ru V Lim V) u v o ..- z b �■ U .. a 1 0 } (W c a G Q Z ®m m� .Eve .El ®'e �a I 0 b El �L R O o 6 m U �' O a I A _ I N A Q a - ' r �' 7 C � C O .0 41 _C O � T b y � ZY� . Wd R a R F,} Nov. 22. 2000 12:3. M H AND ASSOCIA No. 3243 P. 3/8 0 � 0 � • C • 1 7-j ATnv �rnn �� ��p ���v c aecncte Na @3 P d/R .1 ov. 22, HOU 12:34PM ZEHREN AND ASSOCIA Na. 0243 P. 5/8 I r �! w f . . ........ orrr.. 4 iii �i XON • • • Nov. 22. 2000 P PM ZEHEEV AND ASSOCIA No, 0243 P. 7/8 • Nov. 22, 2000 12:36PM ZEHREN AND ASSUTA No, 0243 P. 6/8 • • ! ' r �\S� l w J + ` i • � 1 w �1 • • Nov. 22. 2000 12: 34PY ZEHREN AND ASSOCIA No. 3243 P. 6/8 --From: IJ48 — VV < T--- = I V 9 v cu CL CO U L x ZO,: ���� � �i�ru'sfcrrlr ��� � ZO,: VPH (Chateau site) STAFF (permanent and seasonal /part -time) Page A B C D E F G H I J K L M 1 VPH 2 FUNCTIONS by department 3 - -__ - - 4 T 5 Lodging (hotel & Clubj 6 General Manager n o t e PERMANENT STAFF SEASONAL. PART -TIME HELP Total payroll names Perma- vent staff. emplo- yees hours/ year = 40 hs /week x 50 wk/ ear part-time total maxi- employees work mum per hours peals each/ per ; days quan- peak peak per City day day year work hours per year 1 note 1 - - - - '2 7 Assistant manager 2 4 8, 000 4 8 Guest relations 2 4 4 16 92 1,472 4 9 Front Office 2 8 16,000 6 4 24 92 2,208 14 10 Concierge 2 4,000 2 4 8 92 736 4 11 Bell manj 4.2 8,400 12 4 48 92 4,416_ 16 12 Door man 4.2 8,400 92 4 13 Valet parking 4.2 8,400 121 4 48 92 4,416 16 14 PBX 2 92 15 Reservations 2 16 Sales & Marketing 2 17 Accounting 2 18 Housekeeping supervisor 2 3 6,000 3 19 maid service_ 3 15.08 30,160 10 4 40 92 3,680 25 20 Engineering j 2 6 12,000 6 4 24 92 2,208 12 21 Garage Operations 4-21 8,400 41 4 161 92 1,472 8 22 Lodging (hotel & Club) 55 109,760 56 4 224 92 20 111 23 Food & Be (F &B) 24 manager +host 4 8,000 4 4 16 92 1,472 8 25 waiters +busboy(1:3 waiters) 12 12 23,982 10 4 40 92 3,680 22 26 bar 3 6,000 2 4 8 92 736 5 27 kitchen 16 32,000 161 16 28 Room Service: 6 12,000 41 4 92 1,472 10 29 Food & Beverage (F &B) 41 81,982 20 4 80 7,360 61 30 l Conference Center 4 3 6,000 2 4 8 92 736_ 5 31 Health Club /SPA 4 16� _ 92 32 reception 33 up keeping 8,000 _ 4. - - 4 24 4 4 4 8,000 1,472 8 34 therapist 35 exercise room 5 14 - Z 28,000 96I 92 I - - 8,832 38 4,000 2 36 Health Club/SPA 12 24 48,000 28 4 112 92 10,304 52 37 Retail (5 shops) 10 20,000 4 4 16 92 1,472 14 38 GRAND TOTALS: 133 265,742 110 4 440 92 40,480 243 39 1 convertion part time to full time note _ 2,000 40 1 0ne full time work hourstyear 41 Par time equivalent to Full time 6 20 42 Grand Total full time equivalent 153 43 note 7 4 44 Avg. hours /part time employeelped 45 Number of part time names 8 11 0 46 Total payroll names 243 continue • 1� J U VPH (Chateau site) STAFF Page 2 (permanent and seasonal/part-time) 4 4 4 A B D D F G H I J K I L - 7 M 47 48 EMPLOYEE NET ENCREASE CALCULATION Employee Totals VPH Italian VPH Italian equiv. Existing Chatea u I Existir g Net Chateau incre equiv.' ase 49 151 full time 133 133 57 57 50 part time 110 201 22 4 total 243 1531 79 61 92 52 53 54 VPH STAFFING uses - - note * part time at same ratio as VPH . IS BASED ON THE FOLLOWING units quantw 55 Hote keys 120 56 Club keys 115 57 lHotel + Club 1 9 keys _ 235 72 % i 1.75 296 - - 10 30 - 20 5,712 58 Hotel & Club YEAR occupancy % 59 persons/occupied unit 60 Hotel + Club population maid service 10 persons 61 occup rmstmaid 62 walk in for lunch or dinner _ 11 customersffuncton/day - - 63 serresAvaiter /function 64 Restaurant & bar 12 sf 65 kitchen I I 12 sf — 3,200 66 Conference 1 4&12 sf 10,009 67 SPA treatments 12 rooms _ 22 68 Retail 12 5 shops sf 7,448 69 I 70 highest demand/day for restaurant 1 note_ lunch I dinner 13 1 1 per 3 nights stay. 78 78 1 4 - -- 11 30 30 72 hotel & Club guests 73 s ervestfunction/day 74 Walk in customers/function/day 75 serves/ function/da y 761 Total serves/function/day I I 108 108 771 breakfast is buffet type, served by the same lunch staff. 78 NOTES - 79 note 1 Includes "day off' coverage were applicable. 80 note 2 This function (all or part) provided by the existing VVI 81 note 3 Maid service is based on 1 10 joccupied _ moms/maid. Minor occasional fluctuations in 821 dem will be covered w ith overtime of the permanent staff and /or temporary help. 83 note 4 O ccasional large banquettes will be serviced by the two sh ifts restaurant and kitchen staff in over time. 84 note 5 Same therapist may cover more th 1 of the 22 treatment rooms for some treatments. 85 note 6 j The total 1 40,480 1 seasonal work hourslyear divided by the regular one full time employee 86 1 2,000 1 hours/yea is = 20 equivalent full time employees. 87 note 7 It is a typical hours/peak day of a part time helper. I - - 88 note 8 It is the tote! part time "names" on the payroll. Evidently depends on the average part-time hours/peakd 89 note 9 Hotel & Club are s taffed as a unified operation 90 note 10 _ Populatio for the specified num ber of units, occupancy, persons/room. 91 note 11 All hotel restaurants off the main pedestrian traffic (Ludwig, The Villager, etc.) rarely (if ever) achieve a 92 walk in demand.This 1 30 serves/function /day is a very high assumption, 93 note 12 All th ese uses are sta ffed ba sed on real demand and not based on NA., or seats or a ny other parame It is established in the business that the restaurant at the ho never captures mor than 1 lunch and 1 dinner per 3 nights stay. It is part of guests program to dine out in other restaurants. 94 5 note 13 96 97 IThe low ratio of 15 serves/waiter /shift/day indicates that thi sta ff can serve more than 2 times t demand. 1 1 1 1 TO: Planning and Environmental Commission, Town of Vail FROM: 9 Vail Road (Holiday House) Condominium Association DATE: November 27, 2000 SUBJECT: 13 Vail Road / Lot A, B, C, Block 2, Vail Village Filing 2 (Vail Plaza Hotel - Italian Wing) The owners of 9 Vail Road accept and support the need to redevelop the current Chateau Vail property. Our objective is to stimulate discussions that will lead to decisions that make the eventual design one that will benefit and fit into the community and immediate neighborhood. To that objective we ask the PEC to consider the following concerns. 1. Vail Road Access: Allowing the use of Vail Road to access the Loading Dock is dangerous to both vehicular traffic on Vail Road and pedestrian traffic on the access drive. Drivers exiting the roundabout onto Vail Road typically gain speed quickly because of the grade and because of conscious acceleration to resume speed after successfully negotiating the often unfamiliar traffic pattern. If they almost immediately encounter the back end of a stopped or slowly turning truck that is swinging wide to begin its entry to the access drive, accidents are foreseeable and likely. This drive, as proposed, will inevitably serve a mix of commercial vehicles, disoriented passenger vehicles searching for the entrance to the Vail Plaza Hotel West and pedestrians. This access drive is the route most of the hotel guests in the Vail Plaza Hotel East will take to get to the convention, spa and restaurant facilities in the Vail Plaza Hotel West. The plans indicate that two -way traffic would be permitted on this drive, exacerbating the problem. Since there is very little reason for traffic exiting this drive to turn right onto Vail Road, it will most likely turn left across traffic accelerating out of the roundabout. Once again accidents are foreseeable and likely. Request: Prohibit vehicular traffic on this drive and make it a dedicated pedestrian walkway. We currently rely on an easement to use this drive to access four outdoor parking spaces on our property, and we are reviewing with the planning staff our options to relocate the parking spaces. 2. Loading Dock For all the same reasons that the PEC and Council decided that the loading facility for the Vail Plaza Hotel East should be on South Frontage Road, so should the loading facility for the Vail Plaza Hotel Vilest be there. The current design has trucks jockeying into position to back down the ramp, which has a steep 6.5% grade. They will then use their noisy brakes to control their descent, all the while sounding loud automatic backup warnings. To depart the loading area and climb the steep ramp, the trucks will have to rev their engines. This will be unpleasant for guests and owners of 9 Vail Road, Vail Plaza Hotel guests, and the employees whose housing units are adjacent to this loading ramp. Finally, a loading facility in the proposed location would almost certainly eliminate any motivation for 9 Vail Road to invest in upgrading its property. Request: That the loading facility and its access be moved to South Frontage Road. 1-1 lk _ T 3. Height and Mass: East Meadow Drive is predominantly hotel and retail, while West Meadow Drive is predo residential. The major exceptions are 9 Vail Road, the current Chateau at Vail property and the 1st Bank building, all zoned Public Accommodation. We believe that the pl anning community displayed wisdom in the past by using the above properties to transition between hotellretail and residential by gradually reducing the height of the buildings. The Vail Plaza Hotel. East has an approved height of some ninety feet. 9 Vail Road exists with a maximum height of some sixty -three feet. The Chateau at Vail exists with a maximum height of some fifty -eight feet. We believe this stepping down was done intentionally by you and your predecessors and that the current maximum heights should be maintained so as not to threaten the character of the existing community. Additionally, the mass of the proposed Vail Plaza Hotel West dwarfs everything around it and provides no linkages with any of its neighbors. It is based on an urban design that utili zes a large central atrium. to provide light and artificial views. We have the real thing in Vail - beautiful mountains and blue skies which people from around the world come to enjoy. Request: That the mass and height of the proposed building be reduced to be compatible with the surrounding community. 4. Setbacks: Public Accommodation zoning requires a setback of at least 20 feet on front, sides and rear. The expectation is that this would result in a 40 -foot buffer between buildings. The awkward reality is that the property lines platted in 1973 for 9 Vail Road did not result in a 20 foot setback for either the Chateau at Vail or 9 Vail Road structures along their common property line. Request: To preserve access for fire safety and to mitigate the visual and shade effect of a new neighbor significantly higher than the low eastern wing of the Chateau at Vail, we ask that the setback provide a 40 foot separation of the buildings. 