HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-0514 PEC
TH15 ITEM MAY AFFECT YDUR PROPERTY
I'USLiC NOTECE
NO71CE f5 HEREBY GIVEN that fhe Planning and Enviranmental Commission ofi'the Ta}rvn of
~ Vail wilE hoid a public hearing in accordance with Section 12-3-6 of the Municipal Gode of tkae
Town af Vail an May 14, 2001, at 2:00 P.M. in the Tawn of Vail Municipai Buiiding. In '
- consideretion of:
A request for a conditional use perrnit, #o allow for an acidition to the Vail Vail'ey lllledical Cente
located at 181 West Meadow arive/Lots E & F, Vail Viliage 2"d Filing.
Applican#: Vai! Vailey Medical Center, represented by Braun Assvciates
Planner: George Ruther
A request for a variance frarri Title 14 (Developmen# Slanctards), Vail Town Gode, to aIlaw for
snow starage and parking within the public right-of-vvay, located at 2437 Garmisch Qrive ! Lot
12, BI9ck H, Vail das Schone 2"' Filing.
Applicant: William H. Mentlik, reprasented by John Martin, AIA
Planner: Ann Kjeruff
A request for a work session to discuss amending certain residential zone districts rn the Tawn
of Vail to allow horne day care facilitieS subject #a the issuance of a conditional use permit and a
horne accupation perrnit.
Applican#: Town of Vail
F'lanner: George Fiuther
A request for a var€ance frorn Section 12-6D-6 (Setbaclcs), Vail Town Code, ta alkow for the
~ consfruction of a garage within the required front setback, located at 1956 Gare Creek Dove I
Lot 45, Vail Village West Filing #2.
Appficant: David Inrvin
Planner: Ann Kjerulf
A request for a worksessiorr to discuss a new special development district, to allaw for the
redevelapment o# the Vail Racquet Club, lacated at 4695 Vail Racquet Club Drivel1/ail Racque# Club
Condcrminiurns, Bigharn 5th Additivn.
Applican#: Racquet Club Owners Assoeiation, represented by Fritzlen Pierce Architects.
Planner: Brent Wifson
A request for a final review of a proposed speciai development distric#, to allow for #he
cons#ruction of a new conference facifitylhotek; and a final review of a conditional use permit, to
ailow for Type 111 employee housing units and fractionai fee club units, Iocated at 13 Vail Roadl
Lots A, B, C; Block 2, Vail Village Filing 2.
Appl€cant: Doramar Hotels, represenfed by the Daymer Carporatian
Planner: '8rent Wilson
A request for a condi#ional use perrnit, to allow for #'he canstruction of a soccer feld, located
610 N. Frontage Rd. West/ A portian of Tract C, Vail Patato Patch. A full metes & bounds legal
description is available at the Department of Community Development_
~ Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: Aflisan aehs
~ *VAI&L
TVWN O1
A request for a final review af a conditianal use permit, to allow fior the construction of Phase i of
Donovan Park improvements, generaily located southeast of the intersection of Matterham
Circle and fhe South Frontage Road.
Applicant: Town of Vaul .
Planner: Genrge Ruther
A request for the review of a proposed teac# amendrnent to Chapter 11, Design Reuiew, of the
Zoning RegulatiQns #o a!lc,w for proceduraf changes to the performence bond praeess as
prescribed in the Vail Town Code.
Applicanf; Town of Vail
Planner: George Ruther
A request for a variance from Sectian 12-6D-10 4f the Tawn Cade, to allow for a reduction in the
landscaping and site developmen# requirements, located at 383 Beaver Dam RoadlLa# 3, 61ock
3, Vail Vlllage 3`d Fillng.
Applicant: A2Z Holdings„ LLC
Planner: Biil Gibson
A request for a minar subdivision and a varjance from Section 12-6D-5 of the Town Code to
allow far the resubdivision of La# 1, Strauss Subdivision, a resubdivision of Lofs 46 & 47, Vaii
Village West Filing No. 2, re-creating Lots 46 & 47, Iocated at 1916 & 1936 West Gore Creek
Crive.
Applicant: Pa# Dauphinais, representing Richard Strauss
Planner: Al[isan Ochs
The appGcations and infarmatian abvut the proposals are avaiiable far public inspection during reguiar ~
offiGe hours in the project planner's office, 1ocated at the Town of Vail Communifiy Deuelapment
Depar;ment, 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 inforrnation.
Sign language interpretation availabfe upon request with 24-hour natificatian, Please call 479-
2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information.
Community Development pepartment
Published April 27, 2001 irt the Vail Traii.
~
2
r
r
PLANNING ANd ENVIRONMENTAL CC?MiVIISSIpN
PUBLIC MEETTNG SCHEDULE
A~1as~~fo~N
~ Monday, May 14, 2001
PROJECT flRIENTATION 1- Cammunity Development Dept. PUE3LIC 1NELCQME 11:00 pm
MEMBERS PRESENT N1EM8ERS ABSENT
Site Visits : 12:30 prn
1. Vail PEaza Hotel West - 13 Vail Road
2. Vail Valley Medical Center- 1$1 West Meadaw Dri+re
3. Irwin residence - 1956 Gore Creek Dri+re
4. Strauss Subdivision - 1916 & 1936 West Gore Creek Drive S. Mentlik residence - 2437 Garrnisch Drive
6. Vail Racquet Club - 4695 I/ail Racquet Club Drive
ariver: George
NOTE: If the PEC trearitog extends unfil 5:0(} p.m., the board rnay break for dinner firom 6:00 - 6:30 p.m.
Pubfic Hearinq - Town Cvuncil Chambers 2:00 pm
~ 1. A request for a variance from Section 12-8D-10 of the Tawn Code, to allow for a reduc3ion in
the landscaping and site develaprnent requiretnents, loca#ed at 383 Beaver Dam Raad/Lot 3,
Black 3, Vail Village 3rd Filing. Applicant: A2Z Holdings, LLC
Planner: BiII Gibson
2. A request for a final review of a proposed speGial development ciistrict, tv ailow for the
constrEaction of a new canference facility/hotel; and a final review of a conditional use perrttit,
to allow for Type Ikl employee housing units and fractionaE fee club units, lacated at 13 Vail
Road/ Lots A. 8, C, Blocic 2, Vail Village Filing 2.
Appficant: Doramar Hotels, represented by the Daymer Carporatian
Planner: Brent V1lilson
3, A request for a conditional use perrriit, to allow for the canstruction of asaccer faeld, loca#ed
at 610 N. Frontage Rd. West/ A portion of Tract C, Vai! Patato Patch. A full metes & bounds
legal descripfion is available at the Department of Comrnunity Develapment.
Appticant: Town of Vail
Planner. Allison Ochs
4. A request far a fnal review af a conditionaf use permit, to allow for the eanstruction of Phase
Iof Danovan Parfc improvrments, generally loca#ed southeast af the in#ersection af
Matterhorn Circle and the Sou#h Frantage Road.
~ Applicant: Tawn of Vail
Planner: Gearge Ruther
~
~
l ~
Towx o~ var~
~
~
5. A reques# for a variance frnm Title 14 (Developrnen# Stanelards), Vail Town Code, to ailow
for snow storage and parking within the public right-of-way, 8oca#ed at 2437 Garmisch Drive 1
Lot 12: Block H, Vaii das Schane 2"d Filing.
Applicant: 'Nilliam H. Mentfik, represented by Jahn Martin, AIA ~
Planner: Ann Kjerulf
6. A request for a variance from Sectian 12-6D-6 (Setbacks), Vail Town Code, to aa[aw for the
canstructian of a garage within #he required front setback, Incated at 1956 Gore Creek Drive
1 Lot 45, Vail Village West Fiaing #2,
Applicant: David Irwin
Planner: Ann Kjerulf
7. Arequest for a minar subcfivision and a variance from Secfivn 12-6D-5 af the Town Code to
allow for the resubdiuisivn caf Lot 1, Strauss Subdivision, a resubdivision of Lats 46 & 47,
Vail Vpllage West Filing Na. 2, re-creating Lots 46 & 47, located at 1916 & 1935 West Gore
Creek Drave.
Applicant: Pat Dauphinais, representing Richard Strauss
Planroer: Allisan Ochs
8. A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for an addition to the Vail Valley Medicaf
Center, located at 181 West Meaciow DrivelLots E& F, Vail Village 2"`' Filing.
Applicant; Vail Vafley Medical Center, represented by Braun Associates
Planner: Ge6rge Ftuther
9. A requsst for a worksessian to discuss a new special development district, ta allow for t[he
redewelvpment of the Vail Racque# Club, Iocated at 4695 Vail Racquet Club Drive/Vail Racquet ~
Club Condominiums, Bighom 5 h additron.
A,ppfican#: Racquet Club Owners Assoeiation, represenfed by Fritzlen Pierc€ Architecfis.
PCanner: Brent Wilson
10. A request for a work session to discuss amending certain residentiaf zone dis#ricts in the
Town of Vaif #o ailaw home day care facilitiss subject to the issuance of a conditional use
permit and a hame accupation permi#.
Applicant; Town of Vail
Planner: George Ruther
11. A request for the review af a proposed text amendment to Chapter 11, aesign Review, of
the Zoning Regulatians #o allow for procedural changes to the perfarmance bond process as
prescribed in the Vapl Town Code.
Applicant: Tawn af Vail
Planner: George Ruther
12. A request for a variance from Sec#ion 12-7H-10 of the Vaii Town Code, to allaw for a praposed
addition in #he rear setback, located at 660 West Lianshead PlacelLot 1, Vail Lionshead 1~1
Filing.
Applicant. Lions Square Condo Assvciatian
Planner: BEiI GEbson ~
1JIJITHDRAWN
13. Approval of April 23, 2001 minutes
2
~
14. Information Update
~ The applications and infom•ration about the proposals are aWailable far pubdic inspection during
regular office hours in the project planner°s office lacated at #he Town of VaiE Commuraity
DevelQpment Department, 75 Sauth Frontage Road. Please call 479-2138 'Fnr information.
Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 haur notification. Please call 479-2356, Telephane for the
Hearing Impaired, for informa#ion.
Cammunity Qevebpment Qepartment
Published May 11, 2001 in the Vaii Trail.
~
~
3
. .
. PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISStON
PUSLlC MEETING RESULTS
~ Monday, May 14, 2001 ;
PRQJECT ORIENTATION Community Development Dept. PUBLCG WELCOME 11:30 am
i
MEMBERS PRESENT AIIEMBERS ABSENT ~
Diane Godden Bnan Doyon
John Schofield
Doug CahilE
Galen Aasland
aick Cleveland
I
I
Site Visits : 12:45 pm
1. Vail Plaza Hotel West -13 Vail Raad
2. Vaif Valley Meclical Center-181 Wes# Meadow Dnve
3. Strauss Subdivision - 1916 & 1936 West Gare Greek Drive
4. Ment(ik residence - 2437 Garmisch Qrive
5. Vail Racque# Ciub - 4695 Vail Racquet Club Driv'e
Driver: George
uc**3
• N4TE: If ths PEC hearing extends until 6:00 p.m., the baard may break for dinner from 6:00 - 6:30
p. M.
Public Hearinct - Town Council Ghambers 2:00 pm
1. A request for a variance from Section 12-6D-10 of the Town Cade, to allavv far a reduction in
the landscaping and site deuelopment Tequirernents, located at 383 Bearrer Dam RoadlLot 3,
Block 3, V211 Vlllage 3`d FIGng.
Applicant: A2Z Holdrngs, LLC
Planner: Bill Gifason
MOT10N: John SchafEeld SECONI7; Dick CIeVeEand VOTE: 6-0
APPROVED
2. A request for a final review of a proposed special deveiopmenf dis#rict, to allow for the
construction of a new conference facitity/hatel; and a final rewiew of a conditional use permit,
to allow for Type Ilf emplayee housing units and fractional fee club units, Iocated at 13 Vai1
Road! Lots A, B, G, Bloek 2, Vaii Village Filing 2.
Applicant: C7oramar Ho#els, represented by the Daymer Corporatian
Pianner: Brent Wifson
~
*LL
7i~WN
' .
SPECfAL pEVELDPMEN7 aISTRICT REQUEST
MOTlON: ,lohn Schafield SECQND: Chas Bernhardt VQTE: 5-1 (Cleueland opposed)
RECOMMENQAT[ON OF APPROVAL WITH CQNDITIONS: ~
1. That the developer submits the following plans to the Qepartment af Cammunity
DeveEapment for review and approval as a part of the building permit appficatian far
the hotel:
a. An Erosion Cantroi and Sedimentafion Plan;
b. A Gonstruction Staging and Phasing Plan;
c. A Stormwater Management Plan;
d. A Site Dewatering Plan;
e. A Traffic Control Plan;
f. A Spraddle Creek rou#ing and containment plan; and
g. An environmen#al audit including soiis and stream condi#ions (during excavatian)_
2_ That the developer pravides deed-restric#ed hdusing that corraplies with the Town o#
Vail Emplayee Housing requirements (Chapter 12-33) far a minimum of 28
emplayees, and that said deed-restric#ed housing be made avaiiabfe for occupancy,
and tha# the deed restrictions are recorded with the Eagle Coun#y Cferk & Recorder,
prior to requesting a Temparary Certificate of Occupancy for fhe Wail Plaza HoteE
West.
3. That the developer submits a final detailed landscape plan to the Community
Devefopment Department for Design Review Board review and approval prior to
making an application for a building permit. 7his plan will inwalve the removal of the ~
obsalete delivery bay asphalt for the Chateau Vail on the Nine Vai! Road property.
4. That the developer submEts a complete set af civil engineer drawings far all off-site
impravemenfs, including the imprpvements to the South Frontage Rc?ad and West
Meadow Drive for review and Town approval prior ta application for a buildeng permit.
5. That the developer submits a complete set of plans to the Colorado C]epartment afi
Transpartativn fvr review and approval of a revised access permit, pr'ror to
appiicatian for a bui{ding p+ermit.
6. That 3he developer meets wi#h the Town stafF to prepare a memorandum of
unclerstanding autlining the responsibilities and requirements of the required aff-site
improvemen#s, prior ta first reading of an ardinance appraving the special
development district. This includes streetscaping improvernents along South
Frontage Raad and West Meadow Drive in accardance with the 7'own of Vail
S#reetscape Master Plan, as amended.
7. That the developer records an easement for Spraddle Creelc. The easement shall be
prepared by #he developer and submitted for review and approval of #he Town
Attorryey. The easemen# shafl be recorded with the Eagle Caunty Clerk & Recorder's
Office prior to the issuance of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy.
8. That the developer subenits a final exteriar building materials list, a typical wall
sectian and compiete cvlar rendenngs for revierv and approval of the Design Rev7ew
Board, prior ta making an application far a building permit.
9. That the developer submits a cornprehensive sign program propasai for the Vaii ~
P1aza Hatel West for review and approval of ths Design Review Board, priar to the
issuance of a Temporary Certificate of dccupancy.
2
10. That the developer subrnits a roaftop rnechanicai equipment pPan for review and
approval af the Design Review Board prior to the issuance af a building permit. Afl
~ rooftop mechanical equipment shaif be incorporated into the overall design of the
hotel and enclosed and screened from public view.
11. That the developsr pasts a bond to provide financial security for the 150% of the total
cast af fhe required off-site public improvements. T'he bond shail be in place with the
Town prior ta the issuance of a building permit.
12. That the develvper eithee recei+res approval from the neighbaring owners
associa#ians to alEaw for canstruction activities on neighbonng properties or submits
a constrtietion stagirtg and lirnits af disturbance plan that indicates ail of these
activifies will occur on the applicant's proper#y.
13. That the deueloper ;provides access (via a permanent, legally binding easement
agreement) for the Nine Vail Raad Associa#ion and guests to enter the subject
property From Vail Road and exit across the subject property fram the lacation of PJine
Vail Raad's surface parfcing area to South Frantage Road. ThES is necessary to
facilitate the applicant's proposed traffic circulafion plan.
14. That the applicant submits civil drawings to determine compliance with all Town of
Vail engineering requirements prior to final Design Review Baard approval.
15. Pursuant to Section 12-7A-14, Tawn of Vaii Cade, the appEicant sfaall pay road
impact fees in an amoun# that is directly proportionate to the anticipated new road
impacts generated by this deveEopmen# ($5000 per peak haur trip end). ,A speeific
amount far road impacf fees will be declared (and adopted via a memorandurn of
~ understanding), based upon ihe anticipated new road impac#s outfined in fhe
appiicant's traffic study_ This dollar amount urri1l be put in escrow once abuilding
permit is issued. Any actual improvements constructed to the frantage raad will be
credited against the total. The escrawed dodlars will be helci far a periad af 30 years
fram tirne of permit issuance. If and when any sort of funding mechanisrn is put in
place (such as a special district which this development participates in) any d4ilars
generated from #he development will be affset by the amount owed_ If there is an
excess it vvill be refunded. Any shor#fail will be made up by the escrowed daldars.
16. That the applicant camplies with all fre department staging and access reqUirements
pursuant to Title 14 (Development Standards), Vail Town Code_ This wili be
demonstrated on a set of revised plans far town revieva and approval priar fo building '
permit submittal.
17. That the required Type iPl deed-restricfed emplcayee hou$ing units shali not be eGgible
for resale and tha# the units be owned and apera#ed by the hc,tel and that said
ownership transfer with the deed to the hatel property.
18. That the developer coardinates the relocatian of the exis#ing electric transfarmers on
the property with loeal utility providers. The revised foeatiori of the transformers will
be part of the final landscape plarr #o tae su6mitted for review and appraval by the
Oesign Review Board.
19. Priar to first reading of an ardinanee adop#irog a special development district for the
property, the develaper shall resalae the guest exi# drive alignment ta #he satisfactian
~ of the town engineer.
I
20. Within the parameters of the apprDVed building envelope, an additianal comman
employee storage area must be proaided.
3
21. An addi#ional six inches of height (per storey) may be added along #he South
Frnntage Road wing wi#hin Levels 4 and abvve.
CONDITlONAL USE PERIIAfT - FRACTfONAL FEE CLUB UNITS ~
MOTION: John Schofield SECOhll]: Chas Bernhardt VQTE: 6-0
APPROVED WITH ONE CONDITION:
1. The approval of #his conditional use perrnif is not vaiid unless an ordinance
approving the associated special development distric# request is appravect on
second reading.
CONDITIUNAL USE PERMIT - EMPLOYEE HOUSING UNITS
MOTION: John Schofeld SECOND: Chas Bernhardt V4TE: 6-0
APPROVED WfTH ONE CONDITION:
1. That the appiicant records applicable deed restrictions for all employee
housing units with the Eagle Gnunty C4erk & Recorder prior to the issuance of
a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for the Vail Plaza Hotei West.
3. A request for a final review of a conditional use permit, to allaw for the construction of Phase
I of Danovan Park imprvvements, generally located southeasf of the intersection of
Matterham Circle and the South Frontage Raad.
Ap{alican#: Town of Vail
Planner GeQrge Rufher
MC)TlON: Chas Bemhardt SECOND: Doug CahiU VOTE: 5-2 (5chafield & ~
Cfeve@and oppased)
ARPRQVED WITH ONE CONDITION:
I
1. That the height af the pavilion shaEl nat exceed 38.5 feet.
4. Arequest for a variance fram Tifle 14 (Development Standards), Vai! Tvwn Code, to allmw
far snaw storage and parking within the public right-of-avay, IQCated at 2437 Garmisch Drive J
Lot 12, Block H, Vail das Schone 2"d Filing.
,tlpplicant: Wipiam H. Mentlik, represented by John Martin, AIA
Planner: Ann K}erulf
VARIANCE - SNOW STC]RAGE IN YHE R1GHT-OF-WAY:
MOTION: Jahn Schafield SECUfVD: Daug Cahill VOTE: 6-0
. APPROVED WtTH ONE CONDITION:
1. That adequate screening be provided.
VAFtIAfUCE - PARKENG IN THE REGHT-0F-WAX:
MOTION: John Schofield SECOND: Doug Cahikf VOTE: 6-0
QENIED - DUE TO THE AVAILAB[LITY OF IGIRCHITECTURAL ALTERNA3IVES WHICH
1NOULD S4LVE THE PpRKING PROBLEM ~
4
5. A request far a minor subdiuisian and a variance from Sec#ian 12-60-5 of the Tawn Code to
allow for the resubdivision of Lot 1, Strauss Subdivision, a resubdivision of Lats 46 & 47,
Vaii Village West Filing Na. 2, re-creating Lots 46 & 47, located at 1916 & 1936 West Gore
~ Creek Drive_
Applicant: F'at Dauphinais, representing Richard Strauss
Pfanner: Allison Ochs
TABLED UNTfL JUhIE 11, 2001
fi. A reques# far a condi#ional usa permit, to allow far an addition to the Vail Valiey Medical
Center, loeated at 181 West Meadow Driue/Lots E& F, Vail Village 2"d Filing.
Applicant: Vail Valley Medical Genter, representsd by Braun Associates
Planner: George Ruther
MOTION: John Schofiefd SECC7ND: Doug Cahill VOTE: 5-1 (Bernhardt opposed)
APPROVED 1lV1TH THREE CONDITIONS:
1. That the applicant submits a final landscape plan and ex#erior lighting plan #a the
Community []evelopment Department far the review and apprnvai of the Qesign Review
Board prior to the request for a building permit.
2. That the applicant returns #o the Planning &Environmen#al Camm?ssion wi#h an
appiication for an amended conditioraal use permit addressing the proposed use of the
first flocar space prior requesting a buikding permit for a tenant finish of that space.
3_ That the conditional use permit will expire on 5131l03 if Phase 2 is not permitted and
~ under eans#ructian or a plan to address parking is not approved by the PEC, prior to that
date.
7. A request for a worksession to discuss a new special develapment disfrict, #o alfow for the
redevelopment of the Vail Raca~ue# Club, located at 4695 Vail Ftacquet Cluia DriWelVail Racqued
GEub Condorniniurns, Bighorn 5h Addition.
Applicant: Racquet Gfub 4wners Association, represented by Fritzlen Pierce Architects.
Rlanner: Brent Wilson
WQRK SESSION - NO VQTE
8. A request for a work sessian ta discuss amending certain residentiai zone districts in the
Town of Vail to allow home day care facilities subjec# to the issuance of a cantlitionai use
permit aetd a home occupatian permit.
Applicant; Town of Uail
Planner: George Ruther
WORK SESSfON - NO'VOTE
9. A request for the review of a praposed text amendment ta Chapter 11, aesign Review, of
the Zoning Regulatians ta allow for procedut'al changes to the perfarmance band process as
prescribed in the Vail Town Code.
Applicant: Town of Vail
~ Pianner: George Ruther
TABLED UNTIL JUNE 11, 2001
5
?
10. A request for a canditional use permit, to allow far the constructian of a soccer field, located
at 610 N. Fran#age Rd. iNestf A portion of Tract C, Vail P'otato Pateh. A fuil metes & bounds
legal description is available at tha Department of Community Development. ~
Applicant: TQwn of Vail
Pfanner: ,4lfison c]chs
TABLED TO JUNE 11, 2001
11. A reyuest for a variance from Section 12-6D-6 {Setbacks}, Vail Town Cade, to allow far the
canstructian of a garage wi#hin the required Frant setbaek, located at 1956 Gore Creek Drive ~
f Lcrt 45, Vail Vildage Wes# Filing #2.
Applicant: Qavid Irwin
Planner. Ann Kjerulf
7ABLED TO JUNE 11, 2001
12. A request for a variance from Section 12-71-1-10 of fihe Vail Town Code, #o aflow far a proposed
additian in the rear setback, located at 660 U11est Lionshead PIacelLot 1, Vaii L.ionshead 1st
Filing.
Applicani: Livns Square Condo Association
Planner; Bil! Gibson VIlITHDFtAWN
13. Approval of Aprii 23, 2001 minutes ~
14. Information ltpdate
The applications ancf infarmatiQn ab4ut the proposafs are available for public inspectran during ~
regular office hours in the project plannees office located at #he Town of Vai! Comrr3unity
development aepartment, 75 Sou#h Frantage Road. Please call 479-2138 for information. ~
Sign language interpretation availabke upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479-2356,
Telephane for the Hearing fmpaired, for information.
Community Qevelopment mepartment
I I
~
I
6
Planning and Environmental Commission
~ *1""AIL ACTIaN FaI~M
Depar#ment of Comrn~snity i~eueloprrient
To ~~f 75 South Frontsge Road, Vail, ColQeado 81657
te1:970.479.2139 fax:970.479.2452
web: www.ci.vaii,co.us
Project Name: Conditional Use Permit PEC Number: PECQ10030
Praject Descrip#ion:
Vail Valley Medical Center Additian
Participants:
QWNER VAIL CLINIC IIVC 04/16/2001 Phone:
181 W MEAD0IN DR
VAIL CO
81657
License:
APPLICANT Daminic MaurfeNo 04/16J2001 Phane: 926-7575
Braun Assaciates
Pa 2658
Edwards, Co 81632
License:
Froject Address: 1$1 IN MEADOWV DR VAIL Lacation:
~ Legal Description: Lot; E&F Black: Subdivision: V'AIL UILLAGE FILING 2
Pareel Number: 210107101013
Camments: See Canditions !
I
BOARD/SfiAFF ACTION
Motion By: Bernhardt Action: APPROVED
Second By: Schofietd
Vate: 6-0 Date of Approval; 05J14/2001
Canditions:
Cond: 8
(PLAN): Na changes to these plans may be made wrthaut the written consent of Town of
Vail stafF andJor the appropriate review committee(s). 0
Cond: CON0004812
That the conditional u$e permit for Phase 1 expires on May 31, 2003 and that if ;
Phase 2 is not approved and permitted for construcfion by that date, that the
hospital vwill ;pravide additional parkcng for Fhase 1, as determiRed by the Planning
and EnvEronmentaB Commission
Cond: CON0004813 '
~ Tttat the applicanC submits a final landscape plan and exterior lighting plan ta the
Community Develaprnent Department for the review and approval of the Design Review
Board priar to the request for a building permit.
That the applicant returns to the Planning & Envircanmental Cornmission with an
application for an amended conditfanal use permit addressing the proposed use of the
Planning and Environmental Commission
F .
ACTION FiDRM
~ Department of Comrrzunity Developra'oent
1 VW ? oI 75 South Frontage Etoad, Vail, CAlarado 81657
te1:970.479.2139 fax:970.479.2452
web: www.ci.vaii.eo.us
Project Name: Mentlik Variance Request PEC Number: PECO10032
Project Descriptian:
Request for variance from Title 14 to allow for snow storage in the right-of-way.
Pat#icipants:
OWNER WIL'LIAM L. MENTLIK 04/17J2001 Phpne: 9{)8-518-6305
600 5auth Avenue W'est
VWeslfeld,NJ
07090
License:
APPLICAiVT :IOHlV G. MAltTIN AL4 ()4/17f2001 Phone: 477-2476
Pd Box 621
Vail, CO
81658
License:
Praject Address: 2437 GARMISH DR VAIL Locatione
i t.egal Description. Lot: 12 Block. H Subdivision: VAIL DAS SCHONE FIL 2
Parcel Number: 210311413008
Commen#s:
BOARD/aTAFF ACTION
Motion By: Jahn Schofield Actiart: APPftOA/ED
Second By: Doug Cahill
Vote: 6-0 Date of Approval: 05f 17/2001
Conditions:
Cond: CONO(l(}4732
That adequate screening be pravided.
Planner: Ann Kjerulf PEC Fee Paid; $250.00
~
MEMQRQNDUM
~
TO: Planning and Enuironmental Gommission
FRf?M: Cammunity C1evelopment DepaRment
DATE: April 23, 2001
SUBJECT: A request for a variance from Section 12-6D-10 of ihe Vail Town Code, to ailow for a
reduction bn the landscaping and site ctevelopment requirernents, located at 383 Beaver
Dam RoactlLot 3, Blocic 3, Vail Village 3rd Filing.
Applicant: A2Z Haldings, LLC represented by Fritzlen Pierce Architects
Planner: Bill Gibsan
i. SAGKGROUND AND DESCRIPTiON (7F THE REQUEST
On March 6, 1990 the owner of 383 Beaver Dam Road, John L. Tyler, granted the Town of Vaii a
perpetual excsusive easement and right-vf-way agreement across a portian ai his property far Beaver
C3am Circle. A capy of the agreement has been attached fior re#erence. Tt?e perpetual exclusive
easemen4 and right-af-way agreement allowed for the ".,.construction, maintenance, repair,
reconstructian of a road right-of-way [Beaver Dam Circle] for the use by the Graniee and the ger?eral
public." The Tawn o# Vail's acceptance of this easement constituted an agreement and consent to five
items. The 51" item of the agreement reads as follows:
~ "1t is understoad by the parties that the square footage loeated uvithin the easement may be
vsed by the Grantar for the calcuiation of gross residentaal f1oor area."
The applieants, A2Z Holdings, LLC, represented by Fritzlen Pierce Architects, are proposing to
constn,,ct a new single family residence and Type II Employee Hausing Unit at 383 Beaver Dam Road.
The P€anning and Enviroamental Ccammissiors appraved a Conditionaf Use Permit for the proposed EHU
at their February 12, 2401 rneefing.
During the Design Review pracess, staff determined that the Beaver Dam Circle easement area is
consEdered part of the total Iot size fnr this site, +n accordance with the 1940 easernent agreement.
Since the BeaWer Darn Circfe easement area is considered part of the total lot size, this area has an
ef#ect on other dewelopment standards that are determineci by lot size (i.e. la:ndseaping). Since the
easement agreement referred specifically ta GRFA and no other deaelopment stancfards, staff
deterrnined kha# a variance wouid be required for any deviatian frqm other development standards.
The applicant's propQSa9 for a new single #amily residence and Type II EHU meets the requirements of
the Town Code with the exception of the landscaping requirements of Sectian 12.6D.10
(LANDSCAPlNG ANQ S1TE DEVELQPMENT), of the Town of Vail Municipal Code.
Landscaping requirements far Iots in the Two-Family PrimaryfSec4ndary Residential Zone District are
regulated by Section 12.6D.10 (LANQSCAPING AND SlTE DEVELOPMENT), of the 7awn of Vail
Municipal Code. Acearding to Section 12.6D.10 of the Munecipal Cade,
"A:t least sixty percent of each site shalf be landseapecl. The minimum of any area quaiifying as
fandscaping shall be ten feet (10') (width and length) with a minimum area not iess than three
is hundred (300) square fee#."
1 *YAa
T019N O
e
The applieant belieues that the Beaver Dam Circie easemerat area restricts their ability ta fully comply ~
with the landscaping requirements of tkre Two-Family Prirnary/Secondary ResideniiaE Zone Disirict. The
design RevFew Board approved the proposed ne+nr single family residenee and Type 11 Emplayee
Housing tJnit at 383 Beaver Darn Raad at iheir March 21, 2001 meeting with a condi#ion that their
appraval was contingent upan the applicant receiving approval of a landscaping variance by the
Planning and Environmental Commissian.
The applicants' representative has expressed the reasaning for this variance reguest as follows:
"We are requesting that the landscaping requirements for this site be rerfuced to 40% due to the
TOV Right-of-Way Easement for Beaver Dam Circle Road. 7he proposed areas of 'Hardscape'
total 40% of vur site area. This outlines thaT if the 'fOV did not have a road crossing the
property, the praject wouEd meet the required 60°/a iandscape area requiremeni.
Addi#ionally, the project ds under on site coverage and GRFA. The TOV RQW hampers the
development potential af this properry if a variance is not granted."
A copy of the applicant's fetker da4ed April 15, 2001, and a eapy of the proposed site plan-landscape
area have been attached for reference.
II. ZQNING AND SITE STATISTICS
Zoning District: Two-Famiiy PrimarylSecandary Residential District
Lot Size: 15,950 sq. ft. (0.3662 acres)
S#andard AllouvedlReQUired Proposed Remaininq
GRFA: 5,195 sq.tt, (w/EHl.1) 5,1$2 sq. ft. 13 Sq.ft. ~
Site Cowerage 3,190 sq.ft. (20°l0) 3,(}44 sq. ft. (19°/m) 146 sq.ft.
l7rivew2y Coverage 3,190 sq.ft. (20%) 1,982 sq.ft. (t 2°!0) 1,208.sq.ft_
Landscaping 9,570 sq.ft. {80°k} 8,576 sq. ft. (54%) -944 sy.ft. (-6°10)
Soft-scape 7,656 Sq_f[. (80%) 7,255 5q.ft. (76%)
Hard-scape 1,914 sq.ft. {24%} 1,321 sq.ft. (14°/n)
TOV Easement 2,861 sq.ft (18%)
~
Setbacks
Front 24 ft. 20 ft.
Side 15 ft. 51,5 ft. / 38 ft.
Rear 15 ft. 27.5 ft.
Parking (w/EHlJ) 5 spaces 4 enclosed 1 1 surface
~
~
Iu. srAFF REcoMMEMOazroN
~ 7he Commun4ty Deveiapment bepartment staff recommends approval of the appdicant's varianee
request far a reductian in the landscaping and site deveiapment reguirements subjec# to the fallowing
findings:
1. 1"hat the granting of this varianee reducing the landscaping and site devefopment
requirements wiil nat constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the
limitations on ather properties classified in the Two-Farnily Primary/Secandary
Residen#ial Zone District.
2, 7hat there are exceptions ar extraordinary eircumstances or canditions app9icable t4
this sile that cfo not app[y generally ta Qther properties in ttte Two-Family
PrimarylSecandary Residential Zone District.
3. That the stricf inierpretation or enforcement of the specified regulatiQn deprNes the
appkicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of aiher prQperties in the 7wo-Family
Primary/Secandary Residential Zone District.
IV. CRITERIA ANO FINDfNGS
A. Cansideration of Factors:
~ 1. 7he reiaiionship of the requested variance to other ex`rsting or potential uses and
struc#ures in the vicinity.
~ Due ta the location of the Beaver Dam Circfe easemeni, s#aff believes the landscaping
variance request allows this development to be compatibie with and comparable to ihe
surrounding development in ihe area. Af#hough the easement agreement refers
spec'sficalEy to GRFA, staff believes that the intent of this item was to ensure that the
astablishment of the easertZent and righ4-of-way agreement for Beaver Dam Circle did
ndt limit the developmeni potentiai of 383 Beaver Dam Circle.
2. The clegree to which relief fram the strict and literal interpretation and
enforcement of a specified regulatican is necessary to ach;ievs cornpatibility and
unif+armity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain #he objectiues of
#his title without grant of special privilege.
Staff believes that it is necessary to receive relief from #he landscaping and site
developmen# regufation to achieve compatibility and uniformity of ireatrraent of the
applfcant's fot and the ather lots in the uicinity, and to atTain the objectiwes of the Zoning
Code. Staff does rrot beiieve that ihe granting of #he requested landscaping and site
development variance wil' be a grant of speeial privilege as it wiil not result in treatment
not enjoyed by other praperty owners in the area, and in the Two-Family
PrimarylSecondary Zone District in general.
1 The effect of the requested variance an light and air, distributian of population,
transpartation and traffic facilities, pubiic faGiiities and tatilities, and public safe#y.
Staff belieues #his request will not have a significant ef#ect on any of the abowe-
described criteria.
~
~
` i
~
B. The Planninp and Enwironmental Commissian shall maice the followinq findinps be#ore carantinc~
a variance:
1. That the granting af the variance will not eonstitute a grant of speciai pr"rvilege
incansistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district.
2. Thai the granting of the variance wif] not be detrimental ta 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 foilowing reasons:
a. The strict li#eral interpretatian or enfarcement of the specified reguiation would
result in practicai difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship incorasistent with
the objectives of this #itle.
b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or canditions applicable to
the site of the varFance that da not apply generally to other properties in the
same zone.
c. The strie# in#erpretaT9on or enforcemeni of the specified regukation wroufd
deprive the appiicant af privileges enjoyed by the owners of ather properties in
the sarne district. I
~
~ •
~
4
FRITZLEN
~ aprii 19, 2001 PI E R C E
Bill Gibson
Tt7V Community Devel4pment
75 South Fr-ontage Road
Vaif,CO 81657 A R C H I T E C T S
RE: 383 Beaver Dam Raad
PEC Application for Landscaping Variance
D@ar Bill:
As per Qur discussions, attaehed is a PEC appiication for a Landscaping Variance.
Lot 383 (W'est Lot)
Site area 15,950 sq ft
~ TOV Required Area of Larrdscaping 9,570 sq ft (60%o)
Landscaping Area Proposed 8,576 sq ft(54%)
7,255 softscape - ~
1,321 decks, stairs etc I
I
TOV ROW Easement 2,861 sq ft(18%) ~
for Beaver Dam Circle.
Building Footprint 2,567 sq ft (16%)
Driweway Paving 1,946 sq ft(12%)
We are requesting that the kandscaping requirements for this site be reduced to 40% due to
the TDV Right-(Jf-Way Easement for Beaver Dam Circle Road. The propased areas of
"Hardscape" total 4(}/0 of our site area. This outlines that if the TQV did not have a road
crassing the property, the praject wauld meet the required 60% landscape area
requirement.
Additionally, the project is under on site coverage and GRFA. TFre TOV RD1N hampers the
deweiopment potential of this property if a variance is not granted, 115ERVERVvIIAINSh°IARE10Q48 - BEAI/ERDAfvlRESiDENCEIPRC7)ECTCC7RRE5i'C7NpENCE1TOVIPECLANDSCAFE041901.C7C7C
PA.GE 1 of 3
Planning • Architecture 0 Interiars
1650 East Vail Valley Drive Fallridge C-1 9 Vail, CO 81657 • vailarchitects.cam 9 fax (97(7} 476-4901 •(97Q) 476-6342
FRITZLEN
P I E R C E ~
Relatianship to ather existing or potentiai uses an the Vicinity
The entire Beaver Uam Circle community benefits fram the RC3W
crassing the project property. Additionally, there is approximately 7$5
sq ftof landscaping that is technical6y on TOV land, but maintain by
the Lot 3 owner.
ARGH ITE!CTS
Degree of Retief
Without alandscaping varianee, the property would be very difficult to deuelap. The owner
would not be allawed to maximum the site covefage andlor GRFA that all property owners
in this zorring are allowed. Add€ticanaley, the RC]W agreement states that the ROW can not
limit future deveiapment af the site. Not gramting sorne form of variance r+voulcf be in
conflict with the ROW agreemerot.
Speciai Privilege
If anything, this property wil) be penapized if a landscaping variance is not granted. Again
developrnent potential avould be eiramaticalfy fower than alE +other properties with this
zaning.
Please eaal w'rth any questions or comments. Thanks, ~
Sincerely,
Stephanie Lord-}ohnsan
Arch itect
I
I
I
I
\15ERVER1MAllVSHARE10048 - BE?iVERDAMRESiDENCE1,PROJECTCC7RRESPONDENCE1TdV1,PECLANDSCAi'E041901.QOC ~
?AGEZof3
I
Planning • Architecture • Cnteriors I
1650 East Vail Valley Drive Fallridge C-1 9 Vai9, CU 81657 0 vailarchitects.com s fax (970) 476-4901 •(970) 476-6342
oc+w~e~vam~s~ ~ e
~Mto cw ranr~ wa 7 m~ Y ~ c aRY
~ ~•l,~'~~~ 31.15 - S33N30lS3b 1^1'b°a 213Ad3 8
.
, .
;
~
• ~ r ti ~
~j Y ~ rl y j ~ <
;
r ~
~
t
. ~
,
i
j f.
I
i
.
~
. /
r ~ .
`4 ~'lJ4HN L. TYUAPCWN OF Vl4Si. 001T
.
' ~EA5 NT
KKtiM ALL MEH bY Cheie presentit: ~ .
.ipHh 't, TYLEA'("Grantar"), for ten dalI ars ($10.00) and ot.her good tpd valuaala I ~
. consldoratlon , Glre r'tcr9pt of xhtch is horcby arknawlcd4ad, itas ylwanted, hargainEd,
u~ sold, xn4 canvuyod, and by these presenta rJoea grant, baryain , ~ol1, ind cvnvoy, apd
, Confirm untv the 7CWH AF VAlL, r Golorado ~c~anlcipal earparation tr'Gr,ntee") tha
~ follorrinq 1nLeruit in real_ properCy situnte 1n the Caunty of ta$Je, StaEa of Co1orado: , . b
!4 perpetual fxcluqtva- eASement and rfgtat-oi-wag vn that pvrtian of the Grantorin
~
property Hhich is aikt farth and dsslgnatad ats Ex1iibit A attached hareta ?or the
canstructitir?, malntenarsce, ropair, rQCOnstruct{ors os' a rvad right-of-way for the use
~ af Grantee and the generet pub]ic. Rceeptanee of kktts nasameent by the Grantee zhal]
con4titute its eqreament #nd-consanL xz fallaws: i
M i. At ¦uclt L1nn, grtd in thu ovent tltaC the 41MI+VM9l:t irc rbandonvd ar nv 7onoar uRed the Grankee, tt?an Grar,trals,lnteresE tn the aasement shat1 1nrmedSste7y I
' r~aao'~' hr~,y to and be therea'ftar merVed w1tJi the serviant natali of tha CrNntor. ~
~a
2. GranGRe sh2t11 lnefernnify and haZd the nrentor harmt+na from anx iRd af1 Ik
cle9ma far damayra ta reAl and pQrsonal property, and Snfuriax ar death auPferedby
~ pers4ns 1n amy mAnnar growlng out ar tha Cf1118LTLGt'I411, maintenancv, weeonatructidrh,
rtpalr', ar G8# Of z publie raadway within sa1d easoment, un]ess such damages,
1n~uries, or death ara caused by the nepljponre oT tl+t 6rantor. 5uch A ~
i n d a m n i f l c a k i o n s hal l i ri C 1 4 1 d t ' k h a c d st ofi d e fe nd i n g sald claim3 lnctudln Q, bttt lat ~
ru ~ 1lmited to, reasanetrle atLd1'neye ?4ls.
.
3_ Grantes shail it a77 times maintiiin the pubtic rvedway lutatad bn the
~ u aAxement 1n qood ordRr and rapsir. Siid rnaOway shall bo construstod of ApE chii]3
~ br ma1ntiiinbd af aephalt material. `
~ a. arar'stio sha17 obtafra ]iabi3ity insur=nco, which tnx1l lnaura apalnvt claias
n?wds fior dem~Q~a rasu}ting in desth, in}ury. 8r damages tv reat ar ~pePdana]
prgperEy, rtau}tirig from the construtticn or mi,lrstenanse or uais by th* Grentee af
v+ a the pub7lc rcadway with 1lmtts vf not lrss than cne mitilion dallar9 (31,400,000).
6. It is undorstaed by the parties that the squArs footaqe locsted wi~htn t~so ~
Lar semOat may bo usea by the Grantor far the Calcutttlon ot ppol` rrlid¦ni~iet ilacr
aa .
~ 1N WITNESS 1?kEREOF, 6r tar fras c`used thaan prasant5 to be luly executed an th4s
day of ~t~rt"' , 1994. .
a
. TQWM DF IfAII., a Calorikdo rt,unicipal
cortiffn tiolt, Grantee
. ~
BY:
~ anial V. ' pa ,
n, y r, rr r
P ~ I
i
Zfld C00 SiolilEH321b''ef~l.~b'MN~!?~N~/~3~d ~ZGb~?Lti ;OE•~ E~s01, zo-e'J-b6si
~
.
exAxE ax cot,oKwa )
cauNrY or r,AGLt z '
Tha Lcxa;oin= 3nrtrument .rar •Gknowledg+d bAtara +aa Wole ~?++y eff
J!^W 1990 bY_...~~~~ U'. ow~ - for elio 4owu of Va11.
1iIiN,zi8 aryb}ud •nd 4£fiOtRl eeal.
, Hotsr~r u lic ~
Pemela A. SrihdmWer, Natrry PupIIC !
lwY GummkislOn ex0irec Aui, 3, 1912 • €
Addt' a~e s~~~G'1?1
!
i
. ' lSTATE ' 01, CCiARM ) - ~
) aa. ~
' COU?ITY OF LAGLffi j . T1'tt :oregol.ng instrtua¢ne xas iakn4++7,+dRad bafvse me thia~~ day of
- `I-
. ;~'r ~~~,~.v,- - , , ~lI,'!'fiLSl~.,,:r tiRnd ~nd ofR$ria7. srrai !
~ Miy coaaqiaxi'aa expireaa C_.
utaxy . ub i.c
A~i~a~n~
~r
d~
~
4~i 1~9E1 ~~L'~+i P-915 4~vtc^,1l9Qf 1d:14:~ F'l3 ti{7i= ? ,
* v~4a.r~ ww...~wrr .u .a. .n~....... ur. wMn.r ...v......+~ r..~~....+~ errwer f ,
1
£o~ t°JO sl,~~lIH~~J~a~.L~~+f1N3hhN~~~3~d ~~54 ?Lt~ EuE trZ~O[ t~-zn--b~5t
~
~wsi vi t,ii 1l~v eL•vVV "+IJ G~r.,l4 I I.~L1 tJl =Y .lJ ItiV.wV~n i.•?W
•
. 1 f
, k7tlolAiT A ~ .
I
, . , A?
rc~~.Cr" . ra~ .
• ° LOT 4
I * ~ ~ !
r~~~ ' vrnarr c?saaUlr~+'' ~ i
r LOT 2
. K ' f~ _ •
LPT 3 , I
~ ~ .ors 5er~, ~aoa` •
~ "•.,lr~_ ' ~ ~COC 9? AlIHALT i
N ' I
~ ~ i
~ S 91~09G4'll' ~ 1a~71i
~ . ' . . .
~ , ~ .
rlAi~Y Drst~3PTi0N'- . . . . . • ; .
' om t ~wt at LoC !r , tlpolt' L. Yail Vlllaqe ftko tizinp atfordit?f ta !ha eep
, L•IioRopi :.~rdnd tn khe wttiae +:t E!i• Mr1• Osunly. caLsrsder cpi?ah wA
a,norGv:. dC~tilZltW~1 ~LS~LLLPM~i , ;
~
, , g~?Anniilq 4L - yvl+iR: ..oa •6tr~ waskoriy , 1Ln¦ o,t , MiA Tret 7 wh-r
!1o mikhMertorlr wrner :at ¦aid 1.0t S bauo 673,0010085 27,18 sssEj e4Nnaer
alnny saAA i+,mrterly Npjr06i4G•M 74.d{I lgstp drwsi.i,nf. ewAi,
xae.rly Yinr, 67p40~4iNf' U,66 xNCt, hlunes 093`34117+1 IZ,34 lost ta tir
pYtkurig ltns o[ rMiA Siot. 7). eh"n. alag sal.d r8ut?eely ilnfe 867904100`0
07,,o e..eo tn.Kn.,.a•p.reihq ..so WUt1MKSr llwt. V19•41141*w +i.as A..z u?'
' th~' ~oLqk ef 1»~Ln.~in~. ami~f~nLny~o~6i iawr~ r~rE~ ~ae~ l~s~_
• rnl lmoeknqe fn 4he 1"aX GnoeiD!l+smt alxni are buid on Lho rrp4rtbk ain• ot
~add Let 9 li~ip4 M!7'00'00"M SiN dC1~K?nq}." .
, . - lLAC1.L Yll1.i.6T 9901019iLMO - ~ .
+ , « . • . . ' .
h+7d 1Df) 5.LDRIHD~JH 2131-11iP1N3DNki_I1133d E1.5t 9Lb E:rE b2z Qi L0-90-t65t •
+
~
MEMORANDUM
• T4: Planning and EnvirQnmental C4mmission
FROM: Department of Community Develapment
DATE: May 14, 2001
SUBJECT: A request far a final review and recommendation of a propased s,pecial
develapmerat district (SDa) ta aliaw for the cans#ruction of a new conference
hatel; and a final review of canditRanal use permits to allaw for the construetivn of
a fractional fee club and Type II I employee hausing units at 13 Vail Road 1 Lots A,
B, C, Block 2, Vail Village Filing 2.
App9icant: Daramar Hotels, represented by the Daymer Corporatian
Planner: Brent Wilsan
1. INTRQDUGTION AND DESCRIPTI4hl OF THE REQUEST -
Special Development District Repuest
This proposal is a revision to the applscanYs original SDD proposafs following the
Planning and Enviranmental Corvimission's (PEC) direction regarding a number af issues
involving builcfing heighi, rnassing, laading/delivery, affi-street parking, ernployee hausing
prowisions and traific circulation. 7he applicant is proposing the Vail Plaza Hotel West
Special Developrnent District (SDD) where the Chateau at Vail is currenily located. The
current (and proposecl underlying) zoning for the property as "Public Accommadation."
The Vaif Plaza Hatel West is a mixed-use development proposal. Uses within the hotel
include residential, commereial anci recreation. The proposed plan includes 116 hotel
raoms (395 s.f. each), 15 condaminiums, 40 fractional fee units, 14 emplayee housing
units„ a restauran# and bar, limited retail space, 21,000 square feet of conference and
meeting space, and a spalhealth club. 7he ex'ssiing "Chateau at Vail" hotel contains 120
hotel rooms at 280 square feet each.
The applicant and staff have identified what are beiieved #o be the public benefits #ha#
would be realized by the Town as a result vf the Vail Plaza Ho#eI West redeveloprnent.
The public benefits associated with the hotel proposal are:
¦ An increase in the annual occupancy rate through the redevelopment of an ol€fer
existing hotel.
¦ The creatian of approximately 21,000 square feet of new conference and meeting
room facilities. This includes a 10,400 square foot ballroom and 11,000 sguare feet
of breakoutfpreconvene space.
~ *VAIL
~WN 1
I
¦ The implementation of a porlion af the recommended Town of Vail Streetscape ~
Mas#e.r Plan irropravements along South Frontage Road and West h+leadaw Drive.
¦ The re-investment and redevelopment of resort property in the Tawn of VaEI.
¦ The implementation of many of the development goals, objectives and poiicies
adopted iay the Tawn for Public Accomrnadation properties.
¦ An increase to the Town's supply af short-term, overnighf accommoda#ians (hatel
rooms and fractional fee units) to serve aur guests and visitors,
¦ The canstruction o# an "anchar" hotel providing a high-level af guest services and
amenities.
