Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-0212 PECTHIS ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY PUBLIC NOTICE , NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of 48 Vail will hold a public hearing in accordance with Section 12 -3 -6 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail on February 12, 2001 at 2 :00 P.M. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. In consideration of: A request for a final review of a proposed special development district to allow for the construction of a new conference facility /hotel; and a final review of conditional use permits to allow for the construction of fractional fee units and Type III employee housing units at 13 Vail Road 1 Lots A, B, C, Block 2, Vail Village Filing 2. Applicant: Doramar Hotels, represented by the Daymer Corporation Planner: Brent Wilson A request for variances from Section 12 -6D -6 (Setbacks) and Title 14 (Development Standards - locating required parking in the Right -of -Way), to allow for a residential addition and remodel located at 2955 Bellflower Dr. / Lot 6, Block 6, Vail Intermountain. Applicant: Alan Peters, represented by Braun Associates Planner: Allison Ochs A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for the installation of rooftop telecommunications antennas at the Brandess Building, located at 2077 N. Frontage Road (Brandess Building) /Lot 39, Buffehr Creek. Applicant: Jayne Brandess Revocable Trust, represented by Abacus Communications Planner: Allison Ochs A request for a recommendation to the Town Council on proposed text amendments, to allow for clarification & corrections to the Town Code. A complete description of the text amendments is on file at the Office of Community Development, located at 75 S. Frontage Road. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Allison Ochs A request for a recommendation to the Town Council on the proposed Vail Land Use Plan amendments to change the land use designation for the following properties: 1. MDR to OS, located at 1774 Matterhorn Circle /Lot 4, Vail Village West Filing 2; 2. LDR to OS, located at 3880 & 3896 Lupine Drive /Lots 15 & 16, Bighorn Subdivision 2nd Addition. 3. OS to HDR, located at 160 N_ Frontage Rd. West/ generally located northwest of the 1 -70 interchange at the main Vail exit, known as "Mountain Bell," A TRACT OF LAND IN THE SOUTH HALF, OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER, SECTION 6, TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH, RANGE 80 WEST OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT THAT IS NORTH 00 DEGREES 28 MINUTES 16 SECONDS WEST A DISTANCE OF 686.60 FEET FROM THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SECTION 6, TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH, RANGE 80 WEST OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, BEING THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; ALSO BEING A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY RIGHT -OF -WAY OF INTERSTATE 70; THENCE NORTH 00 DEGREES 28 MINUTES 16 SECONDS WEST ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID SECTION 6 A DISTANCE OF 633.40 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89 DEGREES 27 MINUTES 21 SECONDS WEST A DISTANCE OF 2633.76 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EAST BOUNDARY LINE OF VAIL/POTATO PATCH; THENCE SOUTH 00 DEGREES 07 MINUTES 12 SECONDS EAST ALONG SAID EAST BOUNDARY LINE A DISTANCE OF 361.21 FEET TO A POINT ON A CURVE, SAID CURVE ALSO BEING ON THE NORTHERLY RIGHT -OF -WAY OF INTERSTATE 70; THENCE ALONG SAID NORTHERLY RIGHT -OF -WAY ON THE FOLLOWING 8 COURSES: i — as TOWN OF PAIL 1) A DISTANCE OF 204.62 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, SAID CURVE HAVING A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 02 DEGREES 56 MINUTES 18 SECONDS, A .RADIUS OF 3990.0 FEET, AND A CHORD NORTH 85 DEGREES 31 MINUTES 10 SECONDS EAST A DISTANCE OF 204.60 FEET; 2) NORTH. 80 DEGREES 13 MINUTES 06 SECONDS EAST A DISTANCE OF 211.80 FEET, 3) NORTH 84 DEGREES 55 MINUTES 50 MINUTES EAST A DISTANCE OF 319.70 FEET; 4) SOUTH 79 DEGREES 56 MINUTES 28 SECONDS EAST A DISTANCE OF 424.40 FEET; 5) SOUTH 69 DEGREES 55 MINUTES 21 SECONDS EAST A DISTANCE OF 303.20 FEET; 6) SOUTH 74 DEGREES 21 MINUTES 35 SECONDS EAST A DISTANCE OF 204.70 FEET, 7) SOUTH 83 DEGREES 36 MINUTES 29 SECONDS EAST A DISTANCE OF 826.30 FEET, 8) SOUTH 71 DEGREES 33 MINUTES 45 MINUTES EAST A DISTANCE OF 19610 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. EXCEPT THAT PORTION OF LAND DESCRIBED IN WARRANTY DEED RECORDED IN BOOK 218 AT PAGE 419, COUNTY OF EAGLE, STATE OF COLORADO Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Allison Ochs A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for the construction of a Type II Employee Housing Unit, located at 363 Beaver Dam Road 1 Lot 2, Block 3, Vail Village 3` Filing. Applicant: Fritzlen Pierce Architects Planner: Bill Gibson A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for the construction of a Type II Employee Housing Unit, located at 383 Beaver Dam Road 1 Lot 3, Block 3, Vail Village 3` Filing. Applicant: Fritzlen Pierce Architects Planner: Bill Gibson A worksession to discuss an interpretation of the definition of site coverage. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: George Ruther The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours in the project planners 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 January 26, 2001 in the Vail Trail. u • I� 2 U • PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION PUBLIC MEETING SCHEDULE Monday, February 12, 2001 PROJECT ORIENTATION 1- Community Development Dept. PUBLIC WELCOME 11:30 am MEMBERS PRESENT EMBERS ABSENT Site Visits : 1:30 pm 1. Peters residence — 2955 Bellflower Drive 2, Brandess Building — 2077 N. Frontage Road Driver: Bill NOTE: If the PEC hearing extends until 6:00 p-m., the board may break for dinner from 6:00 - 6:30 p.m. Public Hearin - Town Council Chambers 2:00 pm A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for the construction of a Type II Employee Housing Unit, located at 363 Beaver Dam Road / Lot 2, Block 3, Vail Village 3F Filing. Applicant: Fritzlen Pierce Architects Planner: Bill Gibson 2. A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for the construction of a Type II Employee Housing Unit, located at 383 Beaver Dam Road / Lot 3, Block 3, Vail Village 3`" Filing. Applicant: Fritzlen Pierce Architects Planner: Bill Gibson 3. A request for a final review of a proposed special development district to allow for the construction of a new conference facility /hotel; and a final review of 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 4. A request for variances from Section 12- 6D- 64Setbacks) and Title 14 (Development Standards - locating required parking in the Right -of -Way), to allow for a residential addition and remodel located at 2955 Bellflower Dr. / Lot 6, Block 6, Vail Intermountain. Applicant: Alan Peters, represented by Braun Associates Planner: Allison Ochs • L I TOWN OF VAIL A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for the installation of rooftop telecommunications antennas at the Brandess Building, located at 2077 N. Frontage Road (Brandess Building)/Lot 39, Buffehr Creek. 40 Applicant: Jayne Brandess Revocable Trust, represented by .Abacus Communications Planner: Allison Ochs 6. A request for a recommendation to the Town Council on proposed text amendments, to allow for clarification & corrections to the Town Code. A complete description of the text amendments is on file at the Office of Community Development, located at 75 S. Frontage Road. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Allison Ochs 7. A worksession to discuss an interpretation of the definition of site coverage. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: George Ruther 8. A request for a recommendation to the Town Council on the proposed Vail Land Use Plan amendments to change the land use designation for the following properties: 1. LDR to OS, located at 3880 & 3896 Lupine Drive /Lots 15 & 16, Bighorn Subdivision 2nd Addition. 2. OS to HDR, located at 160 N. Frontage Rd. West/ generally located northwest of the 1 -70 interchange at the main Vail exit, known as "Mountain Bell," A TRACT OF LAND IN THE SOUTH HALF, OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER, SECTION 6, TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH, RANGE 80 WEST OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: 0 BEGINNING AT A POINT THAT IS NORTH 00 DEGREES 2.8 MINUTES 16 SECONDS WEST A DISTANCE OF 686.60 FEET FROM THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SECTION 6, TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH, RANGE 80 WEST OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL. MERIDIAN, BEING THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; ALSO BEING A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY RIGHT -OF -WAY OF INTERSTATE 70, THENCE NORTH 00 DEGREES 28 MINUTES 16 SECONDS WEST ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID SECTION 6 A DISTANCE OF 633.40 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89 DEGREES 27 MINUTES 21 SECONDS WEST A DISTANCE OF 2633.76 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EAST BOUNDARY LINE, OF VAIUPOTATO PATCH; THENCE SOUTH 00 DEGREES 07 MINUTES 12 SECONDS EAST ALONG SAID EAST BOUNDARY LINE A DISTANCE OF 361.21 FEEL" TO A POINT ON A CURVE, SAID CURVE ALSO BEING ON THE NORTHERLY RIGHT -OF -WAY OF INTERSTATE 70; THENCE ALONG SAD NORTHERLY RIGHT -OF -WAY ON THE FOLLOWING 8 COURSES: 1) A DISTANCE OF 204.62 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, SAID CURVE HAVING A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 02 DEGREES 56 MINUTES 18 SECONDS, A RADIUS OF 3990.0 FEET, AND A CHORD NORTH 85 DEGREES 31 MINUTES 10 SECONDS EAST A DISTANCE OF 204.60 FEET; 2) NORTH 80 DEGREES 13 MINUTES 06 SECONDS EAST A DISTANCE OF 211.80 FEET; 3) NORTH 84 DEGREES 55 MINUTES 50 MINUTES EAST A DISTANCE OF 319.70 FEET; 4) SOUTH 79 DEGREES 56 MINUTES 28 SECONDS EAST A DISTANCE OF 424.40 FEET; 5) SOUTH 69 DEGREES 55 MINUTES 21 SECONDS EAST A DISTANCE OF 303.20 FEET; 6) SOUTH 74 DEGREES 21 MINUTES 35 SECONDS EAST A DISTANCE OF 204.70 FEET; 7) SOUTH 83 DEGREES 36 MINUTES 29 SECONDS EAST A DISTANCE OF 826.30 FEET, 8) SOUTH 71 DEGREES 33 MINUTES 45 MINUTES EAST A DISTANCE OF 19610 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. EXCEPT THAT PORTION OF LAND DESCRIBED IN WARRANTY DEED RECORDED IN BOOK 218 AT PAGE 419, COUNTY OF EAGLE, STATE OF COLORADO. Applicant; Town of Vail Planner: Allison Ochs kyth h I : I a] TAT"N� 9. Approval of January 22, 2001 minutes 2 I i 10. 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 4719-2138 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 February 9, 2001 in the Vail Trail. • f PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION PUBLIC MEETING RESULTS Monday, February 12, 2001 PROJECT ORIENTATION I - Community Development Dept. PUBLIC WELCOME 11:30 am MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Galen Aasland Chas Bernhardt Diane Golden John Schofield Brian Doyon Doug Cahill Site Visits : 1:30 pm 1. Peters residence — 2955 Bellflower Drive 2. Brandess Building — 2077 N, Frontage Road Driver. Bill NOTE: If the PEC hearing extends until 6 :00 p.m., the board may break for dinner from 8:00 - 6:30 p.m. Public Hearing - Town Council Chambers 2:00 pm A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for the construction of a Type 11 Employee Housing 'Unit, located at 353 Beaver Dam Road 1 Lot 2, Block 3, flail Village 3` Filing. Applicant: Fritzlen Pierce Architects Planner: Bill Gibson MOTION: John Schofield SECOND: Brian Doyon VOTE: 6 -0 APPROVED WITH 2 CONDITIONS: 1. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a Type II EHU deed restriction to the Town of Vail Department of Community Development. This document shall be recorded at the Eagle County Cleric and Recorder's office and will require that the employee housing unit be permanently restricted for employee housing. 2. The Conditional Use Permit for the proposed EHU is contingent upon Design Review approval. 2. A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for the construction of a Type II Employee Housing Unit, located at 383 Beaver Darn Road 1 Lot 3, Block 3, Vail Village 3 "' Filing. Applicant: Fritzlen Pierce Architects Planner: Bill Gibson MOTION: Brian Doyon SECOND: Doug Cahill VOTE: 6-0 ti TOWN OF YK 0 APPROVED WITH 3 CONDITIONS: Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a Type II EHU deed restriction to the Town of Vail Department of Community Development. This document shall be recorded at the Eagle County Clerk and Recorders Office and will require that the employee housing unit be permanently restricted for employee housing. 2. The Conditional Use Permit for the proposed EHU is contingent upon Design Review approval. The applicant shall revise the site plan to meet the parking requirements prior to final Design Review approval. 3. A request for a final review of a proposed special development district to allow for the construction of a new conference facility /hotel; and a final review of 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 MOTION: John Schofield SECOND: Brian Doyon VOTE: 6 -0 RECOMMENDATION OF DENIAL TO TOWN COUNCIL (Special Development District) MOTION: John Schofield SECOND: Diane Golden VOTE. 6 -0 APPROVED WITH 1 CONDITION: (Conditional Use Permit for Fractional Fee Club Units) 1101 The approval of this conditional use permit is not valid unless an ordinance approving the associated special development district request is approved on second reading. MOTION: Brian Doyon SECOND: Doug Cahill VOTE: 6 -0 DENIED (Conditional Use Permit for Employee Housing Units) 4. A request for variances from Section 12 -6D -6 (Setbacks) and Title 14 (Development Standards - locating required parking in the Right -of -Way), to allow for a residential addition and remodel located at 2955 Bellflower Dr. / Lot B, Block 6, Vail Intermountain. Applicant: Alan Peters, represented by Braun Associates Planner: Allison Ochs MOTION: John Schofield SECOND: Brian Doyon VOTE. 6 -0 TABLED UNTIL FEBRUARY 26, 2001 5. A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for the installation of rooftop telecommunications antennas at the Brandess Building, located at 2077 N. Frontage Road (Branders Building)/Lot 39, Buffehr Creek. Applicant: Jayne Brandess Revocable Trust, represented by Abacus Communications Planner: Allison Ochs MOTION: John Schofield SECOND Chas Bernhardt VOTE: 6 -0 APPROVED WITH 2 CONDITIONS: That the applicant is required to provide adequate provisions to screen the equipment from public view. These provisions will be reviewed during the design review process. 2. That the applicant either reconfigure the equipment at the northeast corner of the lot to comply with required setbacks prior to Design Review Board approval or that the applicant be granted a variance by the Planning and Environmental Commission to allow for the placement of the equipment within the 20 ft. setback prior to final Design Review Board approval. 6. A request for a recommendation to the Town Council on proposed text amendments, to allow for clarification & corrections to the Town Code. A complete description of the text amendments is on file at the Office of Community Development, located at 75 S. Frontage Road. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Allison Ochs MOTION: Brian Doyon SECOND: Doug Cahill VOTE: 6 -0 RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL TO THE TOWN COUNCIL 7. A worksession to discuss an interpretation of the definition of site coverage. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: George Ruther WITHDRAWN 8. A request for a recommendation to the Town Council on the proposed Vail Land Use Plan amendments to change the land use designation for the following properties: 1. LDR to OS, located at 3880 & 3896 Lupine DrivelLots 15 & 16, Bighorn Subdivision 2 " Addition. 2. OS to HDR, located at 160 N. Frontage Rd. West/ generally located northwest of the 1 -70 interchange at the main Vail exit, known as "Mountain Bell," A TRACT CF LAND IN THE SOUTH HALF, OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER, SECTION 6, TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH, RANGE 80 WEST OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS_ BEGINNING AT A POINT THAT IS NORTH 00 DEGREES 28 MINUTES 16 SECONDS WEST A DISTANCE OF 686.60 FEET FROM THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SECTION 6, TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH, RANGE 80 WEST OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, BEING THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; ALSO BEING A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY RIGHT -OF -WAY OF INTERSTATE 70; THENCE NORTH 00 DEGREES 28 MINUTES 16 SECONDS WEST ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID SECTION 6 A DISTANCE OF 633.40 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89 DEGREES 27 MINUTES 21 SECONDS WEST A DISTANCE OF 2633.76 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EAST BOUNDARY LINE OF VAILJPOTATO PATCH; THENCE SOUTH 00 DEGREES 07 MINUTES 12 SECONDS EAST ALONG SAID EAST BOUNDARY LINE A DISTANCE OF 361.21 FEET TO A POINT ON A CURVE, SAID CURVE ALSO BEING ON THE NORTHERLY RIGHT -OF -WAY OF INTERSTATE 70; THENCE ALONG SAID NORTHERLY RIGHT -OF -WAY ON THE FOLLOWING 8 COURSES: 1) A DISTANCE OF 204.62 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, SAID CURVE HAVING A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 02 DEGREES 56 MINUTES 18 SECONDS, A RADIUS OF 3990.0 FEET, AND A CHORD NORTH 85 DEGREES 31 MINUTES 10 SECONDS EAST A DISTANCE OF 204.60 FEET, 2) NORTH 80 DEGREES 13 MINUTES 06 SECONDS EAST A DISTANCE OF 211.80 FEET; 3) NORTH 84 DEGREES 55 MINUTES 50 MINUTES EAST A DISTANCE. OF 319.70 FEET; 4) SOUTH 79 DEGREES 56 MINUTES 28 SECONDS EAST A DISTANCE OF 424.40 FEET; 5) SOUTH 69 DEGREES 55 MINUTES 21 SECONDS EAST A DISTANCE OF 303.20 FEET; 6) SOUTH 74 DEGREES 21 MINUTES 35 SECONDS EAST A DISTANCE OF 204.70 FEET; 7) SOUTH 83 DEGREES 36 MINUTES 29 SECONDS EAST A DISTANCE OF 826.30 FEET; 8) SOUTH 71 DEGREES 33 MINUTES 45 MINUTES EAST A DISTANCE OF 196.10 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. EXCEPT THAT PORTION OF LAND DESCRIBED IN WARRANTY DEED RECORDED IN BOOK 218 AT PAGE 419, COUNTY OF EAGLE, STATE OF COLORADO. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Allison Ochs WITHDRAWN 9. Approval of January 22, 2001 minutes 10. 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 Community Development Department t j • - , . - Ak6- %, — bb.- Akk� L— • I �r, i �,i, f�l #�1► I iE1 i.I,ii TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: February 12, 2001 SUBJECT: A request for a conditional use permit to allow for a Type 11 employee housing unit located at 363 Beaver Dam Road / Lot 2, Block 3, Vail Village 3 Fling. Applicants: A2Z Holdings LLC, represented by Fritzlen Pierce Architects Planner: Bill Gibson 1. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED USE In September and December of 1992, the Town Council passed Ordinances 9 and 27, Series of 1992, to create Chapter 13 (Employee Housing) which provides for the addition of Employee Housing Units (EHUs) as permitted or conditional uses within certain zone districts. In April of 2000, the Town Council passed Ordinance 6, Series of 2000, to repeal and reenact this chapter and provide additional incentives for the creation of employee housing in Vail. In Section 12 -2 -2, an Employee Housing Unit is defined as follows: Section 12 -2 -2 Employee Housing Unit (EHU): Ai dwelling unit which shall not be leased or rented for any period less than thirty (30) consecutive days, and shall be rented only to tenants who are full -time employees of Eagle County. EHUs shall be allowed in certain zone districts as set forth in this Title (Section 12 -13). Development standards for EHUs shall be as provided in Chapter 13, "Employee Housing" of this Title. For the purposes of this definition, a °'full -time employee shall mean a person who works a minimum of an average of thirty (30) hours per week. There shall be five (5) categories of EHUs: Type 1, Type it, Type 111, Type 1V, and Type V. Provisions relating to each type of EHU are set forth in Chapter 13, "Employee Housing" of this Title. The applicant is proposing to raze the existing structures on this property, and construct a primary dwelling unit and a Type II employee housing unit. The proposed redevelopment of this property is currently in the Design Review process. The proposed EHU will be approximately 449 square feet in size; and the applicant is proposing to utilize the additional 500 square foot GRFA credit. The proposed EHU will have one bedroom, one bathroom, and a living room with a kitchenette. The applicant is proposing to enclose the two required parking spaces for the EHU, and utilize the additional 300 square foot garage area credit. This proposed EHU is consistent with the Town of Vail's Type II EHU criteria for review: • The proposed EHU will have a positive relationship and impact of the use on the development objectives of the Town. • The proposed EHU will have an insignificant impact on light, air, population, transportation, utilities, schools or parks. • The proposed EHU will have Piffle effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and parking areas. • The proposed EHU will not have a negative effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. • The proposed EHU meets the Town's requirements for zoning, ownership /tranference, GRFA, garage credit/storage, parking, and density. 1 ,. = ter I1l{o'v OF YAdL -1 s N Il. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends approval of this application for a Type II Employee Housing Unit, based on the following findings: 1. That the proposed location of the use is in accordance with the purposes of Section 12 -13 (Employee Housing) 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 Section 12- 16 (Conditional Use Permits) of the Vail Municipal Code. If the Planning and Environmental Commission chooses to approve this application, the Community Development Department recommends the following condition: 1. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a Type II EHU deed restriction to the Town of Vail Department of Community Development. This document shall be recorded at the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder's Office and will require that the employee housing unit be permanently restricted for employee housing. 2. The Conditional Use Permit for the proposed EHU is contingent upon Design Review approval. Please note that under Section 12 -16 of the Vail Town Code, the approval of a conditional use permit shall lapse and become void if a building permit is not obtained and construction not commenced and diligently pursued toward completion, or the use for which the approval has been granted has not commenced within two years from when the approval becomes final, III. ZONING ANALYSIS Lot Size: 26,710 sq. ft. Zoning: Primary /Secondary Residential Standard Allowed / Required _ Proposed /Remaining Total GRFA 5,771 sq.ft. + 500 EMU = 6,271sq,ft. 6,220 sq.ft. / 51 sq_ft. Primary 5,771 sq.ft. 5,771 sq.ft. / 0 sq.ft. EHU 300 -1,200 sq.ft. (max. 500 sq.ft. credit) 449 sq.ft. / 51 sq.ft. Parking Required 5 spaces 6 enclosed spaces Primary 3 spaces 4 enclosed spaces EHU 2 spaces 2 enclosed spaces • • 2 IV. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS A. Consideration of Factors Before acting on a conditional use permit application, the Planning and Environmental Commission shall consider the factors with respect to the proposed use: Relationship and impact of the use on the development objectives of the Town. When the Town Council adopted the Town of Vail Affordable Housing Study on November 20, 1990, it recognized a need to increase the supply of locals /employee housing units. The Town encourages EHU's as a means of providing quality living conditions and expanding the supply of employee housing for both year -round and seasonal local residents. The proposed unit will have a positive impact on the Town's rental housing needs. 2. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities needs. Staff believes that there will be little impact from the proposed Type II EHU on light, air, population, transportation, utilities, schools or parks. 3_ Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedest __safety_ _ _and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and parking areas. Two additional vehicles are anticipated in association with this EHU, and two enclosed surface parking spaces are proposed. Staff feels this will be an insignificant impact to the above - referenced criteria. 4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. The EHU will be located within a residential dwelling that is currently in the Design Review process. Staff believes that the Design Review process will ensure that the proposed EHU will not significantly impact the scale and bulk of this project in relation to surrounding uses, Staff also believes that this proposal is consistent with the development standards applicable to this property. Employee Housina Units may be allowed as a conditional use in those zone districts as specified by Section 12 -13 of the Vail Municipal Code, Emolovee Housing and shall_ be subject to the following requirements: a. Zoning districts permitted by right or by conditional use. Type 11 EHU's are a conditional use in the Single - Family Residential, Two Family Residential, Primary /Secondary Residential, and Agriculture & Open Space zone districts. The subject property is zoned Primary/Secondary Residential. • L b_ Ownership /Transference. The EHU shall not be sold or transferred separately from the unit it is associated with. The applicants are not proposing to sell or transfer the EHU separately from the primary dwelling unit. c. Additional GRFA. The EHU is entitled to an additional 500 sq.ft. GRFA credit. The applicant is proposing to utilize 449 sq. ft. of that credit. d. Garage Credit/Storacie Reaiuirement An addtional 300 sq.ft. of garage area credit is allowed for the EHU. The applicant is proposing to utilize the entire 300 sq.ft. credit. e. Parking The parking requirements for EHU's are subject to Chapter 12 -10. This EHU is proposed to be 449 sq.ft. in size, therefore two parking space are required. The applicant is proposing to provide 2 enclosed surface parking spaces. f. Minimum /Maximum GRFA of an EHU • Type IE EHU's are allowed with a GRFA minimum of 300 sq.ft. and a GRFA maximum of 1,200 sq.ft. This EHU is proposed to be 449 sq. ft. in size. is c Density At this time, the applicant is proposing to construct a primary dwelling unit and a Type II EHU on this site. The EHU will not count as density. If a secondary dwelling unit is constructed on this site, the EHU will be allowed as the third unit on this property. R. Findings: The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a conditional use permit for an Employee Housing Unit: That the proposed location of the use is in accord with the purposes of Section 12 -13 (Employee Housing) 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 no{ 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 Section 12 -16 (Conditional Use Permits) of the Vail Municipal Code. • 4 • • m : 41 1 1 ) 'qv�l �4 I. r w CJ �� ��;; 911111 CN] OR 5d.j m �c U V■ J �J C� ( \4) 106P900L6 90:81 TZOZ /RR /ZO A t i .. r - r r _ •n r E 1 I I � Sdd �I Q t T ®6V9Lb8LG 90:81 TZ9Z /80 /ZO 0 � 0 � • MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: February 12, 2001 SUBJECT: A request for a conditional use permit to allow for a Type II employee housing unit located at 383 Beaver Dam Road / Lot 3, Block 3, Vail Village 3 Filing. Applicants: A2Z Holdings LLC, represented by Fritzlen Pierce Architects Planner: Bill Gibson I. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED USE In September and December of 1992, the Town Council passed Ordinances 9 and 27, Series of 1992, to create Chapter 13 (Employee Housing) which provides for the addition of Employee Housing Units (EH Us) as permitted or conditional uses within certain zone districts. In April of 2000, the Town Council passed Ordinance 6, Series of 2000, to repeal and reenact this chapter and provide additional incentives for the creation of employee housing in Vail. In Section 12 -2 -2, an Employee Housing Unit is defined as follows: Section 12 -2 -2 Employee Housing Unit (EHU): A dwelling unit which shall not be leased or rented for any period less than thirty (30) consecutive days, and shall be rented only to tenants who are full -time employees of Eagle County. EHUs shall be allowed in certain zone districts as set forth in this Title (Section 12 -13). Development standards for EHUs shall be as provided in Chapter 13, " Employee Housing" of this Title. For the purposes of this definition, a full- time" employee shall mean a person who works a minimum of an average of thirty (30) hours per week. There shall be five (5) categories of EHUs: Type 1, Type 11, Type 111, Type IV, and Type V. Provisions relating to each type of EHU are set forth in Chapter 13, "Employee Housing" of this Title. The applicant is proposing to raze the existing structures on this property, and construct a primary dwelling unit and a Type VI employee housing unit. The proposed redevelopment of this property is currently in the Design Review process. The proposed EMU will be approximately 609 square feet in size; and the applicant is proposing to utilize the additional 500 square foot GRFA credit. The proposed EHU will have one bedroom, one bathroom, a living room, and a full kitchen. The applicant is proposing to provide a 75 sq.ft_ storage area for the EHU in lieu of enclosing the required parking (the applicant is not utilizing the additional EHU garage area credit). At this time, the parking spaces shown on the site plan do not meet the Town's development standards, therefore the applicant will need to revise the site plan to meet the parking requirements prior to final Design Review approval. This proposed EHU is consistent with the Town of Vail's Type II EHU criteria for review: • The proposed EHU will have a positive relationship and impact of the use on the development objectives of the Town. • The proposed EHU will have an insignificant impact on light, air, population, transportation, utilities, schools or parks. • The proposed EHU will have little effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and parking areas. The proposed EHU will not have a negative effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. The proposed EHU meets the Town's requirements for zoning, ownership /tranference,. GRFA, garage credit/storage, and density. Tt}WNpFYAf6 Y II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends approval of this application for a Type 11 Employee Housing Unit, based on the following findings: 1. That the proposed location of the use is in accordance with the purposes of Section 12 -13 (Employee Housing) 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 Section 12- 16 (Conditional Use Permits) of the Vail Municipal Code. If the Planning and Environmental Commission chooses to approve this application, the Community Development Department recommends the following condition: 1. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a Type li EHU deed restriction to the Town of Vail Department of Community Development. This document shall be recorded at the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder's Office and will require that the employee housing unit be permanently restricted for employee housing. 2. The Conditional Use Permit for the proposed EHU is contingent upon Design Review approval. 3. The applicant shall revise the site plan to meet the parking requirements prior to final Design Review approval. Please note that under Section 12 -16 of the Vail Town Code, the approval of a conditional use permit shall lapse and become void if a building permit is not obtained and construction not commenced and diligently pursued toward completion, or the use for which the approval has been granted has not commenced within two years from when the approval becomes final. III. ZONING ANALYSIS Lot Size: 15,950 sq. ft. Zoning: Primary /Secondary Residential Standard Allowed/Required Proposed/Remaining Total GRFA 4,695 sq.ft. t 500 EHU = 5,195 sq.ft. 4,862 sq.ft. l 333 sq.ft. Primary 4,695 sq.ft. 4,253 sq.ft. l 442 sq.ft. EHU 300 -1,200 sq.ft. (max. 500 sq.ft. credit) 609 sq.ft. l 0 sq.ft. of EHU credit Parking Required 3 spaces 4 enclosed spaces Primary 3 spaces 4 enclosed spaces EHU 2 spaces 75 sq.ft. storage area r1 LJ • • E • 1V. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS A. Consideration of Factors Before acting on a conditional use permit application, the Planning and Environmental Commission shall consider the factors with respect to the proposed use: Relationship and impact of the use on the development ob'ectives of the Town. When the Town Council adopted the Town of Vail Affordable Housing Study on November 20, 1990, it recognized a need to increase the supply of locals /employee housing units. The Town encourages EHU's as a means of providing quality living conditions and expanding the supply of employee housing for both year -round and seasonal local residents. The proposed unit will have a positive impact on the Town's rental housing needs. 2. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities needs Staff believes that there will be little impact from the proposed Type II EHU on light, air, population, transportation, utilities, schools or parks, 3. Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and parking areas The applicant will be providing 75 sq.ft. of storage in lieu of enclosing the required parking. At this time, the parking spaces shown on the site plan do not meet the Town's development standards, therefore the applicant will need to revise the site plan to meet the parking requirements prior to final Design Review approval. Staff feels that when the parking requirements are met, there will be an insignificant impact to the above- referenced criteria. 4_ Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is-to be _Located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses The EHU will be located within a residential dwelling that is currently in the Design Review process. Staff believes that the Design Review process will ensure that the proposed EHU will not significantly impact the scale and bulk of this project in relation to surrounding uses. Staff also believes that this proposal is consistent with the development standards applicable to this property. • 3 5. Employee Housing Units may be allowed as a conditional use in those zone districts as specified by Section 12 -13 of the Vail Municipal Code, Employee Housing and shall be subject to the following requirements: a. Zoning districts permitted by right or by conditional use. Type It EHU's are a conditional use in the Single- Family Residential, Two Family Residential, Primary/Secondary Residential, and Agriculture & Open Space zone districts. The subject property is zoned Primary/Secondary Residential. b. Ow n e rs h ipfrran sfe re n ce. The EHU shall not be sold or transferred separately from the unit it is associated with. The applicants are not proposing to sell or transfer the EHU separately from the primary dwelling unit. c. Additional GRFA. The EHU is entitled to an additional 500 sq.ft. GRFA credit; and the applicant is proposing to utilize the entire 500 sq, ft. credit. The proposed EHU is 609 sq.ft., therefore, 109 sq.ft. of the EHU will count toward the total GRFA allowed for this site. d. _Garage Credit/Storage Requirement The applicant will be providing 75 sq.ft. of storage in lieu of enclosing the required parking. At this time, the parking spaces shown on the site plan do not meet the Town's development standards, therefore the applicant will need to revise the site plan to meet their parking requirements prior to final design Review approval- e. Parkinq The applicant will be providing 75 sq.ft. of storage in lieu of enclosing the required parking_ At this time, the panting spaces shown on the site plan do not meet the Town's development standards. The applicant will need to revise the site plan to meet their parking requirements prior to final Design Review. f. MinimumfMaximum GRFA of an EHU Type II EHU's are allowed with a GRFA minimum of 300 sq.ft. and a GRFA maximum of 1,200 sq.ft. This EHU is proposed to be 609 sq. ft. in size_ q_ Density At this time, the applicant is proposing to construct a primary dwelling unit and a Type II EHU on this site. The EHU will not count as density_ If a secondary dwelling unit is constructed on this site, the EHU will be allowed as the third unit on this property. c: 4 • B_ Findings: The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a conditional use permit for an Employee housing Unit: That the proposed location of the use is in accord with the purposes of Section 12 -13 (Employee Housing) 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 Section 12 -16 (Conditional Use Permits) of the Vail Municipal Code. • • 5 02/08/2021 18:06 9704764901 I I I � l I I n n 1 ■ I � ~1 _ -o I ` I L 4 I { PPS PAGE 02 [ ! I NI f I 1 Fd(J/ F7 r r X11 L! I X06 STAIR � kjt- '"`CD 2� C ) t^n-1 SPAGZ: 0 C b2/0 12:58 9IH4f64981 FPS FAX COVER SHEET Date: Feb 0$ 2001 To: Bill Gibson Fax: 479 -2452 Re: Beaver Dam Residences Sender: Stephanie Lord- Johnson 1-9[at 01 FRITZLEN PIERCE ARCHITECTS You should receive 1 page(s) incks ing this cover sheet. it you do not receive all the pages, lease call (97()) 476 -6342 Ext 15. Bill — Per our conversation, I will correct the plans and show a 7 sq ft storage area for the EHU on the West Lot. As discussed at the DRB meeting yesterday, we will provide you with an update set of architectural plaits and elevations before the final DRB meeting can 02 -21 -01 Please call with any questions or comments. Thanks R'\0048 - BFIAVERDAMRE$ I13ENC11PR17 )EC7CORRF5P'ONOENC'EITO "1 CFAX0208.f7C7C Planning • Architecture • Interiors 1 650 fast Vail Valley Drove Fallridge C -1 • Vail, CQ 81657 0 vailarchitech.carn • fax (970) 476 -4407 • (970) 47"342 MEMORANDUM 1 0 TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: February 12, 2001 SUBJECT: A request for a final review and recommendation of a proposed special development district to allow for the construction of a new conference facility /hotel: and a final review of 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, Bloch 2, Vail Village Filing 2. Applicant: Doramar Hotels, represented by the Daymer Corporation Planner: Brent Wilson INTRODUCTION AND DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST Special Development District Request The applicant is proposing the Vail Plaza Hotel West special development district (SDD) where the Chateau at Vail is currently located. The current (and proposed underlying) zoning for the property is "Public Accommodation." 