Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2001-0813 PEC
THIS ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY PUBLIC NOTICE of NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail will hold a public hearing in accordance with Section 12 -3 -6 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail on August 13, 2001, at 2:00 P.M. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. In consideration of: A staff report on an approval of a minor amendment to SDD #5, Vail Run, to allow for the remodel of an egress staircase, located at 1000 Lionsridge Loop /Lot C -11, Lions Ridge Filing 1. Applicant: Vail Run Resort Community Association, Inc. Planner: Brent Wilson A request for a variance from Section 12 -6D -5 ( "Lot Area and Site Dimensions "), Vail Town Code, and a final review of a minor subdivision located at 3834 and 3838 Bridge Road/ Lots 11 & 12, Bighorn Subdivision 2nd Addition. Applicant: Gary Weiss, represented by Steve Riden, Architect Planner: Ann Kjerulf A request for a variance from Section 12 -6D -5 ( "Lot Area and Site Dimensions "), Vail Town Code, and a final review of a minor subdivision located at 3816 and 3826 Lupine Drive and 3828 Bridge Road/ Lots 8, 9, & 10, Bighorn Subdivision 2 "d Addition_ Applicant: Jeff Dahl and June Frazier, represented by Steve Riden, Architect Planner: Ann Kjerulf A request for a variance from Title 14 (Development Standards) Town Code, to allow for improvements to an existing residential private drive, located at 1450 Buffehr Creek Road/Lot 2, Cliff side Subdivision. Applicant: Mike Young Planner: Brent Wilson A request for a final review and recommendation to the Vail Town Council of proposed text amendments to the Vail Town Code, Chapter 12 -61, Housing zone District, and Chapter 12 -2, Definitions, to allow for additional uses and to amend definitions in regard thereto. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner Allison Ochs A request for the final review of a major amendment to Special Development District #6, Vail Village Inn, to allow for the redevelopment of an existing hotel, located at 100 East Meadow Drive, Lots M and 4, Block 5 -D, Vail Village 1 5k Filing. Applicant: Daymer Corporation, represented by Jay Peterson Planner: George Ruther A request for a final review and a recommendation to the Vail Town Council on the Town of Vail's proposed Meadow Drive streetscape improvement project, located at East /West Meadow Drive, Vail Village. 40 Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: George Ruther TOWN OF VAIL 1 A request for a final review and recommendation to the Vail Town Council of proposed text amendments to the Vail Town Code, Chapters 12 -7H & I, Lionshead Mixed Use 1 & Lionshead Mixed Use 2, to amend the regulations regarding commercial ski storage and to amend Chapter 12 -2, Definitions, and setting forth details in regards thereto. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Allison Ochs A request for a recommendation to the Town Council for the adoption of two view corridors within Lionshead, as identified within the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. View Corridor 1 is located approximately at the main pedestrian exit looking southwest towards the Gondola lift line, View Corridor 2 is located approximately from the pedestrian plaza at the east end of the Lifthouse Lodge looking south up the Gondola lift line. A more specific legal description of the two view corridors is on file at the Community Development Department. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Allison Ochs A request for a final review of the proposed parking management plan for the Vail Gateway, located at 12 Vail Road I portions of lots O and N, Block 5D, Vail Village 1S' Filing. Applicant: Mountain Owners, L.P., represented by Braun Associates Planner: Allison Ochs The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours in the project planner's office, located at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend project orientation and the site visits that precede the public hearing in the Town of Vail Community Development Department. Please call 479 -2138 for information. Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 -hour notification. Please call 479- 2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. Community Development Department Published July 27, 2001 in the Vail Trail. s 0 • PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION PUBLIC MEETING SCHEDULE Monday, August 13, 2001 PROJECT ORIENTATION / _ Community Development Dept. PUBLIC WELCOME 12:00 pm MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Site Visits : 1:00 pm 1. Weiss Lots — 3834 & 3838 Bridge Road 2, Frazier /Dahl Lots — 3816 & 3826 Lupine Drive, 3828 Bridge Road 1 Vail Village Inn — 100 E. Meadow Drive 4. Gateway Building — 12 Vail Road Driver: George 1 ( * W_D: ) 3 NOTE: If the PEG hearing extends until 6:00 p.m., the board may break for dinner from 6:00 - 6:30 Public Hearing - Town Council Chambers 2:00 pm 1. A request for a variance from Section 12 -6D -5 ( "Lot Area and Site Dimensions "), Vail Town Code, and a final review of a minor subdivision located at 3834 and 3838 Bridge Road/ Lots 11 & 12, Bighorn Subdivision 2 d Addition. Applicant: Gary Weiss, represented by Steve Riden, Architect Planner: Ann Kjerulf 2. A request for a variance from Section 12 -6D -5 ( "Lot Area and Site Dimensions "), Vail Town Code, and a final review of a minor subdivision located at 3816 and 3826 Lupine Drive and 3828 Bridge Road/ Lots 8, 9, & 10, Bighorn Subdivision 2nd Addition. Applicant: Jeff Dahl and June Frazier, represented by Steve Riden, Architect Planner Ann Kjerulf A request for a final review of the proposed parking management plan for the Vail Gateway, located at 12 Vail Road / portions of lots O and N, Block 5D, Vail Village 1 51 Filing. Applicant: Mountain Owners, L.P., represented by Braun Associates Planner: Allison Ochs 4. A request for the final review of a major amendment to Special Development District #6, Vail Village Inn, to allow for the redevelopment of an existing hotel, located at 100 East Meadow Drive, Lots M and ©, Block 5 -D, Vail Village 15t Filing. Applicant: Daymer Corporation, represented by Jay Peterson Planner: George Ruther do JA TOWN OF YAIL A request for a final review and recommendation to the Vail Town Council of proposed text amendments to the Vail Town Code, Chapters 12 -7H & I, Lionshead Mixed Use 1 & Lionshead Mixed Use 2, to amend the regulations regarding commercial ski storage and to amend Chapter 12 -2, Definitions, and setting forth details in regard thereto. R Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Allison Ochs A request for a final review and recommendation to the Vail Town Council of proposed text amendments to the Vail Town Code, Chapter 12 -61, Housing Zone District, and Chapter 12- 2, Definitions, to allow for additional uses and to amend definitions in regard thereto. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Allison Ochs 7. A staff report on an approval of a minor amendment to SDD #5, Vail Run, to allow for the remodel of an egress staircase, located at 1000 Lionsridge Loop /Lot C -11, Lions Ridge Filing 1. Applicant: Vail Run Resort Community Association, Inc. Planner: Brent Wilson 8. A request for a final review and recommendation to the Town Council for the adoption of two view corridors within Lionshead, as identified within the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. View Corridor 1 is located approximately at the main pedestrian exit looking southwest towards the Gondola lift line. View Corridor 2 is located approximately from the pedestrian plaza at the east end of the Lifthouse Lodge looking south up the Gondola lift line. A more specific legal description of the two view corridors is on file at the Community Development Department. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Allison Ochs TABLED UNTIL AUGUST 27, 2001 9. A request for a final review and a recommendation to the Vail Town Council on the Town of Vail's proposed amendment to the Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan, located at East /West Meadow Drive, Vail Village. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: George Ruther TABLED UNTIL AUGUST 27, 2001 10. A request for a variance from Title 14 (Development Standards) Town Code, to allow for improvements to an existing residential private drive, located at 1450 Buffehr Creek Road /Lot 2, Cliffside Subdivision. Applicant: Mike Young Planner: Brent Wilson 11. Approval of July 23, 2001 minutes WITHDRAWN 2 • • I� U 12, Information Update ❖ CAPA aspen Conference logistics The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours in the project planner's office located at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. Please call 479 -2133 for information. Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479 -2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. Community Development Department Published August 10, 2001 in the Vail Trail. • • Public Notice PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION PUBLIC MEETING SCHEDULE Monday, August Public Hearing Town Council Charnbers - 2:00 P.M. 1 A request for a variance trcrn Se�on 12- 6D-5 ("Lot Area and Site Dimensions'), Code, and a final review Of a minor subdivision krcaied at 3x34 and 3838 Bridge R adA -Dts 11 and 12, Bighorn Subdivision 2nd Addition. Applicant: Gary Weiss represented by Steve Rklen, Architect Plenrrer: Ann Klerulf 2. A request for a variance from Section 12- 6.