¦ A potentially sizeabfe annual cvntribution to the Tovvn's sales tax revenue.
• The creation of new deed-restricted employee housing to offset the housEng impacts
associated with the hotel.
¦ The removal of existing loading/delivery and guest #raffic fram West Meadaw Drive.
A sauare footacae breakdawn of the proposal is rarovided belQw:
• 60,649 sq, ft. - fractional fee club units
• 45,381 sq. ft. - condorniniums ~
¦ 45,666 sq. ft. - accommodation units
¦ 2,835 sq. ft. - restauranUretail
¦ 20,824 sq. ft. - conference/meeting rooms
¦ 13,836 sq. ft. - spa/Ftealth club
In reviewing the praposal, staff identified a nurnber of pros and cans that we believe are
associated with the hatel praposal. The lis# includes, but is not limited to, the follouving:
P FtOS
¦ fihe presence of economic redevelopment in Vail.
• An increased level af quality to the Tawn's of hotel bed base.
• The implementation of certain development gaals, objectives, and policies.
¦ The creation of new deed-restricted employee housing to offsei the housing impacts
associated with the hotel.
• The elimination of an unsig'htEy surface parking lot.
• The Ganstruction of new conference and meeting raom facilities within the Torrrn.
¦ The construction of pubfic improvements funded with private doilars. ~
• The potential increase in sales tax revenue (ecanamic develapment).
2
¦ The removal of existing loading/defive ry ancf guest traffic from UVest Meadow Drive.
~ CONS
• Deviatians from the underlying zaning develaprnent standard5 are required.
• There are increased impacts af shading on public areas.
•Additianal views of Vail Mountain from pubfic areas will be impacted.
• Additianal 14adingldelivery truck traffic on Town streets.
• A significant period of building construction (naise, construction traffic, etc) and the
ar+ticipated impacts to public streets and adjacent properties.
Conditional Use Permit Requests
In association with the application fior a speciaf development district, the applicant is
requesting conditional use permrts to allow for the establishment of a 40 fractional #ee
unit club and the corrstruction af 14 Type lil employee housing units. Because the
development plan has changed significantly for the previously approved (2l'12101)
fractional fee units, an additianal PEC rev9ew is necessary. Please refer ta Sections VIII
& IX of this memorandum far a detailed reaiew of these requests.
STAFF RECQMMEMQATIONS
S ecial Develo ment Distriet
The Community Develapment Department recomrraends that the Planning and
Environmental Cammission recommend appraval (to the Vail Town Councii) of the
applicant's request far aproposed special developrnent district to allaw for the
cQnstruc#ion of a new conference facility/hotel, based upan the fallowing finding:
That the proposed special development d+strict, the Vail Plaza Hofel IN'est,
complaes wrth the nine d'esign criteria outfined in Sectiorr 12-9A-8 of the Vai! Tvwn
Code. The applicant has demonstrated that any adverse effects of the requested
deviatrons from the development siandards of the underlying zoning are
outweighed by the pubfic benefris provided.
Shauld the Plannir?g & Environmental Commission choose to recommend approva{ vf
the requested special devel+opment district to the Vail Town Gouncil, staff would
recommend that the Commission make the foIlowing finding:
That the praposed special devefopmen# districf, Var! Plaza Hotel West, complres
wr'th the nine design crrteria outlined in Sectian 12-9A-8 0# the To?yn of Vail
Municipal Cade. 7he aRplicanf has demonstrated to the satisfaction of the
Commissian that any adverse effecis af the requesied deviatians from the
developmeni standards of the underlying zoning are outweighed by the public
benefits provided. FUrther, the Commissian finds that the reques#ed condiliona!
~ use permits to aflow for the operativn of a fractivnal fee club and the corrstruciion
of Type IlI emp{ayee housing unifs carrrpfy with the applicable criteria and are
consistent witfr the developmenf goals and objectives ot the Tawn.
3
Shauld the Pianning & Environmental Camrnissian choose to recommend approval of ~
the applicant's request, staff recammends that the approval carry with it the fallawing
canditions:
1. TFiat the develaper submits the following plans to the Department of Community
Development for review and approval as a part of the building perrriit application
for the hotel:
a. An Erosion Gontrol and Sedimenta#ion Plan;
b. A Canstruction Staging and Phasing Plan;
c. A S#armwater Management Plan;
d. A Site Dewatering Plan; and
e. A Traffic Control Plan.
2. That the develaper provides deed-resiricted housing that complies with the Town
of Vail Employec Housing requirements (Chapter 12-13) for a minimum of 28
employees, and that said deed-restricfed housing be rnade available for
accupancy, and that the deed restrictions are recorded with the Eagle County
Clerk & Recarder, prior to requesting a Temporary Certificate a# C}ccupancy for
the Vail Plaza Hotel West.
3. That the deve6oper submits a final detailed laridscape plan #o the Cammunity
Development C}epartment for Design aeview Board review and approval priar to
making an application far a building permit. This plan v+riCl involve the Eemoval of
the obsolete delivery bay asphalt for the Chateau Vail an the Nine Vail Road
property. ~
4. That the developer submits a complete set of civil engineer drawings for all off-
site {mprovemen#s, including the irnpravements to the South Frontage Road and
West hlleadow Drive for rewiew and Tawn approval priar to applica#ion for a
building permit.
5. That the develaper submits a complete set of plans ta the Colorado Department
of Transportation for review and approval of a revised access permit, priar to
applicativn for a building permit.
8. That the develaper meets with the Town staff ta prepare a memorandum of
uncierstanding outlining the responsibilities and requirements of the required off-
site improvements, prior to first reading of an arciinance approving the special
deve4opment district. This incfudes streetscaping improvements alang South
Frontage Road and West Meadow Drive in accardance with the Tawn vf Vail
Streetscape Master Plan, as amended.
7. That the developer recards an easement for SpracVdle Creek. The easement shall
be prepared ay the developer and submitted far review and approval of the Tawn
Attorney. The easement shall be reccrded with the Eagle Caunty Clerk &
ReGOrder's Office priar tv the issuance of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy.
8. That the developer submits a fina1 exterior building materials Iist, a typical wal]
section and eomplete coior renderings for review and approval afi the Design ~
Review Board, prior ta making an application far a buiftEing permit.
4
~ 9. That #he developer submits a comprehensive sign program proposal fvr the Vail
Plaza Notel West for review and approval of the Design Review Board, prior to
the issuance ot a Temporary Certificate 4f Occupancy.
10. That the developer submits a rooftop mechanical equipment plan for rewiew and
appr+ova6 of the Design Review Baard prior to the issuance af a building permit.
AIC rooftop mechanical equipment shall be incorporated inta the overall design of
the hotel and enclased and screened frorn public view.
11. That the developer posts abond 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 ta the issuance of a building permit.
12. Tha# the developer either receives appraval from the neighboring awner's
assaciations ta allow for construction activities on neighboring properties or
submits a canstructron staging and 19mits of clisturbance plan that indicates all of
these activities will occur nn the applicant's property.
13. That the developer provides access (via a permanent, legally binding easement
agreement) for the Nine Vail Road Associaiion and guests to enter the subject
property from Vail Road and exit across the subject praperty fram the location of
Nine Vail Raad's surface parking area to South Fronta:ge Raad. This is
necessary to facilitate the applicant's proposed trat#ic circulation plan.
~ 14. That the appficant submits civil drawings ta determine compliance with all Tawn
of Vail engineerirtg requirements priar to final Design Review Board apprflval.
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 anticipaded new road
impacts generated by this develapment ($5000 per peak haur trip end). A
specific amount for raad impact fees will be declared (and adopted via a
memorandum of understanding), based upan the anticipated new road impacts
outlined in the appiicant's traffic study. This dollar amount will be put in escrow
once a buifding pernnit is issued. Any actual improvements constructed to the
frontage road will be credited against the tatal. The escrowed dollars will be held
for a period of 10 years from time of permit issuance. If and when any sort of
funding meehanism is put in place (such as a special district +,vhich this
development participates in) any dollars generated fram the development will be
offset by the amount owed. If there is an excess i# will be refunded. Any shortfall
will be made up by the escrawed dollars.
16. That the applicant complies with all fire department staging and access
requiremerrts pursuant to Title 14 (Deve6apment Standards), Vail Town Code.
This will be demonstrated on a set of revised p6ans for town review and approval
prior ta building permit submitlal.
17. That the required Yype I II deed-res3ricted empioyee housing un9ts shall nat be
eligible for resale and that the units be owned and operated~ by the hatel and that
said ownership transfer with the deed ta the hotel property.
~ 18. l`hat the developer coordinates the relocation ofi the existing electric transformers
c+n the property with local utility providers. The revised location of the
transformers will be part of the final Iandscape plan to be subrnittect for review
5
and approval by the Design Review BQard. ~
19. Prior to firs# reading of an ordinance adop4ing a special devEloprnent district for
the property, the developer shall resaive the guest exit drive alignment ta the
satis#action of the town engineer.
Conditional Use Permit -Fractional Fee Club
The Cammunity Development Department recommends approval of the appeican#'s
request for a conditional use permit to allovw for the construction of 40 fractional fee units
within the Vail Plaza Hatel West based upon the following findings:
1. That the proposed lacation af the use is in accardance with the purpases
ot the conditianal use permit section of the zaning code and the purposes
of the district in which the site is located.
2. That the proposed locaYion of the use and the conditions under which it
wnuld be operated or maintained would not be detrimental ta the public
health, safety, or welfare ar ma#erially irajurious to prQperties or
improvements in the vicinity.
3. That the proposed use wauld comply with each of the applicable
provisians of the conditional use permit section of the zoning cade.
If the Planning and Environmenial CommissEan choases to approve this request, staff ~
recommends the fallorrring con+ditions:
1. The approval of this canditional use permit is nai valid unless an
ordinance approving the assaciated speeial development district request
is approved on second reading.
Conditiana! Use Permit- Empfovee_Housinq lJnits
The Gommunity aevelapment Department recommends approvat of the applicant's
request for a cQnditional use permit to allvw fQr the constructian af 14 Type llf employee
housing units within the Vaif Plaza Hote1 West based upan the fallowing findings:
1. That the proposed location of the use is wn accordance with the purposes
of the canditionaE use permit section of the zoning code and the purposes
of the distriet in which the site is locateti. The proposal campfies uvith the
minimum requirements outlined for employee housing unuts outlined in
SectMan 12-13-3 af the Vail Town Code.
2. That the Froposed location of the use and the conciitions under which it
would be aperated ar maintained would not be detrimental to the public
health, sa#ety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or
improvernents in the vicinity.
3. That the proposed use wauld comply with each of the applicable
provisions of the conditianal use permit sectian of the zoning code. ~
6
If the Planning and Environmental Commissicrn ehoases to approve this request, the
~ Department of Cornmunity Development recommends the foflowing conditions be
placed on the apprvval.
1. That the applicant records applicable deed restrictians for all employee
hvusing units with the Eagle County Clerk & Recorder prior to the
issuance of a Temparary Certificate of Qccupancy far the Vail Plaza Hatel
lNest.
III. RtJLES OF REVIEWIMG BOARDS
Special Development District
Order of Review: Generally, applrcatians wiIl be revieweri first by ihe P',EC for impacts of
use/developmenr, then by the DR8 for compliance of proposed buildings arrd site
planning, and frnal approval by fhe Town Councrl.
Plannin and Environmental Commissian:
Action: The PEC is advisorv to the Town Council.
The PEC shall review the proposal for and make a recommendation to the Tawn Council
on the following:
¦ Permiited, accessory, and conditional uses
• Evaluation of design criteria as follows (as applicable):
~ A. Compafrbility: Design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate environment,
neighborhoad and adjacent properties relative ta architeetural tiesign, scale, bulk,
building heigh#, buffer zones, identity, character, visual irategrity and orientation.
B. Relatianship: Uses, activity and density which provide a campatible, efficient and
workable relationship with surraunding uses and activity.
C. Parking And Loacling: Campliance with parkang and IQading requirements as
outkined in Chapter 10 of this Title.
D. Camprehensive Plan: Conformity wath applicable elemenrs of the Vail
Gomprehensive Plan, Town policies and urban design plans.
E. Natural and/or Geologie Hazard: Identificatian and mitigatian caf natura( and/or
geologic hazards tha# affiect the property on which the special deveiopment
district is prapased.
F. ?esign Features: Site plan, building design and location and open space
provisians designed to praduce a functional development responsive and
sensitive to natural fieaturES, vegetatian and overall aesthetic quality of thE
community.
G. Traffic: A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians
addressing vn and off-site traffic circulation.
~ H. Landseaping: Functional and aesthetic landscaping and apen space in order to
aptirnize and preserve natural features, recreation, views anct functian.
7
I. Workable Plan: Phasing plan c?r subdivision plan that wilk maintain a workable, ~
functionaf and eificEent relationship thraugnaut the developrnent of the speciai
development district.
- Recommenda#iQn on development standards including, lo# area, site dimensions,
setbacks, height, density control, site caverages, landscaping and parking.
Desiqn Review Board:
Action: The DRB has NO review authoritv on a SDD Aroaosal, but must review any
accom an in DRB a lication The DRB review of an SDD rior to Town Gouncil
apprvval is purely advisarv in nature,
The DRB is respansfble far eualuafing the DRB proposal:
- Architectural compatibirity with other struGtures, the land and surroundings
- Fitting buildings into lancfscape
- Configura#ion of building and grading of a site which respects the topography
- Remoua]1PreservatFOn of trees and native vegetation
- Adequate provision for snvw storage on-site
- Acceptability of building materials and calors
- Acceptability of roof elements, eaves, overhangs, and other buifding forms
- Provisian of landscape and drainage
- Provision of fencing, walls, and accessary 5tructures
- Circulation and access to a site inciuding parkirrg, and site distaraces
- Location and design of satelli#e dishes
- Provision of outdoor lighting ~
- Compliance with the arehitectural desigro guidelines of appEicable master plans.
Staff:
TFie staff is responsible far ensuring tha# al9 submittal requirements are provided and
plans cDnform to the technicai requirements of the Zoning Regulations. The staif also
advises the applicant as to compliance with the design guidelines.
Staff provides a staf# memo eontaining background on tne property and prorrides a staff
evaluatian of the project with respect to the required criteria and findings, and a
recommendation on approval, appraval with canditoons, or denial. Stafif also facilitates
the reuiew proeess.
Town Cauncil:
A_ ction: The Town Council is responsible fvr final aqtaraval/denial of an SDD.
The Town Cauncil shall review the praposal for the following:
Permitted, aecessary, and canditional uses
Evafuation of design criteria as follows (as applicabfe).
A. Compatibility: Design compatibility and sensi#ivity ta the immediate environment,
neighborhood and adjacent properties relative to architectural design, seale, bulk,
buifding height, buffer zones, identity, character, visuaf integrity and arientation.
8. Relationship. llses, activity and density vwhich provicle a compatible, efficient and ~
workable relationship with surrounding uses and ac#ivity.
C. Parking And Loading: Gompliance with parking and loading requirements aS ou#lined
8
in Chapter 1 0 of this Title.
~ D. Comprehensive Plan. Conformity uvith applicable elements of ihe Vail
Comprehensive Plan, Touun pQlicies and urban design plans.
E. Natural andlor Geologic Hazard: Identification and mitigation of natural and/or
geoiogic hazards ihai affect the property on whicM the special development district is
propased.
F. Clesign Feaiures: Site plan, buifding design and locatian and open space provtsions
designed to produce a functional development responsive and sensitive ta natural
features, vegetatian and overail aesthetic quality of #he community.
G. Traffic: A circufation sys#em designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing
on and off-site traffic circulation.
H. LancEscaping: Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in 6rder to
optimize and preserve natural features, recreafion, views and functian.
1. Vlforkable Plan: Phasing plan or subdivision pCan that will maintain a workable,
functional and efficient relatianship throughout the development of the special
development district.
- Approval af development standards including, lot area, site dimensions, setbaclcs,
height, density cantrol, site c4verages, landscaping and parking.
~ CQNDITIONAL USE PERMITS (CUP):
Order of lrfeview: Generalfy, applicativns will be reviewed first by the PEG for
aceeptability of use and then by the DRB for campliance of proposed fauildings and site
plannrng.
Plannin and Environmental Commission:
Action: The PEC is respansible for final approvalJdeniaf of a CUP. The REC is
responsible for evaluatinp a CUP proposal for:
1. Relationship and impact of the use on dewelopment objectiwes of the Town.
2. Effect of the use on light and air, distrEbution of population, transportation facilities,
utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities and public
facilities needs.
3. Effect upon traffic, with partieular reference ta conges#ion, automotive and pedestrian
safety and convenience, traffic filovv and contral, access, maneuverabiiity, and
r+emoval of snow firorn the sireets and parking areas.
4. Effect upon the charactec af thoe area in which the praposed use is to be located,
including the scale and bulk af the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses.
~ 5. 5uch other factors and cri#eria as the Gommission deems applicabls to the proposed
use.
6. The environrr3ental impact report concerning the prapased use, if an errviranrnental
9
~
impact report is required by Chapter 12 of this Title. ~
Conformance wjth development standards of zone district
- Lot area
- Setbacks
- Building Heigh#
- Density
- GRFA
- Site coverage
- Landscape area
- Parking and laading
- MitFgation of development impacts
C?esi n Revievv Baard:
Action: The DRB has N0 review aufharit an a CIJP but must review an accom an in
DRB appliGativn.
i
The DRB is responsible far evaluating the DRB proposal for: ~
I
- Architectural compatibility with vther structures, the fand and surroundings '
- Fitting buildings into laradscape
- CanfiguratEan of buifding and grading af a site which respects the topography
- Removal/Preservation of trees and native vegetation
- Adequate provision for snvw storage on-site
- Acceptabifi#y of taui9ding materials and colors
- Acceptability of roof eiements, eaves, averhangs, and other building forms ~
- Provision ofi landscape and drainage
- Provision of fencing, walls, and accessory structures
- Circulation and access to a site including parking, and si#e distances
- Location and design Qf satellite dishes
- Pravision of outdaor lighting
- The design of parks •
Staff:
The staff is responsible for ensuring that all submittal requirements are provided and
plans canform ta the technical requirements of the Zoning Regulations. The staff also
adWises the applicant as ta compliance with the design guidelines.
Staff provides a staff memo cantaining background on the property and provides a staff
erraluatian of the project wi#h respect to the required eriteria and findings, and a
recommendation on approval, approval with conditions, or deniaL Staff also faciHtates
the review process.
Town Cauncil:
Actions of DRB or PEC maybe appealed to the Town Council or by the Town Cvuncil.
Town Council evaluates whether ar not the PEC or DRB erred with approvals ar denials
and can uphold, uphold with modifications, or overturn the board's decisian.
~
10
IV. DEVIATIONS F'ROIUI 7HE UNDERLYING ZONING
~ The Vail Plaza Hotel V11est Special Development District prapasal contains the fallowing
deviations fram the underlying Public Accommodation (PA) zoning:
1. Heiaht - the praposed hotef is 25 feet (52%) taller than the 48' allawed under PA
zaning. The proposed buiading is 73 feet tall at its highest ridge (adjacent to South
FrontagE Road). The building stands 47.5' tall at its primary ridge alang West
Meadow Drive.
2, Site CaveraQe (below grade) - although the proposal cornplies with si#e coverage
requirements above grade, it deviates by 11.7% below grade.
V. "PUBLIC ACCQMMODATION ZONE DISTRICT"
According ta the Officia! Tawn of Vail Zoning Map, the applicant's praperty is zoned
Public Accommadation. Pursuant ta the Town of Vail Municipal Code, the Public
Accommodation Zane distr6ct is intended,
#o provide sites far lodges and residentia# accammodations
for visitors, together with such public and semi-public facilities
and firnited professional offices, medical facilities, private
recreation, and related visitor oriented uses as may apprapriately
tre Iocated in the same district. The Public Accommodation
~ District is intended to ensure adequate light, air, apen space,
and other amenities cpmmensurate with iodge uses, and to
rnaintain the desirable resort qualities af the Distric# by
establishing appropriate site development standards. Additfonal
nonresidentiaf uses are permitted as conditivnal uses which
enhance the nature of Vail as a winter and summer recreation
and rracation Gommunity, 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
witn densities not to exceed 25 dwelleng units per acre. The Public Accommodation
Zone District, prior to January 21, 1997, did not permit interval ownership. On January
21, 1997, the Town Cauncil adopted regulations a!]owing interval ownership subject to
the issuanee of a conditional use permit. Previously, interval ownership was only allowed
as a conditional use in the High Density Multi-famiGy Zone District.
On October 5, 1999, the Vail Town Council apprflved Ordinance No. 23, SerieS af 1999,
amending the development standards prescribed in the Public Accommodation Zone
Dis#rict. The amendments included an increase in allowable GRFA up to 150%, an
increase in site caverage, #he elemination of AU's and FFU's in the calcula#ion af density,
revised setback requirements, and other various aspects in the development of
properties zoned Public AccommodatiQn. The aflowable building height, landscape area
and limitation an commercial square #ootage remained unchanged.
~
11
VI. Zt)NING ANALYSIS ~
The development standards for a Special Development District shall be propased by the
applieant. Development standards ineluding lot area, site dirnensians, 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, wi#h cQnsideratian of the
recammendations af the Planning anci Environmental Cammission. E3efore the Town
Council appraves development standards that deviate from the underlying zone district, it
shall be determined thaf such deviations provide b+enefiits ta the Town that outweigh the
effects af such deviations. This determination is to be made based upan #he e+raluation
of the proposed Special Development District's compliance with the Revaew Criteria
outlined in the following section of this memorandum.
The Community l7eveloprnent Department staff has prepared a zanirag analysis far the
propasecf Vail Plaza Hotel West. The Vail Plaza Hote4 West Zoning Analysis cornpares
the development standarcfs outlined by the underiying zoning of Pubfic Accommodatian
(revised 10I99) to the Vail Plaza Hotel West praposal fram February of 2001 and ihe
current proposal.
A copy of #he Vail PVaza Hotel West Zoning Anaiysis has been attached for reference
(Exhibit B).
Vil. THE SPECIAL DEVELORMENT DlSTRlCT ESTABLISHMENf AND REVIEW
PROCESS
Chapter 12-9 af the Town Code provides for the amendment of existing Special ~
Qevelapment Districts in the Town of VaiL Aecording ia Seetion 12-9A-1, the purpase of
a Special Development District is,
"To encourage ftexibility and creatiaity in the development of land, in order to
promote its mast apprvpriate use; to improve the design character and quality of
#he new development wifhin the Town; to facilitate the adequate and ecortamicat
provision of streets and utilities; to preserve the natural and scenic features of
open space areas; and ta #wrther the overall goals of the community as stated in
the Vail Comprehensive Plan. An approaed development plan far a Special
Development District, in conjunc#ion with the properties underlying zane district,
shalt estabfish 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 develapment,
uses, and activities of the Special Development District. The development plan shall
contain all refevant materiai and information necessary to estabCish the parameters wlth
which the Special Development District shall adhere. The development plan may consist
of, but nnt be limited to: ths appraved site plan; floor pEans, building sections, and
elevations: vicinity plan; parking plan; preliminary apen space/landscape plan; densities;
and permitted, conditional, and accessory uses.
The determination of permitted, conditivnal and accessrary uses shall be made by the
Planning and EnvNronmenta! Commissian and Tawn Council as part af the formal review ~
of the proposed development plan. Unless further restricted through the review af the
propased Special Deuelopment aistrict, permitted, conditional and accessary uses shall
12
~ be limited ta thase permitted, conditianal 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 eWaluating the merits af the propased Special Qevelopment District. It shall be the burden of the appFicant to demanstrate that submittal material and the proposed
develapment plan comply with each af the follawing standards, or demonstra#e that one
or more af them is not applicable, or that a practical solution consistent with the public
interest has been achieved. Ti he fallowing is a staff analys9s of the project's campliance
with the nine 5DD review criteria.
CRfTERIA FOR REVtEW:
A. f]esign cmmpatibifity and sensitivity to the immedia#e enviranment, neighborhaod
and adjacent properties relative ta architectural design, scale, bu'k, building
height, buffer zones, icfentity, character, visual integrity and orientation.
The fallowing is a synopsis of camments from the town's appointed and elected boards
since October 24, 2000 an the issues shown in bold, underlined type. A sta#f resptanse
follaws each set of camments:
Bulk and Mass
"The overaH scale o# the current proposal is inconsistent with the estabtished charaeter af
ihe area. A"breaking up" of the primary roof ridges would help scale down the mass.
The project shauld read as an assemblage of buildings rather than one large structure"
~ (Joint Board Meeting, 10/24100).
"The building should be turned autward towards the public and opened up to allow
greater public access. The proposed atrium area shauld fae crpened more to the south to
ta:ice advantage of the sun exposure and pedestrian traffic" (PEC, 11J27100).
"The project should read as a fragmented assemblage of structures. The linear,
unbroken wall planes aiong the South Frantage Ftoad and West Meadow prive are tao
massive and should be broken up ta help reduce the apparent mass af the praject.
There should be points in the project where light and air penetrate through to allow fior
more transparency. The current propasal is not sympathetic to the design and scale of
adjacent buildings" (DRB, 12/8/00).
St_aff_aespnns+e - The appiicant has succeeded in break6ng up the raof rnassing along
West Meadaw Drive while the primary riclge along South Frontage Road cantinues ta
present a linear, unbraken mass along the entire frantage. The revised "opsning" of the
pedestrian entry and the remaval of the atriurrT roof struc#ure have alleviated some of the
previaus "°internal cornpound" design characteristics prevalent in eariier versions of this
plan and have created a mare inviting entry feature alang the southern streetscape.
Additionafly, staff believes the revised plan will provide more southern sun expasure
within the internal garden area.
Although the north fagade presents a bit of a"mirror irnage" along the frantage road, staff
befeues this may be alleviated ihrough the use of alternating colors and materials. This
~ issue well be addressed as part of the design revEew process.
13
N~~ ~
"The height alang West Meadow [7rive should be stepped dawn again to a level more
consistent with the established character of the area" (PEC, 11f27100).
Staff Response-The primary ridge height along 11Vest Meadow Drave no longer exceeds
#he 48 feet requirement under the underlying zoning and sta#f beliewes the height is
presenfed within a roof plan that helps #v rninimize perception of bulk anti mass. For
example, eave heights along West Meadow Drive range between 16-41 feet while the
primary southern ridge (at 47.5 feet) is se#back from the street edge about 100 feet.
Theretore, the height is stepped back and the bulk is perceived to be less from the
pedestrian perspective.
The buildirrg is proposed with a 10.0' fioor-to-floor height fior each story.
LavouflFootprint
"The inward focus of the praject should be turned outward. The current proposal is
rerniniscent of the Vail Gateway project. It needs to be mare inrriting ta the public from
the outside. The large internal atrium cauld be reduced in size; this woultt allow more
flexibility in breaking up ihe fayout af the proposal" (DRB, 1218l00).
Staff Response - The Vail Land Use PPan identifies the subject praperty as part vf a
"transition zane" that forms a buffer between the foreground residences along the south
side of the West Meadaw Drive and the larger, higher-density structures along the
fran#age road. The long, unbraken linear masses proposed along the fron#age road add
to the massive appearance of the building. However, staff befieves the revisetl atrium
and pedestrian entry aiang West Nleadow Drive are a successful effort towards opsning ~
the projeet towards the outside and #he public. On April 18'", the Town of Vail Design
Review Board made a ginding that the project is in general campliance with the design
criteria established for special developmeni districts.
The applicant has submitted a Vail Plaza Hotel West Sun/Shad+e Analysis (Exhitai# E) and
Vail Plaza Hotel V51'est Vieuv Analysis (Exhibit F) to demonstrate impacts to the
streetscape and public ways. The sun/shade analysis indicates substantial portions of
South Frontage Road (Fncluding the sidewalk on the south side) will tae impactsti by
shade during the winter months. However, the applicant is prvposing to snowmelt the
stdewalk along the Chateau property line in an effort to mitigate this fssue.
Qne of the urban design goals the tarvn has adopted #or redewelopment in Lionshead is
a predominanily north-south orientation far buildings. Although the subject property daes
not fall directly into the context area for the redevelopment master plan for Lionshead,
the design concepts that apply ta adjacent Lionshead praperties are a critical element in
the evalua#ion of compatibility with neighborhood character. Additionally, the design
concepts pramoted here are general "good design" palicies, and not specific sub-area
concepts from any specific plan.
One gaal ac4opted by the DRB, PEC anci Tawn Cauncil is "it should be a priority in future
development and redeveloprnent to orient verticaE building masses along a narth-south
axis whenever passible." This will help to accomplish the follawing abjectives:
a. Sun Access - During the v+rinter manths, the sun is lowv in the southern ~
sky, providing the greatest solar exposure to the south faces of buildings
and to streets artd spaees open to the south. A north-south orientation of
building masses will increase the amount of sun reaching the Lionshead
14
pedestrian core and the buildings to the north.
~ b. Views from New Buildings - In double loaded buildings ariented on an
east-west axis, units on the south side of the building get great wiews af
the mountain, but units on the north side dv nat. Orienting the building
mass on a north-south line creates angled southern views for both sicies
of the building, and ureits on both sides will get direci sun sometime during
the day.
c: V9ews frorn Existing Buildings - By vrienting new buildings on a north-
south axis, the potential visual impact on existing buildings is reduced.
d. Creation of "Streets" or Areas of Interest fvr Pedestrians.
Although staff believes a diagonal "sawtauth" treatment similar to Eldan Beck's plan fior
the Vail Village Inn propertQes franting East Meadow Drive wouid be more desirabie than
the linear east-west horizontal mass ihat is proposed by the applicant, the opening of the
sauthern wing ta allow greater sUn exposure and ihe more inviting pedestrian entry alang
West AAeadow Drive are greatly improved aver previous submittals.
Setbacks - In the PA District, the minimum setback shall be 20 feet on all sides.
Although the project's foatprrnt maintains at least a 20-foot setback from all property
lines, the covered en#ries along the Sovth Frontage Road and the Uail Road spur
encraach 20 feet and 4 feet respectively. At the discretian of the PEC and DRB,
variations to the seibaek standards may be approved, subject ta the applicant
~ demonstrating compliance with the fol'lowing criteria.
A. Proposed [autlding setbacks,provide necessary separation be#ween buildings and
rrparian areas, geoJogica[ly sensifive areas and other environmentally sensrtive
areas. .
There are n+o identified geofogically or enwiranmentally sensitive areas on this
property. Pursuant ta the pro+risians of the Town at Vail Zaning Regulations and the
Unifortn Building Code, the applicant is complying with rninirrium setbacks between
buildings.
There are twa "covered entry" encroachments proposed in the plan. The northern
"loading dock screen" encroachment abuts the property line along the 5outh
Frantage Raad and does not abut any buildings. The eastern "guest entry"
encraachrnent comes within 16 feet of the praperty fine adjacent to the spur access
drive between the Alpine Standard and Nine Vail Raad buildings.
B. Proposed buildirrg set6acks comply with applrcable elements of the Vail Viflage
Urban Design Guide Plan and Desr'grr Considerations.
These elements af Vaii's Cornprehensive Plan are not appiicable to the subjec#
property.
C. Proposed building setbacks will provide adequate availabiliiy of Cight, air and apen
~ space.
S#aff daes not believe the two (2) proposed covered entry areas vwould impede the
avaifability of adequate light, air and open space.
15
D. Prapased building setbacks will provide a compatible relatronship witfa buildings and ~
uses orr adjacerrt properties.
One of the challenges with the existMng conditions of this property and adjacent lats is
the configuration of adjacent buildings within required setbacks. All of the buildings
directly abutting this property Encroach into required setbacks. The AIphorn building,
fDr example, is built almast directly on its eastern praperty lirae.
As mentioned previously, the proposed encroachment along the South Frontage
Road does nat abut any bubldings. The guest entry ertcroachment, as praposed, is
separated a distance of 48 #eet from the Alpine Standard station, 104 feet from the
Nine Vail Road building, and 185 feet frvm Vail Road.
E. Proposed building set6acks will resulf in creaiive desigrr scalutions tar other pubfic
benefits fhat could not aiherwrse be achieved by conformance with prescribed
sefbacks standards.
The use of the northern covared entry afong Soufh Frantage Road v+rill help screen
the belaw-grade delivery activities from publ'ic view. The eastern covered guesi
entry helps create a sense of arrival to the hotel and provides shelter from the
elements. Although staff believes the two cavered roof features could be constructed
within setbacks if the plan were altered, the applicant has irrdicated the northern
eneroachment along Sou#h Froniage Road is necessary ta maintain an appropriate
setback area along West Meadow Drive. Therefore, the applicant is requesting
Town Council, PEC and DRB rewiew of the proposed entry.erocroachments. ~
B. Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and workable
relationship with surrounding uses and activityy.
Yhe 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 Zaning Map,
the underlying zoning for the propased special development district is Public
Accammodation. The Public Accommadatian Zane District encourages the development
of fodges (accommadation units) and accessary eating and drinking establishments at a
densEty of twenty-fkve dwelling units per acre. The surraunding uses and zoning
designation include Public Accommodation io the south, east and west (S4nnenalp, Nine
Vaii Raad & Special Develvpment Districi No. fi- Vaii Village Inn), High-Density Multiple
Family ta the west and northwest (Alphorn and Scorpio), Heavy Service to the north
(Alpine Standard) and Cammercial Core I/SDD #21 (Gateway) ta the northeast. The
same development standards that apply to the Vai! Plaza Hotel West dewelopment site
apply ta the Soranenalp, iVine Vail Road and Vail VilFage inn pfoRerties. The Commercial
Core i underlyEng zoning of the Gateway Special Development District is intended to
provide sites for a mixture of commercial and residenfial derreloprnent. The Weavy
Service district is intended to provide sites for automotiue-oriented land uses.
The Vail Plaza Hotel West is proposed as a mixed-use development. The rnixture of
uses includes commercial, lodging, recreational and resideratial. 5taff believes the
proposed mixture of uses and its proximity to both Vail Village and L.ionshead is
consistent with the intended purpose of the underlying zoning of Public Accommodation. ~
Further, staff believes that the prpposed uses +nrithin the Vail Plaza Hotel Wes# will
complimen# those existing uses and activities on surrounding and adjacent praperties.
The proposecf density of the hotef and the presence of the conference facilities will
16
imprvve and enhance the viability and success af the existing restaurant and retail
~ businesses in the immediate area.
Emptoyee Housina Requirements
As indicated tra a number of the goals and Qbjectives of the Town's Master Plans,
providing affordable housing for employees is a critical issue which should be addressed
through the planning pracess for Special Developrnent District proposals. ln reviewiRg
the propasal for employee housing needs, staff relied on the 7own of Vail Employee
Hausing Report. This report has been used by the staff in the past to evaluate employee
housing needs. The guidelines contained within the report v+rere used mast recently in
the review of the Austria Haus, Marriott and Special Development District Nv. 6- Vaif
Village Inn devElopment proposals.
The Ernployee Hous'rng Report was prepared for the Town by the consulting firrn Rosall,
Remrnen and Cares. The report provides the recommended ranges af employee
hausing units needed based on the type af use and the amount of floor area dedicated to
each use_ Utilizing ihe 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 cammercial-use employrnent
needs of the Town of Vail and ather mountain resort communities. As af the drafting of
the report, Telluride, Aspen and Whistler, B.C. had "employment generation" ordinances
requiring developers to provide afforelable housing for a pereentage of the new
• emplayees resulting from commercial tieveiopment. "New" emplayees are defined as the
incremental increase in employment needs resulting from commercial redevelopment.
Each of the communities assesses a different percentage of affondable housing a
deveioper must provide for the new emplayees. Far example, Telluride requires
developers to pravide housing for 44% (0.40) of the new employees, Aspen requires that
6{?°l0 (0.60) of the new employees are provided housing and Whistler requires #hat 100%
(1.00) of the new employees be provided housing by the devefoper. In comparisvn, Vail
has conservatively determined that developers shall provide housing 15% (0.15) ar 30%
(0.30) of the new employees resulting from comrnercial deveiopment. Vllhen a project is
propQSed to exceed the density allawed by the underlying zone district, the 30% (0.30)
figure is used in the calcufation. !f aprojeci is proposed at, or below, the density allowed
by the underlying zone district, the 15% (0.15) figure os used. The Vail Plaza Hotel West
special development district daes not exceed the density permitted by thae underfying
zone distric#. However, the P@anning and Environmental Gdmmission and Vail Town
Gouncil have indicated the 30% figure should be used given the substantial scope and
impact of this proaect.
The applican3 is proposing to provide employee housing for a percentage of the "new"
employees resulting frorn the hotel construction. The new hatel is expected to generate
93.5 "new" employees. The "new" employees are in addition to the 79 "fuli time
equivalent" employees already warking at the Chateau at Vail. The applicant is
proposing ta prowide deed-restrieted employee hausing for 29% (2$ beds) of the "new"
emplayees. 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 ta Vaii Plaza Hotel West
empioyees.
~
17
EMPLOYEE HOUSING GENERATION ANQLYSIS ~
For a point of reference, the "top," "middCe" and "bottom" ranges of cafculations tor the
Vail Plaza Hvtel UVest proposal are provided below.
• Boitam of Range Calculatians = 7.4 employee beds
¦ Nliddie of Range Calculati4ns = 27.5 emplayee beds
¦ Top af Range Calculations = 47,6 employee beds
• Staff Recommended Range = 28.0 employee beds
¦ Applicant`s Praposal = 28.0 employee beds
Staff Recommended Ran e Calculations:
Staff believes that the Vail PCaza Hotel ?,Nest redevelopment wilC create a need fior the
housing of 97 additianal "new" employees. 4f the 97 additional employees, a# least 28
employees (30%) will need to be provided deed-restricted hausing by the developers of
the Vail PIaza Motel West, Pfease refer to Sectcon fX of the staff inemarandum for
details regarding sqGare footages anci configuratian of the units. The stafif recarnmended
range is based on:
1. the type of reFail and commercial use pcopased in the commerciaf space ~
within the Vail Plaza Hotel West;
2. dhe size Qf the Vail Plaza Hotel West lodging component;
3. the 6evel of services and ameraities praposed by the developers far the guests of
the Vail Plaza Hoiel Vlfest; and
4. the result of research completed by Town of Vail staff of siEnilar ho#el operatiuns
in the Vail Valley.
~
18
~ a) RetaillService Cammercial 1,127 sq. ft. @(5/100a sq. ft.) = 5.6
(bottom af range)
b) Health CIub/Spa = 13,835.7 sq. ft. P (1.5/1000 sq. !t.) = 20.8
(top of range)
c) RestauranULounge = 2,535.3 sq. ft, @ (6.5/1000 sq. ft.) = 16.5
(middle at range)
d} Conference Center = 20,624 sq. ft, Cc7 (111 004 sq. ft.) = 20.6
(range daes nat vary)
e) Lodgirrg = 116 units iu (.75/unif) _ $7.0
{middle vf range}
f) Mul#% Family (Club Units) = 15 units @ (.4/unit) = 6.0
(range does not vary)
g) Fractional Fee l)nits = 40 units @ (.4/unit) = 16.0
(range dves not vary)
, Tatal' = 172.5
(-79 existing ernployees) = 93.5
{X 0.30 multiplier) = 2$,0 new employees
''Ladging has a particularly large variation of employees per roQm, depending upon
factars such as size of faGility and leve'1 of servicelsupport serviees and arnenities
provided.
Bottam of Range Catculations:
~ a) Retaiil5enrice Commerciai = 1,127 sq. ft. @ (5/1000 sq. ft.) = 5.6
b} Health Club =13,$35.7 sq. ft. @(111 000 sq. ft.) = 13.8
c} Restaurant/Lounge/Kitchen = 2,535.3 sq. ft. (5f1000 sq. ft.) = 12.7
d) Conference Center = 20,624 sq. ft. @(1/1000 sq. ft.) = 20.6
e) Ladging = 116 units @ (.25lunit) = 29.0
f) Multi-Family Units = 15 units @(.4lunit) = 6.0
g) Fractianal Fee Units = 40 units C7a (.4/unit) = 16.0
Total Employees =1 D3.7
79 existing empioyees) = 24.7
(X 0.30 multiplier) = 7.4 new employees
Middle of Range Galculations:
a) Retail/Service Commercial = 1,127 sq. ft. @(6.5/1000 sq. ft.) = 7.3
b) Heaith Club = 13,835.7 sq. f#. @(1.251100D s.f.) =17.3
c} RestaurantlLounge/Kitehen = 2,535.3 sq. fik. @(6.511 000 sq. ft.) =16.5
d} Conference Center = 20,624 sq. ft. @(1/1000 sq. ft.) = 20.6
e) Lodging = 116 units @(.751unif) = 87.0
f) Multi-Family Units = 15 units @ (A/unit) = 6.0
g) Fractional Fee Units = 40 units @ (.4/unit) _16.0
Tatal Emplayees =170.7
79 existing emplayees) = 91.7
(X 0.30 multiplier) = 27.5 new employees
~
19
Top of Range CalcuEations:
a) RetaillService Commercial = 1,127 sq. ft. @(8l1000 sq. ft_) =9.0 ~
b) Health Club = 13,835.7 sq. ft. @ (1.5/1 DOQ sq. ft.) = 20,8
c} RestauranULounge/Kitchen = 2,535.3 sq. ft. @(8f1000 sq. ft.) = 20.3
d) Conference Center = 20,624 sq. ft, @ (1f1404 sq. ft.) = 20.E
e) Lodg'rng = 116 units @ (125/unit) =145.0
f) Multi-Family Units = 15 units @ (.4lunit) = 6.{}
g) Fractional Fee Units = 40 units @ (.4/unit) = 16.0
Total EmplQyees = 237.7
79 existing employees) = 158.7
(X 0,30 multiplier) = 47,6 new employees
[]epending upon the size afi the emplayee housing unit prowided, it is pvssibfe to
have up to two employees per bedroom. For example, a two-bedroom unit in the
size range of 450 - 900 square fee# is possible of accommodating three to fiour
employees. These figures are cansistent with the requirements for the Type I II
empfoyee housing units outlined in the Municipal Cade. Please refer ta Sect+on I?C af
this memorandum for details.
C. Compliance with parking and Ioading requirements as outfined in Chapter 12-10 of
the Vail Town Code.
The propasal complies with the parking and loading requirements ou#iined in Chapter 12-
10 af the Vail Tawn Code.
Staff's parking calcuiations are contained in the a#tached Exhibit G. ~
D. Canformrty with the applicable elements of the Vail Gornprehensive Plan, Town
palicies and Urban Design Plan.
Vail Land Use Plan: The Vail Land Use Plan applies two °`fiuture land use" designations to
the praperty:
Resort Accommodations and Service: This area includes actirrities aimed at
accammodating the overnight and short-terrn visi#ar to the area. Primary uses include
hatels, kodges, service stations, and parking structures. These areas are oriented toward
vehicular access from 1-70, with other support commerciaV and business services
included. Also allowed in this category vuould be insiitutional uses and' various municipal
uses.
Transition: The activities and site design of this area is aimed at encouraging pedestrian
ffow through ihe area and strer,gthening the connection between the two cammercial
cores. Appropriate activities inelude hvtels, lodging and other taurist-ariented residential
units, ancillary retail and restaurant uses, museums, areas of public art, nature exhibits,
gardens, pedestrian plazas, and other ties to the north.
The gaals 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 f411owing policies are ~
reievant to the review of this proposal:
20
~ 1. General Growth/Devela ment
1.1 Vafi shpuld continue fo grow in a cantrolled environment, maintaining a
balance between residential, commercial and recreationaf uses to serWe
laoth the visitor and the perananent resident.
1.2 The quality af the enviranment including air, water, and ather natural
resvurces should be protected as the Town grows.
1.3 The quafity of devefopment should be maintained and upgraded whenever
possibke.
1.12 Vail should accommadate most af the add9tianal growth in existing
deueloped areas (infill).
3. Commercial
3,1 The hotel bed base should be preserved and used more efficiently.
3.2 The Vitlage and Lionshead are the best location fon cotels to senre the
future needs of the destinativn skier.
3.3 Hotels are impartant to the continued success of the Town of Vail,
therefore conversion to condominiums should be discouraged.
~ 3.4 CommerciaV growth should be concentrated in existing commercial areas
to accommodate both local and visitor needs.
5. Residential
5.1 Quality timeshare units should be accommodated to help keep occupancy
rates up.
5.2 Affardable employee hausing should be rnade available thraugh private
efforts, assisted by limi#ed incentives, provided by ihe Town of Vail, with
apprapriate restric#ions.
The Land Use Plan suggests that increased density for commercial, residential
and ladging uses in the Village/Lionshead Core areas wauld be accsptable so
]ong as the existing character of each area is being preserved.
Town of Vail Streetsca e Master Plan
The town's Streetscape Master P6an identifies 1Nest Meadow Drive as the primary
pedestrian route between Vail Village and Lionshead Mall.
To irnprove #he quafity of the walking experience and give continuity to the pedestrian
ways, as a corrtonuous system, two generaC types af improvements adjacent to the
walkways are considered:
~
21
1. Open space and landscaping, berms, grass, flovrrers and tree planting as ~
a sof#, cokorful framework linkage along pedestrian rautes; and plazas and
park greenspaces as open nodes and faeal ppints alang those routes.
2. Infill commercial storefironts, expansaon of existing buildings, ar new infiN
developmeni to create new commercial activity generatars ta give street
Iife and visual interest, as attractions at key IQCations along pedestrian
routes.
Future streetscape improvernent c+ancepts for West Meadow Dri+re incfude:
¦ A primary pedestrian path (10'-12' wide) on one side of the street with a smaller (5')
sidewalk on the apposite side of the street. The primary path crosses frvrn the north
to the south side of the s#reet to avoid the head-an parking thai exists at the Alpharn
and Skaal Hus. Curb and gutier would be used ta define the street. The street has
been narrowed to the miraimum wid#h of 26' curb-to-GUrb.
¦ Sidewalks are canstructed af cancrete unit pavers ta clearly distinguish them from the
roadway. The primary pa#h may be a different color than the secandary walkway.
• A pedestrian priority crosswalk is planned near the Chateau Vail site. This raised
crosswalk keeps the path at the same le+rel as it crosses the street.
¦ The plan calls for extensive landseaping along the right-af-way to refiect the
landscape character af nearby Gore Creek.
¦Seating is provided at regular intervahs. Public art or a similar feature is proposed ~
ad3acent ta the pocket park at the intersection with Vail Road.
Although the town is in the process ot refining the plan for West Meadow Drive, staff
believes the applicanYs preliminary streetscape plan demonstrates suastantial
compl"rance with the atove-Gsted provisions.
Staff believes the uses and activities proposed are in eompliance with the policies, goals,
and abjectives identified in the Vail Land Use Plan.
E. Identi#ication and mitigation of na#ural andlor geologi+c hazards that affect the
property an which the special developrnent district is proposed.
According to the Official Tawn of Vail Geoiogic Hazard Maps, ths Vail Plaza HoteR West
development site is not located in any geologicalEy sensitive areas or within the 100-year
floodplain.
F. Site plan, building design and Ivcation and open space proWisians designed to
produce a functional development responsive and sensitirre ta natural features,
vegetation and ouerall aesthetic quality of the community.
~
22
Loadinq and Qeliverv
~ 5taff believes the removal of loading and delivery traffic from Wes# Meadow Drive is a
substantial irriprovement over existing conditions and ihe revised location aiong South
Frontage Raad minimizes impacts ta adjacent residents. Additional screening of loading
dacks in the form of a meandering site wall along the berm between the hotel and the
sidewalk abutting South Frontage Rvad is recammended.
Landscape Plan and Open Space Frovisions
Staff feels the o+rerall prefiminary plan for landscaping and open courtyard areas is
functional and aesthetically improved over what exists taday along West Meadow Drive.
On the other portions of the property, sta#f believes the size and massing of the building
proposed may inhibit ihe ability of the landscaping to provide a true feeiing of "open
space." This is par#icularly true of the westem Iot perimeter adjacent ta the Alphorru and
Scorpio buildings. However, is important to recflgnize the applicant is providing
adequate setbacks (pursuant ta PA zoning) and that adjacent buildirags are encroaching
into their respective setbacks nearly 100 percent.
Although there are good prelaminary coneepts at work (particularly along V11est Meadow
Drive), staff does not believe this criterion will be adequately addressed until some of the
building's rriassinglfaotprFnt issues are finalized.
G. A circulatian systern designed for bvth vehicles and pedestrians addressing on
and 4ff-site traffic circulation.
~ Pursuant ta Secfiora 12-7A-14 (Mitigation af Development Impacts) of the "Publ"rc
Accommodation° zone district regulations, property owners/developers shall be
responsible for mitigating direct impacts of their development 4n public infrastructure and
in all eases mitigatian shall aear areasonable relation to the develapment impacts. The
Nntent is ta provide appropria#e mitigation to an extent that is praportional to the
anticipated 'rmpacts of new deaeloprnent.
Vehicufar Traffic and Road Im acts: The applicant has submitted a traffic study fram an
engineering consultant ta address the impacts of this Rroposal. The siudy indicates the
propased SDD wiil generate 97 additianaf peak hour (p.m.) trip ends. Although the
applicant's traffic circulatian plan is #he rrzost feasible for this property, the fallowing
concern needs to be addressed prior to first reading of an ardinance that would adopt the
propased SDD:
¦ The alignment af the proposed guest exit drive needs to be shifted slaghtly east (upon
the existing access easement on Afpine Standard property) to minimize the paientiaf
for conflicts wfth gas statian user entries frorn South Frontage Road.
Pedestrian Traffic Circulation: The applicant (as well as the town staff and
electedlappointed boards) has identi#ied the need for a strong pedestrian connectian
between the proposai and #he Vail Village Inn site via the access drive adjaeent to Vail
Road. The applicant is proposing a 4-foot wide paver sidewalk for pedestrians aEong this
drive_
~ The appficant has added a pedestrian connection along the nflrth wing between the
employee hausing units and the bus siap along South Frantage Raad.
23
H. Functional and aesthetlc landscaping artd apen space in order to optimize and ~
preserve natural features, recrea#ian, views and functions.
There are no estabfished public view corridvrs in the immediate vicinity of this propasal.