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 hotel rooms (392 s.f. each), 17 condominiums, 39 fractional fee units, 16 employee housing units, 5,741 square feet of restaurant/bar space, 7,027 square feet of retail space, 22,514 square feet of conference /meeting space, and a 23,757- square foot spa/health club. The existing "Chateau at Vail" hotel contains 120 hotel rooms at 280 square feet each. The applicant and staff have identified what are believed to be the public benefits that would be realized by the Town as a result of the Vail Plaza Hotel West redevelopment. The public benefits associated with the hotel proposal are: An increase in the annual occupancy rate through the redevelopment of an older existing hotel. ■ The creation of approximately 22,500 square feet of new conference and meeting room facilities. This includes a 10,000 square foot ballroom and 9,000 square feet of breakout/preconvene space. • The implementation of the recommended Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan improvements along South Frontage Road and a portion of West Meadow Drive. �1 TOWN OF VAIL � l • The re- investment and redevelopment of resort property in the Town of Vail. • The implementation of the development goals, objectives and policies adopted by the Town for Public Accommodation properties. • A significant increase to the Town's supply of short -term, overnight accommodation to serve our guests and visitors. • The construction of an "anchor" hotel providing a high -level of guest services and amenities. • A potentially sizeable annual contribution to the Town's declining sales tax revenue. A square footage breakdown of the proposal is provided below: • 59,314 sq. ft. - fractional fee club units ■ 45,511 sq. ft. — condominium • 46,871 sq. ft.— accommodation units • 12,768 sq. ft. — restaurant/retail • 22,514 sq. ft_ — conference /meeting rooms • 23,767 sq. ft. — spa/health club ■ 236,445 sq. ft. — common area (meth., stairs/hallways, parking, office, lobby, etc.) In reviewing the proposal, staff identified a number of pros and cons that we believe are associated with the hotel proposal. The list includes, but is not limited to, the following: PROS 1 0 ■ The presence of economic redevelopment in Vail. ■ An increased level of quality to the Town's of hotel bed base. • The implementation of certain development goals, objectives, and policies. • The creation of new, deed - restricted employee housing to offset the housing impacts associated with the hotel. • The elimination of an unsightly surface parking lot. • The construction of new conference and meeting room facilities within the Town.. • The construction of public improvements funded with private dollars. • The potential increase in sales tax revenue. • The removal of existing loading /delivery and guest traffic from West Meadow [give. CONS 1 0 • Deviations from the underlying zoning development standards are required. • The bulk and mass of the new hotel is not consistent with the established neighborhood character and the pedestrian scale along West Meadow Drive. • There are increased impacts of shading on public areas. • Additional views of Vail Mountain from public areas will be impacted. • Additional loading /delivery truck traffic on Town streets. • There may be safety issues associated with the proposed pedestrian circulation system. • There is no net increase of true accommodation units over what exists today.. • A significant period of building construction (noise, construction traffic, etc) and the anticipated impacts to public streets and adjacent properties. Conditional Use Permit RecLuests In association with the application for a special development district, the applicant is requesting conditional use permits to allow for the establishment of 39 fractional fee units and the construction of 16 Type III employee housing units. Please refer to Sections VIII & IX of this memorandum for a detailed review of these requests. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS Special Development District The Community Development Department recommends the Planning and Environmental Commission forward a recommendation of denial of the applicant's request to the Vail Town Council for the proposed special development district to allow for the construction of a new conference facility /hotel. Staff's recommendation for denial is based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Section VII of this memorandum and the fallowing finding; That the proposed special development district, the Vail Plaza Hotel West, does not comply with the nine design criteria outlined in Section 12 -9A -8 of the Vail Town Code. The applicant has not demonstrated that any adverse effects of the requested deviations from the development standards of the underlying zoning are outweighed by the public benefits provided. There are still unresolved issues that render the submittal substantially incomplete_ • Should the Planning & Environmental Commission choose to recommend approval of the requested special development district to the Vail Town Council, staff would recommend that the Commission make the following finding. That the proposed special development district, Vail Plaza Hotel West, complies with the nine design criteria outlined in Section 12 -9A -8 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code_ The applicant has demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Commission that any adverse effects of the requested deviations from the development standards of the underlying zoning are outweighed by the public benefits provided. Further, the Commission finds that the requested conditional use permits to allow for the operation of a fractional fee club and the construction of Type III employee housing units complies with the applicable criteria and is consistent with the development goals and objectives of the Town. Should the Planning & Environmental Commission choose to recommend approval of the requested major amendment, staff would recommend that the approval carry with it the following conditions. That the developer submits the following plans to the Department of Community Development, for review and approval, as a part of the building permit application for the hotel: a. An Erosion Control and Sedimentation Plan; b. A Construction Staging and Phasing Plan; C. A Stormwater Management Plan; d. A Site Dewatering Plan; and e. A Traffic Control Plan. 2. That the developer provides deed - restricted housing, which complies with the Town of Vail Employee Housing requirements (Chapter 12 -13), for a minimum of 50 employees, and that said deed - restricted housing be made available for occupancy, and that the deed restrictions are recorded with the Eagle County Clerk & Recorder, prior to requesting a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for the Vail Plaza Hotel West. 3. That the developer submits a final detailed landscape plan to the Community Development Department for Design Review Board review and approval prior to making an application for a building permit. 4. That the developer submits a complete set of civil engineer drawings of all the off -site improvements, including the improvements to the South Frontage Road, for review and Town approval, prior to application for a building permit. 5. That the developer submits a complete sel of plans to the Colorado Department of Transportation for review and approval of a revised access permit, prior to application for a building permit. B. That the developer meets with the Town staff to prepare a memorandum of understanding outlining the responsibilities and requirements of the required off - site improvements, prior to first reading of an ordinance approving the special • development district. This includes streetscaping improvements along South Frontage Road and West Meadow Drive in accordance with the Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan. 7. That the developer records an easement for Spraddle Creek. The easement shall be prepared by the developer and submitted for review and approval of the Town Attorney. The easement shall be recorded with the Eagle County Clerk Recorder's Office prior to the issuance of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy. 8. That the developer submits a final exterior building materials list, a typical wall section and complete color renderings for review and approval of the Design Review Board, prior to making an application for a building permit. 9. That the developer submits a comprehensive sign program proposal for the Vail Plaza Hotel West for review and approval of the Design Review Board, prior to the issuance of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy. 10, That the developer submits a roof -top mechanical equipment plan for review and approval of the Design Review Board prior to the issuance of a building permit. All roof -top mechanical equipment shall be incorporated into the overall design of the hotel and enclosed and screened from public view. t t . That the developer posts a bond to provide financial security for the 150% of the total cost of the required off -site public improvements. The bond shall be in place with the Town prior to the issuance of a building permit. 12. That the developer either receives approval from the Nine Vail Road association to allow for grading and relocation of parking areas on Nine Vail Road property or removes these improvements from the proposed plan. 13. That the developer either receives approval and a pedestrian easement from the owner of the Alpine Standard property to allow for the encroachment of a proposed sidewalk on Alpine Standard's property or removes these improvements from the proposed plan. Conditional Use Permit — Fractional Fee Units The Community Development Department recommends approval of the applicant's request for a conditional use permit to allow for the construction of 39 fractional fee units within the Vail Plaza Hotel West based upon the following findings: That the proposed location of the use is in accordance with the purposes of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. 2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained would not be 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 fallowing conditions: 1. The approval of this conditional use permit is not valid unless an ordinance approving the associated special development district request is approved on second reading. Conditional Use Permit — Em to ee Housin Units The Community Development department recommends denial of the applicant's request for a conditional use permit to allow for the construction of 16 employee housing units within the Vail Plaza Hotel West based upon the following findings: That the proposed location of the use is in not 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. The proposal does not comply with the minimum requirements outlined for employee housing units outlined in Section 12 -13 -3 of the Vail Town Code. 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. 0 3. That the proposed use would not 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, the Department of Community development recommends the following condition be placed on the approval. The applicant shall record applicable deed restrictions for all employee housing units with the Eagle County Clerk & Recorder prior to the issuance of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for the Vail Plaza Hotel West. Ill. ROLES Of REVIEWING BOARDS Special Development District Order of Review: Generally, applications will be reviewed first by the PEG for impacts of use /development, then by the DRB for compliance of proposed buildings and site planning, and final approval by the Town Council. Ll Planning and Environmental Commission: Action: The_PEC is advisory to the Town Council. The PEC shall review the proposal for and make a recommendation to the Town Council on the following: ■ Permitted, accessory, and conditional uses ■ Evaluation of design criteria as follows (as applicable): A. Compatibility: 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. Relationship: Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. C. Parking And Loading: Compliance with parking and loading requirements as outlined in Chapter 10 of this Title. D. Comprehensive Plan: Conformity with applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, Town policies and urban design plans. E. Natural and /or Geologic Hazard: Identification and mitigation of natural and/or geologic hazards that affect the property on which the special development district is proposed. F. Design Features: 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. Traffic: A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and off -site traffic circulation. H. Landscaping: Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and preserve natural features, recreation, views and function. Workable Plan: Phasing plan or Subdivision ,plan that will maintain a workable, functional and efficient relationship throughout the development of the special development district. Recommendation on development standards including, lot area, site dimensions, setbacks, height, density control, site coverages, landscaping and parking. • Design Review Board: Action: The QRB has NO review authpritt on a SDD proposal. but must review an accompanying DRS application The DRB review of an SOD prior to Town Council approval is purely advisory in nature. The DRB is responsible for evaluating the DRB proposal: - Architectural compatibility with other structures, the land and surroundings - Fitting buildings into landscape - Configuration of building and grading of a site which respects the topography Removal /Preservation of trees and native vegetation Adequate provision for snow storage on -site - Acceptability of building materials and colors - Acceptability of roof elements, eaves, overhangs, and other building forms Provision of landscape and drainage Provision of fencing, walls, and accessory structures - Circulation and access to a site including parking, and site distances - Location and design of satellite dishes - Provision of outdoor lighting - Compliance with the architectural design guidelines of applicable master plans. Staff; The staff is responsible for ensuring that all submittal requirements are provided and plans conform to the technical requirements of the Zoning Regulations. The staff also advises the applicant as to compliance with the design guidelines. Staff provides a staff memo containing background on the property and provides a staff 4 0 evaluation of the project with respect to the required criteria and findings, and a recommendation on approval, approval with conditions, or denial. Staff also facilitates the review process_ Town Council: Action: The Town Council is resoonsible_for final approval /denial of an SDO. The Town Council shall review the proposal for the following: Permitted, accessory, and conditional uses Evaluation of design criteria as follows (as applicable): A. Compatibility: 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. Relationship: Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. C. Parking And Loading: Compliance with parking and loading requirements as outlined in Chapter 10 of this Title. Ol D. Comprehensive Plan: Conformity with applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, Town policies and urban design plans. E. Natural and/or Geologic Hazard: Identification and mitigation of natural and /or geologic hazards that affect the property on which the special development district is proposed. F. Design Features: 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. Traffic: A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and off -site traffic circulation- H. Landscaping: Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and preserve natural features, recreation, views and function. 1. Workable Plan: Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional and efficient relationship throughout the development of the special development district. Approval of development standards including, lot area, site dimensions, setbacks, height, density control, site coverages, landscaping and parking. CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS (CUP): Order of Review: Generally, applications will be reviewed first by the PEC for acceptability of use and then by the DRB for compliance of proposed buildings and site planning. Planning and Environmental Commission: Action: The PEC is responsible for final approval/denial of a_CUP. The PEC is responsible for evaluating a CUP 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. 3_ Effect upon traffic, with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the streets and parking areas. 4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. • 5. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed use. 0 6_ The environmental impact report concerning the proposed use, if an environmental impact report is required by Chapter 12 of this Title. Conformance with development standards of zone district - Lot area Setbacks Building Height Density CRFA - Site coverage Landscape area Parking and loading Mitigation of development impacts Design Review Board: Action: The DRB has NO review - authority on a CUP but must review any accompanyin DRB application. The DRB is responsible for evaluating the DRB proposal for: - Architectural compatibility with other structures, the land and surroundings - Fitting buildings into landscape - Configuration of building and grading of a site which respects the topography - Removal /Preservation of trees and native vegetation Adequate provision for snow storage on -site Acceptability of building materials and colors Acceptability of roof elements, eaves, overhangs, and other building forms Provision of landscape and drainage Provision of fencing, walls, and accessory structures - Circulation and access to a site including parking, and site distances - Location and design of satellite dishes Provision of outdoor lighting The design of parks Staff: The staff is responsible for ensuring that all submittal requirements are provided and plans conform to the technical requirements of the Zoning Regulations. The staff also advises the applicant as to compliance with the design guidelines. Staff provides a staff memo containing backgrourid on the property and provides a staff evaluation of the project with respect to the required criteria and findings, and a recommendation on approval, approval with conditions, or denial. Staff also facilitates the review process. 0 0 Town Council: Actions of DRB or PEC maybe appealed to the Town Council or by the Town Council. Town Council evaluates whether or not the PEC or DRB erred with approvals or denials and can uphold, uphold with modifications, or overturn the board's decision. IV. DEVIATIONS FROM THE UNDERLYING ZONING The Vail Plaza Hotel West Special Development District proposal contains the following deviations from the underlying Public Accommodation (PA) zoning: 1. Height — the proposed hotel is 29.5'(61%) taller than the 48' allowed under PA zoning. The proposed building is 77 feet tall at its highest ridge (adjacent to South Frontage Road). 2. Required Parkin_g —the proposal provides 52 (19 %) fewer parking spaces than required by the Town Code and staff's calculations. Staff recommends a total of 268 parking spaces. The applicant is proposing 216 spaces. Parking for the special development district will be prescribed by the PEG. 3. Parking Within the Front Setback - Additionally, the Public Accommodation Zone District regulations require that no surface (or above - grade) parking is located within the required front setback. This proposal has a significant amount of parking located within the front setback. 4. Landscaping —the underlying zoning requires a minimum of 30 % landscape area. The applicant is providing 26.1% of site area in the form of landscaping. Pursuant to the town's definition of "landscaping," a maximum of 20 % of the landscape requirement may be fulfilled with handscape (patios, pavers, etc.). However, the applicant is proposing 34.5% of the landscaping as hardscape, for a total landscapelhardscape area of 30.7 %. 5. Site Coverage (below grade) -- although the proposal complies with site coverage requirements above grade, it deviates by 9% below grade. 6. Setbacks (above grade) - although the proposal complies with minimum setback requirements for the building footprint, the proposed covered entry encroaches into the front setback and abuts the property line_ 7. Setbacks below grade) —the proposal deviates 15' (75 %) from the required 20' minimum setback below grade. V. "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, 0 11 to provide sites for lodges and residential accommodations for visitors, together with such public and semi - public facilities 40 and limited professional offices, medical facilities, private recreation, and related visitor oriented uses as may appropriately be located in the same district. The Public Accommodation District is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space, and other amenities commensurate with lodge uses, and to maintain the desirable resort qualities of the District by establishing appropriate site development standards. Additional nonresidential uses are permitted as conditional uses which enhance the nature of Vail as a winter and summer recreation and vacation community, and where permitted are intended to function compatibly with the high density lodging character of the District. The Public Accommodation Zone District is intended to provide sites for lodging units with densities not to exceed 25 dwelling units per acre. The Public Accommodation Zane 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 1=PU's in the calculation of density, i 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. V]. ZONING ANALYSIS The development standards for a Special Development District shall be proposed by the applicant. Development standards including lot area, site dimensions, setbacks, height, density control, site coverage, landscaping and parking and loading shall be determined by the Town Council as part of the approved development plan, with consideration of the recommendations of the Planning and Environmental Commission. Before the Town Council approves development standards that deviate from the underlying zone district, it shall be determined that such deviations provide benefits to the Town that outweigh the effects of such deviations. This determination is to be made based upon the evaluation of the proposed Special Development District's c9mpliance with the review Criteria outlined in the following section of this memorandum. The Community Development Department staff has prepared a zoning analysis for the proposed Vail Plaza Hotel West. The Vail Plaza Hotel West Zoning Analysis compares she development standards outlined by the underlying zoning of Public Accommodation (revised 1 0/99) to the Vail Plaza Hotel West proposal. 12 • A copy of the Vail Plaza Hotel West Zoning Analysis has been attached for reference (Exhibit B). VII. THE SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT ESTABLISHMENT AND REVIEW PROCESS Chapter 12 -9 of the Town Code provides for the amendment of existing 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 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 major amendment to a 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 following is a staff analysis of the project's compliance with the nine SDD review criteria: NOTE: Staff's analysis is based in part on an analysis by Jeff Winston, an independent design consultant. 13 CRITERIA FOR REVIEW: 0 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. The town solicited the services of an urban design consultant to assist in the review of the urban design elements of this proposal. Jeff Winston's analysis has been attached for reference (Exhibit C). Staff does not believe the applicant has responded significantly to the design direction given by the Town's elected and appointed boards since October of 2000. Specific concerns include: ■ 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 (Joint Board Meeting, 10124100). Bulk and Mass —The building should be turned outward towards the public and opened up to allow greater public access. The proposed atrium area should be opened more to the south to take advantage of the sun exposure and pedestrian traffic (PEC, 11/27100). Height - The height along West Meadow Drive should be stepped down again to a level more consistent with the established character of the area (PEC, 11/27/00). ■ Bulk and Mass - The project should read as a fragmented assemblage of structures. The linear, unbroken wall planes along the South Frontage Road and West Meadow Drive are too massive and should be broken up to help reduce the apparent mass of the project. There should be points in the project where light and air penetrate through to allow for more transparency. The current proposal is not sympathetic to the design and scale of adjacent buildings (DRB, 12/8/00). _Layout/Footprint - The inward focus of the project should be turned outward. The current proposal is reminiscent of the Vail Gateway project. It needs to be more inviting to the public from the outside. The large internal atrium could be reduced in size; this would allow more flexibility in breaking up the layout of the proposal (DRS, 12'8/00). The Vail Land Use Plan identifies the subject property as part of a "transition zone" that forms a buffer between the foreground residences along the south side of the West Meadow Drive and the larger, higher - density structures along the frontage road. Staff agrees with the comments from the Design Review Board that the internal "compound" design should be broken up into an assemblage of buildings that are more inviting from the exterior. The long, unbroken linear masses proposed along the frontage road and West Meadow Drive add to the massive appearance of the building. The Town of Vail Design Guidelines (Title 14, Vail Town Code) require that any proposed structure is "compatible with existing structures, their surroundings, and with Vail's environment " Given the significant deviation in height and the long, unbroken linear mass of the building proposed, staff does not believe this requirement has been met. Although a significant number of buildings in the neighborhood deviate from the 14 allowable building height, staff believes the applicant's proposed overall mass is inconsistent with comparable neighboring properties. Please refer to staff's "Adjacent Building Height Analysis" (Exhibit D) for details. Although some deviation in building height may be warranted for a project of this scope and nature, staff believes the current proposal is inconsistent with both the existing neighborhood character and the standards established for properties across the street in Vail Village. Proposed building story heights are 10.5 feet- The applicant has submitted a Vail Plaza Hotel West Sun /Shade Analysis (Exhibit E) and Vail Plaza Hotel West View Analysis (Exhibit F) to demonstrate impacts to the streetscape and public ways. The sun /shade analysis indicates substantial portions of .South Frontage Road (including the sidewalk on the south side) will be impacted by shade during the winter months, The applicant is proposing to heat the sidewalk on the south side of the frontage road along the Chateau property line in an effort to mitigate a portion of this impact. Orientation — One of the urban design goals the town has adopted for redevelopment in Lionshead is a predominantly north -south orientation for buildings. Although the subject property does not fall directly into the context area for the redevelopment master plan for Lionshead, the design concepts that apply to adjacent Lionshead properties are a critical element in the evaluation of compatibility with neighborhood character. Additionally, the design concepts promoted here are general "good design" policies, and not specific sub- area concepts from any specific plan. One goal adopted by the DRB, PEC and Town Council is "it should be a priority in future development and redevelopment to orient vertical building masses along a north -south axis whenever possible." This will help to accomplish the following objectives: a- Sun Access — During the winter months, the sun is low in the southern sky, providing the greatest solar exposure to the south faces of buildings and to streets and spaces open to the south- A north -south orientation of building masses will increase the amount of sun reaching the Lionshead pedestrian core and the buildings to the north. b. Views from New Buildings — In double loaded buildings oriented on an east -west axis, units on the south side of the building get great views of the mountain, but units on the north side do not. Orienting the building mass on a north -south line creates angled southern views for both sides of the building, and units on both sides will get direct sun sometime during the day. C, Views from Existing Buildings — By orienting new buildings on a north - south axis, the potential visual Impact on existing buildings is reduced. d_ Creation of "Streets" or Areas of Interest for Pedestrians. Although staff acknowledges the subject lot does not lend itself to a complete north - south building alignment, staff agrees with Jeff Winston's comments that a diagonal "sawtooth" treatment similar to Eldon Beck's plan for the Vail Village Inn properties fronting East Meadow Drive would be more desirable than the linear east -west horizontal mass that is proposed by the applicant. 15 B. Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. 0 The uses, activities and densities for the Vail Plaza Hotel West development site are prescribed by the underlying zoning. According to the Official Town of Vail Zoning Map, the underlying zoning for the proposed special development district is Public Accommodation. The Public Accommodation Zone District encourages the development of lodges (accommodation units) and accessory eating and drinking establishments at a density of twenty-five dwelling units per acre. The surrounding uses and zoning designation include Public Accommodation to the south, east and west (Sonnenalp, Nine Vail Road & Special Development District No. 6 —Vail Village Inn), High - Density Multiple Family to the west and northwest (Alphom and Scorpio), Heavy Service to the north (Alpine Standard) and Commercial Core USDD #21 (Gateway) to the northeast. The same development standards that apply to the Vail Plaza Hotel West development site apply to the Sonnenalp Nine Vail Road and Vail Village Inn properties. The Commercial Core I underlying zoning of the Gateway Special Development District is intended to provide sites for a mixture of commercial and residential development. The Heavy Service district is intended to provide sites for automotive - oriented land uses. The Vail Plaza Hotel West is proposed as a mixed -use development. The mixture of uses includes commercial, lodging, recreational and residential_ Staff believes the proposed mixture of uses and its proximity to both Vail Village and Lionshead is consistent with the intended purpose of the underlying zoning of Public Accommodation. Further, staff believes that the proposed uses within the Vail Plaza Hotel West will compliment those existing uses and activities on surrounding and adjacent properties. The proposed density of the hotel and the presence of the conference facilities will improve and enhance the viability and success of the existing restaurant and retail 01 businesses in the immediate area. Employee Housing Requirements As indicated in a number of the goals and objectives of the Town s Master Plans, providing affordable housing for employees is a critical issue which should be addressed through the planning process for Special Development District proposals. In reviewing the proposal for employee housing needs, staff relied on the Town of Vail Employee Housing Report. This report has been used by the staff in the past to evaluate employee housing needs. The guidelines contained within the report were used most recently in the review of the Austria Haus, Marriott and Special Development District No. 6 - Vail Village Inn development proposals. The Employee Housing Report was prepared for the Town by the consulting firm Rosall, Remmen and Cares_ The report provides the recommended ranges of employee housing units needed based on the type of use and the amount of floor area dedicated to each use. Utilizing the guidelines prescribed in the Employee Housing Report, staff analyzed the incremental increase of employees (square footage per use), that results from the redevelopment. The figures identified in the report are based on surveys of commercial -use employment needs of the Town of Vail and other mountain resort communities. For comparison purposes, Telluride, Aspen and Whistler, S.C. all have "employment generation" ordinances requiring deveiopers to provide affordable housing for a percentage of the is new employees resulting from commercial development_ "New' employees are defined as the incremental increase in employment needs resulting from commercial UR redevelopment. Each of the communities assesses a different percentage of affordable housing a developer must provide for the new employees. For example, Telluride requires developers to provide housing for 40 % (0.40) of the new employees, Aspen requires that 60 % (0.60) of the new employees are provided housing and Whistler requires that 100% (1.00) of the new employees be provided housing by the developer. In comparison, Vail has conservatively determined that developers shall provide housing 15% (0.15) or 30% (0.30) of the new employees resulting from commercial development. When a project is proposed to exceed the density allowed by the underlying zone district, the 30 % (0,30) figure is used in the calculation. If a project is proposed at, or below, the density allowed by the underlying zone district, the 15 % (0.15) figure is used. The Vail Plaza Hotel West special development district does not exceed the density permitted by the underlying zone district. However, the Planning and Environmental Commission and Vail Town Council have indicated the 30% figure should be used. The applicant is proposing to provide employee housing for a percentage of the "new" employees resulting from the hotel construction. Based upon an analysis completed by the applicant and provided to the Community Development [department, the new hotel is expected to generate 164 "new" employees. The "new" employees are in addition to the 79 ''full time equivalent" employees already working at the Chateau at Vail. The applicant is proposing to provide deed- restricted employee housing for 22.5% (37) of the "new" employees. Clue to the unavailability of private vacant land resources within the Town limits, the applicant anticipates that all or a portion of the deed- restricted housing will be provided in an out -of -town or down - valley location. In order to maximize the benefit of the housing to the Town of Vail, the applicant has suggested that the housing will be available only to Vail Plaza Hotel West employees. It is further anticipated that some form of transportation will be provided to the employees from the out -of -town or down - valley location to the hotel. EMPLOYEE HOUSING GENERATION ANALYSIS For a point of reference, the "top," "middle" and "bottom" ranges of calculations for the Vail Plaza Hotel West proposal are provided below. The applicant's employee generation report is attached as Exhibit G. Bottom of Range Calculations = 25 employee beds • Middle of Range Calculations = 51 employee beds • Top of Range Calculations = 77 employee beds • Staff Recommended Range W 50 employee beds • Applicant's Proposal = 37 employee beds" Staff Recommended Range Calculations: Staff believes that the Vail Plaza Hotel West redevelopment will create a need for the housing of 164 additional "new" employees. Of the 164 additional employees, at least 50 employees (30 %) will need to be provided deed - restricted housing by the developers of the Vail Plaza Hotel West_ The staff recommended range is based on: the type of retail and commercial use proposed in the commercial space within the Vail Plaza Hotel West; 2. the size of the Vail Plaza Hotel West lodging component; 40 3. the level of services and amenities proposed by the developers for the guests of the Vail Plaza Hotel West; and 4. the result of research completed by Town of Vail staff of similar hotel operations in the Vail Valley. a) Retail /Service Commercial = 7,027 sq. ft. @ (5/1000 sq. ft.) = 35.1 Health Club (bottom of range) = 23.8 C) b) Health Club = 23,767sq. ft, @ (1.5/1000 sq. ft.) = 35.7 = 22,514 sq. ft. @ (1 /1000 sq- ft.) (top of range) e) Lodging C) Restaurant /Lounge /Kitchen = 5,741 sq. ft. @ (6,5/1000 sq. ft.) = 37.3 = 17 units @ (.4 /unit) (middle of range) g) Fractional Fee Units d) Conference Center = 22,514 sq. ft. @ (1/1000 sq. ft.) = 22.5 Total Employees (range does not vary) e) Lodging =120 units @ (.75 /unit) = 90.0 (X 0.30 multiplier) = 25 new employees (middle of range) f) Multi Family (Club Units) = 17 units @ (.4 /unit) = 6.8 (range does not vary) g) Fractional Fee Units = 39 units @ (.4 /unit) = 15.6 (range does not vary) Total = 243.0 (X 0.30 ( -79 existing employees) = 164.0 multiplier) = 50 new employees 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. Bottom of Range Calculations: a) Retail/Service Commercial = 7,027 sq. ft. @ (5/1000 sq. ft.) = 35.1 b) Health Club = 23,767 sq. ft. @ (11 /1000 sq. ft.) = 23.8 C) Restaurant/Lounge /Kitchen = 5,741 sq. ft. 9 (5/1000 sq. ft.) = 28.7 d) Conference Center = 22,514 sq. ft. @ (1 /1000 sq- ft.) = 22.5 e) Lodging = 120 units @ (.25 /unit) = 30.0 f) Multi - Family Units = 17 units @ (.4 /unit) = 6.8 g) Fractional Fee Units = 39 units @ (.4 /unit) = 15.6 Total Employees = 162.5 (- 79 existing err)playees) = 83.5 (X 0.30 multiplier) = 25 new employees f� 18 Middle of Range Calculations: a) Retail /Service Commercial = 7,027 sq. ft. @ (6.511000 sq. ft-) = 45.7 b) Health Club = 23,767 sq. ft. @) (1.2511000 sq. ft.) = 29.7 C) Restaurant/Lounge /Kitchen = 5,741 sq. ft. @ (6.511000 sq. ft.) = 37.3 d) Conference Center = 22,514 sq. ft. P (1A000 sq. ft.) = 22.5 e) Lodging = 120 units @ (.75 /unit) = 90.0 f) Multi - Family Units = 17 units cx (.4 /unit) = 6.8 g) Fractional Fee Units = 39 units @ (.4 /unit) = 15.6 Total Employees = 247.6 (- 79 existing employees) = 168.6 (X 0.30 multiplier) = 51 new employees Top of Range Calculations: a) Retail /Service Commercial = 7,027 sq. ft. @ (811 000 sq. ft.) = 56.2 b) Health Club = 23,767 sq. ft. @ (1.5/1000 sq. ft.) = 35.7 C) Restaurant/Lounge /Kitchen = 5,741 sq. ft. @ (8/1000 sq. ft.) = 45.9 d) Conference Center = 22,514 sq. ft. 9 (1/1000 sq. ft.) = 22.5 e) Lodging = 120 units @ (1.25 /unit) = 150.0 f) Multi - Family Units = 17 units @ (.4 /unit) = 6.8 g) Fractional Fee Units = 39 units P (.4 /unit) = 15.6 Total Employees = 332.7 (- 79 existing employees) = 253.7 (X 0.30 multiplier) = 77 new employees • Depending upon the size of the employee housing unit provided, it is possible to have up to two employees per bedroom. For example, a two- bedroom unit in the size range of 450 - 900 square feet is possible of accommodating three to four employees. These figures are consistent with the requirements for the Type III employee housing units outlined in the Municipal Code. The applicant's current proposal for employee housing units does not meet the town's basic minimum requirements outlined in Chapter 12 -13 of the Vail Town Code. Additionally, it is important to note the proposed EHU's are located directly adjacent to the loading docks and ramps, Please refer to Section IX of this memorandum for details. C. Compliance with parking and loading requirements as outlined in Chapter 12 -14 of the Vail Town Code. The proposal does not comply with the parking and loading requirements outlined in Chapter 12 -10 of the Vail Town Code. There are conflicts and inconsistencies among the parking plan sheets submitted by the applicant. For example, the applicant is proposing a bus parking space within a space already identified as required parking for four cars. Overall, the parking proposed by the applicant falls short by a minimum of 52 spaces. Pursuant to Section 12 -10 -20 of the town code, the applicant has submitted a "special review report" to request a reduction in the number of required parking spaces. Staff has identified the following inaccuracies and inconsistencies with the report: • The square footage calculations used in the study do not match the applicant's program analysis and floor plans. Therefore, they are irrelevant. up, ■ The study does not assess any parking for the employee housing units. 