-5 { "Lot Area and Site Dimensions "j, Vail Town Code and a linal review of a minor subdivislon Lo- cated at 3816 and 3826 Lupine Drive and 3828 Bridge Roacill-ots 8, 9 and 10, Bighorn Subdivi- sion 2nd Addition. Applicant: Jeff Dahl and June Frazier repre- sented by Steve Rlden, Architect Planner Ann Kjeruil 3, A request for a final review of the pro- posed parking management plan for the Vail Gateway located at 12 Vail Road/portions of Lots O and N, Block 5D, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant Mountain Owners, L.P. represent- ed by Braun Associates Planner: Allison Ochs 4 A request for the final review of a major amendment to Special Development Distdcl 06, Vail Village Inn, to allow for the redevelopment of an exisil g hotel located at 100 East Meadow Drive, Lots M and R, Block 5•D. Vail Village tat Filing. Applicant: Daymer Corporation represented by J7 Peterson J7, George Ruttier 5. A request for a final review and recom- mendatlon to the Vail Town Council of proposed text amendments to the Vail Town Code, Chap- ters 12 -7H and I, Lionshead Mixed Use 1 and Li- onshead Mixed Use 2, to amend the regulations regarding commercial ski storage and to amend Chapter 12.2, Definitions and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicam: Town of Vail • Planner: Allison Ochs 6. A request for a final review and recom- mendation to the Vail Town Council of proposed text amendments to the Vail Town Code, Chapter 12 -61. Housing Zone District, and Chapter 12 -2, Definitions, to allow for additional uses and to amend definitions in regard thereto. A piicant: Town. of Vail Planner: Allison Ochs 7. A staff report on an approval of a minor amendment to SDD #5, Vail Run, to allow lcr the remodel of an egress staircase located at 1000 Lionsridge Loop/L C -11, Lions Ridge Filing 1. Applicant: Vail Run Resort Communlly Asso- ciation. Inc. Planner: Brent Wilson 8. A request for a final review and recom- mandation to the Town Council for the adoption of two view corridors willtin Lionshead, as identi- fled within the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan., View Corridor 1 is located approximately at the main pedestrian exit looking southwest to- wards the Gondola lift line. View Corridor 2 is lo- cated approximately from the pedestrian plaza at the east end of the Lifthouse Lodge looking south up he Gondola lift line. A more specific legal de- soription of the two view corridors Is on file at the Community Development Department. Applicant:.Town of Vail Planner Allison Ochs TABLED UNTIL AUGUST 27, 2001 9. A request for a final review and a raMM- meridatlon to the Vail Town Council on the Town of Vail's proposed amendment to the Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan located at EastlWest Meadow Drive, Vail Village. Applicant: Town of Vaif Planner: George Ruther TABLED UNTIL AUGUST 27, 2001 10. A request for a variance from Title 14 (Development Standards) Town Code, to alloy for improvements to an existing residential pri- vate drive located at 1450 Buttehr Greek Road(Lot 2, Clifiside Subdivision. Applicant: Mike Young Planner. Brent Wilson VINTHDRAWN 11. Approval of July 23. 2001 minutes 12. Information Update: CAPA Aspen Conference logistics This applications and information about the proposals are available for public Inspection dur- ing regufar office hours In the p roject planner's of- fice located at the Town of Vail Community De- velopment Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is Invited to attend project orientation and the site visits that precede the public hearing in the Town of Vail Community Development De- parimenl. Please call 479 -2138 for information. Sign language interpretation available upon re- quest with 24 -hour notification. Please Call 479• 2356, Telephone for The Hearing Impaired, for in- formation. TOWN OF VAIL DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Published In The Vail Trait on August 10, 2001 • • • PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION PUBLIC MEETING RESULTS Monday, August 13, 2001 PROJECT ORIENTATION 1- Community Development Dept. PUBLIC WELCOME 12:00 pm MEMBERS PRESENT Galen Aasland Chas Bernhardt Diane Golden Brian Doyon Doug Cahill Dick Cleveland Site Visits : 1. Weiss Lots — 3834 & 3838 Bridge Road 2. Frazier /Dahl Lots — 3816 & 3826 Lupine Drive, 3828 Bridge Road 3. Vail Village Inn — 100 E. Meadow Drive 4. Gateway Building — 12 Vail Road Driver: George 1:00 pm NOTE: If the PEG hearing extends until 6:00 p.m., the board may break for dinner from 6:00 - 6:30 Public Hearing_ - Town Council Chambers 2:00 pm A request for a variance from Section 12 -6D -5 ( "Lot Area and Site Dimensions "), Vail Town Code, and a final review of a minor subdivision located at 3834 and 3838 Bridge Road/ Lots 11 & 12, Bighorn Subdivision 