5. Special Development District: There does not seem to be a basis for granting SDD status to this project. There are currently no SDD properties on West Meadow Drive. All of the intended uses are provided for under its existing PA zoning. The number of accommodation units available during the high season is increased only by relying on the questionable availability of fractional fee unit lockoffs. This project provides a large spa and a large convention facility that exceed the bed base of the site and are thus dependent on the Vail Plaza Hotel East, which is not part of the SDD application. The conclusion of the joint work session was that the Chateau Vail could be reviewed as an SDD so long as proposed changes to the Vail Village Inn redevelopment approval were reviewed simultaneously. Request: That SDD status be denied, unless the applicant can provide compelling and real value to the community and show the linkage between the two sites. This revision of the proposal presented to the joint work session of the Council, PEC and DRB removes guest entry traffic from Vail Road and replaces it with commercial traffic relocated from West Meadow Drive. It does address increased setbacks and improvements to the streetscape on West Meadow Drive. However, we see insufficient changes in the commercial traffic on Vail Road and in the overall height and mass of this project to warrant further review at this time. It remains too large and out of character.. We continue to support reasonable redevelopment of the Chateau at Vail, but we do not believe this proposal meets that criteria, nor that it appropriately reflects the wishes of the Council, PEC, and DRB expressed in the joint session. F ` MEMORANDUM 0 TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: November 27, 2000 SUBJECT; A request for a worksession to discuss a Major Exterior Alteration, to allow for the redevelopment of the Vail 21 Condominiums, located at 521 E. Lionshead Circle /Lot 3, Block 1, Vail Lionshead V" Filing, Applicant: Vail 21 Condominium Association, represented by Fritzlen, Pierce Architects Planner: Allison Ochs W III I; Z6 I� I 1 I G I Is] The applicant, Vail 21 Condominium Association, represented by Fritzlen, Pierce Architects requested this worksession to begin preliminary discussions regarding their proposed major extedor alteration. The improvements include: Additions to the existing commercial space to the "build -to lines" as identified in the Lionshead • Redevelopment Master Plan. • Additions to the existing residential units. Additions of new residential units. • Major exterior renovations and improvements. The purpose of the worksession meeting is to present the proposal to the Planning and Environmental Commission and the community, and give the applicant direction regarding issues such as bulk and mass, streetscape improvements, density, compliance with the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, etc. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST Vail 21 is a mixed -use development, currently consisting of 21 residential dwelling units (total of 18,883 sq. ft. of GRFA) and approximately 15.581 sq, ft, of commercial square footage. The proposed remodel would add approximately 26,201 sq. ft. of GRI"A and 8,619 sq. ft. of commercial area. Vail 21 is located at 521 E. Lionshead Cr. l Lot 3 Block 1, Vail Lionshead 1' Filing. In 1999, the property was rezoned Lionshead Mixed Use 1 (LM'U -1). The purpose of the LMU -1 District states: The Lionshead Mixed Use 1 District is intended to provide sites for a mixture of multiple - family dwellings, lodges, hotels, fractional fee clubs, time shares, lodge dwelling units, restaurants, offices, skier services, and commercial establishments in a clustered, unified development. Lionshead Mixed Use 1 District, in accordance with the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan is intended to ensure adequate light, air. open space and I other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of buildings and usas and to maintain the desirable qualities of the District by establishing appropriate site development . standards. This District is .meant to encourage and provide incentives for redevelopment in accordance with the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. This Zone District was specifically developed to provide incentives for properties to redevelop. The ultimate goal of these incentives is to create an economically vibrant lodging, housing, and commercial core area. The incentives in this Zone District include increases in allowable gross residential floor area, building height, and density over the previously established zoning in the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan study area. The primary goal of the incentives is to create economic conditions favorable to inducing private redevelopment consistent with the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. Additionally, the ; ncentives are created to help finance public off -site improvements adjacent to redevelopment projects_ With any development /redevelopment proposal taking advantage of the incentives created herein, the following amenities will be evaluated. streetscape improvements, pedestrian bicycle access, public plaza redevelopment, public art, roadway improvements, and similar improvements. The proposal is considered a Major EYtericr Alteration. The applicants have not submitted a formal application at this time. They would like to receive preliminary comments and return to their owners far additional discussion prior to the submittal of a formal application. COMPATIBILITY WITH THE LIONSHEAD MIXED USE 1 (LMU -1) ZONE DISTRICT AND LIONSHEAD REDEVELOPMENT MASTER PLAN (LRMP) According to the Official Town of Vail Zoning Map, the applicant's property is zoned LMU -1. The following is a comparison of the land use regulations prescribed by the LMU -1 Zane District and the Vail 21 proposal: LMU -1 Allowable Vail 21 Proposed Lot Area: min 10,000 sq. ft. buildble area 15,532 sq. ft. Setbacks: 10 ft unless specified in LRMP Build -to lines Height: 82.5 ft. max 82.5 ft. 71 ft. avg. 75.6 ft. avg. Density: 33% above existing or undecided 27.9 du's GRFA: 38,830 sq. ft. 45,094 sq. ft. (250% of lot) Site Coverage: 70% or built -to lines Build -to lines Parking: in accordance with Chapter 12 -10 in accordance with Chapter 12 -10 (pay in lieu) Vail 21 is under the purview of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan (LRMP). The LRMP states; 5.7.1 Vail 21 Lionshead Arcade, Lifthouse Lodge, Lions Pride Cluster 40 2 This group of adjacent structures is critical to the ability of the Lionshead core to pull people into its core. Because these buildings constitute a significant portion of the existing retail frontage in Lionshead, they greatly influence the overall character and image of Lionshead, especially for those who enter the core from the east. All possible measures and incentives should be taken to upgrade these buildings, Height According to the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, there are two primary height restrictions in Lionshead. First, maximum height is 82.5 ft. Second, average maximum height is 71 ft. According to the Lionshead Master Plan. r e.�ceeuiirro 1i P1 U/49) V c Maximum Heights Maximum height is defined as the distance from existing or finished grade — whichever is more restrictive — to the ridge of the nearest primary roof form to that grade. With this in mind, the Average Maximum Height of any building shall not exceed 71 ft. !Notwithstanding the notion of Average Maximum Height, the Absolute Maximum Height of any building shall not exceed 82.5 ft. Absolute Maximum Height shall be determined by interpolating existing or finished grade through the building footprint and measuring the vertical distance from the ridge of the highest primary roof form to the imaginary plane created by the interpolated grades. Calculation of Average Maximum Height The intent of implementing an Average Maximum Height for buildings is to create movement and variety in the ridgelines and roof forms in Lionshead. Toward that end, the Average Maximum height of a building shall be calculated based upon the linear footage of ridgeline on primary roof forms. Any amount of primary roof form that exceeds 71 ft_ must be offset by at least an equal amout of primary roof form ridgeline falling below 71 ft., with the distance below 71 ft. equivalent to or greater than the distance exceeding 71 ft. The average calculation shall be based on the aggregate linear footage of primary roof forms across an entire structure, not separate individual roof forms. Attached is a reduction of the site plan for the Vail 21 redevelopment. Staff has indicated which roof forms are considered "primary roof forms" as defined by the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. While the Vaif 21 redevelopment generally conforms to the maximum 82.5 ft. height limitation, staff does not believe that it meets the average maximum height of 71 ft. According to staff's calculation, the average height is approximately 75.6 ft. (please refer to Attachment A) In addition, the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Flan also requires that the maximum height for 50% of a building face along a primary pedestrian :-,ail be 16 ft. Any ether eave can have an initial height of 60 ft- (Please refer to Attachment B) Rulk]Mass The Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan indicates "Build -to Lines" to better define public spaces. According to the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, "Design of new building edges within approved build -to lines should be carefully evaluated to make maximum use of the new retail space, and how the added building mass adds to the overall pedestrian experience." In general, staff believes that the proposal follows the build -to lines as described in the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. However, additional discussion on these build -to lines will occur with the Town Council. The build -to lines for Vail 21 are indicated on Attachment C. Landscaping and Streetscaping Because the build -to lines as indicated by the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan show Vail 21 as expanding its commercial space beyond property lines discussions with the Town council as to the required improvements and -ow these will be completed has been scheduled. GRFA and Density The preliminary proposal for Vail 21 does not currently indicate additional dwelling units. According to the LMU -1 zone district, Vail 21 is allowed 33% above the exisitng number of dwelling units. This would allow for 27 dwelling units. In addition, Vail 21 is allowed 33% above existing GRFA or 250% of lot area. Currently, the proposal indicates 45,994 sq. ft. of GRFA, which is approximately 6.264 above allowable. However, depending on how the Town Council chooses to deal with build -to lines in Lionshead, this may not be an issue. VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION 0 As this is a worksession discussion, the Department of Community Development will not be forwarding a recommendation at this time. A formal recommendation will be provided at the time of a final review. The specific purpose of - this work session is to solicit clear, concise direction that the applicant and staff can use to direct the project's progress. Specifically, please provide direction regarding: • General bulk and mass, including height • Streetscape improvements • Compliance with the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan Additional information will be required with a formal submittal for a major exterior alteration. 4 fi r, %M otm l . 71IY JAM 00*av — WOL 1. 1007 7 m" "no . —" swnlNIwOQNOO �Z IIVA s a w V _a H Lu t Z IL d x lu W N a o� EL IM uMPrrr E i eW40•wa"W- � srr s� argon ror� a mar e � ar�rion �n ur swnlNIW4©NQO LZ 11VA r d S. d r r i t'fl� o Lu h au m` y W W d 9 • CHAPTER 5 DETAILED PLAN RECONW.FNDATIONS • • LIONSHEAD ARCADE RETAIL EXPANSION P All, T 0 1 0 1 01 LIFITIOUSE LODGE - N, REDEVELOPED LIONSPRIDE BUILDING REDEVELOPED PARKING DECK RETAIL EXPANSION Figure 5-7- Lionshead Arcade, Vail 21, Lifthouse Lodge, Lionspride and Redeveloped Parking Deck 1 • k 0 4 At PAGE 5-14 LIONSHEAD REDEVELOPMENT MASTER PLAN • • • . 