The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2001-0423 PECTHIS ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY PUBLIC NOTICE RZ�A NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail will hold a public hearing in accordance with Section 12 -3 -6 of the Municipal Code of the U*4 Town of Vail on April 23, 2001, at 2:00 P.M. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. In consideration of: A request for a variance from Section 12 -71-1-10 of the Vail Town Code, to allow for a proposed addition in the rear setback, located at 660 West Lionshead Place /Lot 1, Vail Lionshead 1S' Filing. Applicant: Lions Square Condo Association Planner: Bill Gibson 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 a conditional use permit, to allow for Type III employee housing units and fractional fee club units, located at 13 Vail Road/ Lots A, B, C, Block 2, Vail Village Filing 2. Applicant: Doramar Hotels, represented by the Daymer Corporation Planner: Brent Wilson A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for the construction of a soccer field, located at 610 N. Frontage Rd. West/ A portion of Tract C. Vail Potato Patch. A full legal description is available at the Department of Community Development. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Allison Ochs Is A request for a worksession to discuss a new Special Development District, to allow for the redevelopment of the Vail Racquet Club, located at 4695 Vail Racquet Club Drive /Vail Racquet Club Condominiums. Applicant: Racquet Club Owners Association, represented by Fritzlen Pierce Architects. Planner: Brent Wilson The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours in the project planner's office, located at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend project orientation and the site visits that precede the public hearing in the Town of Vail Community Development Department, Please call 479 -2138 for information. Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 -hour notification. Please call 479- 2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. Community Development Department Published April 6, 20011 in the Vail Daily. it TOM OF VAlL i is U PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION PUBLIC MEETING SCHEDULE Monday, April 23, 2001 PROJECT ORIENTATION 1 - Community Development Dept. PUBLIC WELCOME MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Site Visits : 1. A2Z Holdings, LLC residence — 383 Beaver Dam Road 2. Vail Plaza Hotel West — 13 Vail Road 1 Cascade Club — 1295 Westhaven Drive 4. Red Sandstone Soccer Filed — 610 N. Frontage Road West Drive:: George 11*:WD3 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 Hearing - Town Council Chambers G�l�r4 'FO 11:00 am 12:30 pm 2:00 pm A request for a final review of a proposed parking management plan, located at 1295 Westhaven Grive /Cascade Village, Development Area A. Appli� ant: L -O Vail Hotel Inc. Pl'anr ar: Allison Ochs 2. A request for a variance from Section 12 -6D -10 of the Vail Town Code, to allow for a reduction in the landscaping and site development requirements, located at 383 Beaver Dam Road /Lot 3, Block 3, Vail Village 3r`' Filing. Applicant: A2Z Holdings, LLC Planner: Bill Gibson 3. A rec rest 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 a conditional use permit, to allow for Type III employee housing units and fractional fee club units, located at 13 Vail Roaci Lots A, B, C, Block 2, Vail Village Filing 2. Applicant: Doramar Hotels, represented by the Daymer Corporation Planner: Brent Wilson 4. A rea =nest for a worksession to discuss the rezoning of the Mill Creek Court Building from CCI to a zone district or special development district that would allow office and residential uses ]n the street level, located at 303 Gore Creek Drive /Lot 1, Block 5A, Vail Village 1° Filing. Applicant: Mill Creek Court Condominium Association, represented by Larry Eskwith Planner: Allison Ochs Ilk TOi+ N OF [t9LL 5. A rec.aest for a conditional use permit, to allow for the construction of a soccer field, located at 610 N. Frontage Rd. West/ A portion of Tract C, Vail Potato Patch. A full metes & bounds legal description is available at the Department of Community Development. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner Allison Ochs 6. A. request for a final review of a conditional use permit, to allow for the construction of Phase I of Donovan Park improvements, generally located southeast of the intersection of Matte,hom Circle and the South Frontage Road. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: George Ruther 7. An appeal of a determination by the Zoning Administrator that pursuant to Section 12 -7H -7 of the Vail Town Code the proposed improvements to the Marriott Hotel, by definition, do not constitute a major exterior alteration and as such do not require that the Planning & Environmental Commission review the application/ 715 W. Lionshead Circle /Lots C &D, Moro,-.,,9 Subdivision. 8 i 10 Applicant: HMC Acquisition Properties, Inc., represented by Gwathmey, Pratt, Schultz Planriar: Zoning Administrator Appe:rants: Vail Spa Condominium Association A reciuest for the review of a proposed text amendment to Chapter 11, Design Review, of the Zoning Regulations to allow for procedural changes to the performance bond process as Presc ;Jbed in the Vail Town Code. Appiicant: Town of Vail P`ar ier: George Ruther A request for a worksession to discuss a new special development district, to allow for the redevelopment of the Vail Racquet Club, located at 4695 Vail Racquet Club Drive /Vail Racquet Club Condominiums, Bighorn 5'r' Addition. App':i_ant: Racquet Club Owners Association, represented by Fritzlen Pierce Architects. Planner: 3rent Wilson T AELED UNTIL MAY 14, 2001 A regwu st for a variance from Section 12 -7H -10 of the Vail Town Code, to allow for a proposed addit'on in the rear setback, Iocatad at 660 West Lionshead Place /Lot 1, Vail Lionshead 1st =icing. ,t: - ions Square Condo Association ?lar .er: Sill Gibson - AE__=D UNTIL MAY 14, 2001 2 r" 1 LJ • 11. A finar review of a request for a recommendation to the Town Council for a rezoning from Agriculture and Open Space to Primary/Secondary Residential and a Minor Subdivision to creafe two residential lots and a request for a recommendation to the Town Council for an amendment to the Vail Land Use plan, changing the land use designation from Public/Semi- Public use to Low Density Residential, located at 3160 Booth Falls Road /Part of Lot 12, Block 2, Vail Village 12th Filing. Applicant: Boothfalls Homeowner's Association, represented by Braun Associates, Inc. Planner: Russell Forrest ',r11iTf' ZRAWN 12. App ~oval of April 9, 2001 minutes 13. 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 i,,terprbtaton available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479 -2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaiied,, for information. Community Development Department Published rti,�. is 20, 2001 in the Vail Trail. is PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION PUBLIC MEETING RESULTS Monday, April 23, 2001 PROJECT ORIENTATION I - Community Development Dept. PUBLIC WELCOME MEMBERS PRESENT Galen Aasland Chas Bernhardt Diane Golden Brian Doyon Doug Cahill Dick Cleveland MEMBERS ABSENT John Schofield 1. A2Z Holdings, LLC residence — 383 Beaver Dam Road 2. Vail Plaza Hotel West — 13 Vail Road 3. Cascade Club — 1295 Westhaven Drive 4. Red Sandstone Soccer Filed — 610 N. Frontage Road West 11:00 am 12:30 pm Driver: George NOTE: If the PEC hearing extends until &00 p.m., the board may break for dinner from 6:00 - 6:30 p.m. Public Hearing - Taws Council Chambers 2:00 pm 1. A request for a final review of a proposed parking management plan, located at 1295 Westhaven Drive /Cascade Village, Development Area A. Applicant: L -O Vail Hotel Inc. Planner: Allison Ochs MOTION: Brian Doyon SECOND: Diane Golden VOTE: 6 -0 APPROVED 2. A request for a variance from Section 12 -6D -10 of the Vail Town Code, to allow for a reduction in the landscaping and site development requirements, located at 383 Beaver Dam Road /Lot 3, Block 3, Vail Village 3rd Filing. Applicant: A2Z Holdings. LLC Planner: Bill Gibson MOTION: Doug Cahill SECOND: Chas Bernhardt VOTE: 6 -0 APPROVED TOWNV O*YA& 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 a conditional use permit, to allow for Type III employee housing units and fractional fee club units, located at 13 Vail Road/ Lots A, B, C, Block 2, Vail Village Filing 2. 0 Applicant: Doramar Hotels, represented by the Daymer Corporation Planner Brent Wilson TABLED UNTIL MAY 14, 2001 4. A request for a worksession to discuss the rezoning of the Mill Creek Court Building from CC[ to a zone district or special development district that would allow office and residential uses on the street level, located at 303 Gore Creek Drive /Lot 1, Block 5A, Vail Village 1 "' Filing. Applicant: Mill Creek Court Condominium Association, represented by Larry Eskwith Planner: Allison Ochs WORKSESSION — NO VOTE 5. A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for the construction of a soccer field, located at 610 N, Frontage Rd. West/ A portion of Tract C, Vail Potato Patch. A full metes & bounds legal description is available at the Department of Community Development. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Allison Ochs TABLED 'UNTIL MAY 14, 2001 6. A request for a final review of a conditional use permit, to allow for the construction of Phase I of Donovan Park improvements, generally located southeast of the intersection of Matterhorn Circle and the South Frontage Road. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: George Ruther TABLED TO MAY 14, 2001 7. An appeal of a determination by the Zoning Administrator that pursuant to Section 12 -7H -7 of the frail Town Code the proposed improvements to the Marriott Hotel, by definition, do not constitute a major exterior alteration and as such do not require that the Planning & Environmental Commission review the application/ 715 W. Lionshead Circle /Lots C &D, Morcus Subdivision. Applicant: HMC Acquisition Properties, Inc., represented by Gwathmey, Pratt, Schultz Planner: Zoning Administrator Appellants: Vail Spa Condominium Association WITHDRAWN 8. A request for the review of a proposed text amendment to Chapter 11, Design Review, of the Zoning Regulations to allow for procedural changes to the performance bond process as prescribed in the Vail Town Code. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: George Ruther TABLED TO MAY 14, 2001 2 9. A request for a worksession to discuss a new special development district, to allow for the redevelopment of the Vail Racquet Club, located at 4695 Vail Racquet Club Drive/Vail Racquet Club Condominiums, Bighorn 5 h Addition. Applicant: Racquet Club Owners Association, represented by Fritzlen Pierce Architects. Planner: Brent Wilson TABLED UNTIL MAY 14, 2001 10. A request for a variance from Section 12 -71-1-10 of the Vail Town Code, to allow for a proposed addition in the rear setback, located at 660 West Lionshead Place /Lot 1, Vail Lionshead 1st Filing. Applicant: Lions Square Condo Association Planner: Bill Gibson TABLED UNTIL MAY 14, 2001 11. A final review of a request for a recommendation to the Town Council for a rezoning from Agriculture and Open Space to Primary /Secondary Residential and a Minor Subdivision to create 'two residential lots and a request for a recommendation to the Town Council for an amendment to the Vail Land Use Plan, changing the land use designation from Public/Semi- Public use to Low Density Residential, located at 3160 Booth Falls Road /Park of Lot 12, Block 2, Vail Village 12t" Filing. Applicant: Boothfalls Homeowner's Association, represented by Braun Associates, Inc. Plar,ner: Russell 'Forrest WITf rt;RAL1fN 12. Approval of April S, 2001 rr,inutes APPROVED AS AMENDED 13. 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 • • TOhIN OF 1L1F Planning and Environmental Commission ACTION FORM Department of Community Development 75 South Frontage Road, Vail, Colorado 81657 tel: 970.479.2139 fax: 970.479.2452 web: www,ci.vail.co,us Project Name: SDD #4 Minor Amendment Project Description: Convert existing indoor tennis court to spa Participants: OWNER L -O VAIL HOLDING INC PEC Number: PECO10014 02/28/2001 Phone: WESTIN HOTEL 1300 WESTHAVEN DR VAIL CO 81638 License: APPLICANT L -O VAIL HOLDING INC 02/28/2001 Phone: WESTIN HOTEL 1300 WESTHAVEN DR VAIL CO Randy Linberg 479 -7009 81638 License: 40 Project Address: 1000 S FRONTAGE RD WEST VAIL Location: Legal Description: Lot: Block: Subdivision: CASCADE CLUB CONDO Parcel Number: 210312115001 Comments: Parking Managment Plan attached to SDD Motion By: Brian doyon Second By: Diane Golden Vote: 6 -0 Conditions: BOARD /STAFF ACTION Action: APPROVED Date of Approval: 04/24/2001 Cond: 8 (PLAN): No changes to these plans may be made without the written consent of Town of Vail staff and /or the Design Review Board. Planner: Allison Ochs PEC Fee Paid: $1,000.00 [IN11ZON11111 • Planning and Environmental Commission, Town of Vail 75 S. Frontage Road West Vail, Co. 81657 From: Yvonne and Albert Martens Re: Vail Plaza Hotel West - Prado Project Dear Commission Members, We have recently seen revised plans for the Vail Plaza Hotel West and it is extremely massive. The zoning regulations are in place for good reasons. Vail Plaza Hotel West should not be granted a special privilege in the form of a special development district (SDD). The idea of the new Town of Vail streetscape design is to invite people to stroll on to Lionshead. The Plaza Hotel West structure as planned will have the opposite effect. Because of its huge mass and height and not blending in with the character and size of the surrounding architecture, it will intimidate people and cause them to turn back. It is too much of a fortress and allows for no scenic vistas. Redevelopment is good but only if it proceeds with proper guide lines. Until now, Vail has developed as a charming mountain resort. Rules are for everyone. Let's not set precedents that are counterproductive out of desire for increased revenues and destroy the unique character of Vail. Vail is unique for its charm and scenic vistas. Let's not take away the beauty nature has given us by what we build. This is a very important site. Please adhere to our zoning regulations. Sincerely, Yvonne & Albert Martens TOWN OF VAIL[" Department of Community Development 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 970 -479 -2138 FAX 970- 479 -2452 www.ci.vail.co.us • April 19, 2001 Tim Losa, AIA Zehren and Associates, Inc. P.O. Box 1976 Avon, CO 81620 Re: Lot 9 A -C, Vail Village Filing 2 / The Vail Plaza Hotel (Nest Special Development District Dear Tim: At its April 18`h meeting, the Town of Vail Design Review Board (DRB) reviewed the above- referenced application. After consideration of applicable design guidelines and special development district design criteria, the DRB moved to recommend approval of the proposed special development district to the Vail Town Council with the following finding: "That the proposed special development district is in general compliance with the town's design guidelines and SDD design criteria, although additional attention should be given to Criterion A (Compatibility) with particular regard to scale and bulk." The following is a synopsis of the DRB's comments from this meeting: ■ "The design elements of the application have come a long way since the original submittal. You have shown significant responsiveness to the concerns we expressed earlier in the design review process. The vernacular, aesthetics and materials are very well done." ■ "You have designed a great hotel. However, our concern is that it may be too massive for this specific location." ■ "You are encouraged to provide more opportunities for pedestrian interaction at street level along West Meadow Drive. You could accomplish this by opening up the courtyard even further," ■ "The guest entry should be enhanced to allow for a greater sense of arrival to the hotel." IVow RECYCLED PAPER If you would like to discuss these items in greater detail, please do not hesitate to contact me at (970) 479 -2140. 0 Sincerely, Brent Wilson, AICP Planner II cc: Vail Town Council Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission • • • • • MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development. DATE: April 23, 2001 SUBJECT: A request for a final review of a proposed parking management plan, located at 1295 Westhaven Drive /Cascade Village, Development Area A. Applicant: L -O Vail Hotel Inc. Planner: Allison Ochs I. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST At the April 9, 2001, Planning and Environmental Commission meeting, the applicant received an approval for a minor amendment to Special Development District #4 (Cascade Village) to convert an existing tennis court into additional spa for the Cascade Spa and Club. The Planning and Environmental Commission expressed a concern regarding the parking situation at the Cascade, specifically regarding the parking structure. The Planning and Environmental Commission requested a parking management plan and additional information regarding the existing situation at the structure. The proposed parking management plan for the Cascade is attached. To summarize, the applicant agrees to maintain all 416 spaces as parking spaces unless approval is received from the Town of Vail. In addition. the applicant agrees to utilize an automated system for parking management in the three levels of the parking structure. This system will be installed no later than November 16, 2001. PREVIOUS APPROVALS The use of the tennis courts for special events was approved on December 28, 1998. The approval allowed special events as an accessory use in Special Development District #4. Originally the applicant's request was primarily for the 1999 World Alpine Ski Championships for use of the tennis facilities as the major press facility. However, costly building improvements were required so to justify the expenditures, the applicant requested that the tennis courts also be used for other types of special events. The applicant estimated that the facilities would be used for special events approximately 6 to 8 times per year. The approval discussed the parking situation, describing special events as accessory to the hotel, and that no additional parking would be required. The applicant also indicated that a shuttle would be run between the Cascade and any other accommodations the events' attendees may be situated at. The operation of a transportation business was approved as a conditional use on November 23, 1998. Thrifty car rental is run out of an existing office within the Cascade Hotel, and a maximum of 12 cars is stored on site within the parking structure. TOWN *VAIL III. PARKING ANALYSIS 0 Ordinance 23, Series of 1998, was the most recent amendment to Special Development District #4. (Ordinance 1, Series of 1999 added the car rental and special events as uses, but did not amend any of the body of the SDD). It provides a table of the completed projects and the parking associated with each project. According to Ordinance 23, parking in the structure is assessed according to the following: Use Parking with_ iin Structure' Cascade Hotel hotel, restaurant, retail, etc. 115 CIVIC Building theater, classrooms, etc. 112.8 Terrace_ Win rooms, retail 125 Plaza l rooms, retail 20 Plaza 11 rooms, retail 38 Cascade Club 38.4 Total 449.9 Total Required Less 17.5% Mixed Use Credit 371.2 Existing Spaces in Structure 416 Remaining Spaces 44.8 1999 Car Rental Approval -12 [Remaining Spaces 32.8 FA • VAI L CASCADE RESORT & SPA April 18, 2001 Ms, Allison Ochs Planner II Town of Vail 75 S. Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 Dear Allison: Enclosed please find the Parking Management Plan for the parking facilities located at the Vail Cascade Resort & Spa. Upon review of the usage of the parking facilities, we firmly believe the implementation of this plan will significantly enhance the accessibility and availability of parking facilities for its designated users. As a result of not maintaining daily management of the parking facilities, it has become common knowledge that individuals can park in the majority of our facilities without being charged. This problem has become exacerbated over the course of the past winter given the increase in vehicular traffic to Vail and subsequent overflow reaching beyond our property along South Frontage Road on several occasions. While there will no doubt be several individuals who may find the effective management of our facilities to be inconvenient to them as a result of their not being to receive free parking, we believe that this aspect of the management plan alone will provide a great deal of additional available parking space on a daily basis. look forward to any feedback you might have in order to further improve this plan over time and appreciate the assistance of yourself and the PEC in allowing the Vail Cascade Resort & Spa to further increase its level of service and amenities to its guests and members. Please feel free to contact me directly at 479 -7028 should you have any additional questions. c rely, Gary ries Gen ral Manager • VAI L CASCADE Parking Management Plan The following document outlines the parameters by which the Vail Cascade Resort & Spa (VCRS) intends to manage its parking facilities. Facilities: The parking facilities at VCRS consist of three levels of structured parking. VCRS owns and manages the lower (1S) and middle (2nd) levels and leases the upper (3rd) level from Emerald Acres, LLC. VCRS then maintains annual license agreements with additional leaseholders in order to share the costs of the associated lease and operating expenses. The following chart outlines the total number of available spaces within each level of the garage. VCRS agrees that all of these spaces are to be available and utilized as parking spaces at all times and not used for another use without receiving advance written approval from the Town of Vail. Lower (15t) - 119 spaces Middle (2nd) - 149 spaces Upper Qrd) - 148 spaces Total Spaces - 416 spaces Objective: To provide accessible parking_ to all resort guests, Spa & Club members, dining patrons, customers of license holders (Cascade Theater, Colorado Mountain College, Cascade Gallery) and general public in accordance with parameters outlined in the Town of Vail SDD #4. Guidelines: Parking areas are to be managed in accordance with resort policies, all applicable governmental regulations and in the interest of safety and effective risk management. It is in the best interest of VCRS to provide and appropriately manage all parking facilities in order to ensure the satisfaction of its guests, patrons and the needs of its various constituencies and license holders. Should additional parking management systems and future enhancements be deemed necessary, VCRS will continue to assume an active role in adopting appropriate processes to most effectively manage its parking facilities. Automated Management System: VCRS will utilize an automated system to provide for year -round parking management in the three (3) levels of the parking garage. This system will include the following key components to ensure significant control of appropriate access management- Vail Cascade Resort $ Spa - Parking Management Plan Page f ❑ Interface with guest key cards, membership cards and employee identification cards to provide automated entry and exit from specific levels of the garage. ❑ Interface with specified identification cards for other license holders outlines in the SDD#4 (Colorado Mountain College, Cascade Gallery, Cascade Theaters, etc.) Li Allow for magnetically coded access slips /tokens provided to day patrons, restaurant patrons, theatre patrons and applicable guests of any current license holder within the SDD#4. ❑ Allow for cash or credit card payment at an automated pay station to comply with general parking requirements outlined in SDD #4 and at other times the resort deems public parking appropriate. ❑ Emergency telephone locations in each level of the garage connected to the resort's main telephone number_ n. Automated "override" function interfaced to the front desk of the hotel to allow for override of any exit gate due to malfunction, etc. Non-Garage Areas: While not all areas are in direct control of VCRS, the resort will fully support and positively impact compliance with all outlined parking regulations on surrounding streets, driveways, fire lanes, etc. The resort's management team will monitor these areas on an ongoing basis and assist in the facilitation of necessary ticketing, towing or relocation of vehicles in order to maintain thoroughfares that are free of inappropriately parked vehicles and are in compliance with local law enforcement regulations. Overflow Situations: At times the resort may anticipate and /or incur traffic and parking requirements that are in excess of its parking facilities. Such instances are typically related to a special event or at a time when an unusually high number of guests drive to the resort rather than utilizing other public or private transportation options. When the resort is aware of such an occurrence, resort management will contact appropriate Town of Vail authorities to develop a plan that effectively manages the anticipated traffic flow including, but not limited to: directing vehicles to other parking facilities and providing shuttles services to and from the resort, encouraging employees to carpool, and directing employees to park in other parking facilities and providing shuttles to and from the resort. Periodic Review: VCRS management will, from time to time, review the effectiveness of its parking management plan and solicit feedback from its guests, members, patrons and license holders. Reasonable modifications deemed appropriate to further enhance the parking experience at VCRS will be implemented upon said reviews. Implementation Date_: While it is anticipated to be implemented much earlier, VCRS commits that all components included in this parking management plan will be installed and fully operable by no later than November 16, 2001. Vail cascade Resort & Spa — Parking Management Plan Page 2 • MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: April 23, 2001 SUBJECT: A request for a variance from Section 12 -6D -10 of the Vail Town Code, to allow for a reduction in the landscaping and site development requirements, located at 383 Beaver Dam Road /Lot 3, Block 3, Vail Village 3`d Filing. Applicant: A2Z Holdings, LLC represented by Fritzlen Pierce Architects Planner: Bill Gibson BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST On March 6, 1990 the owner of 383 Beaver Dam Road, John L. Tyler, granted the Town of Vail a perpetual exclusive easement and right -of -way agreement across a portion of his property for Beaver Dam Circle. A copy of the agreement has been attached for reference_ The perpetual exclusive easement and right -of -way agreement allowed for the "...construction, maintenance, repair, reconstruction of a road right -of -way [Beaver Dam Circle] for the use by the Grantee and the general public." The Town of Vail's acceptance of this easement constituted an agreement and consent to five items. The 5`" item of the agreement reads as follows: "It is understood by the parties that the square footage located within the easement may be used by the Grantor for the calculation of gross residential floor area." The applicants, A2Z Holdings, LLC, represented by Fritzlen Pierce Architects, are proposing to construct a new single family residence and Type II Employee Housing Unit at 383 Beaver Dam Road. The Planning and Environmental Commission approved a Conditional Use Permit for the proposed EHU at their February 12, 2001 meeting. During the Design Review process, staff determined that the Beaver Dam Circle easement area is considered part of the total lot size for this site, in accordance with the 1990 easement agreement. Since the Beaver Dam Circle easement area is considered part of the total lot size, this area has an effect on other development standards that are determined by lot size (i.e. landscaping). Since the easement agreement referred specifically to GRFA and no other development standards, staff determined that a variance would be required for any deviation from other development standards. The applicant's proposal for a new single family residence and Type II EHU meets the requirements of the Town Code with the exception of the landscaping requirements of Section 12.6D.10 (LANDSCAPING AND SITE DEVELOPMENT), of the Town of Vail Municipal Code. Landscaping requirements for lots in the Two - Family Primary /Secondary Residential Zone District are regulated by Section 12.6D.10 (LANDSCAPING AND SITE DEVELOPMENT), of the Town of Vail Municipal Code. According to Section 12.6D.10 of the Municipal Code, "At least sixty percent of each site shall be landscaped. The minimum of any area qualifying as landscaping shall be ten feet (10') (width and length) with a minimum area not less than three 40 hundred (300) square feet." TOWN The applicant believes that the Beaver Dam Circle easement area restricts their ability to fully comply with the landscaping requirements of the Two - Family Primary /Secondary Residential Zone District. The Design Review Board approved the proposed new single family residence and Type II Employee Housing Unit at 383 Beaver Dam Road at their March 21, 2001 meeting with a condition that their approval was contingent upon the applicant receiving approval of a landscaping variance by the Planning and Environmental Commission. The applicants' representative has expressed the reasoning for this variance request as follows: "We are requesting that the landscaping requirements for this site be reduced to 40 due to the TOV Right -of -Way Easement for Beaver Dam Circle Road. The proposed areas of ` Hardscape' total 40% of our site area. This outlines that if the TOV did not have a road crossing the property, the project would meet the required 60% landscape area requirement. Additionally, the project is under on site coverage and GRFA. The TOV ROW hampers the development potential of this property if a variance is not granted." A copy of the applicant's letter dated April 19, 2001, and a copy of the proposed site plan - landscape area have been attached for reference. ZONING AND SITE STATISTICS Zoning District: Two - Family Primary /Secondary Residential District Lot Size: 15,950 sq. ft. (0.3662 acres) Standard Allowed /Required Proposed Remaining GRFA: 5,195 sq.ft. (w /EHU) Site Coverage 3,190 sq.ft. (20 %) Driveway Coverage 3,1.90 sq.ft. (20 %) Landscaping Soft -scape Hard -scape TOV Easement Setbacks Front Side Rear Parking (w /EHU) 9,570 sq.ft. (60 %o) 7,656 sq.ft. (80 %) 1,914 sq.ft. (20 %) 2,861 sq.ft (18 %) 20 ft. 15 ft. 15 ft. 5 spaces IQ 5,182 sq. ft. 3,044 sq. ft. (19 %) 1,982 sq.ft. (12 %) 8,576 sq. ft. (54 %) 7,255 sq.ft. (76 %) 1,321 sq.ft. (14 %a) 20 ft. 51.5 ft. / 38 ft. 27.5 ft. 4 enclosed / 1 surface 13 sq.ft. 146 sq.ft. 1,208 sq.ft. -944 sq.ft. ( -6 %) �J • 0111. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department staff recommends approval of the applicant's variance request for a reduction in the landscaping and site development requirements subject to the following findings: That the granting of this variance reducing the landscaping and site development requirements will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the Two - Family Primary /Secondary Residential Zone District. 2. That there are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to this site that do not apply generally to other properties in the Two - Family Primary/Secondary Residential Zone District. That the strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation deprives the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the Two- Family Primary /Secondary Residential Zone District. IV. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS A. Consideration of Factors: 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. Due to the location of the Beaver Dam Circle easement, staff believes the landscaping variance request allows this development to be compatible with and comparable to the surrounding development in the area. Although the easement agreement refers specifically to GRFA, staff believes that the intent of this item was to ensure that the establishment of the easement and right -of -way agreement for Beaver Dam Circle did not limit the development potential of 383 Beaver Dam Circle. 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 grant of special privilege. Staff believes that it is necessary to receive relief from the landscaping and site development regulation to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment of the applicant's lot and the other lots in the vicinity, and to attain the objectives of the Zoning Code. Staff does not believe that the granting of the requested landscaping and site development variance will be a grant of special privilege as it will not result in treatment not enjoyed by other property owners in the area, and in the Two - Family Prim arylSecondary Zone District in general. 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. Staff believes this request will not have a significant effect on any of the above - described criteria. 0 B. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before rantin a variance: 1. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the 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 4 April 19 2001 Bill Gibson TOV Community Development 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO 51657 RE: 383 Beaver Dam Road PEC Application for Landscaping Variance Dear Bill: FRITZLEN PIERCE ARCHITECTS As per our discussions, attached is a PEC application for a Landscaping Variance. Lot 383 (West Lot) Site area is TOV Required Area of Landscaping Landscaping Area Proposed 7,255 softscape 1,321 decks, stairs etc TOV ROW Easement for Beaver Dam Circle Building Footprint Driveway Paving 15,950 sq ft 9,570 sq ft (60 %) 8,575 sq ft (54 %) 2,861 sq ft (18 %) 2,567 sq ft (16 %) 1,946 sq ft (12 %) We are requesting that the landscaping requirements for this site be reduced to 40% due to the TOV Right -Of -Way Easement for Beaver Dam Circle Road. The proposed areas of "Hardscape" total 40% of our site area. This outlines that if the TOV did not have a road crossing the property, the project would meet the required 60% landscape area requirement. Additionally, the project is under on site coverage and GRFA. The TOV ROW hampers the development potential of this property if a variance is not granted. 1\SERVER\MAINSHARE \0048 - 9EAVERDAMRESIDENCE\ PRO) ECTCORRESPONDENCE \TO7APECLANDSCAPE04190t.DOC PACE 1 of 3 Planning s Architecture 0 Interiors 1650 East Vail Valley Drive Fallridge C -1 * Vail, CO 81657 • vailarchitects.com a fax (970) 476 -4901 • (970) 476 -6342 Relationship to other existing or potential uses in the Vicini The entire Beaver Dam Circle community benefits from the ROW crossing the project property. Additionally, there is approximately 785 sq ft of landscaping that is technically on TOV land, but maintain by the Lot 3 owner. FRITZLEN PIERCE ARCHITECTS Degree of Relief Without a landscaping variance, the property would be very difficult to develop. The owner would not be allowed to maximum the site coverage and /or CRFA that all property owners in this zoning are allowed. Additionally, the ROW agreement states that the ROW can not limit future development of the site. Not granting some form of variance would be in conflict with the ROW agreement. Special Privilege If anything, this property will be penalized if a landscaping variance is not granted. Again development potential would be dramatically lower than all other properties with this zoning. Please call with any questions or comments. Thanks. Sincerely, Stephanie Lord - Johnson Arch itect 1%SERVERWAINSHARE10048 - BEAVERDAMRESIDENCE\ PROJECrCORRESPON DENCE ITOV\PECLANDSCAPE041901.DOC PACE 2of3 Planning • Architecture a interiors 1650 East Vail Valley Drive Fallridge C -1 0 Vail, CO 81657 • vailarchitects.com • fax (970) 476 -4901 • (970) 476-6342 so • • • '1C r D D r� D�p �n D N r / �n BEAVER DAM RESIDENCES -SITE ivrar A naa4wr+�ua �ururc �Lyi y � fO�lO �gyAOiW n1G s N t r ` D z r D D r� D�p �n D N r / �n BEAVER DAM RESIDENCES -SITE ivrar A naa4wr+�ua �ururc �Lyi y � fO�lO �gyAOiW n1G s C M nQ a ra U Ll w ru ti �o JOHN L. TYLER / TOWN OF VAIL 9 EASWNT KNOW ALL MtN by !heat presents: R' "6 III fo ter .4.11 S 1,410 OM and other good ind'valuabls JOHN . TYL6 I, ranter , r , eonsidoration1 00 ractirt of which is horoby aaknowlvdged, has granted, bargained, sold, and convayod, and by these oresentx does grant, bargain, sell, and convoy, and confirm unto the TDWN OF VAIL, a Colorado municipal corporation ( "Grantee ") the fallowing interest in real, property situate lh the County of EA910 , Static of Colorado: A perpetual excluglvo, easement and rlyht -of -way nn that portion of the Grantor'* property which is sat forth and designated on 'Exhibit A attached hereto for the construction, maintenanCe, repair, reconstruction or a road right-of-way for the use of Grentee and the general public, Acceptance of this easement by the Grantee Shall constitute its agreamiint and -consant as follows: i. At such d are, end in the event that the wauwsle €z is sbendanad or no longer used by the Grantee, then Granteo'e. interest in the easoma6t shall immediately revii'°x to and bo thereatt ®r merged with the !,erviant estate of the Grantor. Z. Grantee shall indemnify and holm the tlrentar harmless from any and all claims for damages to real and personal property, and injuries or death suffered by persons in any manner growing out of the construction, maintenaneri, recanstruction, repair, or use of the public roadway within said easement, unless such damages, injuries, or death are caused by the negligence or the Grantor, Such indemnification shall include the cost of defending said claims including, but not limited to, reasonable attorneys fees. 3. Grantee dull at all times maintain the public roadway located On the easement in ood order and repair. Staid roadway shall be constructed of and &hell be maintained of asphalt material. 4. Grantee shall obtain liability insurance, which shall Insure spalmst claims made for damages resulting in death, injury, or damages to real or personal property, resulting from the construction or maintenance or use by the drentee of the m,.04e r'na`wxv wiEh limits of not lots then one million dollars (51.000.000). 5, It is understood by the parties that the square footage locatod within the eaaenent may be used by the Grantor for the ealculetion of grass resident'1al floor area. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Gr tar has ce�used those presents to be duly executed on this 00.x.. day of �r'� `, 1990. n y r, {ir•e r TOWN OF VAI!I., a Colorado municipal cos tionl Grantee 6Y' ondal V. pa IN �Od tC�Q 51�3�.IH�kt ��1.7!lh1h1367NNif��3d 2L�b�9Lb Eor,� EC�4[ ZC�- d0 -b65[ ar • • STATE or COLOR00 ) COUNTY or r'A.GLK j The fors10ing inatrument was oeknowledomd bQ10ra ,:zc Wile –jj O- day of 1990 by ,. �:._.PW-S an _ _ fO th@ TOM Of VAil. {i2*651�`y~ b4ud •nd o[ksosrtl seal. My aciaelis�iibh sxpisast Q Notary u lic PAn4ls A. 9rxr4M#Yer. Nolary Public My Gammlr On eaAlr®1 Aap. 6 J"R jddta "ft$ frIxdtTF14W# 01041 � STAT9 O! COLORADO ) as. COUkY Or 6GLE ) The fosesoing instrument was seknowLedged bafers me this til .dny of 1996 Icy WITNFS2 ,,v };Reid and Off +Gia1 coal MY C-emgixsfi n exxpirsal Mazy tubli.� Pa�+ISIr A. F3tsndr�y1r, �y Ai Gbrunls►Iv� tapinn Au "� 1141 a 422108/1 p –g15 v�IGir�o 1��4w ps D2 G t cod too 51]311H06V 25211VMN30NV- 1/1338 c1Sb ?It COC P2 Qi L�– it –t65i Is b094 8311VMN30NV1/133d ElSt 90 CUE 4 • LOT 4 KIM UMUT LOT 2 m . .34811' a@ flavor WOO slid NfIN40N. UAW S() U016 ziuci FTxow dot at Lot ),",bjqqx' Vail vilials Wts WLnp soda9ding to the mp Misroof mot"w4ed Ln the Dille* wt thO 20914 OMWkYl Qbtac6401 %foh AnO SbaWwws 4sstltlLid at pliawell AalirmL" it 9. p4t . 'Ma westoilly %Lnw - *A 94114. :at 3 Ameo the mewthwomberly amnst :of Maid WL 3 haDco'833,0010063 MIX Conti thongs, stesip WA 406st6fly '111;*. xWeplaciew 30.40 toots -Al. wostatly tint, JPSIM147,9' 34.53 feed, thonew §MV34'27*Z'03.SS goat Lv the southerly line of %mW tot.3;.thiffisv, sign paid ■6utMrlr line, 86141 7'00.911 *T.Tg lost! thoWbui 4op4ethil amid southerly liar. #7*411.410P 49-45 INS%: t0 th6'PjVjj of be kwA 0MtkAbjhj- 111116 M1j9&t4.f*ftt1 More PJr LOAN. 2%0 wotinve In Eho 3.411 40porlptlen Above *we based 40 the w"Itociv line of duffing). JSWL& VALUT ZWO1301CUPO b094 8311VMN30NV1/133d ElSt 90 CUE 4 • MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM., Department of Community Development DATE: April 23, 2001 SUBJECT: A request for a final review and recommendation of a proposed special development district (SDD) to allow for the construction of a new conference hotel; and a final review of conditional use permits to allow for the construction of a fractional fee club 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 I. INTRODUCTION AND DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST Special Development District Repuest This proposal is a revision to the original SDD proposal (February 12, 2001) following the Planning and Environmental Commission's (PEC) direction regarding a number of issues involving building height, massing, loading /delivery, off - street parking, employee housing provisions and traffic circulation. 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 includes 116 hotel rooms (395 s.f. each), 15 condominiums, 40 fractional fee units, 14 employee housing units, 1,708 square feet of restaurant/bar space, 1,127 square feet of retail space, 22,380 square feet of conference /meeting space, and a 15,242- 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 22,380 square feet of new conference and meeting room facilities. This includes a 10,000 square foot ballroom and 11,000 square feet of breakout/preconvene space. TOWN OF PAIL � • The implementation of the recommended Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan 40 improvements along South Frontage Road and a portion of West Meadow Drive. • The re- investment and redevelopment of resort property in the Town of Vail. • The implementation of many of the development goals, objectives and policies adopted by the Town for Public Accommodation properties. • An increase to the Town's supply of short -term, overnight accommodations (hotel rooms and fractional fee units) 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 sales tax revenue. • The creation of new deed- restricted employee housing to offset the housing impacts associated with the hotel. ■ The removal of existing loading /delivery and guest traffic from West Meadow Drive. A square footage breakdown of the proposal is provided below: ■ 60,649 sq. ft. - fractional fee club units ■ 45,381 sq. ft. —condominiums 45,666 sq. ft. — accommodation units ■ 2,835 sq. ft. — restaurant/retail ■ 21,184 sq. ft. — conference /meeting rooms ■ 15,242 sq. ft. — spa/health club 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 • 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 P otential increase in sales tax revenue (economic development). 2 • The removal of existing loading /delivery and guest traffic from West Meadow Drive. 0 CONS • Deviations from the underlying zoning development standards are required. • 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 is a net decrease in the number of hotel rooms over what exists today. However, new fractional fee units will be available for short -term accommodation. • A significant period of building construction (noise, construction traffic, etc) and the anticipated impacts to public streets and adjacent properties. Conditional Use Permit Requests In association with the application for a special development district, the applicant is requesting conditional use permits to allow for the establishment of a 40 fractional fee unit club and the construction of 14 dormitory style Type III employee housing units. Because the development plan has changed significantly for the previously approved (2112101) fractional fee units, an additional PEC review is necessary. Please refer to Sections VIII & IX of this memorandum for a detailed review of these requests. II. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS Special Development District The Community Development Department recommends the Planning and Environmental Commission table the applicant's request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for the proposed special development district to allow for the construction of a new conference facility /hotel, based upon the following finding: That the proposed special development district, the Vail Plaza Hotel West, does not comply with the Trine 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. Summary of Staff's Position on the Special Development District Request Staff believes the project has evolved and made significant strides towards a final development plan. However, there are still significant access concerns with the current plan that present problematic issues. Specific outstanding issues include: 3 ■ The proposed access for the Vail Plaza Hotel West crosses onto a portion of the Alpine Standard property for which no easement exists. This plan can not be approved without the permission of the impacted property owner, ■ There may be sight distance /visibility hazards at access points that present safety concerns. ■ Adequate fire department access has not been demonstrated. Fire vehicle staging must be accommodated within the applicant's property boundaries. ■ There is inadequate clearance between the guest exit drive and adjacent walls and planters pursuant to Town of Vail development standards_ ■ There are significant unresolved access rights issues between the applicant, the Nine Vail Road Association and the owner of the Alpine Standard property. ■ The proposed South Frontage Road shared entrance /exit presents traffic congestion and circulation concerns. ■ Although the Design Review Board made a finding that the project is in general compliance with the special development design criteria, it felt additional attention is needed with regard to scale and bulk. If the applicant requests a decision from the PEC today, staff recommends the PEC 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 VI1 of this memorandum and the following 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 111 employee housing units complies with the applicable criteria and is consistent with the development goals and objectives of the Town. 4 Should the Planning & Environmental Commission choose to recommend approval of 40 the applicant's request, staff recommends 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 that complies with the Town of Vail Employee Housing requirements (Chapter 12 -13) for a minimum of 29 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. This plan will involve the removal of the obsolete delivery bay asphalt for the Chateau Vail on the Nine Vail Road property. 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 set of plans to the Colorado Department of Transportation for review and approval of a revised access permit, prior to application for a building permit. 6. 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, as amended. 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. 40 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 rooftop mechanical equipment plan for review and approval of the Design Review Board prior to the issuance of a building permit. All rooftop mechanical equipment shall be incorporated into the overall design of the hotel and enclosed and screened from public view. 11. 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 neighboring owner's associations to allow for construction activities on neighboring properties or submits a construction staging and limits of disturbance plan that indicates all of these activities will occur on the applicant's property. 13. That the developer, the Nine Vail Road Association and the owner of the Alpine Standard property prepare, sign and record joint access agreements to facilitate the applicant's proposed traffic circulation plan_ 14. That the applicant complies with all of the Town's engineering requirements outlined in the letter from Brent Wilson to Tim Losa dated April 13, 2001, prior to final design review approval. 15. Pursuant to Section 12- 7A -14, Town of Vail Code, the applicant shall pay road impact fees in an amount that is directly proportionate to the anticipated new road impacts generated by this development ($5000 per peals hour trip end). A specific amount for road impact fees will be declared (and adopted via a memorandum of understanding), based upon the anticipated new road impacts outlined in the applicant's traffic study. 16. That the applicant complies with all fire department staging and access requirements pursuant to Title 14 (Development Standards), Vail Town Code. This will be demonstrated on a set of revised plans for town review and approval prior to building permit submittal. 17. That the required Type III deed- restricted employee housing units shall not be eligible for resale and that the units be owned and operated by the hotel and that said ownership transfer with the deed to the hotel property. Conditional Use Permit — Fractional Fee Club The Community Development Department recommends approval of the applicant's request for a conditional use permit to allow for the construction of 40 fractional fee units within the Vail Plaza Hotel West based upon 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 conditions: 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 — Employee Housing Units The Community Development Department recommends approval of the applicant's request for a conditional use permit to allow for the construction of 14 Type III employee housing units within the Vail Plaza Hotel Vilest 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. The proposal does 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. 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, the Department of Community Development recommends the following conditions be placed on the approval. 1. That the applicant records 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. 2. That the applicant submits revised floor plans indicating kitchen facilities in each unit and storage areas for staff review prior to final design review approval. M. ROLES OF REVIEWING BOARDS Special Development District 01 Order of Review: Generally, applications will be reviewed first by the PEG for impacts of usefdevelopment, then by the ©RB for compliance of proposed buildings and site planning, and final approval by the Town Council. 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 DRB has NO review authority on a SDD proposal, but must review any accompanying DRB application The DRIB review of an SDD prior to Town Council approval is purely advisory in nature. r 1 f�J The DRB is responsible for evaluating the DRB proposal: i - 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 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 responsible for final approval /denial of an SDD. i 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. 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. 0 I. 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 ORB 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: 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 impact report is required by Chapter 12 of this Title. Conformance with development standards of zone district - Lot area - Setbacks - Building Height - Density - GRFA - Site coverage - Landscape area - Parking and loading - Mitigation of development impacts Design Review Board: Action: The DRB has NO review authority on a CUP, but must review any accompanying m D_RB 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 background on the property and provides a staff evaluation of the project with respect to the required criteria and findings, and a recommendation on approval, approval with conditions, or denial. Staff also facilitates the review process. 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 27.5' (57 %) taller than the 48' allowed under PA zoning. The proposed building is 75.5 feet tall at its highest ridge (adjacent to South Frontage Road). The building stands 53' tall at its primary ridge along West Meadow Drive. 2. Site Coverage (below grade) — although the proposal complies with site coverage requirements above grade, it deviates by 11% below grade. 3. Setbacks (below grade) —the proposal deviates 17,5' (88 %) from the required 20' minimum setbacks below grade. iff 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, to provide sites for lodges and residential accommodations for visitors, together with such public and semi - public facilities and limited professional offices, medical facilities, private recreation, and related visitor oriented uses as may appropriately be located in the same district. The Public Accommodation District is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space, and other amenities commensurate with lodge uses, and to maintain the desirable resort qualities of the District by establishing appropriate site development standards. Additional nonresidential uses are permitted as conditional uses which enhance the nature of Vail as a winter and summer recreation and vacation community, and where permitted are intended to function compatibly with the high density lodging character of the District. The Public Accommodation Zone District is intended to provide sites for lodging units with densities not to exceed 25 dwelling units per acre. The Public Accommodation Zone District, prior to January 21, 1997, did not permit interval ownership. On January 21, 1997, the Town Council adopted regulations allowing interval ownership subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit. Previously, interval ownership was only allowed as a conditional use in the High Density Multi- family Zone District. On October 5, 1999, the Vail Town Council approved Ordinance No. 23, Series of 1999, amending the development standards prescribed in the Public Accommodation Zone District. The amendments included an increase in allowable GRFA up to 150 %, an increase in site coverage, the elimination of Ali's and FFU's in the calculation of density, revised setback requirements, and other various aspects in the development of properties zoned Public Accommodation. The allowable building height, landscape area and limitation on commercial square footage remained unchanged. VI. 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 compliance with the Review Criteria outlined in the following section of this memorandum. 0 12 C� 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 the development standards outlined by the underlying zoning of Public Accommodation (revised 10/99) to the Vail Plaza Hotel West proposal from February of 2001 and the current proposal. 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 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: 13 CRITERIA FOR REVIEW: A. Design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate environment, neighborhood and adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones, identity, character, visual integrity and orientation. The following is a synopsis of comments from the town's appointed and elected boards since October 24, 2000 on the issues shown in bold, underlined type. A staff response fellows each set of comments: 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, 10124/00). "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 traff ic" (PEC, 11/27/00), "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, 12/8100). 0 Staff Response —The applicant has succeeded in breaking up the roof massing along West Meadow Drive while the primary ridge along South Frontage Road continues to present a linear, unbroken mass along the entire frontage. The revised `opening" of the pedestrian entry and the removal of the atrium roof structure have alleviated some of the previous "internal compound" design characteristics prevalent in earlier versions of this plan and have created a more inviting entry feature along the southern streetscape. Additionally, staff believes the revised plan will provide more southern sun exposure within the internal garden area. Although the north fapade presents a bit of a "mirror image" along the frontage road, staff believes this may be alleviated through the use of alternating colors and materials. This issue will be addressed as part of the design review process. 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, 11/27100). Staff Response — Although the height along West Meadow Drive exceeds the 48 feet requirement under the underlying zoning, staff believes the height is presented within a roof plan that helps to minimize perception of mass and height. For example, eave heights along West Meadow Drive range between 16 -41 feet while the primary southern ridge (at 58 feet) is setback from the street edge about 100 feet. Therefore, the height is stepped back and the bulk is perceived to be less from the pedestrian perspective. The building is proposed with a 10.5' floor -to -floor height for each story. 14 LayouVFootprint "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" (DRB, 12/8!00). Staff Response - 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. The long, unbroken linear masses proposed along the frontage road add to the massive appearance of the building. However, staff believes the revised atrium and pedestrian entry along West Meadow Drive are a successful effort towards opening the project towards the outside and the public. On April 181h, the Town of Vail Design Review Board made a finding that the project is in general compliance with the design criteria established for special development districts. 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. However, the applicant is proposing to snowmelt the sidewalk along the Chateau property line in an effort to mitigate this issue.. 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. 15 Although staff believes 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, the opening of the southern wing to allow greater sun exposure and the more inviting pedestrian entry along West Meadow Drive are greatly improved over previous submittals. Setbacks — In the PA District, the minimum setback shall be 20 feet on all sides. Although the project's footprint maintains at least a 20 -foot setback from all property lines, the covered entries along the South Frontage Road and the Vail Road spur encroach 15 feet and 12.5 feet respectively. At the discretion of the PEC and DRB, variations to the setback standards may be approved, subject to the applicant demonstrating compliance with the following criteria: A. Proposed building setbacks provide necessary separation between buildings and riparian areas, geologically sensitive areas and other environmentally sensitive areas. There are no identified geologically or environmentally sensitive areas on this property. Pursuant to the provisions of the Town of Vail Zoning Regulations and the Uniform Building Code, the applicant is complying with minimum setbacks between buildings. There are two "covered entry" encroachments proposed in the plan. The northern "loading dock screen" encroachment comes within 5 feet of the property line along the South Frontage Road and does not abut any buildings. The eastern "guest entry" encroachment comes within 7.5 feet of the property line adjacent to the spur access drive between the Alpine Standard and Nine Vail Road buildings. B. Proposed building setbacks comply with applicable elements of the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and Design Considerations. These elements of Vail's Comprehensive Flan are not applicable to the subject property. C. Proposed building setbacks will provide adequate availability of light, air and open space. Staff does not believe the two (2) proposed covered entry areas would impede the availability of adequate light, air and open space. D. Proposed building setbacks will provide a compatible relationship with buildings and uses on adjacent properties. One of the challenges with the existing conditions of this property and adjacent lots is the configuration of adjacent buildings within required setbacks. All of the buildings directly abutting this property encroach into required setbacks. The Alphorn building, for example, is built almost directly on its eastern property line. As mentioned previously, the proposed encroachment along the South Frontage Road does not abut any buildings. The guest entry encroachment, as proposed, maintains a 39 -foot setback from the Alpine Standard station, a 98 -foot setback from the Nine Vail Road building, and a 170 -foot setback from Vail Road. In E. Proposed building setbacks will result in creative design solutions or other public benefits that could not otherwise be achieved by conformance with prescribed setbacks standards. Staff believes the use of the northern covered entry along South Frontage Road will help screen the below -grade delivery activities from public view. The eastern covered guest entry helps create a sense of arrival to the hotel and provides shelter from the elements. Although staff believes the two covered roof features could be constructed within setbacks if the plan were altered, the applicant has indicated the northern encroachment along South Frontage Road is necessary to maintain an appropriate setback area along West Meadow Drive. Therefore, the applicant is requesting Town Council, PEC and DRR review of the proposed entry encroachments. l3. Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. 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 (Alphorn and Scorpio), Heavy Service to the north (Alpine Standard) and Commercial Core IfSDD #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 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 17 Village Inn development proposals. The Employee Housing Report was prepared for the Town by the consulting firm Rosall, 41 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. As of the drafting of the report, Telluride, Aspen and Whistler, B.C. had "employment generation" ordinances requiring developers to provide affordable housing for a percentage of the new employees resulting from commercial development. "Mew" employees are defined as the incremental increase in employment needs resulting from commercial 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 given the substantial scope and impact of this project. The applicant is proposing to provide employee housing for a percentage of the "new" employees resulting from the hotel construction. The new hotel is expected to generate 97 "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 29% (28 beds) of the "new" employees. 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. 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 = 8.1 employee beds ■ Middle of Range Calculations = 28.4 employee beds ■ Top of Range Calculations = 48.6 employee beds E Staff Recommended Range = 29.0 employee beds ■ Applicant's Proposal = 28.0 employee beds IN 0 Staff Recommended Range Calculations: Staff believes that the Vail Plaza Hotel West redevelopment will create a need for the housing of 97 additional "new" employees. Of the 97 additional employees, at least 29 employees (30 %) will need to be provided deed - restricted housing by the developers of the Vail Plaza Hotel West. Please refer to Section IX of the staff memorandum for details regarding square footages and configuration of the units. The staff recommended range is based on: 1. 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; 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 "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. i7 in the Vail Valley. a) Retail /Service Commercial = 1,127 sq. ft. @ (5/1000 sq. ft.) = 5.6 (bottom of range) b) Health ClublSpa = 15,242 sq. ft. @ (1.511000 sq. ft.) = 22.8 (top of range) C) Restaurant /Lounge /Kitchen = 2,617 sq. ft. @ (6.511000 sq. ft.) = 17.0 (middle of range) d) Conference Center = 21,184 sq. ft. @ (1/1000 sq. ft.) = 21.2 (range does not vary) e) Lodging = 116 units @ (.75 /unit) = 87.0 (middle of range) f) Multi Family (Club Units) = 15 units @ (.4 /unit) = 6.0 (range does not vary) g) Fractional Fee Units = 40 units @ (.4 /unit) = 16.0 (range does not vary) Total = 175.6 ( -79 existing employees) = 96.6 (X 0.30 multiplier) = 29.0 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. i7 C. Bottom of Range Calculations: Retail /Service Commercial = 1,127 sq. ft. @ (6.5!1000 sq. ft.) = 7.3 b) Health Club = 15,242 sq. ft, @ (1.25/1000 sq. ft.) a) Retail /Service Commercial = 1,127 sq. ft. @ (5/1000 sq. ft.) = 5.6 b) Health Club = 15,242 sq. ft. @ (1/1.000 sq. ft.) = 15.2 C) Restaurant/Lounge /Kitchen = 2,617 sq. ft. @ (5 /1000 sq. ft.) = 13.1 d) Conference Center = 21,184 sq. ft. @ (1 /1000 sq. ft.) = 21.2 e) Lodging = 116 units @ (.25 /unit) = 29.0 f) Multi- Family Units = 15 units P (.4 /unit) = 6.0 g) Fractional Fee Units = 40 units @ (.4 /unit) = 16.0 = 94.6 Total Employees =106.1 (- 79 existing employees) = 27.1 Top (X 0.30 multiplier) = 8.1 new employees Middle of Range Calculations: a) Retail /Service Commercial = 1,127 sq. ft. @ (6.5!1000 sq. ft.) = 7.3 b) Health Club = 15,242 sq. ft, @ (1.25/1000 sq. ft.) = 19.1 C) Restaurant/Lounge /Kitchen = 2,617 sq. ft. @ (6.511000 sq. ft.) = 17.0 d) Conference Center = 21,184 sq. ft. @ (1/1000 sq. ft.) = 21.2 e) Lodging = 116 units @ (.75 /unit) = 87.0 f) Multi- Family Units = 15 units @ (.4 /unit) = 6.0 g) Fractional Fee Units = 40 units @ (.4 /unit) = 16.0 Total Employees =173.6 (- 79 existing employees) = 94.6 (X 0.30 multiplier) = 28.4 new employees Top of Range Calculations: a) Retail /Service Commercial = 1,127 sq. ft. @ (811000 sq. ft.) = 9.0 b) Health Club = 15,242 sq. ft. @ (1.5/1000 sq. ft.) = 22.9 C) Restaurant/Lounge /Kitchen = 2,617 sq. ft. @ (8 /1000 sq. ft.) = 20.9 d) Conference Center = 21,184 sq. ft. @ (1 /1000 sq. ft.) = 21.2 e) Lodging = 116 units @ (1.25 /unit) =145.0 f) Multi- Family Units = 15 units @ (.4 /unit) = 6.0 g) Fractional Fee Units = 40 units @ (.4 /unit) = 16.0 Total Employees = 241.0 (- 79 existing employees) = 1 62.0 (X 0.30 multiplier) = 48.6 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. Please refer to Section IX of this memorandum for details. Compliance with parking and loading requirements as outlined in Chapter 12 -10 of the Vail Town Code. The proposal complies with the parking and loading requirements outlined in Chapter 12- 10 of the !fail Town Code. 20 0 Staff's parking calculations are contained in the attached Exhibit G. 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: 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: i . 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. 1.3 The quality of development should be maintained and upgraded whenever 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_ 21 3.4 Commercial growth should be concentrated in existing commercial areas to accommodate both local and visitor needs. 40 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 Vail Streetscape Master Plan The town's Streetscape Master Plan identifies West Meadow [give 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: 1. 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. 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) 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. 