2 nd Addition. Applicant: Gary Weiss, represented by Steve Riden, Architect Planner: Ann Kjerulf MOTION: Chas Bernhardt SECOND: Dick Cleveland VOTE: 6 -0 TABLED UNTIL AUGUST 27, 2001 2. A request for a variance from Section 12 -6D -5 ( "Lot Area and Site Dimensions "), Vail Town Code, and a final review of a minor subdivision located at 3816 and 3826 Lupine Drive and 3828 Bridge Road/ Lots 8, 9, & 10, Bighorn Subdivision 2 nd Addition. Applicant: Jeff Dahl and June Frazier, represented by Steve Riden, Architect Planner: Ann Kjerulf MOTION: Brian Doyon SECOND: Doug Cahill VOTE: 6 -0 • APPROVED MINOR SUBDIVISION WITH 3 CONDITIONS: MEMBERS ABSENT John Schofield TOIII'N OF VAL 1. That the minor subdivision shall only be valid if the variance from section 12- 6D -5 is also approved. 0 2. That the applicant shall revise the plat prior to recording, in accordance with the Town's subdivision regulations, to indicate the total buildable area on each proposed lot, to delineate the buildable area on each proposed lot, and to indicate the locations of all applicable hazards_ 3. That within one year of today's date (or prior to recording of the plat) the parking within the town right -of -way shall be removed to comply with all town standards. MOTION: Brian Doyon SECOND: Chas Bernhardt VOTE: 6 -0 APPROVED VARIANCE 3. A request for a final review of the proposed parking management plan for the Vail Gateway, located at 12 Vail Road / portions of lots O and N, Block 5D, Vail Village 1s' Filing. Applicant: Mountain Owners, L-P., represented by Braun Associates Planner: Allison Ochs MOTION: Brian Doyon SECOND: Diane Golden VOTE: 5 -1 (Cleveland opposed) APPROVED WITH 1 CONDITION: That a staff report regarding the parking situation is transmitted to the PEC within one year or when the office space is leased at 75% of capacity. is 4. A request for the final review of a major amendment to Special Development District #6, Vail Village Inn, to allow for the redevelopment of an existing hotel, located at 140 East Meadow Drive, Lots M and O, Block 5 -D, Vail Village 1 Filing. Applicant: Dayrner Corporation, represented by Jay Peterson Planner: George Ruther MOTION: Dick Cleveland SECOND: Diane Golden VOTE: 4 -2 (Cleveland & Bernhardt opposed) APPROVED RECOMMENDATION TO THE TOWN COUNCIL WITH 22 CONDITIONS AND THE FOLLOWING FINDING: "That the proposed major amendment to Special Development District #6, Vail Village Inn, complies with the nine design criteria outlined in Section 12 -9A -8 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code, The applicant, as required, has demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Commission that any adverse effects of the requested deviations from the development standards of the underlying zoning are outweighed by the public benefits provided or has demonstrated that one or more of the development standards is not applicable, or that a practical solution consistent with the public interest has been achieved. Further, the Commission finds that the requested conditional use permit to allow for the operation of a fractional fee club complies with the applicable criteria and is consistent with the development goals and objectives of the Town. Lastly, public notice of this public hearing has been sent to adjacent property owners and published in a local newspaper of record in accordance with Section 12 -3 -6C of the Town Code. " 1. That the Developer submits detailed civil engineering drawings of the required off -site improvements (street lights, drainage, curb and gutter, sidewalks, grading, road improvements, etc.) as identified on the off -site improvements plan to the Town of Vail Public Works Department for review and approval, prior to application for a building permit. 2. That the Developer submits a detailed final landscape plan and final architectural elevations for review and approval of the Town of Vail Design Review Board, prior to application for a building permit. 3. The sdd approval time requirements and limitations of Section 12 -9A -12 shall apply to this major amendment and, in addition, the phasing of the construction of the hotel shall not be permitted. 4. That the Developer submits the following plans to the Department of Community Development, for review and approval, as a part of the building permit application for the hotel: a. An Erosion Control and Sedimentation Plan; b. A Construction Staging and Phasing Plan; C. A Stormwater Management Plan; d. A Site Dewatering Plan; and e, A Traffic Control Plan. 5. That the Developer receives a conditional use permit to allow for the construction of Type III Employee Housing Units in Phase IV of the District, in accordance with Chapter 12 -16, prior to the issuance of a building permit, to provide housing on -site. 6. That the Developer submits a complete set of plans to the Colorado Department of Transportation for review and approval of a revised access permit, prior to application for a building permit. 