As mentioned previously, staffi believes the exterior changes to the southern fagade and
the remowal of the atrium roof are a substantial improvement ovEr previous versipns of
the proposal. Staff believes the preliminary fandscape plan is both functional and
aesthetically pfeasing. Landscape plan details wilf be addressed during the design
review phase.
1. Phasing plah or subclivision plan that wi11 maintain a workable, functivnal and
efficient relationship throughaut the der?elopment of the special de+veiapment
district.
The applicant is propasing to canstruct the project in one phase. A subdivisian of the
property is not necessary to tacilitate this proposal (with the exceptifln of a condorrainium
map). Construction staging is reviewed as part of a building permi# submittal for any
project.
VIII. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS FOR A CONDITI(3NAL USE PERMfT- FRACTIONAL FEE
UNITS
Upan review af the Vail Town Code, the Community Devefopment Qepartment ~
recommends approvai of the request fbr a conditianal use permit ta allaw for the
consiruction af 40 fractional fee units within the Vail Plaza Hatel West based upon the
follvwirtg faetors:
A. Cansideratian of Factors;
Before acting an a conditional use permit application, the Planning and Environmental
Comrnission (PEC) shall consider the factors with respect to the proposed use:
1. Relationship and irnpact of the use an derrelflpment objectiWes of the
Town.
In January af 1997, the Vail Town Council adopted Ordinance No. 22,
Series of 1996. In part, this ardinance amended 1he Pubfic
Accammodatian Zone District allowing fractianal f+ee clubs as a canditional
use anti set forth criteria for #he Commission to consider when evaluating
such a request. Since that time, the Austria Haus Club redevelopment
project has been completed and the Gore Creek Gfub and Vail Plaza
Hotel prvjects have been approved by the Tawn.
The applicant is requesting the issuance af a canditional use ,permit to
aliQw for the operation of a fractional fee club within the Vail Plaza Hotel
West. The propased club would be eomprised of 40 one and two- ~
bedroorr3 units. These units would range in size from 943 square feet to
24
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
manraer as to provide enultiple "keys" to #or lack-off units. The total
number o# "keys° in the club is 122. According to the appficant, the
awnership of the club units wiil be divided into a maximum of 1I12"'
intervals for the 28 wir,ter weeks during the ski season, while the
remaining 24 shoulder season and summer weeks would be owned by the
hotel. This ownership program allows far the most attractive weeks of the
year to be soid as club units with the proceeds helping #a finance the
redevelopment praject. The remaining interest in the clubs is tnen used
by the hotel to suppart the conference facility during the summer months.
According to the applicant this program will create #he best possible
occupaney of the hotel and maximize the viability of the canference
facility.
Through the adoption of Ordinance No. 22, Series of 1996, the Tvwn
furtiher recognized the need for lodging alternatives for aur guests and
visilors. In passing the vrdinance the Town Cauncil found tha# qua9ity
firactional fee clubs are an appropriate means of increasing accupancy
rates, main#aining and enhancing short-term rental availability and
diversifying the resort lodging market pr4duct within the Town of Vail.
Equaliy as importanf, the Council believed #hat fractianal fee clubs were
simply another of many forms c,f pub3ic accommadations. It has been a
lang held belief that in order for the Town to remain competitive and on
the leading edge of resort clevelopmen#, that alternative lodging
~ opportunities must be created and creative financing vehicles for hoter
redevelapment must be implemented.
Staff believes that the canditianal use permit for a fractiQnal fee club within
the Vail Plaza Hotel will be beneficial to the Tawn and will have a positive
impact on #he development objectives of the Gommunity.
2. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution af population,
transpartation facilities, utili#ies, schools, parks and recreation
facifities, and other public facilities needs.
These review criteria are addressed in the Speciai Qevelopment District
review portion (Section VI9) of this memarandum.
3. Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion,
automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic f[aw and
cnntrol, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the
street and parking areas.
These reuiew criteria are addressed in the Special []euelapment District
review portion of this memorantium (Section VII).
4. Efieci upvn 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.
25
These review criteria are addressed in the Special Qevelopment ?istrict ~
reviev+r portion of this memvrarrclum (Section VII). Please refer to the nine
design criteria used to evaluate special development district proposals.
5. Prior to the approva, of a conditional use permit for a time-share
estate, fractional #ee, fractivnal fee club, ar time-share license
proposaf, #he following shall be considered:
a. If the praposai for a fractional fee club is a redevelopment of
an existing facElity, the fractional #ee ctub shall ma+ntain an
equivalency of accommodation units as presently existing.
Equivalency sha11 be maintained either by an equal number of
units or by square footage. If the proposar is a new
develapment, it shall provide a# least as much
accommodation unit GRFA as fractional fee club unit GRFQ. '
The Vail Plaza Hote1 West propasal is a redevelopment of an
existing hotel. The appaicant 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 Gommunity Development Department 124
accommodation units exist at the Chateau at Vail with a iotal of
33,600 square feet of GRFA. The applicant is praposing to repNace
the existing units with 116 new hotei rooms totaling appraximately
45,666 square feet of GRFA. ~
b. Lock-off units and lock-off unit square foo#age shalf nat be
included in the calculation when determnning the equivalenCy
of existing accommodation units or equivalency of existing
square footage.
The applicant meets the equi+ralency requirements irregardless of
the calculation of fock-off square faQtage.
c. The ability af the proposed project to crea#e and maintain a
high level of accupancy.
The fractional fee club component of the Vail Plaza Hatel West
propasal is intended to prov€de additionad hotel ancf hotel-type
accommodation units in the Town af Val. AEthough not included in
the equivaaency requirement, the fractional fee club units have
been designed ta accommvdate lock-aff units. Staff believes that
lock-off units provide an additional community benefit af added
pillows. If a fractional fee cluta unit owner purchases an in#erest in
a multiple bedroom unit, and dcaes not desire to utilize all the
bedrooms, they can then have the opportunity af returning the
unused bedrooms (lack-affs) ta a rental program.
Sta#f feels that by providing lock-off units, and managing the availability af the Gock-off units in a rental program when not in use, ~
a fractianai #ee club project can significantly increase the
26
i
~
~ availability of accammodatiort units in the Town of Vaii.
Through aur research on the fractionaf fee issue back in 1996,
s#aff then idenfified sorne potential positive impacts of fractiorral
fee units in the Town of Vail:
A} Activity during the shoulder seasans tends ta increase due
to an increase ure year-rourad occupancy;
B) The attraction of revenue-generating tourists;
G) The efficient utilization o# resQUrcES. Th'rs is the "warm
beds" concept;
D) More pride of awnership and cammunity buy-in with
fractional fee club units than with accammodation units;
E) Increased Isaels of occupancy; arad
F) Increased resort exposure due to the extensive number of
interval owners.
d. Employee hvusing may be required as part of any new vr
redevelopment fractional fee cluh project requesting density
ower that allowed by zoning. The number of employee
housing units wiil be consistent wi#h emplayee irEtpacts that
are expected as a resul# of the project.
Staff included the fractional fee club units intfl the calculat9on 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 far
16 "new" emplayees. When the multipfer of 0.30 is factored in,
4.8 a# the "new° employees the developer must provide deed-
restricted housing far are generated by the fractional fee club,
e. The applicant sha11 submit ta the Town a list of all owners of
existing units wi#hin the project or building; in written
sta#ements from 100% of the owners of existing units
indica#ing their approval, without condiiion, of the proposed
firactional fee club. No written approvaf shall be valid if it is
signed by the owner more than 60 days priar to the date of
filing the application for a canditionaf use.
The applicani, Daramar Hotels, represented by Waldir Prado (dba
Daymer Corporation) is the sole owner o# the peoperty. No other
written appraval is required.
~
27
B. FINDINGS ~
The Planning and.Environmental Cammissian shall make the followinq findinqs before
qranting a conditional usE permit:
1. That the propased lacation of the use is in accordance with the purposes
of the conditional use permit section of the zaning code arad the purpvses
of the district in which the site is located.
2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which Ft
wauld be operated or maintained wauld not be detrimental to the public
health, safety, or welfare or materialfy injurious to properties ar
improvements in ihe vicinity.
3. That the proposed use would camply with each of the applicable
provcsions of the conditional use permit sectian of the zaning code. .
IX. CRITERIA AND FIMDINGS FC)R A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT- EMPLOYEE
MOUSING UNITS
The Cammunity Development Department recommends approval af the applieant's
request far a conditional use perrnit to aIlow for the construction of 14 Type I11 emplayee
housing units within Ihe Vail Plaza Hotel Vllest based upon the following faetors:
A. Consideraiian af Factors: ~
Befare acting an a conditional use permit application, the Planning and Environmerutaf
Cammission (PEC) shall cansider the factors with respect to the proposed use:
1. Relationship and impact of the use an development objectives vf the
Town.
In September and December of 1992, the 7awn Ccauncil passed
Ordinances 9 and 27, Series af 1992, to create Chapter 12-13 (Employee
Ndusing) which provides #ar the addition of Employee Housing Units
(EHUs) as permitted ar conditional uses within certain zane districts. The
definition in #hat ordinance states:
"Err3ployee Housing Unit (EHU) shall mean a dwelling unit
which shalE not be leased ar rented far any period less than
thirty (30) consecutfve days, and shaCl be rerrted only to
tenants wha are full-time employees of Eagle County.
EHUs shall be allowed in certain zane districts as set forth
in 5ection 12-13 of dhrs Code. Development standards for
EHUs shall be as provided in 12-13 - Employee Hausing.
For the purposes of this Section, a full-time emplayee 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 rela3ing to each type of EHU are set
28
~ forth in Chapter 12-13 - Emplayee Housing of this Cade,"
The applican# is proposing 14 two-bedroom Type 111 employee units for a
total of 2$ beds. P'ursuant to Sectian 12-13-3(C)(7), Vail Tvwn Code,
occupancy of an emplayee housing unit shall be limiteti to a rraaximum of
two persons per bedroom. fihe applicant is now proposing two beds per
bedraom and is therefore consistent with the Town's minimum basic
requirements for employee housing units. All other standards for
employee housing units have been met. Each EHU contains bathroam
and kitchen facifities and is appraximately 355 square feet in size.
2. The effect of the use an light and air, distribution of population,
transportation facilities, utifities, schools, parks and recreation
facilities, and ather pubiic facilities needs.
These review criteria are addressed in the Special Development Dis#rict
review portion (Sectian VII) of this memorandum.
3. Effect upon traffic with partieular reference to cangestion,
automotive and pedestrian safety and cc,nvenience, traffic flow and
controf, access, maneuverability, and remaval of snaw from the
street and parking areas.
These review criteria are addressed in the Special Development District
review portion of this memarandum (Section Vlk).
~ 4. Effect upon the character of the area in which #he prnposed use is to
be lacated, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in
relation to surrounding uses.
These review cri#eria are addressed in the Special Devefopment District
review portion of this memorandum (Section ViI). Pfease refer to the nine
. design criteria used to evaluate special development district prapQSals.
~
B. FICJDINGS
The Plannin and Environmental Commission shall make #he followin findin s before
grantina a conditional use permit:
1. That the proposed location of #he 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 conditivns under which it
would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public
heal#h, safety, or welfare or rnaterially injurious to praparties or
improverr+ents in the viciniiy.
~ 3. That the proposed use would camply with each of the applicable
pravisions of the conditional use permit section of the zarring code.
29
May-11-01 09:58A Kent 303 674 2285 P.02
~
~ T4. Ptanning and Enviroivrsenta! Commission, Town of Yail "
Town Councii, Town af'Vail
[]esign iieview $aard, Town of Vsil
~
F[tOM: Scarpio Hameawriers Association; Alphorn Condominium Associatinn I
~
DATE: May 11, 2001 i
SU&IECT: 13 Vail Road ILot A?, B, C, Hlock Z, Vail Viiiage Filing 2
(Vail Plaza HoteI West Wing)
Following are comments regarding the position af the Scorpio and Atp}orn Condom'rniurn Associations.
After sending the ApriI 27, 2001 letter Io Brent Wiison, E3rent immediately resp4nded (see atEached April
27, 2041 lettcr 1o N[itch Rewaid, Davis Partnership) with written criteria regarding the determinatian of
height for propc>sed projects in Vaii. It is my understanding that the grade of the land is eietermined prior
ta construction, but that having iopographical surveys of eestain Io#Ls prior ta constmetian 3s not always
~ passible. Was a topographical survey prior to the construciion af the existing building arrailable far this
property7 tt is aIso my understanding that if such a dacument is not available "Ehe 'exrstirrg' grades are
inferpolaled anln the srle pfan for use rn huilding height ccrlculutrnn. " Therefore our conelusion is that the heights
fur this property arc being "in#erpolated" artd it is Empussible for the respective Board af direciGrs nf Alphorn and
Scorpio to aceept the view studies provided. f3ased upon the definitio afthe purpose af the Special Dcveiopment
'District provide in the statfi'memo of dvtay 14, 2001 (paragraph YII) wenglybelieue the "scenrc feanoes afopen
spaces " are severely resiricted.
'T`he ioading and delivery areas fcx the proposed proJed fiave been rclorated tca the frontage rcral side and placed
~ belovw grade. Wc believe this is the besi soluticsn provideci sn far. lterent(y, safety issues have arisen due to the
shared ingress/egress ease,nent with the Alpine Standard propexty owner. A corRprchensive iraffc stuc3y during the
busy s+easan and at peak times needs #n be perfbrmed T'o ce the crafTic study orr naticanat averages does not seern
reasanable beeause of Vail's uniqueness as a tourisrn destination.
In prior hearings dating back ta t7ctober 24, 2000, the Town CounciI has prudentty recommended t{his
• pro}ect be directly related and tied toget}7er io the VVI praject in order to he considered For Specisi
Develapment I]istrici approval. Since that tirne, this has never been done. By relating the two prnjects, it '
is Iagic;al to ccanclude a rrmre efficient product could be deliyereii to the guests and visitQrs to the project,
and that a public bencfit could be more easiiy demorrstratcd. We da naE agree with the staff conclusion
that "Tie ypPlicanl has rlemanstrated zlu,e arry adverse effects af the requested devirrtions, fm?ir the develapmenr
,stanfiards ojlhe unrierlying znning are auttia+eigtred 6y the pt+hli" benefils pmveded "
The applicant has not shown in amy dravrings a sidewalk on the west 6.sde of the pmject All plans for the
West Meadow I3rive stceetscape pragosals show access frorn the fiantage raad thraugh to West Nleadow
Drive. Th.is aiso speaks to the way the project cEasm itself off form the pubiie. Gurrently, pedestrians
walk thraugh our ihared par3cing lot and the C}ateau Vail property ,to get to the Village. This sidewaik
would provide aceess to West Meadow Drive fram the shared Scorp~/Alphom parking lot. While this is
still cutting off acct.-ss through the Chateau Vail properky, it woulie a reasonable comprvmise.
~
We wouid tike to reiterate our s"s concern, rWding the underground set6ack viplations. We are
concerned about the devel4per being allowed to burld ta the lo# lirte underground ancf the ramifications of
disturbing aur foundation footers_ This calls inio guestion the struetural integtity of our entire buijding.
~ We woafd frke to be assured that the applicant ancUor contractor will have in ptace sufficient insurance in
place ta repair any damage to aur respective buildings duting construction. `
~
~
i
May-11-01 09:58A Kent 303 674 2285 P_03
In Gcmc]usian, rve believe an 5Dd shouid nw be granted to the applicant because: ihe height tn,ik and trtass is stiil ~
tov much for tih,e character of the immediately surrounaing iproperties; a wmprehensive traffic study during high
season and at peak iimes ncecls tp hc performed; no pubiic bereefit has bcen shown to autwcigh the nccmity to
ehange the ut7derlying zoning; and the layout of the property cuts offexisting access ta the Village.
Richard fCent, Yre;ident, l3oard of Managers, Seorpio Gonctaminiums anri an behalf of Alpharn Candominium
Association
~
1
. ~
~
~
~
`
I
~
I
. ~
,
!
~
,May-11-01 09_59A Kent ~303 674 2285 P.04
~
Aprii za, 2001
Mitcn Rewoid
Davis Partnership Architects
0137 Main Street - Unit C106
PA_ Box 2711
Edwards, CC3 $1532 ~
SENT VIA FACSIMILE, ELECTRQhIIC MAIL AND U.S. MAIL
Mitch:
This le#ter will summarize our conversatian lhis moming regarding the calculation of
buildrng heigh# in #he Town of Vail. The folfowing definifions are listed in Section 12-2-2,
Vaii Town Code:
~ HEfGHT.' The distance measured vef!`ically ftom any pnin[ vn a proposed or
existing mof or eaves ta the existing ar frnished grade (whicheuer is more
festrrctive) located direetly belaw said pt?inf vi'the rflof or eaves. Wrthin any
buildfng fbotprint, height shall6e measured vertically frorrr any point on a
proposed or existing roof fo the existing grade d"cfly below said point on a
praposed vr existing mof.
GRADF EXlSTING: Tfte existing grade shaJl be tie existing Qr rrafural
topography vf a sfte prier to ronsttirctfan.
GrR,4DE, FINISNED: The fini~ ed grade shall bs the grade pm,posed uporr
completion of a profecf.
Pursuant to the Town's defini#ion of existing g~a de,* we r~1erer~ce the topc~graphi
contours (Wia a survey) that existed n a piece4of praperty priar to construci~ort ar~the
site_ Hawever, in the cass of many alder prQperties in Vail, a survey of the proper~ prror
ta constructian may nvt exist Therefore, the "exis#ingR grades are interpofated onto the
sfte plan for use in building height calculafion.
In. the specific case nf t#te Chateau af Vapl propefij, an average grade was interpolated
between known pvints on Sauth Frontage Road and Wesi Meadow Drn?e. This is
cansisten# with fhe methodotagy used on a number of applications in Vail oyer the years
including the Vail Village 1nn SDD, Golden Peak Sici Base, Pepi's Gasthof
Gramshammer, the Austda Haus redeveloprnent, the Hong Kong Cafe redevelop~ent
and a significant ~urnber af private residences thraughout town.
~
May-ll-al 09_59R Kent 303 674 2285 P-05 .
if you would I+ice to disctass this matter in grester detail, please do nat hesi#ate to contact ~
me at {970} 479-2144.
Sincerely,
Brent Wilson, AICP
Planner II xc: Richard lCent, Scorpio Candominium Association
~
~
~
8._
~
~
.
WAIL PLAZA HOTEL WEST
~ LIST QF EXHIBITS
EXHISIT NLJIVIBER DESGRIPTfON
q architectural Drawing Reductians
g Statf Zoning Analysis
c Staff Bualding Height Carrelation Analysis
p Staff Adjacent Building Height Analysis
E Applicant's SunlShade Analysis
F Applican#'s View Analysis
(a Staff Parking Analysis
H Applicant's Tra#fic Study
~ Applicant's Statement af the Request
i
•
30
~
~
ExHIBrr A
ARCHITECTURAL DRAWING REDUCTIONS
~
~
~
;
.1
D
a
~~ 1
---
~ ~ ~~' s~
~_
~ ~ ~~ ~ : a
~, r ~
~.
"`\~
ICI-~ ~ ~~~ ~' ~_ -
.I - ~~ I I i - I
~ ~~
~~ ~~ .
I
~ ~ ~'
~~ I s
~~
Vti
! ~ ~ ~ ~ _
`, '.~ I I
.-
r
0
~~r
a~
® c
~~
..~
~>
.--.
o~
f
V f
. . ` .
~
~
N
}
. . ` y . ~
. , . . 1 _ ~ g
p
~
.T
~
oC==
r,
~
. ~ -
- , . 1
1 9 w o ,
,
~
~
~ Zilli
~ I
i r .
, ; ~ r ' 9) ~ L.[7
~ ~s
a~ -
C2-~7
~ 4~
1~~J
1 ~
~
y ~ ~ 'i,s G i_r+
: ~ ~ CD
ue ~ 4
A /
CD F ~
! l ~
l °Y 1 L
c
- 1? y~~ { 1 ~ ~
1 6 ~
O
~ - 1 O G
o
?
~
?
?
o
' °
~
~
1 1 ~ ~ ~
' ~ -
1 ~
tn
~
'~~`Z~
"li+
ws Ma ! ~ ~ - _
i ~ z a
- _ ~
4 =0 ~
~
~ ~ ~
~ o ~
R ~
a~
a ~
o
+ ~ ~ ?
~
~
~ - ~ F € & - ~a«.` - T I
` ~ ~ I I I ~
-
~CA
LL_~ v
~ 3x
I ~ o
I ~b
~
IG ~
1 1 d
~ 11
~
~ ~ ~ ~
<z ~ ~
~ Q
~
~
~
7 ~
~ A
N
N
~
~
W
~
~
a
'A
7 ~
ES- ~
~ SF1
I I iQ
~ 4
'Q °
O
?
cl~
W
~
Q~
. ~
~
Qu
r e } t ~ ~
i ~
a o
-i W
ES
.~.f, r I ~ . l~ ' V' • F V'
ui
s
- a
t~ -
~
3
E p
~
~
~
~
~
~ ~ '
~
C3
r~ ~a
t~
- . . .4_. .a~
~ Yn _ ri
. X*.~~ ~
~ .
~
~
/ LL q x
c7^.~' ~ } ~ ~@ Y
U a T~ i~
x
~
`s
~
n $ ~ ,
4 7
~ ~
off
~
~ ~ ~
W
W , s,•
~
. . ~ ~ ~ . .
~
I i
t d
n
~ tt
~
~
~
~ i
~
. ~
_ z
E a ~
n -
, m
~ ~ •
y
P
gq ~ F ~ 6
o s y = .
x a
a ~ R
• ~
I
LA
C6-- n
'ov
I ~ Q ~
f ~
~
C - `~7
~ D
~ a
a
,
oa
CD
~ I
~
~ J
L - ~
_ -
l1'?
.
N ~
~ ~o
~ ~ en
~
~
~
~ s C33 -
0
C3 a
C3 ~ °
C3
; CD ~?a ~
~ C:Dq ~
R C3
a ~
p
C3
° ~ ~ ?
?
f
? ~ p
A~
?
W
.
~
~!~_w
N°
~ o
rn ~
CD
m o
~ a
~
~
xu
~ ? C~ ~ c~~~
? ~ ~ ~
? C3 o
~ o
~ o
~
,
n~ Eol
b
_ ? ~ ~ o
~
o ~ ID
~
; > ~ ! I
~
~ -
~
~
r ~
03 p ~
O 4 ~
~
° p I
a ~
C3
ao
~ o
~ ~ ao }
~ ~ ?
u z . . ~ ~ ~ ?
s~ a
~Y.
~ -J
a 4~e
~ c
r~ •~`m ~
~
P
l~ / F
. . . ~ . j' ~ N ~ . . ~
~
~ u
~
a~
/
~
? CD ~
o ~
~
fi
~
= P = _ _ ~
s ~
5
~
O
j ~
~
n~G
d, «p
t"~1 r
c13 u
r
? ~ 1 ~
~ i
4D 0 0
g~b
n d ~ -
~Q
,
!
L $ ~
ll ~
~ I
~t
_ CCO
k /
~
u
f ~dj.'. ~ d~ ~ 4! •
I ~
I~C,3
,
~ C
~
~ S
~
a Qv
~
~ t ~
s
e ~
1
- , ~ ~ ~
~
~
~ d9 !
f C3
~ c
~ -
~ ~ S Y G
I I ~ ~
~ y a
Z F ~ ~
I
~
S
I ~ ~
e
f «
~I I y ± y
'J Ln Q ,
1 ~
f 4~- i 1 4_ 9 ` > t!
cu
w ~
~ ^l
,cx
x
~ v
I ILL o f
~f 0
~ s
mo $
c~
Li ~
~ w e s >
K ~ ~ 1
r
0
7-Z ~ e t
~
~ 1 ' ~ N
~ , < ~ ~ ~
~ ~ - ~
_ - ~t ~ ,-f ~
f ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' J
rl ~ ~ 1f ~
1 ~ ~
~ ~ f $g~~'
~ ~i ' . ~ ~ - \
, ! ~ ~ I
~ f
~1~ _ ~ f / 1 ~ ~I
~ ~ j 1 ~ ~
`I /r ~ ~
_____,r ~ ~
~ ~ 1 ' ~
c~ ~ ~ - ~ 6
k = ~
~ ~ ~
L ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~
~r ~ L
v ~
~ ~ ~ ~ 1
~
m
d~ _ _ ~
_
~ ~ ` ~ ~ ~ ~
_ ~
~ 1 ~ i
~ ~ 4
~ E ~
- 1° u ~
~ ~ ~ ~ .r ~
6 ~q
4 3
I
6
~ ~ ~ I 0
C _ ~ ~
y1 6 ~ +
- ~ l 5 ~ +
I ~ 1 . 6
` ~ ~ }
I ~ - ~ 1
1 ~ ~
~
~ 1 ~
I _ ~
.~p~ x
' ~ ffi~ g~
1 ~
~ ~ , p ~
~
6 j
I ~ ~ 1
~ ~ ~ o t
1~ ~ ~
~ ~
1.~ a
r -
~ ' ~ i ~ ~
~
Ln
.
N a
~ o
~ ~Ln
? ci
~
J
~
h
e ~ y
a = ~
sa :a ; a s ~ e s - ~ a x a~ 8 - ~ s „ ~
6i
u ~
mQ
+ g c~ • ~ ~ ~ 3
C* N
u o+
c-~
~i` > > i a i y i a ' i i i ~ ~ >
- k
q'i fl - w n x ~ st r d I S i i ~ ~
4
~
V S. 3 .1 > > } } j ? i i } J> ? ~ ~
F
~ > > i > i I a a i > > ? Y > > i a >
b
~a
\
< ' u
ffT---,T
0
- t s - ~ - - - - - -
a;
Di
~
r •
~
EXHIBIT B
STAFF ZQNING ANA'LYSIS
~
;
~
Exhibit B
Zoning Analysis ~
Vail Plaza Hotel West
{Deviations from uncterlying zoning are iradicated in bold type}
February 12, 2001 May 14, 2001
Development Criteria Allowed/ReAuired Proposed SDD Praqosed SDD
Lot Area: 101,140 sq. ft.. 101,140 sq. ft. 101,140 sq. ft.
GRFA: 150%/ 151, 710 sf' 150% or 151, 71 a sf" 150°!a c,r 151,896 sf*
Dweliing units per acre: 25 dulacre or 58 d.u. 7.33 du/acre or 17 d.u. 6.47 dufacre or 15 d.u.
120 {au} 116 (au)
39 (ffu) 46 (ffu)
17 (du) 15 (du)
Site caverage:
Above grade; 65% or 65, 741 sq. ft. 62.4% or 63, 116 sq. ft. 57.9% or 58,522 sq. ft.
Below grade: 65°Io or 65, 741 sq. ft. 76.0 °/a or 76,821 sq. ft. 76.3% ar 77,219 sq. ft.
Min. Setbacks (abave grade);
Frontage Road: 20' 0' Q'
Vail Road: 20' 24' 16'
West 5ide: 20' 21' 20.0'
W. Meadow Drive: 20' 20' 20,5'
M4n. Setbacks (below grade): ~
Frontage Road: 20' 15.75' 8.5'
Vail Road: 20' 4.75' 4.5'
West Side: 20' 8,75` 16 75'
W. Meadow Drive: 20' 19.5' 2.5'
Masc. Height: 48' sloping 77.5' sloping 73.0' s1oping
(hlorth 1Ning) 60' arch. proj. 92.3 arch. proj. 86. 5' arch. proj,
Max. Meight: 48' slnping 64.25' sloping 47.5' sloping
(Sauth 1Ning) 60' arch. proj. 85.25' arCh. proj. 64.5' arch. proj. ~
Landscaping: 30% or 30,342 sq. ft. 26.1 % ar 26,438 sq. #t. 30.5°Io or 30,$74 sq_ ft.
Parking: 222 spaces 216 spaces 225 spaces
Loading: 3 berths 3 berths 3 berths
" fhis pro,posal campGes with the required 705,o'/3(7°!m equivalency requirernent for GRFA withrn the PA zone disirici.
~
I
.
~
EXHIBIT C
STAFF BUILDING HEIGHT G(]RRELATION ANALYSIS
~
~
. ,
Building Height Correlation AnaCysis - Vail Plaza Hvtel West ~
Northwest Corner (Adjacent to Scorpio) Height Propased Height Allowed
Highest Ridge: 73' 48'
Avg. DDrmer: 53•5' 48'
Eave: 40.5' 48'
ArcFt. Praj.: 86' 60'
Southwest Corner (Adjacent to Alphorn) Height Proposed Height A9lawed
Highest Ridge: 59' 48'
Avg. Dormer: 52' 48'
Eave: 29.75" 4$'
Arch. PTOj.: n/a 60'
Southeast Corner (Adjacent to 9 Vail Rd.) Height Proqosed Heiaht Allowed
Highes# Ridge: 40.5' 48'
Avg. Dormer: 34.75' 48'
Eaue: 16.75' 4$'
Arch. Praj.: 64.5' 60'
Northeast Corner (Adjacent to Amoco) Height Proqased Height Allowed
Highest REdge; 70.5' 48'
Avg. Darmer: 49.25' 48' ~
Eave: 36' 4$'
Arch. Praj.: $2.5' 60'
~
~
EXHIBIT a
STAFF AaJACENT BUILDING MEIGHT ANaLYSIS
I
~
~
. ~
Adjacent Building Heights-Vail Plaza Hotel West ~
"Resort Accammadations and Services" Zone - South Fronta e Road
Buildin Max. He'rqht Zane DistricUHeight Allawed
Alpine Standard 25.3' HS/3$'
Existing Ghateau Vail 52.8' (roaf); 56.9' (praj.) PA/48'
Scorpia 55.2' HRMF/48'
West Star Bank Building approx. 54'* SDD-CSC/38'
Evergreera Lodge apprcax. 88'"' SDD-HDMF/48'
"Transition Area" zone - West Meadow Drive
guildin_q Max. Height Zane District
9 Vail Raad approx. 66.2'* PA/48'
Alphom 32,8' HDMF/48'
Skaal Hus approx. 46' (phase II) HDMF/48'
WMC aPProx. 53'" GUlper PEC
First Bank 28' PA/48'
Villa Cortina approx. 48" HE7MFf48'
Fire Statian 42.3' GUlper PEC
Meadow Vai1 Place approx. 52'# HDMF/48'
Other Residential Units aPprox. 33'* R/33`
Vail Vil1a e Zone - east of Vail Road ~
Buildin Max. HeeQht Zone District
Gateway 54.8' SDD-CC1/43'
Vail Viliage Inn (VPH East) 77.3' (approved) SDD-PA/48'
Sonnenalp (Bavaria Haus) approx. 47°"` PA/48'
* rndicates heiyhts referenced from architectUral drawings and to?+vrr records. AIl vther building
heights are referenced from stamped surveys.
Of the 17 properties contained in the "context area" (including the existing Cha#eau Vail),
8 buildings (or 47%) exhibit a deviation in building height.
~
A '
~
EXHIBIT E
APPLICANT'S SUNISHADE ANALYSfS
~
i
i
~
, .
~ .
Cs
~
ckJ N
3
f/]
1 ' W ~ Y
~
~ t
. . ~ . . . - -r-- _ - ~yt
~.II
{
II ~
~
~ I
~ ~ 4V I
I~
;I
i
i
~ - - .
S ,
! Zu
~u t'
LL1. hl~ ,
~
~4y V
. - ~ ~M ~ .
~
Yr~ ~
C ~
~
~
P
S
~
,
1
t~ ~ l
,
~
.
~
nk E ~ :
~ G
C
7
~
~AW
, ~ .
~rxf.
iM .w~ {Ir '1.
. ~..r
~ ~ ~ II e
. i
~
~
CI "
r
p ,
; x
G ~ . !
Z.
k a';:i;!
z~
uj" v
.
~
'es 8
~
- ~ ~
C
~
~
r~s ~
i.+;~';... -
4.a 3'~~~ K t 'y~
'f M~n LT a^ V~~~ I
.
A t% ~
, •
h k
'4-0 li`t
ID
y
• ~ 4 F ~ ~ e
. ~
a'i ~ ~
~ o
f
A4
77
a}~V'
. '
Y
L
. ~
~
~
~
• y a y}~.r
, `Kh~''~`~,'~"•~,: ~ ~
~ IS
9 z z,
S ~ M7
r-q
f '.•i ~
~
~
' ;,~+r~..~ •
~ IL
I
~
~
~ E
~
~
G ~
a
es R
~ w
~
~
e
~
~
II .i
I~
I~
~ , . _ v . . . . . . _ ~
44
v~
f ~
~
,
4 •
~ 4 e
I f I
/J f¦+~
• ^y
i ~
f;•,
x/•'"
e a
rr l4' ~~.x:'~. ~;,,?t,
•I
,
~
~ Z I
N~ .
~
~
ExHIgiT F
APPLICANT'S VfEW A?NALYSIS
~
~
~
~
. ,w. _ w,,. -
---:,w -
.
4
}R ~ ~
~ ~
~s~ r~~
I( Jµ~ r
3.
s ~~y~? ~ /
§ s
Z(
~ I
rs t ~ ,
M-1
iIWPy !
~ o6o
< .
'
~
~x ~ ~ ~ ~k +~y ~ • ~1
d h~
~
i
I' ~~1 q
k
7 ~ ~ . . ~
~
z ,
~
°
~
~
LFy.~
J6 Y
C
~ Y
~
4"o
s ~
L~ ~ ¢ ~~5 D~ ~Y•. ~h~ /rAM( ,
3 ~ ~ . . ~ ~
~
1 ~ WAWld
F
rr ~
4V
~ ~ y ` j
~'A.
' ~ e {
~
rf= {
' ~ ` 3 ? r..:
w~
. . . " 5;$
. ~ f'. .
' ~ A _ ~.~Y . .
. . ~ .
` ~i c .
, ..~.~n~..
:r
;
~
~ ~ r ~ -
z, gQ
? ~ ! ~e ~y
11, £ T wl
A
~ `a~ " ~ a ,
MM d f~ ~
~ 1`e' , ~M1 ry~~ w:
a
~
G . '
~t n ysA . ;i
h
/
N~
Y ~ +v
:
' ~y ~ • wiwl
~ f
S y~e~yay~o-
~l 7X 1{~4~~ ~,°~a ~a ! F
$ ~ ~~^4'~iA~ ~ T~~• ~ ~
~ ?
a E :
1 ~
Y ;
wryk»g+, 3m+r„ 1 x / - ~ ~ ',l
i
~ T w
fi',K5y~ h ~~~~'-,•.y 5 ~
5 a ~~~"d~~e°~~
5
2' 4
~t'~. ~ ~u Yy
t
Y'
~ .
g
~M1
~
,
. . . . _ . . . . _ . . -.1
~ - ~~y .
5 i
~~k {
s'++ • rr
~
1
R~yd Z J4
~t K
~.a
g fl
M'a
i
° . . . n. .
F
a ~
: y5~ ~sugtN ;a»
3~ ~F~
~ ~ ~~»E~`~ 6+•~ } 5a 'a
:S ( ~ ; p m ~S 5
~06 ~ Sw
~ t1
k
w.
Z~ 3 r N
r Y ~
OWNN4
t ..w
: 5j ~
^v,a S` i S b N~
x ~4 ~efi A
~ n~ . y. .1 ~
„
•i ~'c~ ri °F .,~n' ~~11 r s
'~ro ~ ~''a ~
1
L3. . - . . . .
~ . . _
, , , . :
_ .
_
~ bt ~ t
! ~ ~
421, 4~~
t .
x
ut~,y c r ~r :
,
,
,
.
AL
S3 ~ ~ x :
A"I
~~~~~~~~M`u~
x~2r
tzt + ~W
. . . , ~ ~
V
1§RU~~p.~;;
afx !r` r~ ` ry
~p`` S~"~~n ' ~pwwwd
§ i
~y ,
~'w
.
pxq!
~
;
$ .I
~
k
u s'
f~ *i y M
a$ x
I
~4~ ~
22 ~ t
F h } W
f~sy ~ ~d
~
~ ~ ~
~.~Ali 3' h ! ~
~ r
M ~
4J k . ~
J~ F C ryA~~~K .
.
*,i* ~ -
;
" mg'
~ .
f z
:1 T
F y ~
a'i~
x
~ ~ Y Y
Sk ~ Sast a'~,~{s~?^~ a a~ y~sW. 3~~
~ rs "w' ,~4'Et. ~ wl~i~ ` ~J s 't ' -
..r.~ .
f
. --~,.~,.,,N».:.,.:..: ~ . .,.,»..,v,.:....... . . . , ~
.
, i •
. : ~NM
~ S ~ ~ •w
L~
fk ~ ~
ee~
1<
~
~ t
/
gz:M
Qf _*n' a+,~` H 1 .
tf..~ 400) s:
¦ ; ' ~ ~ s.
: E &
,AF
1
. F~~ '3~
~ t i eWY1M~
k \Y ~
..s ~
~ x
s
i
~e `~n* v
r r` s
5 Y
, ! ~ , , ° t n»y
, F !
" F ~a
s;
;g"
rv.~~.r.,
.
ti•,nv4 ..~w+.~ .............v~........ ...-.,....1
I /
. v. _ . _ _ _ _
. _ . : _
~
LA ~
.
~
z
~
. ~
.
a ,yd c y.~,
~
;
5 $ d':, ; W i ~ ! ' .1
t
A.w
4WIA
~ r+ . a ~ .
0,
~ Al1YH~~
~
s t
~ a q
r~ ~ y
g,x
Y5
5s P
~
EXHIBIT G
STAFF PARKING ANAL1fSIS
~
~
~
~Or~~'r N
~ r N C7J ~ .r~ 0~ 7 h~~ C¢~"i
~ OfJ Ef' [T7 C*7 ~6 ljy
~ ~ C"} N C3] 04 SrB
C ~
O 3
C q
~ ~
C)
:5 ~ lt? O
Q '7 U ,
~ ~ ~ e
E cd E
0
d 0
I
~
-j
~ ~osc~nvCD r m ~
ON~~cO~Q~3'4~7~cN '}t~cl O~'i m
~ pp CV 4V N~ 0~0 N C? !~D N
r ~
cn CD C7 C') n M'i
C'VC~'')t]~N N N
~ cm
C
Y.
~ co
J9 p [w/) 5~/5 CA ~ a
~ sUl~t-~dOO['aO0
Y~. u7 ~ C? C7 f~ d) E f,~~y fd
iLC •3 r~ CV ~ C~`.`] `3 C~rl aw
a) CS C 01
~ ¢ r Cl M -O fY9
~ N 4 ~ v o ,
Q
a
L U-)
0 ~Okn~tO~N
.,t rrl- C\lp40
U. r ~ r p C*]
r
U)
Z
O
H ~
:D w
I~
< U)
J C ~ 0 N
LLJ cm d_ C
d C~ 'in ~ ep N
~ O c~ ~ tG [T] ~
~ Q ~ t ~ i ~ s,m~ a) r'
Q~ 0 a) t~u C s Q ~
~ E C' ~ 0}~~ ` ~Y
~ a. 4 •C -C O ~
J (D U N I dl C C6 (E1 `
fl~~+ ~QLLd4W~~~UZfJ')~ i ~
• .
. ,
~
EXHIBIT H
APPLICANT'S TRAFFIC STUDY
~
~
. ~ •
~ - .
~ ALPINE ENGINEERING, INC. :
April 13, 2001
Mr. Greg Ha11, P.E.
Town af Vaii
Department of Public'Works
1309 Elkhorn Drive
Vail, CQ 81657
Re: Chateau Vail Access Locatians
. I)ear Greg: .
The purpose of this leCter is to make recammendatians for the access driveways to the propased
Chateau Vail Hatel based on #he revised site plan as requested per Toivn af Vail PEC. This will
include location with respect to oiher driveways (batlx existing and proFosed), the roundabout,
design criteria, full or restricted access, etc.
The site is located between South Frontage Raad and West Meadow Drive, nearthe southwest
corner of the intersection of South Frantage Road and VaiI Road: The exisEing hotel has 120 `
eooms, an 80 seat restaurant and 60 seat bar. The revised development plan currently includes a.
+ 116 roam hotel, 15 free market candaminiums, 44 fractianal fee cQndominiums, 85 seat -
restaurant, 1,127 sf retail space and a 15,200 sf spaJlzealth club. Use of the health clublspa wi116e
primarily by hotel guests, hovuewer sga services (rnassages, salon, etc.) will be available ta the - -
general public on a walkinl'resea vation basis. The h4te1 will also have about 14 emplayee housing
units with 28 be,ds.
Existing Conditions:
Access ta the site is from 3 Iacations_ 1) Sou#h 1Frantage Road via a shared driveway entrance
with the existing Amoco service sta#ian; 2) the private driveway from Vail Road and 3} the
driveway from West Meadow Drive. 1) Access frorn the 5auth Frontage Road is provided fram a shared entrance with the Arnoco
(Alpine Standard) service station. The Sauth Frontage Road has tuvo eastbaund, two westbound
and a middle turning lane adyacent ta the site. A third eastbound lane is provided just befare the
roundabout. The posted speed is 25 mph. A concrete rnediars an tlxe Sauth Frantage Road
extends from the edge of the roundabout to the western edge of the entrance, which terminates at
the center turning lane. Vehicies exiting I-70 can travel west on the South Frontage Rgad, make a
short u-tum around the median and enter the driveway. lt is assumed that only a few
vehicle s(10°/a) make thks turn to enter the site. 17ais shared entrance is Iocated about 100 ft. west
of the raundabout.
2) The secortd access is a rivo way driveway from Vail Road, appraximately 150 ft. south of the
raundabout and about 60 ft. sfluth of the Vail Road access to the Arnoco service skation. An
existing tNvo iane driveway that leads to the parking garage for Vail Gateway is located diFectly
• acrass from the hotel driveway on Vail Aoad. Prpposed plans for development Qf the parcel
Edwards Business Center • P.O. Bpx 97 - fdwards, Colorado 81632 •(970) 926-3313 • Fax (974) 926-3394
• , y
south of the Vail Gateway indicate the construction of a'one-Nvay' exit adjacent to the existing
access ta the Vail Gateway parking garage. ~
3} The third access to the site is a two-Nvay driveway from West Meadow I)nve located oxa the
westem side af the site. We assume thai this access is rarely, if ever, used by hotel guests sinee it
is not readily apparent that tk1e hotel parking lat can be accessed from this driveway. 5ince the .
majority of vehicles travel an the South Frontage Road or Vail Road, trip rates are expected ta be
low at this entrance and are nat considered in this repvrt.
Proosed Conditians:
1} A separate ane-way entrance far service vehicles malcing deliveries to the hotel (appruximately
four per day) is proposed frQm Sauth Fmntage Road on #he western side ofthe site,
approxirnately 130 ft. tivest ofthe Tawn of Vail Municipal; Center entrance and 300 ft_ west of the
Amoeo access_ This access drive will parallel Svuth Frontage Road alang #he front of the hotel
and connect to the existing shared access at tlhe Amoco service station. Vehieles will Qnly be
permitted to make a right {eastbound} turn fram the Amoco access onto Santh Frontage Rvad. It
is proposed ta extend the existing, median an South Frontage Road approximately I(}Q ft to the
west #o prohibit left turns inJout of the shared A,moco access_
2) The existing driverrvay from Vail Road is proposed ta be one-way in (right turn only from Vail
Road), and will be used by hotel guests ta enter the property. Vehicles will exit onto South
Frantage Road via the shared access at Amoco.
3) T'he existing driveway ontta West Meadow Dnve wiil be closed. .
References and Assum tions: ~
7he Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) "Trip Generation" publication (e edition) has been ussd
ta determine average vehicle trip ends (AVTE) for t?se existsng and praposed conditions. As
various uses wiil be cansidered in this analysis, the "peak hour of adjacent street traffic" has
been used #o determene traffc volumes Using the "peak hour af generator" eould give false
results since the timing of geak traff~c can vary for a given use. Two time periads are thus
analyzed, 7 am - 9 am and 4 pm - 6 prn as outlined per ITE.
The ITE publication pravides variaus land use options for hotel-rype establishments. This repart
will consider the existing and proposed hotel as s"Resflrt Hate1", land use 330 per ITE. .As
described in the manual, "ResflR Hotels are similar to hotels (land use 310) in that they provided
sleeping accommodations, restaurants, cocktaal lounges, retail shoQs and guest services_ 'Ihe
primary difference is that resort hotels cater to the tourist atad vacation business, flften praviding a
variety of recreational facilities, rather than convention and meeting business. Resort hatels are
normally lacated in suburban or autlying locatinns on larger sites than conventional hatels." It
avas assumed that this project fits the above description. The trip generation per raQan ten;ds to be
less far a "resort hatel" than far a"hotel" and given the 1QCation of the site, this should be true far
this project. Since the hotel is wi#.hin close proximity to the various attraetions in Vail, it wauld
be expected that the majority of guests will walk or use the free public transportation, thus
generating less vehicle valumes than a typical hotel where guests'w'ould normally have to drive to
attractians_ The deseription of a resort hotel (as well as a hotel) includes restaurant, coektail
launge, retail shops, etc. Based vn this description, thxs report will include the praposed
re5taurant, bar, etc_ in the traffic generated by the resort hotel, and does not break these out
separately in determining traffic volurnes. It is to be nated that the ITE description does not
~
I
Auxiliary Lane RequireEnents: Frantage Road , Per the 1998 State Highway Access Code Section 3.13, South Frontage Road is category F-R
(Frontage Road). The posted speed limit is 25mph.
Sectaon 3.13 of the State Highway Access Cade states that auxiliary lanes are required as
follows:
1} A lefE tum lane wi#h storage length plus taper length is required for any access witt? a
projected peak hour left ingress turning volume greatec than 25vph. Existing left turn
DHV from Sovth Frantage Road inta the existing shared entrance is es#imated at 6. The
one-way entrance drive on the west side of the property is for service vehicles anly_
5ince the DHV = 1(ae up to 3 gce's), a left turn lane is not required. However,
approximately 155ft is available in the existing turn lane (which can be used for
deceleratifln and stackizag) from the et?d of the proposed xr?edian ta the new entrance.
2} A right turn with storage length plus taper length is required for any access with a
projected peak hour right ingaress tuming, vvlume greater than SOvph. Existing right turns
frQm South Frontage Raad are estimated at 18. Proposed right turns are estimated tca be 1
(os up ta 3 pee's) at the hatel and 15 at Amoco. A right turn lane shnuld hot be required.
3) A right tum acceleration lane with taper is required for any access with a projected pealc
hovr right tuming voInme greater than 50 vphwhen the posted speed on the highway is
greater than 40 mph, and the highway has only one lane far through traffic in the
direction of the rig,ht Lurn. A right turn acce}eration lane is not required an muiti-1ane
~ highways of this ca#egory. Synce South Frontage Road is multi-larse with a posted speed
of 25 mph, a right turn accelerateon iane is not required.
4) A left turn acceleration lane with transition #aper may be required if it wauid be a benefit .
to the safety and ogeration of the roadway ar as determined by subsection 3.5. A left turn .
accelera#ion l,ane is generally nat required where. the posted speed is less than 45mph, nr .
the intersectian is signatized, ar the acceleratian lane wcauld interfere with the left turn
ingress mvvements ta any oiher access. South Frantage Raad has a posted speed of 25 ,
mgh. No left turns are praposed from the project, thus a lane should not be
required. ;
Subsection 3.5 of the State Highway Access Cade states:
The auxiliary lanes required in the categvry design standards may'he waived
when the 24~` year predicted raadrnray volumes conflicting with the tuming
vehicle are below the following minimum volume threshalds. The right tum
deceleration lane may be dropped if the volume in the travel lane is predicted to
be below 150 DHV. The left turn deceieratian lane may be dropped if the
opposing traffic is predicted ta be bejow 100 UHV. The right turn acceieration
lane may be dropped if the adjacent traveled lane is predicted to be below 120
DHV. The left turn acceleration lane may be dropped if the volume in the inside
lane in the direction of travel is predicted #o be below 120 DHV.
Summary Tab1e*
For Relocated Frontage Road Access
Sauth Frontage Road Aliowed per 3.13 CurrentlPrajected Lane Req'd per 3.13
~ Left I)ecel 25 613 (pce's) N ,
R.ight Decel SO 18/3 (pce's) N
Left Accet N/A 1410 N
Right Accei NIA 32i90 N
"The znformation contained in the sunxmary table with regards to existing and proposed vehicle
trips is based solely on ITE "Trip Generatian" publicat.ion for specifie land use as previously ~
' described in this report. Turning mc?vements are estimates and nvt based on actual field
abservations. The CurrentfProjected rtnovements include hatel anti gas station trips.
RecommendationslConclusions: (also addressing camnnents presented during the 7'ativn of Vail
PEC meeting held on 2/12/2001.)
1. Sauth Frontage Raad Access
?he one-way entrance from the Fronta.,ge Road should anly be u5ed by service vehicles. Sectian
4.3 in the State Highway Access Code discusses sight distanee along the highway and at access
paints_ Minimumldesign site distance alflng tlze Sauth Frontage Road is 150 ft. (based an 25mph
posted speed). Section 4,4 states that each access should be sepa:rated at a minimum by a distance
equal to the design sight diskarsce, in this case 150 ft. 7'he current plari indicates #hat the
proposed entrance (located on the westernmast gortion of the property) is separated from
the en#rance to the Amaco service statian by approximately 300 Ft and 130 ft from the Town .
of Vail Municipal Center entrance (centerline distances). The existing median on the South
Frontage Raad shQUld be extended approxiEnately 100 ft to the west to the Town of Vail
buiiding entrance. This should reduce any conflicting movements adjacent to the roundabout
far vehicles travelling wesi and pravide for better traffic flow on South Frontage Road.
2. Vail Access R4ad:
The access frnm Vail Raad should be a'one riway in' driveway, used by hotel guests. This is ~
consistent with information obtained fram the PEC. Providing "one-way in" should also lirnit
the eanflicting turning movements on Vail Road if the proposed 'exit-only' access is canstructed adjacent to the 11ai1 Gateway driveway. Use of this access by hotel guesis only (and directing
service vehicles to the Frvntage Road aecess) should reduce "disturbance" to the Nine Vail
prvperty and address the safety concerns vaiced by Alpine 5tandard regarding service vehicles
backing up adjacent to the sezvice station xo access the ltaading daek area.