40 ■ The study assumes external (i.e. local, non - guest) health club /spa users will arrive via public transit. Staff believes this is unrealistic. especially given the premium services provided at a "five- star" resort and spa. The study greatly under- assesses health club parking (one space per 2.5 external memberships). Staff's recommended rate is one space per approximately 10.8 memberships. There is no codified rate for health club parking in the town code. Therefore, the parking rate is prescribed by the PEC. ■ The study recommends a reduction in parking that far exceeds the maximum reduction allowed by the town code. Based on these factors, staff recommends the PE=C reject the attached (Exhibit H) parking study by Alpine Engineering. Staff's parking calculations are contained in the attached Exhibit 1. D. Conformity with the applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, Town policies and Urban Design Plan. Vail Land Use Plan The Vail Land Use Plan applies two "future land use" designations to the property: 0 Resort Accommodations and Service This area includes activities aimed at accommodating the overnight and short -term visitor to the area. Primary uses include hotels, lodges, service stations, and parking structures. These areas are oriented toward vehicular access from 1 -70, with other support commercial and business services included. Also allowed in this category would be institutional uses and various municipal uses. Transition The activities and site design of this area is aimed at encouraging pedestrian flow through the area and strengthening the connection between the two commercial cores. Appropriate activities include hotels, lodging and other tourist - oriented residential units, ancillary retail and restaurant uses, museums, areas of public art, nature exhibits, gardens, pedestrian plazas, and other ties to the north. The goals contained in the Vail Land Use Plan are to be used as the Town's policy guidelines during the review process for the establishment of a special development district. Staff has reviewed the Vail Land Use Plan and believes the following policies are relevant to the review of this proposal: General Growth /Development 1.1 Vail should continue to grow in a controlled environment, maintaining a balance between residential, commercial and recreational uses to serve both the visitor and the permanent resident. 1.2 The quality of the environment including air, water, and other natural resources should be protected as the Town grows. 20 1.3 The quality of development should be maintained and upgraded whenever 40 possible. 1.12 Vail should accommodate most of the additional growth in existing developed areas (infill). 3. Commercial 3.1 The hotel bed base should be preserved and used more efficiently 3.2 The Village and Lionshead are the best location for hotels to serve the future needs of the destination skier. 3.3 Hotels are important to the continued success of the Town of Vail, therefore conversion to condominiums should be discouraged. 3.4 Commercial growth should be concentrated in existing commercial areas to accommodate both local and visitor needs. 5_ Residential 5-1 Quality timeshare units should be accommodated to help keep occupancy rates up. 5.2 Affordable employee housing should be made available through private efforts, assisted by limited incentives, provided by the Town of Vail, with appropriate restrictions. The Land Use Plan suggests that increased density for commercial, residential and lodging uses in the Village/Lionshead Core areas would be acceptable so long as the existing character of each area is being preserved. Town of Vaii_Streetscape Master Plan The town's Streetscape Master Plan identifies West Meadow Drive as the primary pedestrian route between Vail Village and Lionshead Mall. To improve the quality of the walking experience and give continuity to the pedestrian ways, as a continuous system, two general types of improvements adjacent to the walkways are considered: Open space and landscaping, berms, grass, flowers and tree planting as a soft, colorful framework linkage along pedestrian routes; and plazas and park greenspaces as open nodes and focal points along those routes. 2. Infill commercial storefronts, expansion of existing buildings, or new infill development to create new commercial activity generators to give street life and visual interest, as attractions at key locations along pedestrian routes_ • 21 Future streetscape improvement concepts for West Meadow Drive include: ■ A primary pedestrian path (10' -12' wide) on one side of the street with a smaller (5) Is sidewalk on the opposite side of the street. The primary path crosses from the north to the south side of the street to avoid the head -in parking that exists at the Alphorn and Skaal Hus. Curb and gutter would be used to define the street. The street has been narrowed to the minimum width of 26' curb -to -curb. ■ Sidewalks are constructed of concrete unit pavers to clearly distinguish them from the roadway. The primary path may be a different color than the secondary walkway. • A pedestrian priority crosswalk is planned near the Chateau Vail site. This raised crosswalk keeps the path at the same level as it crosses the street_ ■ The plan calls for extensive landscaping along the right -of -way to reflect the landscape character of nearby Gore Creek. ■ Seating is provided at regular intervals. Public art or a similar feature is proposed adjacent to the pocket park at the intersection with Vail Road. Although the town is in the process of refining the plan for West Meadow Drive, staff believes the applicant's preliminary streetscape plan demonstrates substantial compliance with the above - listed provisions.. Staff believes the uses and activities proposed are in compliance with the policies, goals, and objectives identified in the Vail Land Use Plan. However, staff does not believe the proposal provides enough employee housing to meet the intent of policy 5.2 (please refer to the previous page). E. Identification and mitigation of natural and/or geologic hazards that affect the property on which the special development district is proposed. According to the Official Town of Vail Geologic Hazard Maps, the Vail Plaza Hotel West development site is not located in any geologically sensitive areas or within the 100 -year floodplain. 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. LoadincLand Delive Staff believes the removal of loading and delivery traffic from West Meadow Drive is a definite start in the right direction. However, there are significant sight and sound concerns for adjacent residents with the loading bays and ramp as proposed. The burden shall be on the applicant to demonstrate adverse impacts to adjacent properties have been successfully mitigated. As mentioned previously, the applicant has stated there will be a strong connection between this proposal and the Vail Plaza Hotel East across the street. However, the connection proposed involves a pedestrian walk across a loading truck ramp. Perhaps there should be a stronger gesture and orientation between the two buildings if they are to function interactively via a strong pedestrian connection. 22 Landscape Pian and Open Space Provisions Although the amount of "landscaping" provided by the applicant is deficient pursuant to town zoning, staff feels the overall preliminary plan for landscaping and open courtyard areas is functional and aesthetically improved over what exists today along West Meadow Drive. One concern is that too much landscaping along the exterior spa deck may be proposed in an attempt to screen the somewhat private nature inherent to pool decks and sunbathing areas. However, this issue may be addressed in greater detail at the DRB level. On the other portions of the property, staff believes the size and massing of the building proposed may inhibit the ability of the landscaping to provide a true feeling of "open space." This is particularly true of the western lot perimeter adjacent to the Alphorn and Scorpio buildings. Although there are good preliminary concepts at work (particularly along West Meadow Drive), staff does not believe this criterion will be adequately addressed until some of the building's massing issues are finalized. Staff will solicit additional input on this criterion from the [Design Review Board on February 14` G. A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and off -site traffic circulation. Pursuant to Section 12 -7A -14 (Mitigation of Development Impacts) of the "Public Accommodation" zone district regulations, property owners /developers shall be responsible for mitigating direct impacts of their development on public infrastructure and in all cases mitigation shall bear a reasonable relation to the development impacts. The intent is to provide appropriate mitigation to an extent that is proportional to the anticipated impacts of new development. Vehicular Traffic and Road Impacts The applicant has submitted a traffic study from an engineering consultant to address the impacts of this proposal. Staff has identified the following problematic issues with this study: ■ Wrong Peak Periods Were Used —Weekday trips with peak periods of 7 :00 -9 :00 a.m. and 4 :00 -5:00 p.m. were used. In Vail, peak periods occur on weekends from 8:30 -10:30 a.m. and 3:00 -5:30 p.m. ■ A Significant Traffic Generator was Overlooked - The report does not take into account any traffic generated by the employee housing units. ■ An Error in the Interpretation of the State Highway Access Code The consultant underestimated the required storage and taper lengths for the left -hand turn lane on South Frontage Road. Since the traffic report contains significant errors, staff believes the PEC should reject the applicant's traffic study (Exhibit J). Staff does not believe adequate mitigation of road impacts has been demonstrated by the applicant at this time. Other Vehicular Traffic Concerns It The proposed charter bus parking space is located within the middle of a drive lane. This conflicts with traffic circulation of guest vehicles. 23 ■ There is insufficient information to determine if there is adequate clearance to ensure trucks will not hit balconies along the loading ramps. 49 • There is insufficient information to determine if there is adequate sight distance at access points to avoid traffic safety hazards. • The consulting engineer's delivery truck backing movements show trucks backing onto walk areas and colliding with a retaining wall. ■ There may not be enough of a buffer zone within turning radii to account for delivery truck driver error. For example, the Town designed a five -foot buffer zone for the roundabouts and cars and trucks still hit the curbs. It would be a better solution for this access point for the developer to negotiate an easement across the Alpine Standard property to provide a more realistic turning movement into the access road. Pedestrian Traffic Circulation The applicant (as well as the town staff and elected /appointed boards) has identified the need for a strong pedestrian connection between the proposal and the Vail Village Inn site via the access drive adjacent to Vail Road. The applicant is proposing a 4 -foot wide paver sidewalk for pedestrians along this drive. However, if the sidewalk is constructed as proposed, there will be conflicts between pedestrians along this walk and overlapping loading/delivery truck turning movements. This is a significant safety (and aesthetic) concern. Although staff believes sufficient attention has been given to pedestrian circulation along the southern portion of the property, more pedestrian "breakthrough" in the building and site in general would be desirable. 0 H. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and preserve natural features, recreation, views and functions. Staff believes additional detail is necessary to evaluate whether the proposed loading bay sound /sight mitigation berm will achieve an acceptable level of buffering. There are no established public view corridors in the immediate vicinity of proposal. Staff will solicit additional input on this criterion from the Design Review Board on February 14 i. Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional and efficient relationship throughout the development of the special development district. The applicant is proposing to construct the project in one phase. A subdivision of the property is not necessary to facilitate this proposal (with the exception of a condominium map). Construction staging is reviewed as part of a building permit submittal for any project. 24 V111. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT— FRACTIONAL FEE UNITS Upon review of the Vail Town Code, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the request for a conditional use permit to allow for the construction of 39 fractional fee units within the Vail Plaza Hotel Vilest based upon the following factors: A. Consideration of Factors: Before acting on a conditional use permit application, the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) shall consider the factors with respect to the proposed use: 1. Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town. In ,January of 1997, the Vail Town Council adopted Ordinance No. 22, Series of 1996. In part, this ordinance amended the Public Accommodation Zone District allowing fractional fee clubs as a conditional use and set forth criteria for the Commission to consider when evaluating such a request. Since that time, the Austria Haus Club redevelopment project has been completed and the Gore Creek Club and Vail Plaza Hotel projects have been approved by the Town. The applicant is requesting the issuance of a conditional use permit to 40 allow for the operation of a fractional fee club within the Vail Plaza Hotel West. The proposed club would be comprised of 39 one, two and three - bedroom units. These units would range in size from 943 square feet to 2,423 square feet. The average club unit size is approximately 1,400 square feet in size. Each of the units has been designed in such a manner as to provide multiple "keys" to for lock -off units, The total number of "keys" in the club is 118_ According to the applicant, the ownership of the club units will be divided into a maximum of 1/12'' intervals for the 28 winter weeks during the ski season, while the remaining 24 shoulder season and summer weeks would be owned by the hotel_ This ownership program allows for the most attractive weeks of the year to be sold as club units with the proceeds helping to finance the redevelopment project. The remaining interest in the clubs is then used by the hotel to support the conference facility during the summer months. According to the applicant this program will create the best possible occupancy of the hotel and maximize the viability of the conference facility. Through the adoption of Ordinance No. 22, Series of 1996, the Town further recognized the need for lodging alternatives for our guests and visitors. In passing the ordinance the Town Council found that quality fractional fee clubs are an appropriate means of increasing occupancy rates, maintaining and enhancing short -term rental availability and diversifying the resort lodging market product within the Town of Vail. Equally as important, the Council believed that fractional fee clubs were simply another of many forms of public accommodations. It has been a long held belief that in order for the Town to remain competitive and on the leading edge of resort development, that alternative lodging opportunities must be created and creative financing vehicles for hotel 25 redevelopment must be implemented. is Staff believes that the conditional use permit for a fractional fee club within the Vail Plaza Hotel will be beneficial to the Town and will have a positive impact on the development objectives of the Community. 2. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities needs. These review criteria are addressed in the Special Development District review portion (Section VII) of this memorandum. 3. Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and parking areas. These review criteria are addressed in the Special Development District review portion of this memorandum (Section VI1). 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. These review criteria are addressed in the Special Development District Ol review portion of this memorandum (Section V11). Please refer to the nine design criteria used to evaluate special development district proposals. 5. Prior to the approval of a conditional use permit for a time -share estate, fractional fee, fractional fee club, or time -share license proposal, the following shall be considered. a. If the proposal for a fractional fee club is a redevelopment of an existing facility, the fractional fee club shall maintain an equivalency of accommodation units as presently existing. Equivalency shall be maintained either by an equal number of units or by square footage. If the proposal is a new development, it shall provide at least as much accommodation unit GRFA as fractional fee club unit GRFA. The Vail Plaza Hotel West proposal is a redevelopment of an existing hotel. The applicant is proposing to meet the equivalency requirement by replacing an equal number of accommodation units. According to information on file in the Community Development Department 120 accommodation units exist at the Chateau at Vail. The applicant is proposing to replace the existing units with 120 new hotel rooms totaling approximately 46,871 square feet. • 26 b. Lock -off units and lock -off unit square footage shall not be is included in the calculation when determining the equivalency of existing accommodation units or equivalency of existing square footage. The applicant meets the equivalency requirements irregardless of the calculation of lock -off square footage. C. The ability of the proposed project to create and maintain a high level of occupancy. The fractional fee club component of the Vail Plaza Hotel West proposal is intended to provide additional hotel and hotel -type accommodation units in the Town of Vail. Although not included in the equivalency requirement, the fractional fee club units have been designed to accommodate lock -off units. Staff believes that lock -off units provide an additional community benefit of added pillows. If a fractional fee club unit owner purchases an interest in a multiple bedroom unit, and does not desire to utilize all the bedrooms, they can then have the opportunity of returning the unused bedrooms (lock -offs) to a rental program. Staff feels that by providing lock -off units, and managing the availability of the lock -off units in a rental program when not in use, a fractional fee club project can significantly increase the availability of accommodation units in the Town of Vail. Through our research on the fractional fee issue back in 1996, staff then identified some potential positive impacts of fractional fee units in the Town of Vail: A) Activity during the shoulder seasons tends to increase due to an increase in year -round occupancy; B) The attraction of revenue- generating tourists; C) The efficient utilization of resources. This is the "warm beds" concept; D) More pride of ownership and community buy -in with fractional fee club units than with accommodation units; E) Increased levels of occupancy; and F) Increased resort exposure due to the extensive number of interval owners. d. Employee housing may be required as part of any new or redevelopment fractional fee club project requesting density over that allowed by zoning. The number of employee housing units will be consistent with employee impacts that are expected as a result of the project. Staff included the fractional fee club units into the calculation of the employee generation resulting from the proposed major amendment of the Special Development District. Based strictly on 27 the number of club units, the development will generate a need for 15.6 "new" employees, When the multiplier of 0.30 is factored in, 49 5 of the "new" employees which the developer must provide deed - restricted housing for, are generated by the fractional fee club. e. The applicant shall submit to the Town a list of all owners of existing units within the project or building; in written statements from 100% of the owners of existing units indicating their approval, without condition, of the proposed fractional fee club. No written approval shall be valid if it is signed by the owner more than 60 days prior to the date of filing the application for a conditional use. The applicant, Doramar Hotels, represented by Waldir Prado (dba Daymer Corporation) is the sole owner of the property. No other written approval is required. B. FINDINGS The Planning and E=nvironmental Commission shall make the following findings before -g ranting 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. 0 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. .7 28 IX. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT— EMPLOYEE HOUSNG UNITS The Community Development Department recommends denial of the applicant's request for a conditional use permit to allow for the construction of 16 employee housing units within the Vail Plaza Hotel West based upon the following factors: A. Consideration of Factors: Before acting on a conditional use permit application, the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) shall consider the factors with respect to the proposed use: 1. Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town. In September and December of 1992, the Town Council passed Ordinances 9 and 27, Series of 1992, to create Chapter 12 -13 (Employee Housing) which provides for the addition of Employee Housing Units (EHUs) as permitted or conditional uses within certain zone districts. The definition in that ordinance states: "Employee Housing Unit (EHU) shall mean a dwelling unit which shall not be leased or rented for any period less than thirty (30) consecutive days, and shall be rented only to tenants who are full -time employees of Eagle County. EHUs shall be allowed in certain zone districts as set forth in Section 12 -13 of this Code. Development standards for EHUs shall be as provided in 12 -13 - Employee Housing. For the purposes of this Section, a full -time employee shall mean a person who works a minimum of an average of thirty (30) hours per week. There shall be five (5) categories of EHUs: Type I, Type II, Type III, Type IV, and Type V. Provisions relating to each type of EHU are set forth in Chapter 12 -13 - Employee Housing of this Code." Pursuant to Section 12- 13- 3(C)(7), Vail Town Code, occupancy of an employee housing unit shall be limited to a maximum of two persons per bedroom. The applicant is proposing three beds per bedroom within five units on the "Minus One" level. This is inconsistent with the Town's minimum basic requirements for employee housing units. However, all other standards for employee housing units appear to have been met. 2. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities needs. These review criteria are addressed in the Special Development District review portion (Section VII) of this memorandum. • M 3. Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and parking areas. These review criteria are addressed in the Special Development District review portion of this memorandum (Section VII). 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. These review criteria are addressed in the Special Development District review portion of this memorandum (Section VII). Please refer to the nine design criteria used to evaluate special development district proposals. B. FINDINGS The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a conditional use permit: 1 _ That the proposed location of the use is in accordance with the purposes of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. 2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code. P-J 30 LIST OF EXHIBITS EXHIBIT NUMBER DESCRIPTION A Architectural Drawing Reductions B Staff Zoning Analysis. C Jeff Winston Urban Design Analysis D Staff Building Height Analysis E Applicant's Sun /Shade Analysis F Applicant's View Analysis G Applicant's Employee Generation Data H Applicant's Parking Study I Staff Parking Analysis J Applicant's Traffic Study K Comments from Elected and Appointed Boards L Citizen Correspondence M Applicant's Statement of the Request • 31 • EXHIBIT A ARCHITECTURAL DRAWING REDUCTIONS • ,mss i l .N �_ S F � J• kf YJ .� � � 5 4 Jm^ 8 4 � V l a a. { :y .. F � ° ,, � . i _ v j c £. - ` _ ! r` J I I I r r 3F �r t r r L q Ir— M f c'n = � r a: > cn a > rA 1 I r�, 1 9 T i t A r X\ ./ i / i J o dN` c Zn cu f I t > ; I I 11 + 1 a i J 1 O N I �a� r o y I 3ya I i I I I � I m I I r I r I x I I II t X 00 C` ;-, � l N J J /i o C N va WE f u �� j���� ■a.■ �� fir` �i et �' �� rr■ i� S ' r. y..,.1�r��7 gu .,,�. fill .. ■, _ I 11 • � �� nwwn u i M . , I � I � _a._n II II u>. � - -.,._ II � � !. ,,ems _, - n ►` ail ■. ■ ■��( willil M ilfllll II ■ iu� �imni � � ,� ME �IIII'� IN n in lira II ��� a I�u II a n I r II u� � r"it■ ' I.N � F i1• �R`,r� �>_�_ 1 �� Ir ' ! ■■ ,I_II 1 w� li $� 1 ?� a ■ ■I �rll• � r : ti, �. y .• �IPa�:!fl� ■li ._, ��,w�� _ �arri�lllr� l,'��� #�U ,6✓' � r C I � ��° ► ti � i / � 1 � � a� �'- �+.� 4 nrt�G�� r �9y'F f4' +►� r +Cr■f� � _ ■' - I , �I�I�I� E`. ill .A• , I. a i� Ln M r- 1 U B E , sd#lam? T In �, � F 7 9 8 � rbi � 20 I i e , pr ► - B E , sd#lam? T In �, � F 7 9 8 � rbi � 20 I ara �d g C EN x w� v r w1w illw - M wi i C3 co b u ['V N t J `I, � �11 � `H .1l II v r w1w illw - M wi i C3 co b u ['V N t J z" g Q N<.� €1 a � �I 0 r f z" g Q N<.� i i I 1 : � , wa as !�ll�■ ■eft. r .mot •� �7�1 ■I .► ONOWLI mm mm C- o C u, ro U `& ; 0 m o 0 C= r �R �I �== �:L --�� • ,,fir �Ir � MIN _ I lF.I .. in ODE ■ u rfi� �, J _ _ i p l MAAM i� l�s�� i — a°g �`a .■ -f , t ■ _ i{ a 1 ti „ ■� �y� � �it • C iYxsx �, �p •. ,s 1. `.S� :Ft. 1 � .r..9r ■rn� � • '.F.QM fi' ifi � r^ � � `_ 111 N, ! �•' i � �_ .I 16�kL r � sue. =- 1 e It M �1i.a�i _ " k�l ar ■� w Pl i I �� ■ ■ Fit ^' ISi ,; �S 1 1 iLii I'�I M ss _ "M T � V7 � o Ln N W I NO a C O W Li.i v� c� W C O W ar.+ cu r 1 0 oa Z?1 � T LU 6 R s N ; . MINOR EL cI) u C _x UT f all '00 e a -no L a 4-1 W 0 � Pi •� Ya � D UI 'miss d um B ® Eff y a 'L c K d Noun A fl C) Ny/ C O N W so Ri U- ra. t _ o � O • 'CI R1 N e d m M w m N _ zu 9I tw. X 5 e .rn a rn He r ....,' V ID E� d L w eee9 4 '^ k E iI�E €li6[$! Li Q� V�J ii •� V � I I i EeYI I Q C a �} o 00 i EeYI • r Ft� uli �lik1� .y •w 11 IN �� �/ 1 I +s..vK�rrmc{' I 4 M VP 4 V1 E F � � 1- _� �.- -1, a1►��� ai� ", aid i� MI ° 7 ip �a r �la O OWER 110 �� i.�du_li�taF toll �I�iMS J ' • T � - • rz.1: i Me STAFF ZONING ANALYSIS • • • • • Exhibit B Zoning Analysis Vail Plaza Hotel West (Deviations from underlying zoning are indicated in bold type) Development Criteria Lot Area: GRFA: Dwelling units per acre: Site coverage: Above grade Below grade Allowed /Required (PA Zoning) Proposed Vail Plaza Hotel West 10 1, 140 sq. ft. or 2.32 ac. 150% or 151, 710 sq. ft. 25 du /acre or 58 d.u.. 65% or 65, 741 sq. ft. 65% or 65, 741 sq. ft. Min. Setbacks (above grade): Frontage Road: 20' Vail Road: 20' West Side: 20' W. Meadow Drive: 20' Min. Setbacks (below grade): Frontage Road: 20' Vail Road: 20' West Side: 20' W. Meadow Drive: 20' Max. Height: 48' sloping 60' arch. projection Landscaping: 30% or 30,342 sq. ft. Parking: 280 spaces ' Loading: 3 berths Common Area: n/a 101,140 sq_ ft. 150% or 151, 710 sq. ft." 7.33 du /acre or 17 d. u. 120 (au) 39 (ffu) 17 (du) 62.4% or 63, 116 sq. ft. 76.0 % or 76,821 sq. ft. 0' (covered entry), 21' (footprint) 20' 21' 20' 15.75' 4.75' 8.75' 19.5' 77.5' sloping 92.3 arch. projection 26.1% or 26,438 sq. ft. ** 216 spaces 3 berths 236,445 sq. ft. this proposal complies with the required 70 %130% equivalency requirement for GRFA within the PA zone district_ this proposal does not comply with the max. 20% hardscape requirements outlined in Section 12 -2 -2, Vail Town Code. Per the Town's definition of landscaping, 26.1 % is provided. Including the additional hardscape provided by the applicant, the total becomes 30.7 or 31, 077 sq. ft. `**pursuant to Section 12- 10 -20, Town of Vail Code, staff recommends a total of 268 parking spaces. EXHIBIT C JEFF WINSTON URBAN DESIGN ANALYSIS • Date: 17 January 2001 To: Brent Wilson, Community Development, Town of Vail From: Jeff Winston Re. Design 'Review- -Vail Plaza. Hotel West CC; This review will be confined particularly to the bulk, mass and building configuration issues related to the proposed Vail Plaza Hotel West. 1. The fact that the property is Outside bath the LionsHead and Vail Village Design Guidelines raises a question as to what standards should be used to evaluate the design. Guidelines have never been developed for this transition area, and it is so varied (single family, hospital, condominiums, library, ice arena, etc.) as to almost defy guidelines. For a variety of reasons it would appear to benefit from a relationship to the Village more than to be treated totally as a stand -alone facility: The guest orientation of the building (as opposed to office or private residence), r the strong pedestrian gesture toward West Meadow Drive, > the significant retail inside the building, r the alpine character of the architecture, > the desire to reiate it to Vail Plaza Hotel East, > and its closeness to the Village. Therefore, it appears reasonable to evaluate the building according to the basic design principles already outlined for Vail Village. 2. In the absence of a model or other 3 dimensional representation, we have tried to visualize the building from the plans, sections and elevations, and as a result may have missed some of the building massing that is not evident in those drawings. The building appears to follow the general Village pattern of stepping down from the Frontage Road to the south toward West Meadow Drive. However, the building still presents a series of very tall `apade along WMD (approximately 46' to 50' at the top of the vertical facades). True, there are other buildings along the north side of West Meadow Drive that present a fagade almost as tall. The Skaal Hus roof is parallel to the street and is probably 38' at the eave sine (46' at the ridge). The Alphorn roofs are perpendicular to the street and 32' at the top of the �i W4nslon Memo Page t UfZ 2299 PEARL STREET, SU17E 1 00 - BCULWR, CC 80302 303- 440 -9200 - FAX 303-449-6911 - jtwinston(c)winsto nassociates. tarn Design Review —Vail Plaza Hotel West Town of Vail 17 Januw y 2001 vertical facades`. In contrast to the other buildings along WMD however, the VPHW presents a very long, unbroken fagade that tends to heighten its impact- Acknowledging that there are minor ins and outs and balconies that break up the facade slightly, the overall result is a long, straight facade parallel to the street. This contrasts with the way other buildings relate to this end of WMD. Nine Vail Road, the Bank, Villa Cortina, Meadow Vail Place all face the street on an angle. The best example is the way the Vail Village Inn, a potentially long building along WMD, is turned slightly presenting to the street a saw -tooth edge of what appears to be separate buildings. The result of this angle -to -the- street pattern is to avoid a long straight fagade, and the creation of a series of triangular spaces, large and small, that provide the expansion and contraction that gives interest and variety to the pedestrian experience. Suggestions A. Step the facade lower along WMD, even down to twc- stories in several places. B. Break the building into a smaller parts, possibly by angling the building to the street, varying the roof heights and stepping it back and forth. C. if the above two steps are taken (or other steps that accomplish the same objectives) the building could actually be pulled closer to WMD (continuing the relationship established by 9 Vail Road) with an even smaller visual impact than the building as proposed'. Very rough sketches of the current proposal and a possible modification are attached. I In the long run, the Alohom should probably not be considered Irreplaceable, and should not be the height standard for the area. Again, the WT is a goad example of "how a Sower '>uiiding alone the street obscures the extremely large buildings behind (VVI phase 11), Winston Memo P". 2,02 • • O l 2299 PEARL STREET, SUITE 400 • BOUL1WR. CC 80302 303 -4 -9200 • ?AX 303 - 449 -$91 1 • jlwinstor }@winstonassociatas. com • 0 • l� I L T C; C'; cn 0 } ƒ 2 . 2 �G » \� 0 � EXHIBIT D STAFF BUILDING HEIGHT ANALYSIS u 7j 0 Adjacent Building Heights — Vail Plaza Hotel West "Resort Accommodations and Services" Zone — South Frontage Road Building Max. Heigh # Zone District/Height Allowed Alpine Standard 25.3' HS/38' Existing Chateau Vail 52.8' (roof), 56.9' (proj.) PA/48' Scorpio 55.2' H D M F/48' West Star Bank Building approx. 54'* SDD- CSC /38' Evergreen Lodge approx. 88'* SDD- HDMF /48' "Transition Area" zone — West Meadow Drive Buildinq Max. Heiqht Zone District 9 Vail Road approx. 66.2" PA/48' Alphorn 32.6' HDMF /48' Skaal Hus approx. 46' (phase 11) HDMF /48' VVMC approx. 53'* GU /per PEC First Bank 28' PA/48' Villa Cortina approx. 48'* HDMFI48' Fire Station 42.3' GU /per PEG Meadow Vail Place approx. 52'* HDMFI48' Other Residential Units approx_ 33" R/33' Vail Village Zone— east of Vail Road Buildin Max. _Height Zone District Gateway 54.8' SDD- CCI /43' Vail Village Inn (VPH East) 77.3' (approved) SDD- PA/48' Sonnenalp (Bavaria Haus) approx. 47'* PA/48' . indicates heights referenced from architectural drawings and town records. All other building heights are referenced from stamped surveys. Of the 17 properties contained in the "context area" (including the existing Chateau Vail), 8 buildings (or 47 %) exhibit a deviation in building height. • EXHIBIT E APPLICANT'S SUN /SHADE ANALYSIS 0 AL T. I -7 X -A IL • • 4.w 4-W w-r" uj ArA 1w. • • I i . ......... 1 7 , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .............. IN 7t i i N I I ul yi oLl - • 0 � • I. F. l i i ii 3� 4-W ri q�r 41 CI LU 1. Zr Rv 4-W ri q�r 41 CI LU 1. it • • A. A, C�7 C. po 4 6 i4 LU • • EXHIBIT F APPLICANT'S VIEW ANALYSIS • rj T. 11 IMF - ;Ij � � �^ \ � 0 0 ^� � ��� � \� \�/ .�� �^ \ � 0 0 -4p"4 ow w mlr—mm9 I:i Z- Lu $ % \\ � � � � � � � � � � �� � � wi » ¥ «2 ®< \ � \���� / \\ \ � /.� � . � /�� � \ :� � � -\ « . \� � \� \ � �� ` : \/ / \ \� ..f - §. . . . . . . . . . . . � � c � b \� &\ « Lm / � � \\ � � � � � t, ; -4p"4 ow w mlr—mm9 I:i Z- Lu $ % \\ � z 4f 11 �r �; � �, - .,,_. � - . �- a . .... .� � \ •¥ � \\ 4- po O."A ��� / «�9����\ � � � � �� % \��� \� = � \ .4 a _- / � \ \ \ \2 � \�� »� \.. - ^«+� �- \ \ \�: . � iL ��� / «�9����\ � � � � �� % \��� Wool tea eol rr u; • • • } "' .1. rt it f s ' - +l, a . � ,g t . �, • ! r •� a�� � dap r.:f.. :S f1:�� �' ?r. �Y�lllrmaei�� -..�. Y (i:, -_. -_. -_ . �.� % � � • . � 2<!\t - . ... . -: :w • • 0 � • • 4 . 0 � • • W' 1 1 0 1 • iz i i �• ' 1 a - a t ' i� • w L� � M1y #;, if _ - y i� - r 1 -, � , r� fir. f+C►. - CT f Ji R WA z; 1a�l` 30 QQ 4 k xi• �•. ror � ff L,: r.7 ► ,- t: r wry; — -•� � Jk -sn 1. � .�!'' *. � '�. F .3 • fi V a I to Yz ' a ` Y t! .. � 6 S k L i` U� ^{ p • 9� 9� t i K t � 1' -t - 9� 9� JJ I.