22 • ■ 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. Loading and Delivery Staff believes the removal of loading and delivery traffic from West Meadow Drive is a definite start in the right direction. Staff believes the revised location along South Frontage Road minimizes impacts to adjacent residents. Additional screening of loading docks in the form of a meandering site wall along the berm between the hotel and the sidewalk abutting South Frontage Road is recommended. Landscape Plan 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. 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. However, is important to recognize the applicant is providing adequate setbacks (pursuant to PA zoning) and that adjacent buildings are encroaching into their respective setbacks nearly 100 percent. 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 /footprint issues are finalized. 23 G. A circulation system designed for bath vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and off -site traffic circulation. 0 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. The study indicates the proposed SDD will generate 97 additional peak hour (p.m.) trip ends. Although the applicant's traffic circulation plan is the most feasible for this property, the following concerns need to be addressed prior to final PEC approval: Vehicular Traffic and Access Concerns • The proposed access for the Vail Plaza Hotel west wing crosses onto a portion of the Alpine Standard property for which no easement exists. • There may be sight distance /visibility hazards at access points that present safety concerns. • Adequate fire department access has not been demonstrated. Fire vehicle staging must be accommodated within the applicant's property boundaries. • There is inadequate clearance between the guest exit drive and adjacent walls and planters pursuant to Town of Vail development standards. • There are significant unresolved access rights issues between the applicant, the Nine Vail Road Association and the owner of the Alpine Standard property. ■ The proposed charter bus parking space may be inaccessible while delivery trucks are present. Additionally, there is no pedestrian entrance or exit at the north side of the building to serve bus users. 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. 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. Specifically, there is no connection proposed along the north wing between the employee housing units and the bus stop along South Frontage Road. Additionally, the previous stair step connection between the north wing and the sidewalk along the frontage road has been removed. Staff believes this connection is a necessary functional element of pedestrian circulation and should be 24 replaced. H. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and preserve natural features, recreation, views and functions. There are no established public view corridors in the immediate vicinity of this proposal. As mentioned previously, staff believes the exterior changes to the southern fagade and the removal of the atrium roof are a substantial improvement over previous versions of the proposal. Staff believes the preliminary landscape plan is both functional and aesthetically pleasing. Landscape plan details will be addressed during the design review phase. 1. 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. VIII. 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 40 fractional fee 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 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 allow for the operation of a fractional fee club within the Vail Plaza Hotel West. The proposed club would be comprised of 40 one and two - bedroom units. These units would range in size from 943 square feet to 25 2,274 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 122. According to the applicant, the ownership of the club units will be divided into a maximum of 1/12 1h 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 redevelopment must be implemented. 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 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. 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 a greater amount of accommodation unit GRFA on the site than what exists today. According to information on file in the Community Development Department 120 accommodation units exist at the Chateau at Vail with a total of 33,600 square feet of GRFA. The applicant is proposing to replace the existing units with 116 new hotel rooms totaling approximately 45,666 square feet of GRFA. b. Lock -off units and lock -off unit square footage shall not be included in the calculation when determining the equivalency of existing accommodation units or equivalency of existing square footage. 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 27 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 the number of club units, the development will generate a need for is 16 "new" employees. When the multiplier of 0.30 is factored in, 4.8 of the "new" employees 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 Environmental Commission shall mare 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. IX. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT— EMPLOYEE HOUSING UNITS The Community Development Department recommends approval of the applicant's request for a conditional use permit to allow for the construction of 14 Type III 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 (PEG) 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 1213 - 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 1, Type II, Type III, Type IV, and Type V. Provisions relating to each type of EHU are set 29 forth in Chapter 12 -13 - Employee Housing of this Code." The applicant is proposing 14 dormitory style Type III employee units for a total of 28 beds. 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 now proposing two beds per bedroom and is therefore consistent with the Town's minimum basic requirements for employee housing units. 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. 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 Vll)_ 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 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. 30 VAIL PLAZA HOTEL WEST LIST OF EXHIBITS EXHIBIT NUMBER DESCRIPTION A Architectural Drawing Reductions B Staff Zoning Analysis C Staff Building Height Correlation Analysis D Staff Adjacent Building Height Analysis E Applicant's Sun /Shade Analysis E Applicant's View Analysis C Staff Parking Analysis H Applicant's Traffic Study I Citizen Correspondence J Applicant's Statement of the Request • ME EXHIBIT A ARCHITECTURAL DRAWING REDUCTIONS • • 4 * • • T a — — �a P � ' - r r4 - 1 �4 x"r �•� may" % � fi `. 5v1� M. O , IPA - e ,, ■ A ORP � i `fir - � � r r;,. f �;•� .,,, ae saw war!- Von m °t ` It. •4. i g r - •1w�1. _ t 7 T i WEE = rL [ li, .= ■ 0 — , ` ■Jj Ir!i ral� 1 II � V me _?' C2 0 C4 II' . .�IW c, eL —� •® �- CD w CL ■ ■... {' I: J11- I_ vs;- IMWV E 7411v v I= wr, I Al L7- o t • {ai e rj .y � 11 Ila 1, (7ttllel Jt� 1. i coca 6 ea II I � t � 11 .K ;1 • ir1 1,/� €� 4 41I "D An `a .� VIP i 'T'r• pd in V ►1: {UN M20 i R9 1 4 ` I` I �h Iy I L L i 1 C! I O ®�•A Imo./ / F1 CM I I Ilk2 •II.. I I ��. �fi i� 1 _ C Ill■ i. � � I �' a �` II11r1rI1� ��. —� iii ►, ►�. n■i.. _ rte_\ rL,. ,II Srs � \�wlliL �Iar�� I!il I MI FIRI _. ►.Ilk lEL f II 11 hZ IRI IN 1 x i N ti \ %c? r �a 11 \ Q I 17 �Ln \�� \ (U Ln I � _ E - LL L LL I c ag LL 4 n y a � u " o s 4 i_ e o g 4 O o 2 p I � 4 _ r, r 1 4 i zilig 1 �i p 1 I i Ln �Ln I L — Ole - I v I J = s I R1 I r dos I 1 3: U. O o II I II I i I � I I 1 I I ! I I II I I I a I I r 2:Z =9 I i N 41 K� :.7M AIMIMWR�-�'j d s �W� /Q,\ JLS af---m �'Imrmr- fl!'Lll li-Ri' 11 7-AMIM'WOHM-11 � ■MI 6,IJ . ikml IWAS _ JD7-4 lwa .. I LE I I 15- 1 Roil w'"i I h-76 I 171-0- A ■ r�' '�. :� >, , � .� i"'�`ii ��`- n ".� �__.a�- ■ to ■r-Immi �T ►�" [ Il I \ Bill .fib. .,�,►� �► �► 1.I �► I■Il,i � 1 ■ �I ,� MYi� I I � I I I i I � mo p n V R ., "'i t r r v 0 a Qo ZIAH t �� I I I I L I I I r- I I I I I I I �I : fiffill, '= 07 _,.6 ml ,1 r � o ro 08 o 0 glum I d • EXHIBIT B STAFF ZONING ANALYSIS 0 r � '' this proposal complies with the required 70%130% equivalency requirement for GRFA within the PA zone district. • z Exhibit B Zoning Analysis 0 Vail Plaza Hotel West (Deviations from underlying zoning are indicated in bold type) February 12, 2001 April 23, 2001 Development Criteria Aliowed /Required Proposed SDD Proposed SDD Lot Area: 101,140 sq. ft.. 101,140 sq. ft. 101,140 sq. ft. GRFA: 150% / 151, 710 sf* 150% or 151, 710 sf" 150% or 151,207 sf* Dwelling units per acre: 25 du /acre or 58 d.u. 7.33 du /acre or 17 d.u. 6.47 du /acre or 15 d.u. 120 (au) 116 (au) 39 (ff u) 40 (ff u) 17 (du) 15 (du) Site coverage: Above grade: 65 % or 65, 741 sq. ft. 62.4 % or 63, 116 sq. ft. 57.9% or 58,521.8 sq. ft. Below grade: 65% or 65, 741 sq. ft. 76.0 %b or 76,821 sq. ft. 76.3% or 77,150.9 sq. ft. Min. Setbacks (above grade): Frontage Road: 20' 0' 5' Vail Road: 20' 20' 7.5' West Side: 20' 21' 22.5' W. Meadow Drive: 20' 20' 20.0' Min. Setbacks (below grade): Frontage Road: 20' 15.75' 8.5' Vail Road: 20' 4.75' 2.5' West Side: 20' 8.75' 21.25' W. Meadow Drive: 20` 19.5' 2.5' Max. Height: 48' sloping 77.5' sloping 75.5' sloping (North Wing) 60' arch. proj. 92.3 arch. proj. 86.25' arch. proj. Max. Height: 48' sloping 6025' sloping 53' sloping (South Wing) 60' arch. proj. 85.25' arch. proj. 69.5' arch. prof. Landscaping; 30% or 30,342 sq. ft. 26.1 % or 26,438 sq. ft. 30.8% or 31,151 sq. ft. Parking: 227 spaces 216 spaces 228 spaces Loading: 3 berths 3 berths 3 berths '' this proposal complies with the required 70%130% equivalency requirement for GRFA within the PA zone district. • z • EXHIBIT C STAFF BUILDING HEIGHT CORRELATION ANALYSIS r-I L---j LJ Building Height Correlation Analysis --Vail Plaza Hotel West Northwest Corner (Adjacent to Scorpio) Highest Ridge: Avg. Dormer: Eave: Arch. Proj.: Southwest Corner (Adjacent to Alphorn) Highest Ridge: Avg. Dormer: Eave: Arch. Proj.: Southeast Corner (Adjacent to 9 Vail Rd.) Highest Ridge: Avg. Dormer: Eave: Arch. Proj.: Northeast Corner (Adjacent to Amoco) Highest Ridge: Avg. Dormer: Eave: Arch. Proj.: Height Proposed 75.5' 56' 42' 85.25' Height Proposed 53' 45' 30.5' n/a Height Proposed 41' 34.5' 20.25' 60.25' Height Proposed 63' 51' 38.5' 81.75' Height Allowed 48' - 48' 48' 60' Height Allowed 48' 48' 48' 60' Height Allowed 48' 48' 48' 60' Height Allowed 48' 48' 48' 60' L� • • • EXHIBIT D STAFF ADJACENT BUILDING HEIGHT ANALYSIS • Adjacent Building Heights —Vail Plaza Hotel West 0 "Resort Accommodations and Services" Zone- South Frontage Road Building Max. Height Zone District/Height Allowed Alpine Standard 253 HS /38' Existing Chateau Vail 52.8' (roof); 56.9' (proj.) PA/48' Scorpio 55.2' HDMF /48' West Star Bank Building approx. 54'" SDD- CSC /38' Evergreen Lodge approx. 88" SDD - HDMF /48' "Transition Area" zone — West Meadow Drive Building Max. Height Zone District 9 Vail Road approx. 66.2'" PA/48' Alphorn 326' 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'* HDMF /48' Fire Station 42.3' GU /per PEC Meadow Vail Place approx. 52" HDMF /48' Other Residential Units approx. 33" 8133' Vail Village Zone — east of Vail Road i Buildinq 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 P -61so rA ix ul • L-1 • • 0 7 E � E nu � d a E r E Qj Al c 0 a as U" J i 4, *PRO 3 l I � r.. ZV FR UJW w�Y N'.' a N qJ V � 1 C. C �j V1 i . uj- Y. C h I Avg r LL,: �.. N . • 9 � • • Y • 0 V-A E wo E ea cl cl CI ♦ Polo CCU Lu N. rhi V LT. Ll ■ � �� ) zj w Ir §& 11 w qbj • • OF • 5 E E Z,; LL, rd EXHIBIT F APPLICANT'S VIEW ANALYSIS • • • 0 CC b h �7 0 (A r � I o �yy o VV —22 �N .ry I w rt 555� W�fp o y£ N< ; Al 4 i+ .11 lo "he aj rvt t • 'r , +„•• ;004 • T 1�4e 4. � I Y_ 1 Y-• J�rf 4P IL r , rr+, ; f- FAV " -.. u ot IuL_ 1. AM IL IE yr• i17�" S. C�,i � 't,1 f� �•� '� ' _ 4 i 40 ox 1 A .: •i_ 7r ':- fit, r • •.� ] •! � _ ��`" kip ,r � :�� `� Rte_ �• ij�; # . i ;{ t f ! 1 * _ W ? IL uff .i 'Of .._ . fill AIN ,r a, ts it • �+ .� � .• �.�+ �i'�. .� If r� t Mir C--�' r • '� , trj f MAW" ,F } r w mw m R . wY t 'A � 4 V . -1 v a PM qwhL Jk • • 4 Y mar :Nw .. _ � Y T �kti Nd53��e 3 � 4��•n t _ r - F d .r � � •� r t Yf y t 4 e 4 4 F� ° ►; r toi n r I' i I f • iI Ff J L� may{ d�'i ' d4aN c e • 0 eFY J Y . 1' t P. ' � c l ie " ti 4. r 4 Ian•- �"- ' '�' "'k tt� � 5 • `- �°.. �� r i L r. 4 1f 4p 1p J4 rt 4+ a i F. r. F :d f f .i " ' 1 Li 'r: + �!+ 4 ILI �ri — a y' r .� • , ��f i �. i' "wY4'aFpYw1w � ,f IK ik eN a AL y /s hem k s �t u f �Qy` � zr r' ' z 1• i -:10. `J �_`lt �f �• C' ' • I t • r a. ww. f: EXHIBIT G STAFF PARKING ANALYSIS • is • (j) z _Q J LyLI � 3 } _..I C-) ELI H z= Y L LL LL J rn (D cr) co Nr �e7 brNC\1mcp� WMCCOOr� to co r i Q: cl T .� ([1 C)mC,)MN r oi N C N O C O _ \ °\ O C•x fn 3 LO N U) T T rte+ U) E N `% E U O _C r � � U C CD m m d Z c ca E E CL fn J r .�. o N cc) T R pOC•jI co CCi C9 CV OD � ItA� w V ••Yw tiMI G6 6 C� /cr) CV qr) ti! ♦'J j�''yWy�� /M�/l •� w` cm ° a a�r�r�� ooaao o 0 ` T r LCS O co o r- �� U W L IL CL cr U N C CV •' a C ~ = 9 V IL C fro CO N F- fcr) C? LO T er T OWN N CU p 'It T 00 LL T r r T T CL C E... Q VJ C E N -� CD O O m C J °c'Yo'M � C 2m m � CL a oCO��m c C o a Cb = mac' Y - N C! U rj C)- «' a Q1 CJ CU �QLL�❑LIJCCCr01:Cl U C EXHIBIT H APPLICANT'S TRAFFIC STUDY 0 40 Apr. 16. 2001 12:08PM 2EIIREN AND ASSOCIA ALPINE ENGINEERING, INC. April 13, 2001 Mr. Crreg Hall, P-E. Town of Vail Department of Public Works 1309 Elkhorn Drive Vail, CO 81657 Re: Chateau Vail Access Locations Dear Greg: No. 3952 P. 2/9 From:1248 The purpose of this letter is to make recommendations for the access driveways to the proposed Chateau Vail Hotel based on the revised site plan as requested per Town of Vail PEC. 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 comer of the intersection of South Frontage Road and Vail Road. The existing hotel has 124 rooms, an 80 seat restaurant and 60 seat bar. The revised development plan currently includes a 116 room hotel, 15 free market condominiums, 44 fractional fee condominiums, 85 seat restaurant, 1,127 sf retail space and a 15,204 sf spa/health 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 walkinlreservation basis. The hotel will also have about 14 employee housing units with 28 beds. 4L— 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 West Meadow Drive. 1) Access from the South Frontage Road is provided from a shared entrance with the Amoco (Alpine Standard) service station. The South Frontage 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 from the edge of the roundabout to the western edge of the entrance, which terminates at the center turning lane. Vehicles exiting I -74 can travel west on the South Frontage Road, make a short u -turn around the median and enter the driveway_ It is assumed that only a few vehicles(i 4 %) make this turn to enter the site_ This shared entrance is located about 140 fl. west of the roundabout. 2) The second access is a two way driveway from 'Wail Road, appx ximately 150 ft. south of the roundabout and about 60 ft. south of the Vail Road access to the ,Amoco service station. 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. Proposed plants for development of the parcel Edwards Ausiness tenter • PO. Box 97 - Edwards, Colorado 81632 - (970) 926 -3373 • fax (970) 926 -3390 L Apr. 16, 2001 12: CgPM ZEHREN AND ASSOCIA Na. 3552 P. 0/9 From:1348 south of the Vail Gateway indicate the construction of a "one- -ways' exit adjacent to the existing access to the Vail Gateway parking garage. 3) The third access to the site is a two -way driveway froth. 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 for service vehicles making deliveries to the hotel (approximately four per day) is proposed from South Frontage Road on the western side of the site, approximately 130 fl:_ 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 Fronta,8Q&ad approximately 100 ft to the west to prohibit left turns in/out of the shared Arnow aucess. 2) The existing driveway from Vail Road is proposed to be one -way in (right turn onl� from Vail Road), and will be used by hotel guests to enter the property. Vehicles will exit onto South Frontage Road via the shared access at Amoco. i 3) The existing driveway onto West Meadow Drive will be closed. References and AssumJptions- The Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) "Trip Generation" publication Wh edition) 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 tFaffic" has been used to determine traffic volumes Using the "peak hour of generator" could have false results since the timing of peak traffic can vary for a given use. Two time periods a thus analyzed, 7 am — 9 am and 4 pro -- E. pm as outlined per ITE. 1 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 similarto hotels (land use 310) in that they provided sleeping accommodations, restaurants, cocktail lounges, retail shops and guest services. -rhe primary difference is that resort hotels cater to the tourist and vacation business, often providing a variety of recreational facilities, rather than convention andaeeting 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 tennis 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 will 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 Apr, [b. 'CVul 1C:99?M Z);I# EN AND ASSUGIA No, 3552 P. 4/9 From:l349 specify square footages, seating, etc. for each auxiliary use in relation to the number of hotel rooms. The manual does not provide data for trips generated on weekends, only weekdays, as we have previously discussed. q, This land use is also used to determine the trips generated by the employee housing units since there is no "employee housing unit" or similar category in the ITE manual. Thus, the AVTE vs. Employees chart is used, although this value should be conservative as it determines all trips generated by the hotel, not just those by employees. The proposed development mill also have 15 free market condominiums and 40 fractional fee condominiums which are designated as "High -Rise Residential Condominiu=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 ciublspa 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. Since the club will be used primarily by hotel guests 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 values for each land use as provided by 1TE. The percentage: of vehicles entering the site from any given direction has been assumed and is not based on actual observations. The assumed percentage for each direction is indicated along thQurning movement arrow on the accompanying diagrams. Existing Average Vehicle Trip Ends: Proposed Average Vehicle Trip Ends: * Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic ** Assumes that one delivery truck enters and exits within the peak hour. • Peak hour* lam -gam lAnd Use # rooms Total Enter R�:.;on Hotel 120 37 27 J411t Cxas Station 5 pumps fit 31 'Iota 98 58 Proposed Average Vehicle Trip Ends: * Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic ** Assumes that one delivery truck enters and exits within the peak hour. • • Apr. 16. 2001 92:IOPM HEREN AND ASSUTA No. 3652 P. 5/9 From: 1348 Auxiliary Lane Require mcnts: Frontage Road Per the 1998 State Highway Access Code Section 3;13, South Frontage Road is category F -R (Frontage Road), The posted speed Iimit is 25mph.' Section 3.13 of the State Highway Access Code states that au`d1i]' l 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 taming volume greater than 25vph. Existing left tam DHV from South Frontage Road into the existing sherd entrance is estimated at 6. The one -way ent=ce drive on the west side of the property is for service vehicles only. Since the DHV = i (or up to 3 pce's), a left turn lane is not required. Hortvever, approximately 155ft is ng) from the end of the proposed median m an te the newd for s deceleration and stacking) entrance_ 2) A right tun, 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 taw aw from South Frontage Road are estimated at 18. Proposed right turns are estimated to be 1 (or up to 3 pees) at the hotel and 15 at Amoco. A right turn lame should not be required, ak 3) A right turn acceleration lade with taper is required for any access with a projected pe hour right turning volumc greater than 54 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 tum acceleration lane with transition taper may be required if it would be a benefit to the safety and operation of the roadway or as determined by subsection 3.5. A leftturn acceleration lane is generally not required where: the posted speed is less than 45mph, or the intersection is signalized, or the acceleration Ian4.Would interfere with the left turn ingress movements to any other access. South Frontage Read 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' auxiliary la=s required in the category design standards may be waived when the 20'b year predicted roadway volumes conflicting with the turning vehicle are below the following minimum 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 belowv 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* Apr. 16. 2001 12:1IPM ZERREN AND ASSHIA No. 3662 P. 6/9 From.134B *The information contained in the summary table with regards to existing and proposed vehicle trips is based solely on 1TE "Trip Generation" publication for specific land use as previously described in this report. Turning movements are estimates and not based on actual field observations. The Current/Projected movements include hotel and gas station trips. Recommcndations/Conclusions: (also addressing comments presented during the Town of Vail PEC meeting held on 2/12/2000 1. South Frontage Road Access The one way entrance from the Frontage Road should only be used by service vehicles. Section 4,3 in the State Highway Access Code discusses sight distance along the highway and at access points. Minimum/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 Proposed 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 distanees)Q-1he 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' driveway, used by hotel guests. This is consistent with information obtained from the PEC. Providing "one -way in" should also limit the conflicting turning movements on Vail koad if the proposed exit -only' access is constructed adjacent to the Vail Gateway driveway. Use of this access by hotel guests only (and directing service vehicles to the Frontage Road access) should reduce "di=ibance" to the Nine Vail property and address the safety concems voiced by Alpine Standard regarding service vehicles backing up adjacent to the service station to access the loading dock area. 