3. West Mesdow Drwve Access:
This driveway will be closed. ,
We also recammend that a copy of the site plan, showing the proposed access revisions, be
forwarded ta the owner ofthe Amoco service statian and Tawn of Vail Fire Department for #.heir
review and camments_
Please feel free to contact us if you have any questians ar to discuss this matter further.
Sincerely,
Frederick E. Tobias, PE
Enclosures ~
Cc: Waldir Prado
Tim Losa
!
' LXt~TtSvL-. ~~r.aD?T~nrv
~oTEt- Mo„r- QF Ansa,cr-kzr TeaWit-
I''R R(n
6)A S
-1'67A L pfi
~
f
nI: VaIL
8ui~.~~ wi 4,S G7 ~
~ 15
~ -r,,e.?1 `-'?'•.~ut B ~ ~'c~pr' ~
r F R4%ThGt R4-%D--4P'-
~~-r~~•~:a_- ~ ~i . w
4`~^l f~~i-•-_ ~_~f -vr- ~s°=~__ ~ / ~
~ ~ ~ - , w ti ~ ! ~ I r ; .
' ~ Rmv c[7
~r , ` ~ •~1 ~ ..j i
- ~1~ ~AvD ~'e~fA0.'K1N
~~t1S~~N ~ I 1•'
f .
~ ~ ~ • ~'t.
~`~k'~"y= l ~I
l__
~r - "~;~-'r:--••-
1 - ' r+ • ! L
5 ~_i- ^ a'A~ ~ • L~!• ` `
? WFS
w n~~ ~ ~-n . t • I
tj
:
j
.l:
~
~f
~
Re50t't Hotel .
(33C})
Average Vehicle Trip Ends Ws: Employees ~
On a: Weekday,
Peak Hour of Adjacent Stree# Traffic,
4ne liour Between 4 and 6 p.m.
Number ofi Studies: 4
Avg. Numaer of Employees: 818
Directianal Distribu#ion: 40°la enterang, 60% exiting
Trip Generation per Employee
Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Qev4ation
0.25 0.10 - 0.73 0.53
Da#a Plot and Equation CaufPon - C?se Carefu!!y - Sma11 Sample 31re
440
, . . . . . , , . .
~
w
F-
~ : : : ; : . . . . .
~ 200 ....X : : : + ; :
u . . , . . . . , .
toa ..._..F..__.. : : _ :
Q . . . ,
200 soa aao 500 600 700 eao 900 ,Oao 1100 1200 1300
X = Nurnber oi Ernployees
X Actual Data Pcslnts Average Rate ~
Flt[ed Curve Equatlon: Not given R2
Trip Generation, fith Edition 583 Insiitute of Transportation Engineers
t
~ ~ I
I
Resor# Hotei '
~
- (330)
~ aWerage Vehicie Trip Encis vs: Employees
Qn a: Weekday,
Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic,
ane Hour Between 7 and 9 a.m.
Number of Studies: 4
Avg. Number of Emplayees: 818
- Directional Distribution: 69% entering, 31 % exiting
Trip Generatian per €mployee
A+rerage Rate Range of Rates Standard peviatian
0.15 0.11 - 0.34 0.39 I
Data Plot and Equa#ian Gauflon - Use Carefulfy - Smalf Sample Sf=e
zoo . . . . . . . . . ~
iea : : : . : : .,;,~f
. . . . , . . .
iaa : . . • :
- - . . . .
~~o , . . , . ;
, 160 ; • . . ^ : X
: : : ~ : ; : ' ? . .
~ 150 . :
C . . ~ . . ~ • •
Q 140 : ......:.......e _......•-----;...,..'t~ :
F- . '
m 130 : : : . . . . .
v . . . . . . . . , .
3 120 : : : . .r- : :
. . , , , . . .
CI) 110 ,
co
Q ]OQ ~ ...~y! . ;
F-
90 ~r : :
Bd . r...,, ; : . , .
, . o' . . . , . . .
7U . . . , . , , , ; a n
. . . . . .
. . . . . . . • -
. •
, . . ;
ov
sY " .......................•""_':.....,.__..'..es.,....
ff . . . . , . . . .
40
200 300 404 500 600 700 80U 900 1000 1140 1200 13W
X = Number of Ernplayees
X Actusl Oaia Polnts Fltted Curve Averegs Rete
~ Fitted Curve Equatian: T= 0.066(K) + 69.519 R2 = 0.87
Trip Generativn, 6th Edition 582 Institu4e of Transportalion Engineers
Resort Hote1 . ~ .
(33D) ~
Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Romms
' On a: Weekday,
` Peak Hour of Ildjacent 5treet Traffic,
One Haur Between 4 and 6 p.m.
~ Number of Studies: 10
' Average Numher of Rooms: 495
Directional DistribuEian: 43% entering, 57°fa exiting
Trip Generation per RoQm
Average Rate Range af F6ates Standard Deviation
0.42 0.19 - 0.51 0.55
Da#a Piot artd Equation
$oa . . . . , . .
aoo ' : : ~X....... ~
4A
CL ` . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
~ 3100 . . . . . . . : . . . . :
u . . , . . .
j
a`~ 200 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X; . . . . • • • , , , . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . , . . . . . . .
> , . . . .
4 : x ;X
y{ . • ~ ~ '
1,00........... . . _ . ' :
+ . . . . • ~
x . . . . . . ~
4 . . • ~
190 240 300 480 500 600 700 F94 9~
X = Number a[ Fiooms
X Aelual Data Polnls Ftted Curve Averaya Ra1e ~
Fitted Curve Equatlon: Ln(T) = 1.437 Ln(X) • 3.621 R2 = 0.93 ±
T•:A e^.nb.-nf;nn Flh Friitinn 587 InstituEe oi TransFartation Ersglneers
0
~ Nigh-Rise ResidentiaE CondominiumfTownhouse
(232)
Auerage Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Dwelling llnits
On a: Weefcday,
Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic,
Qne Hour Between 4 and 6 p.m.
Number of Studies: 5
Avg. Numbet af Dwefling l)nits: 444 -
~ Directional Distribution: 62% eniering, 38°!a exiting
Trip Generation per Dwelling Unit .
Average Rate Range of Rates Stardard Deviation
0.38 0.34 - 0.49 0.62
Data Plat and Equatian Caufiarr-L1seCarelully-SmallSampleSize
660 -
. . . . . . , . . . . . .
~ 500 ' . . . +_....f~.'.. '
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . y. . .
y . . . . . . . . . . . .
Q 440 . . . . . . ` - . . ' . . . , . . . , . . . ' . . . • . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
~ . . . . . . . ~r , . . . ~
U ~ ' . , . ~ . ~ ~f . . . . . .
? 300 • ° : . . . : . . : . . . : . . . : . . . : . . . : . . y. . _ . . . : . . . : . . ` . . . : . . . . . .
200 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . : . . . : . . ; . . . : . . . ; , . . : . . , : . . . . ; . . . . . .
x
tioo .
, . . . . . .
o ~
a 100 200 soo aoo soo 600 700 eoo soo 1000 1100 1200 1340 tacw 15W
X= Num6er of OYrefling Units
~ X AcluaT Qala Palnts ItJtted Curva bverage Rate
Fitted Curve Equatlan: T= 0.342(X) + 15.466 P12 _0•g9
Trip GenQrallon, 6th Edition 396 Institute of Transportaaon En9ineers ~
. t
specify square faatsges, seating, etc. far each suxiliary use in refation to the number of hotel '
rooms. The manual does not provide data for trips generated on weekends, only weekdays,
as we have previously discussed. ~
This land use is also used to deterntine the trips generated by the erngloyee housing units since
there is no °ennployee housing unit" or similar category in the ITE manual. Thus, the AVTE vs.
Emplvyees chart is used, although this value shouid be conservative as it determines all trips
generated by the hotel, not jus# those by emgfayees.
Ths proposed development wzli also have 15 free market condominiums and 40 fractianal fee
condominiums which are designated as "High-Rise Resideniial CondominiumfCownilYOUSe" i.and
Use 232 per ITE to determin,e trip rates. This designation was chasen since the description best
a?atches the proposecl deveiopcnent.
The praposed health clublspa is identified under land use 493 (HeaIth Club) in the ITE manual.
I4 should be noted that only one observation was used in the ITE study, thus the data
extrap4lated should be used with extreme caution due to the sma!l samp{e size.
Additionally, the I'I°E stvdy for health clubs was based on square footage of floar area and not on
the number afrriembers. Since the club will be used primari}y by hotel guests and is nat a"stand
alvne" facility bui part of a hotel cornplex, it is difficult fa determine aetual vehicle trips.
An on-site traffic count has not been conducted For this report- Vehiele trig ends weie estimated
using #he values for each land use as prnvided by ITE. The percentage of vehicles entering the
site frora any given d'arectian has been assumed and is noi based on actual ohservations. The I
assumed gercentage for each direction is indbcated alang the tucning movement arraw an the
~ accompanying diagrams. ~
Existing Average Vehicle Tsip Ends;
Feak hour* pe~ ~our*
7am-9am 4pm-6pm
Land Use ~ xooms Total Enter E~cit To#al Enter Exit
Resort Hvtel 120 37 27 10 51 22 29
~'ras Station 5 pumps 61 31 30 73 37 36
~'otal 98 58 40 124 59 65
Pzopased Average Vehicle Trip Ends:
Peak hour* Peak hour*
7am-9am 4pm-6prn
Lanct Use Units Total Enter Exit 1'otal Enter Exit
Ftesort Halel 116 moms 36 26 10 49 21 28
. Emplayee 28 beas - 4 3 1 7 3 4
Housing
Deliveries 1 truck b** 3 3 6** 3 3
Candorl'imeshare 55 units 19 4 15 21 13 g
Health Club 15.2 ksf 5 2 3 65 40 25
Subtotal - Sice 70 38 32 14$ $0 68
Gas Station :5 pumps 6l 31 30 73 37 3'~
Total 131 69 62 221 117 104 ~
* Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic
Assumes that one delivery truck enters and exits witlain the peak hour.
s J
~
a o;' ;
Dg
~ ~ .
_ ~ ~ 1 ~
~
ra a ~ ~
W
~
r ~ r y I
3 ~ a I
'T r ~
ot,r?1 :1
C, ~
~
0 -
~ ~ .
i <a f
Ld f . Ljo ~
~ ~
Jz
~
> ~
~ . . .
-i l ~ ~
Lt. d
. . .
.
-
. .
•
.
E .
~ .
~
i - '
Land USe: 493 ~
Hea1th Club
. lndependent 1lariahles with One Clbservafion -
The tallowing trip generatinn data are for independent variables yvith oniy one observation. This
informalion is shown in this iable anly; there are no related p[ots for these data.
Users are cautioned to use lhese data with care becauss ot the srnatl sample size.
Trip Size of Numher
Generatiors lndependent ° a#
' Lr i,dependeni Variable Ftate Vari S ies Directional Distributioa
1,000 S uare Feet Grass Floor Area •
Weekday A.M. Peak 0.30 43 1 46% entering, 5a°Ja exiting
Hdur oF Adjacent Streek
Traffic
Weekday P.M. Peak a. 0 43 1 61°la entering. 39°lo exiiing
Haur of Adjacent Street
7ratfic
Weekday A.M. Pealc 0,30 43 1 46°.'o entering, 54°,/ti exiting
Hour of Generatar
Vl/eekday P.M. Peak 4.30 43 1 61 °fo entering, 39% ex+iing ~
Hour of Generator
~
..t'r'..,ncnnrlntinn PnninP.eCS
High-Rise Residentia1 Cvndominium/Townhouse
~ (232)
Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Dwelling Units
On a: VYeekday,
Peak Hour 4f Adjacent Street Traffic,
One Hour Between 7 and 9 a.m.
Nurnber of Studaes: 4
Avg. Number af Dwelling llnits: 543
Directional Distributian: 19% entering, Si °Ja exiting
Trip Generatian per awel(ing Unit
Average Rate flange of Rates Standard Deviation
0.34 0.31 - 0.48 0.59
Data Plot and Equation Caution - Use Garefully- Smalt sampJe Sire
soo . . . . . . . , . . . . ,
: : : : : : : : : : : :
. . ,
400 . ,
_..~.r:-•
. . . . . . . . r!~ , . .
b . . . . J . . : . . . .
C , . . . , . . . . . . .
w . . . . . . . . . . . .
~ 300 : : ~ ` ; ' ~ . : , ' ; :
. , . . , . . . . . . .
y~
. . . . . , . , . . ,
w 200 .._,....,...i...,....,....._.,._.,...
. . . . . . . . . . . .
d . . . , . . . . . . . .
x
. . . . . . . . . . .
. . . ; ' : : : . . .
.
. . .
100 :
. . . . . . . . . . . .
x-
Q . . . . . ~ ~ ~ . . ~ i .
1(}0 200 300 440 504 600 700 EOD 904 1000 7700 1200 1304 1400 1500
X= Number ol Dwelling lJnits
X Actual Data Po1nCs Fitled Curva Aveca;: Rate
Fikted Curve Equatian: T = 0.288(X) t 28.861 A2 = 0.98
Trio Generatron, 6lh EdiEion •-395 Institute af 7r8nsportalion Eng(neers
Gasofine/Service Station -
(s44)
Average Vehicle T`i,p Ends ws: Vehicle Fueling Positions
(3n a: Weekday,
Peak Hour of Adjacent Stree# Traffic,
One F#our Between 7 and 9 a.m.
Numbar of Studies; 12
Average Uehicfe Fueling Pos{tions: 8 ~
airectional Distributivn: 51 % entering, 49% exiting
Trip Generation per Vehicle Fueling Pasitian
Average Rate Range of Raies SCandard Deviation
12.27 7,33 - 17.50 4.36
Data Plot and Equation
,so . . . . .
140 . : . .r."...
130 ...:............X.............,.............,...... ~
120 • . ,
w 110 ~ r" ~............t........_._
~ . ~ . ,
. •r. , .
L . . ~ . ~
> ~ ~ . . .
a) gp ,:.....•X••.-••-•-•_.
~ . , . .
~ . , . .
Q 80 ......x........
II : . . ; -
~ . . , . .
74 . •
6O •
50 : .
.
40 . . . ~ .
& 7 8 ~ 9 10 11 12
X=Number af VeFriefe Fueling Pasitions
x J1ctual Data Po[nls Fltted Curve Avarage Rala ~
Fi#ted Curve Equat(on: T ~ 9.810(X) + 18.865 R` = 0,51
7°rip Generalion, Bth Edition ' ` 1458 Institute of Transportation Engineers
CasalinelService Station
~ (s44)
Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Vehicre Fueling Positions
On a: Weekday,
Peak Hour af Adjacent Streei Tra##ic,
- One Howr Between 4 and 6 p.m,
Number of 5tudies: 18
Average Vehicle Fueling Positions: B
Directional C3istribution: 51 % entering, 49% exiting ~
Trip Generation per Vehicle Fueling Position
Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviatian
14.56 5.00 - 27.33 6.70
Data Plot and Equation
zzo -
210 :
200 . .............r.__........
190 ~
. X , .
1B~ .
. j{ . . ,
17V c 160 . .
w . , . . .
150 : i
~ 140
~ . . .
CD 130.......... : ; , :
~ 120 j{. ~e.........
La : . : . ;
~ 110 .
:
MV ~ f ~ . . . . . . ~ . . . . . . . . . . . y•.. . . _ . _ . . : . . . ~ . ~ . . . . . • . . . . . . _ . . • . . . . . _ _ . . . .
D
e /yS~ . . .
O'0 • . . : . . e . . . _ _ . . . . . . _ _ _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . n .
74
60
.
54 • . ...........X............, ,
40 ° . . .
6 7 61 9 SU ii 12
X- Number Qf Vehicle Fueling Posikians
X Aclvai l}ata Points Rveaage Ftata
Fitted Curve Equatfon: Hat given R2
. ,
7rip Genetali4n, 6th Edition 1459 l~ 9nstitute of TranspQrtatson Engineers
Resort Hotel
4
-(33o)
~
Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Rooms
~ on a: Weekday,
Peak Haur of Adjacent Street Trafific,
Qne Hour Between 7 and 9 a.m.
Nurnber of Studies: 7
Average Number af Roams: 504
QirectionaE Distribuiion: 72% entering, 28% exiting
Trip Generation per Room
Average Rate Range oE Rates Standard aeviat'son
a.57
1 0.31 0.24 - 0.41
Data Plot anci Equatian
aao . . : ; :
x ~
300 '
a, ; : • , :
~ zua . ~ . :~a...., :
~ ; : . • :
~ : • x :
¢ x
u . , . ~
: • • :
ioo ......~.._X~ : j . .
. • ~ ~
0
600 700 eoo Laa.
300 aao soo
X = Nurnber at Rooms
X Aclual Dala Palnls Fi;tvd Curve Averaga Ralo ~
Filted +Curva Equakion: T= 0,995(X) - 40.786 Fi2 = 0.75
586 lnstitute oE i'ransportalion Engin$ers
7'rip GeRerafion, 6lh Edition
~
Ex~~~IT i
APPLICAhl7'S STATE'MENT OF THE REQUEST
i
!
ft w
ZE H R E N ~
AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
May 8, 2001
.
Mr. Brent Wilson
Town of Vail
Department of Cornmunity Develapment
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
Re: Vail Plaza Hotel -West
Brent:
`1'his lerter is to address design criteria A through I as outlined in section 12-9A-8 of the town code. It is the
applicant's undersianding that these nine criteria are to be used in evaluating the merits of the creation of
the new Vail Plaza Hotel-West Special Development District.
A. Cpmpatihility: Design cainpatibility and sensativity to the irnmedzute enviranmend, neighbarhood and
adjacetit Properties relcrtive to architectural rlesign, scale, bulk, building height, bufj'er zanes, identity,
character, visual integrity and or-ientativn.
The praposed hotel is designed in such a way that is b9kh eampatible and sensitive to the immediate ~
environment, neighborhood, and adjacent properties while at the same time giving the project an identity as a
cornmercially viable hotel project within both the immediate neighborhood and the cammunity at ]arge.
The predominant onentarion of the proposed hotel is koward the pedestrian areas alang the sauthem edge of the
site. Public, pedestrian ariented functions including the predo3tunant pedestrian entrance to the hotel, spa,
conference facilqties, retail area, and the restaurant have been located along West Meadow Drive. Additianally,
khis area also has the largest setbacks, greatest amount of landscaping, and lowest building heights in order to in
order to rela#e to the exisung buildings along East and West Meadvw Drive, maintain a comfortable pedestxian
scale, and to provide for a transition to the smaller scale residential properties to the south.
In order to create this transition and buFfer zone along West Meatinw Drive, the greatest density and subsequent
height far the hotel have bcen located along the South Frontage Road along the northern edge of the site. The
building height in this area, althaugh exceeding the underlying zaning, direc#ly relates to the heights of existing
and proposed structures east of Vail Road. The intent is to create a"gateway" to the Village, as s#ruetures would
step up to similar heights on either side of Vail Road.
Other proposed buffer zones are alsa consistent with or exceed the underlying zoning in that they meet or
exceed the minimum required properry lute setbacks and coverage requirements_ Increased setbacks and
landscaped screening have aiso been proposed along the eastern partions of the site #a minimize the irnpacts of
vehicular ciecuyation an neighbars.
The mass and bulk of the praposed hotel, as deterrnined primarily by the prescribed setbacks, site coverage,
landscape caverage, aaid gross residenfial floor area requirements within the tvwn cocte, all con#'orm to khe
underiying zanang. It is the belief of the applicant tttai because it is ihe underiying zonimg which deterrni.ues the b
building envelape for any given site, and because the proposed project complies with these portions of the
underlying zoning, it is the intent of the Vai1 Cotnprehensive Plan ehat a hatel of this size, density, niass, and
bulk is intended this site. Furthermore, the site's location, prtsximity, access to n[lain thoraughfaxes, and
prescribed uses, help to lend credence to this belief.
ARCHITECTUhE-PLANN1NG•INTER9aRS•LANDSGd.PE ARCHITECTUaE
P.O. Box 1976 • Avon, Coioraclo 81620 • (970) 949-()257 • FAX (970) 949-1080
.
Vail Plaza Hatcl Zehren and Associates, Inc.
~ 961070.00 5l$!01
The architeciural design; character, and visual integriry of the propased hotel wlth ather sm?etures within the
eammunity is meant to be both cnmpatible with the immediate neighbors while at the same time re?ating to some
of the larger, more recent hotel projects east of Vai1 R.nad. 7'he project has been designed with stepping and
broken ridge lines, variatians in building arAaterials, and varied wall and deck g3anes acting ta break down the
overali mass and bulk of the projecc, add pedestrian seale and interest, and relate the hotel to the surrounding
neighborhood.
B. Relatioriship: Uses, aciivity, and density, whicft provide a cvinpat{ble, effrcfent and warkable
relation.ship with surrouricling uses and activity.
The uses, activities and densities are consistsn.t with those listed within the underlying zvning.
C. Parkitig and Loading: Compltance with the parkitrg and loadang requireinents as outlined in Chapter
10 of this Title, (Zoning).
The propased parking and loading facilities are in compiiance with the requ'vrezxaents of the zoning titie, adopted
town standards, and staff policy/requirements.
D. Comprefiensive Plan. Conformity with the applicable elements of tlze Vai! Comprehensive Plan, Town
policies and Urban Design Plan.
The proposed flevelopment substaniially complies with appiicable goals and policies as expressed in both the
~ Streetscape Master Plan and the Land Use Plan.
The Land Use Plan icientifies partions of the site as both "resort accommodation and service" and as
"transition". As such, the plan recommends acfivities and uses consisient with the underlying zoning aimed at
accornmodating the overnight and short-terrn visitoz. As such, the uses and functions are oraented in order to
mainiain a clear separation between the vehiculaz orientation of #he resort accommodation zone along the South
Prontage Raad and the pedestrian orientation af the transition zone along West Meadow Drive,
The proposed improwements to the South Frontage Roac1, Vail Road, and West Meadow Drive coneeptually
eomply with khe applicable elements of'the Streetscape Master Plan by prcawiding improvetnents in the materials,
configurations, and sizes as indicaked in the plan.
E. Naturul vndlor Geologic Hazards: Identiftcalion and rnitigatian of naturad and/or geologic hazards
that affect tli e property on which the special developrnent district is proposed.
Vile believe that there are no natural or geologic hazards that may affect the development of this site.
F. Design Features: Site plan, building design, and foeutiQn and upen space provisions desigrted to
produce a func.lioncrP developnzent resparastue and sensitive to natura7 features, vegetatian, and eaverall
aesthetie quatity of the community.
The proposed building location, site plan, building design, and apen space provide fnr a functional and efficient,
fisll service, canference hotel that is bnth responsnre to the location and circulatian patterns within the town,
orientatian of the site, and aesthetie quality of the immediate neighborhood and the corrQnunity at large.
~
2
Vail Plaza Hotel Zehren and Associates, Inc_
961070.00 5/8/01 ~
Because of the proposed hate9's location within the town and proxirnity to the main Vail roundabout, the
project's impacts on existing traf~`ic volumes and infrastructure wili be minitnal. The site plan and building
design further miiuimize irnpacts by simplify existing traffic patterns inta Ane-way, right turn patterns. In
addirion, the site plan and building design nnpzave upon the aesthetic quality of the immediate environment,
especially with regard to the pedestrian orientation along Wesk Meadow Drive, through the elirnination of
vehicular traffac, the provision for additional open space and landscaping, anc3 provisions for gublic
improvements and infrastructure including public plazas and artvvork.
G. Traffie; ,4 eireulation system designed for bolh vehicles and peclestrians addressing an and off-site
traffic eirculation.
`i'he proposed a pedestrian and vehieular traffic circulation system provides for miniznal impact on existing
infrastructure through the linutation of rrzultiple tuming movements and sirnplification of traffic patterns, while
a# the same time praviding a safe and efficient means of circulation through an effective separatian of guest
vehicles ori Vail Road, service vehicles on the Snuth Frantage Roacf, and pedestrian systems on West meadow
Drive_
In addi0ion, the proposed laaff°ic patterns and improvements wou1d have no impact an existing easements held by
neighbaring prcrperties and would allow neighboring praperties to exercise full use of their rights. Furthermoze,
the traffic patterns proposed for khe hotel wauld eliminate all vehicular circulation on current easements held by
the hatel across both Nine Vai! Road Condorrunium and Alpine Standard properiy.
H. Landscaping; Functionrrl and aesthetic landscaping and open space an order ta optimize and preserve
natural features, recreation, views, and function. ~
The praposed landscape design provides for an effecrive and aeskhetie buffenng of vehicular eirculation and
service areas, for the privacy and shading requiremen#s af private residential areas, and far pedestrian scale and
interest in and along the public areas of the progosed hotel developmenk. There caurently exist no signifieant
natural features, zecreation, ar functions, public views ta be preserved or enhanced on, from, 4r over this site.
I. Phasing Plan; Phasing plan or subdivision plart that will maintain ct workable, functianal and
efficierat relationship throughout ihe development af fhe speczal development distrtct.
The develcaprnent will be constructed in vne phase.
It is alsa the applicant's understanding that in addition to der3nonstrating coxnpliance with the nine criteria
above, that it is the applicant's responsibiliry to demanstrate that, "any adverse effects of the requested
deviation from the developrnent standards af the underlying zoning are ouiw'eighed by the public benefits
pravided". The following is a li5t of the proposed deviatians from adopted develogrnent s#andards, adverse
effects, and propased mitigation measures as praposed by the applieant as well as the perceived public
benefit's denved fram the project:
Deviations from Develo ment Standards - Adverse effectsr'Miti ation Measures 1
. Building Heights - Impacts from this deviafion include ineseased shading an the South Frrrntage Road
public right of way and impacts or? wiews ta the south from that right of way. Public and private benefits
derived through iinplernentation of this deviation include lower densiries, ir?ass, bulk, arid building heights
along West Meadow Driue. Proposed rtritigation measur-es include snowmelt systems, retention and addition
~
af large trees and landscaping feahues including berms within the right of way, and enhancement of primary
pedestrian areas aiong West Meadow Drive ineluding provisibns for inereased setbacks and landscaping
coverage.
3
H .r . .
' Vai] Plaza Hotei Zehren and Associates_ Inc.
951 07i7.4l3 51$/01
Setback Deviations to be Reviewed in Accardance with Criteria ldentified in 12-7A-6. {2}
I • Below Grade Setbacks - No adverse impacts vccur from this deviation. Aublic and private benefi#s derived
from this deviation include increased area of landscaping coverage, and an increase in the amount of full
size parking spaces provided.
• Parte-Cachere Setbacks - No advexse impacts occur from this ciewiation. Publie and private benefits derived
from this deviation include increased rveather protection at entry areas, screening of vehicular and serviee
areas, architecturally identify prirnary and secondary building entries, and add visual interest within
elevatians.
Public Benefits Provided - Genezal (21)
• Irnplementarion of applicable goals, objectives, and policies as outlined in Vail Comprehensive Plans.
• Eeonamic redevelopment of an aging hotel property.
. Iznproved resiiiential character in the design of #he structure.
• Inerease in number of short-term accotrunodation units.
• Increase in size and qualiry of shart-term accammodation units.
• Increase in size and quality of eanference facilitaes.
• Tncrease in size and quatity of restaurant facilities.
• Increase in size and quality of retail facilities.
• Increase in size and quality of spa and health club facilities.
• Elimination of surface parking.
• Elunularion of vehicular traffic on West Meadovv Drive.
• Elirriination of ve.hicular maneurrering on vvithin the toNvn's right of way.
Elitnination of a susface 3oading dock witlun a frflnt setback.
• Zmproved vehicular safety thraugh decrease in tuming movements.
• hWroved vehiculaz safety through implementation of one-way traffic patterns.
• Improved peciestrian safety through provision of grade separated sidewalks.
• Elirtunatian of existing setback encroachments.
+ Elimination of existing lasndscaping deficiency (dcvelopmer?ts standards).
• Inczease in amount and quality af landscaping.
• Patential increase in year round guest occupancy.
+ Potential increase in hotel, resort, and town marketing and resources.
Public Benefits Prvvided - Patential Economic Benefits (4
~ • Patejxtiai increase in reeurring revenues (property taxes, lifk taxes, franchise fees, business licenses, ete.).
• Potential increase in recurring sales kax revenues (town and county).
• Increase in non-recurring building perrnit revenues.
• Increase in non-recurring real estate tax sevenues.
Public Benefits Provided - Development Standards f 9)
Provision of setbacks in excess vf develnpment standards.
• Provision of landscaping in excess of developrnent standazds.
• Provision of apen space in excess of development standards.
• Provision of on site, deed restrictedl emplayee-hausing units in excess of development standards (number of
units).
~ Provision of on site, deed restricted emplayee-housing units in excess vf development standards (size).
Provision of densities below prescribed development standards.
• Provision of uses consisient witlz prescaibed development standards.
0 Provision af parking in excess of prescribed deveimpment standards.
• Provision af loading facilities consistent with deve]apmeni standards.
4
Vail Plaza Hotel Zehren and Associates, Inc.
961470.00 5/$/01 ~
Direct Economic Bene.fits - Public Infrastructure(5)
• Conslruction of public infrastruchue with private nioney on West Meadow Drive including sidewalks,
roads, medians, plazas, lighting, landscape, hardscape, snokvmelt, curb and gutter, and drainage facilities.
• Construction af public inftastruchue with private money on the South Frontage Road including sidewalks,
roads, medians, lighting, landscape, hardscape, snowmelt, curb and gutter, and drainage facilities.
• Construction of publie infaastructure with private money on Vail Road including sideuvalks, roads, medians,
lightutg, landscape, haardscape, snowmelt, curb and gutter, and drainage facilities.
• Poten#ial impravements and provision of easements for Spraddle Creek infrastructure.
• Provision ofpublic art i.n compliance witli devekopment standards.
Putrlic Benefits Prvvided - Direct Benefi#s ta Neighboriny, Praperties 10
• Elimination af adjacent surface parking lot, (all neighbors).
•Increase in adjacent landscaped buffezing, (all neighbors).
• Itnproveci residential character af the pzoposeci hotel, (all neighbors).
• Physical improvetnents to Vail Road parking easement, (Nine Vail Road Condnminium).
+ Cantinued access to Vail Road parking easement, (Nine Vail Road Condonninium).
• Eliznination of ad}'acent loading dock and traffic conflicts, (Nine Vail Road Candominium).
• 1'otential increase in landscape c[rverage, (Nine Vail RQad Cvndaminium).
• Increased setbacks adjacent to property, (Nine Vail Road Cozadominium).
• Lncrease solar access, (Nine Vail Road Condominium).
• Irnproved view carridors to south, (Nine Vail Road Candomunium, Scorpio Condaminium).
~
Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions or concerns regarding the infonnation Fresented-
Aciditionally, if you need any additioraal information, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Timothy R. Losa., A.I.A.
Senior Associate
Zehren and Associates, Iric.
~
5
f.
MEMQRANDUM
~
Ta: Plannirrg and Enviranmental Commiss+fln
FR(]M; Community Development Qepartment
DATE: May 14, 2001
SUBJECrt: A request for a final review of a condfiional use permut, to allow far the
construction of f'hase I improvements on the lawer bench of Donovan
Parklunplatted, generally located southeast of #he intersectian of
Matterhorn Circle and the South Frantage Raad.
Applicant: Town of VaiE, represented by Odell Architects, P.C.
Planner: George RuiFaer
1. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
C?n Aprii 9, 2001, the applicant again appeared befare the Planning &
Enviranmental Commissian with a request for the issuarace of a conditional use
. permit ta allow for the canstructian of the Phase I improvements for De+novan
Park_ Following tne revEew of the proposal the Planning & Environmental
Commission voted to apprave the request with the condition that seven issues be
~ addressed. The seven issues thai need to be resalved are:
1. That the applicant submits revised plans ta the Community Qerrelopment
. Departrnent for the review and approval of the PEC of the follawing items:
• That appficant redesigns the eold roof system.
I * That a covered trash enclasure be provided.
• That the service entry be re-addressed pursuant to DRB conditions.
• That a minimum of 145 parking spaces be provided on site.
• That the applicant provides a snow storage area equaling at least
10% of the size of the parking area and that the snow removal
complies wi#h aEl applicable Tnwn of Vail regula#ivns.
• 7hat the applicant returns to the PEC for review of a managernent
plan for the site.
• That the allowable building height be reduced to 33 feet maximum.
The applicant is prepared to respond to six of the seven issues raised by the
Planning & Environmental Gommission. The applicant is not prepared at this
time to respond to the concerns of the management plan.
The applican# has redesigned the cold roof system. The redesigned system
relocates the lower venting of the rcaof to prevent blockage of cold air#!ow from
the snow that will accumulate on the roof. The redesigned cold reaof system has
~ been reviewed by a: raofing consultant to ensure constructability and adequate
operations. Accarding to the cansultant, the proposed cold roof system will
adequately function and operate for the intended purposes.
~
~
A trash dumpster is proposed in the service area. At the previous meeting the
Planning & Environmentai Commission expressed concerns about the focation of ~
the trash dumpster and its proximity to the pedestrian walkway. The applieant
has relocated the trash dumpster and provided a fuily encPosed, bear-proof
enclosure. The trash encCQSUre is now to the east of the loading drive and
screened by a six-faat tall wood and stane fence. The enclosed dumpster will be
serviced on a weekly basis, The Design Review Baard reWiewed the proposed
locatian of the new enclosure and associated screening and approved it a# their
May 2, 2001 meeting.
The appficant is proposing revisions to the design of the sen+ice area. A new
design was presented conceptually to the Design Review Board an May 2, 2001.
The Board caraceptually approved the direction of the design citing that the
increased length of the wal9 and fence and the praposed height wauld adequately
screen the service area fram public views. The applican# has agreecf to complete
the detai[s of the design and resubmit the proposai for final design review.
The applicant is providing a minimum af 145 parking spaces.
The applicant is providing a minimum af 1 0°/4 snow storage on the sate and all
snow removal shall comply with the Town of Vail CQde.
The applicant is requesting a change to the required rr3axEmum buildireg height o# ~
33 feet. At the April 9`h meeting the applicant indicated the ability to reduce the
maximurx7 building height fram 38.5 feet douvn to 33 feet. En response ta the ~
request, the architects have re-evaluated the impacts af reducing the height of
the pavilion. In making their recornmendatian the architects revisited the pavilion
site and used computer aided analysis ta demonstrate the impacts o# lav+rering
the buiiding height an views and the feeling of the interior spaces. The applicant
is requesting that the Planning & Enviranmental Cammission arnend the previous
appraval and re-establish the maximum building height at 38.5'. The Desigrt
Review Board has reaiewed the appPicant's arrrended building height request and
supporting documentation and supparts the changes.
The applicant is in the process of campleting an overail managerr+ent plan fior the
park and wil] present the plan to the Commissian at a fater date.
Il. STAFF RECOMMENQATIQN
The Community Development Deparkment recommends approval o# the request
far a conditional use permbt to allaw for the canstruction of the Phase I Donovan
Park improverrzenis.
A copy af the AprE] 9, 2001, memorandum to the Planning & Environmental
Commission has been attached for reference.
i
~
2
!t agvlavj I¢9ltwqnS Iguig
ZI?IN 04Yg010Z) `11YA C=
~
xEYd ]llIilflWN1QO NYA0I10Q
F=TI I
. ; ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ - + i
~ ' ` - S v ` ?
O `.f \ ~ ' '~y \ ~ ~
.
~ 7 3 ~ ' ~r ~
~ ~ g 'i -M ~ _ ?
~ ~ ~ '
~ ~ 1 - ; ~~g. E ~ r- ~ ~ ~ ~
> ` , •,'t k~`. f '.y ~ , , ' I 7 . ~i 't
~o~`~
'`*w,~,\,
0 4 4V f 1: ~ i~~ I~ I
r
°yl
~ • ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ ! i r ~
Ll'
y ;PI Ai
k + ~ ~ ` *~~t, ~ ~ ` ' ~
~ ~ '7 ~ ~ ~ ~ yi 4 ~
~ ~
~ i
a, • • ~
_ i
~ + - - -
~
I
/ ~ J ~
Li~c, a '~S ~ ~ t pY
Ekl ~
-
E
~F
;
~
. , ,
~
- @ :g
Fe
N ,
~i
~ +
_ - - ~
~tIT«ITrD~7e
?d ~ ~9 , . ; ~ ~ ' . DQNOVAN C(}MMUN1'FY PARK FACiLITY
~ ? ~ 1 ~111 ~ VAIL.CoLORADO
r' ~!F z PEC Pinal Submittai Package
-
! ! ~ 1 ~
Y ~
I
El f7 ~ ~
r
} ~ ~o !e
I !
p
r ~
i`~`§~ I1a 1 i ~ r I
~ ~ ii'S ~i AO i~ ~ ~ •Ik ~ ~ti. ~y+~~ +
fY
1 y
N,
~A
I 1 ~ ;i =~5 ci r~ ti
IR 1 j:' t ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ <<, , ~
_ r IF~r(r I~ . 1 I~ f 1,,ti` I~
1~1!!~~ r1" " ~Ifd, u
~ r 1 yr i
! t ~ :u a ~ i y
R
1 1~ r~ ~ .
,
,
~
~ o
; - J _ _ - ~
~ ~ Rt ~~?R ~7L7~ ~ ~I ' .
~ r I• I ~ • ; , D[1NOVAC~ C(1MMt1NITY PARK FACII.ITY
~
rl;.
vniL,eos~aanna i:~~~~^ ~
PEC Final Submitta] Package
I _ I - - • = . ~ -t - - -Y - I_.._` _ _ .
~ } ~ - - - _
t
Q)
I'
J
~
EA
s k
T..
~ _ '
~ ~ ; ~ ~ I
~ ~V f yT ^ 1 's .
h 1 11
. ~E .~`hhr^?:~^
l .
, •i. i~ . r 7.
1.prpr~=F~~ r . - - ; ~
~ : DONOVAN C~MMLDNITY PARK FACILITY
I
YAfL,COLORAIX7
PEC Final Submittaf Packate
_ ~
- - ~ , ~ ~i-
d O H S x M[] M *t D 1 S 30 5 3 A V 1 0 SJ S S d I JI b S V S 5 LD 3 1~ H J?J y l l a p p
N O I l I n b d A 1 f N fl W W 0 3
X a ~ a H a n o r~ o a
a~.oe. sa~n
f'J N04]3iM] ~ ^
/
1 '
f ?3v~331 ~_"~4
r f ;
J A16:H3 ~
l r~nw 4
+ ! ~l
!I K~~. Y ~ ! Y
~ l
~ ~ I vF 11
y K
/ I l
f~ f,F
1 5t+?Y+r m h
' r'
a~Y IS ~
Ir 4/ {'/,1 J ~ ~ dM9ils3n , ! . 51
r~t~ F ' i r t
~I l f wuv.w~,..nw ~ NlH~ll1 lVaNniJ3NY y 5
rx ~ I 1 IL
j~ r 1+ • ~ ~ 1
_ _ ~ •
- ~ r 1~1111A5 - }`II
r _
~
~ L
~ s
n ~ ~ , f 9 w y 1 S
s,
d'
1}: t ~
q
i
MEMORANDUM
~
TO: Planning and Environmentaf Commission
FROM: Community Development DepartmEnt
DATE: April 9, 2001
SUBJECT: A request for a final review of a conditional use permit, to allow for the
construction af Phase I imprnvements an the lower bench of Qonavan
Parklunplatted, gerteraily located southeast of the intersectEOn of
Matterhorrt Circle and the Sauth Frontage Road.
Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Odell Architects, P.C.
Planner: George Ruther
l. aESGRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
The applicant, the Town of Vail, represented by +Qdell Architec#s, P.C., has submitted an
application to the Town of Vail Cornrnunity Developrnent Department for cansideration of
aconditiona[ use permit, pursuant ta the requirements outlined in Chapter 16 of the
Town af l/ail Zoning Regulations, to allow for the c4nstruction of Phase ! improvements
on the lower bench of Danoaan Park. The primary purpose af this conditiQnaE use permit ~
is tn allaw for the construction of the Donovan Park CQmmunity Pavilian. ln keeping
with the intent of the Donovan Park Master Plan Amendment, #he Community Pavilion is
intended to be a mulii-purpose community events center. The 6,200 square foat pavilian
includes a multi-purpose room, a front entry lobby, a pre-function space, an
adrninistrative office, a kitchen, restrooms, storage areas and a 4,100 square foot
exterior deck. The pavilion i$ intended to provide sites for community meetings and
gatherings, private bErthday and anniversary parties, dances, weddings and receptions,
musical and #heatrical performances, art exhibits, banquets, apen hnuses, and a
rnul#itude af similar uses.
The staff is currently preparing an Operation & Management Plan for the pavilinn. The
primary focus of the plan is to create a fee structure that allaws the Town ta aperate the
pavif on an a"break even" basis over the caurse of each year. At this #ime staff is
progressing with a graduated fee structure that a#tains this goal yet ensure that adequate
amounts of time are provided for not-for-profit graups to use the pavilion for free or very
little charge.
II. STAFF RECOMMENL?ATION
The Community Develapment Department recommends apprQVal of the request for a
conditional use permit to allow for the cflnstruction of the Phase 1 Donavan Park
improvements. The staff's recomrrxendation for approval is based upon ihe review of the
criteria outlined in Sectian V of this memorandum.
~
~
' Should the Planning & Environmental Gommission choose to apprave this conditional
~ use permit reguest, staff recommends that the following fiind'9ngs be made part of the
Commission's motion:
1. That the praposed location of the use is in accardance with the purposes
of the Zoning Regulatiflns and the purpases of the General Use zone
district.
2. That the prapaser# locatiorr of the use and the conditions under
which it wo+ufd be operateci or maintained wouid not be detrimental
to the public health, safety, or welfare or materiaily injurious to
properties ar improvements in the vieinity.
3. That the proposed use will camply with each of the applicable
provisions of the Zoning Regulatians.
111. APPLICABLE IUTASTER PLANS
On fJctober 3, 2000, the Vail Town Caunctl adopted the Dflnovan Park IVlaster Plaro
Amendmen#. The purpose of this amendment was ta update and identify tne apprapriate
uses far the lower bench of Danavan Park. According to the recommendatians of the
master plan, the site is to be developed in twa phases. The first phase of improvements
includes the construction of a cammunity park pavilion, autdoor recreatiQn facilities and
the required parking areas. The secand phase of improvements, whiie discussed and
~ debated, has yet to be determined. A pad site ta accammodate a location for Phase 11
improvements is to be preserved.
Qn November 16, 1986, the Vail Town CounciC adopted the Town of Vail Land Use Pfan.
The purpose of the plan is to provide a basis for making land use decisions and to insure
#hat the long-term needs and desires of the comrnunity are addressed a$ the tawn
matures. According to the Land Use Plan, the lower bench of Donovan Park is
designated as "park" use.
IV. BACKGR4UMD
The entire 51 acre parcel knQwn as the John F. Danovan Park was acquired in 1984. A
master plan for development of the site was adopted in19$5 which recommended a
ballfield, play areas, picraic sheliers, a basketball court, a skating pond, volleybafl courts,
and paricing on the lower bench and a cemetery, open space and hiking tra'ris on the
middle and upper benches. The original master plan, now 15 years old, was never
implemented.
Community facilities and park develapment were de#ermined ta be twa of the tflp issues
resulting from the Vaif Tornorrouv and Commnn Grauncf pracesses which have occurred '
over the past 31/2 years. On Septemaer 21, 1999, the Vail Tawn Gouncil decided to
move forward with a process to determine which uses are appropria#e and campatible
with She Donovan Park site. The Vail Town Councii and the Vail Recreatian District
~ Board have direc#ed staff fo rna+re farward with the follawing uses to be included irr a
reuised master plan amendment (generally in order of priarity):
2
~ Park use and soccer fieid
Pavilion ~
Multi-recreational space (gymnastics, yoga, martial arts, e#c.) (may
be cansidered on other sites)
~ Children's Center (day camp, year-round youth enrrichment
pragrams and mutti-purpaselgenerational activity rooms)
~ Gymnasium
~ lndaor pool (25 rneter by 25 yard)
~ ABC/Learning Tree Pre-schopls
On flctaber 3, 2000, the Vail Tawn CoUncil adopted the Donavan Park Master Plan
Amendment in ihe passing of Resafution No. 10, Series af 2000. The master pian
amendment anticipates the develapment ofi the park in two phases. Phase I
irnprovernents are as described in Section I of this memorandum. A location for Phase II
improvements has been reserued on the site. The final improvements, hawe+rer, have
yet to be determineci. '
On NaWernber 27, 2000, the Planning & Enviroramental Comrriission approved a
conditional use permi# far the construction of ail of the Phase 1 improvernents with the
exception of the eammunity pavilion. The communiiy pavilian was not included within.
' the appraval at that time since €inai designs were still in progress. The Commissian
required that the Town of VaiC reiurn for final reuiew and approval af the proposed
community paui[ion once final designs were campfeted.
V. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ~
The develapment standards for uses within the General Use zone district are prescribecf
pursuant to Section 12-9C-5 of the Zoning Regulations. According to Section 12,9C-5,
the development standards shall be prQpased by the appficant as part of a conditional
use permit application_ The site specific development standards shall then be
determined by the Planning & Environmental Commission during the review process.
The applicant is praposing the following development startdards as provided on the
praposed Approved Development Plan:
Qevelopment
Standards Existina Praposed
Lot Areal 539,011 sq. ft. 539,011 sq. ft.
Site Dimensian: 12.374 acres/ 12.374 acres/
Setbacks: N/A As shown on
the Approved
Develapment
Plan
Building Height: N/A 38.6 ft
Density Controi: N/A NIA ~
Si#e Coverage: 0 sq. ft. 9,449 sq. ft.
3
(i .s%)
~ Landscaping; 12.374 acres/ 11.747 acres!
539,011 sq. ft. 511,699 sq. ft.
(100%) (95%)
Parkingl'Loading. Q spaces 140 spaces
min.
Vt. CONDRTIONAL USE PERMIT REVI'EW CRITEIRIA
lhe issuance of a eonditional use permit is required to allaw for the construction
of the Phase I imprmvements in Donavan Park. ln accordance with Chapter 12-
16 of the Town of Vail Gode, an appiication for a canditianal use permit within the
General Use District shall be subject to the follawing develop€raen# factors and
criteria:
1. Relationship and irnpact of the use on development objectiaes ofi the
7own.
Applicable goals from the Vail Land Use Plan are outlined in Sec#ion VI of
this memarandum_ Development stancfards far the General Use zone
distroct are prescribed by the Planning and Environra-iental Cammissian in
~ the form of an Approved Qeve6opment Plan far the project. Staff Eaelieves
this proposai is consistent with fhe intended recreational uses identified
for this satE.
2. Effect nf the use on fight and air, dis#ribution of populatian,
transportatian facitities, wtilities, schools, parks and recreation
faciiities, and other public facilities and public facilities needs.
The cvns#ructian of Phase f impraaements to tFae fawer bench of Donovan
Park will have positive impacts on the criteria described abowe. The
praposed park is Iocated in the Matterhorn Vialage neighboncoad. The
Matterharn Viflage neighborhood is one of only a few residential
neighbarhoods in Vail #hat has no recreatianal park amenities in the
immediate vicinity. The constructian of the park will provicEe the mucta
needed recreational amenities. Additionally, during the Common Graund
and Vail Totnorrow processes, carrarnunity nnembers had identified the
need for a community pavilion facility in town. [7uring discussoons
regarding community facilities, #he Gauncil and community members have
recommended the Donovan Park development site as the most
, appropriate location for a community pavilion. For these two primary
reasons, staff belieues that this applica#ion meets the above-described
criteria.
~
4
3. €ffec# upon traffic, with particular reference to congestian, ~
automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffrc flowv and
control, access, maneuverability, and rernoval of snow from the
s#reets and parking areas.
The above-described cr9teria have been addressed in the development af
ihis application. To ansure that traffic congestion, traffic #low, access and
marreuverability are not negatively impacted, the applicant has paid
particular attentipn to these issues. Significant South Frontage Road and
Matterharn Raad in#ersectian improvements are proposed. These
impTavements inckude the widening of the frontage road to accommodate
adequafe thru traffic flovvs, the addition of acceleratian and deceieratian
9anes ai the entrance to Danovan Park and at the Matterhorn Road
intersection, the canstruction of a dedicated biks lane and improvements
and cannectians ta the existing strea;mwalk.
Appraximatefy 15(} parking spaees are praposed. The parking spaces
are intended to pravide adequate parking for each of the uses currently
proposed on the site. According to information provided by the applieant,
parking shor#ages only become a prablem when a major recreational
everat is occurring on the recreation field at the same time as a iarge
gathering is occurring in the paviGon. This potential problem can be
addressed however, by coordinating and manageng events with this dssue
in r°riind.
Overafl, staff befieves this criterion has beera rxtei. ~
4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is ta
be located, including the scaEe and bulk of the proposed ase in
retat`an to surrounding uses.
Sections 12-9C-2 & 3 outline the permi#ted and condi#ional uses aNo+rved
, in the Generai Use zone dis#rict. The foflowing are listed as conditionaf
uses in the Generai Use zone distriet:
• Public and prevate parks and active ou#door recreation areas, facilities,
and uses.
• Pubfic and quasi-public indoor community facility.
• Public bui6dings and grounds.
Ail of the uses proposed for the lower bench of Dpnouan Par{c fall into one
of ihese categaries.
Section 12-9C-5 of the Zoning Regulatiorrs oUtlines the stanclards for
deveiopments in the General Use zone district. The Zaning Regulations
state:
In the Genera! Use zane drsfrict, develop!ment standards in each of the
~
following categories sha1J be proposed 6y the applicant and prescrJbed fay
the Planning and Envrronmen[a! Commrssion:
5
~ 1. tot area and si#e drmerrsions
2. Sethacks
3. Bu1lding Height
4. Qensrty Contral (dwelling units and GRFA)
5. 5ite Caverage
6. Landscaping and site development
7. Parking arad loadirrg
The Donovan Park, Master Plan Amendment was developed with the
wishes of the cammunity in mincf. Over the course af the nearfy one year
development timeframe, numeraus public meetings and discussians
occurred to irssure that the applicant and design team received comments
and feedback firom community members. N1uch af the feedback
influenced the finaf canceptual design propasal. Far example, the parking
is substantially screened frorn public view outside the park, access to the
paris is frorn the South Frontage Road as opposed to through the
neighborhood, a pedestrian bridge urrill be constructed to 'rmprove
~ pedestrian access and safety and na constructian will occur within the
riparian corrEdor of Gore Creek.