7. That the Developer meets with the Town staff to prepare a memorandum of understanding outlining the responsibilities and requirements of the required off -site improvements, prior to second reading of an ordinance approving the major amendment. B. That the Developer submits a complete set of plans responding to the design concerns expressed by Greg Hall, Director of Public Works &. Transportation, in his memorandum to George Ruther, dated 12113199. The drawings shall be submitted, reviewed and approved by the Town Engineer, prior to final Design Review Board approval. 9. That the Developer records public pedestrian easements between the hotel and the Phase III Condominiums, between the hotel and the Phase V Building, and along the Vail Road frontage. The easements shall be prepared by the Developer and submitted for review and approval of the Town Attorney. The easements shall be recorded with the Eagle County Clerk & Recorder's Office prior to the issuance of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy. 10. That the Developer records a deed - restriction, which the Town is a party to, on the Phase IV property prohibiting the public use of the spa facility in the hotel. Said restriction may be revoked if the Developer is able to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Town that adequate provisions for vehicle parking have been made to accommodate the public use of the spa. The restriction shall be recorded prior to the issuance of a building permit. • 11. That the Developer submits a final exterior building materials list, a typical wall sections, architectural details and a complete color rendering for review and approval of the Design Review Board, prior to making an application for a building permit. 12. That the Developer submits a comprehensive sign program proposal for the Vail Plaza Hotel for review and approval of the Design Review Board, prior to the issuance of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy. 13. That the Developer submits a roof -top mechanical equipment plan for review and approval of the Design Review Board prior to the issuance of a building permit All roof -top mechanical equipment shall be incorporated into the overall design of the hotel and enclosed and screened from public view. 14. That the Developer posts a bond with the Town of Vail to provide financial security for the 125% of the total cost of the required off -site public improvements. The bond shall be in place with the Town prior to the issuance of a building permit. 15. That the Developer installs bollards or similar safety devices at the intersection of the delivery access driveway and the sidewalk along the South Frontage Road to prevent conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles, prior to the issuance of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy. 16, That the Developer studies and redesigns the entrance on the north side of the hotel across from the entrance to the Gateway Building to create a more inviting entrance or a design that redirects pedestrians to another entrance. The final design shall be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Board prior to the issuance of a building permit. 17. That the Developer coordinates efforts with the owners of the Gateway Building to create a below ground access for loading and delivery to the Gateway from the Vail Plaza Hotel to resolve potential loading and delivery concerns at the Gateway. If a coordinated effort can be reached the Developer shall submit revised plans to the Town of Vail Community Development Department for review and approval, prior to the issuance of a building permit. 40 18. That the Developer revises the proposed floor plans for the Vail Plaza Hotel to provide freight elevator access to the lowest level of the parking structure. The revised plans shall be submitted to the Town of Vail Community Development Department for review and approval prior to the issuance of a building permit. 19. That the Developer redesigns the proposed elevator tower to create an architectural feature atop the tower and revises the proposed building elevations and roof plan prior to final review of the proposal by the Design Review Board. The Board shall review and approve the revised design. 