1 zo IF —W AM rY No 'm a® - WA veirrrn wu M=u Non WA I xww v AM swnINIViOaNOO �Z 11VA Z LU LU U -j 7w CL • Vl tills till ll- I I FT�t Vl tills till ll- 0 • • S � �- r�xa`e�ti a ` � �� T e ••� sg+. yy '� tvv�y�� �� �` t ��' ���' {�) F. a` g ; -ao y:Y•. Tpx � 4 k 4 c9tl n All +u � � 8'• . �� � � xi � g a e� �. { w a v � O � 8 'Al I M a' v qA o � b : • . a 41 ;4. I � 4 x o J *'1 a I I V Ri I3 TIm I °�w VA rl ti 0 � 0 kip OW • lom igwu mma"m WA I UDWW I Im symn[NIV�ZGNOO �Z IIVA Lai z j U IH uj p ILI 0 • X I" • "a Marom arwa r1SMM11M7 A M r SwnINInOaNOO Jz 11VA rem' r +�- rt -- -r.j —(. --rep — ("J — �J UJ s Uju oil ffF Z ' Cl H V■ • • • • - 'e" I'w Od*MMn WA I V "n ■zm evoomm IM a sviniNinOGNOO LZ INA i 9 M. S� Z raj Fi'ul cd O lu X lu 0 T's 1 1 , V 'It I ITH ,Id..,Adr ow r ^ y; rN V/{blii {QY�IAWII,dp'I +ll�Mjf Wi I I V A 6 rte, 0--- 0-- s F I i L! �i M Z W lu X t— d Z H X In 0 • Pat Im 'a " my" *vo"m — amm"m -&,% - 6 AXM'f rum armalm 4" " SYMINIVYOCNOO LZ II VA • (D cir (-k- 1 71Y- (1�1 Z LU LU N ce wi C iL VA QQ x I" 7 !lN lyglpy� i # nw ce rep L I M 7Kr asr� aswwi ira � nom t wi Tw vvwm n Ian " syyniNIVYOGNOO �?. 11VA �T w u Nag H uw II a w z IL • • • • .wr as • � ti.��n 71IY lr w�11�s1 •NA ti yoo'r \.wn �e awe awy r svw OCN00 Lz lIVA LU JU j Q !V c c ce U. l oll L ILI LU JU j Q !V c c ce U. l oll L Mil nil 11 1 !%1W �IU�IdI J�1111 W sw nlNIV40(3NQO Lz ll U W a < iii L L N • • 8 3 L '' t ¢ 1 U W a < iii L L N • • • "M OAS 'M mI-M imm 4Sw .U.wor, VM % �'B AM SWnlNI I a 11VA I ! I 1 t 1 ��Mmmn m t W m PA� ws MR I Ml I N i • O U- b III La s Q t � emoo I ! I 1 t 1 ��Mmmn m t W m PA� ws MR I Ml I N i • O U- b III La s Q t I Ml I N i • O U- b III La s Q t _ � TM �ii , _ i| sym N ONOO W 11¥A . | | ■ ` § ■! || | || | § ■ | \A�k� ■ |�� , | § ■!A!|£ | ■.■. ¥| ||$ %■ K . | | ■ @ ! § $!& | I �� uh ; §| U- a § . � L L It 0 0 0 /§ Sw� ONOO \/ 9IV A . } � � . i |� $; In K, § *�f.£ , . | � � . |� $; � Z tu m lu J g " m g" U= i u- CL § §§ z Z J � � O O A U- � .. � � LI -A | � | -- - - -� -� | ƒ QVINEW �WA t NO 4 AM rase ar>.rrrn errs w svynlNlnOCNO*.'.% tZ 11VA ISE • • ICA uj rin, iu I -1 j I /V1 I +, Ll I • • • • • ..wao rw>•won "Mom OIIwI�NCIf T" 450" 7101 ■171tl tl171�1 no M snn1N WOMOO a aidn M 2 r y Ut L W d a tf,fl� l M 2 r y Ut L W a iii M 2 r y Ut 1m "gre w am O•WAV� �Y .0. IO17M L =►o 7.401 svi &z IIVA . 1111111111 HEIE'll�lill Zia Nt W of IL u • 0 �- ` � ' ui m Yll JL ` � ' ui m 5 'Ll 0- --- ' / � Yll 5 'Ll 0- --- ' / � WA % 30"ll JM SYMINNOGNOO )Z IIVA a. icl Q I lu Fit M Z uj I* �i i + Z uj I* • olm Wulv" mm4n SyvnlNlViOGNOO WA I Ho"'s Ain IZ IIVA ZLU LU U LU lu O ul A lu 0 In n ul ot IL .,..� ..w Im WA% SWf UN1WO( NOO LZ IVA au t - . ee LU � a 111 P"' FA L a ii iiiiiii ii il I \, • 9I i ii i i i i ii r ' 7 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: November 27, 2000 SUBJECT: A request for a minor subdivision, to allow for the creation of two tracts of land, located at 1778 Vail Valley Drive 1 an unplatted tract of land within Section 9, Township 5 South, Range 80 West of the 6'" P.M. directly north of Lot 3, Sunburst Filing 3 within the Vail Golf Course (please refer to the attached graphic and legal description). Applicant: Vail Junior Hockey Association, Vail Recreation District, Town of Vail Planner: Brent Wilson DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND OF THE REQUEST On November 7 ", the Vail Town Council approved Ordinance Number 23, Series of 2000 on second reading. This ordinance rezones the proposed "Vail Golf Course Subdivision" (please refer to the attached graphic and legal description) from "Outdoor Recreation" to "General Use." Since zoning is parcel -based in Vail, the Town is requesting approval of a minor subdivision to establish a new parcel that reflects the amended zone district boundaries. The affected area includes the golf course clubhouse, the starter shack and the golf course driving range. The subdivision process would separate the "Vail Golf Course Club House Subdivision" from the existing unplatted golf course property (the remainder parcel) which is a portion of Section 9, Township 5 South, Range 80 West. The result of the process would be two conforming lots; one zoned "Outdoor Recreation" and the other zoned "General Use." This minor subdivision request is also in conjunction with the recently- approved conditional use permit for the seasonal structure (ice rink) on the subject property. II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Based on the criteria outlined in Section III of this memorandum, the Department of Community Development recommends approval of the request for a minor subdivision, subject to the following findings: That the application is in compliance with the intent and purposes of the Subdivision Regulations, the Zoning Ordinance and other pertinent regulations that the Planning and Environmental Commission deems applicable. 2. That the application is appropriate in regard to Town policies relating to subdivision control, densities proposed, regulations, ordinances and resolutions • ,. jS TOWtV OF VAIL 0 and other applicable documents, environmental integrity and compatibility with the surrounding land uses and other applicable documents, and effects on the aesthetics of the Town. The Community Development Department also recommends the following condition of approval: That the applicant records the approved and signed plat with the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder's Office by no later than November 27, 2001. Ill. MINOR SUBDIVISION CRITERIA A basic premise of subdivision regulations is that the minimum standards for the creation of a new lot(s) must be met. This subdivision will be reviewed under Title 13, Subdivision Regulations, of the Town of Vail Code. A. The first set of criteria to be considered by the Planning and Environmental Commission for a Minor Subdivision application is: Lot Area There are no minimum lot size requirements in the General Use Zone District. Frontage There is no minimum frontage requirement in the General Use Zone District. Dimension There are no minimum dimension requirements in the General Use Zone District. Staff response: Staff believes that the proposed subdivision meets the minimum lot standards as specified by the General Use Zone District. B. The second set of criteria to be considered with a Minor Subdivision application, as outlined in the subdivision regulations, is: The burden of proof shall rest with the applicant to show that the application is in compliance with the intent and purposes of this Chapter, the Zoning Ordinance and other pertinent regulations that the Planning and Environmental Commission deems applicable. Due consideration shall be given to the recommendations made by public agencies, utility companies and other agencies consulted under subsection 13 -3 -3C. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall review the application and consider its appropriateness in regard to Town policies relating to subdivision control, densities proposed, regulations, ordinances and resolutions and other applicable documents, environmental integrity and compatibility with the surrounding land uses and other applicable documents, effects on the aesthetics of the Town.. The Specific Purpose of the Subdivision Regulations is as follows: • 2 1. To inform each subdivider of the standards and criteria by which development proposals will be evaluated, and to provide information as to the type and extent of improvements required. Staff Response: Staff has reviewed the minor subdivision for compliance with the applicable evaluation criteria. Upon the completion of our review the staff finds that the proposed subdivision complies with the subdivision criteria. 2. To provide for the subdivision of property in the future without conflict with development on adjacent land. Stan Response: Under the provisions of the General Use zoning, land development applications for the property must go through the conditional use permitting process. The purpose of this process is to ensure that development proposals are "located properly with respect to ... their effects on surrounding properties." Additionally, land use proposals must demonstrate a compatibility with the "Park" future land use designation identified for the property in the Vail Land Use Plan. The standards outlined in the Subdivision Regulations, coupled with the land use controls established in the Town's Zoning Ordinance, are intended to avoid or mitigate any potential conflict with development on adjacent land_ 3. To protect and conserve the value of land throughout the Municipality and the value of buildings and improvements on the land. 40 Staff Response: Staff does not believe that the proposed subdivision will have any negative impacts on the value of land in the Town of Vail. 4. To ensure that subdivision of property is in compliance with the Town's zoning ordinances, to achieve a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land uses, consistent with Town development objectives. Staff Response: The proposed subdivision is necessary in order to achieve compatibility with the amended General Use zone district boundaries. Based on the criteria evaluated in the recent rezoning of the subject property, staff believes the proposal is in compliance with the Town's Zoning Ordinance. 5. To guide public and private policy and action in order to provide adequate and efficient transportation, water, sewage, schools, parks, playgrounds, recreation, and other public requirements and facilities and generally to provide that public facilities will have sufficient capacity to serve the proposed subdivision. Staff Response: This goal of the Subdivision Regulations is intended to ensure adequate public facilities are provided concurrent with land subdivision. The property is currently served by sanitary sewer, water, electric and gas. Staff believes sufficient capacity exists at this location to facilitate the subdivision request and the associated land development application. • 3 ti S. To provide for accurate legal descriptions of newly subdivided land and to establish reasonable and desirable construction design standards and procedures. Staff Response: The proposed minor subdivision plat has been prepared in accordance with the standards prescribed in the Town of Vail Subdivision Regulations. 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 Town in order to preserve the integrity, stability and beauty of the community and the value of the land. Staff Response: Staff believes the minor subdivision request complies with the above- described criteria. r'1 U • 4 The subject property ( "Vail Golf Course Clubhouse Subdivision ") is generally located at 1778 Vail Valley Drive (the Vail Golf Course) directly north of Lot 3, Sunburst Filing #3, and is specifically described as follows: That part of Section 9, Township 5 South, Range 80 West of the 6' Principal Meridian, Town of Vail, Eagle County, Colorado, described as follows: Beginning at the most northerly corner of Lot 3, Sunburst Filing No. 3, according to the final plat for Sunburst Filing No. 3, recorded in Book 263 at Page 429, in the office of the Eagle County, Colorado, Clerk and Recorder, said point also being on the northerly right -of -way line of Sunburst Drive, as shown on said final plat; thence the following two courses along said northerly right -of -way line: (1) 119.32 feet along the arc of a curve to the left, having a radius of 135.00 feet, a central angle of 50 2 38'21 " and a chord that bears N72 "W 115.47 feet; (2) S81 W 187.43; thence, departing said northerly right -of -way line, N08 W 266.90 feet; thence N79 "E 939.41 feet; thence S11 2 28'38 "E 91.78 feet; thence 540 41'19 "W 490.77 feet; thence S77 9 00'32 "W 165.16 feet to the northerly line of said Lot 3; thence, along said northerly line of Lot 3, 148.02 feet along the arc of a curve to the left, having a radius of 189.10 feet, a central angle of 44 and a chord that bears N65 °W 144.27 feet to the point of beginning, containing 6.47 acres, more or less. • 0 UA/Pt 0 � � U ' V ' O ,'-A � kit" f r r 11 L MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM Community Development Department DATE: November 27, 2000 SUBJECT: A request for a minor subdivision of four lots owned by the Town to allow for the vacation of lot lines located at 2497, 2487 2485 and 2477 Garmisch Drivel Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4, Block H, Vail das Schone Filing #2. Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Nina Timm Planner: Allison Ochs DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The Town of Vail is applying for a minor subdivision of the four lots located at 2497, 2487, 2485 and 2477 Garmisch Drivel Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4, Block H, Vail das Schone Filing #2, to allow for the vacation of lot lines. This will create one lot, which will remain zoned as Residential Cluster, at 51,836.4 sq. ft. This is the final step in the planning process for the North Trail Townhomes. While it is not necessary to vacate the lot lines, staff believes that it is appropriate to vacate the lot lines for record - keeping purposes. The original intent cf the subdivision was to allow the Town to deed the land to the owners of the North Trail T ownhomes and create an easement for the park. However, a recent court decision regarding housing has made it necessary for the Town to retain ownership of the land. Therefore, the Town will instead lease the housing land to the owners and retain ownership of the entire property. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends approval of the proposed minor subdivision subject to the following finding: That the proposed minor subdivision plat complies with the review criteria and requirements of Chapter 13 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code and development standards as outlined in Chapter 12, Section 6E, Residential Cluster District. Ill, BACKGROUND The Town of Vail purchased these four lots from two families in 1990. Town Council approved the development of six units and a neighborhood park on November 17, 1998. On January 20, 1999 the site plan was brought to the Design Review Board for a conceptual review, On January 26. 1999, Town Council approved the concept of a 4 -plex and duplex on the east side of the lot, with the neighborhood park on the west side of the lots and on the land to be acquired in the land exchange with the U.S, Forest Service. On April 13, 1999, Town Council approved Ordinance No. 8, Series of 1999, the rezoning of the lots to Residential Cluster. The Design Review Board conceptually reviewed the plans for the North TrailTownhomes at their June 16, 1999 meeting and gave final approval on September 17, 1999. TOWN *V41L ^t 4 IV. ZONING ANALYSIS Lot Size: Lot 1:.26 acres (11,325," sq. ft.) Lot 2. .45 acres (19,602 sq. ft.) Lot 3:.24 acres (10,454.4 sq. ft,) Lot 4:.24 acres (10,454.4 sq. ft.) Total Area of Site; 1.19 acres or 51, 836.4 sq. ft. Total Buildable Area: 1.19 acres or 51, 836.4 sq, ft. Standard Allowed e Proposed Setbacks: 20'1 15'/15' 20'115'115' Height: 30'133' 33' Dwelling Units: . 6 du's per buildable acre • 6 du's (plat restricted) Total of 7.14 du's allowed GRFA: . 25% of buildable area • 6969 sq. ft. 225 sq. ft. per constructed single family or duplex • Total of 12.959 sq. ft. Site Coverage: . 25% of total site area 4927 sq. ft. 12, 959.1 sq. ft. V. CRITERIA • A basic premise of subdivision regulations is that the minimum standards for the creation of a new lot must be met. This subdivision will be reviewed under Title 13, Subdivision Regulations, of the Town of Vail Municipal Code, A. The first set of criteria to be considered by the Planning and Environmental Commission for a Minor Subdivision application is: Lot Area: The lot size standards as prescribed by Section 12 -6E -5: The minimum lot or site area shall be fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet, containing no less than eight thousand (8,000) square feet of buildable area. Each site shall have a minimum frontage or thirty feet (30). Each site shall be of a size and shape capable of enclosing a square area eighty feet (80') 017 each side within its boundaries. Staff Response. As proposed this minor subdivision meets this requirement. Total lot area created by this minor subdivision is 51, 836.4 sq. ft. Frontage: Each site shall have a minimum frontage of 30', Staff Response: As proposed, this minor subdivision meets this requirement. Size and Shape: Each site shall be of a size and shape capable of enclosing a square 80'" by 80' on each size. Staff Response: As proposed this minor subdivision meets this requirement. B. The second set of criteria to be considered with a Minor Subdivision application, as outlined in the subdivision regulations, is: h The burden of proof shall rest with the applicant to show that the application is in compliance with the intent and purposes of this Chapter. the Zoning Ordinance and other pertinent regulations that the Planning and Environmental Commission deems applicable. Due consideration shall be given to the recommendations made by public agencies, utility companies and other agencies consulted under subsection 93 -3 -3C. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall review the application and consider its appropriateness in regard to Town policies relating to subdivision control, densities proposed, regulations, ordinances and resolutions and other applicable documents, environmental integrity and compatibility with the surrounding land uses and other applicable documents, effects on the aesthetics of the Town. The Specific Purpose of the Subdivision Regulations is as follows; 1. To inform each subdivider of the standards and criteria by which development proposals will be evaluated, and to provide information as to the type and extent of improvements required. Staff Response: The review of this request has followed the regulations prescribed for a minor subdivision in the Municipal Code. 2. To provide for the subdivision of property in the future without conflict with development on adjacent land. Staff Response: Staff believes that this minor subdivision will not conflict with development on adjacent properties. 3. To protect and conserve the value of land throughout the Municipality and the value of buildings and improvements on the land. Staff Response: Staff does not believe that the request will have a negative impact of the value of land in the Town of Vail generally, nor in the immediate area. 4_ To ensure that subdivision of property is in compliance with the Town's zoning ordinances, to achieve a harmonious, convenient. workable relationship among land uses, consistent with Town development objectives. Staff Response: The minor subdivision meets the minimum zoning requirements of the Residential Cluster District. While this minor subdivision is not necessary, staff feels that it is beneficial for record- keeping purposes. 5. To guide public and private policy and action in order to provide adequate and efficient transportation, water, sewage, schools, parks, playgrounds, recreation, and other public requirements and facilities and generally to provide that public facilities will have sufficient capacity to serve the proposed subdivision. Staff Response: These lots were originally subdivided as four separate PrimarylSecondary Residential lots, allowing for a greater density than what is currently allowed under the Residential Cluster 9 y District zoning. PrimarylSecondary zoning allowed for nine units (5 du's plus 4 allowable EHUs). This minor subdivision creates one Residential Cluster zoned lot, which allows for 7.94 du's to be constructed, though only six du's are proposed. A plat note does restrict development to six dwelling units on this lot. 6. To provide for accurate legal descriptions of newly subdivided land and to establish reasonable and desirable construction design standards and procedures. Stan' Response: This minor subdivision is necessary to vacate existing lot lines, creating one lot to construct a 4 -plea and duplex for employee housing. In addition, a Condition Use Permit has been issued for the park. 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 Town in order to preserve the integrity, stability and beauty of the community and the value of the land. Staff Response: Staff does not believe that the subdivision will have ary adverse effects on the above criterion. • 0 4 R A I A € std l e � me I fill °a. ` at ga ht mou R`e !� �� � ' `¢�',.■ ''� ��! � . � e MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: November 27, 2000 SUBJECT: A request for a final review of a conditional use permit, to allow for the construction of Phase I improvements on the lower bench of Donovan Park/unplatted, generally located southeast of the intersection of Matterhorn Circle and the South Frontage Road, and a request for the rezoning of Lot 4, Vail Village West Filing No. 211774 Matterhorn Circle from "Residential Cluster zone district" to "General Use zone district ",. Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Odell Architects, P.C. Planner: George Ruther I. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUESTS The applicant, the Town of Vail, represented by Odell Architects, P.C. has submitted two applications to the Town of Vail Community Development Department for consideration; 1) an application for a conditional use permit, and 2} an application for the rezoning of Lot 4, Vail Village West, Filing No. 2. The nature of the two requests are described below. Conditional Use Permit The Town of Vail is requesting a Conditional Use Permit, pursuant to the requirements outlined in Chapter 16 of the Town of Vail Zoning Regulations, to construct a community park, outdoor recreational facilities and a community park pavilion on the approximately 12.3 acre site known as the lower bench of the John F. Donovan Park. The proposed plan includes: • a 150' x 300' soccer field, • an open turf recreation area, playground equipment, and park shelters, • restroom facilities, • a community park pavilion, • a full -size outdoor basketball court, • paved recreation paths, and • an approximately 150 space, structured parking area. The improvements also include drop -off and loading zones; loading and delivery; improvements to the South Frontage Road; and a pedestrian bridge over Gore Creek. • These improvements are referred to as Phase I improvements in the recently adopted Donovan Park Master Plan Amendment. Phase 11 improvements are proposed on the adopted Conceptual Site Plan, an element of the master plan, on a future Phase 11 building envelope pad site. In keeping with the intent of the Donovan Park Master Plan Amendment, the community park pavilion is proposed to be approximately 6,500 — 7,000 square feet in size. This square footage includes a multi- purpose room, a front entry lobby, a pre - function space, an administrative office, a kitchen, restrooms, storage areas and a 4,000 square foot exterior deck. The pavilion is intended to provide sites for community meetings and gatherings, wedding receptions, musical and theatrical performances, art exhibits, banquets, open houses, etc. Rezoning The Town of Vail is also requesting to rezone a small portion of the designated park area. According to the Official Town of Vail Zoning Map, a small tract of platted land within the boundaries of the lower bench of Donovan Park is zoned Residential Cluster zone district. This tract of land is legally described as Lot 4, Vail Village West, Filing No. 2. This rezoning request will rezone Lot 4 from Residential Cluster zone district to General Use zone district. The new zoning designation is more consistent with the intended use of the property. II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Conditional Use Permit The Community Development Department recommends approval of the request for a conditional use permit to allow for the construction of the Phase I Donovan Park improvements. The staff's recommendation for approval is based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Section V of this memorandum. Should the Planning & Environmental Commission choose to approve this conditional use permit request, staff recommends that the following findings be made part of the Commission's motion: That the proposed location of the use is in accordance with the purposes of the Zoning Regulations and the purposes of the General Use zone district. 