F1NDINGS
The Planning and Environmental Cornmission shall rnake the fiollowing
#indings before granting a conditional use permit:
1 . That the propased location of the use is in accardance with the
purpases of the conditional use permit section of the zaning code
and the purposes of the district in which the site is located.
2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditians under
which it wauld be operated or maintained would nat be detrimental
ta the public heaith, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to
properties or improvements in the vicinity.
3. That the pro}aosed use woulcf comply with each of the applicable
prawisions of the conclitionaE use permit section of the zoning
code.
~
6
MERIdQRANDUM
~ TO_ Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM_ Cammunity Development Departrrtent
DATE: May 14, 2001 .
SUBJECT: A request for a variance frarn Titke 14 (aeuelopment Standards), Vail
Town Code, to allow for snow storage and parking within the public right-
of-way, loca#ed at 2437 Gatmisch Drive 1 Lo# 12, BlacEc H, Vaif das Schone
2"'d Filing.
Applicant: William H. IVlentlilc, represented by John Mar#in, AIA
Planner: Ann Kjerulf
I. DESCRIPTIC3N OF TME REQUEST
The appEicant is requesting a Wariance from the Development Standards to allow #or snaw
storage and parking within the public right-of-way in association with a proposai to canstruct
a new single family residence a# 2437 Garmisch Drive.
A# 12,750 s.f., the subject praperty is non-cvnforming with respect to lot size. This limits the
develapmen# po#ential af the lot to ane free market dwelling unit. Furthermore, the average
slope of the fot is grea4er than 30% thus reducing the allowable site coverage to 15% of lot
~ size. In si#uations where steep slopes exist and site coverage is reduced to 15°l0, sorrae relief
from the stric# application of the zaning regulations is achieved by aElowing garages to be
constructed in the front setback. However, there is nv relief from the aevelopment
Stanctards that require private parking spaces to be accorrimodated within property
boundaries. Similarly, the Oevelopment Standards require snow storage to be
accorrimodated within praperty boundaries ancf to be contiguous with driveway area.
The propvsed residence requires 2.5 parking spaces according to Sectian 12-10-10,
Schedule B, of the Zaning Titae. According to Sectian 12-10-11, where fracflonal
requrremenfs result fmm application of fhe sehedule, fhe fracticrrr shafl be raised to the next
uvhoJe number. Thus, the parking requirement far the proposed residence becomes 3
spaces. Twe of these spaces are prraposed vuithin a garage. The #hird space, 9' x 19', is
proposed in front of the garage but with a 14 foot encroachment into the public righ#-of-way.
The 14 foot encroachment intQ the right-of-way is roughly propar#ionaE to and just less than
the 15 fvo# encraachment of the garage into the front setback_
There is 150 s.f. of driveway area within the praperty baundaries and 450 s.f. af driveway
area in the right-af way. Because the driveway will not be heated, 30°10 of the ddveway area
ar 980 s.f. is required for snow storage. The applicant is requesting that 180 s.f. of right-of-
way, a raughly syuare area acfjacent to the driveway and sncroaehing into the hght-of-way
agproximately 14 feet, be allowed fvr snvw storage.
Attached to the staff mema is a letter from the app4icant's representative that outlines the
technical issues involved wifh the siting of the garage in the front setback
~
1~
. ! l! A!T VP Y~
ll. STAFF RECDMMENDATION ~
The Community Development Department recammends appraval of the requested variances
subject to the eriteria outltned in Section V af #his memorandum and the foVlowing fmdings:
1. Tha# the granting of tne variances does not constitute a grant of specEal privilege
inconsistent with #he limitations on other properkies in the PrimaryfSecondary
Residential Zone Qistrict.
2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental tQ the public heal#h, safety
or welfare, or materially injurivus ta properties or imprQVements in the vicinity.
3. That the strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the deveCopment Standards
results in a practicai diffcuRty or unnecessaay physical hardship incansistent with the
development abjectives of the Touvn Gade or the Primary/Secandary ResidentiaC
Zone District.
4. Tha# the strict interpretatian or enfarcement of the specifietf reguiation wauld deprive
the app6icant af privileges enjoyed by the awners of other properties in the same
district.
11L REVIEWING BOARD RQLES
A. The Planning and Environmental Commissian is responsible fnr evaiuating:
1 . The relativnship of the requested variance #o vther extisting or pntential uses
and stnactures in the vicinity.
2_ The degree ta which relief frorn the strict or fi4erai interpre#ation and
enforcernent of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibilaty
ancf uniformiiy af treatment among sites in the vicinity, or to attain the
objectives of this Titfe without grant of special priviiege.
3, 7he effect of the requested vanance on ligh# and air, distribu#ion of
populatian, transportatian and traffic facilities, public faciGties and utilities, and
public safe#y.
4. Such other factors and criteria as the Cammissian deems applicable to the
prapased variance.
B. The DRB has NO review autharity on a variance, but must review any accampanying
DRB appfcation. The DRB is responsibfe for evaluating:
1. Architectural compatibility wifh other struciures, the land and surrQUndings
2. F'it#ing buiidings into landscape
3. Confguratiart of burlcting and grading of a site which respec'ts the topography
4. RemovallPreservation of #rees and native vegetation
5. Adequate provision fvr snow storage on-site
6. Acceptabiiity af building materiais and calars
2 i
7. Accep#abiiiky of raaf eEements, eaves, overhangs, and other building farms
~ S. Provision af landseape and drainage
9. Provision of fencing, walls, and aGCessory structures
10. Circulatian and access to a site including parlcing, and site distances
11. Loca#ian and design of sa#elfite dishes
12. Provisian of ou#daor lighting
N. ZONlNG STATISTlCS
Staff has reviewed the proposal according to the PrimarylSecandary Zone District and the
survey submitted. The analysis provides the follawing:
L.4t Size: 92,750 s.f. ! 0.2927 acres
Zoning: Primatyl5econdary Residential
Hazards: none
Standard Allowed Proposed
GRFA: 3,693 s.f. (incl. 425 s.f. credit) 2,978 s.f.
Garage 600 s.f. 510 s_f.
Setbac'ks:
Front: 20 f#. (GRF,4)Ifl ft. (garage) 20 (GRFA)15 ft. (garage)
Sides: 15 ft. (north) 16 ft.
15 ft. (south) 15 ft.
Rear: 95 ft. 53 ft.
~ Si#e Caverage: 1,913 s.f, (15%0*) 1,913 s.fe (15%}
'Site coverage is limited to 15% on lats with slopes greater than 30°/Q.
V. GRITERIA AND FINDINGS
A. Considerativn of Factors Regarding the Variances:
1. The relationship of the requested variance to otFeer existing or potentEal
uses and structures in the vicinity.
Parlcin4 in the riqht-of-wav:
The propased parking in the rigiat-of-way encraaches up to 14 ft. into the
right-of-way. The snnw stnrage area would also encroach up to 14 ft. and
occupy an area of 180 s.f. of right-of-way. Because there is between 25 ft.
and 28 ft. 4f right-of-way measured between the praperty fine and edge af
Garmisch Drive, s#aff believes that the proposed parking and snow s#orage
in the right-ofi way would have na effect on uses ar structures in the aicinify.
2. The degree to ?,vhich relief frem the strict and literal interpretation and
enfarcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve
campatibility and uniformity of treatment amang sifes in the Vicinity or
to attain the objec#ives of this title withuut a grant of special privilege.
The applicant is proposfng to provide enclosed parking spaces within a
~ 3
garage that wvuld legally encroach 15 feet anto the front setbaGlc. Due to the
s#eepness of the lat, the garage can not be pushed further back into the sits ~
wi#hout necessitating the constructian af retaining wails in excess of 6 feet.
Accarding to the Dewelopment Standards, retaining walls in the frant setback
may not exceed 6 feet in height. It is passible for the garage to be designed
in such a way to accornmorfate three parkirrg spaces-by stacking hnro of the
spaces and eliminating some af the prapc+sed GRFA within the Iawer level of
the residence. Hawever, s#aff would not require fhis type of adjus#men# wifh
fypical residential development. I# would further limit the applicant's ability to
utilize availabie GRFA when the praposed residence is more than 600 s.f.
smaller than i# cauld be accord'ing to the aUowabPe GRFA far this lo#_
Furthermore, due ta the 15% site coverage fimitafian and inabiPity to add
GRFA within the front setback, the applicant's ahility to add GRFA to this site
'rn fhe future is highly unlikely.
3. The effec# af the requested variance on fight and air, distribu#ion af
papulation, transportatian and traFlFic facilities, pubEic facilities and
utilities, and public safety.
Notably, the proposal for snow storage daes nat inferfere with a large
drainage swale that exists within the hght-of-way. Staff does nat believe that
the variances will have a roegative effect on the factors iisted above.
B. The Planning and Environmental Commission shaU make the follawinq fndings
befo_re grantinq a uariance:
1. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege ~
inconsistent with fhe limitations an other praperties classifiecf in the same
district.
2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimentaV to the public heafth,
safety or welfare, or materially injurious to prnperties or impravements in the
vicinity.
3. That the variance is warranted for ane ar more af the folEowing reasons:
a. The strict literal interpretation vr enfarcernent of the specified
regulation wauld rasult in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical
hardship inconsistent with #he objectives of thRS title.
b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circurnstances or conditions
applicable to #he sarne site of the variance that do nat apply generally
fo other propert'res in the same zone.
c. The stroct interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation
wvuld deprive the appiicant af priWileges enjoyed by the ownees of
other praperties in the same district.
4 ~
~
I
i
VICINITY MAP
i Planning and Errvironrrertal Camrrission
~ May 14,2001
I
~ _ ~ - --f~r~- - Subject Property: 2417 / 8 12~9
I..o# 12, B#ocic H, 2398 , 13
~ Vakl Das Schane Fling
13 7 2359
2427 2418 14 '~/l
236g 9
' 2437
2379
2428
5`~•
1 2445 2448 ~17',.
1 ~ .>'"1JAl l. D~AS'"SC~{~! i ~ ~ ~
! 1a ~
-__2448 TRAACT D J,
2447
24,55j 3 -'1g 2399
g f ~ 24.`~$ 2409
2457 2465 f ~ ~
2466 2419 ~ 'ITRACT B
2 ,C 5 24Ei7
21 _`7 2313
, 7EXACC7 ~
2487 ~ ~ 4 , 247~; 2469/2427f
C'
E f•,, 2477 ~Zg 22~{ 1NETlDY'S
E i f 3 _ 2476 ~ 2429 - 2399 ~
2~ ~ 23
M'.,. 2478 2437 12
24 24:30
, 2488 ~ 2439
25
' S ~ 2434
2~
2507 12 2aa~
-...._.,,,r , 2499 , 13 2
2449 ~
i Q ~ 4 F~ ~ 2508 2496
2517
j--KTN9'R3DGE /I / L-_ ~
i
~ N
rotill'IN *WL Rro
duced 6y khe Carrurxanity fJeuefop7wnf Departrrmt. May 7 2Q01 Map not to scafe
.
~ ~ ~r~~l~~~~~ Ckis~tiF: :97c~sn-aa7a (jj``~~~ V~ Marfin P.'.`., I30X bkl 2686 PAV45'iRAlL t97iA ~77-2237
John Ve11LcLn-CRADCA7658 WASI_l'~.'g.LCRAR.~Pi65't Fv,)LI) Finaetia(Ohc4vs.aet.
CREATIV'E ARC'}iffECTURAL DESIGN wvV.jchngmartin.egm .
Memo
TO: Ann Kerulf, Planner I,
Tow?t of Vsif, Departrnent of Community Dewelopment
75 S. Frontage Rd.
Vail, Cotarado, 81657
F+orm Jnhn G. Martin, A!A
(970) 477-2476
Cc: William L. Merttlik
rJv LQLKBM
(908) 654-7866 fax
W*ae 04/171'2009
Roe Tonm af 1laii P[anning and Environrnental Commission `I/arianm Reques4
Menfiik Residence, Lot 12, Block H, Vail Das Schone #2 / 2437 Garmish Dr.
Nou 0 attaacheEi sheets
fVlr. WiIliam Mentlik respectf.iiiy reques#s a variance for two unresolved zoning issues on the Nfersfhk
Residence ~s stated on the staff revie+nr memo dated Nlarch 30, 2001, sigreci by Ann Kerulfi. ~
1. Requirecf parking spaces (3) must be ac+ccammodated wiihin lat boundaries and are 9'x18'
insicfe a garage and 9'xlg autside.
2. Snryw storage must be acrArnmcxiateci wQfhin Eot boundanes per TOV starx#ards_ F'iease
revise p@ans accordirtgly (10% area o€ heated drive or 30% area unheateti drive).
"I`he reai design hardship on this site is the fad that ihe property Iine is apProximately 26 feet from the
edge af pavemni on Garmish C}rive and at the property line the grades tave already risen
approximately 10 feet and con6nue to ciimb anather 10 fee# ta the 20 fiQOt hflni setbadc iirae. In other
wrsrcfs, at the point that vve can place ot,r first Livabie Area perimeter wal#, we are already 2() deep faet
in the grouncl. The Mentlik Residence, avhich canforms #o all otter zonang requirements fior SingEe-
Family Residences on s3eep lois, wiiV have a probiem conforming to the thirci paricing requirement and
sriow-stovage requiremertf due to the sevene steerpness of the lot and ttte altawable garage locatort
within the front setbadc.
Ta be more specfic, we hare desagned the garage to be withrn 6-0" of the Frorrt Property Line so as to
eanfonm to #he 6'~D" retairaing waii requirements. Pushing the garage back away from the Front
F°rczpertY Line shall incxease retainang walls beyorxi tihe affenrable height We show 27 feet length afi
driweway trorn the Front Pmperty Line to ft edge af eaasting road at Garmish Drirre. This is more thm
adequaie length fo pmvide a third and faurth automobile parking space in front of the garage. it just so
happens fo be an Tc3wn of lfaii Right of Way. AJso, we have more than enough snow starage area to
the immedia#e south af the enbre length af driveway, but again it is all within Town of Vail Right af'VVay.
We all know trom cxammon sense that autornobile parking and snaw storage are going to ocxur in this
~
0 Page 1
area anyway. Why nQt waive these requirements, or aliaw these reyuirernents to occur upon Tawn of
Uail Right af V'Way, so that this fine house, which the DRB has aEready perceived to tae a good additioR
~ to tfte neighborfioad, can be kwilt as designed.
1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing ar potential uses and structures in
the vicinit}r:
We shall be parking ca~rs on a 27' length of private driveway and snow storage st rall occur on
the graduai si4ping front yatd of the residen+ce just as al1 other neighbors on Garmish Drive do.
2. TI`ie degree to which relief fram the strid or literal interpre#atian and enForcement of a specefied
regulation is necessary to achieve compatability ancf uni#QrmrtSr of treatment am4ng sites in the
vianify or to attain the objectivss of this titEe w}thcwt grant of speual privilege: .
In order to actaieve compntibility wi#h similar site wails, driveways, and snow s#orage areas orr
GarmFSh Drive, we neeti 10011/o degree of relief from the strict inferpretatiort of the specified
reguiations an ihe third parkirtg requirement and the snaw storage requirement.
3. The effiect of the variarrce on IigFtt and air, distribution cyf popufation, transportatiara, tr'affic
facilities, utifities and public safiety:
There shaEl be no effect on arry of #he fsted iterns.
4. Hoar the request complies wi#h Vaif's Comprehensive Pian:
The request for parking and snow storage in the Touvn Right of Way on this residerrotial dead-
end road has no detrimenial effee# to Vaii"s Comprehensive Plan.
~
~
~
0 Page 2
l Y ~ ~~~iv a
~ .2~ A y'~ .r~. f - S{i • o~f ~{7iQj~y dC „ ~ ~ .
cl
~V6-
e `"~?„k ~ ~
- _ . ~i?
~e
~ ,..a•.L
~ .
~~y
.
•
, `a.. ~ ~ ~ ~ " y j~~ 06CrO
~ ~ ~ . ~ , ~ ~ ~ • ~
-wk. ,,,,4 •x . .
~ ~ ~
. * ~ s ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~
_ ~ ~ ~ ~
~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ a ~ m ~ ~
~
~ ~o
, ~ p
, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ w ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~
. ~ $ Cw ,..4 ~ ~ F
c, W ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ q ~ -
D'~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ ~ _ ~ ~
~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~
cS~ ~ ~ ~ ~ [Q ? U ~ ~ n
m~~Q ~}tQ t~}
~
~
~
„ ~ ~
~ ~
~a
~ _ ~ '
r ~ ~
~ ,,ti~ _ Q ~ t
~ ~ ~
, t . ~
~ - ~
. - ~ a
~ . _ - . ~ ~ ~ ~
~ " ` _ ~ Z~~~~
~ , ~ ~U ~ ~ ~5
„1~ ~ ~ bL~~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
. r~ ~y~ ,,,,j ~
~ ~ ~
~ ' ` ,
A. f
Y s ~ 1 ~ ~
~~(]C_. \
~ `f ~ ~ ~ Y. ~
~
r,~
i i' ~ ~ ~ 1 'Q~'~8
, ~ i
~ ~ -
_ - ~ . ~ _ ~
- - / - a r
~ ~ 1~ j ~ ~
.
!
yf ' I
\y / ' ,q~ , ~ . 4~-.
/ . .
.
.
/
~
.
'
,
e
` ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ f
. ti - ~ .
, ~ ' . \ ~ ~ 1
" . , _ fl, .
. ~ , • ~ . ~ r
. . ~ ~ . ~ . ,
2Y1A! NMoW IR11 • 70 1IIMAd a1'i ("f) w~s
iDMd rMM AQ !M'H *OId "9 ii11 ~nc-w SaW -w
s~ru •w+ro *M op_
~I[iW~W "1 URNM 'JW J.D3.LlH3a+r 'HUawr •o NHor
2" OerF+" PLo..w r io-bz-9 %.o
~
~
~
i I.
~ I I
I ~ I
I I
~
N
ty 07
~ i
i ~
~ ~ ~
~
. ~
.
Y r a ? f
aevaoas 1 ~ i, , p... ~ • ' I
-Q
1`rIi-
~
~ ~
I
~
~
.
I
AM OPNW*'~Yl'
ro~u .a~a yw~',eu ~ ~w
1D'J
~a~~uH38r Mitarrr 'J wHac
afto1+loIi pkvt~d 1? k?-ib-s ~ra
~
• ~
, Ir • - -
~F ( ~ I / ' Y r ? v`~f 1
--j
JI
I ~ I ~ i 't~l
rq
O
a
w L___e«-_
~
,
~
. c
•
~ - • . ,
.~.a . _
. . i.....:.. ~
F... .
~
+LJ .y... Q i
1 <
. .
.'~_f.., .~f..~ g71
_.-AADGtl9Mlll3o - -
i '
Ci3i"kMA Ap 311'1 ~
i
~ Z i...,. ..a.. . i f ~ w.
~ f
4 /
i \
-
~
i
~
nw +SOM WA'!M OPMe
a OqM MO+a ••o wn w *me bc wi •o. b~~
W"11M1 'jW r HrLN"•!) NHar
,10r *OUplMy NUMMtf Y IO-bL-E ~++o
r
I
II I
I ~ I
~ I
_ _ . . . _
~ 1° - 1 E E
jl;~ll r: ¦
'I j•~ j ~ i~-:~~ ~ •
~ i
- ~ - 4
t~_
MOM
i
I 1 : I
/ , I I fII~"~~J
~ - ~ +
~ I
f ~
~
~
.r.+~Ma 1NA I ~ O«wo cto '."~"'•r U
u+s-Ur to-w
ffi ~~1 MOl~ ~'0 ~~/1 kl ~IB '~1. ~a'!
owu ~wN rm ia? •e •ad
VRLNW "1 "AlM "M LO3)J+i~ar HiLM 'J Nyor
2m +euspom Puoma v
~
!
~
~
r----- - - -
J
I ~ 4
~ _~~-m-----~
L-
1
I ~
i ~
I ~
~
n ~ ,w+c. ~ ~rw ~ ~ Kr~o~
M ~ ~ u~`~"` ~ ~
~ y~~~''~ ~ ~
~1
~
~
~
t
~
~
_
_
_
y_
,
_ _
0
a~
~ ~
.
_
.
r
_ _
j ~
t !lo~
~ ~
r 1,, ~
~
~
~
~
~
I
~ ~ - ~
1 r_
1 ~
~ 41V
I
~ I
I
1 ~
~ ` .
f ~
_ - -y
- J
~
I
_
fK *wA
T ~ ~ 313lS~~
~
~ - ~
i
- 1
~ ~
~
~ i
I ~
I _ -
~ l
~
I
i y--
to`, ~
1 uoom •AIN
wa
~
~
~
- ~
_
f' k 1 ~
~
I x~
1
. 1
~
I
~
,
,
,
,
,
,
~
~
,
~
~
~
,
~
,
~
~ ~
MEMORANaUM
~ TQ: F'lanning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Department of Community DevePopment
DATE: May 14, 2001
SUBJECT: A request for a minor subdivisian ancf a variance from Section 12-6D-5 of the
Town Code to allow for the resu6division af Lot 1, Strauss Subdivision, a
resubcfivision of Lots 46 & 47, Vail Village West Fiiing No. 2, re-creating Lods 46
& 47, located at 1916 & 1936 West Gore Creek arive.
Applicant: RicFrard Strauss, represented by Pat Dauphirtais
Planner: allison Qchs
1. DESCR1pTION OF REQUEST
7he applicant, Richard Strauss, represented by Pat Dauphirrais, is requesting a minor
subdivision for Lat 1, 5trauss 5ubdivisiQn, to recreate Lats 46 and 47, Vail Viilage West
Filing 1Vo, 2. This minor subdivision request also requires a variance from Sectian 12-
6D-5 Lot Area and Sife DimeRSians. The minimum lot size in the PrirnarylSecondary
zone clistrict is 15,000 sq. ft_ Lot 47 would be 11,151 sq. ft. and would not kae abfe to
enciose a square area 80 ft. by 80 ft. Lot 46, rrvoulci be 9,932 sq. ft. and would mes# the
site dimension requirement (capable of enclosing a square area 80 ft. by SOft.).
~ MINOR SUBDIV1510N
Pursuant to the Tawn Code, a minor subdivision is defined as:
"Mr'nor subdivisron° shall mean aRy subdivisian cnntalning not more fhan four (4)
,
lots franting on an existing street, not lnvalvirag any rreuv street or rnad or the '
extensivn of Munrcipal facrlities and nof adversely affectirig the development of
the remainder of the parcel or adjorning property.
VARIANGE
according to the Section 12-6D-5 of the Tawn Code,
12-6D-5: L07 AREA AND SrTE DIMENSlONS:
The mrni,mum !ot ar sFte area shall be fifteen thausand (15, 000) square feet of
bur'ldable area, and eactr sife shall haue a minirnum frontage Of fhrrty feet (30').
Each site shall be of a size and shape capa6le of enclosing a square area, eighty
feet (80) on each side, within its baundaries.
Vail Village West Filing No. 2 was originally subdivided in Eagle Caunty in 1965. The
Town of Vail annexed the area Rn the early 1980s, de-annexed in 1985, and re-annexed
in 1986. 1n 1985, a variance was granted to add a garage in the frant setbac'k, allawing
far a 5 ft. front setback, one parking space in the right-of-way, and a site caverage
~ variance to allow for 24% site cQVerage. In December of 1990, the applicant requested
a minor subdivision ta uacate the lot line between Lats 46 and 47, Vail V7lage West ;
Filing Na. 2. The applicant has an existing residenee on Lat 47, vuhere the Tawn issued
a Harne Occupation Permit. The appPicant purchased Lot 46 and proposed to pave a
portion of Lot 46 far additional parking. The Community aevelopment Department
denied the proposal, stating that parking is allowed only as an accessary use to a ~
residence in the Primary/Secondary zane district. Subsequently, the applicant applied
far a minar subdivision to vacate the Iot line between Lots 46 anc! 47. The rninor
subdivision and the propased parking area on Lot 46 were then approved.
11. STAFF RECOMMENQATIf3N
The applicant is loaking for input from the Planning and Enviranmental Gommission
regarding the feasibiliiy of this request prior to having the subject property surveyed.
Because the minimum lot size in the Rrimary/Secondary zone district is 15,000 sq. ft. of
builclable area and buildable area is area which is less than 40% slapes, a full
topographic survey is required prior to final action on the request. 5taff's
recommenda#ion is to table this appfication ta the June 11, 2001 meeting.
However, because the appficant has requested to remain an the May 14'h agenda as a
worlcsession item to receive input from the P1anning and Environmental Cammissian,
staff is providing #he foilowing recammendatians:
M4GVOR SU'BDIVf50N
The Community aevelopmen# Department recommends denial at the proposed minor
subdivision subject to the fiollowing findings:
1. That the application is no# in campliance with the intent and purposes of the
Subdivasian Regulations, the Zoning Ordinance and other pertinent regulations
that the Planning and Enviranmental Commissoor-r deems applicaaEe.
2. That the applicafian is not appropriate in regard to Town policies relating fo ~
subdivisian control, densities prc,posed, regulations, orclinances and resolutions
and other applicable documents, environmental integrity and compatitaility with
#he surrounding land uses and other appiicable documents, and effecis on the
aesthetics of #he Tawn_
VARRANCE
The Community Develaprnent department recamrnends denial of the variance from
Section 12-6D-5, Vail Town Code, subject to the following findings:
1, That the granting o# the variance will canstitute a grant of special privilege
incansisteni witta the limi#atians on other properties classified in the
Primary/Secandary zone dastriet.
2. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement af the specified regulation wauld
not result in practicaf difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with
the objectives of the Subdivision Regulations.
3. There are no exceptions ar extraordinary circumstances or conditians applicahle
to the same site of the variance that do rrot apply general[y ta ather properkies in
the Single Family Residentiai Zone Distriet.
4. The strFCt interpretatiQn ar en#orcement o# the specofied regulataon would nat
deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in ~
the same district,
2
IIl. ZOMING ANALYSIS
~ 13evelopment Existing Existing Praposed Lot 46 Proposed Lot 47 Existing
Standard Allowable Lot 47
Min. La# Size 15,000 sf 21083 sf 9932 sf 11151 sf 11151 sf
(bEdble area)
Min Fronta e I 30 f 156,5 f 82 f 74.5 f 74.5 f
GRFA 5280 + 254 + 2752 sf 2908 + 925 (EHU) sf 3213 + 250 + 925 2752 sf
500 EHU sf EHU s#
Site 4217 sf 2676 sf 1986 ar 2453 (EHU) 2230 or 2788 (EHU) 2676 sf
Covera e sf sf
SetbaCks 20/15J15/15 5/100/1 S/50 20J15/15l15 20115l15115 5/17115/50
Landscape 12650 sf $461 sq. ft 5959 sf 6691 sf 8451 sq.
(rnin) ft,
Parking Per 12-10 5 s aces Per 12-10 Per 12-10 3 s aces'
Density 2 du +Typs II 1 du 1 du + Type I EHU 1 du + 1 Type 1 EHU 3 dv
EHU
'Received variance ta allow 1 space in right-of-way
IV. MiNflR SUBDIVISION REVIEW CRITERIA
Une basFc premise of subdivision regulations is that the menimum standards far the
crea#ion af a new fot mus# be met. The first set af review criteria to be considered by the
PEC for a minar subdiVisian application is as fallows:
A. Lot Area
The minimum lat size in the Primary/Secandary zone district is 15,000 sq. ft. As
praposed, Lat 46 wouid be 9,932 sq. ft. Lot 47 would be 11,151 sq. ft. Section V
~ of this memarandum describes the criteria for review of a variance request.
B. Frontage
The minimum frontage in the PrimarylSecondary zone district is 30 ft. As ~
proposed, Lot 46 would have 82 ft. of frontage. Lot 47 would have 74.5 ft. of
frontage. This praposal cornpaies with this requEremenf.
C. 5ite Dirnensions
Each site in the PrimarylSecondary zone district shall be of a size and shape
capable of enclosing a square area 80 ft. on each side within its boundaries_ As
proposed, Lot 46 complies with this requirement. Lot 47 woufd not compiy wi#h
this requirement. 5ectian V of th€s memorandum describes the criteria for review
af a variance request.
The second set af review criteria ta be considered with a minor subdivision
request is as outlined in the SubdiWisi4n Regutations, and is as fallows:
The burden of proof shaN rest with the applicant to show that the application is in
compliance with the fntended purpose of Title 13, Chapter 4, the zoning
ardinance, ana' ofher perfinent regulations that the PEC deems applica6le. The
PEC shall review the application and consrder its appropriateness in regard to
Town policies relafing fo subdivisian controf, densitres proposed, regulations,
ardinances and resolutfons and other applicable documents, etfects an the
aesthetics of the Towrr, environmental fntegrity and compatrbilrty with surraunding
~ uses.
The subdivision purpose statements are as folEauvs:
3 I
i
1, l`o inforrn each subdivider of the staRdards and criteria by which developrnent
and propesals will be evafuated and to provide informatian as tQ the type and
extent of improvements required. ~
5taff Respanse: One purpose of subdivESion regulations, and any
development contral, is to establish basic ground rules which the staff, the
Planning and Environmental Commission, the appiicant and the
community can follaw in the public review prc?cess. This application has
been submitted accarding tca the requirements Qf Chapter 13, Subdivisian
Regulations.
2. T+m pravide for the subdivision of praperty in the future without conflict with
deveiapment on adjacen# praperty.
Staff Respons~: The prrppsed plat does not create any canfaict with
clewelopment on adjaeent land.
3. To protect and conserue the value of land throughout the munieipality and the
vaiue af buiidings and improvements on the Eand.
Staff Response: Staff believes this proposal will not be detrimental to the
value of land thraughout Vail, nor will it be detrimental to the value of land
in the immediate area.
4. To ensure that subdivision of property is in compliance with the Town Zoning
Qrdinance, to achieve a harmonious, convenient, workable re3atianship amang
fand uses, consistent with municipal dewelopment abjectives. ~
Staff Resqonse: The applicant elirrtiinated the cornmon lo# iine between
Lats 46 and 47 in 1990, elirninating two non-conforming lats. Because
the praposed subdivision would re-establish two lofs which do not
conforrn to minimum lat size requirements, staff does not believe that the
subdivision is in compliance with the Town Zoning Qrdinance. A Variance
is necessary, and staff does not belieWe the criteria for a variance have
beera met (Please refer to Section V of this memorandum.)
5. Tc+ guide pubiic ancE private policy and action in 4rder to provide adequate and
efficient transportation, water, sewage, schools„ parks, pPaygrounds, recreational
and other public requirements and facilities and generally #o pravide that public
facifities will have sufficient capacity to serve #he proposed subdivision.
Staff Resqonse: This aspect of the subdiwision regulatians is intended
primarily to address impacts of Iarge-scale subdivisians of property, as
apposed to this particular minor subdivision proposal. Staff cloes not ,
befieve this proposal wFlf have any negative irnpacts on any of the other
above-listed public facilities.
6. To pravide for accurate legal descriptions of newly subdivided land and to
establish reasonable and desirable construction, design standards and
procedures.
Staff Respanse: This gaal o# the subdivision regulations will nat be ~
impacied by the proposed plat.
4
7. To prevent the pollution of air, streams, and ponds, to assure adequacy of
drainage facilities, #o safeguard the water table and to encourage the wise use
and management of natural resources thraughout the municipaiity in order to
preserve the integrity, stabilify, and beauty of the comrnunity and the value of
land.
Staff Response: As propased, staff does not believe that the proposed
minor subdivision will have any impact on the above referenced goal.
V. VARIANCE CRlTERIA
A. ConsideratiQn of FactQrs Re ardjn #he Variance:
1. The relationship of #he requested variance to other existing or
potential uses and structures in the vicinity.
As proposed, staff does not beCieve that tne requested variance will have
any impact of potential uses and structures in the vicinity. However, at
the suhject locatian, the current density aiEowed is 2 dwelling units plus
one EHU for a tatal of 3 units allawed on site. As proposed, each lot
would be ailvwed 1 du, p9us 1 EHU, for a total of 4 units an site. Staff
does nat believe that one additional unit an this sits will substantially
impact the neighbnrhood. In addition, the requested subdivision does not
trigger the need far any other variances far the existing house an Lot 47.
~ 2. The degree t4 which reiief frvm the strict and literal interpretation
and enforcement of a specified reguiation is necessary to achieve
compatibility and uniformit+y of treatment among sites in the r?icini#y
or to attain the objectives of this title without a gran# o# special
priVilege.
In December of 1990, the awner request+ed a minor subdivision ta
elirninate the lo# line between lots 46 and 47. By elimina#ing this lot fine,
the Iot was brough# inta compliance vuith Section 12-6[]-5 Lot Area arad
Site Dimensions. Staff believes that apprnval of the request would result
ira agrant of special privilege_ The minimum lot size in the
Primary/Secondary zone district is 15,000 sq. ft. Because Vail Village
West Filing No. 2 was sUbdiuided in Eagle County in 1985, rrtany Eots in
the neighborhood are nancanforming with regards to lot size. The
average lot size in Vail Village West Fiking Na. 2 is approximately 12,000
sq. ft.
The applicant was informed by the Community Development DepartTnent
in 1990 that it was necessary to eliminate the comman lot line if the
applicant wished to put additional parking an lot 46. Title 12 of the Tawrr
Code defines a lot or site as:
A parcel of land occupred or infended to be occupied by a use,
~ building, or structure under the provrsions of this Title and meeting
the rrarnimum requirerrrents of this Tltle. A lot or site may cansist of
a single !ot of record, a portion of a lot of record, a combrnatiorr of
5
lats of record or portions thereaf, or a parcel of land described by
mefes and 6ounds.
Because a"1at or site" may consist of a combination of lots, it was ~
unnecsssary tQ eliminate the common lot line to allow for additional
parking to be created on Lat 46.
3. The effect of th+e reqves#ed variance on light and air, distribution of
popuFatiQn, transportation and traffic facilit[es, pubEic #acilities and
utilitEes, and public safety.
Staff does not belieue that the requested variance will have any negative
impacts on the abave referenced criteria.
B. The Planninq and Environmental Commission shall make the follawinq findinq_5
beforec rantinq a variance:
1. That the granting of tha variance will not constitute a grant of special
privilege inconsistent with the lirnitations on other prQpertres classified in
the same distric#.
2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public
health, safety or welfare, or rnaterially injurious to properties or
improaements in the vicinity.
3. That the variance is warranted for one or mare of the following reasons: ~
a. The strict literal interpretatian or enforcement of the specified
regulation would resukt in prac#ical difficulty ar unnecessary
physical hardship incansistent with the objectives of this title.
b. There are exceptions ar extraordinary circumstances or conditions
appficable to the sarne site af the variance that da not apply
generally to other properties in the same zone.
c. The strict interpretation or enfarcernent af the specified regulatian
wouEd deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of
other praperties in the same district.
~
6
i
4=0 ~
~
~
~
~ ~ ~ r' f` t _ _ i 1 • ~ JI _ . '1 ,~.P ,1 l V
cc
oo ~ - o cD~
00'` ~ J
C14
2
¦ ~ r~ ~ ' / CD,
r ~ ~ ~S f
DO
-,r N C)
N
~ A s
(N
u7 \ CD U)
~r \
0O
~
~ ~
~ N T ~ 1f:1 ~ (P3 1`V `1
~
LO
, f d7
i13 ~
D
Lf) ~ ~j , ~ ~
/
~
Lo
~
•
f''z ~ f : " •v ~ / ~ ~
~ (\I c•- ~ ~ ~ r ~
O ~
~ r LC) w I~ ~ , ~
(Y)
~ ~ ,~rr I ~ J ~ ' ~ \ CF)
Lo
~ ~ 'i~ ~ ~'•.1 ~ ~ m LO
i ui ; N ~
LO cn ~
~ U .
m N
cN
~i
.
I I r~ ~ ~
~~F F-F-
~~~~~F- F-~~~~~~F- F-~
oo~o~aoo~oo~oooQOOaooooo~~ooooooaoo
J J._1 J J J J J J J J~ J J J_! J J J~ J J J._J J ~ J J J...J J J J
d<QQ4tCQdQQQQQd4'<1 <QQ<QQQQ{tQQ4dQQQ<<
F- F- F- F- 6- ~ I- H~~~- 1- F- 1- F- F-- F- H H F W- F- F- F- F- H H F- F-
Z ZzzZ Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z ZzZzZ Z ZzZ Z
L1.9 W W il7 W i1J L!J E1t W W W W Ll9 W L11 W W W L1.1 11J W LtJ lil LiJ uJ W f.1,1 l11 W W il~ W W W l!1
~an~oo??c~o?oor~oor~o~no?c~~d?c~oo?n?nr.~o
~ cn U7 cA cr7 v~ ir~ u) in u7 r,7 r~ u~ u~ tn v~ u~ ~ u3 u~ cn v~ cn ua u~ u3 cn v~ v~ tn u~ cn v~ u~ fn in
~wwwwwwwwulwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwi,.uu.rwwwwwwww
~rr~acococrccrtrcrEcEr C~ 0~ acrcaGtr¢m m oCaCOCx acaerrm trrtacacacoCCt
pr~r e~oooooc~oo~~raorioaQOrioao~ir~o~oc~c~ooo
rvzzZzZZzzZzZZzzzzzzz~z~~z~~~zzzzz~~z
CV N[V N N C\j [V N N CV C\F CV CV N N N N N~I N CV tV N CLI CV N CV N CV N N N N CV {V
LL~~ LL~ LL LL LL L{, G-L-1-1' 4Y 4~ 1.~ LL 4Y L4 4+e FL LL LL W lL LL L.4_ L.L W~ LL LL LL ~
cC Q Q Q Q d<L Q 4<4 rtt Q<<t <d<t Q d Q<Q Q Q<C d Q KC Q d<Q Q Q
OC~~~~CCC~CCCC~I~.CtrC~~~CC~ CL~C~CroC~[7C~~~CC~CCCr~I~Cr~
M a-LL Md CL LL CLM fL [l dMd d CL EL M M[L CL. M M0_ CL M MtL f1 Cl. 0. Gl d[i [L
{V
J J J J, J_1 J J J J J J J J J J J _I J J J J~-j,~ J J J J J J J,_! J rl
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 2 7E Mi 212~ E NLL2LL2LLLL M~ ~ ~ ~ UE ~ 2
¢¢Q¢aaQ¢¢Qa¢<Qa¢¢¢¢d¢a¢¢¢¢¢¢¢aQQ¢
Z ~~.u_u_~.u.~~~~~oL~~LL.~.~~LL.~u.~u_u-~~~~~
N C11 ~I LV C'V N CV C'V CU N N N G'V CU N CV CV N CV N N CV tV CV ICV C~E N CV CV CV V N C'J
~ f`- C'} P- CV r o0 1- n- cP 'et o0 1'+ i'- Y- cD cD u7 [[D r,-- t~ C7 cD CC> oo ~~[o I~ t[7
~ CD ~{'`S CV O? 63 C~7 Q} CV C7C1 lL] lL7 I'` 1, f`r~ C!3 CD C7 Rt Lf} LC) f.0C'~ O C7) 'd C3) 04 r G~0 li)
lf) r C7 L!) <.O CO ~ b' CV CT7 fe L[) CU W C7 CV C'11 N r O~ f`+ C7 I- ~ N h C*7 l!? qq7' CO O 00 C+S 00 Lfa
LL gr Ol CV m N l17 C77 M lLl, l[] 00 CC? f- f+. r Iti f~ O Cl) N N V- (M -IZP P~ 1~ N CV Q (D f~ C'] f` N. t-W IU-) O C"A Lf7 Cf,? I~ r- 1- 0.7 O} Cm v "'+7 I` h• I`- 00 O? - r r r 4 V N t+7 NT LY) 1- - O r r i0 I-, r j
~ q C7~ Q O O C7 O O C O O r r r r r r r.-- r- Cll CVi N CV N N N N iCV NC"3 s,i' V 1tJ CD I-: N ~
U) r r w- r - r- r- r r r r- r r r r r r r - r r r ~
AY
~
LD Sa 6? ;r l[7 CO h- E- f'- IT Co N Co c0 ~ C"J C) 0:1 O P~ UL 1!7 CU t77 ~ oC7 b a17 CD O~ i11 CO Cl") .
Cv 6O ~ C11 CV N N r1c1' Ctii r r r r r r- CV - CV ~3' ~I Cil
~ Q y
~ J l4
~ J J J J J~ J J J~ J J J~1 J J J J J J J-f .1 ...1 J~l ,._l J~ J J J ~I J J
1L lL lL Ll. Ll. tl_ LL Li LL LL iL LL Lt u- LL Li Ll.. Ll. u- L!. L.L Ll. Ll.. LL l.L LL LL L.L LL LL LL LL tL tL.
. ~~~-F- F- F- ~-~~F--~1--F- F- E--+- r-
c'Q ~ c~ cn c~ cn cn c~ cn ui 0 cn cn cn cn 0 cn oa cn cn en rn 0 co 0 0 cn cn cn cn cn (f) (n c) cn co
~ ~yu~wwwulr.uwwwwwwwwu.uwwu~wwwwwwuau~wwwwu.~u~u.~wu~
p3: 3; 3: 3: -3: i~ 3: 3: 3: i~: 3: 3: 3: 3:'3:
~
.C--jwwu.irstww'wuawwr.vwwwwwwwwwwwu.iwwwiuwwwwwwww
Z3 ~ Q 4¢ Q Q< Q~¢ g Q<¢ d< Q 4 Q< d Q Q Q 2< Q 4~ g ct Q¢
J J J J J J J .J J J J -1 -1 J-.I J J c.J J J~ J J J J _l J J
N - ...1 J J.J J.=.1 ._2 ...J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J=J J J J J J J J
> > > S> > 7> `!5 7?>'`~'~,~a?`~' >'>1> ~i`'!»'>
~ J.J J J J J J- J J J J J J J J 11J J J-1 J_l ,.J J_I J~- J J J J_..1 J
J 7 < > j ~ ? ~ ~ ? ~ 7 7 ~ 5 ~ ~ 7d 7 7 5 > j } ? 7 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
X:~ X X X X~ x X~~ X X X Y Y Y Y Y~ Y X Y Y 1~
~ W lU LLI LLI LL! LLl W LLI Ll.E LL! LLI LEJ LL! tiJ W W W L!1 Ll.[ W W W UJ W W l13 W
W W W W W W LL1 LEJ Li.t LI,I i.1.1 l.ll LU L!J LLI LU W LLI L1J lJ.l LL9 LLI LL! W W LU LE! LU w
~ LC CE OC Cr C- m x m or CC CC m [C tC [r LL m' [l". m Cr 0-- Ct 0-1 tr cC (D C)'
cc c.) c) c) c) 0 c) c) 0 c) 0 0 ¢Ec¢(.) c.c) c) c) caC) C) c) 0 0 at~¢0 Q¢a
E-uswwwwta~wwuau.iEUwwL.u ~~~wuU wwwwwwwww~eu;~ w~,~z
c~m = ocrror, craccracccaccl: Ir ac dX X rxcEM M aX 0-- cc: cCQcl: d(x4¢O
0000 00000 0 0 0 0 0 ~==00000 000 0 c) o=o=occzEr
~
w
~ ur) co i.O Lr) Ln Lr) in LO cp Ln oc) uo Ln c7 n ca m Ln i.n u a Un Lca Ln fo co en Ln c~7 Ln ro Ln v r3 d-
~rnc,o r~aor.c) ococDCD raor- P- rrncaefl~t InooLnoIt*, rO rnL0 u7cvrnorn
~aooo aomr~cnCF)aorncor~rioaanr- t~rnr- r- r- tiootia>rnoooonr~n.car-co co
r~ w`-- r- r-r r- r rr r r ~ r r rr r r. r- r r t-
LC) C> CO V 11+ Ct? Id (4 S9 EV r F- W C') C37 Q 00 M ln CD S'7 e- 4J LO N O CD tt CY O ln N lC7 C7
C\j N N N N O C\j N N CV r r r N C*3 N G O d CD C\j Q(V C\# C'.j C*7 p - (+7 C+7 r(O
C? O C] C7 J C7 0 C7 C7 C) C7 O O O O O O O O ~ C) C7 C] O O Q Q Q Q C7 p p O O Q
~ J CB h- le CQ Cfl CD tG CO [.4 h c.U tR CQ [D CD Cp GG CSY Ct7 Cp cD CL3 CO CG> I`- CD CD SD CO it) cD cD CO CD
~ O O C? O O QO O O O O t7 C3 O O O C] CD C> QO O Q p Q p O O OC) O Q 0 pC:) m C'') C'7 C'7 C'1 CVJ Cn Co C'7 C'? L°J C'7 E'"7 C°7 cr"JCY7 C7 m C`;l C'7 C7 C") C'7 [`'7 C7 CF} CV) C'r7 C+') CY3 f'I) CO Cr3 C'') C*3
cz CV CV N CV fV , CJ CV CV CV N NCV N C'U N C'J CV Ncm " CU N N CV CV C\j N N C1! N C\j C\j C\j CV fV
~ r r r r fir r r
Co C'3 CrJ ['°3 4'7 C') [7 C'? rc-D c''} C'7 C~'S c~7 c*) c`~ C"7 C'~ C'7 C''] C3 C3 c*7 C"] [r3 cy3 [7 c"} C')
Q 0 C~ O O O O O O OC7 C7 8I Q Q O O ~
- r~
CCC11 CW N N N CV CV C'V N'N N CV C~ K`ti C+.1 c'tl N N N CV C11 Rl N CV N CV
~
~
~ MEM4RAIVDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FRC7M: Departrnent of Community [?evelapment
DATE: May 14, 2001
SUBJECT: A request for a work session to discuss a new special developmen# district (SDD)
to allow far the redevelopment of the Vail Racquet Club, located at 4695 Vai!
Racquet Club DrivelVail Racque# Club Condominiums.
Applicant: Racquet Cfub Qwners Association, represen#eci by Fritzlen F'ierce
Architects,
Planner: Brent Wilson
1. DESCRfPTION OF THE REQUEST
The appiicant, Vail Raequet Club Owner's Associatian, represented by Fritzfen Pierce
Architects, requested this work session with the Planning and Enrrironrnental
Cornmission (PEC) to discuss developrnent appar#urtities within the Vail Racquet Club
parcels. Specificalky, the applicant has an interest in constructing 18 additional housing
units in an effort ta facilitate #he renovation of the existing racquet club facilities.
~ II. BACKGRQIJN[l
A. History
In 1974, the Town of Va'rl annexed the Vail Racquet Club Condominiums and applied
"Medium Family Multiple Family" (MDf'v1F) zaning on the property (the tennis eourt parcel
is zoned Residential Cluster). Pursuant ta the annexation agreements with Eagle
County, ail craunty records regarding construction of the property were to be forwarded to
the Town of Vail. Unfortunately, very litkle infarmatian was avaiiable at the time regarding
developrnent standards on the praperty. Sirrce that time, the PEC has approved a
number Qf canditianal use permits and variance requests 4o facilitate the clubhouse
canstructian and expansion o# residential facilities. These include density variance
requests for additional dwelling units and employee units. Since annexation, the praperty ~
has been functianing under straight MDMF zoning.
6. Land Use Plan
The Vail Land Use Plan places a future lanef use designation of "Medium Density
Residential" an this properiy. Lands within this designation are sntended ta provide
muitiple-family housing (3 to 14 units per buildable acre), private recreation facilities,
private parking faciiities and institutionai/public uses such as churches, fiire stations and
, parks and open space facilities.
The follawing palicies from the Vail Land L9se F'lan are applicab6e to this project:
~
1
~
i
1.1 Vail should continue to graw in a contralPed enviranment, maintaining a balance ~
be#ween residential, corrimercial and recreational uses to serve both the visifor
and the permanent resident.
1.3 The quality of develapment should be maintained and upgraded wheneuer
possible.
1.12 Vail should accomrnodate mast of The additionai growth in existing dev2laped
areas (infill areas).
2.5 The community should imprave non-skier recreational options ta irrrprove year-
round taurism.
5.1 Additional residentiaf growth should continue to occur primarily in existing, pVatted '
areas and as ap,prapriate En new areas where high hazards do nat exist.
5.3 Affordable employee housing should be made avaiiable through private effarts,
assisted by lirnided incentives, provided by #he Town af Vaii wiIh appropriate
restrictions.
5.4 Residential grawth should keep pace with the marketplace demands for a fulf
range of housing types.
5.6 The existing employee housing base should be preserved and upgraded.
Addit'ronal employee housing needs should be accaraimodated at varied sites ~
throughaut the cammunity.
Staff believes the uses propased by the applican# are consistent wi#h the land use
designation and applicable palicies fram the plan.
C. Zonirrg
The Medium Density IUiultiple-Family District is intended to prouide sites for rnultiple-
famiiy dwellings at densities to a maximum af eighteen (18) drvel9ing units per acre,
together with such public facilities as may appropriately be located in the same District.
The Medium Density Multipfe-Family District is intended to ensure adequate light, air,
open space, and other amenities commensurate wi#h multiple-family occupancy, and tm
mair7tain the desirable residential qualities ofi the District by establisiaing appropriate site
development stanclards. Certain nanresidentiai uses are permitted as conditional uses,
and where permitted, are intended to blend harmoniously with ihe residential cha,racter of
the District.
PERMiTTED USES:
Multaple-family resideratial cfwellings, inciuding attached or row dwellings and
condaminium dwellings.
Single-family residential dwellings.
Two-family residential duvellings.
~
2
,
~ 12-6G-3: COhJDITIONAL USES:
Bed and breakfast operations.
Dog kennel.
Private clubs and civic, cultural and fratemal organizations.
Pubiic buildings, grounds, and facilities.
Public or private schoo9s.
Public park and recreation facili#ies_
Public utility and public service uses.
Ski lifts and tows.
Type 111 and Type IV employee housing units.