- 7 1 ;lp - zT al w3b r - As I 7 te r,..,, -�^` �`� I Lu 6A 41 S Cd LLJ | � � \� k�� . _ � f�� Pool (U mom C PM-4 0 good e� ai TZ *I 0 � EXHIBIT G APPLICANT'S EMPLOYEE GENERATION DATA • Memorandum DATE. January 24, 2001 TO: Brent Wilson FROM: Connie Dorsey, Daymer Corp SUBJECT: Vail Plaza Hotel `Italian' Wing, C Employee Housing Requirements Housing requirements for the Vail Plaza Hotel `Italian' Win_Z (west) The best way to look at the housing needs of Vail Plaza Hotel 'Italian' Wing (or the west wing) is to compare it to the already approved Vail Plaza Hotel `French' Wing (or the east wing). Both the `French' and the `Italian' wings are virtually the same in size and category. There is actually a negative difference in the number of keys when you compare the existing keys with the proposed or planned keys at each location. This causes a negative increase in the housekeeping staffing needs. There is a slight increase in the square footage of retail space. (note: As indicated in my memo regarding the parking needs for the `hotels' retail space we see this space being used as small boutique type business, galleries, sundries, necessities shops, logo and a small ski related shop geared toward the guests in the hotel. Staffing of these shops will be minim l person per shift for two eight hour shifts.) The Convention and Health Club /SPA facilities will be relocated to the `italian' Wing (or west wing). The employee housing qpproved at the VPH `French' Wing (or the east wing) covers the housing required for this staffing. The General Manag Accounting, Reservations and SalesNWketing departments are located at the already approved `French' Wing and their housing needs have been met at that location as previously approved. Because these departments are located at the VPH `French' Wing and are not repeated at the VPH `Italian' Wing there is a negative amount in the overall staffing needs of the `Italian' Wing when comparing the two. Housing for staff in other departments, i.e. Food & Beverage, Front Desk, Maintenance etc. at the approved VPH `French' Wing are covered in the thirty -eight (38) beds planned. These departments and their housing peeds are covered at the VPH `Italian..' Wing and included in the proposed thirty -six beds at that site. 0 Approved VPH `French' Win east VPH `Italian' Wind [west} 40 VPH 'French' Wing 212 keys Existine keys VVI 76 keys Total Increase in keys 136 keys VPH `Italian' Wing 235 keys Existing keys Chateau 120 keys Total Increase in Keys 115 keys The increased difference, comparing the VPH `French' Wing with the planned VPH `Italian' Wing is a negative 21 keys or a negative 2.1 employees using the hotel industry standard of i maid per 10 keys, Approved VPH `French' Win east Retail VPH `French' Wing 4,047 S.F. The difference is 2,735 S.F. or 2.7 employees. VPH `Italian' Wing (west) Detail VPH `Italian' Wing 6,282 S.F. Taking into consideration the negative 2.1 housekeeping staff needs compared to the 2.7 retail space increase one negates the other. Therefore the housing needs at the VPH `Italian' Wing shows no need for an increase in beds. By comparing the staffing at the approved VPH `French' Wing and the proposed stag needs of the VPH `Italian Wing as well as the number of 'keys' at each location we believe that we ve met the housing needslrequirements at the VPH `Italian' Wing with the thirty - sixth} beds. We have actually exceeded the number of beds needed at the VPH 'Italian' Wing by 9.2 beds (see paragraph four (4) page one (1). Attached is a more detailed outline of the employee st affing needs of the VPH `French' Wing and the VPH `Italian' Wing. 0 • N VPH west EMPLOYEE GENERATION (based on apnoved for WI sine) 0 • 1 The VPH east or VPH west are same category and same size.. The only difference is the number of L�pin , which is proportional to the I number of keys. I ComAmtion and SPA will be relocate from the east site to the west site Employee Housing far those is al provided at the east site-. Staff for ail other depairt (FBB, front desk mainter> cE, etc. will have identical staff same number)_, regardless of irs location. east orwest I Therefom we just have to determine the number of amp ed by VPH west over VPH east moat difference Idifference VPH ead VPH west west- east west - east A B &- unit employees i iKeys (rww) 2121 235 Existing 761 120 Keys in a 1381 115 -21 kay 1 meld 10 kays -2.1 retail sf 4.047 6.782 2,735 sf 1 em 1. per 1 sf 2-7 1 Gen. 1 1 0 -1 errlpL (h-stns Accounting 6 0 - 6 " for Mese Reservation 3 0 -3 " posftns Sales A Madoe in 4 0 -4 " atmady 74E 0 -14 " pro vilea -14.0 i id the -13.4 Convention Center 31 0 -3 vFH -360 11 SPA 211 0 -21 I -21.0 1 i Told -37.4 _ bedstemployee irprease 3(i9b !Beds provided I 3$ beefs Additional beds to be VPH west in reidon to east s approved 38 beds = 37.4 x 30% = -112 at the east s' 38 .0 beds_ to be at west site = 'beds Xproued p lus: ; additional west over east 1 - 11.2 `beds to be pro dxl at west site 26,8 beds proposed at the west stel 36.0 cucess proposed (beds) I 9.2 excess pmposed (beds) equivalent to (employees.) 1 3017 • VFH (Chateau site) STAFF Page ; (permanent and seascnWpart -bme) SUMMARY VPH FUNCTIONS by department PERMANENT STAFF n emplo- werM 4 yeas hoursi t yam 9 40 hs/week note 1 x 150 for all wk/year SEASONAL PART -TWE HELP pa me employees I total vvcwk hours, per 1 peak Irlisl- mum peak days per ! year work hours per I year hour per quart- each! trty peak day, 1-099ina thotel & Club) Gen eral. Man i 2, 14 2, 14 4 5,000 Assistant Guest relations 2,14 2, 14 8 16,000 6,000 2 4,000 4 8 2 41 4 4 16 24 8 92 92 92 1,472 2,206 736 Frond Office _ Bell man 4.2 8,400 121 4 48 92 4,416 Door mare 4.2 8,400 1 92 Valet 4.2 8,400 12 4 48 92 4,416 PBX i 2,14 92 F7esenwalians 2, 14 Sales 2, 14 Accounting I 2,14 Housekeeping su or) 2.14 3 6,000 maid service 3 15.08 30,1601 10 4 40 92 3,680 Enon eeriri9 2.14 8 lZ0001 6 4 241 _ 92 2,208 G e s 4.2 8,400 4 4 16 92 1,472 L odging ha 4 92 Food & Beverage (F&B) m anager -host _ 4 8,0001 4 4 16 92 1,472 wailars* bus 1;3 waiters 12 13 26,747 10 4 40 92 3,6 80 3 6,000 2 4 8 92 736 Idttn 16 32,000 Roam � 6 12,000 4 4 16 92) 1,472 F ood Beverage 84,747 , Oo_ rence ter 4 ( 4 92 Health Club/SPA re 14 up keep 14 41 92 therapist 5, 14 r 4 92 _ exercise morn 14 - - _ ea 92 L al S ops t}�l 4 4 16 92 1 , 4 721 GRAND TOTALS: 107 214,507; 130 320 92 29,440 conve rticrr part time to full time One full time work hourslyear note 2,000 aif� rn equivaFeeref o u ftme 6 15 _ G rand o me equrva _ -- _ Awrage hoursA= fire ernpkryeel no - -�— 4 Nurr�ber of part time nanees B $p o payroll names cordi I I EMPLOYEE NET ENCREASE CALCULATION _ 1 Employee Totals VPH west F-Xwng ChateaHj Nat in- crease # OWN # equiv. 1071 107 571 57 time' 801 15 22, 4 _ total 187 1221 791 61 ' Dart ti at sem latltt V€ -f VPH STAFFING IS BASED ON THE FOLLG MING uses note ur ar dbs qut Ffot ; 1 1 Club ! I 115 Hotel * club 1 9 1 keys • • VPH (Chateau site) STAFF Page 2 (permanent and seasonal/part -time) SUMMARY • • Hotel & Club YEAR occupancy 1 _ 72 4 /'6 1.75 296 10 30 30 6,582 persOns(=njpied unit 1 Hotel + Club population 10 maid servitor 1 1 =:L* ruts tnaid walk in for lunch or dinner 11 custormem4uncticaNda serveshiwaiterlfunctian I 1 r Restaurant & bar 1Z isf kitchen j 12 Isf t _ 3,200 Conference 12 sf 10,009 /SPA treaftrents 12 moms 22 Retail j 12 sf -- 6,782 1 j highest demand for mstaurant/day note lunch dinner hotel & Club guests 13 1.5 1.0 per 3 nights stay. seryes.4uneftybay 148.1 98.7 Walk in custorneirsifunctiocV savesgunctionfday I 11 30.0 30.0 Totals onlday 178.1 17611 breakfast is buffet , served try the same lunch staff. DOTES note 1 I Includes "day off" coverage were appiicbie note 2 This function (all or park) provided the adsting Wl note 3 f od service is based an 10 occupied rooms/maid. Minor occasional fluctuations in j demand will be covered with overtone of tits permanent staff and/or temporary help. nova 1 4 Occasional lwge banquettes will be serviced by the the two shifts restaurant and kitchen staff in over tame. note 5 Same Zt may caner more than 1 of the 22 trtatrnent ro for sa me tre nits. note 6 The total , 29,440 1 seasonal work h divided by the regular one frill time 2,000 hoursl is= 1 15 1equivalentfulltirineernpkiyem. note 7 it is atypical hourslpeak day of apart time helper. note 8 it is the total part time "names" on the . Evid d on the #loots hourslp wkday note 9 Hotel & Club are staffed as a unified operation note 10 Populatkm for the spwXiied number of units, occupancy, personslmom. I note 11 !All hotel restaurants off the maim pedestrian traffic (Ludwig, The Wlager, etc.) rarely (if ever) achieve a high i walk in demand.This 30 1 serveslfunct§y is a h assumption - nom 12 :, Ali these uses are staffed based on real demand and not based On ft, or seats or ag other per. note 13 1 It is established in the business that the restaurant at the hotel never captures more than"! lunch and '1 dinner per ' 3 n' stay. It is part of gu+eats pro to dine out in other restaurants- The kw ratio of 15 Iser that this staff can serer more than 2 timm this dtanand ? nine 14 Employee Homin mrided at ttte VPH east j C. VPH (WI site) STAFF (permanent and seasonaVp2d4ime) Page 2 1 7-j • • A I BA C I D I E F G H ( I J K L M 60 61 persons/occupied unit Hotel + Club population i 1.75 persons 237 occup mis/maid 10 custcnxnffunctionld 30 20 sf 5,775 j 10 62 maid service 63 walk in for lunch or dinner 1 i - T 64 serves/wader/function 65 Restaurant & bar 12 66 kitchen 12 sf 3,200 - 67 Conference 12 sf 68 SPA treatments 12 rooms 69 Retail 12 sf 4,047 70 i 1 71 highest demand for reeturantlday 72 note lunch dinner 73 hotel & Club guests 13 1 1 3 nig hts s 79 74 serwes/function/da 79 75 Walk in customers/functkxVday 76 s /funQiorVday I 11 30 30 77 Total serves/function/ ay 109 109 78 1 hrezddast is buffet tyM, served b the same lunch staff. 1 79 NOTES 80 note 1 Includes " otr were dill �++� applica6te. ! — - 81 rote 2 JTWs function adl or pa rt) provk the eristf W1 - 82 note 3 Maid service is based on 10 ccupied mints /rnaid. Minor occasional fluctuations in o 83 ; dema w ill be Wvered with overtime of the perrnarient staff andlor temporary help. 84 note 4 Qepsional large banquettes will be sen k W by the the two shifts restaurant and kitchen staff in over time. 85 note 5 Same therapist may cover more them 1 of the 22 tneatrrent roans for skme treatments. 86 note & The total #W I seasonal work haw divided by the regular one full time employer: 87 2,000 hours/year is 18 1equivalent full time 88 note T It is a troras/p sk of a tfrne 89 note =8 it is the total time "names" an the pWdL E depends on the time hours/ Pte PaY 90 'note i 9 Hertel & Club are staffed as a unified opwation 91 nota 1 10 Population for the specified number of units, occ upan noon. 92 note 11 Al hotel restaruants off the main pedestrian traffic , The Vi er, etc. }rarefy (if ewer) achieve a high 93 walk in derrrarut.This i 30 servesifunctioNday is a very high assumption. 94 note 12 JAII these uses are sfaHed based an veal demand and not based on s .fL, or Seats or outer paramEter. 95 note 13 It is established in the busi ms that the re at the hotel newer captures more than 1 lmax�m and 1 dinner per 1 3 1 nights stay. It is part of guests pr ram to dine kit in adw restaurants. 96 97 The ktry ratio of 1 15 servesfwaitedshiV indicates that this staff can serve more than 1 I i 2 tutees this demand. 1 7-j • • W'h (wr "e) z, i Al-r gpeffnanent ana seasonaupart -time) Page ; • 0 • A j B C D E F G I H i J K L M ? VPH FUNCTIONS by department - - -- n o t e 1 PERMANENT SEASONAL PART -TIME HELP STAFF 2 ! emplo- yees note 1 for a8 work hours/ y ear r 40 hsA%er k X50 r part time employees total hour work per hours eactV per Wan- peak peak day day I maxi_ mum peak work days hours per ! per year ,! year 3 E 4 - 5 Lodging hotel 8 Club _ General Manager 6 1 4000 7 Assistant manager 4i 8,000 8 Guest relations 21 4,000 4 4 161 92 1,472 9 Front Office 8 16,0001 6 4 24 921 2,208 lo - 2 4,400 2 41 8 92 736 11 Bell man 5 10.000 6 4 24 921 2,208 12 Doorman 4.2 8,400 13 Valet parking 41 8,000 121 4 48 92 4,416 14 Et 3 6,000 4 4 16 92 1.472 15 Reservations 31 6,000 16 ISaWs 8 Markets 41 8,000 17 Accounting 6 12,4001 18 Housekmong supervisor 2 4,000 19 maid service 2 11.73 23,456 10 4 40 92 3,680 24 Engineering 9 18,400 6 4 24 92 2,208 - -- 21 gaage Operations 3 6,000 4 4 16 92 1,472 22 Lodging (hotel & Club) 72 943,856 54 216 19,872 23 I Food & beverage (F&B) 24 host 31 6,0001 41 4j 16 921 1,472 25 waiters +bush 1:3 waftem) 11 12-071 24,1391 10 41 92 3,680 26+ lbar I 1 31 6,00 2 41 8 921 736 27 kitchen 1 16 32,400 28 Room Service: 41 8,0001 4 4 16 92 1,472 _ f- 29 Food $ Beverage (F &B) 381 76,1391 20 80 7,350 30 Conference Center 3 3 6,0001 2 4 8 92 735 31 Health ClubrSPA - - 32 reception 4 8,000:. - -- 33 up keepin 4 $,040 4 41 16 92 1,472 34 therapist L 4842 14 20,440 4 4 16 92 1,472 35 exercise room 1 2 4 36 Health ClubJSPA 2 20 40,000 8 321 2,944 37 Refifil (3 shops) B IZ0001 4 4i 116 92 1,472 ' 38 GRAND TOTALS_ 139 277,996 88 41 352 32 =384 1 39 Canvertion part time to full time now � 44 One full time uwrxk zow 41 #'ae this equivalent to Full time 42 Grand Total full time equivalent 155 431 1 1 no I 44 Average hams/pert tene employm 7 4 45 Number of part time names 8 88 _ 46 Total payrolf names 2271 continue 47 EMPLOYEE NET INCREASE CALCULATION 48 Employee Totals VPH east _ # gquiv_ ExWdng VVI Net in- Crease 49 # 9gLIM 54 fiJlf tirrte 139 139: 421 42 51 lime Sal 161 6 521 total 2271 1551 74J 487,___ 8 7,__,x° 53 * part time at same ratio as VPH French - 0 54 VPH STAFFING IS BASED ON THE FOLLOWING `% uses note units I i qu i 56 Hotel 1 - keys 99 57 Club keys I 113 58 Hobe! + C lub s keys 212 s4 59 Hates 8. Club YEAR r� L :�(am1U3kia APPLICANT'S PARKING STUDY • • • Memorandum DATE: January 29, 2001 TO: Brent Wilson FROM: Connie DorseyfDaymer Corp SCIBJECT: Update and Correction my previously submitted memo of 01. 23.2001 Parking Reduction Report Completed by Alpine Engineering Vail Plaza Hotel `Italian Wing, Chateau Site I had indicated that we would be providing a total of 231 parking spaces and we will be providing a total of 216 p arking spaces. To review the attached and previously submitted study completed by Alpine Engineerin Please note that in the first paragraph of the report they are recommending a 22.3% reduction from the TOTAL required parking of 244 parking spaces for a recommended total of 188 parking spaces We are providing 216 parkk"aces. Thank you • • Memorandum DATE: January 23, 2001 TO: Brent Wilson FROM: Connie Dorsey/Daymer Corp SUBJECT: Parking Reduction Report Complet iu ne En i�eering Vail. Plaza Hotel `Italian Wing, Chateau Site Attached is a copy of the report completed by Alpine Engineering, Please note that in the first paragraph of the report they are recommending a 22.3% reduction from the required parking of 244 parking_ paces for a recommended total of 188 parking apaces We are providing 231 pg*Lng vaces par ' which is only an 5.6% reduction. Thank you 0 is January 22, 2 041 Town of Vail Mr. Todd Oppenheimer 1349 EIkhorn Dr. Vail, CO 81657 Re: Parking Study for the Vail PlszalCbateaux Vail Project T'ne purpose of this letter is to provide recommendations for the amount of parking required for the Vail Plaza Hotel project as well as to provide justification for recommending up to an 213% reduction (from 442 to l 8$ spaces) for the project. The "town of Vail ordinances allows up to a 25% reduction in the parking requirement if mixed uses are proposed and if this reduction is justified. Our study indicates that 188 parking spaces should be provided, however, it is our understanding that the building plans provide 210 parking spaces, which is only a 13% reduction. There are a number of factors that would justify a reduction in the number of required parking spaces for an individual project, as summarized below. Mixed uses — For example, use periods for a health club are typically from around 6 -8 a.m and 4-7 p.m. Retail space usually opens between 9 -10 a.m_, thus parking used by the morning health club users would normally be available for those going to the retail space later in the day. Similarly, peak time for a quality restaurant is typically after 6 p.m., thus those using the health club during its evening peals time will begin to leave as those coming to the restaurant arrive. Similarly, persons who park at the site as hotel guest will prcdominaantly also be the patrons of the restaurant, spa, health club and retail shops and internal trip ends to the project are combined. 2. Proximity To Local Tra resit — Thosc using the spalheralth club, restaurant or retail as well as employees will likely either be staying at the hotel or at a hotel nearby in town, and will walls to or use the town's free public transportation "Parking Generation" is published by The Institute of Transportation Engineers (tTE). The primary objective of the publication is to provide a comprehensive source of parking occupancy rates for land uses and building types. The publication states that "the vast majority of the data indicated in the iTE report is derived from suburban developments with little or no significant transit ridership. At specific sites, the user may consider mollifying the parking generation rates presented because of public transportation, ride sharing;, proximity to other developments which may reduce parking pcnerated, either thrt walking or combined trips or of special characteristics of the site or surrounding areas. Local data should be collected for companies when considering use of the data in this report. Although parking information from similar hotel sites was provided by the owner, it was difficult to calculate a. reduction as a result of the proximity to the public bus system, • Conrsie Dorsey, the manager of the Vail Village inn. and future manager of the Vail Plaza Hotei said that the hotel pays for °ous passes for any employee living outside or Vaal who desires it. Currently, 15 of the 47 employees use the bus pass. It is assumed that most employees within the Town would wse the public transportation due to its convenienca. T'ne parking rate for "Hotel rooms" is 1 j.4 per room: since only one vehicle typically is arrives per room. the extra 04 spaces per room is provided for employees and other uses associated with the operation of a hotel. Therefore, we would assume that the parking could be reduced by 5 to 10 spactis to account for employee use of local (within Vail) and ECO (outside Vail} buy systems. Local 1Factan - ivfany persons who visit and stay in Vail use the various public transportation alternatives to arrive (ie, bus, limousine, shuttle services, etc.) instead of renting a car and driving. It is assumed that very few persons will drive to the hotel specifically to use the restaurant or retail: most will be hotel guests which will not generate additional parking. Of those who do drive into town, many park at one of the parking stntctures or are already parked at a nearby hotel and walk through town before choosing a particular restaurant. Connie Dorsey has indicated that - No tree parking will be provided for external patrons (non -hotel guests)" while shopping, dining, using the club or matting room. Therefore, there is incentive for guests already parked at a local hotel to either walls or ride the bus to arrive at the Vail Plaza Hotel. 4. Reserved Parking -- Reserved parking may not be shared: if the spot is unused, it is reserved and remains open without the benefit of allowing reduction for mixed uses. Connie Dorsey stated that neither the dwelling or fractions] fee club units will have assigned or reserved parking. "Ail parking will be `open parking' excluding the valet parking." Therefore reductions for mixed used, per table attached will also apply to the dwelling units. 5. Privztr Incentives - As stated previously, Connie Dorsey stated That employees who live outside of Vail are offered ECO bus passes (paid by the HoEel). At the Vail Village Inn, 15 of the 47 employees, or 32 %0 of the employees take advantage of the offer. Connie said that the policy would be continued at the Vai l Plaz< Hotel. Club memberships are to be sold to two user types 1) an absentee homeowner within the Vail Village: area that would like to have a health club membership for use theta they are in Vail and 2) a local person who works in Vail that would like to have a club membership hear their place of employment. The hotellclub will not provide free or complimentary parking for the elute memberships and they will have to pay an hourly rate to use the hotels garage. This will discourage persons from driving to the hotel, and dtie to the convenience of the public bus system, few external (non -hotel guests) trips to the club arc expected (where a parking space would be required). Memberships are also to be offered on a variable price scale- the best rates will be offered for off peak periods. Although most external club members are expected to use public transportation or walk to be club, a fcw may not, ' Variable price scales can offset peak use periods of the club, as well as redact' NE parkin; required for it_ • 6. Specific Operutional Details of Retstil — The retail shops are geared towards the hotel guest_ The shops will be small - kiosk' type that are covered by one person at 2 eight hour ship per day. Tenants are expected to be art galleries, sundries shops and logo (brand /souvenir) shops, which are not only oriented towards the hotel guest (minimal 0 external trips), but also low patron and employee volume uses. Again, no free parking will be provided for the retail shops so that if an " external" (not hotel guest) patronizes the store, they will likely arrive by walking or the bus. We have computed the required parking for this project per Town of Vail Ordinance as follows: • Hotel Rooms: 120 rooms ri.0.7 spac:cs/room = 84 spaces Fractional Fee Units: 39 units @0.7 spaces /units = 27.3 spaces Dwelling units; 17 units @1.4 spaces/units = 23.58 spaces • Restaurant: 3258 sf @ 1 space '250 sf seating floor area - 13.03 spaces • CatelBar; 2,537 sf @ l space /250 sf seating floor area = 10.1 spaces • Retail: 5582.5 sf @ 2.3 spaces/1000 sf area = 12.84 spaces • Meeting: 10,009 sf @, I SPACES/330 sf = M3 spaces + Spa: 7,700 sf @ 2.7 spaces / 1000 sf = 20.3 spaces • Health Club; 500 members @ 2.5 visits /wk =179 visits /day Assume 80% visit @ peak shift w/4 peaks /day = 179 x 0.8 = 143 visits at peak/4 peaks 36v isits /peak (36 users at the same time) Assume 50% need parking = 36 x 0.5 =18 spaces Use: 20 spaces TOTAL SPACES REQUIRED PER ORDINANCE = 242 spaces • We have referred to two different publications to determine parking requirements for health clubs. neither of which provided parking recommendations. We also looked into the ITE Trip Generation lklanuai to determine vehicle movements. Unfortunately, the trip generation data used only one observation. As a result, this data was not used because cif the small sample size. Nonetheless. she health club /spa is geared towards the hotel ;uest and local (transit usetiwalking) guest, so that significant external trips are not expected. IMFTHOD #1 — Parking based upon mixed uses within the hotel, The following table provides parking factors for the various uses of the Hotel, during, various times of the day and week- (Far example, it is expected that on a weekday, only 75% of the "hotel parking spaces will be occupied clue to 25% of hotel guests driving offsitc or lack of 100% occupancy. From 6 :00 p.m. to midnight, 100% of the hotel parking spaces are assumed to be occupied.) Percent of occupied parking space requirement for various time of the day and week The following table provides the product of the required parking and the mixed use reduction. Mixed Use 'Spaces Required i Weekday I Weekday Weekend Wevkend Midnight - 6arn Use A Day +ham- 6pm Evening 6 — midnight I Day Evening Genera! Ro wl - 6G ° !o 1 80% 100 %e 70 6 /0 5% Hotel, Motel 75% 100% 75% 100 0 /0 75% (84) = 63 Restaurant 50% ( 100% 100% 100% 10 0 !® commercial. Recreational Establishments* 1 (Health CIub) 9t1% 25 "/° 90% 30% 5 0 /0 Meeting Ccnter • 2 40% 20 0 /0 s Meeting ccatcr 1 8 3s 1. (30) = 30.5 35% (30) =10.5 20% (30) = 6 20% (30) = 6 1 wailing Units Dwelling Units (C) 50% (56) = 29 A 3(P/U 100% 100% 100% 100% Spa (same as reuiil) 100 %. (2 1) = 13 75% (2 1) = 15.8 SI+a (Same u retail) 60% $0 0 /6 100 % 90 0 /0 5% Tazai 198 120 The following table provides the product of the required parking and the mixed use reduction. Mixed Use 'Spaces Required A. General retail are law genemior uses geared tnwa,rds hotel guests such as an galleries. sundries strops. souvenir shops • • C7 Weekday Weekday Weekend Weekend Midnight — barn Use Day barn- 6pm livening 6 — midnight Day livening General Rciail (A) 60 %(17) =10 60 %(17) =10.2 85 %(17)-14.5 70 %s(17) -12 I 5 %(17)x1 Hotel. Motel 75% (84) = 63 90% (84) = 67 75% (84) =G3 99%(94) = 76 75% (84) = 63 Rcstnurant 50 (22.7) = I i 100% (223) _ 22.7 SOY* (22.7) = 22.7 100% (22.7) .- 22.7 10 (227) = 3 Commercial, Racrestional Estab lishments* 1 (Health Club) 90 %, (20) = Is 25% (20) = 5 40% (20) = 18 30% (20) = 6 5%(20 s Meeting ccatcr 1 (S) 3s 1. (30) = 30.5 35% (30) =10.5 20% (30) = 6 20% (30) = 6 0 %s (30) = 0 wailing Units (C) 50% (56) = 29 100 (56) = 56 100".' (56) = 56 100% (56)z 56 100 % (56) - 56 Spa (same as reuiil) 100 %. (2 1) = 13 75% (2 1) = 15.8 100% (21) - 21 !)0% (2 1) = 19 atai Aswming A E 154 ;six 197 198 120 A. General retail are law genemior uses geared tnwa,rds hotel guests such as an galleries. sundries strops. souvenir shops • • C7 B_ Meeting rooms are for sew inars which are predominantly hotel guests C_ ) 7 dwelling units and 39 fractional fee units; no assigned parking_ Method 42 — Required parking based upon the institute of Transportation F- agineers (fTE) is 2'd edition, "Parking Generation' The 1TE provides date based upon actual site studies of various uses for the purpose of estimating parking requirements. The publication states that "It appesrs reasonable to assume that multi -use projects would potentially demand fewer parking spaces, because of the internal matching trip ends within the project. TT'E land use section 3, 1, "Convention Hotel" was used for the purpose of the study_ it is defined as a piece of lodging vidin sieepi restaurants lounges and meetin rooms and bancuet rooms capabl of handling conventions These hotels often have rctail and service shops with in the facility Since the convention hall use a considers mixed uses, such as lounges_ restaurants, shops and meeting rooms, no reduction for mixed uses has been applied. C onvention Hotel sec 3l i 1TE. Ln (P = .71 Ln (x) t 1.42 X=# rooms = J20 P = 123 - 123 spaces Dwelling units 17 (1.4) = 23.88 spaces Fraction fee units 39 (0.7) = 273 spaces Health Club* _ 20 Total 195 spaces *T he health club is intended predominantly for hotel guests, however, some outside memberships will be sold. Since the 1TE definition of "Convention Hotel' did not include health clubispa, the 24 spaces were added to the amount of hotel parking. Summary • The mix use parkins; reduction method indicates that the peak parking requirements occurs during both the weekend day and evening periods, and that 197 or 198 spaces are estimated to be required during those periods. • The ITF publication, "Parking Generation" provides data which suggests that 195 parking Spaces are adequate for the site (without making any adjustments for public transportation or site specific conditions). f • Recommended Paricing: Required parking her Vail ordinance 242 Mixed use reductions 44 Total 198 ITIE estimate 195 Proximity to Pnblic Bus . reduction 10 10 Total recownaended parking 1a8 1+85 It is recommendcd that a minimum of ! 88 parking spaces be provided, which represents an 19% reduction (44 spaces) for "mixed use (or just "hotel ") use, and 4% reduction for ,proximity to public transportation (or 10 spaces) for a total reduction of 22-31%. The probable long terra use of the building should not generate additional parking demand due to the fact that the buildings essentially a hateE. Hotels typically contain restaurants, health clubs, retail and meeting rooms. As long as the restaurant and retail are located within and part of the hotel, they will be geared towards the hotel guests and thus not generate a significant amount of external trips and also benefit from "mixed use" parking reductions_ As stated by Mr. Connie Dorsey, the manager of the Vail Village Inn and the future manager of the Vail Plaza Hotel, the hotel has provided ECO bras passes for those employees who ride the bus. 11 is apparently e successful program since 15 of The 47 employees are currently taking advantage of the policy. We arc recommending that only up to 10 parking spaces (or 4 %Q) be reduced at the Plaza Hotel as a result of the Hotel Purchased Stns Pass Policy. (The olhcr 1$ 1 , 1 6 arc a result of hotel operation mixed use criteria). The proximity to the public transit System (Town of Vail buses, ECO bus system and airpcstt shuttle service such as CME) is a Signiticltnt factor to the use of this facility. It is assumed that most external restaurant and health club members will use public transportation. As a hotel, many guests fly to either Denver (DIA) or Eagle and use the shuttle service (CME. etc) to arrive instead of renring a car or driving. Currently, 32% of the employees use the ECO bus system for transportation. it is not mown how many use the free Town of Vail bus system. As 3 ski resort hotel, marry, if not most of the guests use the public, transportation to go skiing, shopping, or dining. We assume tliat consideration is given by both hotel guests and cn+ployees to stay or be employed at the hotel as it's ensy access to the ski slopes and Vail shops, which clearly means using the public transportation (or for employees, it's proximity to the bus system). Glenn Palmer Cc: Tim Losa, Zebren associates, LIr. Waldir Prado, Nlr.Connic Dorsey • L_ t o 1V ifs U v;2 sir ■ Q i a CONVE NTIO HOTEL DESCRIPTION A convertion hotel is a place of lodging providing sleeping accommodations, restaurants. lcunges, and meeting and banquet rooms capable of handling conventions. These hotels after have retail and ser- vice shops within the facility. It is difficult to determine a division between a con - vention hotel and a non - convention hotel since many hotels seem to accept conventions (or meetings), but not all actively seek that trade. Most of the studies received listed the number of hotel rooms. and not the number of occupied rooms The number of rooms ranged from 100 to 785. PARK:HG 'CHA ACTER3ST,CS AND DATA LIMITATIONS Parking rates are based on total rooms in each hotel surveyed. Room occupancy data were not available for this edition. Caution should be used in applying these rates since they could differ by ten to twenty - five percent or more. The peak parking times varied between noontime, early evening. and the late evening hours. No trend was apparent. More data are needed for convention hotels_ Future data needs include a more detailed breakdown of related facilities such as lounge seating, restaurant seating, banyuetJmeeting room square footage. and retail facilities, in order to create a more defined data base from which to draw conclusions. Data describing the number of occupied rooms at the ti of the survey are also needed. parkirng Generafion, August 198711nstlrute of Transportation Enginftrs 39 CONVENTION HOTEL. (31 ) c Peak Parking Spaces Occupied vs: ROOMS On a. WEEKDAY PARKING GENERATION RATES Average Range of Standard Number of Average Number of Rate Rates Deviation Studies Rooms 0.81 0-26 -1.32 U9 22 449 DATA PLO AND EQUATION 0 w a c� O 40 w 0 a c� z Y 0. Y d iti CL 16 100 300 500 700 900 X = NUMBER OF ROOMS ❑ A CTUAL DATA POINTS FrrTED CURVE Fitted Curve Equation: Ln(P) = 0.71 Ln(X) + 1.42 RI - 0,498 i 0 • .:_ I Parking Ganeredpn, Adij= 1967 /insUtute of Traruwpoa.Won Engineers 44 CAUT)ON —USE CAREFULLY —LOW R'. r Par km!z *t the Vaii Plaza Hotel Nest (Italia a Wing) r d�4 X Retail All shops will be small `Kiosk' type that are covered by one (I) person for each eight (8) hour shift and a maximum of two (2) shifts per day. Detail will be of the type that caters to a hotel clientele and serving the needs of the traveling public. i.e. Art Galleries, Sundries Shops, Logo (brand/souvenirs) Shop, a Ski/Skiing Necessities Shop, geared to hotel guests. No FRE parkin will ll_ be_ provided for the shops and no FREE parking will be available while shopping at the shops. 2 Meeting/Function Space: The meeting/function space will be used as a sales tool packaged by the `Hotel Sales Department' and N)oked with lodging for `group business'. This will give the sales department their best opportunity to maximize the booking of the hotels lodging /accommodations. There will be times that a `group' will be of the size that it will have overflow lodging with adjacent hotels. Overflow lodging traditionally is within w anking distance of the host hotel. Parking for these pmrsons is at the hotel where they are staying. Any person attending a meeting/function at the hotel but not stavjrig at the hotel will pay an hourly rate for parking_. 3) Health Club /SPA: The hotel's Health Club /SPA function, will be used again by the sales department as a sales tool to obtain bookings both `group` and `FIT' for the hotel. These, persons will of course be staying in the hotel. A portion of the Health Club /SPA use will be walk -ups paying a daily or weekly fee. The walk -up guest will more than likely be a referral from other nearby hotels that are within walking distance. The walk -up guest of course does not drive. 74femberships will be sold to two (2) types 1) an absentee homeowner within the Vail Village area that would like to have a Health Club /SPA membership for use when they are in Vail. And, 2) a local person that works in the Village or nearby that would like to have a `Club' membership near their office or place of employment. We will not g ovide FREE or complementary taarkin to this type of membership. They will have to pay an hourly rate to use the Hotel's garage. This vwill discourage persons to drive when the hotel is within walking distance and or on the Vail shutt;"e route. 4) ?(` mplovee Parkin The Hotel will pay for bus pas ses for employees living outside of the Village area who prefer to ride the bus or that do not have a car (our form of car- pooling). For example the 'v'VI has forty -seven (47) employees and fifteen (15) of them use bus passes that the hotel 1 purchases, that is appro tiimatcly 32% of the entire staff The Mail Plaza Hotel will continue this policy. 41 S) Restaurant /Cal6fLobbv Bar. These functions play largely into the bands of the sales department again as a sales tool. Hotel Restaurants/Cafes/Bars are .uot traditionally the "Restaurant/CafeBar of "Choice ". Research shows that a hotel will capture one (1) diner per guest during an average four (4) night stay_ The hotel's breakfast clientele are again the hotel guests as well as is the bar. Going out to cline- around at various restaurants is part of the 'resort' experience. Parking provided for guests using the Hotel's food & Beverage outlets will be rninimal to say the least. Condominium Owners Parking Of the seventeen (17) Dwellizag units as well as the thirty-nine (39) Fractional Fee Club units there will be one (1) parking space for each unit. These parking spaces will not be assigned. All parking will be 'open parking' excluding the `valet parking'. • • EXHIBIT I STAFF PARKING ANALYSIS • 0 • Q � J Lil J J Q w F- Q N J EL rl U- J LL. Q � > (l3 is C7 CD cv Q cc m !Jj LL • m W m [l r� — CD O UR N O C) c0 of (D 4A r Cr7 ° L[) N CO Rf C O � r~ N Cr] N N N N N r cr) CO C) M N r- V) r t• N N r 6 C'S 0; M OA r co N N r - U) C 0 C L) LO 4 y :6 a C%j CID DE U 4.S � U LV lM w Q Z _ CU E cd E in CD J .R9 'r CA C7 w 1.0 I in Ca 0 Cr) Go l* CL) C*) w m I W � r� �'� CO 1 CAN a ?C N oC�EtLo I tt N N"CV N rC')CV NIv � U7 � cc� V N N [V re C W ,a cm 5' w N 0 V fn ['a U) _X .--� m � � In C`)C r- at "D ° � rr G ` \E C` CA � U (L r Ci r r Q3 a) C%j L °Q rn'r.ccr<r� °i".i� r r r LRtir a CC) CC? - I � I 0 f N �i 0 C CID ;.- I Cal n o,in �. !LL C = � N - 0 0- . � N � C 5 O C? ' E 5 CD 0 N C rp N 0 v E w w o m Q <'�0 [r 000Ic!) is C7 CD cv Q cc m !Jj LL • EXHIBIT J APPLICANT'S TRAFFIC STUDY ALPINE ENGINEERING, INC. January 12, 2001 Mr. Greg Hall, P.E. Town of Vail Department of Public Works 1309 Elkhorn Drive Vail, CO 81657 Re: Chateau Vail Access Locations Dear Greg: The purpose of this letter is to make recommendations for the access driveways to the proposed Chateau Vail Hotel and to address your cornments made during out meeting yesterday. This will include location with respect to other driveways (both existing and proposed), the roundabout, design criteria, full or restricted access, etc. The site is located between South Frontage Road and West Meadow Drive, near the southwest corner of the intersection of South Fronta -e Road and Vail Road. The existing hotel has 120 rooms, an 80 seat restaurant and 60 seat bar. The proposed plan currently includes a 120 room hotel, 17 free market condominiums, 39 fractional fee condominiums, I63 seat restaurant, 126 seat cafe /bar, 5552 sf retai I space and a 26,395 sf spa/liealth club. Use of the health club /spa will be primarily by hotel guests, however spa services (massages, salon, etc.) will be available to the general public on a walkin/reservation basis. Approximately 500 memberships to the health club will be sold to the public. Existing Conditions Access to the site is from 3 locations: 1) South Frontage Road via a shared driveway entrance with the existing Amoco service station; 2) the private driveway from Vail Road and 3) the driveway from Nest Meadow Drive. I) Access from the South Frontage Road is provided from a shared entrance with the Amoco service station. The South Fronta +e Road has two eastbound, two westbound and a middle turning lane adjacent to the site. A third eastbound Lane is provided just before the roundabout. The posted speed is 25 mph. A concrete median on the South Frontage Road extends to the western edge of the entrance, ~which terminates at the center turning lane. Vehicles exiting 1 -70 can travel west on the South Frontage Road, make a sh2►rt u -turn around the median and enter the driveway. It is assumed that only a few vehicles(l0 %) make this turn to enter the site. This shared entrance is located about 100 ft. ~vest of the roundabout. 2) The second access is a two way driveway from Vail Road, approximately 150 ft. south of the roundabout and about 60 ft. south of the Vail Road access to the Amoco service station. A 24 "x24" hotel sign is located at this entrance. An existing two lane driveway that leads to the parking garage for Vail Gateway is located directly across from the hotel driveway on Vail Road. ca..,., A, P—;r acc rantar . PO Rnv 07 . Friviark Ca!rindn 81632 • (97(Dl 926 -3373 • Fax (970) 926 -3390 Proposed plans for development of the parcel south of the Vail Gateway indicate the construction of a'one -way' exit adjacent to the existing access to the Vail Gateway parking garage. 0 3) The third access to the site is a two -way driveway from West Meadow Drive located on the western side of the site. We assume that this access is rarely, if ever, used by hotel guests since it is not readily apparent that the hotel parking lot can be accessed from this driveway. Since the majority of vehicles travel on the South Frontage Road or Vail Road, trip rates are expected to be low at this entrance and are not considered in this report. Proposed Conditions: 1) A separate one- -way entrance to the hotel is proposed from South Frontage Road on the western side of the site, approximately 130 ft. west of the Town of Vail Municipal Center entrance and 300 ft. west of the Amoco access. This access drive will parallel South Frontage Road along the front of the hotel and connect to the existing shared access at the Amoco service station. Vehicles will only be permitted to make a right (eastbound) turn from the Amoco access onto South Frontage Road_ It is proposed to extend the existing median on South Frontage Road approximately 140 ft to the west to prohibit left turns in/out of the shared Amoco access. 2) The existing driveway from Vail Road is proposed to be one -way in (right turn only from Vail Road), and will be used for service vehicles only (approximately four per day), with the exception of providing four parking spaces for vehicles using the adjacent condominium complex to the south of the driveway. Vehicles will exit onto South Frontage Road via the shared access at Amoco. 