2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of the Zoning Regulations. Should the Planning & Environmental Commission choose to approve the conditional use permit request, staff recommends that the following conditions be made part of the approval: That the applicant submits a final Development Plan to the Community Development Department for review and approval by the Town of Vail Planning & Environmental Commission prior to ANY site work being completed on the property. The Development Plan, once approved, shall become the Approved Development Plan for the lower bench of Donovan Park and shall prescribe the development standards for the property, pursuant to Section 12 -9C -5 of the Vail Town Code. 2. That the applicant appears before the VaiC Town Council for the review and approval of a request to rezone Lot 4, Vaii Village West, Filing No. 2 from Residential Cluster zone district to the General Use zone district. 3. That the approva4 of this conditional use permit request is conditioned upon the rezoning of Lot 4, Vail Village West, Filing No. 2. 4. That this conditional approval shall become null and void should the applicant not receive final approval from the Town of Vail Planning & Environmental Commission for an Approved Development Plan. Rezoning The Community Development Department recommends approval of the request to rezone Lot 4, Vaii Village West, Filing No. 2, from Residential Cluster District to General Use District. The staffs recommendation for approval is based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Section VI of this memorandum. Should the Planning & Environmental Commission choose to recommend approval of this request to the Vail Town Council, staff would recommend that the following finding be made part of the motion: That the request is rezone Lot 4, Vail Village West, Filing No. 2 complies with the expressed goals and objectives of the Town of Vaii as stated in the Donovan Park Master Plan Amendment, the Town of Vail Land Use Plan and the Town of Vail Comprehensive Open Lands Plan. Further. this Commission finds that the rezoning is necessary to achieve the town's objectives and that the rezoning will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare. This finding is based upon the Commission's review of the required criteria as outlined in Section VI of this memorandum. III. APPLICABLE MASTER PLANS On October 3, 2000, the Vail Town Council adopted the Donovan Park Master Plan Amendment. The purpose of this amendment was to update and identify the appropriate uses for the lower bench of Donovan Park. According to the recommendations of the master plan, the site is to be developed in two phases. The first phase of improvements includes the construction of a community park pavilion, outdoor recreation facilities and the required parking areas. The second phase of improvements, while discussed and debated, has yet to be determined. A pad site to accommodate a location for Phase II improvements is to be preserved. On November 16, 1386, the Vail Town Council adopted the Town of Vaii Land Use Plan. The purpose of the plan is to provide a basis for making land use decisions and to insure that the long -term needs and desires of the community are addressed as the town matures. According to the Land Use Plan, the lower bench of Donovan Park is designated as "park" use. IV. BACKGROUND 0 The entire 51 acre parcel known as the John F. Donovan Park was acquired in 1980. A master plan for development of the site was adopted in1985 which recommended a ballfield, play areas, picnic shelters, a basketball court. a skating pond, volleyball courts, and parking on the lower bench and a cemetery, open space and hiking trails on the middle and upper beaches. The original master plan, now 15 years old, 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 1 /2 years. On September 21, 1999, the Vail Town Council decided to move forward with a process to determine which uses are appropriate and compatible with the Donovan Park site. The Vail Town Council and the Vail Recreation District Board have directed staff to move forward with the following uses to be included in a revised master plan amendment (generally in order of priority): + Park 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 multi-purpose/generational activity rooms) Gymnasium, + Indoor pool (25 meter by 25 yard) ABC /Learning Tree Pre - schools On October 3, 2000, the Vail Town Council adopted the Donovan Park Master Plan Amendment in the passing of Resolution No.. 10, Series of 2000. The master plan amendment anticipates the development of the park in two phases. Phase I improvements are as described in Section 1 of this memorandum. A location for Phase II improvements has been reserved on the site. The final improvements, however. have yet to be determined. V. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REVIEW CRITERIA The issuance of a conditional use permit is required to allow for the construction of the Phase I improvements in Donovan Park. In accordance with Chapter 12- 16 of the Town of Vail Code„ an application for a conditional use permit within the General Use District shall be subject to the following development factors and criteria: Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town. Applicable goals from the Vail Land Use Plan are outlined in Section A of this memorandum. Development standards for the General Use zone district are prescribed by the Planning and Environmental Commission in the form of an Approved Development Plan for the project. Staff believes this proposal is consistent with the intended recreational uses identified for this site. 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. The construction of Phase I improvements to the lower bench of Donovan Park will have positive impacts on the criteria described above. The proposed park is located in the Matterhorn Village neighborhood. The Matterhorn Village neighborhood is one of only a few residential neighborhoods in Vail that has no recreational park amenities in the immediate vicinity. The construction of the park will provide the much needed recreational amenities. Additionally, during the Common Ground and Vail Tomorrow processes, community members had identified the need for a community pavilion facility in town. During discussions regarding community facilities, the Council and community members have recommended the Donovan Park dewelopment site as the most appropriate location for a community pavilion. For these two primary reasons, staff believes that this application meets the above- described criteria. I 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. The above- described criteria have been addressed in the development of this application. To insure that traffic congestion, traffic flow, access and maneuverability are not negatively impacted, the applicant has paid particular attention to these issues. Significant South Frontage Road and Matterhorn Road intersection improvements are proposed. These improvements include the widening of the frontage road to accommodate adequate thru traffic flows, the addition of acceleration and deceleration lanes at the entrance to Donovan Park and at the Matterhorn Road intersection, the construction of a dedicated bike lane and improvements and connections to the existing streamwalk. An approximately 150 space parking area is also proposed. The 150 parking spaces are intended to provide adequate parking for each of the uses currently proposed on the site. According to information provided by the applicant, parking shortages only become a problem when a major recreational event is occurring on the recreation field at the same time as a large gathering is occurring in the pavilion. This potential problem can be addressed however, by coordinating and managing events with this issue in mind. Overall, staff believes this criterion has been met. 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. Sections 12 -9C -2 & 3 outline the permitted and conditional uses allowed in the General Use zone district. The following are listed as conditional uses in the General Use zone district: - Public and private parks and active outdoor recreation areas, facilities, and uses. Public and quasi- public indoor community facility. Public buildings and grounds. All of the uses proposed for the lower bench of Donovan Park 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 following categories shall be proposed by the applicant and prescribed by the Planning and Environmental Commission: I. Lot area and site dimensions 2. Setbacks 3. Building Height 4. Density Control (dwelling units and GRFA) 5. Site Coverage 6. Landscaping and site development 7. Parking and loading The applicant will be submitting a Development Plan to the Community Development Department for the review and approval of the Planning & Environmental Commission at an upcoming meeting. The Donovan Park Master Plan Amendment was developed with the wishes of the community in mind. Over the course of the nearly one year development timeframe, numerous public meetings and discussions occurred to insure that the applicant and design team received comments and feedback from community members. Much of the feedback influenced the final conceptual design proposal. For example, the pavilion is proposed to be one story in height, the parking is substantially screened from public view outside the park, access to the park is from the South Frontage Road as opposed to through the neighborhood, a pedestrian bridge will be constructed to improve pedestrian access and safety and no construction will occur within the riparian corridor of Gore Creek. VI. REZONING REQUEST- CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION 1) Is the existing zoning suitable with the existing land use on the site and adjacent land uses? Staff believes the existing zoning designation is suitable with the existing and adjacent land uses. However, staff does not believe that the existing zoning is suitable for the proposed use of the property as identified in the Donovan Part{ Master Plan Amendment. The town's intent as stated in the master plan has been to provide opportunities for public recreation at this location. Through the conditional use permit process, staff and the Planning & Environmental Commission can ensure that all future uses of the site will be compatible with master plan goals and development objectives. The town's intent is not to provide for residential uses on this site as permitted by the current zoning designation of Residential Cluster District. General Use Purpose Statement The General Use District is intended to rrovide sites for public and quasi- public uses which, because of their special characteristics, cannot be appropriately regulated by the development standards prescribed for other zoning districts, and for which development standards especially prescribed for each particular is development proposal or project are necessary to achieve the purposes prescribed in Section 12-1 -2 of this Title and to provide for the public welfare. The General Use District is intended to ensure that public buildings and grounds and certain types of quasi- public uses permitted in the District are appropriately located and designed to meet the needs of residents and visitors to Vail, to harmonize with surrounding uses, and, in the case of buildings and other structures, to ensure adequate light, air, open spaces, and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of uses. 2) Is the amendment presenting a convenient workable relationship with land uses consistent with municipal objectives? Through the conditional use permit review process, the PEC can ensure that any future proposals are consistent with municipal objectives. This review process is intended to address development impacts such as traffic, parking, noise, hours of operation, etc. The municipal objective is not to construct residential uses on this site as currently permitted in the Residential Cluster zone district. 