Staff believes the applicant's proposal i's in compliance with the uses prescribed far the
Medium Density Muitiple Family Zoning District,
D. Gealogic Hazards
ACCOrding to the Town's afficial Hazard 11Maps and a study campiled by geotechnical
eonsuitant Bruce Cowlins, portians af the subject praperty lie within rockfall, debris ffow
and snow a+ralanche hazard zones. A site-specific analysis will be required if the
applica,nt chooses ta pursue final appraval af this project_
CII. ZpNI'NG ANALYStS
F'lease refer to the attached exhibi#.
~
IV. ALTERNATIVE SCENARIOS
The appEicant is proposing three potential redevelopment scenarias. Please refar ta the
attached site pians, text descriptions and isometric diagrams for details. The following is
a general deseription a# options the appiican#, staff and PEC might cansider far
redeveiopment of the proper#y:
Option A (Na SDa)
Pursuant ta the Town of Vail Zoning Regulations, struc#ures which do not conforrn to
densi#y controls may be enlarged only if the total grass residential floor area of the
enlarged structure does not excesd the total gross residential floor area of the
praexisting nonconfarming structure. The Vail Racquet Club Condominiums are non-
conforming with regard ta density (dwel6ing units per acre and GRFA).
Since fIoQr area ded'rcated to Type Ili empfoyee housing units (EHU) is exempt from
gross residential fEoar area (GRFA) calcuiations, any amoun# o# GRFA elitninated through
the deed-restriction af EHUs cauld be added elsewhere an the site. For examRle, the
deed-restrictian o# 20 units (at 450 square feet each) coulci provide 9,000 square feet of
new GRFA elsewhere on site withaut the need to establish a speeial develapment district
4soDa.
Since Type III EHLJs are not counted taward cEens+ty (dwelling units per acre and GRFA),
additional dwelling uniis could be addecE when employee units are cEeed-restricted. Far
3
i
example, the deed restriction of 20 employee units couEd provide for the addition ofi 20 ~
new units eisewhere on the srte. However, the new GRFA added could not exeeed the
amouni of GRFA removed through deed-restriction of the employee units.
O tion B No SQa
If the property were rezoned to High Qensity Multiple Family (HDN9F), ihere wouid be
ample development potential to accomplish the objectives listed in the applicanYs Capiion
1-3 pians (assuming 20 EHUs were deed restricted). The HDMF zane district alfows a
density of 25 units per buildable acre and a GRFA ratio of 60 percent. Existing parking
deficiencies would be "grandfafhered," but any new units or commercial space wouid
require parking per Chapter 12-10, Vail Town Cade.
The Vail Land Llse Rlan places a designation of "Medium Density Residential" tup to 14
units per buildable acrej on the property. Adjacent properties are zoned Low Density
Muitiple Family and Residential CluSter.
Option C {SDD)
A special deuelopment district could be used ta faciiitate the Uption 1-3 plans. The
deviations from the underlying MDIVIF zaning would be density, GRFA, and parking (the
exis#ing setbacfs encroachments were established legally with a rrariance)_ Pursuant ta
the Vaii Town Code, the PEG and Vail Town Councii would need to make a fincEing that
the public benefits of an SDa praptasal outweigh the poiential negatiwe irnpacis of the
zoning dewiations-
Club Fac9lities Remadel ~
The remadel or expansian of the club facElities will require a conditiona] use permit.
V. PUTENTIAL PlJBLIC BENEFITS
Staff has identi#ied the foflowing potential public benefits associated with this proposal:
¦ The redevelopment and upgrading of quasi-public recreational facifities within Vail.
¦ The provision of permanent updated deed restrictions for a signtficant number of
empVoyee housing units within Vail.
• The additian ofi infill hausing units in a previausly developed neighborhoQd (as
opp4sed to sprawl).
• f'ossible streetscape enhancements or other pub6ic impravemenis.
VI. STQFF REGOMMENDATION
As this is a request far a v+rork session, staff is not providing a recommendation at #his
time. Staff will forward a recommendatian at the time of final PEC and tQwn cauncil
review of this item. Hawever, the appEicant is requesting feedback/t#irection from the
PEC to deterrnine the feasibility of a future application for a special development district. ~
4
~ Prelirninary Approximate Zaning Analysis
Vail Racquet !Glub
(Deviafivns from Nledium Density NCultipfe Family zaning are indica#ed in bold type)
Development Criteria AllowedlRe uired Existina Praposed (w/18 units)
To#al Lot Area: 554,911 sf or 12.739 acres no change no change
"Buildable" Lat Area: 10,000 sf 469,533 sf no change
GRFA: 35% or 164,337 sf 43% or 201,550 sf 49% or 228,550 sf
Dwelling units per acre: 18 per buildable aere 25.14 24.96
Site caverage: 45% or 249,710 sf 12°to or 65,569 sf
Uption 1: 16% ar 90,563 sf
Optian 2: 15°/4 ar 81,274 sf
Option 3: 14% or 76,552 sf
Min. Setbacks:
fVarth: 20' 59' 59'
SQuth: 20' 22' 22'
~ East: 20' 15' (wl variance) 15'
West: 20' 22' 22'
Gare Creek: 50' 59' 59'
Max. Height: 38' slappng 33' sloping 33' sloping
Landscaping; 30% or 166,473 sf dna dna
Parking: apprax. 502 spaces apprvx. 491 spaces approx. 518 spaces
Note: These figures are 6ased uparr estimates provided by the owners' assocration and Fritzlen Pierce
Architects. They are approximatians only.
ASSUMPTIONS
• 100-year flood plain inckudes 1.06 acres.
¦ Red Hazard Avalanche Zone is approximately .9 acres.
• The association is willing to deed restrict 20 urrits as EHUs.
¦ Approxirnate EHU size would be about 450 square feet.
¦ The "site" includes the condo, club and tennis court parcels. A rezoning of the tennis court site may be
necessary under cer#ain scenarios.
• It is assumed the 18 new units would be approx. 2,400 square feet in size.
~
F R1TZLEN
Marcn 28, 2007 PI E R+C E ~
Tawn of Vail
Planning and Environmental Commissian
Department of Community Develapment
75 South Frontage Road
Vail,CO 81657 ARCHITECTS
re: The Vail Racquet Club
Lear Planning C+ommission
The Racquet Club Owners Assoeiation, current owners of The Vail Racquet Club, wishes tQ
pursue redevelopment of the "Club" parcef by establishing a Speciai Development Distriet.
1ncluded in our submittal package is a preliminary Site and Zaning analysis perfQrmed by
TOV Planning staff in Decembe_r of 1997, whrch wiIl he{p expiain the history of The Vail
Racquet Club°s cfevelopment.
Three potential apt?ons have been generated thus far, each with the same underiyng
pragram and principles which are the basis for our discussions. •
Each scheme relies on adding density in the form of GRI=A/'For sale eondominiums, retaining
units formerly restricted as EHU's to remain EHU's, providing new meeting/conference
facilities, a new (ar remadefedlexpanded) fitness center and spa facilities, combine
Association and Club operations into one joint facility, a new (or remadeled/expanded)
restaurant.
Due ta the "interesting" development history of The Vail Racquet Club, it is our intention in
requesting thds wark session to determine the feasibility of adding density to this parcel fram
the Town's point of view in order to help guide the Association in their next steps of
pursuing this project.
Sincerefy,
Thornas R Du Bois
K:10056 - VAIL RACQUET CLL1R10WfVER CORRESPONDENCE1LETl Ei2-PEC.D0C PACE 1 or 1 ~
Planning • Architecture • Interiors
1 F6SU Cast Vail Valley Drive FaIlridge C-1 • Vail, CO 81657 0 vailarchi[ects.com 9 fau (970) 476-4901 •(970) 476-6342
0 y p41 y~~}~ a m i~ r v~ r u~ V~ y
~ ~ ~~,i,m +-`c i~lc i N °~u+x-..~ Z W ~ k!1
m W mM 5- "t Q s 0) NM ~ iI m 2 W V v Q..
x>~ 3°t as ~ t s1 +n c> a'.P -J
ga ,~a,mi m~~? [s ~ p N CG r ~
4) W z
~O ~ p L~L CL ~
~ ~ v~J p 4X3 J~1 C 9 W g~j g~j N il ~ 9 ~ W uEi
@1 h6 O C L il
+1 +~~~=OOti ' "?,•'n ~qes Qp,L~}•U'.' .
[n l9 ~ ~ -y9j q (D ~ 0.{ t41 01 16 ~ eL SS lY ~ ~ pa ~ C
I C 9 ~ ~
}
i L c. E ~ R N LL W 3~ +cS•7 ~ l~ ; 4~ .~w fl`
~ q G ~ ~ Cl 9~J '9 ~+y yfl ~ ~ ~ il 4~1 i1 c ~ ,n +i-+ N a
a IS Q~V3 vv„oo
.
+f1 ti L 41 4)
L~ i3 w' L 0~ Qy ~ a~ ~ y 0 J'] S6 L S1 ~ 01 £
A ~L Q7 61 CI U N i ~ SS ~ 13 41 CF
1L ~ a N Y~ cU_:3
ara Q m.° m. °u~ V~,°n Em i~.5 z U
. , ~ a .
r~r
IL
rt wt ' ,
, a
~
~,-y ,t•,.a "Ii. ' S ~ w k, ~ S ~ "wx '~r" .
c
~6
Y:T.Z„
~~e ~b" ~ y i 4' ~ ~{tF, .
„ A Min S : q. ~ Y 4 p d
gv-p
,
I . ~
y i
. • ' . : - ' _ -:t'e~, ' ~M' .,i~ ~ ' . .
r
. - ~i s.v~ t ,xaa
.4 4C ~ '1 I Y'
~ ~4- ~
z W ~
„`'`'i~ U
N
Lti ~
d ~
~ 4 _ U U 3 ~ ~3
~
` C31 ~1) U1 L ~,v C PS J1 .a+ C
3 Ql IL v N C
~3 v 4~ 9r
1 ~ uD r- 4- 0 tn
r- m~ ~QQ tL c' O g~ v
~ O +b~ ~ O a O ia .u 'D
41 ?1 Z IL ~ llXl d W L
rLL
~
~
~
0
~
r L 0 m a m~-t±~ p~~sc c n~ m q~ p~~
4~~='Up~s~~'3 ~O3Wp 9~~~'=~ ~ Q3
7 ar O Z w
1~ ~ p s i1i~ 0~ s~ C1 ~4f L W m L~ II LLJ U U {L
V a.} 'O 11} u'U V'~ ~.4 iy "
y tl c w u
b
L1 m a7
Yl. nG
-g
t [4Y ~ L ~Si ~
4-1 (3
'L 47 ,()y 6 ,
I O 4
y 6~ v v y~ V
Q L L ~ S. ~ ~11 ~ ~i[I 'C ~ ~ y w ~S1 L ~ O ~
~ ~ c W C1 41 U~ y~ '
O o,~',3q~,~ ~da3 +n£ s°' ~mWUima~
~C C L~ C,.1 ~7 i1 {6 y L=~ QJ Q~ a1
~
ry ~1 L~ i97 v ar~ a~:~ ON1 i 3~ L ep y Q~ a'i S~L ,
v t- .:1 tyrs V.9 E 0 O,a ~NC~ yy p~-t~.. s i4 `a' "7 ~ U i
a Q~ F~ 45 tti5_. ~
z
~i .
tnI
h,
b r , .
~ ^~'z'~~sty ~~~Ka
1~ i ~ ~ b • E : ~ ~ s~'~ ; .
q~ u a t'
^ - -
~ y
-
f .
~
. ~ Jn mYaG~ ly. { r IIaN f'~1"dd''&~Id~
r'
• ~
v 1
. . .
- ~ #r
- ~ y's "
- . . . . - - . , , 3
,
. . , . . ~ . .~t ~
Z W a
LW U
E ~ F` w =
~ EZ 4`s Q a] s
E
- "'a d ~n
~
Qy S~6 4 ~ 3 ~
~
a~r 'n m m u ~ c' m
. n ~ d;..~ TN~ ~ll E N Jl y C
Lll 1i ; y r~ C d ~ 5V 't
N~ ~ q~ ~~Sl l0 ~ tS! 1- 4~1
Q ~ Q m• ~CL
w zm EL uxi 0 w 0.
o ~ Q 00 ~OC~QC70
. ~1 .
~
~
t o,
,
a.
~ .
~
~
~
}
s~~. OzD ~+si 4~ mr t~iV++ ~n al d2"-~t7 s~ a+Y N
s y E ~ 4 Q N 93 aCe ~j ~
N9~W U
E p mQ
u
°c
c
~ ' ~ ~ ~
~,VTv4- a'
~
g
n- O!- s1 rnm +s s c as C s N U~ L t'i i v
u m
a ~y c [7 m+~ p 3 W"c O O c,s 6,Cri
p
~~ym ~~~r•.i zp 4 ~ w ~+-~jy°a--
uL 0 m 9
0 L~ y Z3 t6 "6 9 ~ 1 67 .O .
m u m=- w a a'~ a~ w,,~
z ,3,n o s ~nus,euoo"aa
~ E~E~Q~a ~y6 i0it~= m~ ~s~Etc~i.E~~O
°°°~Qfl~~ma2mwL•~r~, 07°~~QV~ C~'p6~ ~ +~n
Q ~ ~ °1
t
~ yy~m~~~ ~s
`O~ o ,a~ myc>Q~r d-
~
L ] U5 rl a~
3
y y py m~ L ~ L s t D~ ~~~'10 t~.~ 6C7 L
L
dy u J ~ c.iI ~ Q~ 4 93 17 N it ~ l4 a+ a~ N ~ 4f a a~ tTi ~ fY "O y
n"i
zi
At -
~x
A.
~ h . ~ . y ~ ' ~ h ~
a~
y,n~ F'S `~`g,
,~il`c~~: ~ 3'~~ ~y ~.'v r4~°~5s-=^$•~.k . : ,.C .
[
~L
u' •~'.v ' ? i A . +tT 2 ~ p
~ s~`
p
_ ..,C ~ f..,
F dW"~t~ ,yg~ tl - .
.
= *
• , 's`c ~ .
,
r
.3 _ a e j ~ 4 ~ ( t t
, : S', .'•T. _ s _ .i: -
. . . . . - . . ".r .
~
I
a W h r
~ ~ F ~
65 Li.,l ~ u '1n
E ~ J ~
X ~ Pi LLJ r
E p 3
~ p ~ Q u ~ ~St ~ ~(L u
tQ ~
~
7 n3
~ a O d a s o
4~ s ~ a qm ,o
m 4J ~
3i Q3 4f N C
-z Y--
m aa ~o
~ T IM L ~ QI
3 i X !1. 0
u3 z a~n EMU ~ Ui (j u~u R
.~.a
~
~ a
~ i
-
~
~
~
~
O
~
?
Memorandum
~
TO_ Planning & Environmental Commission
FROM: CQmmunity Develapment Department
DATE_ May 14, 2001
SUBJECT: A request #or a worksession to discuss praposed amendments to the
Town of Vail Zoning Regulations to a11ow for the operation af home chi6d
care facilitEes and day care centers in the Town of Vail.
DESCRIPTION QF THE REQUEST
The Community Development Department is requesting a worksess9on with the
Pfanning & EnWironmental Commission ta discuss possible text amendments to
the Town of Vail Zoning Regulations to alfow home child day care facilities to be
operated in the Town of Vail. The purpose ot this worksession is tv provide a
brief backgraund fln the existing legislation regulating home day care facilities in
the Town of Vail, an analysis of how the Town of Avan and Eagle County
regulate the operation of home child care facilities, and to provide a
secommendation for amendmenis to the Town of Vail Zoning Regulations that
~ would al6aw for the operation of home child care faci1ities in the cammunfty.
This text amendment initEative is a resul# of a worksession discussion with the
Vaii Town Council. 4n May 8, 2001, the Town Council directed the Community
Deveiopment Departmen# to prepare a rrternorarrdum to ttte Planning &
Environmental Commission outlining a recornrreendatfan for text amendments to
the Zoning ReguCatians. Staffi wiff provide a summary of the cornments generated
lay the Commission during #he worksessiorr to the Town Cauncil on May 15'h a#
the regularly scheduled DRBfPEC report. II. BACKGROUND
The purpose of Section II of #his rnemorandum is to proWide an analysis of the
regulatary measures that the Town of Vaii, State af Colarado, Town of Avon and
Eagle County have adopted and re6ied upan fnr the operatfan of child care
facilities within their respective jurisdictions.
Town of Vail
The Vail Town Code does nod specifiically list child day care facilities as an
aflowabfe use in any of the Town's prescribed zone districts. Instead, the Town
has determined that a child day care facility such as the ABC Schoof ar Learning
Tree are similar in nature to 'pubFic and private schools and educatronar
institutrons'; and there#are, are allowed in certain zane districts subject tc+ the
~ issuance of a conditional use permit. According to the Vail Town Code, child day
care faciEitEes are allowed in the Generai Use and Housing Zane Districts. There
1
.
are currently t$ properties zoned General Use. No properties in the town have
yet to be zaned under the Hausing designatian. ~
A home occupation permit does nnt allow home child care facilities.
The Towrr has hisfarically followed the state statutes and determined that hcrme
child care #or two non-reBated children or less does nat require day eare licensing
or permitting.
State a# Colorado
Th€ Calorado Revised State statutes address home child day care facilities.
According to the statutes, a Family Ciaild Care Harne is defEned as,
"a faciiity for child care in a place af residence at a farnily or person for the
purpose of providing less than twenty-f+our-hour care for children under
the age of eighteen years wha are not related to the head of such hame.
°Farnily child care hame" may inciude infant-taddler child care homes,
large child care homes, experienced pravider chifd care homes, and such
other #ypes of farnily child eare homes designated by rules of the state
board pursuant ta section 26-6-106 (2) {p), as the state board deems
necessary and apprapriate".
additionally, an attachment has been provided that further outlines the regulatory
pravisions of the state statutes.
Tawn of Avon ~
The Town af Auon allaws the operation of a child-care home as a home
occupation, subject ta Special Review, According to the Town of Avon land use
regulatians,
a "home oceupation" means an occupa#ion, profession, activity or use that is
conducted wi#hin a dwelling unit and is mean4 to produce income or revenue, or
any activity assaciated with a nonprofit organization +nrhich:
A. Does not produce naise audible outside the dwelling unit where
such activity is taking place;
Q. Limits the amount af customers, visitors or persons, ather than the
occupan#s, to no more than five per day. ln the case of day care, no
more chyldren than allowed by the state of Colorado license for a child
care home (a state af Colorado license is also required to operate a
child care hame);
C. Does not cause the visibEe storage or parking of vehicles or
equipment not normally associated with residen#ial use, whFCh shall
inClude but is not lirnited ta the following: trucks with a rating greater
than three-fourths ton, earth moving equiprnent and cement mixers;
Q. Does na# alter the exteriar of the property or affiect the residential ~
2
f
~
character of #he neighborhood;
~ E. Does not interfere with parking, access or other narrnal activities an
adjacent praperties, or with other units in a multifarnily residential
development;
F. L7oes not require or allow empVayees to work on the proper#y;
G. Does nat require alteratian ta the residence to satisfy appficahle
tawn fire or builcfing codes, or county health regulations;
H. Does nat require or allow any signs to be visible from the outside af
#he property. (Ord. 98-3 §VI: C3rd. 91-10 §1(part)).
Home accupations are allowed in the fcallowing zane districts, subject to a Specia6
Review llse Perrnit:
• Residential Single Family
• Residentia! Duplex
• Residentiai Low Density
• Residentiaf Mediurn Density
* Residential High Density
• Planned Uni# Development
~ Horne occupations are not allowed in the Government, Park & Emplayee
Housing Zone Qistrict.
A speciaK review use shall require a special review use permit prior to
the issuance of abuildong permit or the commencement af ihe use
ideniified as a special review use in the appropriate zone district(s).
A special review use shall not be considered a use by right without
review ancf appraval, as set forth in Section 17.48.020, nor shall the
use vest unless a dewelopment pian is approved for the properfy. (Qrd.
91-10 § 1(part)).
The staff arrd the planning and zoning commissian shall consicEer the
fallowing criteria when evaluating an application for a special review use
permit.
A. Whether the proposed use otherwise compfies with aCl requirements
impased by the zaning cade;
B. Whether the proposed use is in canformance with the town
comprehensdrre plan;
G. Whether the proposed use is compatible with adjacent uses_ Such
compatibility may be expressed in appearance, architecturaf scale and
features, SItE; de5fgfl, arrd the con#rol of any acfverse impacts irtcluding
noise, dust, odor, lighting, traffic, safety, etc. (Qrd. 91 -10 §1(pari))-
~
3
.
a
Eagle County
Eagie County regulates two types of child day care facilities; Day Care Centers ~
and Day Care Homes.
According to the Eagle County land use regulations, a Day Care Center is
defined as,
"a residence or facility that pravides regular care and supervision, for an
entire day ar a pariian af a day, for seven or more children who are nof
reiated to the awner, nperator or manager there4f, whether such faciiity is
operated with or withoui compensation far such care. A day care center
shall comply with afl applicable standards far child care centers of the
Coforado Department af SociaE Services."
A Day Care Horne is defined as,
"a residence or #acility that provides reguiar care and supervision> for an
entire day, for more #hara two but noT more than six children from birth tn
sixteen years flf age who are not related to the awner, operator or
manager thereof, whether such facility is operated with or wsthout
campensation for such care. Care also may be provided for rto more than
two additional chilclren of school age atiending full-tfay school. Residents
of the home 12 years of age who are an the premises and all children on
the prernises for supervision are counted against the approved capacity. ~
A day care home shaA comply with alP appiicable standards for child care
centers of the Colorado Department of Social Services."
Eagka County allows the operation of Day Care Nomes in 14 of their 16 zone
districts as a"use by rEght°' upon the determination that all applicable
requirements have been met. ln contrast, Day Care Centers are allowed in the
same 14 zone districts; however, the review and approval of a Spec'raf Use
Permit is required. The two zone districts that do not allo+nr these facilities are the
Backcauntry and Fulford Historical Districts respectiveiy.
According to the Eagle County Land Use Fiegulatians, Special Uses are those
uses that are rtat necessarily compatible with the ather uses adlawed in a zone
district, but which may be deterrnined compatible with the other uses allowed in
the zone d+strict based upon individual review of their Iflcation, design,
configuration, density and infensity of use, and the 'rmposition of appropriate
conditions #o ensure the compatibility of the use at a particular location with
surrounding Iand uses_
Upon receipt of an apptication for a Special Use, the Carnmunity Develapment
Department shall prepare a repart for presentation to the Planning Cammissian
and cause public notice to be provided. The Planning Commission shali conduct
a public hearing on the application and based upon the review of the application
for compliance with the relevan# and applicabPe criteria, farward a
recammendation to the Board of Caunty Comrnissianers ta approve, approve
with conditions, ar disapprave the SpECial Use application. ~
,
~I
4
~ The issuance of a Special Use permit shall be efepencfent upon findings that
there is competent evidence thaf ths propased use, as canditioned, fuPly
cornplies with all the prescribed standards. The prescrilaed standards include
consistency with the applicable Master Plans, compatibility, zone dis#riet
standards, minimizatian of adverse impacts, impact on public facil3#ies, site
development standards and ather provisions deemed necessary.
IlI. RECOMMENDATlON FOR AMENDMENTS
Staff is recommending text amendments to the Zaning Regulatinns to allow for
ihe apera#ion of home child day care facilities and child day care centers. Sta#f
recommends that a cfefinition of Home ChiEd Day Care Facilities be adopted
alang weth a definition of Ghild Day Care Genters. Staff reeommends that ,
Section 12-2-2, Definitions o# the Zoning Regula#ions be amended to include the
following terms:
"Home Child Day Care Facili#y" -
"a residence or facility that provides regular care and supervision, for an
entire day, far more than twa but not more than six children from birth #o
sixteen years of age who are not related to the owner, operator car
manager thereof, whether such faci6ity is operated with or without
corinpensation for such care. Care alsa may be provided far no more than
~ two add'rtlanal children of schaol age atfending full-day schaol. Residents
of the home 12 years of age who are on the premises and ail children on
the prerrises for superv+sion are caunted against the appraved capaeity.
A day care home sha11 compfy with af1 applicable standards far chi6d care
centers of the Calarado Department of Sociaf Services." and,
"Child Day Care Center" -
"a residence or facility that provides regular care and supervisian, for an
entire day or a portion of a day, for seven or mare children who are not
relafied to the awner, operator Qr manager thereof, whether such facility is
operated with or uvEthaut compensation for such care. A clay care cen#er
shail comply with alf applicable standards for child care centers of the
Colorada Qepartment of SociaV Seruices.°
Staff fur#her recammends that ihe operation of a Home Child Clay Care Facility
be classified as a Home Occupation, as defined in the Zoning Regulations, in
certain established residential zane district subject to the issuance of a Home
Occupation Permif and a Ganditiona! Use Perrnit. Additianally, staff is ,
recommending that a text amendmer7t be adapted alfowing Child Day Care
Genters in certain established residential and commercial zone disiricts.
~ II
5
5ectian 12-14-12: HOME aCGUPATIONS, af the Zoning Regulatians, ~
establishes the pracedures for the issuance of a Home C)ccupation Permit.
According to Section 12-14-12,
A. Permit Required: The canduct of a horne occupa#ian, where permitted as
an accessory use by the provisions of this Ti#le, shall be subject ta
issuance af a home accupation permit by the Administrafor. Appiication
shall kae made on a farm prescribed by the Administrator, and shall be
accompanied by a statement fuEly describing the nature of the hflme ,
occupation, including hours of aperation, equiprnent or machinery tti be
used, anticipated number of customers, clients or stucfents, and other
features of the home occupation. The application shall describe in detail
the manner in which the horrie occupat'ran wiPl conform with the
requiremen#s of thES Chapter.
B. Perrnif Issuance And Findings: After review of the applica#ion, ilne
Adrninistrator may issue a home occupation permit ifi hefshe finds that the
proposed use will conform with the requirements of this Chapter. The
permit may be subject ta such canditions as the Acfministrator deems
necessary ta guarantee operation of the home oecupation in accorcfance
with the requirement5 of this Ghapter and campatibly with other uses in
#he vicinity. The Adrninistrator shall deny the application if helshe finds
that the proposed use will nat canforma with the provisions of this Chapter,
ar uuould be injurious or detrimental to other proper#ies in #he vicinFty.
C. Perrnit Time Limit; Renewal: Hame occupaiion permits, vtrhen issued, ~
shall be far a limiteck time period not exceeding two (2) years. Permits
shall be renewable upan appfication, subjec# to such reguFations as shall
be in effect at the tirne af application for renewal. The Administratar shall
make tne same findings with respect to an application for renewal as for
the original issuance of a home accupa#ion permit.
D. Requirements Far Permit: W here permitted, home occupations shall be
subject to the follawing lirn{tatiQns:
1. The use shall be conduc#ed entirely within a dwelfing and carried an
principally by #he inhabitants thereof. EmpJoyees, other than lnhabitants
Qf the dwelling, shall not exceed cane person at any tirne.
2. The use shall be clearly incidental and secondary ta the use of the
dwelling far dwelling purposes and shall nat change the residential
character thereof.
3. The total floor area used for the home occupatian shall not exceed
one-fourth (1/4) of the gross residentiai flaor area of the dwelling, nor
exceed five hundred (500) square feet.
4. There shall be na advertising, display, or other indication of the home
oceupatian on the premises.
5. Selling stoeks, supplies, ar proclucts on the premises shail not be
permitted, provided that incidental retail sales may be made in connect'ron
with other permitted home accupations.
6. There shall be no exterior storage on tne premises of rnaterrai used in ~
the harne occupation.
6
i
7. There shall be no noise, vibration, smoke, dust, odor, heat, or glare
~ noticeable at or beyand the property line, as a resul# of the hcame
occupatian.
8. A hame occupation shall not generate significan# vehicular traffic in
excess of that typically generated by residential dwellings. No parking or
storage of commercial vehicles shall be permi#ted on the site.
E. Interpretation:
1. For purposes of this Chapter, provided that all requirements ;
prescribed in this Chapter ara met, the falbwing examples shall be
considered home occupations:
a. Activities conducted principally by #elephone or mail order.
b. Studios and activities producing light handcrafts or objects of art.
, c. Teaching and tutdring instructian lirnited ta two (2) pupifs at a time,
d. Dressmaking or apparei alteratians.
2. A home occupatian shall not include: a clinic, funeral home, nursing
hame, tearoam, restaurant, an#ique shop, veterinarian's office, or any
similar use.
F. Permit Revocatian Or aiscontinuance:
~ 1. A home occupation permit may be revoked by the Administrator ifi
he/she cfeterm9nes that the provisions of this Chapter or the limitations
prescribed as a condition af the permit are being violated.
2. A horne occupation perrnit shalR become void if not used +nrithin two (2)
manths of issuance, or i# the use for which i# was issued is
discontinued for a continuous periad of six (6) rnonths. (Ord. 8(1973)
17.301 , 17.306)
Chapter 16: CONDfTIONAL USE PERMITS, of the Zoning Regulafions,
establishes the procedures and criteria for the issuance of a Conditional Use
Permid. Accoreiing Chapter 16,
12-16-1: PURPQSE; LIMITATlONS;
In order ta provicle the flexibility necessary to achieve the flbjectives af this Title,
specified uses are permitted in certain districts subject to the granting of a
, conditianal use perrnit. Because af their vnusual or special characteristics,
conditional uses require review artd evaluation so that they may be located
properly with respect ta the purposes af this Title and with respect to their e#fects
on surrounding properties. The review process prescribed in this Chapter is
intended to assure compatibiiity and harmoniaus develapment between
conditional uses and surrounding properties and the Town at large. Uses listed
as canditianai uses in the various distrECts may be permittad subject to such conditions and Cimitations as the Town may prescribe to ensure that the location
~ and operation of the conditional uses will be in aceardance with devefopment
abjectiues of the Town and will nat be detrimental to ather uses or properties.
~
,
~
.
Where conditions cannQt be devised to achieve these objectives, applications for ~
conditional use permits shail be denied. (Ord. 8(1973) § 18.100)
1 2-16-2: APPLiCATION; CONTENTS:
Applicat'ron for a conditional use permit shall be made upon a form provided by
the Administratar. The applieation shalR be sUpported by documen#s, maps,
pEans, anrt other materiai containing the following informatian;
A. Name and address of the awner andlor applicant and a statement ihat dhe
applicant, if nat the awner, has the permission of the awner to make
application and act as agent for the owner.
B. Legal description, street address, and other identifying data concerning
the site.
C. A description of the precise nature of fhe praposed use and its operating
characterist9cs, and measures praposed to rnake the use compatible with
, other properties in the vicinity.
D. A site plan shQwing proposed development of the sife, including
tapography, buiEding locations, parking, traffic circulation, usable apen
spaee, landscaped area, and utilities anef drainage features.
E. Preliminary building plans and elevations sufficient tfl indicate the
dimensions, general appearance, scale, and interior plan of all buildings.
F. Such additionai material as the Administrator rnay prescribe or the
applicant may submit pertinent to the app9ication and to the findings
prerequisite to the issuance of a conditional use perrnit as prescribed in
Sectiora 12-16-6 of this Chapter. ~
G. A list of the awner or owners of record of the properties adjacent to the
subject properky which is subject of the hearing. Provided, however,
notification of owners within a condominium praject shall be satisfied by
no#ifydng the rnanaging agent, ar #he registered agen# of the condorninium
pr4ject, or any member of the board of directQrs of a cortdflrninium
assaciation. The fist of awners, managing agent of the candorninium
project, registered agent or members of the board of directars, as
appropriate, shall include the names of #ha individuals, their mailing
addresses, and the general description of the property vwned or ,
marraged by each. Accompanying the list shall be stampec4, addressed
enuelopes to each individuai or agent to be notified to be used for the
maifing of the natice of hearing. 6t will be ihe appGcants respansibiCity to
pravide this informafion and stamped, addressed envelopes. Notice to the
adjacent property owners shall be maifed firs# class, postage prepaid.
(ard. 49(1991) § 1: Qrd. 50(1978) § 15: Ord. 30(1978) § 1: Ord. 16(1978)
§ 4(a): ora. 8(1973) § 18.200)
12-16-3: FEE:
The Town Gouncil shall set a conditional use permit fee sehedule sufficient ta
cover the cost of Town staff time and other expenses incidental to the review of
the appCicatiora. The fee shail be paid at the time of the application, and shall not
be refundabie. (0rd. 8(1973) §18.300)
12-1 fi-4: HEARING: ~
8
~
Upon receipt of a conditional use permit application, the Planning and
~ Enwironmental Commission shall set a date for hearing in accordance with
subseciian 12-3-6C, "notice", of rhis Titie, shall be given, and the hearing shall be
canducted in accordance with subsecti4ns 12-3-6C and D of this Ti#!e. (Ord.
$(1973) § 1$.400)
12-16-5: PLANNING ANQ ENVIRONMENTAL COMNIISSION ACTION:
A. Possible Range Of Action: Within thirty (30) days of the applicatian for a
public hearing on a canditional use permit, the Pfanning and
Enrrironmental Commission shall act on the application. The Commission
may apprave the applieation as submitted or may approve the application
subject ta such mQdifiica#ions or conditions as it deems necessary ta I
accomplish the purposes of this Title, or the Commission may deny the ~
application. A conditional use permit may be revoeable, may be granted I
for a Ihmited time periad, dr may be granted subject to such other ;
conditions as the Commissiorr may prescribe. Conditions may include, but
shall not be limited to, requiring special setbacks, open spaces, fences or warls, landscaping or sereening, and s#reet dedication and improvement; ~
regulation of vehECular access and parking, signs, illumination, and hours j
and methods of aperatian; controE of potential nuisances; prescriptian af
standards for mairrtenance o# buiidings and grounds; and prescription of
devslopment schedules.
~ B. UaeEances: A conditional use permit snall not grant variances, but action
an a variance may be consFdered cancurrently v+rith a conditional use
permit application on the same site. Variances shall be granted in
aceordance with the procedure prescribed in Ghapter 17 of this Title.
(Ord_ 16(1978) § 4(b): Ord. 8(1973) § 18.500}
12-16-6: CRITERIA, FINDiNGS:
A. Factors Enumerated: Befare ac#ing on a conditianal use perrnit
application, the Planning and Environmental Commission shafl consider
the fallawing factors with respect to fhe proposed use:
1. Relationship and impact af the use on development objectives of the
Town.
2. Effect af the use on light and air, distribution of population,
transportatiQn faciiities, utilities, 5ChODIS, parks and recreation facilities,
and other public facilities and public facilities needs.
3. Effect upon traffic, with particular reference ta congestian, automotive
and pedestrian safety and cQnvenience, traffic ffqw and cantrol, access,
maneuverability, and removal of snow #rom the stree#s and parking areas.
4. Effect upan the character of the area in which the propased use is to
be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to
surrounding uses.
5. 5uch other factors and criteria as the Gommission deems appfieable to
~ the proposed use.
6. 7he enwironmental impact report concerning the proposed use, if an
environmental impact report is required by GhaPter 12 of this Title.
9
~
~
8. Necessary Findings: The Planning and Environmental Gorrimissian shail ~
make the following findings before gran#ing a eonditianal use permit:
1. That the propased dacation of the use is in accordance with the
purposes of this Title and the purposes af the clistrict in which the site is
located.
2. That the proposed Iocativn of the use and the conditions under which it
wouEd be operatecf or main#ained will not be detrimental to the public
health, safety, ar vuelfare, or materialiy injurious ta properties or
improvements in the vicinity.
3. That the proposed use will comply with each of the appficable
pravisians of this Title. (Ord. 10(1998) § 9: Ord. 22(1996) § 3: Ord.
36(1980) § 1: Ord. 8(1973) § 18.600}
12-16-7: USE SPECIFIC CRITERIA AND STANDARDS:
The following criteria and stancfards shall be applicable to the uses lis#ed below
in consideratian of a conditional use permit. These criteria and standards shafl be
in addition to the criteria and findings required by 5ection 12-1 6-& of this Chapter.
A. Uses And Cr"rteria:
1. Bakeries And CQnfectponerfes: The use shall be restricted to
preparatidn of products specifically for sale on the premises.
2. Barbershops, Beauty Shops And Beauty Parlars: No exterior frontage ~
on any pu6lic way, street, walkway, ar rrmall area is permi#ted.
3. Brew Pubs:
a. There shall be no exterior starage of supplies, refuse, ar
materials on the property upon which the brew pub is operated.
b. The operator af the brew pub shafi comply with the Town"s
loading and delivery regulations as set forth in this Title.
c. Brew pubs which selP beer ar ale at wholesale or which sell beer
for aff-site consumption are allarrved so long as the total of
whalesale sales and sales for 4ff-site consumption do nflt exceed
forky five percent (45%) of the }aroduct manufactured by the brew
pub on an annual basis_
4. Cornmerciai Storage: No exterior frontage on any public way, street,
walkway, ar maif area is permit#ed.
5. Convenience Fflod Stares:
a. Maximum store size shall be eight thousand (8,000) square
fee#.
b. NQ mare than thirky three percent (33%) of the gross buiiding
area o# the entire structure on-site.
6. Major Arcade:
a. No exterior frontage on any pubMic way, street, walkway, or mall
area is permit#ed.
b. Amuserrient devices shall not be visible or audible from any
public uvay, street, walkway, or mall area.
7. Television Stations: ~
a. The production room/studica shall be visible from the street or
pedestrian mall.
10
~ b. The tefevision station shall be "cable-cast" only, requiring no
additional antennas.
8. Tirne-Share Estate, Frac#ionai Fee, Fractional Fee Club, C3r Time-
Share License Praposal: Prior to the approval at a conditionai use permit
for a time-share estate, fractianal fee, fractionai fee ciub, or time-share
license proposal, the following shall be considered:
a_ If the proposal for a fractianai fee ciub is a redevelopment a# an
existing faciEity, the fractional fee club shall maintain an
equivaiency of accommodation units as are presently existing.
Equivalency shall be maintained either by an equal number of
units or by square fvotage. If the proposal is a new develapment,
it shall provide at least as much accornmadation unit gross
residentiaf ffoor area (GRFA) as fractional fee club unit grass
residential floor area (GRFA).
b_ Lack-off units and lock-offi unit square faotage shall nat be
included in the caiculation when determining the equivalency of
existing accommodation units 4r equivalency of existing square
footage.
c. The ability of the propased project to create ancf maintain a high
level of occupancy.
d. Empaoyee housing units may be required as part of any new or
redevelopment fractional fee ciub project reguesting density over
that alla+nred by zaning. The number of employee housing units
required wil6 be consistent with employee impacts that are
~ expected as a result of the project.
e. The applicant shalf submit to the Town a Iist of a!f owners of
existing uniis within the project or buifd'rng; and wriften staternents
from one hundred percent (100%0) of the awners of existing units
indicating their approval, wathaut condition, of the proposed
fractionaf fee ciub. No written approval shall be valid if it was
' signed by the ouvner more than sixty (60) cfays prior ta the date of
filing the application far a conditi+anal use.
9. Transportation Businesses:
a. All vehicles shall be parked upan approved parking areas.
b. AII vehicles shall be adequately screened from public rights of
way and adjacent properties, consisting of landscaping and
berms, in combination uvith walls and fencea, where cEeemed I
necessary to rEduce the deleterious effects of vehECle storage. !
c_ The number, size and location of vehicles permitted to be
stored shall be determined by the Planning and Environmentai
Commission based on the adequacy of the site for vehicle
storage. Consideration shall be given to the adequacy of
landscaping and other screening methods to prevsnt impacts to
adjacent properties and ather commercial andlor resicfen#iai uses.
d. Parking associated with transpar#ation businesses shall not
reduce ar campromise the parking required far other uses on-site.
(Ord. 10(1998) § 11)
10. Day Care Center:
~ 11. Home Child Day Care Facility:
l~
t
12-16-8: PERMIT APPRQVAL AND EFFECT: ~
Approval of acondi#3onal use permit shall lapse and became void i# a building
permi# is nat obtained and construction not commenced and diligently pursued
toward campletion or the use for which the approval has been granted has nat
commenced within two (2) years frarn when the approval becomes final. (Ord.
10(199$) § 10: Ord. 48(1991) § 1: Ord. 16(197$) § 4(d))
12-16-9: CONFLiCTING PROVISEONS;
In addition to the conditions which may be prescrifaed pursuant #o this Chapter, a
conditional use shall alsa be subject fa all other procedures, permits, and
requiraments of this and ather applicable ordinances and regulations af the
Town. in ewent of any conflict between the provisions of a conditional use permit
and any o#her permit ar requirement, the more restricti+re provision shall prevaii.
(Ord. 1 a(l 99$) §10: Ord. 8(1973) §18_900)
Zone Distric#s For Cansideration
There are currently 24 zane districts in the Town of Vail. Of the 24 different zons
districts eight (8) are characterized as residential districts, nine (9) are
commercial and business districts, four (4) are open space and recrea#ion
districts and three (3) are special and miscellaneaus districts. Child care facilities
are currenily only allowed, subject #o the issuance of a conditional use permit, in
the General Use zone district (special and miscelkaneous district). Staff ~
recomrnends that the Planning & Enairanmental Commission consider the
appropriateness ofi aliowing Home Child Day Care Facilities in each af the eight
residential districts, as a conditional use, subject ta the issuance of a conditional
use permit. We further recammend that Day Care Centers be allowed as a
conditional use in four af the commercial and business districts (Commercial
Core 3, Commercial Service Center, Arteria! Busfness and Lionshead Mixed Use
2) in one special and miscelfaneaus district {General Use}, and in one open
space and recreatian district (Ski BaselRecreation). Due to the potential for
unintended consequences of child care facilities, especialfy in residentiai zone
ctistricis, staffi is recommending that child day care not be a"use by right" in any
district.
•
12
,May-04-2001 I Q;29am Froe-EAGLE COUNTY HEALTH HUMAN SUCS T-39~ P.OR2/003 F-477
~
the amaunt of indoor aad outdoor space designated #'or child caze, as well as rhe followirtg factors.
~ 6' '
A. A family cbild care home ns a iype of fami3y care home that pmvides less fhan 24-hour carc fnr 2 or more
ehildren on a regular basis ui a plaee vfresidence_ Childmn in care are frusn different famiiy hausehalds =d
are not related to the camgiver.
1. Care may be proyided fflr 6 chi],drcp from. biath tv 13 ye~ o~' age vrith no mare th~ 2 childr~en under
. .
2 years Qf age. '`his does nat..prohibit the care of childran ages 13 to I$. 2_ Care also may be provided €or no more than 2 add.Iiional c1ulc3rea of school age artending fwli-day
schoal. 96661-age children are children enmlled in a lcindcrgarten pmgrsm a j+r.ar before they enCer the
first garde and childrea 5 yeazs of age and olcier.
3.W,4ents.of..Che hcsme, under 12 yem af age who are vrt the premises aud a11 ehilcireu oa the premiscs
for supervision are counted against the appmved capacity, excegt where spet:ifica}1y indicated
othenvise. .
4. A family child care licensee ma,y be appmved #o care for 3 children under 2 years o f a&e with mo
more thart 2, cbiTdren under 12 rn?onths, zncluding The~giver`~s-oiun ctiildrea; uaidcr the followwing
condific3ns_ ,
a. The lic,msee has complied with aIl af the following mquiremen#s pzior to approval of the
license:
oThe licr-nsee has held a full license to agerete a family child caze hrume for at lr.ast 2 years
ixnmediately priar to the issaiance of the Iicense that would authorixe the care of 3 chi.ldren
~ under 2 years of age.
o The Iicensee.has c~pleted 40 clack ho~urs ~af approved training, which ineiudes the
req,uired hoiirs of trainang and first aid ohtained when originaliy Iicexised (see Seciian
7.707.42, C, fos canient).
o The licensee has had no substantiatcd camplain.ta ahout care grovided ta ehildreti ia the
hoine in the past 2 years.
b. Na r.are of additioual childreu of sc,hool age duriag non-school hvtus may be authorizcd.
~ B_ An infamthoddler horne is a type af family care hnmc that provides less 11an 24-houz care aniy for childr=
whn are beiween birth and 3 years ald.
1_ The c,areregiver may harre nn more than 1 child dr foster child between 3 and 6 years of age.
2. Yf there is 1 caregiver, thcre may be amaxr.mum of 4 childrem, with no more than 2 childm under 12
months, including the caregiver's awn clffdren. ~
3. if tteere aae 2,caregivers caring far chi3dreu at a.11 tirnesfthen children are present, thcre maybe a -
maximum of 6 chiidren betweem birth and 3 years oid,.and no mare than 3 of thase childreu can be
between birth and 1 year old, including the caregiver's owa chilc3ren.
4. An exception ta Section 7.707.2, S, 2and 3, ean be macle in'the case nf the eare of twins, triplets, and
ather siblings close in age to each other so that shey aeed not be separated, but the total numaber of
~ cfuldren cannot earceeri 4 in an infantltoddler horne arith 1 caegives•, and 6 ua an infantltoddler hame
~ vrith 2 caregivers.
C. A large child Gare hame is a family child care home that provides care for 7 xo 12 ehildren.
~ . ` • • . • s n f . . Ms' 3' ' ' . . 1 .
klay-04-2001 10:28am Fram-fAGLE COUNTY FEAL?H NU}aAN SUCS T-888 P.003/003 F-47
,
2. Care may be provicted ta no more than z children under 2 and only if oldeY- siblixigs are in care_ `
D. The Eacperienced Farnily Chi1d Care Provider
This section establisbes a new licme type fcar Experienced FaruiIy Cluld Carc Home Provicers, The
impact of t].us new Iicense type will be evaluated over a 2-year period ending August 1, 200 1, to ,
determine zf tlus license type should be continued beynnd that date.
Providefs who meet thesc specific requirements, as well as aT1 athcr rules required of famiiy child case
home groviders, may apply ta become an "Experienced Fami]y Child Care Hnme Provider".
1. Ta be appreved for the expcric:nced pmvidec license, the provider must:
a. Have been a fa.mily child caze home provider inQlnra~do for at least the last_six (6)
G~I19oCuttvG yea1~; '
b. Have completed ~0 _c]ock haurs of trainiag wi#hin the prcceding six (6) yem (excluding prer
licensing trairring); Providers with aniinimum of 65 haurs of trainiag vcrithin the preceding ssx
yeazs may be approved for the Iicense if they camplete the additional2$ hours of ttaiuing within
. ane year of the effective date vf these rule.s; MJ hours of the 90 hours musc be in infaat?'tvddier
trninin~;
c. Have had no substantiated comglaints in the preced`zug rwa (2) years for vinlatinns thaf cauld
directly thrcaten the health ar safety af children in cara;
d. Have h,ad no negative licmsing action, tacen agai,n.st the Iicense in the precedmg twa (2) years;
equiremeuts of 35 square fest of inside space azld 75 square feet of outside spac;e per
~ e. IVfeet r
child;
f_ Comply with Iocal zomng pestrictions. ~
2_ The follovring chart describes the various nptions avsilable to the experieuced fuuily child cam home-
provider. Providexs 2re firee to move fcr3m one apticm ta another wxlhout notifying the depart~k as
lvng as they are in r,ampliance with all licensing rules.
EXP~RMV'G'n CFiIID C!?R,S RRGVIDER LT=SE
A11. Qptions InC1ude Pravider's Own Children Undex 10 }rears af Age
Niimber 4f Number of (3f Those []nder 2, Number of
Ch;i,ldren Children Undex the Numbex Uader Additiona],
Bi.rth ta 2 YEars Allowed 18 1Months Allowed Sehaol-Age
§choal Ar.~e Cha.Idren AJ-lawec3 • OptiOn 3 5 4 2 2
Optiosi 2 6 3 2 3.
Option 3 8 z _ 2 0 .
Option 4 7 2 • 2 2
Qpti-oas 5 and S Apply chrx3.y to Regular Lieexwa CaPacitY' (7.707.2, A) , not the Exper'i.enced Provi
~ ti.oz?, 5 dr.e (1) extra child in addition to the regular child care liaense capacity for
,.ptian 6 An averlap of ane (1) extsa ahilccl, in additxon ta the regular child care licens
3. Applyiug far the Ec,perienced Pravider License
a- At least 60 calendar days pziar to the proposed ciste of operation as an experienced provider, ~
the applicant must submit the follawing items to the state Departn=t vfHuQnan Servsr-es:
l1ttp://WWRi.GdhS.StSte.CO.US/Cd78/4WA/Tllle d1Sp18Y$.n1i5playvAlllmelf,-vpLzit1Yri= 7700 6114/00
~
MEMQRANDUM
~
TO: Planning & Environmenta! 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 Regulativns to allaw for }arocedural
changes to the perfarmance band process as prescribed in the Vail Tawn
Code.
Applicant: Town of Vaii
Pfanner. George Ruiher
1. UESCRIPTiQN QF THE REQUEST
The Community Development Department has identified a need to amend the
Vail Town Code to imprave the efficisncy and effectiveness of aur senrices while
at the same time ensuring that our eustomer's Expec#atian of receiwing temporary
certificates of accupaney are raot negatively impacted. To that end, the purpose
~ of this memorandum is to provide a brie# background on the TCOIbonding
problem, a summary of the current regulations and a recommendation for
amendrnents.
The amendments are being proposed to Sectinn 12-11-8 Perfarmance Bond,
Section 12-1 1 -11 Enforcement; Insaection and Section 12-2-2, Definitions of the
Town of Wail Zoning Regulations. 5taff is requesting that the Pianning &
Environrriental Comrtiission evaEuate the propasal and forward a
recommendation to the Vaif Town Cauncil. A cQmplete descriptian of the
praposed amenclments is outlined in Section 1! of this memorandum.
II. RQLES OF THE REViE'UhIENG BOARDS
PlanninQ and Environmental Commission:
Action: The PEC +s advrsory to the Town Council.
The PEC shall reWiew the proposal for and make a recommendation to the Tawn
Caunci6 on the compatibifity of fhe proposed kext changes for consistency with
the Vail Gamprehensive Plans and impacf on #he general welfare of the
camrnunitY-
Staff:
The staff is responsible for ensurang that all submittal requirements are provddecl.
The staff advises the appficant as ta comp9hance with the Zaning and Subdivision
Regulatians.