3) The existing driveway onto Nest Meadow Drive will be closed. References and Assumptions The Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) `'Trip Generation publication (6 edition) editioix) has been used to determine average vehicle trip ends (AVTE) for the existing and proposed conditions. As various uses will be considered in this analysis, the "peak hour of adjacent street traffic" has been used to determine traffic volumes. Using the "peak hour of generator" could give false results since the timing of peak traffic can vary for a Given use. Two time periods are thus analyzed, 7 any — 9 am and 4 pm — 6 pm as outlined per ITE. The ITE publication provides various land use options for hotel -type establishments. This report will consider the existing and proposed hotel as a "Resort Hotel ", land use 330 per ITE. As described in the manual, "Resort Hotels are similar to hotels (land use 310) in that they provided sleeping accommodations, restaurants, cocktail lounges, retail shops and guest services. The primary difference is that resort hotels cater to the tourist and vacation business, often providing a variety of recreational facilities, rather than convention and meeting business. Resort hotels are normally located in suburban or outlying locations on larger sites than conventional hotels." It was assumed that this project fits the above description. The trip generation per room tends to be less for a "resort hotel' than for a "hotel" and given the location of the site, this should be true for this project. Since the hotel is within close proximity to the various attractions in Vail, it would be expected that the majority of guests wil I walk or use the free public transportation, thus generating less vehicle volumes than a typical hotel where guests would normally have to drive to attractions. The description of a resort hotel (as well as a hotel) includes restaurant, cocktail lounge, retail shops, etc. Based on this description, this report will include the proposed restaurant, bar, etc. in the traffic generated by the resort hotel, and does not break these out separately in determining traffic volumes. It is to be noted. that the ITE description does not 0 specify square footages, seating, etc. for each auxiliary use in relation to the number of hotel rooms. The proposed development will also have 17 free market condominiums and 39 fractional fee condominiums which will be designated as "High -Rise Residential Condominium/Townhouse" Land Use 232 per ITE to determine trip rates. This designation was chosen since the description best matches the proposed development. • The proposed health club /spa is identified under land use 493 (Health Club) in the ITE manual. It should be noted that only one observation was used in the ITE study, thus the data extrapolated should be used with extreme caution due to the small sample size. Additionally, the ITE study for health clubs was based on square footage of floor area and not on the number of members. Sirice the club will be used primarily by hotel guests (and only 500 memberships available to the public), and is not a "stand alone" facility but part of a hotel complex. it is difficult to determine actual vehicle trips. An on -site traffic count has not been conducted for this report. Vehicle trip ends were estimated using the vals for each land use as provided by ITE. The percentage of vehicles entering the ut.� site from, any given direction has been assumed and is not based on actual observations. The assumed percentage for each direction is indicated along the turning movement arrow on the accompanying diagrams. Existing Average Vehicle Trip Ends: Proposed Average Vehicle Trip Ends: 1 Peak hour* lam -gam Peak hour* Land Use Units Peak hour* Enter Exit lam -gam 1 Resort lotel 120 rooms 4pm -6pm 27 Lana Use 9 rooms Total Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Resort Hotel 120 37 27 10 51 22 29 Gas Station 5 pumps 61 31 _ 30 73 37 36 Total 98 1 58 40 124 59 65 Proposed Average Vehicle Trip Ends: 1 Peak hour* lam -gam Peak hour t 4pm -6pm Land Use Units Total Enter Exit it 1 Resort lotel 120 rooms 1 37 27 10 Condo/Timeshare 56 units 19 4 I S Health Club :.6.4 ksf 8 4 4 M41 Subtotal - Site 64 35 29 1 Gas Station 5 pumps 61 31 30 Total 1?5 66 59 7 { *Mote: Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic Auxiliary Lane Requirements: Frontage Road Per the 1998 State Highway Access Code Section 3.13, South Frontage Road is category F -R (Frontage Road). The posted speed limit is 25mph. P i Section 3.13 of the State Highway Access Code states that auxiliary lanes are required as follows: 1) A left turn lane with storage length plus taper length is required for any access with a projected peak hour left ingress turning volume greater than 25vph. Existing left turns from South Frontage Road are estimated at 6 (into the existing shared entrance) and proposed left turns into the new separate hotel entrance are 73. Available storage plus taper length from the west end of the new median is approximately 155 ft (required length is 115 ft: 25 ft. storage plus 90 ft. taper per Tables 4 -6 and 4 -8 in the Access Code). This length is available in the existing turning lane beyond the new (extended) median. y 2) A right turn with storage length plus taper length is required for any access with a projected peak hour right ingress turning volume greater than 50vph. Existing right turns from South Frontage Road are estimated at 18. Proposed right turns are estimated to be 31 at the hotel and 15 at Amoco. An auxiliary lane should not be required. 3) A right turn acceleration lane with taper is required for any access with a projected peak hour right turning volume greater than 50 vph when the posted speed on the highway is greater than 40 mph, and the highway has only one lane for through traffic in the direction of the right turn. A right turn acceleration lane is not required on multi -lane highways of this category. Since South Frontage Road is multi -lane with a posted speed of 25 mph, a right turn acceleration lane is not required. 4) A left turn acceleration lane with transition taper may be required if it would be a benefit to the safety and operation of [he roadway or as determined by subsection 3.5. A left turn acceleration lane is generally not required where: the posted speed is less than 45mph, or the intersection is signalized, or the acceleration lane would interfere with the left turn ingress movements to any other access. South Frontage Road has a posted speed of 25 mph. No left turns are proposed from the project, thus a lane should not be required. Subsection 3.5 of the State Highway Access Code states: The auxiliary lanes required in the category design standards may be waived when the 20` year predicted roadway volumes conflicting with the turning vehicle are below the followinb minimuun volume thresholds. The right turn deceleration lane may be dropped if the volume in the travel lane is predicted to be below 150 DHV. The left turn deceleration lane may be dropped if the opposing traffic is predicted to be below 100 DHV. The right turn acceleration lane may be dropped if the adjacent traveled lane is predicted to be below 120 DHV. The left turn acceleration lane may be dropped if the volume in the inside lane in the direction of travel is predicted to be below 120 DHV. Summary Table* For Relocated Frontage Road Access South Frontage Road Allowed per 3.13 Current/Projected Lane Req'd per 3.13 Left Decel 25 6/73 Y Right Decel 50 18/31 N Left Accel N/A 14/0 N Right Accel N/A 32/103 N • *The information contained in the summary table with regards to existing and proposed vehicle trips is based solely on ITE "Trip Generation" publication for specific land use as previously described in this report. Turning movements are estimates and not based on actual veld observations. The Current/Projected movements include hotel and gas station trips. Recommendations /Conclusions 1. South Frontage Road Access Section 4.3 in the State Highway Access Code discusses si distance along the highway and at access points. Mini naunv`design site distance along the South Frontage Road is 150 ft. (based on 25mph posted speed). Section 4.4 states that each access should be separated at a minimum by a distance equal to the design sight distance, in this case 150 ft. The current plan indicates that the proposer! entrance (located on the westernmost portion of the property) is separated from the entrance to the Amoco service station by approximately 300 ft and 130 ft from the Town of Vail Municipal Center entrance (centerline distances). The existing median on the South Frontage Road should be extended approximately 100 ft to the west to the Town of Vail building entrance. This should reduce any conflicting movements adjacent to the roundabout for vehicles travelling west and provide for better traffic flow on South Frontage Road. 2. Vail Access Road: The :access from Vail Road should be a 'one way in' d riveway, used primarily for service vehicles. This should improve traffic flow though the site and limit internal convicting movements. It should also limit the conflicting turning movements on Vail Road if the proposed 'exit -only' access is constructed adjacent to the Vail Gateway driveway 3. West Meadow Drive Access: This driveway will be closed. We also recommend that a copy of the site plan, showing the proposed access revisions, be forwarded to the owner of the Amoco service station and Town of Vail Fire Department for their review and comments. Please feel free to contact us if you have any questions or to discuss this matter further. Sincerely, Frederick E. Tobias, PE Enclosures Cc: Waldir Prado Tim Losa Glenn Palmer E x1SIiNL C'n t, 2, 1 - r - % n I--j HOTEL_ 4 � 1 P&MC 14DUY- OP KO I "t F4rn 6 A fEq 4-t.? t •' - Toko-I CtiF VAJL_ S LA L_m, A hj i y �_ / e nf 7 FRO%TAGE ROAa—JDP F, 0 _ EUN4 Y t Ff3CE !Z rn a co 7— 1 ;Af Lj '4 - T& 7; lz if IN & Po r L ' I LI LO y cL 'C ri y � x { L L LU } j I f Ie L16¢ cz 0 4, 1 "' f u FE ,4 Resort Hotel (330) Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Rooms On a: Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour Between 7 and 9 a.m. Number of Studies: 7 Average Number of Rooms: 504 Directional Distribution: 72% entering, 28% exiting Trip Generation per Room Average Rata Flange of Rates Standard Deviation 0.31 0.24 - 0.41 0.57 H] Data Plot and Equation 49a 300 tt1 C U1 L1 h a� 01 290 c� z 100 x ..•...... m ........... ........... .......... : x X .......... ..................... ............................... R x xx 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 300 4011 E00 600 X = Number of Rooms X Actual Data Points Fitted Curve Fitted Curve Equation: T = 0,395(X) - 40.786 700 800 Average Rata R = 0.75 G "a I 0 is • Trip Generation, 6th Edition 586 institute of Transportation Engineers Resort Hotel (330) lqw Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Roams On a: Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour Between 4 and 6 p.m. Number of Studies: 10 Average Number of Rooms: 495 Directional Distribution: 43% entering, 57% exiting i rip t enerarian per moon Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 0.42 0.19 - 0.51 0.65 data Pint nnr9 Fryl4nfinn sao 400 ti c w 300 rn 200 e D M 100 C x ........ ........ ...... ... x ............... . . ..... ........ .... ....... x f :x y' .._..x..:. ... .. -- ........ ...... ..................... x 100 240 040 400 500 X = Number of Rooms X Actual Data Paints Fitted Carve Fitted Curve Equation: Ln(T) = 1.437 Ln(X) -3.621 600 700 E00 540 -- ° - -- Average Rate R = 0.93 Trip Generation, 6th Edition 587 institute of Transportation Engineers High -Rise Residential Condom! nium/Townhouse (232) ,Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Dwelling Units On a: Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour Between 7 and 9 a.m. Number of Studies: 4 Avg. Number of Dwelling Units: 543 Directional Distribution: 19% entering, 81% exiting rip Generation per Dwelling Unit Average Rate Range of Rates Stand-=rd Deviation 0.34 4.31 - 0.48 0.59 ) ata Plot and Equation Caution - Use Carefully- Small Sample Size 500 ut xa ti! e� as 7 Q c� m 2 400 300 240 100 ... . .. .... ......... ....................... .. .......... ... .... ... ... .. ..... �i`... ..........:...... -... :.....;.....w....:..._.;......_.....:.--- Q . . . , I e I i 100 200 300 400 X Actual Data Points 500 600 700 800 900 X = Number of ❑ - miffing Units Fitted. Curvy Fitted Curve Equation: T = 0.266 (X) + 26.861 1000 1100 1210 1300 1400 15£0 - ----- Average Rate R w 0.96 • • 0 rr'p Generation, Btt1 Edition •395 Institute of Transportation Engineefs High -Rise Residential Con dominiumfrownhouse (232) Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: 'Dwelling Units On a: Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour Between 4 and 6 p.m. Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 0.38 0.34 - 0.49 0.52 Number of Studies: 6 Avg. Number of Dwelling Units: 444 Directional Distribution: 62% entering, 38% exiting T rip Generation per Dwelling Unit Caution - Use Carelully - Small Sample Sire Data Plat and Equation 600 5010 N 400 t1J 0. F" 0 U .0 j 300 N 200 1 100 0 ' . . . .. ... ... .. , ... .. .. .. �! - ... ... . .. ... .. . 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1z 1400 1500 X = Number of Dwelling Units X Actual Data Points Fitted Curve - -- - -- Average Elate 01 f=itted Curve Equation: T = 4.342(X) + 15.466 ij2 = 0.99 Trip Generation, 6th Edition 396 Institute of Transportation Engineers Land Use: 493 Health Club Independent Variables with One Observation The following trip generation data are for independent variables with only one observation. This information is shown in this table only; there are no related plots for these data. Users are cautioned to use these data with care because of the small sample size. Trip Size of Number Generation Independent . of Independent Variable Rate Variable Studies Directions! Dis #ritat�ti ra y,Utltl � UiiiC rcciuiu�+a Weekday A.M. Peak ,v ...�� 0.34 43 1 46% entering, 54% exiting Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic Weekday P.m. Peak 4, O 43 81% entering. 39 exiting Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic Weekday A.M. Peak 0.30 43 1 46% entering, 54% exiting Hour of Generator Weekday P.m. Peak 4.34 43 1 61% entering, 39% exiting Hour of Generator • • Trin Generation. 6th Edition 789 institute of Transportation Engineers • Gasoline/Service Station (844) Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Vehicle f=ueling Positions On a: Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour Between 4 and 6 p.m. Number of Studies: 18 Average Vehicle Fueling positions. 8 Directional Distribution: 51 entering, 49 % exiting i rip ueneranon per venicie rueung Position Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 14.56 5.00 - 27.33 6.70 Data Plot and Eauation a W [i F-- w 4) w 0 rn c�C m d t- 224 210 200 190 180 170 160 150 140 130 120 110 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 X ........................ ........... ...... . .... ......... . ......... ; ........... . ................ .. ....................... ;........ .............................. .... .................. ........... ................ ....... ...... �: ....---- .- . ............ ..... . . .... ......... .......... `<`...._.. y ......... ........... . .. . . . .... F ............................... . .......................................... .............. ........................... ... ... _ . . . . .. ........... ......... ••- •• -•• -- - - - - - -- X 6 7 a 9 10 11 12 X = Number of Vehicle Fueling Positions X Actual Data Points Fitted Curve Equation: Not given Trip Generation, 6th Edition ------ Average Rate R2 _ ...,. 1459 institute of Transportation Engineers Gasoline /Ser vice Station (844) Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs; Vehicle Fueling Positions Can a: Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour Between 7 and 9 a.m. Number of Studies: 12 Average Vehicle Fueling Positions: 8 Directional Distribution: 51 % entering, 49% exiting Trip Generation per Vehicle Fueling Position Average Rate Range of Fates Standard Deviation 12.27 7.33 - 17.50 4.36 Data Plot and Equation isr w a c lt1 4 t- as U L N w n 14( 13( 12C 110 100 so so 70 s0 ® 7 8 9 10 X = Number of Vehide Fueling Positions X Actual Data Points Stied Curve Fitted Curve Equation: T = 9.810(X) + 18.855 s0 40 11 12 - -" Average Rate R = 0.51 7nP Generation, 61h Edition 1458 Institute of Transportation Engineers • 0 � 0 � • EXHIBIT K COMMENTS FROM ELECTED AND APPOINTED BOARDS • • of Community Development 75 South Frontage Rand Vail, Colorado 816.57 970 -479 -2158 FAX 970- 479 -2452 October 27, 2000 Tim t.osa, AIA Zehren and Associates, Inc. P.O. Box 1976 Avon, CO 81620 Re: Lot 9 A -C, Vail Village Filing 2 / The Chateau at Vail Dear Tim. On October 24' the Town of Vail Design Review Board (DR13), Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC), and Vail Town Council conceptually reviewed the above- referenced proposal. The following is a synopsis of their comments. 40 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 cf 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 this is 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_ Bulb 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 accessary 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. �� It&CYC..EAPAP£R TOWN Off' VAIL i TOWN OF VAIL Department o, f Community Development 75 South Frontage Bead Vail, Colorado 81657 970 -479 -2135 FAX 970 - 479 -2452 www. ci. vad. co. us November 28, 2000 Tim Losa, AIA Zehren and Associates, Inc. P.O. Box 1976 Avon, CO 81620 He: Lot 9 A -C, Vail Village Filing 2 / The Chateau at Vail Dear Tim: At its November V h meeting, the Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) conceptually reviewed the above- referenced proposal. The following is a synopsis of the PEC's comments. • Special Development District — the PEC believes the project should be able to function as an independent "stand alone" project in case ownership of either hotel project transfers. However, it is necessary to address some of the cumulative impacts (traffic, loading /delivery, etc.) from bath sites. Although it is not necessary to incorporate both sites into the context of this SDD, please address the significant impacts and opportunities provided by the Vail Village Inn site. The PEC will not consider any "above- ground skyways" an acceptable connection between the two projects- Heigh - 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. The height along West Meadow Drive should be stepped down again to a level more consistent with the established character of the area. Bulk and Mass — The building should be turned outward towards the public and opened up to allow greater public access. The proposed atrium area should be opened more to the south to take advantage of the sun exposure and pedestrian traffic. Traffic and Access — Given the limited amount of one -way delivery traffic anticipated for the access drive from Vail Road, the PEC believes the proposed combination of pedestrian and vehicular facilities is acceptable. However, creative paver treatments should be used to delineate the pedestrian and vehicular zones (similar to the Austria Haus pavers along East Meadow Drive). The loading bay location is appropriate, but some visual enhancement and noise mitigation may be necessary. The proposed guest entry and exit is acceptable (pending the completion of a traffic study). 1O RWYL'I.W PAPER F &FCno„ TORN OF CAI, Y epartment of Community Development 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 970 -479 -2138 FAX 970 -479 -2452 W WW ci. vail_ co. us December 8, 2000 Tim Losa, AIA Zehren and Associates, Inc. P.G. Box 1976 Avon, CO 81620 He: Lot 9 A--C, Fail Village Filing 2 / The Vail Plaza Hotel West Dear Tim: At its December 6 meeting, the Town of Vail Design Review Board (DRB) conceptually reviewed the above - referenced application. The following is a synopsis of their comments from this meeting: Bulk and Mass - The project should read as a fragmented assemblage of structures. The linear, unbroken wall planes along the South Frontage Road and West Meadow Drive are too massive and should be broken up to help reduce the apparent mass of the project. There should be points in the project where light and air penetrate through to allow for more transparency. The current proposal is not sympathetic to the design and scale of adjacent buildings. Layout/Footprint The inward focus of the project should be turned outward_ The current proposal is reminiscent of the Vail Gateway project. It needs to be more inviting to the public from the outside. The large internal atrium could be reduced in size; this would allow more flexibility in breaking up the layout of the proposal. Articulation — On a small scale, the dormer elements work well to articulate the roof forms. However, the gables need a better hierarchy and the roof massing needs additional breaks to reduce the visual scale of the proposal. Streetscaping — the current streetscape concept plan along West Meadow Drive works well. However, the pedestrian level entry along Wiest Meadow Drive should be more inviting and should be defined better as a major arrival point for the hotel. C. 4W RECY PAPER EXHIBIT L CITIZEN CORRESPONDENCE • W VAIL 'OWN *Department of Community Development 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 970 - 479 -2138 FAX 970- 479 - 2452 www ci, vail. co. us December 22, 2000 Tim Losa, AIA Zehren and Associates, Inc. P.O. Box 1976 Avon, CO 81620 Re: Lot 9 A -C, Vail Village Filing 2 / The Chateau at Vail Dear Tim: On December t 8 the Town hosted an informal neighborhood meeting for discussion of the Vail Plaza Hotel West Proposal. The following is a synopsis of the comments expressed by various adjacent property owners at this meeting: Access from Vail Road -- Lon Mcellentine (Owner of Alpine Standard property) expressed concerns about restricting traffic to one direction along the eastern "flag" of the property. He was concerned this may impact Alpine Standard's ability to redevelop the property in the future. Additionally, Lon expressed concern about the project's potential impacts on Alpine Standard's ability to accommodate large gasoline trucks. Town staff is looking into the legal ramifications of the access easement and its effects upon the ability to restrict access to one direction. Gwen and Rick Scalpello, representing the 9 Vail Road association, expressed concerns about the amount of delivery traffic proposed for the access drive adjacent to their property. Lo_adinctlDeNvery -- Gwen and Rich Scalpelio (representing the 9 Vail Road Homeowners' Associaticn) expressed concerns about the amount of noise delivery trucks would generate while backing down the proposed ramp to the loading bays. The Scalpellos, Bruce Gillie (representing the owners of the rental units at 9 Vail Road) and Jim Lamont (representing the East Village Homeowners' Association) stated they felt loading and delivery should be accommodated within the interior structure of the hotel; preferably at the northwest corner of the property (opposite the town offices). • 1 Fire Access — Richard Kent (representing the Scorpio association) and Jim Lamont (representing the East Village Homeowners' Association) expressed concerns about fire access along the western wing of the project. Additionally, Richard expressed concerns about the impacts the project may have on the Scorpio's ability to construct residential additions in the future. • ��� RECYCI. W PAP= TO: Design Review Board, Town of Vail FROM: 9 Vail Road (Holiday House) Condominium Association DATE: November 30, 2000 SUBJECT: 13 Vail Road !Lot A, B, C, Block, 2, Vail Village Filing 2 (`Nail Plaza. Hotel -Italian Wing) The owners of 9 Vail Road reviewed the applicant's Vail Plaza Hotel West proposal at their annual meeting in late November. We are not happy with the proposal and wish to share our concerns and requests with you. As we are unable to attend the December 6 meeting, we submit this letter for your consideration. 1. Design: The latest proposal has not changed materially in design from that presented to you in October. It is still a big box and far too massive for the neighborhood. Request: That you direct the applicant to come back with a less massive design that links to the immediate neighbors. Examples would be several buildings on a campus or perhaps a "U" or "H" shaped structure that opens to West Meadow Drive. 2. Height: The proposed building is still way too tall. It exceeds underlying zoning, the height of the current Chateau Vail and the maximum height of its neighbors. Request: That you direct the applicant to return with a design that does not exceed the underlying zoning except on the South Frontage Road, where it can reach the maximum height of the current Chateau Vail. 40 3. Mixed Vehicular/Pedestrian Traffic: The applicant's proposal to use its Vail Road access for commercial trucks puts these massive vehicles into conflict with the many guests walking between the two wings of the Vail Plaza Hotel. Additionally, lost and confused automobile traffic looking for the entrance to the hotel will use this access. At twelve feet wide, it is not safe to mix pedestrians and vehicles, especially trucks. Request: That you direct the applicant to produce a design that does not mix pedestrian and vehicular traffic. 4. Loading Dock: The applicant's proposal has trucks entering from Vail Road, Ming right and then backing clown a 6.5% grade ramp. For approximately 70 feet of this ramp, the driver will be riding his brakes and the automatic backup alam will be sounding. Request: That you direct the applicant to fully enclose the.rarzlp area with a structure that is architecturally consistent with the rest of the building and appropriately landscaped. Should there be any questions, please contact the undersigned through Brent Wilson in Community Development. 'Gwen Scalpello, President TO: Planning and Environmental Commission. Town of Vail 0 FROV1: 9 Vail Road (Holiday House) Condominium Association DATE. November 27, 2000 SUBJECT: 13 Vail Road/ Lot A, E, C. Block 3, 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. Cur objective is to stimulate discussions that will lead to decisions that make the eventual design one that will benefit and ht 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 Wail Read and pede zrrim traffic on the access dove. Drivers e.-citing 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 omen mt.R niliar 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 wdting 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 tt c on this dtive 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 w4:th the planning staff our options to relocate the parking spaces. 2: Leading Dock For all the same reasons that the PEC and Co►xncil decided that the loading facility for the Vail Plaza. Hotel East should be on South Frontage Road so should the loadin. g faclity for the Vail Plaza Hotel West be there. The current design has trucks jockeying into position to back down the ramp, which has a step 6_5 grade. They will then use their noisy brakes to control their descent, all the while sounding loud =unlock back-up 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 eMloyees whose housing units are adjacenrto this leading 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. • 3. HeiLgt anti. \+lass: Ea-q Nfeadow Drive is predominantly hotel and retail, while West Meadow Drive is predominantly residential. The maior exceptions are 9 Vail Road, the c=ent Chateau at Vail property and the Ist Hank building, all zoned Public Accommodation. We believe that the planning community displayed wisdom in the past by using the above properties to transition between hotellretai 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 a dM with a maximum height of some d)dy -three feet. The Chateau at Vail e,dsts with a mac iznum height of some fifty -eight feet_ We believe this stepping down was clone intentionally by you and your predecessors and that the current maximum heights should be maintain so as not to threaten the character of the e xisting comm Additionally, the mass of the proposed Vail Plaza Hotel West dwarfs evervl ing around it and provides no linkages with any of its neighbors. It is based on an urban design that utilizes a large central atrium to provide light and artificial views. We have the real thing in Vail - beautf - al mountains and blue shies 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 limes platted in 1973 for 9 Vail Road did not result in a- foot setback for either the C bateau at Vail or 9 Vail Roast 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 sagnificantly higher than the low eastern wiing of the Chateau at Vail, we ask that the setback provide a 40 foot separation of the buildings. 5, Spesial 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 eois 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. his project provides a large spa and a large conventicin 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 shorn the linkage between the two rites. 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 tralme relocated from Nest 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_ Moellen>tine Land Company, LLC c/o Alpine Standard, LLC 29 South Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 December 1, 2000 Mr. Brent Wilson Town of Vail/Department of Community Development I 1 I South Frontage Road West Vail, CO 81657 Dear Mr. Wilson, As the owner of the Alpine Amoco station, 28 South Frontage Road, property, we would like to express our concerns regarding the Vail Plaza Hotel -West project directly adjacent to us to the west. During the most recent Planning Commission work session (November 27, 2000), we became aware of our neighbor's intent to convert the parcel of land separating our property and 9 Vail Road to the south into a 12' wide, one -way drive (ingress only from Vail Road) with heavy landscaping and pedestrian amenities. As you will note on the attached Legal Description for our property, we have art ingress /egress easement for this parcel which is directly behind us. The proposed redirecting of traffic patterns would violate our easement. Furthermore, we are concerned that the proposed changes in ingress /egress could have a material adverse impact on the business of Alpine Standard. It has also come to our attention that during the work session a number of the statements and descriptions of how Alpine Standard operates were incorrect, particularly the safe ingress /egress patterns for fuel deliveries which should be of paramount importance to all involved. It is our intent to preserve our rights to allow the continued full use of this easement as it exists today, as it may well play an important part in any redevelopment activities we might pursue for our property in the future. Recognizing the importance of the issues being considered, I am in the process of securing proper legal representation and remain hopeful that a suitable and constructive solution can be achieved. Please feel free to contact me if you have any comments or questions about the points covered in this letter. Sincerely,, .7 Lou Moellentine President of Moellentine Land Company, LLC 11/28/00 19;04 FAX 476 1961 0 . WIEST /VAIL, CO. CygA , Eike. i- ouo Wi esl D A7reuzh_ 5188161 =_FN /(0f4 -9) (0)8382 -Tel: 50- 17578 Far. 82267 LJZ4 L Z, CO, / 8165 / 112 F Meadow Dr. / ph (001) 970 -476 -1961 rnad US _ c% Brandess ./ 281 Bride e S't. Mobile,Hcmdy. 6171 -Tel_ - '26 -OS14 -Fax. 427 617 /E -maiL wie~stollorc�r 4O .com TOIAN OF V AJL NMA,YOR L: KURZ Dear Ladwaig, After having b=n at the town meeting yesterday, I have seen the plans of the new Plaza Motel I think the part across the street from my home ( 122 +N.Nleadow Drivc ) will be called Italian w intz. G=crally I�do welcome the improvement of the buildings there. 13W loal6ng to the size and especially the planned. height I think it doesn't fit at all between all the surrounding buildings. Mules are for everybody and if the town of Vail gives an extra permission to this building as big as plamied, you wM have to give special permissions all over. I think those general rules of building height have created in Vail a, pretty reasonable Villagr, and I hope you all stray with it. Until now the town of Vail has handled all this very woll, And teen it doesn't especially bother me, if the 'building be.hiud my home is oversized it would not at all be helpful for the whole corn unity. Z am sure you will handle all this with the necessary case and I want to support the town to decide for a reasonable size of the Plaza Motel. Sincerely Otto Wiest 11.28.2000 U.G1, is • • TO: Vail Town Council, Planning and Environmental Commission, Design Review Board 0 FROM: 9 Vail Road {Holiday House) Condominium Association DATE:. Cctober 23, 2000 SUBJECT: 13 Vail Road f Lot A, B C, Block 2, Vail Village Filing 2 (Vail Plaza Hotel - itaitan Wing) The following is a summary of the issues. concerns and recommendations in response to the application for a special development district (SDD) at the Chateau. Vail property. The 9 Vail Road (Holiday House) Condominium Homeowners Association, an adjacent neighbor and affected parr!, wishes to bring these items forward at the Town Council work session Tuesday, October 24. 1. Special Development District VVe recognize the advantages of redevelopment of the site currently occupied by the Chateau at Vail. However, the property is already zoned "public accommodation district" and the intended use of the proposed project is compatible with that zoning. We feel the current proposal is incompatible with the neighborhood. No special development districts currently exist in this primarily residential area of West Meadow Drive, We see no community benefit from approval of a special development district at this site. We ask tha the request fo r a special developm district LSDDI, be de nied. 2_ Height and Mass Considerations 40 A luxury project at the entrance to the town and an increase in luxury accommodations should benefit the Town of Vail. However, the height and mass of the proposed flail Plaza Hotel Italian Wing is not compatible viith the underlying zoning nor with the scale of the adjacent neighbors. The mass of the building is also incompatible with the residential nature of West Meadow Drive. The building height towers over adjacent buildings to east, west and south. Adjacent properties are residential and are 3-4 stories at West Meadow Drive. Two- famiiy residential zoning on the south side of West Meadow Drive begins immediately across from the site and continues tiniest to the end of the street. We wo uld lik to see the hei ght of the proposed Vail P Hotel Italia 1 iVing r on the south e an west f t o meet the curr heights es in the n If height variances are to be granted, they should be limited to the northern portion of the building. This would be consistent with the concepts of the Town of Vail Master Plan, which calls for low scale buildings in the core area and allows for taller buildings along the Frontage Road. 3. Setback Considerations The setbacks in the current proposal do not appear to meet the requirements for PA zoning. We ask that the 20' setb s called for in PA zoni nc_be enforced both abo an bel This is especially critical to the 0 Vail Road Condominium Association because the property transferred to the Association by the developer of the Holiday Inn and Holiday House resulted in an erratic setback on our },pest side of as little as one foot. If the 20 foot setback is not enforced on the Vail. Plaza Hotel Italian Wing project, our two buildings will be uncomfortably close. Enforcing the 20' setback also helps to ensure fire equipment access to the area bet seen our buildings. Mr. Pradc has assured us that the setbacks from our common property is line %Mll be 20 feet. We ask that the setback be enforced below grade as well, because of the erratic setback and because of an underground creek which is visible on the property line between 9 Vail Road and the proposed structure. Vilest Meadow Drive, which is a major pedestrian access to I_ionshead, begins at Vail Road with a pocket park. There is a large open green space on the north side of West Meadow Drive at the current site. We would like to see a minimum of a 20' setback in this project on West Meadow Drive to retain some of the open green space in this area. 4. Traffic Considerations. Two- access to the Vail Plaza Hotel Italian Wing is currently proposed frcm both Vail Road and the South Frontage Road. Traffic exiting the hotel to Vail Road will more likely tum left towards the roundabout than right towards the village core. As this driveway is opposite the exit drives from Gateway and the proposed Vail Plaza Hotel French Wing and is exposed to fast - moving traffic exiting the roundabout, it seems inappropriate to permit vehicles to exit via this access. That driveway is also the most likely pedestrian route between the Nvo 'mngs of the Vail Plaza Hotel and will create a dangerous situation unless a walkway is provided. Therefore, w recommend that the access drive fro Vail Road be one- entry access, to permit the construction of a landscaped pedestrian walk in addition to the driving lane. The Tcwn of Vail should also evaluate the need for a crosswalk on Vail Road. Commercial traffic is currently planned to travel `Jail Road and West Meadow Drive to a loading dock at the southwest corner of the building_ Such commercial traffic estimated in the traffic study at 8 -10 trucks per day, is inconsistent with the residental character and pedestrian usage of West Meadow Drive. We recommend that the loading dock and comm ve hicle access be moved to th e Sou Frontacle Road as is the plan at the Vail Plaza Hotel French �lVJng. In summary, we are concerned that approval of a special development district and relief from current zoning requirements will damage the character of this residential area. We look forward to a response and a resolution of these concerns. If there are any questions concerning the above, please forward them through the planning department. Sincerely, Gwen Scalpello Ruben Catan President, Board of Directors Vice President, Board of Directors 9 Vail Road (Holiday House) Condominium Homeowners Association • • L� MEMORANDUM 0 TO: Vail Town Council, Design Review Board, Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Scorpio Condoir - inium Home Owners Association DATE: October 18, 2000 SUBJECT: 13 Vail Road 1 Lot A, B, C, Block 2, Vail Village Piling 2. (Vail Plaza Hotel) I, INTRODUCTION The following is in response to the proposal for a special development district (SDD) where the Chateau at Vail is currently located. The following is more specifically a response to the proposed Vail Plaza Hotel West from the viewpoint of the neighboring complex; the Scorpio Building. U. ISSUES 1. The Scorpio Condominium Home Owners Association does not believe the proposed design for the Vail Plaza Hotel is compatible with the scale, bulk, and building height of the current neighborhood. The size of the proposed project is currently zoned as a Public Accommodation (PA) District. The height in a PA district "shall not exceed forty eight feet." This height is measured from any point on a proposed or existing roof to the existing or finished grade (whichever is more restrictive) located directly below said. point of the roof. We have diagramed how the proposed development is exceeding this current zoning on the attached S 1 !z" x 11 "sheets Exhibit "A" and Exhibit "B ". The scale of the development is also not in agreement with the heights defined for the neighborhood on the zoning neaps. If the Vail Plaza Hotel is allowed to exceed the height and bulk limits established then the neighbors will have justification to exceed the heights established and the neighborhood as it currently exist will grow in scale and mass. It would be more desirable if the Vail Plaza Hotel would make an effort to transition to the heights established for the current neighborhood. We would like to see the mass and height of the proposed Vail Plaza Hotel be reduced by 1 1 /z stories on the West South West and South faces to meet the current heights established in the neighborhood We have also attached a copy of the zoning maps and their relation to the heights of the neighborhood under Exhibit "C". Under•1his exhibit we are also proposin how the Conceptual Building Height Plan under the Town of Vail Comprehensive Plana can be extended on to the proposed site. The comprehensive plan states under the Building height plan on page 31 of the Vail Zoning Code, "it is the goal of this plan to maintain the concentration of low scale buildings in the core area while positioning larger buildings along the northern periphery (along the frontage road)." This is consistent with our request to reduce the height along West Meadow Drive and have the higher portioo of the building along South Frontage Road. 2. The mass of the proposed Vail Plaza Hotel exceeds the current setbacks as defined for a (PA) District. Below the grade the building is within 5' -0" of the property line on the North, East and West sides. The Scorpio group is concerned with the encroachment of the building into the setback on the West Side and the South West corner. Under the current zoning the applicant is required to submit for Board approval a list of items as defined within 12- 7A -12, if modifications are to be made to a (PA) District. One of these requirements is to provide a written statement as to how the proposal complies with the Vail Comprehensive Plan and Urban Design Plan. We would like to request the applicant provide the submittal requirements defined within _12 -7A -12 of the PA District Our concern with these alterations is that the South East corner extends beyond the setback established for the Alphorn building. We would like to see the South West Corner of the proposed _building pulled North to align with the Alphorn building. Please refer to attached Exhibit "D" for a diagram illustrating where the building should be pulled North to meet the intent of the Vail Comprehensive Plan and Urban Design Plan. The setbacks proposed are also providing problems with the Fire department access currently required for the Scorpio Building and the Alphorn Building. Currently fire department access to the South and East sides of the Scorpio building and Alphorn building is through a gate on the East End of the parking between the Scorpio building and the Aiphom building (see attached Exhibit "1F ") The fire department requires this through access to get a fire truck to the East facades of the existing buildings. If the proposed development is to be built this close to the adjacent site, whereby eliminating a required fire department access, the existing buildings would be reducing the allowable square footage for their development as defined in the Uniform Building Code Section 505.1.3 and 505.1.2. The Scorpio and Alpborn buildings have been designed and built on a LIFE SAFETY code that necessitated the openness of these buildings on four sides. We the Scorpio Condominium Group, would like to request the Vail Plaza Hotel be reduced on the West side by 20'-0" and provide a plaza s ace for fire de artrnent access on top of the parking structure for the fire truck access We would therefore be maintaining the LIFE SAFETY of our development as defined in the UBC. If this modification (reduction in building size on the West Side) is made the proposed site coverage below grade (currently 70.8%,) can be brought closer to the required 65%, 4. The proposed landscaping is not in compliance with the Public Accommodation District (PA) or the Vail Village Master plan, Town Policies or Urban Design Plan. The (PA) District requires "at least thirty percent (30 %) of the total site area shall be landscaped." The current proposal has only 14.7% landscaping. Some of this landscaping does not meet the minimum width and length of an area qualified to be called landscaping per section 12 -7A -10 of the Zoning Code. We the Scorpio Condominium Home Owners Association would like to request the applicant meet the minim requirements for landscning as required fora PA District even if the applicant is to be modified to a S ecial Develo went District. The Vail Village Master Plan has developed an open space plan. This plan currently does not extend into this site but if the applicant is to modify the current zoning we would request the open space plan be extended into the Vail Plaza Hotel Site. There is currently a nice green space buffer on the North side of West Meadow Drive. We would life t see a plaza or greenspace incorporated into the West Meadow Drive streetscape deli Li. It is our belief this would meet the intent of the Vail Comprehensive plan. 5. The proposed Vail Plaza Hotel is proposing on site employee housing. We would like to request this housing is placed off -site in order to reduce the overall mass and size of the ra osed Hotel The other option that would allow a reduction in the overall size / height of the project is to reduce the size of the spa, atrium, ballroom and service area on the lower levels. This would allow some of the hotel units to be displaced from the upper floors to the lower levels. 