3) Does the rezoning provide for the growth of an orderly viable community? In accordance with the provisions of the Town of Vail Zoning and Subdivision Regulations and Vail's Master Plan Elements, staff believes this rezoning provides for the growth of an orderly viable community. The construction of the Phase I improvements is an expressed goal of the Vail Town Council to be underway by April of 2001. The need for park and recreation amenities in this particular neighborhood have been a desire of the community for some time. 4) Is the change consistent with the Land Use Plan? 0 The Vail Land Use Plan places a future land use designation of "Park" on the subject property. These types of parcels are intended "for both active recreation activities such as athletic fields, golf courses and playgrounds, as well as areas for various passive recreation activities." Staff believes a zoning designation of "General Use" (a district intended for public facilities) is consistent with the goals and objectives outlined for the "Park" land use category. The following goals from the Plan are specifically impacted by this proposal: 1.1 Vail should continue to grow in a controlled environment, maintaining a balance between residential, commercial and recreational uses to serve both the visitor and the permanent resident. 1.14 Development of Town owned lands by the Town of Vail (other than parks and open space) may be permitted where no high hazards exist, if such development is for public use. 1.12 Vail should accommodate most of the additional growth in existing developed areas (infill areas). 1.5 The community should improve non -skier recreational options to improve year -round tourism. 2.7 The Town of Vail should improve the existing park and open space lands while continuing to purchase open space. 0 • SX o l 11, A A F 04 5; co rr Cl) Approved 12/11/00 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION r MEMBERS PRESENT Minutes 40 • Galen Aasland Chas Bernhardt Diane Golden John Schofield Brian Doyon Doug Cahill Public Hearing November 27, 2000 MEMBERS ABSENT Tom Weber STAFF PRESENT: Russ Forrest George Ruther Ann Kjerulf Brent Wilson Allison Ochs Judy Rodriguez Tom Moorhead Galen Aasland called the meeting to order at 2:00. 2:00 p.m. 1. A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for the installation of wireless telecommunications facilities, located at 551 N. Frontage Rd-, Red Sandstone Elementary School /Lot S, Vail Potato Patch Filing 1. Applicant: AT &T Wireless Services, represented by Liberty Wirestar Planner: Ann Kjerulf Ann Kjerulf gave an overview of the staff memo. Galen Aasland asked if the applicant had anything to add. R.C. Powell with Liberty Wirestar, said he would be available to answer questions. Doug Cahill asked about roof maintenance. R.C. Powell said maintenance would be very seldom and insignificant. Doug Cahill said he was concerned with site disturbance. John Schofield asked if this was expanding service. R.C_ Powell said no, but to lessen busy signals. Brian Doyon requested a condition to have 2 more 6' evergreens for screening. Galen Aasland asked if there were any public comments. There were no public comments. Doug Cahill asked about the size. R.C. Powell said approximately, 3' by 4'. John Schofield had no comments Diane Golden asked if this would be dangerous to children. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes November 22, 2000 I Approved 12119100 R.C. Powell said children would not have access to this equipment. Chas Bernhardt had no comments. Brian Doyon had no comments. John Schofield made a motion for approval, in accordance with the staff memo, with the additional condition that if any landscaping was disturbed, it be restored back to its original condition. Brian Doyon seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 6 -0 2. A request for a work session to discuss the establishment of a Special Development District to allow for the construction of a new conference facility /hotel and conditional use permits to allow for the construction of fractional fee units and Type III employee housing units at 13 Vail Road / Lots A, B, C, Block 2, Vail Village Filing 2. Applicant: Doramar Hotels, represented by the Daymer Corporation Planner: Brent Wilson Galen Aasland said we were not here to evaluate if an adjacent property owner could have a better proposal. He advised the applicant to make sure to state how this would benefit the Town. Brent Wilson said a letter was received from dine Vail Road and it had been routed to the PEC members. Then he stated that this was a very conceptual walk through and that the purpose of the work session was to discuss the basic elements of the proposal including height, massing and loading /delivery. Tim Losa from Zehren & Associates was here representing the client and established the context of the neighborhood extending from the Vail Village Inn to the Lionshead Hub site. He showed how the loading and delivery was taken off West Meadow Drive to make it more pedestrian friendly. He said they would like to create a plaza or focal point to go along with the Streetscape Master Plan and that the proposed plaza would be twice what was there now. He said the atrium would have retail shops and art galleries, with an at -grade restaurant and spa. He then demonstrated circulation issues and said heated sidewalks would be continued along the Frontage Road. He then showed the uses within the building. He explained the exiting out onto the Frontage Road and stated that there would only be 3 delivery trucks a day, so it would be a shared delivery and pedestrian crosswalk to the entrance. He then explained the elevations with the maximum roof at 77' using the grade directly beneath that point. He said the eave was 46' and that mass was looked at from the eaves; not the ridges. He then gave examples of other buildings around the Village. Galen Aasland said the criteria to look at in comparing other properties was to look at what was there now; not what might be proposed in the future- Tim Losa showed sectionals. He said the building would be transparent inviting people in. Galen Aasland asked for any public comment or comments form the applicant's team. He asked for an explanation for the deviance from the underlying zoning versus asking for an SDD. Tim Losa said that except for height, this met all the underlying zoning of a PA Zone District. He said they could have 31% landscape requirements which would exceed the requirement by 1 %. He then explained the setbacks. He said they were proposing an SDD because of a future connection and in exchange for the height they were giving the Town the streetscape improvements. He said they would meet the parking requirements and employee housing_ Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes November 27, 2000 Approved 12/11/00 Connie Dorsey said they would provide 36 employee housing beds, which would meet the requirements. Brent Wilson gave an overview of the staff memo. He said the DRB mentioned that the buildings should read as an assemblage of buildings, rather than one large structure. He said an urban design consultant would be hired by the Town in the near future and he would bring in more specific details to the PEC in the future. He said there were no standards for parking requirements for health clubs and said he was doing research and would bring those results back to the PEC in the future. Joan Payne questioned the height on the westernmost side. Tim Losa said the height would be 57' at the gabled end and the ridge, which was 60' into the property line, was 63 1/ `. Jim Lamont, East Villa / g 2 e Homeowners Association, asked Tim if he was hired to work on the Hospital. Tim Losa explained that the rendering was a reflection of a 4 -day charette they had with the Hospital. Russ Forrest said Zehren & Associates was not retained for the Hospital. Jim Lamont asked if this was public information. Russ Forrest said no, the charette was between the Evergreen and the Hospital. Galen Aasland reminded Jim that the PEC was dealing only with this project. Jim Lamont stated that we should be looking at what the whole picture would be in the future. John Schofield reminded Jim that this was a worksession. Galen Aasland said we need a drawing of what was there now. Tim Losa stated there had to be a public /private partnership for the public improvements to occur. Jim Lamont said he would like a copy of this made public. Russ Forrest said he had not seen that graphic and it was inappropriate to show the Hospital and Evergreen with this application. Rick Scalpello of Nine Vail Road asked about the height of the Nine Vail Road Building and requested that the correct number be provided. Connie Dorsey said the height issue was the deviation from the underlying zoning and in order to have a stand -alone facility, they were providing a 5 -star property. Galen Aasland asked for any public comment. Gwen Scalpello, President of Homeowner's Association of Nine Vail Road, stated that the property line was erratic between the two buildings. She said the height was 69' but her condominium documents said it was 63'. She said her building would be affected by the lack of afternoon sun. is She felt the Nine Vail Road Building had not been adequately represented up until this point. She said another concern was the mixture of pedestrian and commercial traffic accelerating through the Planning and Environmental Commission 3 Minutes November 27, 2000 Approved 12/11/00 roundabout and then making a turn into the building. She said her 4 parking spaces existing on an easement but they were thinking of relocating the spaces to avoid mixing pedestrian and commercial traffic. She said she did not see justification for an SDD. Richard Kents said an SDD should not be approved as the two buildings were not shown how they would tie in and work together. He said there should be a Master Plan in place on this side of Vail Road to give some guidelines. He said that this would remove a 4 side access for fire fighting which would increase their insurance. He said the atrium was not a public area and with only 29% for landscaping, they were below the minimum. He said they supported the Nine Vail Road position on leading and he objected to the overall height, bulk and mass of the building. Jim Lamont said we should look at increasing more of a wedge to help the relationship of the two buildings. He thought the center portion should be opened up to give a more harmonious relationship with the neighbors. He said the loading and delivery was critical