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, f Frederick E. Tobias, Pl Enclosures ID Cc' W aldir Prado Tian l..osa Apr,16.2001 12:11PM ZEHEEN AND ASSOCIA EXlSti INC,_ CLiI�a'anlkT%A" -Tlf►ua nF VASL_ S u 14-Ml- M 4.5 8 a r _— FRO�TAG! lOa4r� �� No. 3992 P. 7/9 Ftom:1348� �-i A1'El - pEa+� �-}nu s� ac AoxAc r 7eAW%c Am j LEAS gm�f `f'oYA L per, 2 t ! � �urcpucE V y LO tL ". �•i1Gr �TATip^j y 5r s; ,q y Apr, lti.2UU1 12:12PM ZEHPEN AND ASSOCIA ROOD f. u I J } D� _ a i u `J X Lt O oG _ �G� W J U L� 4 D d C7 n � k W 1 ° a k °- k k l � ` lw� k No. 3552 P. 819 , From: 1248 M W 4 V ` Ll {1 1 �G� W J U L� 4 D d C7 n � k W 1 ° a k °- k k l � ` lw� k No. 3552 P. 819 , From: 1248 M W 4 EXHIBIT I CITIZEN CORRESPONDENCE • • ;� 15111, I►111I611 Design Review Board, Town of Vail 75 S. Frontage Road West Vail, Co. 81657 From: Yvonne and Albert Martens Re: Vail Plaza Hotel West - Prado Project Dear Board Members, We have recently seen revised plans for the Vail Plaza Hotel West and it is extremely massive. The zoning regulations are in place for good reasons. Vail Plaza Hotel West should not be granted a special privilege in the form of a special development district (SDD). The idea of the new Town of Vail streetscape design is to invite people to stroll on to Lionshead. The Plaza Hotel West structure as planned will have the opposite effect. Because of its huge mass and height and not blending in with the character and size of the surrounding architecture, it will intimidate people and cause them to turn back. It is too much of a fortress and allows for no scenic vistas. Redevelopment is good but only if it proceeds with proper guide lines. Until now, Vail has developed as a charming mountain resort. Rules are for everyone. Let's not set precedents that are counterproductive out of desire for increased revenues and destroy the unique character of VaiL Vail is unique for its charm and scenic vistas. Let's not take away the beauty nature has given us by what we build. This is a very important site. Please adhere to our zoning regulations. Sincerely, mavmll`,� Yvonne & Albert Martens TO: Planning and Environmental Commission, Town of Vail Town Council, Town of Vail Design Review Board, Town of Vail FROM: Scorpio Homeowners Association DATE: April 19, 2001 SUBJECT: 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 address our concerns about the proposed development of the Vail Plaza Hotel - West. 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. I met with the developer in early March to express the willingness of the Scorpio Condominium Association to work together with our architect/consultant in order to reach a mutually acceptable solution to our objections to the project. At that time, I was informed that the height of the building had been brought down an entire floor by removing the "retail/gallery" element and hotel rooms had been placed on the main level. It was my understanding from that meeting that the height was now at the same level of the existing Chateau Vail building. Base upon the analysis performed by our architect/consultant, this is not the case. It is not possible to determine the exact height of the proposed building at the north west corner as it sits adjacent to the north east corner of the Scorpio building, because the developer did not submit new drawings depicting the existing buildings. It is our understanding the developer is required to provide such plans when applying for an SDD zoning change. Clearly, the building is considerably higher than the Scorpio building on the north side of the project, and it extends to the south at a considerably higher level than our building. If the affordable housing element is moved off site, this would bring down the height to an acceptable level. 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. 2. Bulk and Mass. The project still dwarfs everything around it. 3. Loading & Delivery. The loading and delivery has been moved to the frontage road side of the property, which is a significant improvement, but the concern still exists regarding the placement of those delivery vehicles in that loading/delivery area. While the loading/delivery area is covered, it is not underground. 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 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 Kent, President, Board of Managers, Scorpio Condominiums Imo' • • .4 13 TA -b o O W i 26 a t six it, tt C i At 3 uj C Jacobs RobERT P. DErRick 303- 892 -4448 'C Iil�SE �` FRick KIEi N kopf April 18, 2001 & Via Facsimile (970) 4792452 KE«Ey (With Copy to Follow by Federal Express) Brent Wilson, AICP LLC Town of Vail Dept. of Community Development ATTORNEys AT LAW 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 Re: Vail Plaza Hotel -"West Dear Brent: As you know, my firm represents Alpine Standard, LLC, the owner of the Vail Alpine Standard station, and Moellentine Land Company, the owner of the property upon which the Alpine Standard station is located (the "Alpine Property "). Alpine Standard, LLC and Moellentine Land Company are referred to herein collectively, as "Alpine ". The Alpine Property is located generally East of the site for the proposed Vail Plaza Hotel -West (the "Hotel Project "). I understand the Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission (the "PEC ") will hold a final hearing on April 23, 2001 regarding the pending application for a Special Development District ( "SDD ") for the Hotel Project. The purpose of this letter is to recommend the PEC (and, if applicable, the Vail Town Council) deny this SDD application. The Hotel Project, as proposed: (a) would unnecessarily compromise 1NdEPENdENCE PIAM traffic safety at the South Frontage Road entrance to the Alpine Property; (b) 105017Th ST. would detrimentally impact Alpine Standard's business by unnecessarily creating traffic congestion at its South Frontage Road entrance, and (c) does not provide SUITE 1500 legally sufficient access to the hotel because it violates easement rights held by DFNVFR, CO 80265 Alpine, which rights Alpine is fully prepared to assert and thereby prevent such access to the hotel as proposed. These issues are addressed below in greater 303- 6$5.480Q detail_ FAx 343 - 685 -4869 00097641.WPD 3 0 Brent Wilson, AICP April 18, 2001 Page 2 1. Unnecessary Traffic Congestion due to Configuration of Egress from the Hotel. Under the current SDD proposal, every car and truck entering the hotel site must exit the hotel site to South Frontage Road over an easement located on a portion of the Alpine Property. Unfortunately, this proposed hotel exit is the primary ingress and egress route to and from Alpine Standard. The volume of cars, delivery trucks and all other vehicles leaving the hotel site will cause substantial conflicts with traffic attempting to enter and exit Alpine Standard. This frustration of the traditional traffic flow will significantly and adversely impact the ongoing business of Alpine Standard and would also increase safety problems due to the volume of traffic crossing in this limited area. The increased traffic at Alpine's South Frontage Road access point caused by the Hotel Project has been underestimated by the owner /developer of the Hotel Project in the current SDD proposal. At the last PEC public hearing regarding the Hotel Project, an architect hired by Waldir Prado, the owner /developer of the Hotel Project, indicated that the volume of traffic exiting from the proposed Hotel Project over the Alpine Property onto South Frontage Road would not increase over the volume of traffic currently exiting from the hotel property in this area. This assertion belies reason for at least two reasons. First, the Hotel Project contains more residential and commercial density that currently exists on the site (including, a new membership spa and additional restaurants) -- obviously, more traffic will result. Second, currently, there are three exits from the hotel site (L e., exits to each of South Frontage Road, Vail Road and West Meadow Drive). Under the proposed SDD, all traffic from these three exits will be directed to in a single exit over the Alpine Property. Traffic traditionally using the Vail Road and West Meadow Drive exits will not simply evaporate because these two exits are blocked. Under the proposed SDD, all vehicles traditionally using these exits will be required to exit over the Alpine Property. The volume of traffic in this area will certainly increase. Mr. Prado submitted a traffic study in connection with the SDD application. This traffic study includes data regarding the vehicular traffic generated by Alpine Standard. However this data is inaccurate. The conclusions in this traffic study are based upon what it recites as the number of vehicles entering and exiting Property. However, according to this traffic study, the data regarding the number of vehicles entering the Alpine Property is merely estimated. This data is not based upon actual on -site traffic counts. Moreover, according to this traffic study, the number of vehicles entering and exiting the Alpine Standard on a given peak - period day is significantly less than the average number of daily transactions actually occurring at Alpine Standard during such days. Obviously, these facts bring the reliability of this traffic study into question. 0 0009764 L W PD 3 r� Brent Wilson, AICP April 18, 2001 Page 3 Alpine has engaged the architectural firm of Fritzlen Pierce Architects ( "FPA ") to consider alternatives to the proposed traffic plan for the Hotel Project. Bill Pierce, of FPA, has reviewed the current Hotel Project development plans and has developed a revised plan that would move the hotel exit to a location further West, thereby alleviating the traffic congestion that would be created under the current plans. This alternative should be explored. Alpine, through its architect, Bill Pierce, attempted to arrange a meeting among Alpine, Mr. Prado and their respective architects to review FPA's new traffic proposal. Mr. Prado's office requested that a representative from the Town attend such meeting. Representatives from the Town have not been able to attend such meeting, and, unfortunately, this meeting has not yet occurred. 2. Violation of Alpine Standard's Easement Rights. Alpine possesses an ingress and egress easement over a portion of hotel site, which is immediately South of the Alpine Property. Such easement provides ingress and egress to and from Vail Road. Over Alpine's ines strenuous objections, Mr. Prado submitted a series of proposals, including the current SDD proposal, which disregard Alpine's rights under this easement. The proposed SDD fails to recognize Alpine's easement rights in that: (a) it shows the entire area subject to this easement to be developed as an ingress lane from Vail Road to the hotel site with associated landscaping; (b) it fails to provide any vehicular ingress to or egress from the Alpine Property; and (c) the ingress lane for the hotel (with traffic moving from East to West) is located on the South (not the North) side of the easement area, which configuration precludes egress from the Alpine Property unless the entire traffic pattern on the easement area resembles that of London where vehicles travel on the left (not the right) side of the street. Alpine has the right to use this easement area for ingress and egress. The proposed improvements thereon are in direct violation of this easement. If Mr. Prado intends to use this easement area as proposed he must obtain Alpine's consent. Alpine has not given such consent. Accordingly, Alpine could effectively prevent access to the hotel site. It should be noted, that Alpine is willing to explore solutions to provide sufficient ingress and egress to both projects. However, this will require cooperation from Mr. Prado. Alpine's architect, FPA, has prepared a traffic plan for this easement area that addresses these concerns. A meeting among Mr. Prado, Alpine and FPA to review this traffic plan would be productive, and should take place even if representatives from the Town are unable to attend. • 00097641.WPD 3 Brent Wilson, AICP April 18, 2001 Page 4 As you know, Alpine is currently developing plans to redevelop its property into a mixed - use project containing residential units that will require use of Alpine's egress rights. Alpine's decision to acquire the Alpine Property was dependent upon the availability of these easement rights. Derogation of Alpine's easement rights would render Alpine's mixed -use project economically unfeasible. I encourage the PEC and the Town Council to deny the SDD application and direct Mr. Prado to resolve these issues with Alpine in a mutually- acceptable manner. As you know, planning for any single project in a dense alpine village should not be done in a vacuum. It requires that solutions be crafted after giving consideration to impacts on neighboring projects such that land- efficient and safe results are reached. Best regards, ob . Detrick, Esq. cc. Mr. Lon Moellentine (via facsimile 212 -561 -7590 and 203 - 966 -1935) Mr. Bill Pierce (via facsimile 970- 476 -4901) Mr. Waldir Prado (via federal express) Mr. Tim Losa (via facsimile 970 -949 -1080) 0 00097641.WPD 3 EXHIBIT J APPLICANT'S STATEMENT OF THE REQUEST • • 5ep.,25. 2000 4:140M ZEHREN AND ASSOCIA Z E H R E N ANO ASSOCIATES, INC. Monday, Septenibur 25, 2000 Mr. Brent Wilson Planner Town of Vail Department of Conununity Development 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 8165' Re: Vail Plaza Hotel — West Brent_ No, 8774 P. 1.2 From: 1348 RECD SEP 262000 This letter is to address design criteria A through I as outlined in section 12 -9A -8 of the town code. It is our understanding that these nine (9) criteria are to be used in evaluating the me its of the creation of the new Vail Plaza Hotel— Wt;,5t 5peciai 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 commercially 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 order 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 the 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 bulb 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, open 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 wine time providing some 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 replace the aging, smaller Chateau Vail and to act as the first in a series of proposed uses along; Past and West Meadow Drive including the Bavaria House, Vail Plaza Hotel -East, the Flub Site, Dobson Area, Evergreen Lodge., and the Hospital meant to create cormmercial interest along West Meadow Drive and create a dynamic link between the Village and Lionshead core areas. rNRCHITECTURl- PLAiN NINC• INTERIORS- I ANM.AYE ARCHITECTURE S� p. 25. 2000 4 ; 45P.M LEHRER AND ASSOCIA Rio. 8774 P. 2/1" * . Vail Plaza Hotel 7�-hrvn and Associates, Inc. 961 070.00 9/25/00 E. Parkin- 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 streetscape mastLr plan and the Land Use flan. Thy: 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 °he vehicular access from 1 -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, tail Road access points, 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 Wes: Meadow Drive will add to the overall functionahly of the existing infrastructure in excess of our impacts while at the same time visually enhancing the surrounding neighborhood. E. Natural Hazards, We believe there are no natural hazards that may affect development of fts site. Fs 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 interesting 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 provided 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 means of circulation :hrough 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. 1. Phasing Plan. The development will be constructed 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, -T 40 Tim Losa Project Manager 2 MEMORANDUM • TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: April 23, 2001 SUBJECT: A request for a worksession to discuss the rezoning of the Mill Creek Court Building from CC[ to a zone district or special development district that would allow office and residential uses on the street level, located at 303 Gore Creek Drive /Lot 1, Block 5A, Vail Village 1 st. Applicant: Mill Creek Court Condominium Association, represented by Larry Eskwith Planner: Allison Ochs DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant, Mill Creek Court Condominium Association, represented by Larry Eskwith, requested this worksession with the Planning and Environmental Commission to discuss the opportunities within the Mill Creek Court Building. Specifically, the applicant has an interest in allowing office and/or residential uses on the first floor. II. BACKGROUND A. History Information on the original construction and approval process for the Mill Creek Court Building is Limited. It was constructed prior to the incorporation of the Town and the information from Eagle County is not available. Plans on file with the Department of Community Development are dated 1965. The Town files indicate very limited activity on the building since its construction, limited to minor Design Review Board applications, and Conditional Use Permit requests. In 1986, a request was made to begin preliminary discussions regarding redevelopment of the Mill Creek Court Building. However, a recommendation was made by staff to hold off on redevelopment until the completion of the Vail Village Master Plan and the applicant agreed. Another request to discuss a rezoning was made a few years later, but according to the file, nothing became of the informal request. Current uses in the building include retail shops along Gore Creek Dr. (Buzz's); retail, real estate office, and a bank on the creek side; and a real estate office and empty commercial spaces on Hanson. Ranch Rd. B. Land Use Plan The Mill Creek Court Building is identified as part of the Village core, and is therefore designated as part of the Vail Village Master Plan by the Vail Land Use Plan. However, there are some specific goals and policies specified in the Land Use Plan regarding development in the Village core: • 4. Village Core /Lionshead • 4.1 Future commercial development should continue to occur primarily in the existing commercial areas. Future commercial development in the Core areas needs to be carefully controlled to facilitate access and delivery. 4.2 increased density in the Gore areas is acceptable so long as the existing character of each area is preserved through implementation of the Urban Design Guide Plan and the Vail Village blaster Plan. 4.3 The ambiance of the Village is important to the identity of Vail and should be preserved. (Scale, alpine character, small town feeling, mountains, natural setting, intimate size, cosmopolitan feeling, environmental quality.) 4.4 The connection between the Village Core and Lionshead should be enhanced through: a) Installation of a new type of people mover. b) Improving the pedestrian system with a creatively designed connection, oriented toward a nature walk, alpine garden, and /or sculpture plaza. c) New development should be controlled to limit commercial uses. C. Vail Village Master Plan The Vail Village Master Plan identifies goals, objectives, policies and action steps for the entire Vail Village, then breaks up these goals to applicable sub- areas. The first goal of the Vail Village Master Plan is to: Encourage high quality redevelopment while preserving the unique architectural scale of the Village in order to sustain its sense of community and idenitity. The second goal of the Vail Village Master Plan is: To foster a strong tourist industry and promote year -around economic health and viability for the Village and for the community as a whole. To that effect, Policy 2.4.1 states: Commercial infill development consistent with established horizontal zoning regulations shall be encouraged to provide activity generators, accessible greenspaces, public plazas, and streetscape improvements to the pedestrian network throughout the Village. The Vail Village Master Plan identifies the Mill Creek Court Buildings as "mixed use ". This category includes the "historic" Village core and properties near the pedestrianized streets of the Village. Lodging, retail and a limited amount of office use are found in this category. With nearly 270,000 sq. ft. of retail space and approximately 320 residential units, the mixed use character of these areas is a major factor in the appeal of the Vail Village. The Mill Creek Court Building is included in Commercial Core I Bub Area #3. According • 2 • to the Vail Village Master Plan: This pedestrianized area of the Village represents the traditional image of Vail. A mixture of residential and commercial uses, limited vehicular access, and inter- connected pedestrian ways are some of the characteristics that distinguish this area from other portions of the Village. With the exception of embellishing pedestrian walkways, developing plazas with greenspace, and adding a number of infill developments, it is a goal of the community to preserve the character of the Village as it is today. Specifically with regards to the Mill Creek Court Building, the Vail Village Master Plan states: Partial infill of the Mill Creek Court Building courtyard (one story retail) in conjunction with the development of a public plaza and embellishments to the walkway along Mill Creek. Purpose of improvements is to strengthen pedestrian circulation in this area of the Village. The Vail Village Master Plan indicates a pedestrian connection across Mill Creek and between the Red Lion Building and the Rucksack Building. Currently the connection is non - existent, with mechanical equipment and decks between the buildings, nor is there a bridge across Mill Creek. In addition, commercial infill on the creek side of the Red Lion is also indicated. According to the Vail Village Master Plan: The development of commercial frontage along the west side of Mill Creek to encourage pedestrian traffic in this area. Pedestrian improvements including the bridge over Mill Creek and a mid -block connection to Bridge Street are also desired The Vail Village Master Plan does not identify criteria for an amendment to the plan. However, the Vail Land Use Plan identifies the following criteria for a Land Use Plan amendment- 1. How conditions have changed since the plan was adopted. 2. How the plan is in error. 