~
~ ,
~
Staff provides analyses and recommendations to the PEC and Town Council on ~
any text proposal.
Town Council:
Actian: The Town CouncJl r's responsr6le far finaf approva!/deniaf on code
amendments.
The Town Councii shall review and approve the proposal based on the
compatibiiity of the prvposed text changes fior consistency with the Vail
Comprehensive P6ans and impact on the general welfiare of the communit}r.
Desiqn Review Board:
Actiorr: The DRB has NO revrew authority on code amend,menfs.
III. RECC}NEMENDATION
1"he Community E3eaelopment Department recommends that the Planning and
Environmental Commission forward a recommendafion caf approval of the
proposed amendments to the Town Code to the Vail Town Councii, sulaject to the
following findings:
1. That the propesed amendments are cansisterat with the deve3oprrrent
abjeclives af the Town of Vail.
2. That the proposal is ceansistent and compatib9e with existing and patential ~
uses wi#hin Vail and generally in i<eeping with the character ofi the Town of
Vai I.
3. That the proposed amendments are necessary ta ensure the health, safety
and vwelfare of the citizens of Uail.
4. That the proposed amendments wiEl further ensure compliance with thie Town
Code.
5. That the proposed amencfinen#s will make #he Towun's development review
process less prabfematic and more "user friendly.°
IV. BACKGROlJND
The Cammunity Devefopment Departrraent has identified our procedures far
issuing T.C.O.'s, accepting bdnds, and campleting final inspections as pracesses
that needed to be impraved. The gaal of the improvements is to pr4vide better
custamer service, rEduce the amaunt of staff tirrae currently involved in ihese
pracesses, ensure compliance with applicable c4des and regulations, to better
align the p6anning and buiiding requirements and to keep canstruction
management responsibilities in the hands of the contractor.
~
2
f
~ A. Problem Statement
The Town a# Vail Communi#y aevelopment Department issues
approxinnately four hundred (400) building permits annually. C3f these
permits, raughly one hundred (100) require the issuance of a certificate of
accupancy by the Building Official.
The Town o# Vail Gommunity Development Department has traditionally
issued temporary certificates of occupancy as permitted by the Uniform
Buildina Code, at the discretion of the Building Official. The current
process for issuing temporary certifiicates of accupancy has resulted in
numeraus unintended consequences that negatively impact the services
pravided by the Cornmunity Development Department. For instance:
* increased staff time and invaivement since many ckevelopers fail ta
foilow through,
0 an increase in the number of inspection reques#s as the inspectors
must make multiple return inspections>
• a decrease in available inspeetian time for other projects because
availabie time is spent dealing with ternparary certificates and the
need for unnecessary muiti-department inuolvement (pulalic uvflrkS,
fiee, finance, administration) as performance bands require the
cooperation of other departments.
The staff of fhe Community D€:velopmerrt Department finds it ~ irresponsible to let fhis problem perpeiuate. Therefore, corrective steps
must be made immediateiy to respond ta #he ineffiiciencies and
ineffectiveness of the current temparary certificate of occupancy issuar+ce
process.
B. Givens
• The current bondingfT.C.O. process results in an irrefficient use of
staff time.
• The current banding/T.C.O. process is ine#fective and creates
unrealistic expectations.
• We do nat enforce the expiration a# T.C.O's.
• We do not complete unfinished improvements secured by Developer
fmprovement Agreemen#s.
• We are committed ta impraving this process.
Chap#er 1, Section 109.4 (temporary certificate) of the Uniform Burldr'rrg
Code states,
!f the building otficial finds that no substantial hazard will resulf
from occupancy of any bulldrng or portiarr thereaf before the same
is completed, a temporary certifieate of occupancy may be issued
for the use of a portion ar portions of a buildrrr,g or structure prror to
~ the eompletion of the entire burJdrrrg or structure.
3
,
~
Therefore, the issuance of a temparary certificate of accupancy is not ~
mandatory.
Further, Chapter 1, Section 109,3 (certificate issued) states, in part,
After the burlding official inspecfs ihe 6uifdrng ar strueture and
finds na violattons ef the provisions of the code nr other laws thai
are enforced by the cade enfsrcerlaent agency, the burlding officiaE
shall issue a certifrcate of occupancy.
Therefore, campliance with the applicabie provisiQns a# the Vasl Town
Code is a{so required. This is important as it includes, but is nat limited
to, landscaping, the cfesign guidelines, and the devefopment standards.
The Town of Vail Community Deweiapment Department has traditionaily
issuecf T.C.O.'s on bath residential and commerciaf develapments.
E3ecause the certificate is temporary and not finaf, it is inherent that a
portian af the building is na# complete. Incomplete vuork often includes,
• exterior painting,
• exterior lighting,
• landscaping,
• paving,
• cosmetic 9ntarior firaishes,
• complete irtstailatian of plumbing fixtures, ~
• use ofi temporar}r guardrails, and
• the installatian af additionaf light fixtures. -
To adclress the incQmplete work, a performance bond provision is
incorparated into the Vail Town Code.
C. Current Regulations According ta Sec#ion 12-1 1-8 of the Vaii Town Code, Performance Band,
7he Buildfng Qtficfal sha11 not isscre a frrral certificate of occupancy
for strucfUres whrch have abtained design review approval urrtil
upon inspection rf is determined that the project fs constructed in
aecordance with the a,ppraved desrgn review applicatian and
plans, and aN improvements, amenities and landscapirrg have
been lnstaJled. The BUrlding Offieial may fssue a temparary
certificate of oecupancy not to exceed two hundred ten (210) days
upon the applicant postrng wi!`h ilae Gammunrty !?evelapmerrt
Department a perforrrlance bond or ather security acceptable to
the Town Councll rn the sum of one hundred twenty five percent
(125%) af the bona fide esiimate of the cost of insfa/Iing
landscapirrg and paving and other accessory improvements
provid'ed for in the approved design review applicatron artd plans.
!f said Iandscaping, pavrny and ofher accessory improvements are ~
not installed by the a,nplicarrt withirr the period allowed, the
4
1
temporary certTficate shall be reuoked untfl the same are installed
~ by the applicant Dr by the 7'own pursuant to the terms ot the
perforrraance bond or orher aecepted securiiy that has beerr
approved by the Tovvn.
AGCarding ta Sectic+n 12-11-11 of the Vaif Town C4de, Enforcement;
Inspection,
Before occupyrng or using any structure included in a design
review applleation, the applr'cant must obtain an occupaney
certrffcafe after rnspection by the Department of Communrty
Develapmenf. The Gepartment of Gommurrity l7evelapmerrt shall
inspect the siie to ensure thaf the wark has been corrrplefed irr
accordance with the application and plans approved by the fJesign
Revxew 8aard. It slaall be the duty of the property avvner vr his/her
authorized agent to rrotify the Department of Comrnunity
Development that such work is ready fQr inspection irt order to
ascerlain eompliance with ap,proved plans. ff the prvject 1s found
upan inspection ta be fu!!y campleted and in cornpliance t+vith the
appraved design review applrcaiian and plans, the Department of
Community Development shall issue a final certifrcare af
occupancy. If the prtrject is fourad ta be completed in such a
manner that a tempmrary certificate of aceupancy may be issued
~ as specifed by the Uniform Bualdirtg Gvde fhaf applicant shali post
a bQnd as set farth in Sectiarr 12-17-8 of this Chapter. Upon
forfeitcrre of said bond or surefy, the Town shafl proceed to install
the improvernents for which bond or surety was posied. fn the
ewent thaf the cast of installing the improvemerats exceeds the
amount of the bond, the owner vf said property shall 6e
iradividually Irable to the Town for the additiQnal cosfs thereof.
Furfhermore, the ampunt thaf the cost of insta{ling sard
improvements exceeds the amsunt of the performance bond shalf
autorrratically become a lien upon any and a!I praperty incfuded
within the design review appficatr'on.
V. PRDPUSED AMENDMENTS
Staff recagnizes 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 ofi occupancy. Howewer, staff has identified several
negafi+re and unintended consequences Qf our current process. Therefore, staff
finds there is the need to amend our current regulations to bath enhance aur
level of custorner service and ta reduce the arnount of staff time involved in the
bonding process. The follawing amendments are praposed ta achieve irnpraved
cUstomer service levels and to more efficientfy utilize staff #ime.
~ (Deletions are shQwn in strikes-~ and additions are shown in bold)
5
~
5ecteon 12-11-8 Qf the Vail Town Cade, Perfarmance Bond, ~
The Building Official shall nvt issUe a final certifieate of accupancy for
structures which have obtained design review approvai until upon
inspection it is deterrnined that the project is constructed in accordance
with the approved design review application and plans, ancf all
improvements, amenities and landscaping have been installed. The
Building Official may issue a temporary certificate of oceupancy, between
November f anc! April 30 of each year, nat to exceed two hundred ten
(210) days upon the applican# posting with the Community Development
Department a perfarmance bond as defined in Section 12-2-2 of this
Chapter ` in the sum af
en-etwent;, ffv^ P^F^^^+ (1125%) iwa hundred fifty percent
(250%) of the bona fide estimates of two Town of Vail licensed
contractars af the cast of instailing landscaping and paving and other
accessory improvements provacied for in the appravetf design review
application and plans. One of the bana fide estimates shall be
accompanied by a fully executed contractual agreement to complete
said worlc as described in the es#imates, lf said landscaping, paving
and other accessory imprvvements are not installed by the applicant
within the period allowed, the tempprary certificate shg may be revoked
until the same are installed by the applicant or by the Town pursuant to
the terms of the performance bond ^F ^+he. aG.,,,n+e„d nnni rrify that has
been approved by the Town.
AccordRng to Section 12-11-11 of the Vaii Town Code, Enfiorcement; Inspection, ~
8efore occupying or using any structure ineluded in a design review
application, the applicant must abtain an occupancy certificate after
inspection by the Department of Communi#y Development. The
Department of Community Development shalf inspect the site to ensure
that the work has been completed in accordance with the application and
plans appro+red by the Qesign Review Board. It shaEl be the duty caf the
property awner ar his/her authorized agent to nQtify the Department of
Community Development that such work is ready for inspectican in order
to ascertain compliance with aqprQVed plans. lf the project is found upon
inspectian ta be fully completed and `rn compliance with the appraved
desigra review application and pians, the Department of Community
Develapment shafl issue a final Certificate of occupancy. If the project is
found to be completed in such a manner that a ternporary certificate of
accupancy may be issued as specified by #he Unifarm Building Cade that
applicant s4a4 may past a performance bond as set forth in Section 12-
11-8 of this Chapter. Upan forfeiture of safd bond er surety, the Town
shall proceed to install the improvements in accardance with the bona
fide estimates and fuliy executed con#ractual agreemen#s far which
the perfarmance bond eF surety was posted. In the event tha# the cost
at installing the improvernents exceeds the amount of the bond, the
owner of said property shaif be individually liable to the Town for the
additional costs thereof, including but not fimite+d to, labor, materials„
and legal and adrninistrative fees. Furthermore, the amount that the ~
cast a# unstailing said impravernents exceeds the amount of the
6
~ performance band shail automatically become a lien upon any and all
prQperty included within the design review applieation.
Section 9 2-2-2, Qefinitions,
Performance Bond: A wridten letter of credit agreement executed by
and between #he Town af Varl, a praperty owner or hisfher
authorized agent an+d a financial institution Iocated within Eagle
County, Colorado io provide financial security for the campletian of
aCl improvements, amenities and landscaping as identified on an
approved design review applecation and plans.
~
~
~
A
MEMORANDU(111
~ TQ: Plartning and Enuircanmenta! Commission
FROM: Departrnent of Community Devefopment
DATE: Nlay 14, 2001
SUBJECT: A request for a conditianal use permit, ta allow for an addition ta the Vaii
Valley Medical Center, lacated at 181 West Meadow DrivefLots E& F,
VaIl UlllclgB 2 nd F1IIf1g.
Applicant: Vail Valley Medical Center, represented by Braun
Associates. I nc.
Pianner: George Ruther
l. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
The applicant, the Vail Valley Medical Center, represented by Braun Associates, lnc., is
requesting an amended conditional use permit to allow for an expansion ta the existing
medicai #aciGty. Ths proposed expansian adds approximately 22,866 square feet of new
flaor area ta the existing haspital. In ardEr #o accommodate the newr square footage the
applicant is proposing to expand the first and second floor levels to the south and to add
~ a new third floor atop the existing two-story building.
The proposed redeve(opment is intended to improve the existing facilities an-site. The
expanded and remodeled #irst floor will 6e utilized for iraterim functions pending the
comple#ian of the Phase 2 redevelopment. The remodeled second floar will be the new
location of an improved and expanded Woman's & Children`s Center (obstetrics) and the
new third floor is to be ufilized for the new Ambulatory Surgery facility.
According to the stafemenis submitted by the appficant, the key elements of the Phase I
proposal are:
~ A much needed improved obstetrics facility
• An impraved autpatient surgery facility
~ A significant reductian in the size af the existing materials starage facilities and #he
associated reductions in staffing lewels on the Vail campus.
• A net reduction in the p,arking space requirement far the site.
A Gonceptual Phase II Master Plan has been submitted_ The conceptual master plan
was required by the Community Development Department. The purpdse of the master
plan is to illustrate the extent af the possible future impravements and how tne proposed
Phase I improvements relate to and irripact future pIans. A final review pf the Phase il
impravements is not requested, nor it is required at this time. The Phase II plans are for
illustration purpases only and an approual of the requssted conditional use permit shaFl
not in any way vesi or convey approvals af the plan.
, The applieani has pravided a written general description of the goals and purposes of
ihe Phase i1 pfans. A copy of the description can be founti on Page 2 of the appiicant's
1
.
submittal materials entitled, "Vaii ValleV Medical Center - Applica#ion for Canditional ~
Use Permit", dated Aprii 16, 2001."
The existing gross square footage of the medical center is approximately 146,584 sf. ,
Upan the completian of the proposed Phase I irnprovements the total gross square
footage will be increased to approximately 169,450 sf. And finally, as conceptually
praposed, the Phase II improvements add another 49,000 sf bringing the total gross
square footage af the medical center to nearly 218,472 sf. It is impariant to note that
Phase II plan is conceptually only and these numbers have been provided for illus#ratiQn
purpases only.
II. REVfEWING BQARD ROLES - CQhlDITIONAL USE PERMIT
Planning and Environmental Commission: The Planning and Environmental
Corrirrmission is responsibae for approvaf/denial of a Conditional Use Permit. The
Planning and Environmental Commission is responsible for evaluating a propasal far:
1 . Rela#ianshEp and impact of the use on devel4pment object'rves of the Town.
2. Effect of the use on fight and air, distribution nf pflpulatian, transpartation facilities,
utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and ofher public facilities and public
facilities needs.
3. Effect upon traffEC, with particular reference to congestion, automotive and peclestr~ian
safety and convenience, traiffic fiow and control, access, maneuverabiiity, and
removal of snow from the streets and parking areas. ~
4. Effect upon #he character ofi fhe area in which the proposed use i$ to be located,
including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses.
5. Such ather factors and criteria as the Commission deems a.pplicable to the proposed
use.
6. The environmental impact report conGerning the proposed use, if an enuiranmental
~r 1i
1 V Ytf1' VP ~fiL4
impact report is required by Chapter 12 of this Title.
7, Conformance with develapment standards of zone district
Design Review Baard: The design Review Board has no review authflrity an a
Conditional Use Permit, but must revierrv any accompanying f7esign Review Boarct
application.
III. STAFF REGOMMENDATION
The Community De+reCopment Department recommends that the Planning and
En+rironmental Crmmission approve the applicant's request for a conditional use permit
to ailow for the Phase C addition to the Vail VaEley Medical Center, located at 181 West
Meadaw Drive, subject to the criteria as described in Section V of this rrtemo and the
following findings: ~
2
J
~ 1. That the proposet! Incatian of the use is in accordance with the purpQSes of the
canditional use permii 5ection of the zoning code and the purposes of the district
in which the site is located.
2. That the propa5ed [ocation of the use and the canditions under which it would be
operated or maintained would not be de#rimental to the public fiealth, sa#ety, or
welfare or materiafly injuri+ous to properties or impravements in the vicinity.
3. That the propased use would compiy with each of the appiicable provisions of the
canditionaf use permit seciian of the zoning code.
Should the Planning and Environcnental Gammission choose tQ approve this request,
staff recommends the follawEng condition be made as part of the approvaV:
That the applicant submits a finai landscape plan and exteriar lighting plan to the
Cammunity Deve(opment Department fvr the re+?ievw and approvaa of the Design Review
Board prior to the request f4r a building permit.
That the applicant returns ta the Ppanning &Environrnental Commission with an
application for an amended cnnditianaf use permit addressing the prapased use of #he
first #loor space prCOr requesting a building permit for a tenant finish of that space.
IV. ZOMNG ANALYS(S
~ Accarding to Seetion 12-9C-5, Development S4andards, of the Zoning Regulations, the
development standards in the Genera9 l9se zone district shall be proposed by the
applicant as part of a canditwonal use permit appl'ication. The site specific development
stanclards shall then be prescribed by the Planning and EnvirQntnerttal Commissian
durirrg the reaiew of the conditional use permdt request. The applicant is proposing the
following develQprnent standarcts.
Development Standards Proqosed
Lnt area,r'site dimensions: 1 65,007 sf13.811 acres
Setbacks:
Front: 22"
Side (w): 39'
Side (e): 34'
Rear; 29'
Buiiding hesght; 51' (top of inechanical screening)
bensity control: N/A
Site Couerage: per approved plan
~ Pa:rking and loading: 329 parking spaces (exclucles valet)
N, RE4UIRED CRlTERIA AND F1NDfMGS - GONaITIONAL USE PERMIT
3
~
7he review criteria for a request of this nature are established by the Town of Uail Cade. ~
The Vaii Valley Meclical Center is located within the General Use zone district_ Section
12-9G-3 of ihe Zoning Regulatians outlines allowable condEtional uses in the General
Use zone district. Pursuant to this section, hospitals, medical and denfal facilities,
clinics, rehabilitation centers, clinical pharmacies, and ambulance facifities are
conditional uses within the General Use zone district.
The purpose af the General Use zone district is:
The Genera! Use f?istrrcf is intended fQ provide sites for public and quasi9publrc
uses which, because Of fheir special characteristr`cs, cannot be appraprrately
regulated by the developmertt standards prescribed for other zaning districts, and
for whrch development standards espeeially prescri6ed for each particular
development proposal or project are rrecessary to achieve the purposes
prescribed in Section 12-1-2 of this Title and [o provide far the pubGc welfare.
The Genera! Use District is intended to ensure that pubfic buildings and grounds
and certain types of quasr-public uses permitted in the District are appropriately
1QCated and designed to rneet the needs of residents and vrsitors to Vail, to
harmvni,ze with surroundirrg uses, and, in the case of buildings and other
structures, #o ensure adequate lrghr, air, open spaces, and other amenities
apprpprlate to the permitted types af uses.
The proposal is subject to the issuance af a condptional use permit in accordance with
the provisions af Title 12, Chapter 16. For the Planning and Environmental
Commission's reference, the purpose of a canclitional use permit is to: ~
Provide the flexibrfiry necessary to achieve ihe objectives of this title, specified
uses are permrtted in certain districts subject to the granting of a conditionaJ use
, ,permit. Because di their unusual or special eharacteristics, conditional uses
require review so that they may be located properly uvith respecf to the purposes
af rhrs ritle and with respect to their effects on surrQUnding properties. The
review process prescribed in this chapter is intended to assure com,patibiGty and
harmorrious development betu+een conditional uses and surraundrng propertres
!n the Town at large. Uses listed as conditional uses in the various clistricts may
be permitted subjecf to such canditions and limitations as the Town may
prescribe to insure that the Iocatr`on and operation of fhe conditional uses will be
in accordance with the development objectives nf the Town and will not be
detrrmental to ather uses or prapertres. Where conditions cannot be devised, to
aehreve these objectives, applications for cvrrditional use permlts shall be denred..
A. CON5IDERATI0N OF FACTORS:
1. Relationship and impact of fhe use on the developrnent objectives of the
Town.
According to the Official Town of Vail Zoning Map, the Vail 11aliey Medical
Center property is zoraed General Use District. As previously stated,
hospitals, medical facilities and other similar uses are allowed in the
General Use zane districC subject to the wssuance of a conditionai use ~
perrnit.
4
The Vaii Land Use Plan places a designation of "Transitian Area" on the
~ medical center site. According to the Land Use Plan, Transition Area is
defined as,
The fransitian designatinn applles to the area between Llonshead
and Val! Village. The aetrvifies and site design of fhis area is
aimed at encauraging pedesfriarr flow through the area and
strengfhenirrg the connection between the two commercr`al cores_
Approprrate activifJes include hotels, ladgrrrg and other iaurisf-
vriented residenfial units, arrcrlJary refail and restaurant uses,
museums, areas of public art, nature exhibits, gardens, pedestrran
pfazas, and other types of civic and culfurally oriented uses, and
the adjacent propertres ta the nc+rth. This designafiorr would
include the rrght-oi-way of West Meadow Drive and the adjacent
properties [a the north.
The gaals can#ained in the Vail Land Use Plan are to be used as the Town's
paMicy guidelines during the review process for the establishment of a speciai
develflpment district. Staff has reviewed the Vail Land Use Plan and believes the
fo6lowing policies are relevant to the review of this propasal:
1. General Growfh/Development
1.1 Vail should continue to grow in a cnntralled 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 enWiranment including air, wafer, and other
natural resources shoufd be protected as the Town grows.
1.3 The quality of development shauld be maintained and upgraded
whenever possibGe. ~
1.12 Vail should aceommodate most of the additianaE growth in existang
developed areas (infill). 6. Com _munity Services
6_1 Services shoufd keep pace with increased growth.
6,2 The Tawn of Vail shouid play a role in future development thfough
balancing growEh with services.
6.3 Services should be adjusted to keep pace with the needs of peak
periods.
Based upon the review of the Town of Vail Zdning Regulatians and the Vail Land
Use Plan, the staff believes that the proposed addition ta the Vail VaVley 1Vledicaf
Center complies with the developmertt objectives of the Tawn of Vail. Further, on
~ May 2, 2001, the Town of Vail Design Review Board reviewed the proposed
plans and indicated their general acceptance of the design character. The Board
stated that they believed the proposed plans and design integrated well with the ~
surrounding build'rngs and structures. '
5
The proposed adcEition does not result in an increase in demands on the medical ~
facPlity. Currently, the rriedical center os meeting the demands of the users,
hawever, the adequacy af the facilities are not meeting the expectatians of the
users.
Statf believes that whiie an additional story is being added atop the existing
building the addition of the height is an in-fill addition to building. The height of
the new addition wilf not exceed the height of the existing building. Staff does not
believe that the addition will negatively impact the avai{ability of light and air to
tiae surrflunding uses or adjacent properties.
2. 7he effect of the use on light and air, drstributivn of populatiorr,
transpartatr'on facilities, utflities, schoofs, parks and recreation facrlities,
and other,public facilitres needs.
The staff believes that the propased addition will have little, if any, negative
impacts on the above referenced criteria. The impacts to the Tawn's
fransportatiarr facili#ies will likely irnprove as the staff expects a reduction in
vehicre trips to the site by employees and large delivery vehicles. These
reductions are a direct result of the medical centers transpQrtation management
plan and the soon to apen materials distribution facility on the Edwards carrepus.
According to informatian requested by staff and supplied by the applicant, #he
medical center's ernployee shuttle program cambines over 10,000 employee trips
per year to the Vail eampus. The numbers for this pragram are generated from ~
the tatal number af free lunches #hat the medical gives away as an incen#ive for
employEes to use the shuttle program.
The applicant has fncticated on the plans that a large area on fhe ground ievel of
the medical center is to 6e left vacant. The programming for this vacant space
has yet to be determined. Whike there is no daUbt that a de#errnination far the use ~
will be made shortly, staff is recommending that ance that determination is made
the applican# be required to submit an application for an amendment to the
canditional use pefmit. The need for the amended permit is required because of
the potential impacts that the use of the space may have on the medical center's
aperat'rons. ;
3. Effect upan traffie with particular reference to congestiorr, automotrve and
pedestrian safefy and convenience, traffic flow arrd control, access,
maneuverabflify, and removal of snow fram the sfreef and parking areas. `fhe applicant is praposing to improve the automotiue and pedestrian safe'#7r and
access with the additian to the medical cenier. Since a number of existing uses
rrrill be remvved from the siie, the Town can expect a net reduction in the total nurnber of vehicle trips. A majority of the trip reductions are in the form o#
loading and delivery. According to the applicant, large, semi-truck deliveries will
be all but eliminated to this site. Aga9n, this is accomplished by the openwng at a
centrai distribution faciiity on the Edward5 carnpus.
Pedestrian safety will also be impraved. The applicant has actively participateck
in the development of the master plan for the West Meadow Drive streetscape
improvements. The appficant has agreed to construct thase improvements
immediately adjacent to the medical center property as part of the Phase II
i
' 6
~
~ improvements. The Town will be requiring a traffic control and pedestrian access
pIan as part of the building permit applicatian for the Phase I improvements. The
purpase of the plan is to ensure adequa:te access alQng West Meadvw arive ancf
the safety of the public ducing #he canstructian process.
While Phase II impravements are not being considered as part of this request,
the applicant has illus#rated that the construction of the Phase fl improvements
praposes to relocate primary rnedical center access to the South Frontage Road
side of the property. Staff believes that the relocatian will not only imprave the
functioning and operatians of She ranedica6 center, but it wiil also significan#!y
reduce the negatiwe impacts of iraffic on West Meadaw Drive.
4. Effect upan the character of the area irr which the proposed use is to be
lacated, rncJudrng fhe scale aRd bulk of the proposed use rn relatian to
surroundrng uses.
Staff believes there will be IittEe, if any, negative impaets of the proposed addition
on the character of the area. The addition is an in-fill within the existing bulk and
mass of the medical center. The location of the addition is in the middCe porkion
of the buifding away from adjacen# praperties and surrounding use. The
applicant has met with sUrrounding properties to present the exxerior design and
responded to the feedback and input they received. As previausly stated, the
additFan is not so much an expansian of services, but instead an expansion to
~ facilities ia meet user demands.
The greatest impact the staff anticipates to the Gharacter of the area will be on
the existing landscaping on the south side of the medical center. Due ta the
southern expansion of the medical center much of the existing landscapirrg will
be negatively impacted. The impacted landscaping was planted at the time of
the medical center construction. According to the survey more than 20 treES will
need to be removed or transplanted. A fiinal landscape plan w'rU need #o be ~
submitted and review for compliance wGth the site developrnent and landscape regvlations. '
e
The applican# is prvpasing a1 0-foot tall screen wall atop the new addition. The ~
a
screen wal] is to be constructed of standing seam mefal and is intended ta
visually screen the view of any roof-top mechanicaf equipment from public viewr.
The metal screening wilf be applied to pravicle the appearance of a slaping rnaf ,
form, Due to the large arriount of equiprrroent that vvill be required of fhe medical I
center, staff believes that the screening is necessary and must be provided.
B. FIIVE3INGS
The Planning and Environmental Commissian shall rnake the folRowing findings
before granting a co€tditional 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 cQnditions under which it
would be operated or maintairred would not be detrimental ta the public
7
~
.
health, safe#y, or welfare or materially injurious ta properkies ar ~
improvements in the vicinity. ,
i
3. Tnat the proposed use waufd cornply with each of the applicable I
provisions of the conditionai use perrnit section of the zoning code.
~
~
;
;
. ~
!
,
i
~
~
8
s
~
Vail Vall.ey Medical Center
~ Application for
+Cvnditional Use Permit
I
~
w
I
Proposcd Phase 1 Building AddztiQn
April 16, 2001
~ ._m.__
~ I. Introductxon
A. Sumxziary of Request
I'he Vail Valley Medical Ccnter (VVtifC;) is submitttng an application to arncnd the
existu7g Conelitianal L;se Permit and a Dcsign Reviecv application for an addirion to
the hospital. "Fhe VVNIC refcrs ta this addition as the "Phase 1" project. 'T"he
VYN1C is also submitting a eonceptual master plan Eor the enrixe campus to show the
context af the proposed Phase 1 adciition. Following the approvai of Phase 1, the
conceptual master plan will be caizverted into a development plan For the site and
su6mittcd for Tawn teview. It is the Vti7MC's intent to begirz construction of the
I'hase 1 addiaon in rlugust of this ycar (for completion in November of 2042).
Phase 2(the overaR campus pian) is ilxtended to begin construction in the spring of
2003.
The Phase 1 project include5 an approximately 22,866 sq. ft. (gtoss) addition to the
haspital. `I'he project rexnoves the roof of the cuizent two-stary structure (originally
constructed in 1972), tec3evelops the secanci floor and adds a thirci floc}r. 'I'he
addition will attach to tl-ic existing in-patient care building ta the west that was
canstructed in 1990 and will tnatch this strueture in building height (three-stories).
~ The secand t`loor will house an impravtd and expanded Wamen's and Children's
Center (obstetrics) and the third floor wilJ. proride for an Anabulatozv Suzgery faeility
(outpatient surgery). In Phase 1, the interior space on the ground level of this
structure A-ill be utilizcd for intcrim functions, such as storage, penciing completion
of I'hase 2.
In cQrzjuncuan with the cha.iiges being made [o tie WNTC campus, the f,"dwards
campus will be complc:teci in Juit= 2009 and many uses cutrendy housed on the Vail
campus zvill be relocated to the t?dwaxds catnpus (materials management, shipping
and xeceiving, transportation persannel, some medical affice spaccs, etc.). The
opcning af space in t,dwards all4ws the Vail campus to complete qualirative changes
to the uses on-site Oess crampcd c{,nciitions) in order to improve serviee to the
comanunitv,
~
B. Conceptual Master Flan
The Coneeptual Master Plaii (1'6ase 2) of the haspital redevelopment is pepresented
in the plans prortnded as inforrna.tion with this submirtal. The VVNIC i; nat
requestina £on-raal apgroval aF the overall master plan at this time but h1s provr.ded
the document in order to show the contetit of the Phase 1 addition. 'ihe Phase ?
development plan will k}c sLOai-nirtea €t7r formal xev iew by the Town later this yc:;i1-.
I ~ L acl VallcYy hlcdieal Cen[er - Phase 1 1
f3raun ,~ss~rciates, Int.
~ The I'hase 2 recievelopmenc iricludes razing ti3e current oc1e and two-storV medical
oftice buildings built in 1967 and ] 972 respectively, and located on the east end of
the faci.[itN, cliiiunating the surfaCC patl:ing area accessed frnm Meadow Driire, razing
the current parkint; sttucture, and removu-ig tiz ambulance facilitv- The current
emergencs- xoarn facility will remain fn its current locarion. These facilities are
replaced urith a netiG rrked3cal office facility and an eztensive undcrgroundancf
struetured pazlung Eacility that takes direct access from the South Frontage Road in a
xevised entr.ance £acilit,,. The entrance not only pxovrdes tor all visitar and staff
access, but alsa accommodates all ernergency vehicles ancl service vehicles entering
khe sitc. Phase 2 eliminatcs AI.f, vehicular access to the haspital via West Tvleadow
Drive, except for I=ire Departmenr access in an emergency.
In ardex to aIlaw access frorrn the South Frontage Road, the VVN4C is in the process
of negotiaring a land swap with the ~vergreen LodgeF as the lodge currentls' own the
entire fronrage alorig S. Frontage Road adjacent tca the hospitaI. The F,ti ezgeeen
Lodge tivauld acquire a parcel oEIaiid, approximately equal in size, an the west side
af the 'V'`v'MC property, appsoximately in the locarion of the e:cisting surface parking
area adjaccnt to the I~vcrVecn pr.capert}7. The VVMC and the Evexgreen have an
agreement in prineipal to the lanci swap. 'I'he lancl swap wauld occur befote a formal
appraval of the Phase 2 project (befoxe the Spring of 2002). Thc coneept plan also
sliows the library parking lat being changed to more of apark-like setting w-ith a
potenti3l VVbIC bLiilding addiiion encroaching upon ir. Any use of TQV ]and will
~ require the TQwn's revicw and approval.
C. Key Elernents of the Phase 1 Prapasal
Key eleznents of the plan include:
• Ir.npxoved obstetrics Eacility (November 2002 complerion)
• Improved outpartient surgery faci.lztv, (1lov, emt3er 2002 compleuom)
• [:limination of matexials managc:ment facilitv including staff reductions anci
the reducrion of large dclivery rrucks accessing the site fram Meadcaw Drive
Guly 2001)
• Reduction in medical oFfice space incluciirxg a reduction in staff and related
patient visits resulting in less uaffic to the si.te (July 2001)
• A net reduction in parkuag space needs for the site
• The projcct comPlies with the Condition Use Pernlit eriteria
~ Vail VaLlev Med.[cal Cencer - C'hase 3
]3 ~
raun .~ssoeiates, Ine.
~ D. Review Pracess
Thc V-VNIC praperty is currently zoned Gez7eral L'se. The Gene.ral Use zone district
allows haspital and medical office uses subject to the issuance of a Conditional LJse
Ycxrnxt (CtJP). A CL;P is aeted upon liy che Planning and Environmental
Coinrmssion (PEC) and the PEC ]ias final revicw auchority on a CUI'. ln thc:
General Lise zone di5trict the PrCs is also required to cieterfnine the development
standards for the project inclucirng, buildiiig height, setbacks, parking, and site
coverage. "1'he ~VN1C has subtn.itted the requited Canditional Use Permit
applicarion materzals.
'I'he rdle pf the PEC is to ireview the Phase 1 project with respect to the criteria listed
in the Zoning Regulations for a Conditional L'se Perrn3t. `ihe Design Review Baard
zvill lae r_esponsible for reiriewi~g the proposed architecture and desigm of the ,
buiiding. Review by the PEC and the DRB wi]1 occux concuxrently in order to allow i
the WiVfL to achieve its goal of beginning constrraetian in August of this year. ~
~
Although the Town Council is not required to take acrioti on this prolect, we intend
r.o keep the Tow-ra Council up-to-c3ate on the prajecf through worksessions and
project updates.
~ in order to better understand the eoncerns of its neighbors, the ti'VNPC has also
hosxed ttvo neighbozhood meerings on March 26 and Masch 27 of this year and, has
cc>nducteci seti-eral other meetings with neighbors on an indiviciual basis, 1'he VS1NIC
also pareicipated in a two-da,y e~tarette with the Town and the Ever9r~een Lodge,
resulting in maiiy of the ideas c{isplayed on the Ph-ase 2 con.ceptua.l master plan.
~ i
i
~
~ ti'ail 1':illey :Vlcdical (:entcr - 1'hase 1
Bsaucz A,saciates, Inc. 3
a
~ II. Description of the Project
A. $ackground
The Vail Valley Medical Center is cuxrentlc comprised of five inciividual structures
that are all linkcd together. T`he originai clinic building, constructed in 1967, xs
14cated on the east cnd of the campus. Other builciirtgs were adeled over the years
such as the emergency toonn, t,hc arnbulance barn, and additional clinic space (all one
and twa-stor5;- structures). In 1990 the three-st4ry structure located on the urest end
of the campus was consrructea. This building contains in-patient facilities, surgery,
medical ofEices, the Howard Head Sports llfecii.eh'ie Center, and othex medical uses.
Since r.his addirion in 1990, tliere have been no c.xpansions of thc VVMG facilities.
The campus also contains a 209 5pace parking structure and a 120 space surface
parkiug lot (re-striped in 2000 tn ac9uire 19 additional parlting spaces for a total (if
329}.
B. Exisiing Land Uses
The existing hospita] cuzzently has approxunately 146,584 sq. ft. of gross floor area,
containing 49 liccnsed beds, 14 em,ergency roozn cxam beds, sutgery, obstettics,
imaging, laUoratorv, rncciical office facilitics, and arhex cliiucal and aclmuustrative
functions.
~ C. Phase 1 Addition
The Phase 1 project includes an approxirnately 22,866 sq. ft. (gross) addirion to the
hospitaL Thc projecr removes the roof of the current two-story structure (ariginally
constructed in 1972), tcdcvelops the first and second floor and adds a duxd floor.
The ficst floor space will be redeveloped as tnterim use space dun'xzg l'hase 1 anci will
be detailed in the Pkiase ? redevelopment plan. The addition v4-ill attach to rhe
e~isting In-patient carc buiading to the west that was constructed in 1990 and will
match this structure in bw'lciing hc:ight.
The exisring two-story structure to be redeveEoped contains ohstetrics, haspital
adnunistrative functions, anci medzcal offices. '1'he Eollowang changes uTi11 accur:
• First Floox
The first floor of the builduig will be completed as a shell and wiil ncat be finally I
firushed out_ The area will be used for interu-n functions, such as scatage, until
Phase 2 corries online, at tvhic3i timc a specific facilinT and use plan wilI be
created for the space.
~ Vail Valle}* ~fedreal t~enter - P(iase 1 4
Braun r~ssoeiates, Inc.
Sccond Floor
The proposed redec-elopment of tlus space tiviIl provide a new home for
obstetrics on ncc seconci E1ooc. The cua:zeant obstetrics faciTitv is cramped, was
develnped unde: 197U's code requirerneztirs, and is in need of qualitauve
irnProvements, which rcquirc more flc,or area, Lpon completion of the remodel,
the obstetrics area wvill full4 camply with tauilding and hospital codes. "i'he
proposed obstetrics facilir.y will improve upon the quality of rare and capacity
resulting in unpraved efticic:ncy for care of obstetxies parients and newboms. It
c'vill also allow for the development of a Level II nursery.
• T1uxd Floor
The new third floor af this structure will pravide fflr ambulatory (outpatient)
surgcry°. Currently outpatient surgery anci inparient surgenj compete for
operating tootrfl and recovcn,, spaee. WhiIe thas use «i1l eYpand the capacity of
outpatient surgert° it Uvill also itnprove the quahty and efficiency of the space
designeci specifically as an outpatient facil.ity.
In conjunGtion with these imprcavements as we31 as the cQmpletion of the Edwazas
mecliical campus, rnany uses loeated an the 4'ail catnpus iuill be shiftcd to the
1-?dwarc3s carnpus_ Prohabl~r the mast dramarie of the changes is the removal of
"materials management" fxom the Vail campus. This meaiis rhat the majoxity of
large tn.zck5 that delivcr supplics to the 4'aiI campus will naw cieliver materials ta a
~ central receiv-ing and ciisui6ution center at the Edwasds facality. Sugplies needed in
4'aiJ woiald be delivered with smallet vans. Not only does this represcnt a reduction
in loading and delivery needs but also a reduction of staff support. for this function.
1'1ddi.tiflnally, another majar change to the Vail cainpus will be in the reduction of
meciical office uses. The reassigtimenr. of several medical offces ta the F,dwarcis
campus will reduce the nurnber r}f staff aiid patients utilizing parlcing facilities on the
site thus imptoving parking avai}.ability and traffic to the site,
D. Lanang Analysis for Plaase 1
Below is die 7.oning Analysis for the Phasc 1additron to the VVIVFC.
~
1. Lot Atea
The lot area of the VV-N'fC is 3.811 acxes or 166,007 sq. ft. The lot area fax the Phase
1 addition will re:main unchanged.
2. SetbaGks
The sethacks far the 174ThIC are contauied iri tlle proposeei development plaii. The
proposed additzan will have a setback of 20' minimurn along the West Meadow
Drive frontage. No othex changes to eYi.st-izzg setbacks ate proposed.
~ i'A ti'alley \Iedieal (~euter - Ykt;~ac 1
7
$raun :'.ssociateS. Inc.
I
~ 3. Height
The proposed btulding height for the Phase 1 addition will match r.hat of the existung
three-stozy budding to the west. `i'he proposed building height is approXimately 41'
to tl-ie roof and 44' to the top pf the paxapet. 'Ihe sloping raof proposed as a
mechanical screen is approximately an additianai 1(}' in height.
4. Sate Covetage
The site coverage for Phase 1project is as shown o? the proposed deve3opxzaent
plan.
5. Landscapiag and Site DevelQprnent
The proposed laadscaping is as proposed on the site development plan. T11e Qnly
change to the landscaping on-site is in the area of the proposed bua.ldzng adciirion.
6, Parking
There are currencly 329 parking spaces located at the W111iC. The number of
parking spaces was increased on the site last year to the 329--space figure baseci an a
revnsed parking space lavout. This revision resulted in a net increase of 19 parking
spaces. The plan apprvvcd by the Town in 1990 required 291 for rhe WNZC.
The parking capaczty is Curther expanded by the use of "manageci parking" or valet
parkinge The V\7IYiC eznplows fu]I-time staff that helps visitors to the site find
~ parking aiid offczs the abilin- to valet cars thus alTnwing verv effieient use of the
parking facilities- The management allows Eor a significant inexease in parking
capacity. I'his walet senrice is provided voluntarily by the N' 4'NAC at no cast to
patients or visitors and has nUt becn manciated by the Town.
Adcittionally, the NFV-NIC has a shutt'le and earpooZing program_ Many af khe
eznglQyees at this facility livc in Surnmit Ccaunty, Lake County, or d.own-valleq areas
of Eagle County. 'i'he program is incentivized in numeYOUS wavs, ane af which is
offering shuttle riders a`Free lunch' at the hospital for every day that they utilize the
shuttle sGrvice. Last year shuttle rider-ship a1one accounted for over 10,000 day-shift
ernplayees for an average o£ 39 peo}ale per d-ty.
The VVMC is very aware oft thne importance of parl:ing and has been very innovative
in managing its parking nreds. In tllc pnst 3 yeats there haie been virrually no
parking complaints from parients anci visitors at the facility.
~ Vail V;iller :~[edicil Center -Phase 1
Braun .~s.ociates, Ipc. 6
~ The #ormula utilized bv the Town for developing the paxking requirements on-szte
over tlae past 20 vears 13as been to asscss:
~
0 1 paricing space per haspital bcd
• 1parking space per ennerger-icy roam exam bed
• 1 space pei ernployee/doctor on largest slutt (both hospital and meciical
offices)
• 1 space per medical office exam toom
Fiascd on rhis f«rrnula, the prapcased Fhase 1 addition generates the foltawing
parking demand:
• Obstetries refnodel requires the same number of employees as current]y
esist and increases the number of beds by 2 (2 new spaces xequircd)
• Netiv outpatient suzgersr cxeates T(l beds that can be in use at any one time
(10 new spaces requireci)
• T*1et incrcase in employecs ciue the proposed additiQn of 6 employees
(5uxgcrY) (G new spaees required)
• Deerease af 5 tnaterial rnanagement e,mployees on Vail campus (5 space
reduetion)
• Decreasc o£ 8 rnedical office staff on `Tail czmpus (this number may also
0 increase based on thc availabilitv oE medical office space at rhe F:dwards
£acilitY) (#3 space reduction)
i I]ecxeasL of G medical o£fice exarn rooms on the Va'tl catnpus (fi space
reduction)
+ Dccrcase of 5 transporration employees oan ti-ic 'G'ail campus (5 space
reduc tion)
The net tesult for Phase 1 is a reduction in parldng demand equis alent eo G
pazking spaccs.
Thexefare, the p.roposed 1'hase lpxUjc:ct is able to occur given the c:urrent parking
allocation for thc hospiral, wrthout t.he need to cseate additional parlciug on the Vail
campus.
7, Loadixxg
Thc° laading requircmetits for the: hospital are beizig reduced pziot to and as part qf
the 1'hasc 1 re;clcvelopnient activiries. `I'he materials rnanagement for tYe Vail
campus will be relocated to the Edwards carnpus_ Thexefare, the need to have latge
delicei7 vehicles has been essentialle elimuiated frUrrx the Vail campus. There will
remain a need for deliveries to tl-ie hospital but the majority, of these deliveries will be
smaller panel trucks ax vans_
~ Va~ Valley ?vlcdical (;cncer - Phase 1
f3raun _issociatert, lnc.
~ IIY. Conditianal Use Permit Criteria
Below is thc critcria used bv ehe staff and tlae Planning and Environmental Comznission when
revieuTing a rec~uest fc~r a Conditional Lise Pesmit. 1Yv'e have addxcsscd each o1E th~:sc criteria and find
that the presposal fully carnplies with cach.
A. The effect of the use on light an,d anar, distributian o£ papulation,
transportation faciliries, utilities, schaals, park,s and reereation £acilities, and
other public facilities needs.
Our Analysis:
"1-`he Vail Valley Medical Center is parr of the public or quasi-publie in€rastructure of
the Town and the county. ApproximateIy one-half of the services provicied at this
medical center sezvice directly those needs of the permanent pc>pulation. Withaut
such a facility located in c,ur cammuniry many would be required to travel to Denvex
or elseurhere to receive 9uality cealth care. It ts Iargely the gxowth in demand placed
on this facslity by the local population diat has created a nc.ed for irnproved obstetrics
and out patient surgery faciliues. 'T'he VVMC is responding to these demands far
sen icc wirh thc proposeci Phase 1 adciiriori.
~ 'lhe proposed addttion will have htde itnpact an utilities, schooTs, parks and
recreation Facilities. 1"he proposed addi.tian dvill acid au additicanal stczry ta the
builciin,g; however, this addition w71J. not affect the light and air of adjacent property
ownears and will have litde impact on the public in general. Ttanspartation facilities
i
will not Ue negatirely iinpactcci f}v the ptoposed Phase 1 additinn because of the
ovcrall net reduction in rl7e number of trips ta the site by employee5, tht reduction in
the number of deliveries by large trucks to the facility, and sincc the haspital has
comrnitted to a slluttle pxogram w3uch de3ivers atrer 10,000 c:mployee trips to the
hospital in a year.
B. Effect upon traffic with particular reFerence to congestian, avtomotive and
pedestrian safety and cbnveanuicnce, traffic flow and control, access,
maneuvezability, and removal of snow from the sueet and parking areas.
Out An31ysis:
The propc7sed I'hase 1 additiorf will. havc little if any impact on rhese issues. The
proposed adctiticsn, given the uties that are being removed fram the site (materials
management emploqees, medical office employees, medical o£fice cxam rooms,
txansportation department e7nployees, etc) will actually xeduce the numbet of
vehicles caming to the site. Large delivery- vehicles (especially serrii-trailer) tri:gs will.
all but bc: c:iiminated from the site. The hospital has a patk.ing rnanagement program,
~ Vasl Va14e}' kfcd"l Ctnter - Pkiasc 1 ~
Braun Assdcsa¢cs, Inc.
i
~
~ which allows visitors co the: haspital to be valet parked and thexefoxe the VV'ivlC is
effeetivel<< able to accommociatc visitors tc~ the site. This program wi]I rernauz intact ~
ar rhis facilitv. ~
C. Effect upon the chaiacter of the azea in `vhich the proposed usc is to be
located, including the scale and bulk of the prop0sed use in relation to
suraroundnng uses.
Our Analvsis:
The Wv`NNI[s site has long been a medical facility characterired by hospital and
medical office uses. 'I'he property r.o the ndrth of the hospital, the Evergreen Lodge,
is a la,tge, 7-story lodge and conclominiurn facilin,. TQ the east is the Weststar Bdnlc
building, a 3 ta 4-stary offrce buildiiig. t11so to the east is the Skaal I Ius, a 2-story
condQrruniurn project_ The VVMC ca:txapus is bordered on the sQUth by West
Nleadaw Dxzve. Bzyond 1~~'Jest lY1eadow Drive to the south are single-family hornes.
The propertv to the west of the VVNTC: is the Dobson Ice Axena and the Library.
The elu'sting 4'V1tiiC faciliry is comprised of a scries of one, cwa, and three-story
structures that have Ueen connectcd over the years. `l-lie current access to, way
finding, and locatioza of these builciings is very inefficient, rzot to mentian confusing
to the visitor. The proposed Phase 1 addinon impraves the circulation pattern
within the hospital and adds an aciditional ston,= to an exisring two-story buildsng.
~ "I`he propcased addition will bc within the bulk and seale of the eYisting faciliry while
improvng the overaIl design anci aesthetics n£ the campus.
The proposed addition will have litde implct on the surrounding uses with respcct to
the bulk, znass, a.nd ehatactex of the area.
IV, Land Use Plan Goals
Belotiv is a list of Goals from the Vail Land [Jsc Plan rhat are applicabIe to the VVN1C. T`k-ie
pxopcasea Phase 1 additiQn is cansistent evith rhesc goals as the proposal is zespanding ta the needs
af the community, is being developed in an area where develapment is currendv located, and is
upgrading an alder building and impro,,ring upvn its character. i
i
1. Genetal Growth/Developmeaxt
1,1 Vail shoulci continue to grow in a contralleci enjTiranment, maintain-nig a balance
between residenrial, eomr-nnercial and rec:reational uses to serve batb: the visitar and
the permanent resident.
1.2 The quality of the emrironrnent including air, water and othes natwcal resourees
should t}c protecteci as the Tawwn grows.
~ Vail Vallcv 11'[edacal CenCer- Phase l ~
Rrautt ;lssnclzte:s, Inc.
~ 1.3 The qualitv. of development should be maintained ana upgracied whenever passible.
1.1() De` elopment of 1'own owned lancis by the Town of Vail (ocher than parks and open
space) may be perirutted where no high haxards exist, it such decelopment is for
pubhc use.
1.12 Vail shoulci aecomniodate most of the additional grotvth in existing developed areas
(u3fill areas).
6. Community Services
6.1 Se.rvices shQUld keep pace wittY uicreasecE growth.
6.2 The Tawn of `'ail should play a role in futurc: developrnenc through balancing
growth with services.
6.3 Services should be adjusted tv keep pace with the neccls of peak periods.
V. Streetscape Master Plan
~ The VL'i4IC has participated in the streetscape pianning for West Meadow Dzive and remains
pleased with the progxess of that plannir~g effort. We beheve our goals for t6is stteet are consistent
with those of the Toufn and the neighbors. With the I'hase 1 addition to the VtiAiC, we are not
proposing drastic changes to the streetscape improvements along West Meadow Drive. The
add.iaan is also not precluding the abilirv of the 1'own or the VVNMC the abilitv to introduce qualitv
pedestrian irnprovements. The Phase 1 addition still provides ample sepatation of the buiiding to
the propexrT line /right-o f-way. With the 1'hase 2 concegtual master plan, the VVNIC fully intents to
assist with the implctnentatton of the stxeetscape plan for this area. Detailed glanriirig for Phase 2
wi.ll begin later tEus year 6eginning with a farzn.al application to the Town.