and should come off the Frontage Road. He said there was some merit for a roundabout situation. He said regarding the issue of the SDD, that he saw no merit in seeing one side without the other. He said there were other efficiencies of an underground tunnel and that the height at the Frontage Road should be 57' and then stepped down. He suggested that this not be evaluated as an SDD, since there was no interplay between both projects and advised the PEC not to give the applicant any idea that they should go ahead with an SDD. Brent Wilson explained the zoning and the reasoning for hiring an independent consultant. Tim Losa said Meadow Vail Place was 5 stories Brent Wilson said they could require only that Mr. Prado meet fire access to his property and that he would not be required to dedicate part of his property to correct existing deficiencies with adjacent properties. Rick Scalpello from Nine Vail Road said in order for a fire vehicle to get through, there had to be adequate space. He mentioned the bus stops with accelerating buses and noise. He said there would be more vehicles than the 3 delivery trucks that were stated and that the accessway off Vail Road was dangerous. He said this building required the combined capacity of 2 hotels to have a convention center and spa and it would require looking at both buildings to see what the tradeoffs were, since it you looked at this building alone, it would not meet the requirements of an SDD_ Jim Lamont asked about the Land Use Plan. George Ruther explained the difference between the Land Use Plan and zoning. Jim Lamont said the advisory document was 26 years old and the applicant was using it to substantiate the density for that site. Brent Wilson said we could not legally put the application on hold to wait for a new master plan to be drafted and that there was no deviation in the density proposed. Jim Lamont said we have been asking for a master plan for over 5 years. Galen Aasland said we were going to hold him to the letter of the law. Mery Lapin, owner of Lot 7 on West Meadow Drive, said it was great to have these properties developed, but he was always against SDD's. He said the purpose was what was the Town getting out of the project, as it gave the developer greater density and flexibility. He said Bishop Park had been the only SDD that was justified. He said developers only wanted greater density, and asked the PEC to scrutinize this closely_ He said the project should not be any higher than Nine Vail Place or Alpenhorn and he also advised them to look at the Streetscape Plan. He then asked Todd to look at that section of the Streetscape Plan first. He said he wanted to address Planning and Environmental Commission 4 Minutes November 27, 2000 Approved 12/11/00 fractional interests in the next 20 -30 years. He advised the PEC to make sure that documentation and money was there with funds put aside from all of the units and put in a trust account. Tim Losa responded to some of the public comments. He said they surveyed all the adjacent buildings with regards to height. John Schofield said he saw plans come through that were not as- buiits. Tim Losa explained the access routes. He said 6 % % wasn't especially steep and nobody liked loading and delivery. He said they would be submitting a preliminary traffic study. Diane Golden asked if there would be snowmelt off Vail Road. Tim Losa said, yes and the width coming off Vail Road would be 12' wide, the standard single lane for traffic. He explained the 1% shortage of landscaping and how they could revise it to accommodate the 1 % shortage. He said they would submit sun -shade studies at the next meeting. He said it was in their best interest to keep the loading docks clean, as some of their rooms overlooked the docks and that they could increase the covered dock area, He said there would be a very large landscape buffer for the interior dock. He explained that the entire orientation of rooms had been reversed and that it was critical to keep guests and services completely separate. He said they spoke to the Fire Department and there was more than adequate separation between the buildings and there should be no fire or building issues and they would meet their landscaping requirement. He said they were not increasing density from the underlying zoning; only height, but that this was similar in height to buildings in the neighborhood, such as the Evergreen. He said the hotel would always retain ownership of fractional fee units and they would be happy to work with the design team for West Meadow Drive. He then said a 5 -star hotel brought benefits to the Town. Galen Aasland asked what the square footage proposals would be. Tim Losa said there were 120 AU's on site today at about 135 sq, ft. each. He said the 120 units proposed would be 300 sq. ft and 39 FFU's would be 1 and 2 bedroom units operated by the hotel. He said the 17 dwelling units could be broken up between 2 and 4 keys each, He said each of the lock -offs average 2, 200 sq, ft, and the larger units were 6,400 sq. ft. with 4 keys. He said they had 16 employee units. Brian Doyon thanked the applicant for doing a lot of work. He said, regarding the height, to stick with the height and stay with the PA zoning, as he thought they could make it work, He said he wanted 30% landscaping and would like to see detail. He asked if the parking numbers included the spa and that he wanted to see some housing for employees. He said at some point the PEC would need to see the Vail Village Inn and how it relates and that if they were brought in separately, they would be viewed separately. He said they needed to see it all or nothing. He said the PEC would need to see a traffic study. He said from the Vail Roundabout travelling west, we needed to see some mitigation and we would need to see some off -site work. He said the sun /shade was very important. He said towards Meadow Drive needed to be stepped down regarding bulk and mass and that the entry on West Meadow Drive would draw cars over there_ We need to make it more defined as a pedestrian area and drop -off area. He said the Art Walk was a good idea. He said he was fine with the loading area and keeping it as a pedestrian area as long as it was landscaped well. He said he favored the High Range on EHUs. Chas Bernhardt said the underlying IAA Zone District height was 48' and said this new building shouldn't exceed any of the surrounding buildings. He said a central delivery and loading system would be a benefit to Vail and that these two sites could be the beginning of the new loading system and incorporated for the future. He said the setbacks were acceptable and there should be no deviation from the parking, landscaping and employee housing. He preferred the Upper Range on EHUs. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes November 27. 2000 Approved 12/11100 Doug Cahill said the height variance should be close to the surrounding buildings. He said he would like a shading study on how it would affect the Frontage Road. He said the south elevation was moving to a different zone district and needs to be lower on West Meadow Drive. He suggested opening this up more for light and air. He said the loading was ok as long as they achieved noise levels in accordance with the Town Code. He said to do whatever they could to go underground. He said he wanted to hold to the 30% landscaping_ He said the Porte Cochere should be moved closer to the building and they had to be fully compliant with regards to parking and he favored the High to Mid range for employee generation. He thought the two sites should be looked at jointly for traffic, but that this should be a stand -alone site. John Schofield said that since all the adjacent properties didn't comply with their zoning, there was some flexibility. He felt there was no special privilege granted, since the other buildings in the area were 78'. He said an SDD encouraged flexibility and creativity, but it would be the applicant's call whether to request an SDD or a variance in the PA Zone District. He said he thought the Commission and Council should look at the cumulative effects for traffic. He said he was the most height tolerant and he had no problem with the building in the 70's range, but to step down towards Meadow Drive and keep the height on the Frontage Road. He said he would like to look at hard numbers on other properties. He said loading and delivery provided good opportunities for screening, but he thought 12' would be tight for pedestrians and loading, but the two could be mixed and can work. He said parking was critical and preferred the Mid -Range for employee housing generation. He said if there is any cross arranging housing two should stand alone_ He said the distance from the Front desk to the elevator in the lobby was terrible. Diane Golden agrees with John on the height for an SDD and thanked the applicant for removing traffic from West Meadow Drive. She said the setbacks, parking and landscaping were fine and preferred between the Mid to High Range for EHUs. Galen Aasland stated that this applicant was not responsible for fixing deficits in the neighboring buildings, He said he was against a skyway. He said the SDD requires the applicant to put housing on -site and that he would be for Frontage Road height if it was a tradeoff with employee housing. He said in order to be an SDD, this building had to be more oriented towards the public_ He said this building says it will serve all the guest's needs, so the people will not leave_ He said this was a proper place for loading, but could see reducing the hours that loading occurred_ He said the Vail Standard Station will someday be gone, so he would like to see some easement across the property in the future. He said the bulk and mass needed to be more open to the south and he was ok with the Porte Cochere. He said he was fine with the setbacks, but to meet the landscaping requirement. He said he preferred the Middle to High Range for employee generation. He felt this had to be a stand alone, since there was no assurance that the other project would be built, unless they were thinking of deferring part of the parking. All Commissioners were fine with the portecochere in the setback. Brent Wilson reminded the PEC that development impacts would be mitigated as determined by the PEG under either the straight PA zoning or as an SDD. This includes employee housing and loading /delivery impacts. 3. A request for a worksession to discuss a Major Exterior Alteration, to allow for the redevelopment of the Vail 21 Condominiums, located at 521 E. Lionshead Circle /Lot 3, Block 1, Vail Lionshead I" 'filing. Applicant; Vail 21 Condominium Association Planner: Allison Ochs Allison Ochs said that since this was a worksession, she would let the applicant make his presentation. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes November 27, 2000 Approved 12/11100 Tom Dubois with Fritzlen Pierce explained his slide show. He said the units without lofts would be expanded out to the east 10'. He said the southeast wing without aloft would be expanded as well and the same principles would be used with the loft units. He gave the build to lines from the Lionshead Master flan. He said the below grade plaza area would be lowered 5' to allow greater visibility for the commercial tenants and read excerpts from the Architectural Design Guidelines. Galen Aasland asked for any public comments. Geoff Wright, General Manager of Destination Resorts who manages Vail 21, said this building was the gateway to Lionshead and said he had the support from the ownership. Rob Levine said, just let him do it. Galen Aasland stated, for the record, that he did work for the Lazier owners who were an adjacent property, but he felt there was no conflict. Allison Ochs explained build to lines and how this directly impacted their GRFA. She explained the ridge heights. Chas Bernhardt said his concern was the roof height. He asked the applicant to prove that he was within the height restrictions and he would like to see that in the future. Brian Doyon said this building was a major portal to Lionshead and so this would be held to a high standard. He said he would like to see more of a landscape buffer and because of the encroachment into the road, he said there needed to be a substantial buffer. He said where the building steps back, the roof forms need to be addressed because it's missing the artistic flair. He thought it could be made into more of an arcade and stated that roof heights should be worked out with staff. 40 Diane Golden agreed to stick with the standards regarding the roof height. She agreed with Brian to make it more interesting, but said the rooms were a huge improvement- John Schofield stressed to the applicant to let the owners know this won't be an easy project. Allison Ochs said the applicant didn't want to go the route of the SOD, as the Lionshead Master Plan allowed flexibility. John Schofield said the build to lines were constructed to keep the planters out of traffic. He said this should not all go away, since it was now part of a view corridor. He said the roof line just needed tweaking, but the GRFA should require a variance. He said the applicant would need to go to Council to see how development on Town property should be developed. He said these were not the only alternatives and suggested them to be creative. He suggested checking into not losing the tax increment financing. Doug Cahill said his concern was the build to line and how it worked with the bus turnaround, the trees and landscaping and the Town timeline. He also felt that the retail level didn't match the upper levels enough. Galen Aasland agreed with his fellow Commissioners regarding the landscaping and said they should not eliminate landscaping in front of the property and to work out parking with the Town staff and to work out the GRFA with the Town Council. He agreed with Doug that the lower retail and the upper don't match. He said the PEC all agreed that this needed to be done. Doug Cahill asked the Town about the timeline for the bus turnaround. 49 Allison Ochs said they thought VA would be coming in front, but this was the first application to be done and said they would be discussing phasing. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes November 27, 2000 Approved 12/11100 Bill Pierce said they would like to begin this spring. 4. A request for a minor subdivision. to allow for the creation of two tracts of land, located at 1778 Vail Valley Drive I a currently unpiatted tract of land within Section 9, Township 5 South, Range 80 West of the 6" P.M. directly north of Lot 3, Sunburst Filing 3 within the Vail Golf Course. The subject property ( "Vail Golf Course Clubhouse Subdivision ") is specifically described as follows: That part of Section 9, Township 5 South, Range 80 West of the 6 Principal Meridian, Town of Vail, Eagle County, Colorado, described as follows: Beginning at the most northerly corner of Lot 3, Sunburst Filing No. 3, according to the final plat for Sunburst Filing No. 3, recorded in Book 263 at Page 429, in the office of the Eagle County, Colorado, Clerk and Recorder, said point also being on the northerly right -of -way line of Sunburst Drive, as shown on said final plat, thence the following two courses along said northerly right -of -way line: (1) 119.32 feet along the arc of a curve to the left, having a radius of 135.00 feet, a central angle of 50 1 38'21" and a chord that bears N72 115.47 feet; (2) S81 11 41'30 "W 187.43; thence, departing said northerly right -of -way line, 1` 08 °18'30 "W 266.90 feet; thence N79 0 28'56 "E 939.41 feet; thence 511 0 28'38 "E 91.78 feet, thence 840 "W 490.77 feet; thence 577 165.16 feet to the northerly line of said Lot 3; thence, along said northerly line of Lot 3, 148.02 feet along the are of a curve to the left, having a radius of 189.10 feet, a central angle of 44 1 50'53" and a chord that bears N65 1 08'56 "W 144.27 feet to the point of beginning, containing 6.47 acres, more or less. Applicant: Vail Junior Hockey Association, Vail Recreation District, Town of Vail Planner: Brent Wilson Brent Wilson gave an overview of the staff memo and said, for the record, that they had prepared an accurate legal description and notified the homeowners in accordance with the provisions of the Vail Town Code. 0 Galen Aasland asked if this was held to the same standard as other applications. Tom Moorhead said yes. John Schofield said this ties in with the original conditional use permit approval. Galen Aasland asked if the applicant had anything to add_ Galen Aasland asked if there was any public comment_ Doug Cahill said it met the criteria. John Schofield said now this was definitive. Diane Golden agreed_ Brian Doyon asked if the starter shack still needed to be included. Brent Wilson explained again that the starter shack was included in this minor subdivision area. Chas Bemhardt had no comments. Galen Aasland agreed with Tom that this was held to the same standard as other applications. is Planning and Environmental Commission 8 Minutes November 27, 2000 Approved 12/11/00 • John Schofield made a motion for approval in accordance with the findings and conditions contained in the staff memo and said that the information contained in the record of the previous meetings on the ice rink was also considered a portion of this application for a minor subdivision and should be contained in the record for the minor subdivision hearing. Chas Bernhardt seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 6 -0. 5. A request for a minor subdivision, to allow for the vacation of lot lines, located at 2475 Garmisch Lane /Lots 1 -4, Block H, Vail das Schone Filing 2. Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Nina Timm Planner: Allison Ochs 0 Allison Ochs gave an overview of the staff memo. Galen Aasland asked if there was any public comment. There was no public comment. Brian Doyon had no comments. Chas Bernhardt had no comments. Doug Cahill had no comments. John Schofield had no comments. Diane Golden had no comments. Galen Aasland said this met the criteria that any private developer would have had to meet. John Schofield made a motion for approval in accordance with the staff memo. Brian Doyon seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 6 -0. 6. A request for a final review of a conditional use permit, to allow for the construction of Phase I of Donovan Park improvements and a request for rezoning of a portion of Vail Village West Filing 1(including Lot 4, Vail Village West Filing 1 — 1774 Matterhorn Circle) from "Residential Cluster' to "General Use ", generally located southeast of the intersection of Matterhorn Circle and the South Frontage Road. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: George Ruther George Ruther gave an overview of the staff memo. John Schofield asked if Phase I had been delineated by the Town Council. George Ruther said, yes, as the Town Council was the applicant. Todd Oppenheimer said they were still reviewing the plan from a maintenance standpoint, as we continued forward with the final submittal. Galen Aasland asked if there was any public comment. Planning and E=nvironmental Commission Minutes November 27, 2000 Approved 12/11/00 Doug Cahill agreed with the staff findings and had no comment John Schofield said some kind of bus stop should be incorporated. Diane Golden agreed with John. Brian Doyon asked if roadwork would be done as part of this project. George said, yes. Brian Doyon said there was no reason for a bus stop. He asked what the out of Town architecture fee was, since we had our own staff who could have done this. Chas Bernhardt had no comments. Galen Aasland said this was a natural for a bus stop, He said any private developer would have to be consistent with the Town zoning . Russ Forrest said they talked with Mike Rose who wanted to have the bus stop on Matterhorn, so this was a significant turnaround. He said they wanted to keep the planning as is from an operational standpoint. George Ruther said it was not an issue about not wanting to do it; just an operational issue. Russ Forrest said they were trying to simplify things for budgetary reasons. John Schofield said to not make the customers walk across a snowy soccerfield. • John Schofield made a motion for a recommendation for approval for the rezoning, in accordance with the staff memo. 0 Brian. Doyon seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 6 -& John Schofield made a motion for approval of the conditional use permit, in accordance with the staff memo with the additional provision that an internal bus stop be in the park. Chas Bernhardt said it was ok to not have a bus stop in the park. George Ruther said the point of the parking structure was not to have skier parking overflow and that the pavilion needed to be maximized year round to utilize this parking. John Schofield said we would have the option. Brian Doyon seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 6 -0. 7. A request for grading in the floodplain, in accordance with Title 14, Town Cade, located at 540 S. Frontage Rd. East/ Ford Park, Unplatted. Applicant. Vail Alpine Garden Foundation and Town of flail, represented by Ry Southard and Todd Oppenheimer. Planner: Ann Kjerulf TABLED UNTIL DECEMBER 11, 2000 Planning and Environmental. Commission I0 Minutes November 27, 2000 Approved 12/11/00 Doug Cahill made a motion to table the above item. Brian Doyon seconded the motion- 0 1 The motion passed by a vote of 6 -0. 8. A request for grading in the flood plain, in accordance with Title 14, Town of Vail Code, located at Stephens Park, generally located in the 2460 block of S. Frontage Rd. West/ Unplatted Vail Intermountain. Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Tom Kassmel Planner: Allison Ochs WITHDRAWN 9. A request for a final review of a minor subdivision, to allow for the reconfiguration and replatting of two existing lots and the rezoning of Lots 15 & 16 from Agriculture Open Space and Primary/Secondary Residential to !Natural Area Preservation and Primary/Secondary Residential, located at 3886/3896 Lupine Drive /Lots 15 & 16, Bighorn 2 nd Addition. Applicant: Wilson Family Trust, represented by Jay Tschimer, First Land Development, LLC Planner, George Ruther WITHDRAWN 10. A request for a site coverage variance (Section 12 -7A -9) and setback variance (12- 7A -6), Vail Town Code, to allow for a new front entry to the Mountain Haus, located at 292 E. Meadow Drive /Lot 5, Part of Tract B, Vail Village 1$' Filing. Applicant: Mountain Haus, represented by Fritzien Pierce Architects Planner: Bill Gibson WITHDRAWN 11. Approval of November 13, 2006 minutes Brian Doyon made a motion to approve the minutes as read. Doug Cahill seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 4 -0 -2, with Diane and Galen abstaining. 12. Information Update George Ruther gave details regarding the Christmas party. He also advised the PEC of the tour of the Marriott fire scene and invited them to join the tour. He gave a heads -up to the PEC that the minutes might be eliminated in January. Brian Doyon made a motion to adjourn. Chas Bernhardt seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 6 -0. The meeting adjourned at 6:05 p.m. Planning and Environmental Commission l I Minutes November 27, 2000