3. How the addition, deletion or change to the plan is in concert with the plan in general. D. Zoning The Mill Creek Court Building is currently zoned Commercial Core I. The purpose of the CCI zone district is: The Commercial Core 1 District is intended to provide sites and to maintain the unique character of the Vail Village commercial area, with its mixture of lodges and commercial establishments in a predominantly pedestrian. environment. The Commercial Core 1 District is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space, and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of buildings and uses. The 3 r District regulations in accordance with the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and Design Considerations prescribe site development standards that are intended to ensure the maintenance and preservation of the tightly clustered arrangements of buildings fronting on pedestrianways and public greenways, and to ensure continuation of the building scale and architectural qualities that distinguish the Village. The CCI zone district allows for only certain uses on each level of the building. As the street level of the CCI zone district is intended to be a pedestrianway, permitted uses are generally limited to retail uses and restaurant uses. Section 12 -73 -3A states "the 'first floor' or 'street level' shall be defined as that floor of the building that is located at grade or street level." Residential and office uses are limited to the second level or above. Section 12 -713 (Commercial Core 1) has been attached for reference. The criteria for a rezoning are: 1. Is the existing zoning suitable with the existing land use on the site and adjacent land uses? 2. Is the amendment presenting a convenient workable relationship with land uses consistent with municipal objectives? 3. Does the rezoning provide for the growth of an orderly viable community? 4. Is the change consistent with the Land Use Plan? E. Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan The Vail Village Urban design Guide Plan also guides development within the Village core. As part of the Village core, there are important goals and objectives stated within the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan that also have an impact on the Mill Creek Court Building. Pedestrianization A major objective for the Vail village is to encourage pedestrian circulation through an interconnected network of safe, pleasant pedestrian ways. Streetscape Framework 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. 1. Open space and landscaping —berms, grass, flowers, and tree planting as a soft, colorful framework linkage along pedestrian routes; and plazas and park green spaces as open nodes and focal points along those routes. 2. Jnfill 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. 4 a • Transparency Pedestrian scale is created in many ways, but a major factor is the openness, attractiveness, and generally public character of the ground floor fa,gade of adjacent buildings. Transparent storefronts are "people allractors', opaque or solid walls are more private, imply 'do not approach" On pedestrian - oriented streets such as in the Village, ground floor commercial facades are proportionately more transparent that upper floors. Upper floors are typically more residential, private, and thus less open. 11l 03► fWeT- NFAW61P Standard Allowed Under CCI Existing* GRFA 80% or 8,312 10,434 sq. ft. Density 5.76 units 11 units Site Coverage 80% or 8,312 sq. ft. 6,384 sq. ft. Lot Size 5,000 sq. ft. 10,030 sq. ft. Setbacks per Urban Design Guide Plan built to property line Retail n/a 3.553 sq. ft. Office n/a 2,746 sq. ft. "All information is taken from the legal file and must be verified with as- bunts prior to any formal application. IV. ALTERNATIVE SCENARIOS The applicant has specifically requested the ability to do office and /or residential uses on the first floor, in conflict with Section 12 -78 -3 of the Town Code. The CCI zone district does not allow either of these uses. The Zoning Regulations do not allow for a "use variance" nor does a Special Development District allow for variations from the use requirements of the underlying zone district. Staff has identified the following scenarios to allow for these uses on the first floor of the Mill Creek Court Building. In addition, pros and cons of each scenario have been identified. Some of the scenarios involve a zoning change and /or an amendment to the Vail Village Master Plan. A. Amend CCI The purpose of the CCI zone district is: The Commercial Core 1 District is intended to provide sites and to maintain the unique character of the Vail Village commercial area, with its mixture of lodges and commercial establishments in a predominantly pedestrian environment. The Commercial Core 1 District is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space, and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of buildings and uses. The District regulations in accordance with the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and Design Considerations prescribe site development standards that are intended to ensure the maintenance and preservation of the tightly clustered arrangements of buildings fronting on pedestrianways and public greenways, and to ensure continuation of the building scale and architectural qualities that distinguish the Village. 5 The Mill Creek Court Building is currently zoned Commercial Core I. Scenario A involves amending the CCI zone district to allow for residential and/or office uses on the first floor, either as a permitted use or as a conditional use. Pros Would satisfy the request of the Mill • Creek Court Building Would not require a rezoning Would not create a non - conforming • situation with the Mill Creek Court Building S. Amend CCII and Rezone to CCII Cons Contrary to Village Master Plan stated objectives and goals for the Village core Village Master Plan encourages horizontal zoning with higher intensity uses on the first floor Would apply to all CCI zoned properties in the Village Contrary to the purpose statement of the CCI zone district Would detract from the pedestrian, Village experience Offices would displace more desirable uses at the street level Lack of transparency on street level by "privatizing" uses on first level The purpose of the Commerciai Core II zone district is: 0 The Commercial Core 2 District is intended to provide sites for a mixture of multiple - dwellings, lodges and commercial establishments in a clustered, unified development. Commercial Core 2 District in accordance with the Vail Lionshead Urban Design Guide Plan and Design Considerations, as adopted in Section 12 -7C- 15 of this Article, is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of building and uses and to maintain the desirable qualities of the District by establishing appropriate site development standards. The original intent of the CCII zone district was to regulate development within the Lionshead area. However, the recent adoption of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan and the subsequent rezoning of Lionshead from CCII to Lionshead Mixed Use I and 11, has altered the need for the CCII zone district. Currently, only one property is zoned CCII — Village Center. CCII zoning also incorporates horizontal zoning, allowing the same permitted and conditional uses as the CCI zone district. Amending the CCII zone district to allow for residential and/or office uses as a conditional use and then requesting a rezoning to CCII, would meet the needs of the Mill Creek Court Building. The CCII zone district would become the transition area between the intensive commercial uses of the CCI zone district in the Village and the more residential character of the neighborhoods surrounding the Village core. 0 • • Pros • CCII needs to be updated and modified with the recent adoption of LMU1 and 2 • Would not create a non - conforming situation with the Mill Creek Court Building • Would satisfy the request of the Mill Creek Court Building • Would apply to limited properties Cons • Would be contrary to the Vail Village Master Plan which identifies the Mill Creek Court Building as part of Commercial Core I • Would also apply to Village Center which is located on an identified pedestrian way • CCII was originally intended for the Lionshead commercial core area • Would be inconsistent with the purpose of CCII. • Would be inconsistent with the goals and objectives of the Vail Village Master Plan C. Rezone to CSC and Apply for a Special Development District The purpose of the Commercial Service Center zone district is: The Commercial Service Center District is intended to provide sites for general shopping and commercial facilities serving the Town, together with limited multiple - family dwelling and lodge uses as may be appropriate without interfering with the basic commercial functions of the District. The Commercial Service Center District is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space, and other amenities appropriate to permitted types of buildings and uses, and to maintain a convenient shopping center environment for permitted commercial uses. Unlike the CCI and CCII, zone districts, CSC does not have horizontal zoning requiements. Offices are a permitted use and multipe- family dwellings are a conditional use in CSC. However, CSC does not defer to the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and Design Considerations for development standards. Instead, CSC has prescribed setbacks, site coverage, density, etc. Therefore, in addition to rezoning to CSC, the Mill Creek Court Building would have to apply for a Special Development District to allow for variations from the underlying zoning. Only one other property in Vail is zoned CSC — Crossroads, located at 141 E. Meadow Dr. Pros Cons • Would meet the request of the • Would create a non - conforming situation or Mill Creek Court Building would require the establishment of a Special Development District. • Would have no effect on other • Would be contrary to the Vail Village Master properties currently zoned CSC Plan which identifies the Mill Creek Court Building as part of Commercial Core I • Some of the permitted and conditional uses are not suitable to the Village core • Would be inconsistent with adjacent zoning of CCI or HDMF 7 D. Rezone to HDMF and Apply for a Special Development District The purpose of the High Density Multiple Family Zone District is: The Nigh ,Density Multiple- Family District is intended to provide sites for multiple - family dwellings at densities to a maximum of twenty five (25) dwelling units per acre, together with such public and semi - public facilities and lodges, private recreation facilities and related visitor - oriented uses as may appropriately be located in the same district. The Nigh Density Multiple - Family District is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space, and other amenities commensurate with high density apartment, condominium and lodge uses, and to maintain the desirable residential and resort qualities of the District by establishing appropriate site development standards. Certain nonresidential uses are permitted as conditional uses, which relate to the nature of Vail as a winter and summer recreation and vacation community and, where permitted, are intended to blend harmoniously with the residential character of the District. The High Density Multiple - Family zone district allows for multiple- family residential dwellings as a permitted use. However, office uses are not allowed in HDMF. Again, HDMF has prescribed development standards, including setbacks, site coverage, density, etc. As a result, the Mill Creek Court Building would also have to apply for a Special Development District so as not to be rendered non - conforming by the rezoning. The Vail Flow Houses, which are adjacent to the Mill Creek Court Building, are zoned HDMF. Pros Cons • Wculd meet the request of the Mill e Would create a non - conforming situation Creek Court Building to 'do or would require the establishment of a residential uses Special Development District or amendment of the zone district. • Would have no effect on other • Would be contrary to the Vail Village properties zoned HDMF Master Plan which identifies the Mill Creek Court Building as part of Commercial Core I • Would not permit office uses E. New Zone District The applicant could propose a new zone district which would meet their request of allowing residential and /or office on the first level. This zone district could be similar to CCI or CCII, which has few prescribed development standards, deferring instead to the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan. Pros Cons • Would meet the request of the Mill Would be limited to this property and Creek Court Building could be considered a spot zoning • Would not create a non - conforming • status of Mill Creek Court 8 YAILI POWNNOtlSES ! i Y} MOLL CPEEK G9uar BLi>r�+ CASINO BLDG. "7 +•r "T j 14�SS Rap U” PLAZA 0Wa HILL W) • � �F ONG YAII \ O LOEN *!AK PLACE #M SrIAW ,r �L,11 i 48 #3 -3 Seibert Circle studv Area Study area to establish a more inviting public plaza with greenspace, improved sun exposure and a focal point at the top of Bridge Street. Design and extent of new plaza to be sensitive to fire access and circulation considerations. Special emphasis on 3.1, 3.3, 4.1, 4.2. #3 -4 Mill Creek Commercial Infill The development of commercial frontage along the west side of Mill Creek to encourage pedestrian traffic in this area. Pedestrian .improvements including the bridge over Mill Creek and a mid -block connection to Bridge Street are also desired (see Urban Design Guide Plan). Improvements to Mill Creek (landscaping, utility relocation and stream bank stabilization) as well as loading and delivery, must be addressed. Special emphasis on 2.4, 2.5, 3.4, 4.1, 6.1. 43 -5 Mill Creek Court Partial infill of the Mill Creek Court Building courtyard (one story retail) in conjunction with the development of a public plaza and embellishments to the walkway along Mill Creek. Purpose of improvements is to strengthen pedestrian circulation in this area of the Village. Special emphasis on 1.2, 2.4, 2.6, 3.1, 3.3, 3.4, 4.1. '6pp40 ItlfaiS gqf��j}J ",' AU '4 � LL n CLOCK TOw4R IBtIlO „�� SLOG. YAILI POWNNOtlSES ! i Y} MOLL CPEEK G9uar BLi>r�+ CASINO BLDG. "7 +•r "T j 14�SS Rap U” PLAZA 0Wa HILL W) • � �F ONG YAII \ O LOEN *!AK PLACE #M SrIAW ,r �L,11 i 48 #3 -3 Seibert Circle studv Area Study area to establish a more inviting public plaza with greenspace, improved sun exposure and a focal point at the top of Bridge Street. Design and extent of new plaza to be sensitive to fire access and circulation considerations. Special emphasis on 3.1, 3.3, 4.1, 4.2. #3 -4 Mill Creek Commercial Infill The development of commercial frontage along the west side of Mill Creek to encourage pedestrian traffic in this area. Pedestrian .improvements including the bridge over Mill Creek and a mid -block connection to Bridge Street are also desired (see Urban Design Guide Plan). Improvements to Mill Creek (landscaping, utility relocation and stream bank stabilization) as well as loading and delivery, must be addressed. Special emphasis on 2.4, 2.5, 3.4, 4.1, 6.1. 43 -5 Mill Creek Court Partial infill of the Mill Creek Court Building courtyard (one story retail) in conjunction with the development of a public plaza and embellishments to the walkway along Mill Creek. Purpose of improvements is to strengthen pedestrian circulation in this area of the Village. Special emphasis on 1.2, 2.4, 2.6, 3.1, 3.3, 3.4, 4.1. CL 0 IDL ir. V � o t►l U- C1 A, m &i E V V N dd u CC ��pp W p'� G� O a f of C off. Ca oo. V rii V G Zn a s� P4 A a • • • 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FRC`J: Community Development Department DA T =: April 23, 2001 SUE�EC -: A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for the construction of an athletic field, located at 610 N. Frontage Rd. West/ A portion of Tract C, Vail Potato Patch. A full metes & bounds legal description is available at the Department of Community Development. Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Gregg Barrie Planner: Allison Ochs I. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST T-e `ov.- ;f Vail. Vail Recreation District. and Red Sandstone Elementary School are r_ct,_sti -c a Conditional Use Permit to allow for the construction of an athletic field lc--a-=d =- Jacent to the elementary school on a portion of Tract C. The athletic field is s zec arc snaped to allow for the minimum sized U7 /U8 soccer field, which is generally irverdec -;,r 7 and 8 year old players. The field is approximately 30 yards by 50 yards. For €er-?avion. an official soccer field is a minimum of 50 yards by 100 yards. -e oa - .-_=i is zoned Outdoor Recreation. "Public parks and active public outdoor r=_;_reatic- areas and uses, excluding buildings" are a conditional use in the Outdoor P =cReatcn zone district. According to the applicant, the athletic field is situated on the vies, err, and of the site due to steeper slopes on the eastern end. The applicant's letter c= invent. aicng with a reduction of the site plan, has been attached for reference. II. BACKGROUND The ath. =tic field is oroposed to be located on a portion of Tract C, Vail Potato Patch. In as part of the Comprehensive Open Lands Plan rezonings, Tract C was divided irto mu: cie parcels. Portions of Tract C were then zoned Natural Area Preservation Distrct. The portion of the property to include the athletic field is zoned Outdoor Fecraat.cn. Currently there are no improvements on the property. III. ROLES OF THE REVIEWING BOARDS P1arnirc and Environmental Commission: The Planning and Environmental Cor' missicn is responsible for evaluating this conditional use permit application for. Peiationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town. 2. E=fect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation TOWN O*VAIL 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 impact report is required by Chapter 12 of this Title. 7. Conformance with development standards of zone district Design Review Beard., The Design Review Board is responsible for evaluating the Design Review application for. 1. Architectural compatibility with other structures, the land and surroundings 2. Fitting buildings into landscape 3. Configuration of building and grading of a site which respects the topography 4. Removal /Preservation of trees and native vegetation 5. Adequate provision for snow storage on -site 6. Acceptability of building materials and colors 7. Acceptability of roof elements, eaves, overhangs, and other building forms 8. Provision of landscape and drainage 9. Provision of fencing, walls, and accessory structures 10. Circulation and access to a site including parking, and site distances 11. Location and design of satellite dishes 12. Provision of outdoor lighting 13. The design of parks IV. STAFF RECOMMENDAT10N The Community Development Department recommends approval of the conditional use permit for an athletic field, subject to 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 Outdoor Recreation Zone District. 2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it will be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code. Should the Planning and Environmental.Commission choose to approve the request, staff recommends the following condition: That the Design Review Board review the request with respect to landscaping and siting and for compliance with the Design Guidelines as found in Title 14. 0 0 V. REVIEW CRITERIA FOR THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 'ie review criteria for a request of this nature are established by the Town of Vail f,!unicipal Code. The proposal is subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit in a�ccrdance with the provisions of Title 12, Chapter 16. For the Planning and i=- Mronmertal Commission's reference, the conditional use permit purpose statement i- dicates that: In order to provide the flexibility necessary to achieve the objectives of this title, specified uses are permitted in certain districts subject to the granting of a conditional use permit. Because of their unusual or special characteristics, conditional uses require review so that they may be located properly with respect to the purposes of this title and with respect to their effects on surrounding properties, The review process prescribed in this chapter is intended to assure compatibility and harmonious development between conditional uses and surrounding properties in the Town at large. Uses listed as conditional uses in the various districts may be permitted subject to such conditions and limitations as the Town may prescribe to insure that the location and operation of the conditional uses will be in accordance with the development objectives of the Town and will not be detrimental to other uses or properties. Where conditions cannot be devised, to achieve these objectives, applications for conditional use permits shall be denied. A. Consideration of Factors: 1. Relationship and impact of the use on the development objectives of the Town. Section 12 -8B -1 defines the purpose of the Outdoor Recreation zone district: The Outdoor Recreation District is intended to preserve undeveloped or open space lands from intensive development while permitting outdoor recreational activities that provide opportunities for active and passive recreation areas, facilities and uses. Staff believes that the proposed athletic field furthers the purpose of the Outdoor Recreation zone district. In addition, staff believes that the proposal complies with the development objectives of the Town of Vail, as these objectives are stated in the Land Use Plan: 1.1.1. Vail should continue to grow in a controlled environment, maintaining a balance between residential, commercial, and recreational uses to serve both the visitor and the permanent resident. T is 1.1.2, The quality of the environment including air, water, and other natural resources should be protected as the Town grows. 3 2.7 The Town of Vail should improve the existing park and open space lands while continuing to purchase open space. 40 The Town of Vail Land Use Plan designates this property as Open Space. In addition, it identifies the entire tract as Tract 37— Potato Patch; An irregular shaped area above Red Sandstone Elementary School was dedicated to the Town as open space. This area has a variety of high and medium environmental constraints as well as some areas with no identifiable development constraints. There are no apparent deed restrictions for use of the property, however, the site is relatively difficult to access and seems most appropriately left in open space. 