6. The applicant for the Vail Plaza Hotel is proposing a dock area off the South West corner of the development_ We would like to request this dock be moved to the Northeast corner of the- proposed hotel. The potential noise and trash produced by this dock will adversely affect the living units located near the dock area. The dock should also incorporate doors to mitigate the noise generated wherever the dock is placed. The second issue related to the dock and garage is the exhaust requirements. The fans removing and providing fresh air for the dock and garage generate noise and fumes. We would like to request the applicant provide where the exhaust fans will be located and a study defining the extent of the exhaust and noise generated if the fans are to be located anywhere near the Scorpio building. We would also like to request commercial vehicular traffic be removed from West Meadow Drive. 7_ It is our understanding the Vail Plaza Hotel will be placed over Spraddle Creek. please identify and txuti anon far this natural creek. There appears to be a conflict with the proposed parking structure and the existing path of the creek piped beneath the site. S. The proposed height of the project significantly reduces the Scorpio building's view of Vail Mountain. We would like to request the roofline is reduced to maintain the view we currently have on the West end of the proposed project. Given the above the proposal for the Vail Plaza Hotel FAILS to meet the requirements under 12- 9A -S A through I of the Town of Vail Zoning Ordinance. The above concludes our major concerns at this time. We will look forward to a response and resolution to the issues identified above. If there are any questions concerning the above please forward these comments through the planning department_ Sincerely Richard Kent President -- Board of Managers Scorpio Condominium. Home Owners Association v:l projectsl secrpio\00240001adminlmemolagni 01800 Cc: Pile 17 0 • w + 1 w w . Jarra7 I Y V � r ' NA ME sei i R Il M1: • ��L �44X�E i� 1 � ��t'k c -�� 4� � ' rt 4 �s 11 �nw clF; .ate ���� t � ` � r l' • • • �v [; ���■ R �• ° Ts j•_�;C � � I L at f :s•as' �JJJL � t _. � t' • • r • tom. _``=�.r..� .� 9 1 ��� t Y 1N �� 1� �, • agog �� r lH + .. � �1' � • • • 10 1 ?E" �1� R �� ali� T�xiin ca sates • ♦ a• • L ' W O h 1 i >wws • • � ■ � � lZ{� ` `N , Ipl • fr .. , I 1 .� • ,� • • .,° 1 4 Yet �� i 9 o • I � Pr�s+YN - �I }° t ICS . � • • A 1 L �8 S� +1i +�Cl iitiy ` � 1�lvt��,�...2?' r • 17 0 • • i • w � w w • • • • —n,W : i r � • • • tr f � i � F r • • • • t n r WZA nay ! i ] S y S� h c w • p` • • • • i.v •nr FPS ^�, 1 5 s � - i 112 • '- � . �• 'say. �# <�1- � a h r � '~ •' �' . lam I ,r aw 1:.��� ] a � } ! t ti [3 N 3 444p € ( xa w t3 U ti i t 3t X r 0 m CD C m QJ U c Q U O c m 'L7 O C}. O IL Q cv CQ d �I 4.) J..i • • t� 4% a C� tsk 3.Q C� P;3= LI_} U 0 ' w- a- n c� p s� p A o ,.. o VS �-- --•-ter a ._ X00 x C �•./� � 'C3 � X � a � h N 1� • ,�u W � !� `2 A +C C? iliroc Q v SI i auk adbp � in „ yuu: V1 a4O 4 � M _D u� oleic c O C] C L] Q t jaar�ci� LL ' A f 1c na it - u 1 �4ip aoii C} Q? ` E E E �ao9a. E 75 0 '.i C7 O Q cL cl UnGnC Yi lidia0. > m it Fua'riac O ci 0 c 4 g -QOQ io 11i.ii i Q C N cry {7 0 O C7 C Ro nr � H Q c m y ° lz si 2 2 . to Ln vi E 5 i A l l • � 0 � 0 • 1 I l ! 1 !J c] EL �u 4 u o XMI 1 H3 3 I!I z a en 0 C/J al Z5 CD r ! ° co a3 } ID I ` °v °v CL r r � w l� m � t I U u � s Al N r .0 m -C +; I r ° a C� f a Q ou 0-2 BID n B `� � � � c"s o "� r � -(D 4)0 0 E o sl ai ® C: u �� 2 -o. Q m . . rf CL ` °� � I o o a d';' m ,Z U a U c4 c6 r ,f � -.. xcr r. �x�rYc< - � � tea. � � � • ri ri p II'' gg�� �,.. PR Rllllii W ..�•li � I i F f f `vt, U Q G m a qq f-r! u v Q C ID CL cn Q CL LL C d co L3 3 n -a E H o a S-- CL C L 4 Q � c � C3 a 4 U y Q U w �f Ea V- 0 oa ® N C C m C G CL f Q co c a h Z � U a U � � U U � rr l V • rl • • E • EXHIBIT M APPLICANT'S STATEMENT OF THE REQUEST • • • Sep 2 2000 4 :44PM ZEHREN AND ASSOCIA Z E H R E N AN[) ASSOCIATES, INC. Monday, September 25, 2000 Mr. Brent Wilson Planner Town of Vail Department of Community Development 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 Re: Vail Plaza Hotel -- West • • Brent: No, 8774 1, 1/2 From:1348 REVD S E P 2 6 2000 This letter is to address design criteria A through, 1 as outlined in section i2 -9A -8 of the town code. It is our understanding that these nine (9) criteria are to be used in evaluating the means of the creation of the new Vail Plaza Hotel —West Special Development District. A. Design Compatibility. We believe that the hotel is designed in such a way that is both compatible and sensitive to the immediate environment, neighborhood, and adjacent properties while at the same time giving the hotel a character and an identity as a commc rrcially viable entity within the community. The major orientation of the hotel is to the pedestrian areas at the southern edge of the site. The more public functions including the major pedestrian entrance, spa, conference space, retail areas, and the restaurant have been located along this side of the site in arder to give the maximum visibility and life to those areas along with access to sunlight and views to the ski mountain. The majority of the mass and bulk have been placed along the northern edge of the site as seen in the more closed Frontage Road elevation to aid in buffering highway noise and to avoid blocking existing views across the site. The proposed landscaped buffer zones are consistent with the underlying zoning in that they visually maintain the required property line setbacks above grade. Additional buffering area has been allowed for pedestrian and landscape areas along West Meadow Drive_ the mass and bulk are sensitive to adjacent structures in that the hotel is designed to step up in height and bulk from both the street and adjacent smaller structures in order to maintain a comfortable pedestrian scale while maintaining consistent heights with tt-,e roof lines of adjacent structures. The stepping and broken ridge lines, the variations in building materials, and the varied wall and deck planes act to break down the overall mass and bulk of the project, add pedestrian scale and interest, and relate the hotel to the surrounding neighborhood. In addition, the hotel has been designed around a courtyard or atrium, much like the neighboring structures to the west, so that the hotel can be perceived as a collection of smaller structures connected over time around a common, public, opera space. The architectural design is meant to be both compatible in scale with the Scorpio, Alphorn, Nine Vail Road condominium, and the approved Vail Plaza Hotel while at the same time providing same identity to the hotel as both a recognizable and viable commercial structure within the community. B. Uses, Density, and Activity. The Vail Plaza Hotel -West as proposed, is a full service hotel, which would include conference, spa, restaurant, and limited commercial activities. The hotel is meant to rcplace the aging, smaller CbAwau 'Vail and to act as the first in a series of proposed uses along Bast and West Meadow Drive including the Bavaria House, Vail Plaza Hotel -East, the Hub Site, Dobson Area, Evergreen Lodge, and '.he Hospital meant to create commercial interest along West Meadow Drive and create a dynamic link between the Village and Lionshead core areas_ ARC'HITECTURC +IlLA%4,&" INC- INTERIORS -tANDs (:AYy AR( :P!T'E(7URU Sep. 25. 2000 4:4Pa FY Vail Plaza Hotel 961070.00 ZEHFEN AND ASSOC ?A No. 8774 °. 2/2 From:l?48 7 -ahrim and Associates, Inc. 9125/40 C. Parking and )Loading. We believe the proposed parking and loading facilities are in compliance with the requirements of the underlying zoning, D. Comprehensive Plan. We believe the proposed development substantially complies with the goals expressed in both the streetscap: /Waster plan and the Land Use Plan. The Land Use Plan identifies our site as Resort Accommodations and Service, and as such recommends activities aimed at accommodating the overnight and short -term visitor including hotel, parking, and support commercial/business services. These services are oriented in order to maintain a clear separation between the vehicular access from I -70 and the pedestrian orientation of West Meadow Drive. We believe that the proposed pedestrian and vehicular impacts and subsequent improvements to the Frontage Road, Vail Road access potnts, and West Meadow Drive as indicated on the submitted documents substantially comply with the elements proposed in the Streetscape Master Plan. The proposed curb, gutter, sidewalk, and roadway median improvements along Both the Frontage Road and West Meadow Drive will add to the overall functionality of the existing infrastructure in excess of our impacts while at the same time visually enhancing the surroLmding neighborhood. E. Natural Hazards, We believe there are no natural hazards that may affect development of this site_ F_ Design Features, The proposed site plan, building design, location, and open space provisions provide for both an efficient and functional hotel and an attractive and visually interestine hotel entry /retail experience. This is accomplished through maintaining an effective separation of guest and service functions at both the Frontage Road and West Meadow Drive guest entrances_ All service functions, including vehicular movements occur underground at the western edge of the site while all vehicular guest access is provider/ at the northeastern area of the site and all pedestrian access is provided at the southeastern area of the site.. G. Traffic. We believe we have proposed a pedestrian and vehicular traffic circulation system that provides for minimal impact on existing infrastructure while at The same time provides a safe and efficient rrieans of circulation through effective separation of these systems as indicated in Design Features, (F.), above. H_ Landscaping, The proposed landscape design provides for enhanced and more diverse pedestrian and vehicular areas by decreasing the amount of continuous, visible surface paving materials through the use of roadway medians, varied materials, and non - linear land and hard -scape designs. I. Phasing Plan. The development will be consmicted in one phase with completion anticipated for late fall of 2002- Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions or concerns regarding the information presented. Additionally, if you need any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Tim Losa Project Manager LI • • TO: Planning and Environmental Commission, Town of Vail Town Council, Town of Vail Design Review Board, Town of Vail FROM: twine Vail Road (Holiday House) Condominium Association DATE. February 9, 2001 SUBJECT: 13 Vail Road f Lot A, B. C, Block 2, Vail Village Filing 2 (Vail Plaza Hotel — Westfltaiian Wing) The owners of 9 Vail Road recognize and support the need to redevelop the current Chateau Vail property. However, we have several concerns with the current request for a special development district and with the project as currently proposed. The concerns common to all immediately adjacent property owners and documented in a separate letter are included here for completeness. Appli cation for a Special Development 'District: We request that the application for a Special Development District be denied and that the project be reviewed under the current public accommodation zoning. We see no justification for an SD for this project. • The most appropriate (and current) use for this site is a hotel, and the current PA zoning is consistent with that use. Provision for the intended uses of the property appears in the current PA zoning. • The current proposal does not significantly increase the current accommodation unit bed base. It replaces 120 accommodation units with 120 accommodation units. It adds fractional fee and free market condominium units that are not likely to significantly increase the seasonal rental bed base. • It provides convention and spa facilities which are redundant with those already approved for the Vail Plaza Hotel - East and which require the bed base of both the Vail Plaza Hotel - East and proposed Vail Plaza Hotel - West to fully utilize.. This is clearly not a stand -alone project. It is tied to and dependent on the already approved Vail Plaza Hotel - East, and the applicant has told us that the two wings of the hotel will be operated as a single entity. Any consideration of an SDD should require the full context of the Vail Plaza Hotel - East and West wings. As a stand -alone project, our concerns with the proposed project include: loading and delivery, height, mass, landscaping and drainage and environmental. Loading and Delivery: This commercial loading and delivery facility is only partially enclosed and requires lengthy backing down a grade to access it. .Placing such a facility immediately adjacent to residential neighbors is inconsistent with adjacent uses. This facility would more properly be located on the South Frontage Road, be enclosed and provide for forward entry and exit as in the already approved Vail Plaza Hotel - East. Height: Established zoning for the site limits building height to 48 feet. Since the current building and some neighboring buildings exceed that height, it is reasonable to consider increased height limitations to the current height of the Chateau Vail, with possible additional height at the South Frontage Road. However, it must be recognized that the mass of this project is significantly greater than that of any adjacent neighbors, and that the overall impact on the neighborhood of such height deviations would, therefore, be far greater for this project than for any existing buildings. Heights on West Meadow Drive should be limited to 2 -3 stories to provide a step -dawn to the residential properties, height at the South Frontage Road, to the extent it exceeds current height of the Chateau Vail and adjacent properties, should step down toward adjacent properties. Mass; The mass of the proposed project is emphasized by its fortress -like design with long wails which enclose the property. We recognize that the applicant has made efforts to open the facade on West Meadow Drive, but the overall design is still predominantly that of an urban, inward - focused facility. When such a design is implemented outside an urban environment, it is customarily placed in a large park. This provides relief from its scale to the surrounding neighbors. This project is not in a park; it fills the site to the limits of the underlying zoning. La ndscapi n g and Drainage. To mitigate the noise and visual impact of the loading and delivery facility, the applicant proposes to construct a large berm which appears to span our common property line and a retaining wall along the drive from Vail Road which appears to be on the property line. In addition to questions of use of our property for the purpose of the applicant's noise mitigation, the berm would appear to channel runoff from snow melt and rain directly toward 9 Vail Road. We ask that if this project is approved as proposed, that specific requirements regarding drainage impact on adjacent properties be placed on the project. Further, we ask that the deciduous trees proposed at the southeast corner be replaced with evergreens to extend the buffer between 9 Vail Road and the loading and delivery facility and the employee housing units and their associated ground level terraces. Environmental Concerns: We request that all venting and exhaust from kitchens, garages and the like be fully mitigated. In summary, we support redevelopment of the Chateau Vail, but this proposal is simply too large and incompatible with its residential neighbors to gain our enthusiastic support. Gwendolyn G. Scalpello President is T4: Planning and Environmental Commission, Town of Vail Town Council, Town of Vail Design Review Board, flown of Vail DATE: February 9, 2001 SUBJECT: 13 Vail Road / Lot A, B, C, Block 2, Vail Village Filing 2 (Vail Plaza. Hotel - West) We, the adjacent neighbors of the Chateau Vail, have joined together to express our mutual concerns with the proposed Vail Plaza Hotel - West.. Additional concerns of specific properties may be presented in letters from those properties and during public participation in your meetings. We wish to reiterate our overall support for redevelopment of the Chateau Vail, and we offer our criticisms and suggestions in hope of contributing toward a facility that the applicant, the adjacent community and the Town of Vail will be proud of. Unfortunately, the current proposal is not such a design. 1. Bulk and Mass: The design of the proposed building is incompatible with the neighborhood and it dwarfs everything around it. We refer you to the enlarged aerial view of the current neighborhood prepared by Town staff which includes an overlay of the proposed hotel for a visual impression of the proposal's bulk. We remind everyone that this is a residential community. In addition to its size, the proposed design directs attention inward to the atrium and has no connection with its neighbors. We support the recommendation of Winston Associates that the building be broken into smaller gabs, "possibly by angling the building to the street, varying the roof heights and stepping it back and forth' and the comments of the DRB as stated in the planning staff synopsis that "The linear, unbroken wall planes along the South Frontage Road and West Meadow Drive are too massive and should be broken up to help reduce the apparent mass of the building." We further suggest angling or jogging the building m areas adjacent to residential buildings, opening the views from the hotel as well as from adjacent properties. 2. Height: We acknowledge that the applicant has made some height reductions from his original proposal, but the building remains too tall to be compatible with the neighborhood. a. West Meadow Drive: The proposal contains four and five story sections on West Meadow Drive. These are incompatible with the new Town of Vail streetscape design. We support the Winston Associates recommendation that the applicant "Step the facade lower along West Meadow Drive, even down to two stories in several places. b. Central Section: The maximum height of this section of the proposed hotel should not exceed the maximum height of the current Chateau Vail or 52.3 feet. c. South Frontage Road: We could agree to a maximum height greater than 52.3 feet along the Frontage Road as long as the hotel heights adjacent to the Scorpio and the planned redevelopment of the Alpine Standard site are at the same level, with steps in height as they reach the center of the building_ This follows the same consideration given the West Meadow Drive side by attempting to break up the lines and facade of the building, as suggested by Winston Associates. 3. Loading & Delivery: An outside or visually exposed loading and delivery facility is undesirable adjacent to any residential property. The proposed facility is particularly objectionable because it is uncovered, requires vehicles to maneuver noisily, and is intrusive when located along a property line. That positions it in full view of planned condominiums on the Alpine property and adjacent to the Nine Vail Road Condominiums. We believe service access and this facility should be relocated to the South Frontage Road and be fully enclosed as recommended by the Department of Public Works in order to be oriented away from adjacent residential properties, midway between the east and west property lines. 4. Environmental: Mechanical venting, noise, odors, air pollution and other nuisances adverse to the surrounding residential uses should be frilly mitigated, 0 5. Spa/Health Club: The proposed spa/health club is very large at 23,767 square feet and the plan to offer 500 memberships will greatly increase automobile traffic for this complex. According to the traffic study the spa is the largest traffic generator. This is a residential community and we request that auto traffic be reduced by limiting the use of the spa/health club to on -site residents, as was stipulated in the approval for the Vail Plaza Hotel - East. From a town availability standpoint there are already public spa facilities on the retail/commercially oriented East Meadow Drive at the Swiss Spa and Vail Mountain Spa. 6. Vail Plaza Hotel - West and East: The applicant is presenting his proposal as a standalone hotel, but it is clearly not a standalone. The Vail Plaza Hotel, East and West wings, will be marketed and operated as one facility. The developer stated at the October Council/PEC/DRB session that he would probably not build the conference center and spa/health club in the East wing. The conference center and spa/health club in the West wing are sized to accommodate the combined capacities of both wings. The plans show a future tunnel that will connect the wings. We believe it is appropriate that the impacts of the two wings should be presented as a unified plan_ Additionally, town government should assiun.e the responsibility to determine if duplication of facilities a_g. spa, convention, loading & delivery is creating an unnecessarily large complex, For example, if one were to look at the two wings as one hotel, one could conclude that the convention center should be located in one ruing and the spa/health club in the other. Additionally, since there does not appear to be a good location for the loading & delivery facility in the Vest wing, the already approved and enclosed facility in the East wing could be expanded to become a central facility and appropriate vehicles used to transport goods via the tunnel. Furthermore, this tunnel could provide an excellent solution to facilitate the safe crossing of pedestrian traffic between the wings. Conclusion: We believe that the applicant's proposal is too tall and too massive and that tinkering with this design will not produce an acceptable design. The applicant should be strongly encouraged to develop an entirely new approach for the West wing that follows the guidance provided by the DRB and Winston Associates and to eliminate duplication of facilities between the East and West wings_ Herbert E. Wollowick, MD Jeff Moellentine President, Alphorn Condominiums President„ Alpine 'Standard (/ Richard Kent Gwen Scalpello President, Scorpio Condominiums President, Nine Vail Road Condo • Alphorn Condominium Association 40 121 West Meadow Drive Vail, CO 81657 February 8. 2001 Vail Town Council 75 S. Frontage Rd. West Vail, CO 81657 Re: Vail Plaza Hotel. West - Prado Protect Dear Members of the Council, The Alphom Condominium Association does not believe the proposed project, without modification, is compatible with the current neighborhood. We are not opposed to this project, but would like to see its appearance and function be an asset to Vail. The building and project could be an asset to Vail and the neighborhood, i.e., the West Meadow Drive corridor. It should be in keeping with the guidelines for the village, of which we are a direct extension, as well as in harmony with the neighbors and neighborhood. Two issues are of paramount concem to members of the Alphorn Condo Association. They are the size, height, proportion and configuration of the project; and, the location of the service entrances. Recent information obtained from neighbors include an analysis by Winston & Associates concerning the bulk, mass, and building configuration of the proposed Vail Plaza Hotr -. West. it is a clear and logical document that we support. We hope the points outlined will be strongly considered. The second issue, i.e., access, was discussed in a letter from Tim Losa (Zehren & Associates), dater! 1211912000. Tim Losa made a clear opening statement that there must be a separation of both services and guest entrances. This separation of trucks, deliveries, garbage storage and collection from guest access is basic in any recreation or resort facility. This concept should be extended to neighboring properties, i.e., services should not be juxtaposed to residential properties. Thus, this essential separation must be applied to the neighborhood as well. We are not experts, but the area that does not juxtapose to neighboring residences is the area next to the gas station on S. Frontage Rd. Perhaps Mr. Losa should consider the options he mentioned in his letter of December 19, 2000, i_e., modifying building location, massing 4intemal programs, and thus solve the problems and concerns of neighbors. The final result could be a sound project We feel certain that issues such as fire access and environmental issues, such as noise, odor, venting fans. fumes, etc, will be fully addressed by DRIB and Council. We expect that sensitivity Ithe dose proximity of the project to residential neighbors will be clearly considered. Finally, no board member or owner of the Alphom Condo Association has received any notification of meetings concerning this project. This appears to be in violation or any city code that we know of and should be rectified. Consideration should be given to us so that we may be able to evaluate and respond to issues of concern. With thanks for your consideration, Herbert E. Wollowicic, M.D. J • 0 TO: Planning and Environmental Commission, Town of Vail Town Council, Town of Vail Design Review Board, Town of Vail FROM: Scorpio Homeowners Association DATE: February 9, 2001 SUWECT: 13 Vail Road / Lot A, B, C, Block 2, Vail Village Filing 2 (Vail Plaza Hotel — West/Italian Wing) I have been asked by the homeowners of the Scorpio Condominium Complex to independently address our concerns about the proposed development of the Vail Plaza Hotel - West. We wish to reiterate our overaII support for redevelopment of the Chateau Vail, and we offer our criticisms and suggestions in hope of contributing toward a facility that the applicant, the adjacent community and the Town of Vail will be proud of Unfortunately, the current proposal is not such a design. 1. No SDD should be granted. The design of the proposed building does not comply with the current PA zoning, and no public benefit has been demonstrated by the developer. We support the recommendation of Winston Associates that the underlying zoning of the Village be used to evaluate the project. "For a variety of reasons it would appear to benefit from a relationship to the Village more than to be treated as a stand -alone facility." Further, the developer has not attempted to link the East and West wings of the hotel together, which was a specific comment from the October 24, 2000 joint work session regarding the SDD application. The linking of the two wings would demonstrate the possibilities of reducing overall mass and limit the duplications of services to be provided. 2. Bulk and Mass. The project dwarfs everything around it. We support the recommendation of Winston Associates that the building be broken into smaller parts, "The best example is the Vail Village Inn ... is turned slightly presenting to the street a saw -tooth edge of what appears to be separate buildings..." We believe this technique would open the views from the hotel as well as the adjacent properties. 3. Loading & Delivery. The loading and delivery should take place underground or at the East wing facility. The reduction of the bulk and mass would allow more underground area for loading and delivery facilities. 4. Underground setback violations. We are concerned about the developer being allowed to build to the lot line underground and the ramifications of disturbing our foundation footers. This calls into question the structural integrity of our entire building. 5. Conclusion. We believe that the applicant's proposal is'too tall and too massive. The applicant should be strongly encouraged to develop a new approach for the West wing that follows the guidance provided by the DRB and Winston Associates and modify the design of the East Wing to eliminate the duplication of facilities resulting in excessive height, mass and other similar deviations. The Scorpio Homeowners Association has demonstrated its willingness to cooperate and offer professional opinions from our design consultants, Davis Partnership, We are willing to take further steps and expend more resources in providing suggestions and guidance to achieve an amicable agreement to the development of this project. Richard rent, President, Board of Managers, Scorpio Condominiums 1 K4� k7-- February 9, ItU I Brent Wilson, Planner 17 Town of Vad Dept, of Community Development 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Co. 31657 Dear Nlr. Wilson, Recognizing [flat the Chateau Vad"Pmado Project will be further reviewed by the PEC oc Mondays, February I21 ', 2001, and the Town Council on Tuesday, February I3"`,1 thought it would be usefui to 0 outline our Thoughts and concerns rEuarding the impact of the croposed project on Alpine Standard and the property owned by the Moellentirne band Company. Alpine Standard As an on9Qin,-, IGU$iMSS etrtity, we are particularly concerned about the use of our weslem eas-,ment for a Stating area for the large. truclrs. Otrr custolne s i. it and enter o ff Frontage Road and arty concentration OfTrai``l:ic whether trucks or autcsr, would be detr: ental to our business. There is an issue of imminent danger with much of that area (See attached A) being used by trttolcs STaging for backing into the del ivery area and large trucks exiting onto Frontage Road, into otr- cOming traffic of cars entering Alpine Standard. We are visa deeply concerned over the impact of the open unloading dccl: zrunz an acoustical and visual point ofvie%v_ 40 Land Development e.optnent When wt acquired die lZ=l for a cctnszderable sutra, we ti%er"e ­.rearly int'lucnced by the easement ri ?—hts we have to ingress and ogress off our south Lasenient berw 7 us and 9 Vail Road- These easement rights arc an mFegral part of our plan to re- develop the Alpine Standard property iota an attractive mixed -use site, Which +.vnuld be primari residential. The ability to tatter and e xit Our property throuO; our south easement off Vail Roan is vital to our plans .Ar future development I VVIC at to crrnphasize that any plat fur the Arado prgjeig roust r�;:.fl_tlize this easutttent artd allow for full and Uninterrupted proper ingress and gress from and to Vail Rpad utilizing our gouth ease7nxent, We are in the process of working v %ith our architects to prcpare a pivIiniinar; study and analysis for our 0 re development which we hope to submit foryvttr consideration in rte nejr future. Our ,goal i.+t r e developinent is to create and build a structure that is arcltit':CT rally attractive ('similar to the Svntlen dn) which will be a beautiful and drarnailc cornerstone to the entrance of Vail while being economically viable and functional. '�Ve are Conte mplating a mixed -ease facility, which is primarily residential, facing the mountain, integrated with the upasaded fuel and con Venience store facing ron *_age Road. As you can [mat ine, the use of our easement is vita] to ;he success of ntu project. rite value and vtabtltty of our Project will be rnc'anin impaired if the easement is used for truck tragic. Additionally, the backing of large trucks with their :versa alert 4beepr "beep'] will be extrerneiy detrim and may ultimately make our re -develapmimt financially anzeayibie, • Vehicular access to our proposed tc &Velopnzent waald be prima rily from the South Fronta_; Road. It ,s my ut1derst ,1n(_J na that traditionally the ingress and e .-Tes points from a P rwe :'ty adjacmt to a public Right o Wa (i thts case the South Frontage Road), must, be contincd evithIn the length of °.he proverty line common to die subject t;reprny anal :hc f'ri�zht of Way, The c.urrer_t plan for Chateau Vail i ndicates that the west access initiat :tom a point in front of the Scorpio proverty and egr ss tezniit in (runt Of our pruperty. This proposal will limit 015tions for future access to both the Scorpio and o u r grope -MY from the Frontage Road. 1 believe that access to this T"evelopt�i p roperty should be accomplished in a way that it does not compromise m. or turure access options on adjacent properties, 7be latest Rrado plan appears to he flawed. One look at the opening off Fail ttoad shoves that it is too tight for mediQ :ttt shed tnick or semis to make a leg_ai and safe right tuna and it appears that a truck would have to Weer mto the on- coming north lane of Vail Road to have a chance of making The turn into the easesntmt_ The rendering shows that trucks making. the right turns off Vail Road onto our stsuth casement, end up on Use out-going iatte, which is unsafe amd seem ingly illegai, while ieoaard37-ing our ability to exit utilizing our oasernent to Vail Road without du ger, As I acid at Our last tmee ing, Nve would like to be cooperative in resol r g these and od5e.r inches but must be careful that the plans being presented, do nor - Impair our ability .o successfully re- develop the Alpine Standard or cause undo risk of safer} to our customers or business. Sincerely, _ Lon 42eilenii4 e President, Moallentine Larld Company, 1 LC Chair ran, .Alpine Standard r; . • 1� :t i Y I' ItJ r -- � - v J r � P � I CD. 0 0*1pp � C) �'• �' J � /JL+4 f i MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: February 12, 2001 SUBJECT: A request for variances from Section 12 -6D -6 (Setbacks) and Title 14 (Development Standards- locating required parking in the Right -of -Way), to allow for a residential addition and remodel located at 2955 Bellflower Dr. / Lot 6, Block 6, Vail Intermountain. Applicant: Alan Peters, represented by Braun Associates Planner: Allison Ochs BACKROUND OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY In June of 1978, a building permit was issued by Eagle County to build a single - family house located at Lot 6, Block 6, Vail Intermountain. This neighborhood was subsequently annexed by the Town of Vail. The house is nonconforming with regards to setbacks and lot size. In 1983, the owner of Lot 6 received approval to construct a secondary unit on the lot. At the time, the regulations required that 50% of the required parking be enclosed. The applicant received a variance from this requirement. The variance was granted based on the difficulty of building a garage on the site, specifically the Planning and Environmental Commission found, "the garage would tend to overcrowd the lot and would impair the common open space between the residence and the residence to the west." II. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The current owner, Alan Peters, originally submitted an application for a site coverage variance, a GRFA variance, and front and side setback variances. Recent changes in the Town's EHU regulations made the site coverage variance unnecessary. In addition, the applicant has withdrawn the request for the GRFA variance. However, the applicant is still requesting the front and side yard setback variances, and has added a request for a variance from the requirement that all required parking be located on -site. The applicant's entire letter describing the request has been attached for reference, as have reductions of the proposal. The descriptions of the variances requested are as follows: Front Setback: The applicant is requesting a variance to allow for a front setback of S ft. The proposal includes approximately 120 sq. ft. of GRFA in the front setback and approximately 170 sq. ft. of the garage within the front setback. 2. Side Setback (west): The applicant is requesting a side setback variance to allow for a west side setback of 5 ft. The proposal includes approximately 300 sq. 1 d� TOWN OF VAI L ft. of GRFA and approximately 266 sq. ft. of the proposed garage in the west setback. Because of the method of determining side setbacks in which side setbacks are measured from front setback to rear setback, the request is for a 5 ft.. setback. However, the structure is proposed to be within 3 ft. of the west property line. 3. Side Setback (east): The applicant is requesting a side setback variance to allow for an east side setback of 11.5 ft. The proposed addition on the east side of the structure would allow an additional 20 sq. ft. of GRFA in east side setback. This setback is currently non- conforming, with a setback of 11.8 ft. and approximately 230 sq. ft. of GRFA in the side setback. 4. Parking in the right -of -way: The applicant is requesting a variance from the requirement that all required parking must be located on site. The residence requires a total of 5 parking spaces (3 for primary and 2 for EHU). Two of the required parking spaces (40% of the required parking spaces) are located within the Town of Vail right -of -way. As proposed, the parking spaces encroach up to 11 ft. in the right -of -way. Ill. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends denial of the requested setback and parking location variances subject to the criteria outlined in Section VI of this memorandum and the following findings: 0 1. That the granting of the variances does constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the Primary /Secondary Residential Zone District. 2. That the granting of the variance will be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the setback regulations does not result in a practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the development objectives of the Town Code or the Primary /Secondary Residential Zone District. 4. That the strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would not deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve the variance request, the following condition must be met: The applicant receives approval for the vacation of the drainage easement by the Town Council prior to receiving final design review approval. All of the utilities with rights to the easement must also approve the encroachment into the easement prior to design review approval. • E IV. REVIEWING BOARD ROLES A. The Planning and Environmental Commission is responsible for evaluating a proposal for: The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity, or to attain the objectives of this Title without grant of special privilege. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. 4_ Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. B. The DRB has NO review authority on a variance, but must review any accompanying DR 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.. 7. 8_ 9. 10. 11. 12. B application.The DRB is responsible for evaluating the DRB proposal for: Architectural compatibility with other structures, the land and surroundings Fitting buildings into landscape Configuration of building and grading of a site which respects the topography Removal/ Preservation of trees and native vegetation Adequate provision for snow storage on -site Acceptability of building materials and colors Acceptability of roof elements, eaves, overhangs, and other building forms Provision of landscape and drainage Provision of fencing, walls, and accessory structures Circulation and access to a site including parking, and site distances Location and design of satellite dishes Provision of outdoor lighting V. ZONING STATISTICS Staff has reviewed the proposal according to the Primary /Secondary Zone District and the survey submitted. The analysis provides the following: Lot Size: 8624.8 sq. ft. / 0.198 acres Zoning: Primary/Secondary Residential Hazards: none • 3 Standard Allowed Existin Proposed GRFA: 4803 sq. ft. 2458 sq. ft. 3619 sq. ft. Primary 2831.2 sq. ft. 1 631 sq. ft. 2792 sq. ft. EHU 1175 sq. ft. 827 sq. ft. 827 sq. ft. Setbacks: VI. Front: 20 ft. 14.4 ft. 8 ft. Sides: 15 ft. (east) 11.8 ft. 11.5 ft. 15 ft. (west) 20.5 ft. 5 ft.* Rear: 15 ft. 59 ft. 56 ft. Site Coverage: 2156 sq. ft. (25 % * *) 1118 sq. ft. (13 %) 2155 sq. ft. (25 %) *The side setback is measured from the rear setback line to the front setback line- Minimum distance to the west property line is 3 ft. * *Because there is a Type I EHU on the site, site coverage is increased to 25% of total lot area. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS A. Consideration of Factors Regarding the Variances The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. Setbacks The Community Development Department has requested that the applicant maintain a minimum 5 ft. setback from the west property line. As currently proposed, the building is within 3 ft. of the west property line. Staff believes that this is the minimum setback necessary to prevent detrimental effects on potential uses and structures adjacent to the property. This 5 ft. minimum setback will also maintain the existing utility and drainage easement along this property line. Additionally, a greater setback from the west property line will allow for a reasonable area to landscape and buffer the building from the adjacent property. As currently proposed, there is no area for landscaping to minimize the visual effect of the addition on the west. According to the Design Guidelines, Since the major objective of the landscaping is to help reduce the scale of new structures and to assist in the screening of structures, the planting of large sized plant materials is encouraged_ According to the Primary /Secondary zone district, an area must be a minimum of 10 ft. wide to qualify as landscape area. As currently proposed, staff believes that should the variance be granted, it will have a detrimental effect on the adjacent property. Parking in the right -of -way: The applicant is requesting a variance to allow for 40% of the required • • • Ili parking to be located in the right -of -way. This neighborhood has many parking problems. Staff believes it would be preferable to minimize the parking in the right -of -way. Staff believes that the granting of this variance as proposed will have a detrimental effect on the properties in the neighborhood. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without a grant of special privilege. Staff believes that the approval of this request would qualify as a grant of special privilege. The 20 ft. minimum front setback requirement is uniformly applied to all properties in the Primary/Secondary Zone District. While staff believes that locating the garage in the front setback would be a reasonable deviation from the 20 ft. minimum setback requirement, the additional GRFA above the garage in the front setback is in excess of what is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity. Recent approvals in this neighborhood have required that the 20 ft. front setback be maintained for GRFA above grade, while allowing for GRFA to encroach into the setback below grade or beneath the garage. Staff believes that a similar design is possible on this site. Granting the variance to allow new GRFA in the front and side setbacks above the garage would be a grant of special privilege. i All required parking must be located within property boundaries. Staff believes that the applicant's design of the addition has forced the parking into the right -of -way, creating a self- imposed hardship. If the applicant designed the garage to be stepped back from the house, it would minimize the amount of relief needed for required parking in the right -of -way. As currently proposed, staff believes that the requested deviation is more than is necessary and would therefore be a grant of special privilege. Staff recognizes that there is a physical hardship on this lot due to the existing structure and the size of the lot, and recognizes the need for a variance for improvements. The lot is nonconforming with regards to lot size and the house currently encroaches into the front and side setbacks. However, staff believes that the extent of the variance requested is excessive. With minor modifications to the plans, the garage could be pushed further back on the lot, maintaining a greater setback from the west property lines, and minimizing the front setback encroachment. In addition, staff believes that the "unexcavated crawl space" beneath the garage or the "open to below space" should instead be used for additional GRFA. The GRFA above the garage should be eliminated, minimizing the GRFA encroachment into the front and side setbacks above grade. Staff would support a variance request which maintained a greater setback from the west side property line, and eliminated all new GRFA in the front setback, except that which could be located beneath the proposed garage. Staff believes that the degree to which the variances are requested is excessive. To 0 5 illustrate, the applicant is proposing approximately 450 sq. ft. of GRFA in the setbacks, with approximately 230 sq. ft. already located within the setbacks (non- conforming). This totals 670 sq. ft. of GRFA within setbacks, or 20% of the GRFA of the residence. In addition, approximately 430 sq. ft. of garage area is proposed to be located within the setbacks. This is approximately 65 % of the garage square footage.. Many lots within this neighborhood are nonconforming or have received variances. The attached map indicates sites where a variance has been granted. The table below indicates existing nonconformities and variances that have been granted: Location Description of the site 2923 Bellflower Nonconforming 4 -plea approved by Eagle County. Encroaches 9 ft, into the stream setback, 7.5 ft. into the east setback, and encroaches into the right-of-way. 2933 Beliflower No information available. 2943 Bellflower Granted a front setback variance to allow for a front setback of 13 ft. Side setbacks are nonconforming at 12 ft. and 5 ft. 2953 Bellflower Granted a parking variance to not enclose parking in conjun with EHU. Meets all setback requir ements. 2963 Bellflower Granted setback variances allowing for a 6 ft. front setback, 6.4 ft. east side setback, and 8.4 ft. side setback. 2983 Bellflower No information available. 3003 Bellflower Granted front setback variance to allow for a 13 ft. front setback, with GRFA being allowed beneath the garage. Side setback variance was denied. 2992 Bellflower Denied (by Council) a side setback variance for garage and GRFA. Meets all setback requirements. 2982 Bellflower Meets all setback requirements. 2972 Bellflower Meets all setback requirements- 2962 Bellflower No information available. 2852 Bellflower Nonconforming. Encroaches into the front setback 9 ft. and 1 ft. into side setback. 2942 Bellflower Granted a front setback variance for a garage and storage area to allow for a 15.5 ft. front setback. Nonconforming with a 7 ft. encroachment into the east side setback. 2932 Bellflower Meets all setback requirements. 2995 Basingdale No information available. 2975 Basingdale Meets all setback requirements. 2955 Basingdale Garage located in front setback. 2945 Basingdale Nonconforming. Encroaches into side setback 7 ft. 2935 Basingdale Granted front setback variance to allow for GRFA below garage in 'front setback. Below grade encroachment of 18.5 ft. 2925 Basingdale Granted front setback variance to allow for a front setback of 13 ft. • 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and 6 utilities, and public safety. The Public Works Department is unwilling to vacate the drainage easement along the east side of the property, stating that the easement is necessary for drainage. The proposed parking in the right -of -way also exacerbates an already difficult parking situation in the neighborhood. The Town of Vail right -of -way serves as a snow storage area for snow removal from the street, and eliminating available portions of the right -of -way serves to make snow storage more difficult. In addition, Lot 7 (the property to the west of Lot 6) was granted a side setback variance to allow for an east side setback of 6.4 ft. Should the setback variance be granted on Lot 6, the building will be within 3 ft. of the shared property line. Staff believes that this will have a detrimental effect on light and air for both residences. B. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a variance: That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3_ That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. C. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. L rl ry c ca cu (3) G) [I= L 'o os e o O S ry c ca cu (3) G) [I= L W I HEA co L� a � rs �' rr, CN C14 , � • � Z N m t�S f to \ LO r Q • • N { W Lu 'C e o O S W I HEA co L� a � rs �' rr, CN C14 , � • � Z N m t�S f to \ LO r Q • • N { W Lu Peters Variance Supplement Huerta Residence 3003 Bellflower Dr. The variance that was approved by the Planning and Environmental Commission allowed only 90 sq. ft, of GRFA beneath the garage. Vlaar Residence, 2963 Bellflower Dr. Allowed for approximately 110 sq. ft. of GRFA in the front setback. Hilb /Cummin s Residence 2338 Garmisch Dr. The lot has slopes greater than 30 %, therefore the garage was located in the front setback. 815 sq. ft. of GRFA was allowed beneath the garage. The Planning and Environmental Commission also found that with the steep slopes, the variance for parking in the right -of -way was warranted. Watkins Residence, 1799 Sierra Tr. The lot has slopes greater than 30 %, therefore the garage was allowed in the front setback. The Planning and Environmental Commission found that with the steep slopes, the variance for parking in the right -of -way was warranted. Phillips Residence 2696 Davos Tr. The lot has slopes greater than 30 %Q, therefore the garage was located in the front setback. 874 sq. ft. of GRFA was allowed beneath the garage. Bresnahan Residence, 4532 Streamside Cr. East No GRFA was approved in conjunction with a variance granted for a garage. Current Residence, 3235 Katsos Ranch Rd. No GRFA was approved in conjunction with at variance granted for a garage. Drisko 325 Forest Rd. The Planning and Environmental Commission found a hardship in the steep slopes off of Forest Rd. No GRFA was approved in conjunction with the garage, and the applicant actually removed GRFA from beneath the second garage in the setback as part of the approval. Venners Residence, 4196 Columbine Dr. No GRFA was approved in conjunction with a variance granted for a garage. Aylesworth Residence, 2586 Davos Tr. 24 sq. ft. of garage was located in the side setback as part of this variance request. Lashovitz Residence, 1748 Sierra Tr. No GRFA was approved in conjunction with a variance granted for a garage. Taylor Residence 2409 Chamonix Rd. No GRFA was approved in conjunction with a variance granted for a garage. Smail Residence. 4238 Nugget Ln. 348 sq. ft. of garage and 377 sq, ft. of GRFA were approved in the setbacks. Testwuide Residence, 898 Red Sandstone Cr. 110 sq. ft of garage in the side setbacks and 10 sq. ft. of GRFA in front setbacks approved. LA BAIIABIRAUN ASSOCIATES, INC. PLANN{NG and COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Braun Associates, Inc. on behalf of Allan Peters DATE: January 22, 2001 SUBJECT: Variance requests necessary to renovate existing 'home, located at 2955 Bellflower Dr./Lot 6, Block 6, Vail Intermountain Subdivision. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST Mr. Peters, the owner of the above referenced property, is seeking the following variances in order to provide an enclosed garage, additional GRFA, and substantially improve the function and appearance of his home. His requests include: A front yard setback variance to allow the garage and GRFA to encroach from approximately 3' to 8' in the front setback. This variance is necessary to construct a garage and additional living area on the property. While the variance would place the garage and portions of the living area within the front setback, the closest the structure will be to the edge of the street asphalt is 30'. The property line on this property as platted jogs to the north. Bellflower Drive, as constructed, did not jog to the north at this location and therefore is located 23' from the property line in the worst case. This variance would place this home in a location consistent with the location of other structures in the neighborhood and is consistent with other variances granted on this street and throughout the neighborhood. This variance is warranted due to the small size and configuration of the lot, location of the existing structure, topographic conditions, and in order to achieve consistency and fairness with other similar sites in the neighborhood and throughout the Town. • Side yard setback variances to allow a garage, GRFA, on -grade stairs, and deck to encroach approximately 'l5' to 5' in the side setback. These variances are also necessary to construct a garage and additional living area on the property and allow for adequate access to the EHU. The actual structure will not be closer that 4' from the side property line, in the worst case. The impact of the on -grade stairs on the neighboring property is negligible due to the fact that the stairs are being placed on -grade and are adjacent to the parking area for the house to the west. The GRFA encroachment on the east side of the house is a logical extension of the home to Edwards Village Center Suite C -209 0105 Edwards Village Boulevard Post Office Box 2658 Edwards, Colorado 81632 Ph. - 970.926.7575 Fax - 970.926.1576 www.braunassociates.com the north and represents approximately 6 sq. ft. of GRFA. These variances are warranted due to the narrowness of the site, topography of the site, the presence of Gorc Creek, and the presence of the existing structure on the property, which create a hardship and make it impractical to construct reasonable additions to this home without a variance. • A parking variance to allow two parking spaces to be partially located within the right -of -way. This variance is necessary due to the location of the garage relative to the existing structure, the topography of the lot, and the close proximity of Gore Creek to the north. The configuration of the Town's right -of -way relative to the placement of the street pavement also creates a peculiar hiatus between this home and the street. This variance is warranted due to the presence of the existing structure on the property, topography of the site, and the presence of the Gore Creek, which create a hardship and make it impractical to make additions to this home without such a variance. It. BACKGROUND This home was originally constructed under the jurisdiction of Eagle County. This lot, like most (if not all) others in this neighborhood, and many others throughout the Town of Vail has been made nonconforming through the annexation and application of zoning regulations by the Town of Vail. Lots in this neighborhood and on this street are very small„ this lot is 0.198 acres or 8,624.88 sq. ft. The existing home encroaches into setbacks. The existing home is located 11.8' from the east property line, 14' from the front property line (south), and an existing wood deck is located 1.5' from the west property line. There is an existing secondary unit on the property. The secondary unit on this property is currently not deed restricted as an Employee Housing Unit, but as part of this proposal it will be deed restricted in accordance with Town Code. One of the major benefits of this renovation proposal is that the Town will be adding an Employee Housing Unit to its inventory and that the owner is planning to upgrade the size and quality of the EHU making it a very attractive employee unit. The EHU is proposed to be quite large with an ample amount of storage space and an enclosed parking space. The existing home, like the neighbor homes, is quite old and is in need of renovation. The parking situation on this lot, and in the neighborhood generally, is strained at best. This proposal creates a three -car garage and parking for 5 vehicles total. The proposal alleviates all of the parking problems existing on this lot and generally improves the function and aesthetics of the neighborhood. There have been many similar variances granted for homes in this neighborhood and throughout the Town of Vail on lots of less than 15,000 sq. ft. (especially where the request involved providing a garage). Many setback variance requests have been granted for construction on small vacant lots. Attached to this memo, as "Exhibit A" is a list of similar variances granted by the PEC. Peters, Lot 6, Block 6, Vail Intermountain Pane 2 of 6 Braun Associates, Inc. 5 II. OUR REQUEST We request that the PEC grant approval of the proposed variances subject to the following findings: That the granting of the setback variance does not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the Primary /Secondary Zone District. 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. 4. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. III. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS A. Consideration of Factors Regarding the Setback and Parking Variances: The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The proposed variances are consistent with the existing character of the area, the existing structures in the area, and other variances granted under similar circumstances in the area and throughout the Town. The proposed improvements will improve the appearance and functionality of the site. The site will be upgraded to comply with existing building and fire codes as well as comply with current design requirements for the neighborhood. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without a grant of special privilege. The granting of these variances is consistent with those approved for similarly situated properties in the Town. The proposed variances are the minimum necessary to achieve compatibility with other sites and structures in the neighborhood. No special privilege will be granted with this approval as shown by the numerous other instances of variances being granted for similar projects as well as the existence of other Peters, Lot 6, Block 6, Vail Intermountain Braun Associates, Inc. Page 3 of 6 structures in the neighbor that enjoy similar setbacks and parking conditions. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. The proposal will improve the parking accessibility and availability on this lot and will improve the overall functionality of the neighborhood by having vehicles parked in facilities designed and consistent with the Town's Development Standards Handbook. The proposal will have little, if any, impact light and air in the neighborhood. Peters, Lot 6, Block 6, Veil Intermcuntain Page 4 of 6 Braun Associates. Inc. • • Exhibit A This is a list of variances granted over the past several years for similarly situated properties throughout the Town of Vail. This list is not intended to be a comprehensive list of variance requests, but rather represents 2 or 3 hours of research of the Town's files. Huerta Residence 3003 Bellflower Drive June 28 1999 The PEC approved a variance allowing GRFA in the front setback on a vacant lot. setback encroachment of 8' was approved. Vlaar Residence 2963 Bellflower Drive October 26 1992): The PEC approved a front yard setback variance and a density variance to allow for a GRFA addition to the home (no garage was part of the request). The approval allowed an encroachment into the front setback of 14'. Beck Residence, Bellflower Drive, Lot 2, Block 6, Vail Intermountain (August 14, 1989): The PEC approved a side yard setback variance and a stream setback variance to allow the construction of a deck. The existing home encroaches 9' into the stream setback and 7.5 into the side setback. The deck encroachment was in addition to these encroachments. Hilb /Cummings Residence, 2338 Garmish Drive (May, 20 1996); The PEC approved a front yard setback variance to allow GRFA to encroach 20' into the front setback (on the property line) and a parking variance to allow parking to be located in the Town's right -of -way. Watkins Residence, 1799 Sierra Trail (April 8,_19.96): The PEC approved a variance to allow parking located within the Town's right -of -way. The proposed garage had a zero front yard setback. Phillips Residence, 2696 Davos Trail (July 12, 1999): The PEC approved GRFA in the front setback below a garage. GRFA was allowed a 1' setback_ Bresnahan Residence 4532 Streamside Circle East December 16 1996): The PEC granted a side yard setback variance to allow the addition of a garage. The garage encroached 10' into the side setback. Current Residence 3235 Katso Ranch Road November 11 1996): The PEC approved a front yard setback variance for a garage addition. The variance allowed for a 16' front setback. Peters, Lot 6, Block 6, Vail Intermountain Page 5 of 6 Braun Associates, Inc. t Drisko Residence 325 Forest Road (February 12 1996): The PEC approved a front yard setback variance for a two -story garage on a new primary residence. The front yard setback encroachment was approved at 19.5' (or a 6" setback). Venners Residence, 4196 Columbine Drive (June 10, 1996): The PEC approved a side yard setback variance to allow a garage addition. The garage was allowed to encroach 7.5' into the side yard setback. Aylesworth Residence, 2586 Davos Trail (September 8, 1997) The PEC approved site coverage and side setback variances to allow for the construction of a garage addition to the existing residence. Lashovitz Residence 1748 Sierra Trail (July 1997): The PEC approved site coverage and side setback variances to allow for the construction of a garage addition to the existing residence. Taylor Residence, 2409 Chamonix Road (May 1993): The PEC approved a variance to construct the garage in the front setback (the average slope on this lot did not exceed 30 %). The PEC also approved a site coverage variance in order to construct a garage and building connection on the property. Smail Residence, 4238 Nugget Lane (September 1992): The PEC approved side and front yard setback variances in order to construct a garage and a GRFA addition. Testwuide Residence, 898 Red Sandstone Circle (Auqust 1992): The PEC approved side and front yard setback variances in order to construct a garage addition to the existing residence. Strauss Residence Lot 47 Vail Village West Filing No. 2 (1985): The PEC approved a front yard setback variance and a site coverage variance in order to construct a new garage. The garage was approved to be located 15' from the front property line. • L� Peters, Lot 6, Block 6, Vail Intermountain Page 6 of 6 Braun Associates, Inc. i I I a e t J Id 4 A � 7 f ! e Z R1 �p ! d 4I a Y z s r u J Ua W 1 J F z g lu I A C'SR �r E ' �4 C �r r I� r I I I � � a 6 � 1� y 11 0 _ _ 1 �•S E �P / ' I � n i11 r I . E 1 i IIl Q Q ! I it' in Mum � I E is 1111 1 t s a' 0 � • | |� | � , ! | - | fill S . q \� 4 |. k! 0 r� • • H�! | INA ƒM| ■, �| � � 0 � 0 � Sol . b |,� , ■ � � 0 � | ij [ � L4 ) 2k $ ; [ q! § | !� � 0 0 0 � B§ U Ills | / Vol } 2 � �� 0 0 � I l l p g 1 1, 4 1 z R 4 MA z Q w J LI Z ƒ � a v » � « � 0 � � � l 0 � s ct / � ", | |./ hq.E| \ s / - ; ; ! §; k m E■ �� \ �� |�� �� \ ��j , | 02 §■ � /� � [! pe, le ƒ � a v » � « � 0 � � � l 0 � s ct / � MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: February 12, 2901 SUBJECT: A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for the installation of rooftop telecommunications antennas at the Brandess Building, located at 2077 N. Frontage Road (Brandess Building) /Lot 39, Buffehr Creek. Applicant: Jayne Brandess Revocable Trust, represented by Abacus Communications Planner: Allison Ochs DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant, Jayne Brandess Revocable Trust, represented by Abacus Communications, is requesting a conditional use permit to allow for the placement of Sprint PCS telecommunications equipment atop the Brandess Building, located at 2077 N. Frontage Road / Lot 39 Buffer Creek_ The property is currently zoned Commerical Core 111. "Public utility and public services uses" are conditional uses in this zone district. The proposed equipment consists of an antennae array of three sectors with three antennae per sector, or a total of 9 antennas. In addition, equipment cabinets will be located at the northeast corner of the property. The proposal currently shows this equipment located within the required 20 ft. setback. The applicant has stated that he is not currently requesting a variance, but his equipment will need to be reconfigured or a variance approved prior to its placement (see Section III of the Staff Memorandum). The applicant's letter of intent has been attached for reference, along with reductions of the proposal. II. REVIEWING BOARD ROLES - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Planning and Environmental Commission: The Planning and Environmental Commission is responsible for approval /denial of a Conditional Use Permit. The Planning and Environmental Commission is responsible for evaluating a proposal for: 1. 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. 3. Effect upon traffic, with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the streets and parking areas. 4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, . including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. 5. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed use. 6. The environmental impact report concerning the proposed use, if an environmental � t4 T11WAl fn T! impact report is required by Chapter 12 of this Title. 7. Conformance with development standards of zone district Design Review Board: The Design Review Board has no review authority on a Conditional Use Permit, but must review any accompanying Design Review Board application. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends that the Planning and Environmental Commission approve the applicant's request for a conditional use permit to allow for the installation of telecommunications rooftop antennas, subject to the criteria as described in Section IV of this memo and the following findings: 1. That the proposed location of the use is in accordance with the purposes of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. 2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code. If the Planning and Environmental Commission chooses to approve this request, staff recommends the following condition of approval: That the applicant is required to provide adequate provisions to screen the equipment from public view. These provisions will be reviewed during the design review process. IV. 2. That the applicant either reconfigure the equipment at the northeast corner of the lot to comply with required setbacks prior to Design Review Board approval or that the applicant be granted a variance by the Planning and Environmental Commission to allow for the placement of the equipment within the 23 ft. setback prior to final Design Review Board approval. REQUIRED CRITERIA AND FINDINGS - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT A. CONSIDERATION OF FACTORS: Relationship and impact of the use on the development objectives of the Town. The subject property is zoned "Commercial Core Ill." This zone district allows "public utility and public service uses," 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_ However, staff recognizes that the proliferation of these antennas can have a negative effect on the aesthetics of the neighborhood. Staff believes that all efforts 4 must be made to minimize the appearance of the antennas and to adequately screen all mechanical equipment. 2. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities needs. Staff believes this use would have a positive impact upon the above - listed facilities by providing additional 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 pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and parking areas. Staff does not believe this use would have any negative impacts upon 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 bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. The applicant is not proposing any changes to the bulk, mass or location of the existing building. However, staff 'believes that to minimize the effect upon the character of the area, all equipment must be screened and painted to match the building. Staff believes that while co- location is beneficial, the proliferation of this type of equipment has negative impacts on the character of the neighborhood. B. FINDINGS The Planning and Environmental Commission 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 12/29/2000 16:57 3038400407 ABACUS MMMUNICATION RAGE 02 Abacus Communications, Inc. 1x876 Parker Vista Lane Parker, CO 80138 Phone: SOB-94o-0455 Fax: 309 - 840-0407 Email. abacuscommunications @earthlink.net 0 To: City of Vail Planning and Zoning department Fm: Abacus Communications, Inc. (contracted representative of Sprint PCS) Re: letter of intent to construct & install wireless telecommunication equipment .Date: I S2 /99/2000 LETTER OF INTENT.._ Sprint PCS d /b /a "Sprint" seeks Zoning approval on the construction and installation of telecommunications equipment to be placed on the roof of the Mrandess Building located at 2077 N. Frontage Road Vail, CO 81667, City of Vail Colorado. The Site will be used by Sprint for the purpose of operating a personal communications service system facility ( "PCS "). The puz pose of this installation is to provide additional wireless telecommunication coverage for the Town of Vail Colorado. Installation will consist of an antennae array of three sectors with three antennae per sector proposed. Initially_ a single antenna will be installed, with room being reserved for two future growth antennae. All antennas shall be painted to match existing building color. Equipment cabinets to be located on the north east corner of the building (please refer to zoning drawings for detail). Wood fencing to match existing building exterior shall surround all equipment. Glen Klocke Abacus Communications, Inc_ Representing Sprint PCS A Name You Can Count On • i :. Lo a z 8 - C4 1 �a U Cc C• aR s °- W �1. H cl ��E d $tl qI t LU a o I << LU �RM • Rcr Ln x O Z a 0 cz z 0 2� ■ R Ln WROMMS Go r F- a z f ' M U Cc C• aR s °- W �1. H cl �RM • Rcr Ln x O Z a 0 cz z 0 2� ■ R Ln WROMMS Go r F- #1 U) z o a U aR 0 ��E d $tl qI t MINIM a LU #1 U) z o �p O s n py E e ISU C 5 � 6 4 a U aR 0 ��E d $tl qI t MINIM a �p O s n py E e ISU C 5 � 6 4 U aR 0 ��E d Q' O �� III �`� o x a Miami ' o -� 3 � F I� f r Ply � Y \\ f , , t � ; � • f � I� \\ Z w LU W INN— a LU - a 1 IM CY o O p 1 $ 16- Q. ge��P�� d� gt lu 1 9bm aabbnb J ! 3� `� 9 �� ads w LU *b e fag I P. i.,. o Him; I I NT ! "11 14 J!� u EL '��' $A 9 3aga� W � tl � ���a U � ° bl���y�_e q� aa�9� a 14t p A # W && e�� be G gg 8 G ' g w 48 g r'�a C 7` a aRb i a r e w M -j a �. F 5a 0 g C p 9 1 F p b R g a g NO T LU tog 539ag�agt7� a ; a 6# em a• a U OT • • � � a �I Cl � F I� f r Ply � Y \\ f , , t � ; � • f � I� \\ Z w LU W INN— a LU - a 1 IM CY o O p 1 $ 16- Q. ge��P�� d� gt lu 1 9bm aabbnb J ! 3� `� 9 �� ads w LU *b e fag I P. i.,. o Him; I I NT ! "11 14 J!� u EL '��' $A 9 3aga� W � tl � ���a U � ° bl���y�_e q� aa�9� a 14t p A # W && e�� be G gg 8 G ' g w 48 g r'�a C 7` a aRb i a r e w M -j a �. F 5a 0 g C p 9 1 F p b R g a g NO T LU tog 539ag�agt7� a ; a 6# em a• a U OT • • d a — C44 1 22 77v 1�i cZ J a o - C} N 91 � s =L d .D °Lil �•� � 3 g W I 1 1 I I C I I" I I ' I 1 � ' •' LL z I I N M. ICI wz Q—. OIL Q - - - -- 'I I d l � Cx O �a O W F- N ..1 J Q uj I d l � Cx O W F- N ..1 J Q uj { W i 0 i m. s 6 � q w��������� ��1��� I> N U) - Q LLF 0 Ali 9 � 3 d 0 Ya ! ?c t B e R M R1 So q i I $ 1 l i t 111 1 1 I 1 1 H I h p- 1 11 1 1 1 ih � 00 O<>OC�OC�00<>00<J4� 4 a I 3 • • 4 �u Z O �I _ 13 4 a I 3 • • 4 �u Z �I _ 13 z !z w rn � Y: IE � S m 0 ¥ % § La § / r � k ) �§ |�. - al e - 2 � !. Him 0 ; §] § § § � | § k dig . � � / � k E § \ 2 LU P j LU ul w UA k z 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development DATE: February 12, 2001 SUBJECT: A request for a recommendation to the Town Council for text amendments to the Town Code. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Allison Ochs I. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST • Through the review process of various zoning applications, problems arise with specific code sections that are not clear to either applicants or staff. This often occurs with zoning code amendments, changes in procedures, or errors in codification. Therefore, staff periodically returns to the Planning and Environmental Commission and to the Town Council to "clean- up" the Zoning, Subdivision, and Sign Codes. These amendments are not to amend the substantive content of the code, but to "clean -up" errors and clarify -* sections of the code. None of the proposed amendments result in a change of policy. The amendments to the Town Code included in this memorandum are described briefly below: • Amendments to the Employee Housing Chapter • Amendments to all residential zone districts regarding the 425 credit • Amending the Hazard Regulations • Amending the "250 Ordinance" • Amending the Nonconforming Chapter • Amending the definition of Seasonal Use or Structure • Amending the definition of Recreation Structure. • Adding a definition of "owner Amending the definition of "Major Subdivision" • Amending Section 3 -3 -1 to eliminate the Department of Community Development's role in the issuance of a right -of -way permit. • Amending the PA Zone District. • t t` TOWN OF V,41L More detailed descriptions and the reasoning behind each are described in Section IV of this memorandum. 