\'alle~Medical [=enter Pliare 1 1Q
Bxaun Assncaates, Inc.
,
~
Vai1 Valley Medical Center
Applicatian for a Conditional Use
Key Issues with Respect to I'roposal
• Propased Phase 1 expansiQn of 22,866 sq. ft.
o Improt-ed Women's and Children's Center
o Improved outpatient surgery fsicility
o Begin eonstructian in August of this year (completian in November 2002)
o Centxal shipping and receivzng reZc>cated to the Edwards campus
" Substantial reductian in large trucks tb ti ail campus
• Edwazds shipping and receiviaig opens ui ]uly 2001
o Relocation of some medical office uses and other adnunisrrative staff to Edwards
carnpus
oNet reductian in par4cing teyuiremcats for Vail campus (baseci on uscs removed
~ from site)
o Expansion adds an additionai flaor to an etisting 2-story structure
o Renovation unpraves access axad wav-firtding withixi VV?'vIC structures
aNew architectural style for Phase 1 buildirig
• Conceptual Master Plan (Phase 2) provided for VVMC
o Provides for all vchicular access from 5outh Febntagc Road
o Pravides for a11 service anci deltvery vehic3.es accessing frarn South Fxontagc Road
o Requires z Fand swap with the Evergreen Lodge to gain access ta Ftontage Road
o Accomtnodates rnultip]e levels af structixped parking
o Rernoves surface parking lc7t on the west enci of the campus
o Replaces the existu.ig parki.ng struerure and rriedicai aFEice buildings on the east end
of the campus cUnstructed in 1967
o Provides fnr statc of the art and consolidated meciical office facilities on east end of
campus
o Provides for interior conne:ction tc3 F'.vergreen Ladge
o New axchitectural style for the entire eaxnpus
e$egin appiication for appraval later this year. Begin constt_uction in Spr_ing o£ 20(}3.
~
MAY-08-2001 16:34 FROM¢BRAJN ASSQCIATES 9709267576 TO:9704792452 P,002/002
~ ~ •
BM/BRAUN ASSOCIA,TES. IINC,
Pl.M1IdNlNG and CQMMl3N17Y DEVELC7PY"1ENT
MEMORANDUNI
I
TU: CTeargc Ruther i
CC: C1iff Elrlridgc Stan Andcrson
FRpM: Tam 13raun i
DATE: May 4, 2001
~
RL: VU'MC ExpansinnlEmplayee 1-iausiRg
~
Thanks for your time this rnoraing. As a follcaw-up;to our wnversatian, pleasc: considex the
foilowing: •'llxe praposed Phase T expa~sion is essentially a;qualitative move to bring the 4B a.nd out-
Qarient surgezy facilitics up to standards.
• It i.s estirnated that only 6 nc;w cmployecs vviil bc added as a resuit of Chas expansion.
• As a result oF shifts in various opcrations, a to#al of 1$ empioyees well be xelccated lrorn the
Vail facility. i
~ + There wi11 be a net reductioa of 12 employees at the V`TMC at the completion pf Phase I.
~ Whi.le the WMG is interesiecl in doing what is right it is a1sQ im,portant tv cansider that the
`C"owaY has nat adoptcd an cmpioyee housing xcquirement `d #hat the eriteria for a Condi#ianal
Usc Pemiit does nat address emplayee lzousing. That said e ate certainly willing to work with
the 1'Qwn an the issue of hcau°+ing, but fee] that any housin requirement i5 mnre appmpriate
rel.ative tv Phase n.
Thc VVMC has bcen very in.valved in prnvidirig empFdyee housing. C3y way of cxample, the
VVCvfC owns 42'beds in the Tarne,s project. Tn adcFition, the WMC has bisto.ric;ally master
leased units tlu•oughout the Valtcy_ For exaniple, rhis Past year the WMC master leascd 15
~ units and 39 be& The;e unit,, are Iocaked in Vail, Avon, Eagie-Vail and F~dwards. While the
aumbcr 4funits the VVMC owns or cantrois may vary frorn yeat ta year (the number has been I
gradually inereasing each year) and throughout the ycar (their greatcst nccd is during the ski
season), this, past season the VVMG had ouer. 80 ~eds available for employees.
As yau prepare yonr recommendatian, I would ask you in A,mder,both the nature of this
prcaposcd cxpansion and the Ccntcr's currcnt u~nployee hausing prograrn. T wrili look forw r tr~
r~-ree#in,~ with you tc~ further ciiscuss this i~ue. '1`hanks again for your timc.
~ Edwar-d:, ViIlage Ctnttr, Suatr C-209 ' Fi,_ -'J747.7sG.7575
O 105 Edwards Viqage 6nulevwcf Fax - 970.916_7576
Po-x OAce B+nx 2558 wwwbr.kurs:saciates.corn
Edwards, CoEorad4 8 1632
- - - ~ . ~ i
I, ~r`7
i~ I~i I
,
;
I 0
I ,
~ r~r ~ ~ ~I~f~
l.
1 Uj
~ i -
- ,
i , ; f 4 1
~ l
~
Y ~ I i l i T:1' ;
I I f'~~
f = I~~~' I
x
a - ~ -
IA Y =
= z;
\i y~ ~ ~ . ~F S!G
r-
I 7
r `tie ~ r~
a~!' ' ~
,
~ ~ ? ~ ~ ~ . J b ,c ,~c S .
;
° - f,
~.r 7 ;
r/r~y~ ? ~ > l+~
~ , . _ t i t" - } ~
1.1 i..~._ r.c,;,~_ . O7 E Y
L
~i u {~e . b, T ^ l .Fl
L~I ~ _ f:x~~--- :d- ~ 'Ii ~ .tl~ _ M
_ ~4~9 ~ ; . ~ 7I ' •
^i ` II 3; s I 1;'" ` rt't
~ S- ~~4' . - r. ~ ~ ~ LJ
~!3 41 ti Y k r~~
t.
~ - ~ F~ ~1G5 < r ~
~ t Y
~ ~
>
K ~d, ~ ~7 1~•~ ~ -'e Ce ,r~ I;
u7
c~rE jtS-~~~~'
I ~
~ ~:2 ~y I - ~ ~ ~ J
_ - ~ CC r~ • , \ ~rF' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ iy/+ ~
` ~ h r. ' ~ \ ? ~~~~~i~ l, ..1 ~ ~
LL ` 1
S _ ? ~ 'k k 1 ' . y , ' ~$i ~ . ~ ~ . ~
{x \ ~ ~ 6~~ \ ! 'r , I'~ = ~ c ~ .C ~
- ~`v ~.i i ~ C ti~ '~1 . f . .
1
s:'s . _ . .
' _ . . . . . . . . ~ . : _
; 1
;1I I I
: y
iI [ G S1~
i ~ J
~ t
i r ~ rn
Z;
~
,S <
_I 54
un
k?'+
{ _ . --y
~ ~ x G.' ~ ~3; d• Y, fi ~ a~,:~s .
d'
A\ ~
~ ? ~ ~ _ ~
~ `S t • ~ ~ 5 k;~- ^ ;i' -
' \ i~
y^~ ~i~~ ~ ~ _ F7~~` r? -i"{
r
ti 1 ~ 1 • ~ ~ ~ , ~ h ~ bC.r,~,y ~
yy 1. , ~ t \ : f ' ' ~ - ~ ' ~t~~t~
~
r~ 't~ \ • ~ , a ~ I ~ ~ 1- ~ ~
~ !i
r 1
c~ -!~-'C{
I..
i ! t ! c i ~
~
Ae ...s .-.jai.
C s ~9 3 ~r
ic
X
LL '1 ~ J
~ A4 `c ' i9 ;
y
o~
7.i~z - ~ ? w ,
_ ~ ~ \ \ • 4 y ~ ~ J ~ f - - .
f Z C' ~ ~
! r
r + ~ ~
~ ~ ~ • .
Lf <
1 j
I '
I
k • ~ . •ti ~ . ~ ~ ~_~1
' ~ ^c / .
- 1,
1••~ : 1 i'` y_ ti~~
~X±
~ ~L\ `t . i i ~ -r w.• ~
- - ~r ~
. , it • _
~ .
~ ~ sz~ ~ .¦r
l
pM
~ SC 1-~r.,__'_•_~_s.,~ e 4 3 e~ f. &~i'E~'_".O ~
44 ~ ~ ~ YR ' ~ ~ , ~
u ~ ' s i s
> . .
w
z
~
- - k
>1
~ z---- IL
`
L:j
F ~ Z J z
~~~\1 \X\~~1~
~i\1'
* ~ \ j • s G ~ e -
C 3
~ y~~\ I a { ~ t
- _ _ ~
• i I~
i r ef
~ -a
:e
A
~7 ii:l>
/
%`~'t.:
S`~\~' '
~11I I W ~I ~~-1F1C~.~t!'~ I
~ II I
3
~
~\-O j:
00
i
~ ~~t~ ~ ~I ~ I ~ I I ~ I 1 ~ ~ ~ ` ' ~ I • I .
~ ,
4 : ~ ~ ~t:
~ ~
~ ~ ~
i~
I~-{ •~y , ~ ~
~ t - f Y•~
a ~ _ _ -
u - .
~
z '
~ r
X ~
:.r
-
ay ~~y,~~ - _ LJ
~ ` J'' , y=
1^:__' , {
I °
z ~
~ „ -
i ~
Jrt ;w\;
_~i'~~
\ \"4\~t`~.~ S.I ~ ~ I Y~•T T~GG7''~7~" I =
~ ` y+~ rytr I I ~
~ j ~ + ~ k ~2
~NtiI~~v~~\'
~g + f ~ ~ '
Li !1" ~
I A y ; t
~
~
~ ~ . ' .
4.4
V7 " '
~ ~ - fl~
~"i
U ~
~
~
3
Z
~ j
4~1 i,
~ "•~t~ _
~C
zC ` : ~ .
l • \ y• , ~
~4 \ • \ \ . ~ y t ~ t`` `
- ` ' ? ' . ~ e
~ y
. ~
. 1 ~ • - .
~ ' 131
~ ,i, d ~ , .
{ t~.
1+t ~ ~ i..
t ' `r! ~ " . ~ ~1•4 ~S~ ` .
i ~
77,
~
t 1 1^. 4
E---- ,~1
~~s,k'C',. {.•!j ~
i.y3 f V 1~ ~j il'
~ -s~--j1 ~ ~ • 9 ~.~t ,
~
• ~ ~
. ~ ,1
l
a ~ I" »
~ ' •r ~
#-4
i
7
R t
_ r
_~x~ , ~
- Appraved .lune 11, 2001
i PLANNING AR1D ENVIRaNMENTAL CQMMZSSION
PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES
Monday, May 14, 2001
PROJECT ORIENTATIOhI I- Community DeWelapment Dept. PUBLIC WELCOME 11:30 am
MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT
Diane Golden Brian Doyon
John Schafield
Doug Cahill
Galen Aasland
Dick Cleveland
Chas Bernhardf
5ite Visits : 12:45 pm
1. Vail Plaza Hatel West - 13 Vail Road
2. Vail Valley Medical Center - 181 West Meadow Drive
3. 5#rauss Subdivision - 1916 & 1935 West Gore Creek Drive
4. Mentlik residence - 2437 Garmisch Drive
5. Vail Racquet Club - 4695 Vail Racquet Club Drive
~ Driver: George
!NOTE: If the REC hearing extends until 6:40 p.rn., the baard may break for dinner from 6:00 - 6:30
p.m.
Public Hearing - Tawn Council Chambers 2:00 pm
1, A request for a variance from Sectian 12-6D-10 ofi the TQwn Code, to allow for a reduction in
the landscapEng and site development requirements, lacated at 383 Beaver Dam RoadlLot
3, Block 3, 1/ail Village 3rd Filing.
Applicant: A2Z Haldings, LLC
Planner: Bil1 Gibsan
8ill Gibsan gave an oven+iew of the staff rnemo.
The Commissioners had na comments.
John Schafield made a mation to approve the variance, in accordance with the findings and
recommendations of the staff memo.
~ Dick CleveE'and seconded the motian.
*YA&
~wK
~
APproued June 11, 2001 -
The motaan carried 6-0. ~
2. A request for a final re+riew of a proposed speciai deueloprnent district, to allow for the
construction of a new conference tacility/hotel; and a final review of a+conditional use peemit,
to aUow for Type III employee housing units and fra+ctional fee club units, located at 19 Vail
Roadi Lots fi, B, C, Block 2, Vai9 Village Filing 2.
Applicant: Doramar Hotels, represenied by the Daymer Corporatian
Planner: Brent Wilson
Brent Wilson gave an overview of the stafF memo. He noted that access was still an outstanding
issue that should be resolved prior to fifst reading of an ordinance by Tawn Council.
Jcahn Schofield stated that the PA Zane District aliows for deviativn from required setbacks belvw
ground.
Brent Wilsan confirmed that this was true.
Gaien Aasland asked for vedficatian of #he required changes to the roof plan.
Brent Wilson stated that the required changes would be reflected on revised plans prior to first
reading of an ordinance.
Tim Losa, the applicant's architect, gave an overuiew of the most recent revisions ta the proposal.
He noted that the only deviation from the underlying zoning was height. He explained how the ~
access had been designed, but stated that he was looking for guidance from staff for final resolution
of this issue.
Greg Hall explained how guest access shauld function in addition to what alignment changes shnuld occur in arder to make ingress and egress function more safely.
Jim Lamont asked about traffic flow and whether or not the Alpine Standard would be incarporated
ta cflnsider present and future usage.
Greg Hall stated that the roundabout area v+rbuld not be widened and that he was canfident that the
traffic pattem, as exists, was manageable with potential for changes in the Simba Run area ta
alleviate future cangestion, if i# occurs.
Jim Lamont stated that we need to develop canfidence in the ability of the roundabaut to handle the
increased traffic.
Lon Moellentine asked how the development of his project {Alpine 5tandard} would be impacted by
allowing the access to occur as designed.
Galen Aasland stated that the PEG cauld on1y evaluate proposals that were formal applications;
not proposa{s that may vr may nat be pursued in the future.
Tim further elaborated on revisions to the prflject.
Ga4en Aaslancf asked if the vvay that building height had been presented was consistent with staff's
interpretation_
2
• Approved June 11, 2001
~ Brent Vlfilson said, yE?S.
Galen Aasland asked for clarifiration on site deveiopment, specifically with respect to lanciscaping.
Tim Lasa explained haw the site v,rould be landscaped and where heated sidewalks wauld be
prvvided_ He confirmed that the appiicant would incur the expense.
Gaben Aasland asked if the applicant had anykhing to adci.
The applicant had no further cornments.
Galen AasEand requested public comment.
Arlr. Moellentine explained that he was attempting to work with the applicant, but had concems with
ingress and egress. He expressed his concern #hat the sauth easement mkght not be allowed ta
continue and that his rights might be taken arrvay. Fie alsa expressed concem about additional
traffic that might be generated and thought the traffic study that was being used for the review of the
project might be "suspect."
John Schofie[d asked far staff ta clarify the zoning an fhe Alpine Standard praperty.
Brent Wilson explained the current zoning and Iand-use on the Alpine Standard property and stated
that the existing use vuas consistent with the zaning and land-use.
~ Galen Aas(and asked if there were any applications for the ,Alpine Standard property that had been
formally accepted by the Tawn of Vail.
Brent responded, "na.°
Bob Dietrich gave an interpretation of the current egress rights and stated that this issue should ba
resalved prior to the hotel project being apprvved. He stated that he had met with the applir-ant, Mr.
Prada, and that Mr. Prado had agreed to allow the south easement ta remain in effect and to allQw
two-way traffic to occur there. He prop4sed that the condition be added to the praject and that the
Tawn of Vail allow ingress and egress to continue from the south easement.
Galen Aasland asked if the two private property owners cauld wark together ta make the easement
rnare accessible by adding some squate footage from the AS property.
Mr. Dietrich s#ated that the awners couid come ta such an agreement in the tuture.
Galen Aasland asked for clarificatian on the easement width and design.
Tim Losa described the access as proposed.
Galen Aasland asked Tom Moorhead to provide the Town's legal position on the access.
Tom kUEaorhead explained that it was the applicant's burden to provide access to the property that is
in the best public interest. He further explained that the easement rights were not the responsibility
~ of the Town. He recommended that the PEC should add a condition that access issues needed to
be resolved, if they were unconnfortable with the access as presented.
3
Appraved,7une 11, 2001 John Schofieid asked for c{arification on the approved ingress and egress fior the Alpine Standard ~
property and if the south easement was an apprmved access to the property.
Greg Hall explained that ingress and egress points were changed with the development of the
raundabout and he was not certain abaut the south easement.
Doug Cahill asked ;f Uail Road had capacity to handle traffic exitircg alang the south easement.
Greg Hall stated that an analysis could anly be completed once an application for Alpine Standard
was made and that future proposals could not be considered because they may not be campleted.
Mr. Moellentine asked if Greg appreciated his vulnerability, and stated that there needed to be
cflnsideration for the future development of the Alpine Standard property.
Greg Hall stated that the Town needed to rnake sure that #here was ingress or egress from the
praperty, but that residenfial uses an the site might never be approved under the zoning so they
would be difficult to cQnsider_
N1r. Prado affirmed tha# the twa-way easement did currently exist and that the To+,vn of Vail wrould
make the decisian as to how the access will work.
Tom Maarhead stated that the PEC needed to evaluate the access and lcnown impacts as they
stated today. He added that the priva4e owners needed to make an agreement an the disposition vf
the easement and their respective private praperty interests.
Bob pietrich spvke again an beha9f of Mr. Moellentine and sfated that a new condition should be ~
added to the SDD priar to 1 s# reading of an ordinance, and that Mr. Prado agreed to allow egress
alang the $outh easement when and if needed in the future.
Dick Cleveland asked Tom to c6arify the impact of a future change to the access foe the SDD.
Tom Moorhead stated that the private awners could come to a private agreement that would not
bind the Town of Vail vr Town Boards.
Bab Dietrich stated that he agreed with Tom Moorhead.
Diane Galtien asked if the agreement shvuld be a condition af approval.
Tom Moarhead stated that it should nat be a candition, h4wever ttae Board should recognize that
the issue needs to be addressed privately.
Mr. Moellentine expressed his frustration and stated that he could not support the praposal as it had
been presented today without assurance from the PEC thafi his develapment rights and access
rights might not be affected in the future.
Galen Aasiand stated that there was no certainty about the future develapment of his property and
that the REC can nat give a guarantee as to whether or not his access would be retained in the
future, especially without a farmal plan or rezoning application to evaluate.
Bill Pierce spoke on behalf of Mr. Moellentine. Ne stated that the gas station had transaction ~
records for the Alpene Standard praperty which were differen# than the traffic counts in the study
provided. He expressed concem for the discrepancy. He also stated that the south easement
4
' Approved June 11, 2001
~ shauld be designerf very carefully, so as not to waste any existing right-of-way. He also stated that
the topographic surveys completed for bath preperties did not match.
Rick Scafpello spoke on behalf of Nine Vail Road. He stated that the current proposal was much
better than the original. He stated that Mr. Prado had consistently agreed to allow ingress and
egress for the 4 existing parking spaces. He added that the path of Spraddle Creek was not shown
on any of the plans and had cancems for the impact to the creek. He expressed concern for
excavation activities occurring up tv the property and possib{e impacts to the foundation of the Nine
Vail Rvad building.
Tim Losa stated that the creek would be Iocated and reconstructed as needed. He further added
that great care would be taken during construction.
Rick Scalpella added that all parties seem ta be warking together to came ta a soEution. He added
one more point that the height of the architectural projection shauld be reviewed and the laoard
shauld determine whether or not it was necessary.
RG Jacobs spoke on behalf of the Scarpio and Alphom, stating that the owners of these properties
were still opposed to the praposed bulk arrd mass and "box-canycan" effect that would result from
the building being close to the Scarpio and Alphorn. He further nated that pedestrian access should
be provided on the west side. He stated his disagreement with the staff observatian that the publie
benefits of the project outweigh the variations from the underlying zoning. He added the concern fvr
the undergraund site caverage where the building might get close to the existing buildings and
stated that a" limits of disturbance" fertce should be required as a cnndotion of approval.
~ Galen Aasland asked for verification on the requirement far the limits of disturbance fence.
Brent Wilson added #hat this was airEady a requ7rement for DRB approval.
Jim Lamont added that he had been holding back. He stated thai trafFic flovv and circulation shauPd
be monitored regularly. He thought the 3-D model +rvas helpful in showing the proposed building.
Me commented on the progress of the pracess and rr?ade recommendations as to how the
Gommunity Development Department could improve its review of new develapment prapasals. He
added that the VVI and VPH West should be considered tagether, particularly with respect to urban
design and traffic circulation.
Brent Wilson cfarified how building height was calculated and how this was dane according to code,
rather than being a staff interpretation.
Galen Aasland asked for adclitional comments.
There was no rnore public comment.
Tim Lasa gave an explanation of the survey and explasned that regardless of a possible
discrepancy, the grades across the property were corasistent. He clarified the traffic study that had
been submitted. He added that the Spraddle Creek situatian would be handled. He explained how
the project complied with current zoning, with the exception of height. He explained how drainage
wouid be handled on-site.
~ Doug CahiH stated that the project rrvould have a positive benefit fvr the Tawn. He stated that the
building mass was a concem, but could be addressed in the Design Review prQCess. He
elaborated on varivus design issues that cvuld be pursued with respect to the south easement. Fie
5
Approved June 11, 2001 -
was satisfied with the ehu's and ffu's as prapased. ~
John Schofield stated that the SDD would bring a better product to the property than what was
allowed under current zorring. He stated that access needed to be resalved. He stated that the
PEG could nat make a ruling on what may occur in the future and that nv approval of the project
would preclude or guarantee any use ofi the easement in the future. John nated that staff should be
manitoring traffic counts, tapography should be resolved prior ta canstructian, proper engineering of
Spraddle Creek should lae provided and that the DRB could address the design af the tower. He
said that the PEC did consider both hntel prajects before determining that the projects needed to be
evaluated separately, in terms of their respective requirements and impacts.
Diane Golden stated that thE EHUs had improved, but closet space shvuld be increased and
adequate storage shauld be prowided fvr employees.
Dick Cieveland agreed with Diane and that adequate storage should be provided for employees.
He said the fractional fee club units were acceptabfe and complimented the applicant on the
Meadow Qrive side of the property. He said it would be beneficial to tie #he west side in bet#er, but
the sauth side worked well. He said tha# the undergraund setback issue was acceptable. He said
he was concerned with the traffic generation in combination with the VVI project and with the traffic
at the roundabout. He said a site-specific anaiysis wauld have been beneficial, specifically with
respect to the acces$ fram Vail Road. He said he had concems with the bulk and mass on the
Frantage Road and that the walls on the north side should have been shar#er or stepped back, but
that the prajec# had come a lorrg way since the beginning.
Ghas Bernhardt sta#ed tiiat the changes to the ehu's were appropriate and the ffu's were ~
acceptable and that the project was greatiy improved. He said he had concems for the height Qn
the Frontage Road, but that the project was broken up satusfactarily to relieae bulk and rrzass. He
said the project had been modified sufficientfy. He said approval af this project shauld nflt preclude
future plans at the Alpine Standard for egress from the property.
Galen Aasland stated that the project had improved. Galen stated that his original concems with
height had been addressed and he was satisfied with the he6ght of tower. He said the height on
#he narth side was acceptabae, hut the critical issue was the 48' on the south side. He said the
ehu's were impraved. He said the underground space was accep#able, meeting a reasonable
standard as aliowed in the PA zoning. Galen asked for a mation on the SDD and two conditional
use permits,
Jahn Schofield made a motion to approve the SDD„ in accordancf: with #he staff memo findhngs and
conditions, but with a c,hange ta issue 13, that the provisian to the access easement by 9 Vail Road
only be effective for the life of the parking spaces and that the Spraddle Creek drainage easement
and containrnent to aocated. Jahn added (not as part caf the mation), that storage should be added
for the ehus,
Chas Bemhardt secanded the rnotion.
Galen Aasfand asked for additional discussion.
Daug Cahill added that soil sampling be conducted prior ta construction_
Tim Losa asked if an environmental audit needed ta be conducted during excavation and asked if 4D
tha# cvuld be limited to the soils and stream eondition.
6
~
. ~
• Approved June 11, 2001
~ John Schofield amended his motion to include that an environmental audit be cc>nducted during
excavation, as discussed.
Galen Aasfand asked that the motion be amended ta allow the building height to increase by fi" per
floor on levels 4 and above, on the north wing only.
Chas Bemhardt withdrew his secand.
diane Golden seconded the matian.
The motion carried 5-1 (Cle+reland oppased),
John Schofield made a motion to approve the ffu's as prflposed, in accordance with the staff mema
and findings and conditions in the staff memo.
Daug Cahill sec.onded the motion.
The motion carried 6-0.
,9ohn Schofield moved to appreue the request for a conditianal use permit to construct the emp6oyee
hausing units, in accordance with the staff memo, findings and conditions.
Chas Bernhardt seconded the motion.
~ The motion carried 6-0.
3. A request for a f6nal review af a conditional use permit, tv allow for the construction of Phase
I of Donowan Park improvements, generally focated sQUtheast of the intersection of
Matterhom Circle and the South Fron#age Road.
Appficant: Town of Vail
• P1anner: George Ruther
George Ruther presented an averview of the staff merriorandum and explained the severr remaining
issues to be addressed by the appliGant.
Otis Odell reviewed the propased changes to the cald roaf systern,
Doug Cahill asked far additional clari#ication.
Otis Odel4 revMewed the trash enclosure and frorat fatade of the building.
George Ruther stated tha# the trash enclosure would be bear-proof.
Galen Aasland asked for clarificatian.
~
Otis Odell statEd that they used #he Honeywagon specifications for the trash enclasure. j
i
Chas Bernhardt had adctiitional concerns about the usability of the #rash enciosure. '
i Qtis Odell wertt over the snvw remaval plan and he went aver the height af the building.
7
Approved June 11, 2001 .
Galen Aasland stated that the PEC had received a parking management plan for the park uses. ~
George Ruther presented an overview of the parking management plan.
John Schofeld asked about use of the bus tumaround.
Russ Forrest clarified the roles of the VR[] and TOV in the use of the park.
Jim Lamont spoke regarding George Rut'her and haw wanderful he rrvas. However, then he went on
to express concerns about the environmental irnpacts of the proposal and questianed whether or
not the Town had required an environmental impact report as part of the praposal.
George Ruther attempted to state tha# there was an enuiranmental impact report subrnatted, but
Galen Aasland refused ta let Gevrge speak.
pick Cleveiand stated that the changes made in response tQ the previous meeting had been
addressed. He expressed concerns about the height of the trash enclvsure. He stated that he still
has cancerns regardang the scope of the project and its impact on the site.
Chas Bernhardt stated that he was fine with the height at 38 ft. He expressed concern with the cold
roof system and stated that extending the roof would provide additional shelter over the trash area,
Doug Cahill stated his agreement vwidh Chas and support for the praject.
i
John Schofield stated that he agreed with Jim Lamont. He stated that we were trying to showe way ~too much stuff in a lii#le space. He s#a#ed his annoyance that the PEC and DRB were looking at a
dumpster design, when the Town was paying so much for design fee5.
Diane Golden stated that whiie she believed that the building was beautifiul, she asked about
previous discussions having alag cabin there. She believed that the praposed building was toa
show3r for the lacal uses proposed.
GaVen Aasland stated that he was in support of tFre proposal and that he supparted the additional
height. He stated that this was unacceptable that the project proceeded at this rate. He stated that
the PEC was the final review authori#y an the conditional use permit.
George Ruther clarified the previous approvals for the 5ite and the staff's rale in the approval
process.
I
Jim Larnonf replied that he had concerns about the process of the appraval far the park.
Dick Cleveland stated that he likes the bui6ding bu# still had concerns regarding the size of the
structure.
~ Galen Aasland asked for clarification of fihe needed motion.
~
Jahn Schnfield made a motion to deny the application.
Dick Gleveland sec.onded the rnotion. ~
Dick Cleveland and John Schofi+eld voted in fiavar of the motion.
8
, Approved June 11, 2001
~ Ga4en Aasland, Doug Cahill, Chas Bernhardt, and Diane Golden voted to deny the motion.
The vote to deny failed 4-2.
Qiane Golcien askecf for additional clarifieation regarding the building.
George Ruther cladfied the remaining seuen issues for the vate.
Chas Bernhardt made a motion tti approve the itern, with the candition that the height af the bu9lding
not #o exceed 38.5 ft_
Doug Cahifl secvnded the motion.
Ga4en Aasland shared a concem regarding the extension of the roof and stated his concern with the
trash enclasure.
Chas Bernhardt stated additionaP corrcerns abaut the process of approvaks in the Town. He stateci
that they had previously approved the conditional use perrrmit for the projeet and had allawed the
project to mave forward in construction. Fie stated that he was not happy with the dumpster ciesign_
Todd Qppenheimer asked if the finak design vf the trash enclosure could be left up to the staff.
Galen Aasland asked if the PEG requested that the roof be extencfed; would that work for the
design team.
~ Otis Odell cfarified that the DRB had requested the particular design of the enckasure. He stated
that the design team would be open #o other aptions.
qick Gleveland asked for clarification on the vote that was up for action today,
Russ Forrest clari#ied that only the seven issues were up for discussion.
The motion passed 5-9 with Schofield oppased. ~
I
4. A request for a variance from Tit4e 14 (Development Standards), Vail Tcavwn Code, ta alfow
far snow storage and parking within the public righ#-of-way, located at 2437 Garmisch Driwe I
Lot 12, Block H, Vail das Schone 2nd Fifing.
Applicant: William H. Mentlik, represented by John Martin, AIA
Pianner: Ann Kjerulf
Ann Kjerulfi presented an overview af the staff memorandum. She indicated that the praposed
resicience would be located on a site with slopes in exceas of 30%. She nated that on lots wEth W
slopes greater than 30%, a garage may be built in the front setback with the resulting difficulty that
littfe space is left for surface parking or snow storage between the garage and front property line.
She stated tha# the parking encroachment into the right-af-way would be 14 ft. and that snow
starage encrvachment into the right-of-way would be 180 sq. f#. She stated that staff was
recommending appraval of the proposed rrariance.
~ Jahn Martin, representing the applicant, stated that he did not believe that the request would
negatively affect the neighborhoad.
9
Approved June 11, 2001 Roma Chmielewski, an adjacent property owner, expressed concern with the amount o# trees ~
proposed far the new home_ She acknowledged the issues she raised were within the purview of
the Design Review Board. 5he requested screening from the snaw storage area on the applicant's
property.
Dick Cleveland asked why this prQperty needed a variance when otfner adjacent pr4perties ciid not.
He also asked why the applican# vwas not proposing to snowmelt the driveway in an efforf to
aliewiate the snaw starage prvblem.
John Martin explained the steepness of the siopes, the amount af retainage required, and the
rec#uirement for a stepped foundation to accarnmodate the unique characteristics of the site_ He
also stated the vwner had no interest in building a three-car garage. Additionalfy, Mr. Mentlik was
concerned about placing a snawmelt systerr7 within the Town right-of-way and off caf his praperty.
George Ruther explained the Town's history regarding the permitting of snow storage within the
right-of-way and the recent adoption af the dewelopment standards.
Chas Bernhardt reiterated the cancem that adjacent neaghbors on $teeper slopes were able to
construct similar homes withaut variances. Chas stated the extra parking space could be
accQmmodated by converting the proposed garage storage area to an additivnal parking space.
Doug Cahill asked about the driveuvay grades propased and expiained that the driveway could be
redesigned ta prewent sarne of the problems encountered with the applicant's design.
.lohn 5chafeld stated he had nQ problem with the snow storage variance, buf ihought there were ~
other options for the additional parkang space wi#hout a variance- He suggested the use of the
crawlspace.
Diane Gnlden stated she agreed with the other Commissioners.
Galen Aasland also agreed with the felfow Commissianers and stated he thaugh# the other parking
space cauld be facilitated without a variance. He said he was ok with the snow storage request.
Doug Cahill moved to approve the request for snow storage in the right-of-way.
' John Schafield seconded.
Galen Aasland asked that the pRB determine the appropriate amount of Iandscaping to screen the
snow storage_
The mation passed 6-0.
Doug Gahill moved to deny the request far avariance ta allav+r for parking in the right-of-way, with a
finding that ather alternatives existed to salue the parking problem withEn property boundaries.
John Schafield seconded.
The motion passed 6-0.
i
10
` Approued June 11, 2001
~ 5. A request for a rninor subdivision and a variance from Sectian 12-6D-5 of the Town Code to
allouv for the resubdivision of Lot 1, Strauss Subciivision, a resubdivision of Lots 46 & 47,
Vail Village 1Nest Filing No. 2, re-creating Lots 46 &47, lacated at 1916 & 1936 West Gvre
Creek Drive.
Applicant: Pat Dauphinais, representing Richard Strauss
Planner: Allison Qchs
Allisan Ochs introduced the application and explained the history of the prr,perty, inc1uding the
previ4us vacation of the carnman lot boundary. She stated the PEC needed to tabae the i#em today,
since an accurate survey was not yet available.
Jay Peterson explained the applicanYs request and the conditions of the previaus lot Iine vacation.
He stated that the great majvrity of lots in the neighbarhood did not conform to the minFmum lot size
flutlined in the Primary/Secondairy Zone District. Jay stated the two smaller homes an the
respective lots wrouid be mare consistent with the established neighborhoad character.
Daug Cahill stated he agreed with Jay Peterson and that the Yot line shoulcf never have been
vacated.
John Schvfield said he would like an opinion from the Town Attorney regarding the need for a
variance. Jahn stated the inc4rrect information fram previous stafF constituted a hardship. Allison Ochs stated the variance was necessary, since the previous plat was recorded.
~ Diane Golderr stated she suppor#ed the request.
Dick Cleveland stated it vuas a matter of equity with ather comparable Iats and that he agreed with
his fellow Comrraissioners.
Ghas Bemharcit stated ne agreed with his fellow Commissioners.
Galen Aasland stated he agreed with his felkouu Cvmmissioners and that he wauld vate tv apprave
the application.
.Jahn Schofield maved #o takrFe the item to the next June PEC meeting_
Doug Cahill seconded.
The matian passed 6-0. I
6. A request far a conditional use permit, to all4w for an addition to the Vai! Valley Medical
Center, located at 181 West Meadow []riveJLats E F, Vail Village 2nd Filing.
Applicant; Vail Va11ey Medical Center, represented by Braun Associates
Pianner: George Ruther
George Ruther presented the application to the PEG. He stated staff's recommendatran was far
~ approval with the conditidns outfined in the staff rnemoraredum.
Galen Aasland inquired about the percent of landscape area in the plan.
11
Approved June 11. 2001 ,
Cliff Eldridge, Presedent of the VVMC, spoke about the application and the needs Qf the haspital as ~
part of the Phase I and Phase II plans. He stated 90% of the hospital's needs involved autpatient
surgery and obstetrics.
Russ Sedback, princepal with Hansen Lind Meyer (architect), discussed the programmatic elements
and architectural concepts behind the plan. He presented a massing rnodeP to the PEC and
explained the intent behind the new design. He explairaed the need ta raise the new floor lewel to
match the existing filoor levels and the need ta tie the parapet height into the existing design. Russ
asked for a littfe lati#ude with regard to the height to a11ow for the screening of the mechanical
equipment with a parapet wall. He stated the height ofi the screen wall would be about 53 feet. He
stated the existing parapet wafl was 43 feet above grade, but xhat another 10 feet would now be
required to facilitate the new parapet screen wall.
Galen Aasland inquired abaut the existing height.
Russ Sedback stated the existing height was approxirraately 50 feet. Russ then went over the site
plan with the PEC and explained the proposed landscaping. Russ stated the plan presenfed had
b+een reviewed by the neighbors and that same of the aesthetic design features were aktered based
upon the concerns crf adjacent residents. He stated the hospital's desire was to present an updated
design for the new addition without deviating greatly from the design constructed in the 197fl°s. He
stafed their intent was to "de-institutianalize" the design of the building in an attempt to transiiion
inta mvre of a residentiaf feeL Russ $tated their plan was for emergency vehicle access off of the
South Frontage Road_
Dick C4eveland inquired about a location far a"home base" for ambuiances at this end of the valley. ~
Cliff Eldridge explained thai a locafian was pending, but it was the haspital's intent to mainfain an
ambulance base in Vail.
John Schofeld asked abaut the future location of the helipad.
Russ Sedback explained they were in cornmunication with the neighbors abvut an acceptable
future Iocation for the helipad.
Galen Aasland inquired abaut the pnssibility for a grade-separated connection between the existing
helepad iocation and the hospital, with the possibility of a corridoe beneath the Frontage Road.
Russ Sedback explained the canstraints and difficulties with the existing gracies alang Sau#h
Frontage Road, However, he explained the hospital would resolve the ambulance and helipad
issues before they returned for review of the final Phase II master plan.
Dominic Mauriello, a plannirog consuCtant with Braun Associates, spake regarding the stree#scape
eoncepts fflr West Meadow Drive and said the hospital was on board to cQntribute improvements as
part of the Phase II master plan. He alsa ta{ked about some of the qualitative improvements to the
tacility and the reduction in staffing needs and off-site impacts due to the relocatran of certain
facilities to the new Edwards locatian. Dominic stated there was a net reduction in parking
generatian ofi six spaces. He also spoke about hospital inCentive programs to reduee parking
impacts including shuttle services and carpool incentives. Then Dominic spoke about the building
height proposed and mentioned the heights af adjacent buildings. ~
12
v
- APPraved June 11, 2001
~ Dick Cleveland inquired about the pr4posed med'rcal staff reduction as part of the Phase I
improvements.
Cfff Eldridge referenced the permanent reloca#i9n of 17,000 square feet of office space to Edwards.
Chas Bemhardt asked how many parking spaces the hospital rents from the Evergreen L,odge. He
also asked haw many employees park in the LROnshead parlcing structure.
CEiff Eldridge stated it was used by employees in the affwseason while parking v+ras free, but #Faa#
employees (about 10,000 tripslyear) used the shuttle system while parking fees were in effect at the
Lionshead structure.
Jim Lamont (VaEI Village Homevwners' Association), stated the proposal was one of the "best
thought out projects" he'd seen in a wttiile. However, he voiced concems about the next phase and
opportunPties for urban design interconnect, including a subterranean interconnect. Jirn also
expressed concerns about Frantage Road tcaffic impacts and design improuements. Jim
complimented Tvwn staff and thre design team far addressing many of the Iang-term issues up fronf
during the Phase f review process. .
Dsck Gleveland stated he was generally support'rve of the praject, but said he had some cancems
about parking and the proposed height. He also said he had sorne concems about the loss of
surgeans and the diminutiQn of ambu[ance service within Vail. Dick stated the Frontage Road
trat#ic impacts needed to be addressed prior #a Phase II.
~ Chas Berrihardt stated concems regarding parking and said he was hesitan# to allow an expansian
of the facBl6ties without sufficient aitentian to additional parking during Phase I. He said he thought a.
lapse of 2 or 2'/~ years was tao long to uwait befirveen phases to address the immediate parfcing
needs.
Daug Cahill stated he agreed with his fellow Cammissaoners. Daug aiso expressed concems about
mavirag the ambulance facilikies away from Vail. I3oug inquired abaut the additional parking
generated by construction vehqcles and construct'rorr workers, but said he was comfortable rrtioving
farward witFi Phase I at this paint.
Jahn Schofield stated the parking at the hospatal was managed better than any other proper#yf in
Town, but that was because there uvasn't enaugh parking an site taday. John said he was ok
moving fonrvard with Phase I, but tha# parking needed to be addressed by 2043 or sooner, whether
or not the Phase II plan would get irnplemented. John also had cancerns with delivery traffic. John
asked the DRB to laok iroto the Ioss o# mature trees along West Meactow Drive..
Diane Golden aIss expressed cancem abvut the Ioss of ambu9ances and the traffic along the Sauth
Frontage Road. Diane stated she had no problem with the prQposed height of tMe parapet screen
wall alang the roof.
Galen Aasland s'tated he vvas exci#ed about the project. Galen was also concemed abauk the loss
of ambulances and physicians within Vail. He asked for a condition to require an outdoor deck to
add interest at street level and a place for employee activities during lunch or breaks. Galen akso
stated parking was a prQblem. He stated the landscaping prvposed was appropriate for Phase I,
~ but that a quantitative measure of landscape coverage would be required for phase II. He had
some cvncern about the height proposed.
13
r
Appraved ,lune 11, 2001 .
Dominic Al1auriello addressed sorne of the Commissioners' concems regarding the project. ~
John Schofield moved to approve the request, in accordance with the findings and conditions listed
in the staff memo, with the adciitional provision that trte conditional use permit for Phase 1 expires
on May 31, 2003 and that uf Phase 2 is not approved and perrnitted far constructian by that dafe,
that the haspital will provide additianal parking fior Phase 1, as determined by the Planning and
Environmental CommissiQn
Daug Cahill seconded the mvtion.
Galen Aasland asked for an amended condition to add a deck far Phase 11 tn the south side.
John Schafield stated he thought it was not timely to address Phase II at this time.
The motion carried 5-1 (Bemhardt oppased).
7. A request for a worksessian to tfiscuss a new special development district, to allow for the
redevefapment of the Vaal Racquet Club, located at 4695 Vail Racquet Club C?riveNail
Racquet Club Coradaminiums, Bighom 5th Addition,
applicant: Racquet Club G+wners Assaciation, represented by Fritzlen F'ierce Architects.
Planrter: Brent V'Jilson
Brent Wilsan made a presentation per the s4aff inemorandum.
Matt Ivy intrvduced the proposal and discussed the assocEation's intent wiih the proposal. ~
Tom Dubais, of Fritzlen Pierce Architects, made a power pvEnf presentation illustrating the tlaree
dpticrns currently under consoderatron by the association. The applicant was Vooking for direction on
the proposals and direction on wfitich application vehicle #hey should pursue.
Brent Wilson discussed the rraerits of the three options.
Chas Bernhardt favprecf the SDD.
Diane Golden favored F'fan 1 using the SDD pracess as the application vehicle.
Dick Cleveland questioned what percentage of #he owners and pubiic at large were membefs af the
club.
Matt stated that all owners were members of the elub and 300 at large members totaling over 600
club members.
John Schofield stated that the SDQ process was likely the mnst appropriate, given the goals of the
prQject. He requested upgrading af the existing units as part of the SDD pubfic benefits.
Doug Cahill agreed tJhat the SDD pracess was an appropriate rerriewr vehicle. He believed ehu's
needed ta be provided. He felt flption 3 had some possible merits.
~ i
14
, Approved June 11, 2001
~ Galen Aasland was in favor of the SDD process because of the total size of the development site.
He believed the propasal was an excellent project for the Tawn and applicant. He expressed a
concem that the club might become too exclusive far Iocals as prices increase as a result of
redevelopment costs.
Galen Aasland suggested that as the pians develop, that a greater mixture of architecture and uses
be incorparated into the design. He suggested office space.
8. A request #ar a wark session to discuss amending certaFn residential zane districts in the
Town of Vail to allow hame day care facilities subject to the issuance of a concfitronal use
permit and a home occupation permit.
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: George Ruther
GeQrge Ru#her explained the Tawn's interests in evaluating the provisian of day care facilities within °
residential zone distriets. He explained the state's regulatory guidelines and local municipalities'
guidelines for review. Gearge described the conditianal use permit rewiew process and potentiaf
issues for cansideration by the PEC. He described tfire poten#ial for new definitions for different
types of home day care facilities.
Tina Cook, a local resident, described the need fvr childcare services within Vail. Tina read from
statistics pruvided by Eagle County indgcating the need for additional childcare services given the
significant number of working paren#s in the valley. Tina iterated concerrrs that many parents were
~ seeking childcare from unficensed praviders wha were not in compfiance with $tate statutes, Tina
pravided a recpmmendation for some zoning provisions given the requirements for ouiside play by
the State of Colarado and the amaunt of traffac generated by hame day care facifties. Another
concern Tina fterated was that the State allowed for one additianal employee on site rrvhile many
home caccupation or condi#ional use permit consideratians do not allaw for on-site empioyees within
hame occupations.
Dick Cleve6and discussed the appropriateness of treating home day care as a hame occupation
permit, versus aseparate "use-specific°" conditional use permit. Dick also requested a Idst of state
requirements for physlical property conditions necessary fvr licensing.
George Ruther agreed to return ta the PEC with some more specifie IanguagE and guitielines fior
eonsideration at a future PEC meeting.
9. A request for the review of a proposed text amendment to Chapter 11, Design Review, of
the Zoning Regulations to allow fvr procedural changes to the performance band process as
prescribed in the Vail Town Cpcie.
Applicant: Tawn of Vail
Pianner: George Ruther
TABLED TO JUNE 11, 2001 p
~
15
Approved June 11, 2001 - ~
i
10. A request for a conditional use permit, ta allaw for the constructivn af a soccer field, located ~
at 610 N. Frontage Rtf. West1 A portion of Tract C, Vail Potato Patch_ A full mEtes & bounds
legal description is available a# the Qepartment of Communi#y Development.
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: Alfison Ochs
TABLED TO JUNE 11, 2001
11, A request for a variance from Section 12-6D-6 (Setbacks), Vail Tawn Code, to allow for ttte
construction of a garage within the required frant setback, located at 1956 Gare Creek Drive
1 Lot 45, Vail Village West Fiiing #2.
Applicant: David Irwin
Planner: Ann Kjerulf
TABLEQ TO JUNE 11, 2001
12. A request for a variance from Section 12-71-1-10 af the Vail Town Code, to allow for a
proposed additfan in the rear setback, lacated at 660 V11esf Lionshead PlacelLot 1, Vail
Lionshead 1st Filing,
Applicant: Lians Square Condo Associatian
Planner: Bill Gibson
WITHDRAWN ~
13. Approval of April 23, 2001 minutes
Galen Aasland requested a change to page 8- Saundra Spaeh's name wa5 speNed incorrectly.
Ghas Bemhard# maved ta apprave the amended minutes.
I Dicic Cleveland seconded.
~ The rnotion carried 6-0.
14. lnformation Update
The applications and information about the proposals are avaifable 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 cali 479-2138 for in#armation.
Sign language interpretation aWailable upon request with 24 haur raotificatian. Please call 479-2356,
Telephone for the Hearing Cmpaired, for infoemation,
Gommunity aevelopment Department
0
16
`4'~~.. ~"~~t • . . .
f
=SA~`~ ~
~ -
:....w~ w , f ~ #kS:~l'`~.~•--
VAIL RUAT) <,4,.
a. yy
~ . . '
~t
r
~ _Y"'ar ~.~~_r~~ ~ ~ ~ ~•+•y
~i'J • ~ ~ +i ~ ~ '~~,~ti _
~ _
~'~i.•' ~ . . ~
~ " • :
. o~
~
d~
r-
~
,
~
I TF
~
rW~ ~ ~ 1•( ~ ~ 4 ~t ,a~7 ~i.• }
FriK$ ~ . ~ ~ ~ • ~ .
Y C ~pe~1 ~ ffi
11
. ~T ~ ~i5 - ~ 3~'~:: 4 ~ i
Z
~ S4.;P ~i-•, °F,.; ~ B
~7 F
U-,', ~
n a
i
~
z P ~ z~ ~
~ ~ ~
0
e
1
. ,
~o~
- 1
f14
11 ~
ll ~
i '
,
M •~•~~~~~lr~~y`~".'"+a
•~5~ s
~~q I
~
I
,
4 ~ !
J 4 ~
U-F-19 1 ~
~AAA.,
y ~ ~ ~ r (
,
,
r-I ~ ° ' x+
57~
4
'0$
a.r.-. oas.:~ti ~
~:vcy^"~ ~
~to~~° r
f ~ f
,
~ 1 1
oo
~ ~ .
~ ~ ~ r• 1
s r ~
?
i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~
ll
I '
.
I '
~ I
I
~
I
* I
~
~
3 4 ~
q ~ p Y
C k. ~ ~ : 1
r. A
I '
}
~
_i.. a ~L
i I~~~~"'~ ~ ~4$ i f Aj ' ~ ~
W
f r ~ J a r;' ~ +
. ~
q a;
/ f
- i
•
~
!I Li ~
!r
.
, r
,
+ a
~
~
a~ I
~
~
~
~
i
,
I
~
I
~
I
.
I
~
~
t
ea ~ I
.
~
~
~ I
'°r. ~ ~
A ~ r....~.~~ ~
o {
w ~
~
.
r
~
~ r
~ r
s I ~
1 1
t ~
! t
i
!
,
~ ?
a
,
~
,
i
,
~
,
r
,
~
,
?
,
?
,
r
,
i
~ i
,
~
~
t
i
?
i
~ ~~i'.~~~Y.~~ri~r ry~?~~i~Yr~~~nl~~~~rfyf~~~~~i~i~~~~~~~lWi~r~~
f
W ,
f
f
~ M
i
~ j
~ ?
1
~
1
~ f
t •
~ly-
~ ~ :f " - t: ~ ~
as ~
i,
,
A`Ov
, .
-
I i. P • T`~ ~ I ` 54~- -
i -
-41 ~ .
a ~
.
I
%
~ ? ~ r . " s - ` _
- ~
~
-
. ~ . ,
• .
fiEft!
- ~ -e
~r~:•~ ~i ~ i ~
4 - `:i: r•
~ i..i. I
~
~
' ~
1
I
_ I
,
y~
'~1 ~~r ~ ~
~ - ;
~ ~ ~
_ ~:41', ~
~n , , ~
;
~
' ~
' i
~
x
1
,a ,
~
1 a 't
1, ri
1' '
~ V.~ ,
~ ~
~i
t
, ~
y~ r.'
6 .
~ _ "
~ -~,:,o
,
~ . _
%
^ ~
o~~:
.~i r ~
r~;
`
,r,
~
,i _
V'~'
t
~
~ 4. ` ' .
; '",~4 ~
i ~ ~
' ~ ~
~
t .~,1
~ -