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. The proposed athletic field will provide additional recreational uses for the elementary school and community. The primary intent of the athletic field is to provide for turf area for the students of Red Sandstone Elementary. The Vail Recreation District will use the field for overflow for their soccer needs, but as the field is only 30 yards by 50 yards, the Vail Recreation District will primarily be using the new soccer field at Donovan Park for their 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 street and parking areas. Staff believes that the proposed athletic field will not have a negative effect on the above referenced criteria. Currently, there are 25 designated parking spaces plus 2 ADA accessible spaces at Red Sandstone Elementary. Additional parking can be accommodated on the access drive, allowing for approximately 71 spaces total. Overflow parking can be accommodated at the Sandstone Tot Lot, if necessary. The Planning and Environmental Commission sets the parking requirement for recreational facilities. Staff has identified parking requirements for other communities with regards to athletic fields. These requirements vary from 20 spaces per field to 1 space per 5,000 sq. ft. of land area. The athletic field is approximately 13,500 sq. ft. with additional turf area adjacent to the school. Because the field is primarily for the use of the school, staff does not believe that additional parking should be required. Other uses of the field will not occur while school is in session, specifically evenings, weekends, and summer, leaving the school parking available. 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. 4 Staff has concerns regarding the amount of site disturbance on the hillside. Tie current design of the athletic field allows for regrading and vegetation of tre hillside, as opposed to more visible retaining walls which would be recessary should the field be sited elsewhere. However, staff also recognizes the needs of the school and believes that with revegetation, the c;naracter of the area will not be negatively affected. The chain -link fence will be green to minimize visibility and will also be screened with additional landscaping. There is no lighting proposed in conjunction with the athletic field. Staff believes that this use is compatible with adjacent uses, which irclude residential uses and the school. 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 accord 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. I --------------- 7--: ------ LLL -n kz. 1%, .1, 01 .......... J4� It. 'A DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORK&TRANSPORTATION X lK X 4D -.ANrS-,-14F FILEMENTARY ATHLETIC _IFLD �4! � 4 +1 cVTr-DI AKI • • _434il LLL -n kz. 1%, .1, 01 .......... J4� It. 'A DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORK&TRANSPORTATION X lK X 4D -.ANrS-,-14F FILEMENTARY ATHLETIC _IFLD �4! � 4 +1 cVTr-DI AKI • • nt of Public Works & 1309 Elkhorn Drive Vail, Colorado 81657 970-479-2158 Fax: 9".'0-479-2166 www. ci. vail. co. us • April 19. 2001 Red Sandstone Elementary School Proposed Athletic Field The Towvn of Vail, in conjunction with the Eagle County School District and the Vail Recreation District. is proposing the construction of an athletic field on Town of Vail property adjacent to the Red Sandstone Elementary School. The property is Tract C. Potato Patch Filing, and is divided into four zoning parcels, two of wyhich are Outdoor Recreation. and two of which are Natural Area Preservation District. The proposed field would be constructed entirely on a parcel zoned Outdoor Recreation. The largest part of the athletic field has been sized to accommodate a soccer field for the i to 8 year old age group. and is situated on the western end of the site due to steeper slopes on the eastern end. However. because this area is approximately 400 feet from the school. a 65' X 100' open area is proposed between the school and the larger part of the field. This would allow students to play on a turf area during the 15 minute "recess'. while the longer Physical Education classes can take the time to walk out to the larger part of the field for organized activities. Currently the students play on a 200' long asphalt area just outside the school. The total amount of turf area proposed for this project is .9 acres. The fields have been designed so that no retaining walls will be required, however. there will be sizeable cut and fill slopes that will require revegetation. All disturbed slopes will be planted with native species that currently exist on site. A plant inventory will be performed prior to construction by a regional plant biologist who will specify the plants to be used. In addition, he will specify erosion control measures and establishment procedures. The intent is that in 3 to 5 years, the disturbed slopes will match existing vegetation as closely as possible. No additional parking is proposed for this project. Currently the school has 25 designated spaces plus 2 ADA compliant spaces. Additionally, during larger school events, the access road up to the school is used for parking. That will accommodate approximately 44 additional vehicles. While the field is considered an expansion of school facilities. it will not require additional teachers or staff. nor will it generate additional parking demand. Also, because the school will use the field during the school day, and the Recreation District will use the field outside of school hours, events requiring parking for both school and field use should not conflict. Finally, a 6' high brown colored chain link fence is proposed along the downhill side of the entire turf area. The purpose of the fence is to limit the number of balls that might roll down towards the road. The school district requires chain link as opposed to solid fence for supervision purposes. RECYCLED PAPER MEMORANDUM • TO: Planning & Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: April 23, 2001 SUBJECT: A request for the review of a proposed text amendment to Chapter 11, Design Review, of the Zoning Regulations to allow for procedural changes to the performance bond process as prescribed in the Vail Town Code. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: George Ruther 1. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The Community Development Department has identified a need to amend the Vail Town Code to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of our services while at the same time ensuring that our customer's expectation of receiving temporary certificates of occupancy are not negatively impacted. To that end, the purpose of this memorandum is to provide a brief background on the TCO /bonding problem, a summary of the current regulations and a recommendation for amendments. The amendments are being proposed to Section 12 -11 -8 Performance Bond, Section 12 -11 -11 Enforcement, Inspection and Section 12 -2 -2, Definitions of the Town of Vail Zoning Regulations. Staff is requesting that the Planning & Environmental Commission evaluate the proposal and forward a recommendation to the Vail Town Council. A complete description of the proposed amendments is outlined in Section V of this memorandum. fl. ROLES OF THE REVIEWING BOARDS 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 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. • IV. Staff provides analyses and recommendations to the PEC and Town Council on any text proposal. is Town Council: Action: The Town Council is responsible for final approvalldenial 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 DRB has NO review authority on code amendments. 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: 1. 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 will further ensure compliance with the Town Code. 5. That the proposed amendments will make the Town's development review process less problematic and more "user friendly." BACKGROUND The Community Development Department has identified our procedures for issuing T.C.O.'s, accepting bonds, and completing final inspections as processes that needed to be improved. The goal of the improvements is to provide better customer service, reduce the amount of staff time currently involved in these processes, ensure compliance with applicable codes and regulations, to better align the planning and building requirements and to keep construction management responsibilities in the hands of the contractor. • A. Problem Statement The Town of Vail Community Development Department issues approximately four hundred (400) building permits annually. Of these permits, roughly one hundred (100) require the issuance of a certificate of occupancy by the Building Official. The Town of Vail Community Development Department has traditionally issued temporary certificates of occupancy as permitted by the Uniform Building Code, at the discretion of the Building Official. The current process for issuing temporary certificates of occupancy has resulted in numerous unintended consequences that negatively impact the services provided by the Community Development Department. For instance: • increased staff time and involvement since many developers fail to follow through, • an increase in the number of inspection requests as the inspectors must make multiple return inspections, • a decrease in available inspection time for other projects because available time is spent dealing with temporary certificates and the need for unnecessary multi- department involvement (public works, fire, finance, administration) as performance bonds require the cooperation of other departments. The staff of the Community Development Department finds it irresponsible to let this problem perpetuate. Therefore, corrective steps must be made immediately to respond to the inefficiencies and ineffectiveness of the current temporary certificate of occupancy issuance process. S. Givens • The current bonding/T.C.O. process results in an inefficient use of staff time. • The current bonding/T.C.O. process is ineffective and creates unrealistic expectations. • We do not enforce the expiration of T.C.O's. • We do not complete unfinished improvements secured by Developer Improvement Agreements. • We are committed to improving this process. Chapter 1, Section 109.4 (temporary certificate) of the Uniform Building Code states, If the building official finds that no substantial hazard will result from occupancy of any building or portion thereof before the same is completed, a temporary certificate of occupancy may be issued for the use of a portion or portions of a building or structure prior to the completion of the entire building or structure. 3 Therefore, the issuance of a temporary certificate of occupancy is not mandatory. 0 Further, Chapter 1, Section 109.3 (certificate issued) states, in part, After the building official inspects the building or structure and finds no violations of the provisions of the code or other laws that are enforced by the code enforcement agency, the building official shall issue a certificate of occupancy. Therefore, compliance with the applicable provisions of the Vail Town Code is also required. This is important as it includes, but is not limited to, landscaping, the design guidelines, and the development standards. The Town of Vail Community Development Department has traditionally issued T.C.O.'s on both residential and commercial developments. Because the certificate is temporary and not final, it is inherent that a portion of the building is not complete. Incomplete work often includes, • exterior painting, • exterior lighting, • landscaping, • paving, • cosmetic interior finishes, • complete installation of plumbing fixtures, • use of temporary guardrails, and • the installation of additional light fixtures. To address the incomplete work, a performance bond provision is incorporated into the Vail Town Code. C. Current Regulations According to Section 12 -11 -8 of the Vail Town Code, Performance Bond, The Building Official shall not issue a final certificate of occupancy for structures which have obtained design review approval until upon inspection it is determined that the project is constructed in accordance with the approved design review application and plans, and all improvements, amenities and landscaping have been installed. The Building Official may issue a temporary certificate of occupancy not to exceed two hundred ten (210) days upon the applicant posting with the Community Development Department a performance bond or other security acceptable to the Town Council in the sum of one hundred twenty five percent (125°1) of the bona fide estimate of the cost of installing landscaping and paving and other accessory improvements provided for in the approved design review application and plans. If said landscaping, paving and other accessory improvements are not installed by the applicant within the period allowed, the i temporary certificate shall be revoked until the same are installed by the applicant or by the Town pursuant to the terms of the performance bond or other accepted security that has been approved by the Town. According to Section 12 -11 -11 of the Vail Town Code, Enforcement; Inspection, Before occupying or using any structure included in a design review application, the applicant must obtain an occupancy certificate after inspection by the Department of Community Development. The Department of Community Development shall inspect the site to ensure that the work has been completed in accordance with the application and plans approved by the Design Review Roard_ It shall be the duty of the property owner or his /her authorized agent to notify the Department of Community Development that such work is ready for inspection in order to ascertain compliance with approved plans. If the project is found upon inspection to be fully completed and in compliance with the approved design review application and plans, the Department of Community Development shall issue a final certificate of occupancy. If the project is found to be completed in such a manner that a temporary certificate of occupancy may be issued as specified by the Uniform Building Code that applicant shall post to a bond as set forth in Section 12 -11 -8 of this Chapter. Upon forfeiture of said bond or surety, the Town shall proceed to install the improvements for which bond or surety was posted. In the event that the cost of installing the improvements exceeds the amount of the bond, the owner of said property shall be individually liable to the Town for the additional costs thereof. Furthermore, the amount that the cost of installing said improvements exceeds the amount of the performance bond shall automatically become a lien upon any and all property included within the design review application. V. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS Staff recognizes that there are factors outside the control of developers (i.e. weather) which results in the need to maintain the availability to obtain a temporary certificate of occupancy. However, staff has identified several negative and unintended consequences of our current process. Therefore, staff finds there is the need to amend our current regulations to both enhance our level of customer service and to reduce the amount of staff time involved in the bonding process. The following amendments are proposed to achieve improved customer service levels and to more efficiently utilize staff time. 0 (Deletions are shown in mr+keewl and additions are shown in bold) P Section 12 -11 -8 of the Vail Town Code, Performance Bond, The Building Official shall not issue a final certificate of occupancy for structures which have obtained design review approval until upon inspection it is determined that the project is constructed in accordance with the approved design review application and plans, and all improvements, amenities and landscaping have been installed. The Building Official may issue a temporary certificate of occupancy, between November 1 and April 30 of each year, not to exceed two hundred ten (210) days upon the applicant posting with the Community Development Department a performance bond as defined in Section 12 -2 -2 of this Chapter or oihw seGurity aGGeptable ie the Town Goun in the sum of ene hWRdFed — !WenTyfiVe percent (12590') two hundred fifty percent (250 %) of the bona fide estimates of two Town of Vail licensed contractors of the cost of installing landscaping and paving and other accessory improvements provided for in the approved design review application and plans. One of the bona fide estimates shall be accompanied by a fully executed contractual agreement to complete said work as described in the estimates. If said landscaping, paving and other accessory improvements are not installed by the applicant within the period allowed, the temporary certificate &ha4 may be revoked until the same are installed by the applicant or by the Town pursuant to the terms of the performance bond eF atheF aGGePtOd GeGYF4Y that has been approved by the Town.. According to Section 12 -11 -11 of the Vail Town Code, Enforcement; Inspection, 0 Before occupying or using any structure included in a design review application, the applicant must obtain an occupancy certificate after inspection by the Department of Community Development. The Department of Community Development shall inspect the site to ensure that the work has been completed in accordance with the application and plans approved by the Design Review Board. It shall be the duty of the property owner or his/her authorized agent to notify the Department of Community Development that such work is ready for inspection in order to ascertain compliance with approved plans. It the project is found upon inspection to be fully completed and in compliance with the approved design review application and plans, the Department of Community Development shall issue a final certificate of occupancy. If the project is found to be completed in such a manner that a temporary certificate of occupancy may be issued as specified by the Uniform Building Code that applicant s#afl may post a performance bond as set forth in Section 12- 11 -8 of this Chapter. Upon forfeiture of said bond aF surety, the Town shall proceed to install the improvements in accordance with the bona fide estimates and fully executed contractual agreements for which the performance bond erserety was posted. In the event that the cost of installing the improvements exceeds the amount of the bond, the owner of said property shall be individually liable to the Town for the additional costs thereof, including but not limited to, labor, materials, and legal and administrative fees. Furthermore, the amount that the cost of installing said improvements exceeds the amount of the F1 performance bond shall automatically become a lien upon any and all property included within the design review application. Section 12 -2 -2, Definitions, Performance Bond: A written letter of credit agreement executed by and between the Town of Vail, a property owner or his/her authorized agent and a financial institution located within Eagle County, Colorado to provide financial security for the completion of all improvements, amenities and landscaping as identified on an approved design review application and plans. • Approved 5/14101 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES 0 Monday, April 23, 2001 PROJECT ORIENTATION 1, Community Development Dept. PUBLIC WELCOME 11:00 am MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Galen Aasland John Schofield Chas Bernhardt Diane Golden Brian Doyon Doug Cahill Dick Cleveland Site Visits : 12:30 pm 1. A2Z Holdings, LLC residence — 383 Beaver Dam Road 2. Vail Plaza Hotel West — 13 Vail Road 3. Cascade Club — 1295 Westhaven Drive 4. Red Sandstone Soccer Filed — 610 N. Frontage Road West Driver: George �a 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 Hearing - Town Council Chambers 2:00 pm A request for a final review of a proposed parking management plan, located at 1295 Westhaven Drive /Cascade Village, Development Area A. Applicant: L -O Vail Hotel lnc. Planner: Allison Ochs Allison presented a "brief overview" of the staff memorandum. Dick Cleveland stated he thought the applicant was now in compliance with parking requirements. Brian Doyon thanked the applicant for resolving this issue_ Chas Bernhardt asked Gary Fries, General Manager at Vail Cascade, what the enrollment numbers were for the community college. Gary Fries stated the exact numbers were still pending but would be addressed with the new automated parking system. Doug Cahill asked about the plan for overflow parking and advised Gary Fries to manage overflow situations carefully. s TOWN OF PAIL Approved 5/14101 Diane Golden asked about potential conflicts between the movie theater and other adjacent uses. Galen Aasland thanked Mr. Fries for taking care of the parking situation and addressing the PEC's concerns_ Brian Doyon moved to approve per the staff memorandum. Diane Golden seconded. The motion carried 6 -0. 2. A request for a variance from Section 12 -60-10 of the Vail Town Code, to allow for a reduction in the landscaping and site development requirements, located at 383 Beaver Dam Road /Lot 3, Block 3, Vail Village 3`d Filing. Applicant: A2Z Holdings, LLC Planner: Bill Gibson Bill Gibson explained the history of this property and staff's position on the variance request. Galen Aasland asked about the granting of the easement. Stephanie Lord spoke to the issue of the easement conditions. Bruce Chapman spoke representing the Herman family. Bruce stated there were no records to indicate the original intent of the easement provisions. He stated his clients were concerned with the proposed bulk and mass of the residences. His clients questioned the necessity for the employee housing unit and 10 parking spaces when that space could have been used for landscaping instead. Bruce showed the PEC a copy of the site plan. Diane Golden inquired how the proposed pool could be built across a property line. George Ruther explained the zoning issues with regard to the pool. Galen asked Bruce Chapman why the granting of this variance would constitute a grant of special privilege. Bruce stated there aren't any other pools on Beaver Dam Road. Stephanie Lord stated a variance request would not be necessary without the road running across their property. Doug Cahill stated the location of the road is a hardship. Diane Golden agreed with Doug. Dick Cleveland agreed with Diane and Doug. He stated the road was a special circumstance created by the Town. Brian Doyon stated the unique conditions with the road met the requirements for a variance. Chas Bernhardt stated the variance was warranted pursuant to finding 3B from the variance chapter. 0 Galen Aasland agreed with the other commissioners. Doug Cahill moved to approve per the findings and criteria as outlined in the staff memorandum. 2 Approved 5/14101 Chas Bernhardt seconded the motion. The motion passed 6 -0. 