0 ROLES OF THE REVIEWING BOARDS Planning and Environmental Commission: Action: The PEC is advisory to the Town Council. The PEC shail review the proposal for and make a recommendation to the Town Council on the compatibility of the proposed text changes for consistency with the Vail Comprehensive Plans and impact on the general welfare of the community. Staff: The staff is responsible for ensuring that all submittal requirements are provided. The staff advises the applicant as to compliance with the Zoning and Subdivision Regulations. Staff provides ana}yses and recommendations to the PEC and Town Council on any text proposal. Town Council: Action: The Town Council is responsible for final approval /denial on code amendments. The Town Council shall review and approve the proposal based on the compatibility of the proposed text changes for consistency with the Vail Comprehensive Plans and impact on the general welfare of the community. Design Review Board: Action: The DPB has NO review authority on cede amendments. III. RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends that the Planning and Environmental Commission forward a recommendation of approval of the proposed amendments to the Town Code to the Vail Town Council, subject to the following findings: I . That the proposed amendments are consistent with the development objectives of the Town of Vail. 2. That the proposal is consistent and compatible with existing and potential uses within Vail and generally in keeping with the character of the Town of Vail. 3. That the proposed amendments are necessary to ensure the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Vail. 4. That the proposed amendments do not alter the intent, purpose, or policy of the current Town of Vail regulations. • 5. That the proposed amendments will make the Town's development review process less problematic and more "user friendly." IV. DESCRIPTIONS OF AMENDMENTS (Text which is to be deleted will be striske . Text which is to be added will be underlined A. Amendments to the Employee Housing Chapter 1 _ When the changes to this section of the code were done in April of 2000, a statement was omitted which identified that Type II EHUs are only allowed on lots which meet the minimum lot size requirements of the Single - Family Residential, Two - Family Residential, and Primary /Secondary Zone Districts. Section 12 -13 -4 Requirements by Employee Housing Unit (EHU) Type shall be amended as follows: 12 -13 -4: Requirements by Employee Housing Unit (EHU) Type C EHU Zoning districts permitted by right or conditional use Type 11 Conditional Use: Single - Family Residential, Two - Family Residential, Primary /Secondary Residential ,Zone districts meeting minimum lot size requirements, Agricultural and Open Space 2. In addition, an error was made by the codifiers in which "site coverage" was identified as "side coverage ". Section 12 -13 -4 Requirements by Employee Housing Unit (EHU) Type shall be amended as follows: 12 -13 -4: Requirements by Employee Housing Unit (EHU) Type EHU Additional Site Coverage /Reduced Landscape Area Type / S4e Site Coverage: The site is entitled to an additional 5% of site coverage for EHU. Landscaped Area: The site is entitled to a reduction of landscape area by 5 % (reduced to 55 of site area) for EHU. B. Amendments to all residential zone districts regarding the 425 credit When Ordinance No. 37, Series of 1990 was approved the mechanical, stair, and storage credits for GRFA were eliminated and an additional 425 sq. ft. credit was 49 granted for each allowable unit on a lot. This credit was intended to consolidate all of the credits into a lump sum. The intention of this modification was to simplify GRFA calculations. However, as time passed, the original intent of the 425 sq. ft. was lost and now it is viewed as additional GRFA. As a result, applicants continue to locate mechanical equipment in spaces that do not count as GRFA (less than 5 ft. in head height with openings less that 12 sq. ft.) in order to maximize their usable space. This creates difficulties with inspections, problems with general maintenance and upkeep, and safety hazards. Staff is amending the text of all residential districts with the 425 credit (HR, SFR, R, PIS) to read: In addition to the above, four hundred twenty five (425) square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA) shall be permitted as a credit for each allowable dwelling unit. The purpose of this credit is to allow for additional GRFA for circulation and mechanical equipment. C. Amending the Hazard Regulations Section 12- 21 -14: Restrictions in Specific Zones on Excessive Slopes, requires additional restrictions on development on lots in Hillside Residential, Single- Family Residential, Two - Family Residential, and Two - Family PrimaryiSecondary Residential Zone Districts where the slopes exceed 30 %_ However, the section which refers to site coverage limitations, does not refer by code section to Primary/Secondary zoned lots. In addition, with the proposed changes to the EHU regulations, a statement must be added to the Section 12 -21 -14 Restrictions in Specific Zones on Excessive Slopes. Section 12- 21 -14E reduces site coverage to 15% of the site on lots with slopes in excess of 30% and in certain residential zone districts. Lots zoned Primary /Secondary Residential, with lot sizes less that 15,000 sq. ft_, with a Type I EHU, are entitled to a 5% site coverage bonus. This must be clarified in the Hazard Regulations. The text shall be amended as follows_ 12- 21 -14E. Site coverage as it pertains to this Chapter, as permitted by Sections 12 -6A-9, 12 -6R -9, and 12 -6C-9, and 12 -6D -9 of this Title, is amended as follows: 1. Not more than fifteen percent (15 %) of the site area may be covered by buildings, except in con junction with a Type I Employee Housin Unit in accordance with Chapter 13 of this title, in which case not more that twent ercent 20% of the site area may be covered b buildings and 2. Not more than ten percent (10 %) of the total site area may be covered by driveways and surface parking. D. Amending the `250 Ordinance" In 1998, when changes were made to Section 12 -15 -5: Additional Gross Residential Floor Area (250 ordinance) the notice requirements were meant to be deleted. The text shall be amended as follows: • O r j • •r _:j - structure_ Alntificatinn r tuner/! es h . 1 1 1 hn of Piped it Ci ibseption 12 -3_6r' of this T-TWei 2. In addition, when changes were made to Section 12 -15 -5: Additional Gross Residential Floor Area (250 Ordinance) the requirement that 100% of the owners of a multiple family structure use all of the additional GRFA provisions was meant to be deleted. The text shall be amended as follows: 12- 15 -5C -7 Applicability: The provisions of this Section are applicable only to GRFA additions to individual dwelling units. No pooling of GRFA shall be allowed in multi - family dwellings. No application for additional GRFA shall request more than two hundred fifty (250) square feet of gross residential floor area per dwelling unit nor shall any application be made for additional GRFA until such time as all the allowable GRFA has been constructed on the property. to thn o_d_d inn�l 9994� rrf�itted 94Y Whel�TrPe � [. v y c � �, { j c /y �QfQQiLi P { �S Pe . c { r f� � / { � o / { v �+.�pI��^9I hj4 d rG't/'��. eT GeRt 1 J904) Gf thO1YTTGf; Iq the rtrU lrII n - e kSo r r' fn J tllrn thnrr nrlrlrf nr5n/ �Fn lAfIIll 1't•; When exterior fv�G additions are proposed to a mufti- family structure, the addition of the GRFA shall be designed and developed in context of the entire structure. 3. A staff interpretation was done in June of 2000, clarifying the ability of structures which do not conform to density with regards to "dwelling units per acre" but have remaining "allowable GRFA" to be eligible for the "250 ordinance ". According to 12- 18 -58: Density Control: Structures which do not conform to density controls may be enlarged, only if the total gross residential floor area of the enlarged structure does not exceed the total gross residential floor area of the preexisting nonconforming structure. The Zoning Code considers density as both dwelling units per acre and gross residential floor area. The "250 Ordinance" states Applicability.... No application for additional GRFA shall request more than 250 sq. ft. of gross residential floor area per dwelling unit nor shall any application be made for additional GRFA until such time as all the allowable GRFA has been constructed on the property. Many lots within the Town are nonconforming with regards to "dwelling units per acre" but have remaining "allowable GRFA ". According to the Nonconforming Chapter, these dwelling units are unable to add any GRFA_ As an example: Lot Size: 11,000 Zoning: Primary /Secondary Date of C.O.: 1978 Existing Use: Duplex Residence Existing GRFA: 3000 sq. ft. Primary: 2000 sq. ft. Secondary: 1000 sq. ft. GRFA Allowable: 3175 sq. ft. Because this lot is less than 14,000 sq. ft. and has an existing duplex, it is considered non - conforming with regards to density. However, even though 175 sq. ft. of GRFA remains available, because of the non - conforming chapter, the duplex cannot add the 175 sq. ft. of GRFA. The staff interpretation that was done in June of 2000, allows each unit of the duplex to add 250 sq. ft. through the "250 Ordinance ". As staff interpretations are codified when necessary, the text shall be amended as follows: 12- 15- 5 -B -1© Nonconforming structures and site improvements: Structures which do not conform to density controls shall be eligible for additional GRFA pursuant to this section. 12- 15- 5 -C -10 Nonconforming structures and site improvements: Structures_ which do not conform to density controls shall be eligible for additional GRFA pursuant to this section. E. Amending the Nonconforming Chapter A grammatical error was identified in Section 12 -18 -4: Uses of the Nonconforming Sites, Uses, Structures and Site Improvements Chapter. The text shall be amended as follows: 12 -18 -4: Uses. The use of a site or structure lawfully established prior to the effective date hereof which does not conform to the use regulations prescribed by this Title for the district in which it is situated may be continued, provided that no such nonconforming use shall be enlarged to occupy a greater site area for or building floor area than it occupied on the effective date hereof. Any subsequent reduction in site area or floor area occupied by a nonconforming use shall be deemed a new limitation, and the use shall not thereafter be enlarged to occupy a greater site area or floor area than such new limitation. F. Amending the definition of Seasonal Use or Structure A recent application for a seasonal use or structure was interpreted as that it was not subject to design review. Staff believes that this is due to an oversight in the definition of seasonal use or structure. ' The definition shall be amended as follows: SEASONAL USE OR STRUCTURE_ A temporary covering erected over a recreational amenity, such as a swimming pool or tennis court, for the purpose of expanding their use into the cold weather months. Such seasonal covers may not be in place for more than seven (7) consecutive months of any twelve (12) month period. For the purposes of this Title, a seasonal use or structure shall not constitute site coverage and shall not be subject to building bulk control standards. Any seasonal use or structure shall require M a conditional use permit in accord with Chapter 16 of this Title and is subiect to design review G. Amending the definition of Recreation Structure. in addition to the above changes to the definition of Seasonal Use or Structure above, changes are proposed for the definition of Recreation Structure. The definition shall be amended as follows: RECREATION STRUCTURE: Any detached (i.e.not connected to any main structure or structures) covering erected over a recreational amenity, such as a swimming pool or tennis court, which is not a seasonal structure_ For the purposes of this Title, recreation structures shall constitute site coverage but shall not be subject to building bulk control standards. Any recreation structure shall require a conditional use permit in accord with Chapter 16 of this Title and is subiect to design review. H. Adding a definition of "owner" Recent changes to Community Development application procedures has brought forth a need to establish a definition of the word "owner'. The definition of owner shall be added as follows: OWNER: Any person, agent, firm, corporation, or partnership that alone, jointly, or severally with others: has legal or equitable title to any premises, of dwelling or dwelling unit, with or without accompanying actual possession thereof, • or has charge, care or control of any premises, dwelling or dwelling unit, as agent of the owner or as executor, administrator, trustee, or guardian of the estate of the beneficial owner. The person shown on the records of the recorder of deeds of the county to be the owner of a particular property shall be presumed to be the person in control of that property. Amending the definition of " Major Subdivision" A grammatical error was identified in Section 13 -2 -2: Definitions in the definition of Subdivision, D. Major Subdivision, with the omitting of "or". The text shall be amended as follows: SUBDIVISION. D, Major ,Subdivision: "Major subdivision" means any subdivision involving more than four (4) lots, or a subdivision proposal without all lots having frontage on a ,public, or approved street, or with a request to extend Municipal facilities in a significant manner, or a ,proposal which would negatively affect the natural environment as determined under Section 12 -12 -2, 'Applicability'; or if the proposal would adversely affect the development of the remainder of the parcel or the adjacent property. J. Amending Section 8 -3 -1 to eliminate the Department of Community Development's role in the issuance of a right -of -way permit. 0 The Department of Public Works has taken over responsibility for issuing right -of- way permits. The text shall be amended as follows: 8 -3 -1: PERMIT REQUIRED FEE: A_ Encroachments Identified: No person shall erect or maintain any building, structure, stand. cart, fence, barrier, past, hedge or other obstruction or encroachment under or upon any street, alley, sidewalk or other public property without first obtaining a permit from the Department ofy gayeIn.,rr ew Public Works under this Section. (� B_ Procedure: An applicant for a right -of -way permit shall: 1_ File a written application on forms furnished by the Department of PgP4i 4 n if,l Development ,Public Works that include the following: the date, the name of the applicant, the location of the proposed encroachment or obstruction, the type of encroachment or obstruction, and such other information as the Department of Comn9upi tt' g eve l e meW Public Works may deem necessary. C. Criteria For Granting: Before issuing a right -of -way permit under this Section. the Department of neye4 rnnnr Public Works shall consult with relevant Town departments which may include the Fire, Polic R, �b# W nrlss ep 4 ,,,,, ts Community Development departments and all public utilities to determine whether the permit meets all the requirements of this Code and other ordinances of the Town. The Department of Public Works shall issue each permit upon a finding that in view of the location or area proposed to be used and the type of encroachment or obstruction proposed to be carried on, the proposed encroachment or obstruction does not constitute a traffic hazard or destroy or impair the use of the right of way or land by the public or serves a purpose that cannot otherwise be accomplished and is a temporary obstruction of the right of way. Amending the PA Zone District When Ordinance No. 23, Series of 1999, was adopted, amending the Public Accommodation Zone District, an error in the reference to the Conditional Use chapter was made. The text shall be amended as follows: 12 -7A -3: Conditional Uses Fraction fee club units as further regulated by Section 424 -6-W ^ r 12- 16 -7A8 • • • PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION PUBLIC MEETING RESULTS /MINUTES • Monday, February 12, 2001 PROJECT ORIENTATION 1 - Community Development Dept. MEMBERS PRESENT Si +a Vici +c - 1. Peters residence — 2955 Bellflower Drive 2. Brandess Building — 2077 N. Frontage Road Driver: Bill � NOTE: If the PEC hearing extends until 6:00 p.m., the hoard may break for dinner from 6:00 - 6130 p.m. Public Hearing - Town Council Chambers 1:30 pm 2:40 pm A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for the construction of a Type 11 Employee Housing Unit, located at 363 Beaver Dam Road 1 Lot 2, Block 3, Vail Village 3rd Filing. • Applicant: Fritzlen Pierce Architects Planner: Bill Gibson Bill Gibson presented an overview of the staff memorandum. The applicant had nothing to add. There was no public comment. MOTION; John Schofield SECOND: Brian Doyon VOTE: 6 -0 APPROVED WITH 2 CONDITIONS: 1. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a Type 11 EHU deed restriction to the Town of Vail Department of Community Development. This document shall be recorded at the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder's Office and will require that the employee housing unit be permanently restricted for employee housing. 2. The Conditional Use Permit for the proposed EHU is contingent upon Design Review approval. 2_ A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for the construction of a Type 11 Employee Housing Unit, located at 383 Beaver Dam Road / Lot 3, Block 3, Vail Village 3r Filing. Applicant: Fritzlen Pierce Architects Planner: Bill Gibson U Bill Gibson presented an overview of the staff memorandum add. There was no public comment. MOTION: Brian Doyon SECOND: Doug Cahill PUBLIC WELCOME 11:30 am The applicant had nothing to VOTE: 6 -0 T04IV OF PAIL MEMBERS ABSENT APPROVED WITH 3 CONDITIONS: 1. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a Type II EHU deed restriction to the Town of Vail Department of Community Development. This document shall be recorded at the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder's Cfifice and will require that the employee housing unit be permanently restricted for employee housing. 0 2. The Conditional Use Permit for the proposed EHU is contingent upon Design Review approval. 3. The applicant shall revise the site plan to meet the parking requirements prior to final Design Review approval. 3. A request for a final review of a proposed special development district to allow for the construction of a new conference facility /hotel; and a final review of conditional use permits to allow for the construction of fractional fee units and Type Ill employee housing units at 13 Vail Road 1 Lots A, B, C, Block 2, Vail Village Filing 2. Applicant: Doramar Hotels, represented by the Daymer Corporation Planner: Brent Wilson Brent Wilson presented an overview of the staff memorandum and stated that all owners within the Alphom were notified regarding the proposed application, above and beyond the minimum notification requirements in the Town Code. He discussed the deviations from the underlying PA ,Zoning, as noted in the staff memorandum. He stated that the Fractional Fee Club Units met the criteria for a conditional use permit and staff recommended approval of the conditional use permit. He stated that the Employee Housing Units did not meet the criteria for a conditional use permit and staff was recommending denial of the conditional use permit. Tim Losa of Zehren and Associates gave a presentation of the proposal. Tim stated that the proposal was in compliance with the master plan criteria and described how the proposal was compatible with the surrounding neighborhood_ Tim continued his presentation by taking the Commission and public through the floor plans of the proposed building. Tim spoke regarding the proposed parking deviation, stating that the employee housing units would not generate the need for additional parking. The traffic engineers then presented the traffic report as submitted_ Brent Wilson clarified the recent changes to the parking regulations, which tame into consideration the mix of uses within the commercial core areas. He also discussed the parking requirements for the proposed EHU's, restaurant, retail, and conference space. He then clarified the parking requirements for spa facilities, which is not listed in the Town Code. He said the parking requirements for spas are set by the PEC. Staff's recommendation is based on the requirements of other jurisdictions and compared to the Town requirements for a medical /dental office. Diane Golden questioned the requirements for the conference facilities and Brent clarified the requirements. Connie Dorsey then spoke to the parking requirements and the mixed use of the hotel facility, stating that, while he agrees with the staff's numbers as based on the Code, the parking requirement is excessive. He then discussed the EHU requirements, and the shared management team between both sites. He added that parking was not required on the previous approval for the VVI site. Brent Wilson addressed the recent changes in both the parking requirements and the EHU regulations since the original VVI site was considered by the PEC, Connie then addressed the employee need for the Chateau site and the VVI site, stating that the management team for the sites would be shared. The Commission expressed that, because these hotels could be sold separately and the PEC has only been asked to review the current application for the Chateau site, these two cannot be considered as one project with regard to employee generation. 2 Tim Losa then discussed the peak times for restaurant uses, stating the breakfast is the peak time period for the restaurant. He then added that the seating requirement of 1 seat per 15 sq. ft. is extremely tight for the function that they were considering, adding that they would like to see an additional reduction as a result. The Commission requested additional information regarding the conference facility size_ Brent Wilson then clarified the issue of restaurant parking and stated the requirement was one space per 250 square feet (or 16.6 seats), in accordance with the Town Code. Greg Hall was then invited to the podium to speak to the parking and loading and delivery requirements. He stated that the turning movements for trucks meet the AASHTO requirements, but without any room for driver error. Greg expressed concern that while the left turn lane off of the Frontage Rd. was adequate according to their parking study, he questioned the numbers used, believing that the left turn lane was not adequate with the numbers from the ITE that he used. He reiterated his earlier statement that loading and delivery would be more appropriately located at the west end of the property, with truck access coming off of South Frontage Road.. Public Comment: Jim Lamont, Vail Village Homeowners Association, expressed concerns about the proposal, specifically the loading and delivery. Jim reiterated the importance of employee housing on the site and the importance of clear communication regarding the EHU's. Jim believed that the two sites should be considered as one with respect to employee housing and loading and delivery. Jim also objected to the applicant's exhibit showing proposed redevelopment at other sites in the vicinity. Jim stated that the staff report was exceptional and that Brent did a tremendous job representing the concerns of the adjacent properties. Lon Moellentine, President of the company that owned Alpine Standard, stated that they are interested in growth and development, but believed that the impacts of the proposed redevelopment are of great importance to Alpine Standard. He was concerned about the on- going business of Alpine Standard, and the possible redevelopment of the Alpine Standard. Lon stated that they have ingress and egress rights to the spur road behind the Alpine Standard. Bill Pierce, representing the Alpine Standard, clarified the rights of Alpine Standard to use the easement and also expressed the rights of Alpine Standard to use that spur road for egress. Bill stated that the proposed location of the loading and delivery for large trucks will be located at the main entry and in the front setback. He also expressed concerns regarding the blockage of traffic into the Alpine Standard site. Lon Moellentine returned to the podium to express additional concerns regarding the site distance and vehicle visibility from the Alpine Standard exit. The representative of the Scorpio stated his concerns for the loading and delivery. Jeff Moellentine, representing Alpine Standard, expressed his concerns for the truck maneuvering abilities adjacent to the Alpine Standard site. Gwen Scalpello, representing 9 Vail Road, expressed their concerns regarding the loading and delivery, the openness of the loading and delivery, and the noise of the proposed loading and delivery. Specifically, she expressed concern about the truck turnaround. She also stated their concerns regarding the bulk and mass of the proposed building. She stated that an SDD was not necessary. Margie Kell, Vice President of Alphorn association, stated her concerns. Al Martinson, of Scorpio, expressed his concerns and requested the ability for the public to view the application contents and the massing model for an extended period of time. Yvonne Martin, of Scorpio, expressed her concerns regarding the bulk and mass and aesthetic appeal and stated that the building was too urban. Rick Scalpello, 9 Vail Road, expressed concerns regarding loading and delivery and stated that it was not appropriate adjacent to residential properties. He stated that the berm that was added is partially on their property and didn't believe that it was appropriate for them to lose some use of their property to mitigate the loading and delivery. He also indicated that he was concerned regarding the stand -alone nature of the 2 hotels. He believed that these should be looked at as one site for redevelopment purposes. Brent Wilson presented answers to some of the public comment concerns. Specifically, he affirmed Bill Pierce's assumption that loading and delivery was not permitted within a front setback, that the applicant had a right to apply for an SOD for the Chateau site alone and that the Town had an obligation to bring the application through the review process. Commissioner Comments: Brian Doyon stated that "we cannot sacrifice our community for redevelopment." He stated his problems with the proposal, specifically regarding height, bulk, and mass, stating that the character of the building does not fit with the Town of Vail. He expressed concerns with the height of the building — way too high. He said the building ignores the character of the neighborhood. As for parking, Brian did not believe that any deviation to the parking would be supported. He also expressed concerns with the traffic effects on Alpine Standard_ Also, he believed that the proposal should meet the landscaping requirements. As for EHUs, Brian stated that he would look at this application as a single site, and that the applicant should meet the staff's analysis for EHUs. Chas Bernhardt expressed concerns regarding the deviations from code for the height requirements on the Meadow Drive side of the building because of the pedestrian nature of the street. Doug Cahill stated this project needed to fit on the site. He also stated an appreciation for all of staff's hard work. Doug expressed concerns with the bulk and mass of the project, especially along Meadow Drive. Doug supported staffs position on the parking requirements and the EHUs. He stated that loading and delivery was a huge issue and getting all the adjacent properties to discuss the issue would be beneficial. John Schoffield stated that a little tweaking needed to occur to the plans_ John stated that a combination of the Alpine Standard and the Chateau site would be beneficial to both parties. He reiterated the necessity of an SOD on this site, but stated that some changes to the proposal need to be made. He stated that bulk, mass, height, loading and delivery combined contributed to making it difficult to approve this project. John stated that while the height on the Frontage Road was okay, the Meadow Drive side needed to step down somewhat. He stated that the proposal needed to meet the parking requirements. He noted the problems with traffic and loading and delivery and advocated making it as less intrusive as necessary. Diane Golden reiterated Brian's comments. Diane believed that the EHU's were necessary and that no deviation would be allowed for parking. She was terribly uncomfortable with the loading and delivery not being underground. She expressed concerns regarding traffic congestion in the roundabout and the Alpine Standard. She is more comfortable with the height and bulk. Galen Aasland reiterated that while he believed redevelopment is good, he still has concerns. He believed that the height along Meadow Drive was excessive and needed to meet the maximum 48' height requirement. He stated that in order for the project to be an SOD, the project needed to be more oriented to the pubic, rather than inward. He believed that the proposal needed to meet the requirements for parking, EHUs, and landscaping. Special Development District MOTION: John Schofield SECOND: Brian Doyon VOTE: 6 -0 0 Cl DENIED RECOMMENDATION TO THE TOWN COUNCIL IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FINDINGS OUTLINED IN THE STAFF MEMORANDUM Conditional Use Permit for Fractional Fee Club Units MOTION: John Schofield SECOND: Diane Golden 'VOTE: 6 -0 APPROVED WITH 1 CONDITION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FINDINGS OUTLINED IN THE STAFF MEMORANDUM The approval of this conditional use permit is not valid unless an ordinance approving the associated special development district request is approved on second reading. Conditional Use Permit for Employee Housing Units MOTION: Brian Doyon SECOND: Doug Cahill VOTE_ 6 -0 DENIED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FINDINGS OUTLINED IN THE STAFF MEMORANDUM. 4. A request for variances from Section 12 -6D -6 (Setbacks) and Title 14 (Development Standards - locating required parking in the Right -of -Way), to allow for a residential addition and remodel located at 2955 Bellflower Dr. / Lot 6, Block 6, Vail Intermountain. Applicant: Alan Peters, represented by Braun Associates Planner: Allison Ochs Allison Ochs made a presentation per the staff memorandum dated February 12, 20011 Dominic Mauriello, representing the applicant, stated that there were hardships that existed on the lot and that 47% of the lot area was unbuildable. He further stated that the configuration of the south right -of -way line created a unique lot shape. The applicant then presented the floor plans and site plans and discussed other structures built with variances. Galen Aasland asked why the applicant should be granted GRFA in the front setback on the second level. Dominic Mauriello stated that this was the only place to locate the GRFA and stated that there were other lots in the neighborhood that were in violation. Hans Vlaar, a neighbor, expressed concerns about the height and mass. He further stated that the size and design of the house didn't meet the character of the neighborhood and would like to see the second level eliminated. He stated that the front setback was not a major concern. Doug Cahill mentioned that this project reminded him of the Vail Plaza Hotel proposal with too much bulk and too much mass being proposed. He noted specific concern with the amount of encroachment into the west side setback stating inadequate light and air. He said the west side should match the east side; 11 feet. John Schofield stated that some variance was necessary, but the amount requested was excessive and said a one -car garage was only one option. He said the building could also be pushed to the north and he could not support this request_ Diane Golden stated that she agreed to the front setback variance, but had concerns with the two stories on the side setback with living area. Brian Doyon stated that he believed they had a hardship, but encouraged working with the neighbor. He said he would accept some GRFA in the setbacks and recommended minimizing the amount of the variances requested. Chas Bernhardt stated his major concern was the three -foot setback. He recommended that the request be minimized. Galen Aasland believed that the current proposal was unsupportable and a three -foot setback was unacceptable. He said the front setback was less of an issue, but the second floor must be removed. is The applicant stated that the he would talk with the neighbor and said the Town was contradictory with their regulations. Galen Aasland stated that the applicant's design was driving the need for the variances and recommended that the application be tabled and redesigned. MOTION: John Schofield SECOND: Brian Doyon VOTE: 6 -0 TABLED UNTIL FEBRUARY 26, 2001 Allison Ochs stated the revised plans needed to be submitted a minimum of seven working days in advance of the 26' meeting. 5. A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for the installation of rooftop telecommunications antennas at the Brandess Building, located at 2077 N. Frontage Road (Brandess Building)/Lot 39, Buffehr Creek. Applicant: Jayne Brandess Revocable Trust, represented by Abacus Communications Planner: Allison Ochs Allison Ochs made a presentation per the staff memorandum dated February 12, 2001. She stated that staff was recommending approval with conditions.. Glen Clocky presented the proposal. He stated that his applicant wished to place nine cellular antennas atop the building. He stated he agreed with the conditions on page 2 of the memo. Brian Doyon had no comments Chas Bernhardt agreed with the staff memo. Doug Cahill recommended that no mechanical equipment should be constructed in the setbacks. John Schofield had no comments. Diane Golden agreed with the staff memo. MOTION: John Schofield SECOND: Chas Bernhardt VOTE: 6 -0 APPROVED WITH 2 CONDITIONS: That the applicant is required to provide adequate provisions to screen the equipment from public view. These provisions will be reviewed during the design review process. 2. That the applicant either reconfigure the equipment at the northeast comer of the lot to comply with required setbacks prior to Design Review Board approval or that the applicant be granted a variance by the Planning and Environmental Commission to allow for the placement of the equipment within the 20 ft. setback prior to final Design Review Board approval. 6 6. A request for a recommendation to the Town Council on proposed text amendments, to allow for clarification & corrections to the Town Code. A complete description of the text amendments is on file at the Office of Community Development, located at 75 S. Frontage Road. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Allison Ochs Galen Aasland recognized a letter received by Art Abplanalp_ Allison Ochs made a staff presentation. There was no public comment. MOTION: Brian Doyon SECOND: Doug Cahill VOTE: 6 -0 APPROVED RECOMMENDATION TO THE TOWN COUNCIL 7. A worksession to discuss an interpretation of the definition of site coverage. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: George Ruther WITHDRAWN 8. A request for a recommendation to the Town Council on the proposed Vail Land Use Plan amendments to change the land use designation for the following properties: 1. LDR to OS, located at 3880 & 3896 Lupine Drive /Lots 15 & 16, Bighorn Subdivision 2 " Addition. 2. OS to HDR, located at 160 N. Frontage Rd. West/ generally located northwest of the 1 -70 interchange at the main Vail exit, known as "Mountain Bell," A TRACT OF LAND IN THE SOUTH HALF, OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER, SECTION 6, TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH, RANGE 80 WEST OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT THAT IS NORTH 00 DEGREES 28 MINUTES 16 SECONDS WEST A DISTANCE OF 686.60 FEET FROM THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SECTION 6, TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH, RANGE 80 WEST OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, BEING THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; ALSO BEING A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY RIGHT -OF -WAY OF INTERSTATE 70; THENCE NORTH 00 DEGREES 28 MINUTES 16 SECONDS WEST ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID SECTION 6 A DISTANCE OF 633.40 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89 DEGREES 27 MINUTES 21 SECONDS WEST A DISTANCE OF 2633.76 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EAST BOUNDARY LINE OF VAIUPOTATO PATCH; THENCE SOUTH 00 DEGREES 07 MINUTES 12 SECONDS EAST ALONG SAID EAST BOUNDARY LINE A DISTANCE OF 361.21 FEET TO A POINT ON A CURVE, SAID CURVE ALSO BEING ON THE NORTHERLY RIGHT -OF -WAY OF INTERSTATE 70; THENCE ALONG SAID NORTHERLY RIGHT -OF -WAY ON THE FOLLOWING 8 COURSES: 1) A DISTANCE OF 204.62 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, SAID CURVE HAVING A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 02 DEGREES 56 MINUTES 18 SECONDS, A RADIUS OF 3990.0 FEET, AND A CHORD NORTH 85 DEGREES 31 MINUTES 10 SECONDS EAST A DISTANCE OF 204.60 FEET; 2) NORTH 80 DEGREES 13 MINUTES 06 SECONDS EAST A DISTANCE OF 211.80 FEET, 3) NORTH 84 DEGREES 55 MINUTES 50 MINUTES EAST A DISTANCE OF 319.70 FEET; 4) SOUTH 79 DEGREES 56 MINUTES 28 SECONDS EAST A DISTANCE OF 424.40 FEET; 5) SOUTH 69 DEGREES 55 MINUTES 21 SECONDS EAST DISTANCE OF 303.20 FEET; 6) SOUTH 74 DEGREES 21 MINUTES 35 SECONDS EAST A DISTANCE OF 204.70 FEET; 7) SOUTH 83 DEGREES 36 MINUTES 29 SECONDS EAST A DISTANCE OF 826.30 FEET; 8) SOUTH 71 DEGREES 33 MINUTES 45 MINUTES EAST A DISTANCE OF 196.10 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. EXCEPT THAT PORTION OF LAND DESCRIBED IN WARRANTY DEED RECORDED IN BOOK 218 AT PAGE 419, COUNTY OF EAGLE, STATE OF COLORADO. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Allison Ochs WITHDRAWN 9_ Approval of January 22, 2001 minutes 10. Information Update Diane Golden and John Schofield will be absent on the 26 John Schofield expressed concern with the amount of public skate time at the Bubble. 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 -2133 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 • C has Doug Brian 5 -0- .•a