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 a conditional use permit, to allow for Type III employee housing units and fractional fee club units, located 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 Brent Wilson presented a brief overview of the staff memorandum. He clarified the issues regarding the setbacks. Tim Losa, representing the applicant, presented the changes of the proposal from the previous proposal and responded to the staff memorandum. Dick Cleveland asked about the legality of the access easement for 9 Vail Rd. Connie responded that there is a yearly agreement for 9 Vail Rd. He stated that the easement has expired. Gwen Scappello, representing 9 Vail Rd. clarified that 9 Vail Rd. has a recorded easement for use of the access road for the 4 parking spaces at 9 Vail Rd. Tim Losa continued to present an overview of the proposal- He then stated that he is requesting a recommendation of approval, contrary to the staff recommendation of tabling the item for additional information. Galen Aasland then requested that Connie Dorsey speak regarding the EHUs. Connie Dorsey stated the applicant is proposing 23 employee housing units. Brent Wilson stated that according to the Town's employee generation requirements, 29 EHUs would be required. Connie Dorsey stated that if the PEC requested 29 beds, the applicant would provide 29 beds. Tim Losa stated that they would be providing a kitchen and cafeteria would be available for the employees within the back -of -house uses in the hotel. Galen Aasland asked if Greg Hall had any thing to add to the staff presentation. Greg Hall spoke regarding site distance at the Frontage Rd. access. Galen Aasland asked for public comment. Lon Moellentine, owner of the Alpine Standard, spoke regarding the easements and his opinion regarding the shared access issues and the substantial traffic problems with the redevelopment. Bill Pierce, representing Alpine Standard, presented an access proposal. He stated concern with the Frontage Rd. access and the effect on the Alpine Standard property. 0 Diane Golden requested clarification of the diagram. Galen Aasland stated his concerns regarding the pedestrian access. Approved 5/14/01 Richard Kent, President of Scorpio Condo Association. Stated his main concerns are height and bulk and mass. Height extends too far to the south. A letter expressing the Associations concerns has been sent. 0 Jim Lamont requested additional information regarding the height of the building versus the height of the existing Chateau. Brent Wilson clarified the way the Town measures building height_ Jim Lamont asked if the EHUs were removed from the site, would there be an effect on the bulk and mass of the building. He stated that he believed there would be a benefit for housing to be located elsewhere. Jim then asked for clarification for the setbacks in the Public Accommodation zone district. Brent Wilson spoke to roof overhangs and the allowable encroachment into setbacks. Jim Lamont continued to ask questions regarding the traffic impacts to Vail Road. Greg Hall spoke regarding traffic impacts. Tim Losa spoke regarding peak traffic periods for a resort hotel. Galen Aaslen asked Jim to get to the point. Jim Lamont requested that a complete overall traffic study be completed for the area. He also stated that he was against the establishment of a special development district with the recent approval of the PA zone district amendments. He didn't like the "egg- shaped" design of the West Meadow Dr. He expressed concern regarding the employee housing units. Gwen Scapello, representing 9 Vail Road, stated that 9 Vail Road and the Chateau were built at the same time with little regard for property lines and setbacks. She stated concern with the access to the 4 parking spaces of 9 Vail Road_ She stated her personal unease with the setback encroachment below grade. She stated that in general she was happy with the concessions of the applicant. Diane Golden asked about the egress from the parking spaces. Gwen Scapello explained that they have surface spaces, but are deficient in regards to parking and that the loss of the 4 surface parking spaces would be detrimental. Jim Lamont spoke regarding access off the Frontage Rd. Connie Dorsey stated that the applicants have no intention of removing the-ability of anyone to use their existing parking. Dick Cleveland stated that there are 3 items up for discussion — the SDD, the EHUs and the FFUs. Dick stated that he was not on the PEC when the original application came through. He stated that he sees great strides from when the application originally came through. He stated his concerns regarding the traffic study. He requested actual counts of the current traffic situation. He did not believe that we would be reducing trips at this site. He stated his concerns regarding the easement off the Alpine Standard site. He stated his concern regarding fire department access, specifically the intermixing of the loading and delivery with the fire department access. He stated concern with the 9 Vail Road parking spaces and the egress from those spots with the approval of the access road being one way. He appreciated the reduction in height, and stated that the height requirement should be met on the Meadow Dr. side. He also stated a concern with the height of the building on the Frontage Rd. It's too much, it's too big. With regards to the EHUs, he expressed concerns regarding the size and configuration of the EHUs. He encouraged the applicant to reconsider their 4 Approved 5194101 proposed EHUs. Brian Doyon stated he thanked the applicant for making the revisions. He first addressed the bulk and mass and believed that more attention was needed on the South Frontage Road elevations. He liked the West Meadow Drive elevations. He stated that circulation was improving however felt that more work was needed to come to a final design. He insisted that the asphalt parking and loading area on the Nine Vail Road property be removed. He stated that the employee units needed to be increased to provide an improved sense of quality of life. He further indicated that employee storage was needed. He questioned how many weeks the fractional fee units would be available. Doug Cahill felt that traffic circulation improvements were needed. He particularly mentioned the need to resolve any issues with the Nine Vail Road owners. He said he believes the building is too large and that improvements to the South Frontage Road elevation were required. The West Meadow Drive elevations are much improved. He agreed that 29 beds were required. He asked that the applicant think of themselves living in such small units and the type of employees they wanted to attract. He believed that the units must be on- site. Chas Bernhardt requested additional information regarding snow - melting and the height of the building shown on the model vs. the plans. Tim Losa stated that all of the drives would be snow- melted and that the building elevations were the correct height and roof pitch. Diane Golden requested information regarding the elimination of the retail space along West Meadow Dr. and the restaurant. She asked for an explanation of the trash area. Tim Losa stated that they will have a refrigerated trash storage area which is entirely within the building. Diane Golden stated that the applicant still needs to examine the traffic and circulation plan, and pedestrian circulation. She is concerned about the quality of employee housing units and the necessity of adequate space for the employee storage. She also stated that the EHUs should be on site. She had no concerns about the FFUs. Galen. Aasland stated that everyone's come a long way, given up a little, and gained something too. He believed that the entire area needs to be looked at for traffic circulation. He stated that part of Bill's plan was unnecessarily complicated. He stated that the applicant has done about 90% of what the PEC requested. Galen stated that he was fine with the north side of the building, but he had concerns about the height along the south side of the building. He stated that the 48 ft. height limit should be maintained on the Meadow Dr. side. Brent Wilson stated that all of the applications should be looked at at one time. Tim Losa and Connie Dorsey stated that because they have been held to the 30% requirement for EHUs and if they were held to only 15 %, then they could make the EHUs more viable. Waldir Prado stated that they have already eliminated as much as they can from the building. He stated that employees like to have their own place. He stated that the bulk and mass could not be reduced and still produce a viable product. He stated that being tabled would result in an additional year before construction. Brian Doyon moved to table the proposal (all 3 items) to May 14, 2001. 0 Seconded by Dick Cleveland. Motion passed 6 -0_ Approved 5114/01 4. A request for a worksession to discuss the rezoning of the Mill Creek Court Building from CCI to a zone district or special development district that would allow office and residential uses on the street level; located at 303 Gore Creek Drive /Lot 1, Block 5A, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: Mill Creek Court Condominium Association, represented by Larry Eskwith Planner: Allison Ochs Rod Slifer, representing the Mill Creek Court Condominium Association, presented the item and discussed the association's intent behind the proposal. He touched upon varying traffic circulation issues that differentiate the Mill Creek Court building from other CCI -zoned buildings within Vail Village. Rod also discussed the existing non - conforming office spaces at street level within the village and non- conforming commercial ski storage areas. He stated the current CCI zoning was not working well for the building, given its location and space configuration issues. He stated the intent behind the new zoning designation would be primarily towards office space and residential dwelling units at street level, since retail was not working well at that location. Allison Ochs presented the history of the property and some of the issues for consideration as part of the PEC review of this proposal. Allison discussed the relevant policies and considerations contained in the Vail Village Master Plan. Allison discussed the applicant's options (or "scenarios ") and touched upon some of the "pros" and "cons" of each option. Larry Eskwith discussed his client's (Mill Creek Court Association) request and what the town might gain from a code amendment. He discussed the existing non - conformities and the fact that the building was constructed prior to the adoption of zoning within the town. Jim Lamont, representing the Vail Village Homeowner's Association, talked about the "spot zoning" issue and the potential for a new zone district that might be applied to more than just this particular piece of property. Doug Cahill mentioned he was not in favor of residential units on the first level, but he would be in favor of retail on street level. Diane Golden stated she'd be in favor of office space at street level for this building. She stated one of her previous concerns involved rental rates but that Rod had sufficiently addressed that issue. Dick Cleveland stated he would not consider residential on the first floor. He said years ago the site flourished under CCI zoning. He suggested improvements to the courtyard area of the building and other options for revitalization other than rezoning. Brian Doyon said the town should avoid spot zoning while addressing the needs of the community.. He said properties on the periphery of the commercial core needed some flexibility, perhaps including the elimination of horizontal zoning. He stated a new zone district may be warranted, although he was resistant to the idea of residential uses at street level. He suggested consideration of these uses as a conditional use permit, perhaps under an amended CCII zoning. Chas Bernhardt stated there may have been an error years ago and that this property was an "island "_ Chas stated the town was in favor of supporting office space as a use. He said the history of the property showed businesses were failing under current zoning_ Galen Aasland stated he thought the town turned its back on the creek and that the area needed more attention. He said he would not be in favor of residential uses at street level. He said the owners needed to consider "destination" tenants. Galen stated office space does not create enough foot traffic and that is why the zoning and master plan provisions are in place. He said an °imagineering" destination tenant would be "like awesome." There was no additional discussion on this item. Approved 5114/01 5. A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for the construction of a soccer field, located at 610 N. Frontage Rd. West/ A portion of Tract C, Vail Potato Patch. A full metes & bounds legal description is available at the Department of Community Development. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Allison Ochs Allison Ochs and Tom Moorhead indicated that due to noticing irregularities, this will only be a work session for this project. Action on this can not be taken on this application until the next PEC meeting. Allison Ochs presented a brief overview of the staff memorandum Gregg Barrie presented an overview of the project. This will be a joint project between the Town of Vail, the Eagle County School District, and the Vail Recreation District. Karen Strockbine With Eagle County School District indicate that this is the only elementary school without a turf play area. This is an important project to them and is an attempt to provide comparable facilities to other schools in the district. Greg Barrie presented an explanation of the design and location of the fields. The design of the soccer field meets the smallest standards for U7 /U8 soccer fields. The proposed location was selected because of the topography of the site. The Town is working with a consultant to revegetate the disturbed areas of the site. The site is intended to be restored to existing vegetation levels within 3 to 5 years. There is a proposed brown 6 ft. chain link fence. There is no proposed lighting for the fields. The field will not increase the number of teachers or staff and the field will generally be used after school hours, so the field will not create any additional parking demands. Piet Peters from the Vail Recreation District that this will be an overflow field for Ford Park. VRD will not schedule more than one VRD activity and Red Sandstone Elementary at one time, so there will not be any parking conflicts. Joe Staufer stated that this is not a NIMBY, if it wasn't for him the school would not exist. Doesn't think the school needs a soccer field. There are other soccer fields in Vail and at other schools. Vail can not address all needs of Eagle County. Towns down valley need to provide recreation for people in their neighborhoods_ He supports a playground, but does not support the soccer field. The soccer field doesn't impact him directly (he can't see it from his house), but will have a negative affect on Sun Vail. If the PEC approves this application the conditions should be that the soccer field should be built for the kids of this school and not anyone else. The soccer field should also not be allowed for skier parking. Nancy Rieke, the principal of Red Sandstone Elementary, indicated they are losing students to schools down valley and the fields are needed for the students. She read letters from the students telling why they need an athletic field. She indicated that parking would not be a problem with the addition of these fields. Gail Day with Vail Management Company read a letter from Sun Vail Condo Association in opposition to the proposed field. They are concerned about noise, trespassing, future lighting of the fields, drainage, sight disturbance, etc. Jim Lamont indicated that he was involved with the original development of the school. The joke on the street is that you'll get a million dollars for every kid you get to show up at the meetings. The soccer field is too much for this site and doesn't fit the neighborhood. Jim feels the fence is a major issue with the compatibility of the neighborhood. Wants to see a creative play field, not a soccer field. 7 Approved 5114101 Galen Aasland indicated that the PEC will not be making a political decision, but a decision based on the criteria of Conditional Use Permits, . Saundra Spaeh asked if anyone has proposed to make this skier parking. Greg Barrie indicated that 40 parking on the field is not proposed for parking. Zack Indicated that he has traveled down valley on many occasions to use soccer fields. Byron is the Red Sandstone elementary gym teacher identified. He feels that an outdoor field is needed at this school, the gym can not be a substitute for an open field. He would like to see vegetation in place of a fence, and doesn't see a fence as a major issue. The field can be used for many uses, not just for soccer. This will be a limited use field with limited impacts on neighbors. Dawn Vascin teaches fourth grade and invited the PEC see how the dynamics of the playground work on a daily basis. Her students are very excited about having a turf field to play on. Vanessa Curry is a parent of Red Sandstone Elementary students expressed her support for the proposed fields_ Tony Iverson is a parent of Red Sandstone Elementary students. He hopes that the arguments he's heard aren't just based on real estate valuation. He expressed his support for the proposed fields. Doug Cahill stated that grass play fields are very important to schools. He stated that the concerns of the adjacent property owners can and should be addressed. Doug asked how much retaining can be down to move the fields closer to the school and what was the size of the closer field. Gregg Barrie described the retaining required to move the soccer field closer to the school and describe the smaller field as 70 ft. by 100ft. 0 Diane Golden stated that the field helps the viability of the schools and helps keep families in town. She asked if there is a gate at the path in the fence, and if the fence does not surround the field will children wander off. Gregg Barrie indicated that the fence is °L" shaped rather than the use of a gate. Karen indicated that their kids are supervised and will not wander off. Dick Cleveland wanted to know when students would be using the field for recreation and recess. He stated his concern about the aesthetics of the fence, noise from the field, and the use of retaining walls to move the field closer should be explored. Gregg Barrie stated that he is not opposed to wood fences, but chain link works better for supervising students. Brian Doyon stated that neighbor should not be oppose to grass fields for kids in their neighborhoods. He stated that it's a sad commentary that prisoners have more outdoor recreation opportunities than these students do. He would support increasing the field size even if more site disturbance is required. Chas Bernhart stated that he doesn't believe that this has a negative impact on the neighborhood. He is opposed to lighting and skier parking on the site. Not opposed to retaining on the site. Landscape screening in additions should be further examined. Galen Aasland stated that he agrees with the other commissioners. He stated that this is a good use on the site and that every kid in Vail should have an expectation to have a play area. Would like to see additional retaining on the site. ri Approved 5114101 The PEC directed Gregg Barrie to make the athletic fields larger with retaining walls and to move it closer to the school building. George Ruther stated that he wanted to clarify if the PEC would support more site disturbance to make the field larger. The PEC indicated that further site disturbance would be acceptable. Motion to table to May 14, 2001 by Chas Bernhart, Second by Brian Doyon. Vote in favor 6 -0. 6. A request for a final review of a conditional use permit, to allow for the construction of Phase I of Donovan Park improvements, generally located southeast of the intersection of Matterhorn Circle and the South Frontage Road. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: George Ruther TABLED TO MAY 14, 2009 7. An appeal of a determination by the Zoning Administrator that pursuant to Section 12 -7H -7 of the Vail Town Code the proposed improvements to the Marriott Hotel, by definition, do not constitute a major exterior alteration and as such do not require that the Planning & Environmental Commission review the application/ 715 W. Lionshead Circle /Lots C &D, Morcus Subdivision. Applicant: HMC Acquisition Properties, Inc., represented by Gwathmey, Pratt, Schultz Planner: Zoning Administrator Appellants. Vail Spa Condominium Association WITHDRAWN 8. A request for the review of a proposed text amendment to Chapter 11, Design Review, of the Zoning Regulations to allow for procedural changes to the performance bond process as prescribed in the Vail Town Code. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: George Ruther Diane Golden moved to table this item to May 14th. Brian Doyon seconded. TABLED TO MAY 14, 2001 9. A request for a worksession to discuss a new special development district, to allow for the redevelopment of the Vail Racquet Club, located at 4695 Vail Racquet Club Drive/Vail Racquet Club Condominiums, Bighorn 5" Addition. Applicant: Racquet Club Owners Association, represented by Fritzlen Pierce Architects. Planner: Brent Wilson TABLED UNTIL MAY 14, 2001 10. A request for a variance from Section 12 -7H -10 of the Vail Town Code, to allow for a proposed addition in the rear setback, located at 660 West Lionshead Place /Lot 1, Vail Lionshead 1't Filing. 18 Applicant: Lions Square Condo Association Planner: Bill Gibson TABLED UNTIL MAY 14, 2001 9 Approved 5/14/01 11. A final review of a request for a recommendation to the Town Council for a rezoning from Agriculture and Open Space to Primary/Secondary Residential and a Minor Subdivision to create two residential lots and a request for a recommendation to the Town Council for an amendment to the Vail Land Use Plan, changing the land use designation from Public /Semi- Public use to Low Density Residential, located at 3160 Booth Falls Road /Part of Lot 12, 40 Block 2, Vail Village 12`h Filing. Applicant: Boothfalls Homeowner's Association, represented by Braun Associates, Inc. Planner: Russell Forrest Nfr III d:II7:r,\1, ►r 0 l 12. Approval of April 9, 2001 minutes Chas moved to approve as amended. Brian seconded. APPROVED AS AMENDED 13. 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 10 so