20. That the Developer, in cooperation with the Town of Vail Public Works Department design and construct a left -turn lane on Vail Road and reconfigure the landscape island in the South Frontage Road median to eliminate left -turns from the loading /delivery. The construction shall be completed prior to the issuance of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy. 21. That the Developer provides a centralized loading /delivery facility for the use of all owners and tenants within Special Development District No. 6_ Access or use of the facility shall not be unduly restricted for Special Development District No. 6. The loading /delivery facility, including docks, berths, freight elevators, service corridors, etc., may be made available for public and /or private loading /delivery programs, sanctioned by the Town of Vail, to mitigate loading /delivery impacts upon the Vail Village loading /delivery system. The use of the facility shall only be permitted upon a finding by the Town of Vail and the Developer that excess capacity exists. The Developer will be compensated by the Town of Vail and /or others for the common use of the facility. The final determination of the use of the facility shall be mutually agreed upon by the Developer and the Town of Vail. 22. That the Developer submits a written letter of approval from adjacent properties whose property is being encroached upon by certain improvements resulting from the construction of the hotel, prior to the issuance of a building permit. 5. A request for a final review and recommendation to the Vail Town Council of proposed text amendments to the Vail Town Code, Chapters 12 -7H & I, Lionshead Mixed Use 1 & Lionshead Mixed Use 2, to amend the regulations regarding commercial ski storage and to amend Chapter 12 -2, Definitions, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Allison Ochs MOTION: Brian Doyon SECOND: Diane Golden VOTE: 5 -1 (Cleveland opposed) RECOMMENDATION OF DENIAL TO THE TOWN COUNCIL to allow commercial ski storage as an accessory use on all levels of a building in the LMU1 & LMU2. 6. A request for a final review and recommendation to the Vail Town Council of proposed text amendments to the Vail Town Code, Chapter 12 -61, Housing Zone District, and Chapter 12- 2, Definitions, to allow for additional uses and to amend definitions in regard thereto. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Allison Ochs MOTION: Chas Bernhardt SECOND: Brian Doyon VOTE: 5 -1 (Aasland opposed) RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL TO THE TOWN COUNCIL WITH 2 CONDITIONS: 1. That an amendment procedure be added to the Management Plan requirement. 2. That the criteria regarding affordability be reviewed by the Town Attorney. 7. A staff report on an approval of a minor amendment to SDD #5, Vail Run, to allow for the remodel of an egress staircase, located at 1600 Lionsridge Loop /Lot C -11, Lions Ridge Filing 1. Applicant: Vail Run Resort Community Association, Inc. Planner: Brent Wilson MOTION: SECOND: VOTE STAFF DECISION UPHELD 8. A request for a final review and recommendation to the Town Council for the adoption of two view corridors within Lionshead, as identified within the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. View Corridor 1 is located approximately at the main pedestrian exit looking southwest towards the Gondola lift line. View Corridor 2 is located approximately from the pedestrian plaza at the east end of the Lifthouse Lodge looking south up the Gondola lift line. A more specific legal description of the two view corridors is on file at the Community Development Department. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Allison Ochs 4p TABLED UNTIL AUGUST 27, 2001 9. A request for a final review and a recommendation to the Vail Town Council on the Town of Vail's proposed amendment to the Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan, located at East/West Meadow Drive, Vail Village. 0 Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: George Ruther TABLED UNTIL AUGUST 27, 2001 10. A request for a variance from Title 14 (Development Standards) Town Code, to allow for improvements to an existing residential private drive, located at 1450 Buffehr Creek Road/Lot 2, Cliffside Subdivision. Applicant: Mike Young Planner: Brent Wilson WITHDRAWN 11. Approval of July 23, 2001 minutes 12. Information Update •i• CAPA Aspen Conference logistics The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours in the project planner's office located at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. Please call 479 -2138 for information. Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479- 2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. Community Development Department 9 6 Planning and Environmental Commission ACTION FORM x` Department of Community Development #' `� 75 South Frontage Road, Vail, Colorado 81657 OF te1:970.479.2139 fax: 970.479.2452 web: www.ci.vail.co.us Project Name: Frazier -Dahl Lots PEC Number: PECO10043 Project Description: Participants: Minor Subdivision - Abandon property lines for Lots 5,9,10 Bighorn 2nd APPLICANT Steven James Riden Architect06/07 /2001 Box 3238 Vail, Co 81658 License: OWNER HUMMINGBIRD CO 1010712000 PO BOX 2077 VAIL CO 81658 Project Address: 3826 LUPINE OR VAIL Phone: 949 -4121 Phone: Location: Lots 8,9,10, Bighorn 2nd. 4 Legal Description: Lot: 9 &10 Block: s ubdivision: BIGHORN 2ND ADDITION Parcel Number: 210111101009 210111101008 Comments: BOARD/ STAFF ACTION Motion By: Brian Doyon Action: APPROVED Second By: Doug Cahill Vote: 6 -0 Date of Approval: 081 012961 Conditions: Cond: 8 (PLAN): No changes to these plans may be made without the written consent of Town of Vail staff and /or the appropriate review committee(s). Cond: CON0004945 That the minor subdivision shall only valid if the variance from section 12 -6D -5 is also approved. Cond: CON0004946 That the applicant shall revise the plat prior to recording, in accordance with the Town's subdivision regulations, to indicate the total buildable area on each proposed lot, to delineate the buildable area on each proposed lot, and to indicate the locations of all applicable hazards. Cond: CON0004947 That within one year of today's date (or prior to recording of the plat) the parking within the town right -of -way shall be removed to comply with all town standards. C] MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: August 13, 2001 SUBJECT: A request for a variance from Section 12 -6D -5, Vail Town Code, and a final review of a minor subdivision located at 3834 and 3838 Bridge Road/ Lots 11 & 12, Bighorn Subdivision 2 nd Addition. Applicant: Gary Weiss, represented by Steve Riden, Architect Planner: Ann Kjerulf • I. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant, Gary Weiss, represented by Steve Riden, has submitted an application to the Town of Vail Community Development Department for a minor subdivision of Lots 11 and 12, Bighorn Subdivision, Second Addition. The Planning and Environmental Commission reviewed the minor subdivision request at a worksession on June 25, 2001. At that point in time, survey information for the subject lots was not available so staff was unable to perform a complete review and provide a recommendation to the Planning and Environmental Commission. Since that meeting, staff has received complete survey information and determined that Lot 12, as proposed, would not meet the buildable area requirement specified in Section 12 -6D -5 of the Town Code. Hence, the applicant is requesting a variance from this section in association with the application for a minor subdivision. Minor Subdivision: The request involves the resubdivision and consolidation of Lots 11 and 12 to create Lot 12. Pursuant to the Vail Town Code, 13 -2 -2 (E), a minor subdivision is defined as follows: "Minor subdivision" shall mean any subdivision containing not more than four (4) lots fronting on an existing street, not involving any new street or road or the extension of Municipal facilities and not adversely affecting the development of the remainder of the parcel or adjoining property." Currently, Lot 11 is 2.23 Acres in size and Lot 12 is 0.71 Acres in size. The total area under consideration is 2.94 Acres. The creation of a single lot would be accomplished by vacating the existing property line between Lots 11 and 12. In conjunction with the minor subdivision request, the applicant is proposing to construct an addition to the existing single family residence located on Lot 12. • Weiss Minor Subdivision and variance Request, August 13, 2001 i TOWN OF YK Variance: Newly subdivided lots in the Two - Family Primary /Secondary Zone District must meet the lot area and site dimension criteria outlined in Section 12 -6D -5 of the Town Code: The minimum lot or site area shall be fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet of buildable area, and each site shall have a minimum frontage of thirty feet (30) Furthermore, buildable area is defined as: 'Any site, lot, parcel or any portion thereof which does not contain designated flood plain. red hazard avalanche area, or areas in excess of forty percent (40 %) slope." After red hazard avalanche areas and areas with forty percent (40%) slopes or greater are eliminated, the total buildable area on Lots 11 and 12 is 13,755.8 sf. Due to the lack of buildable area on the proposed lot, the applicant requires a variance from Section 12- 6D-5 in order for the minor subdivision request to be approved. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Minor Subdivision: The Department of Community Development recommends the Planning and Environmental Commission approve the applicant's request for a minor subdivision in accordance with Section IV of this memorandum and subject to the following findings: That the application is in compliance with the intent and purposes of the Subdivision Regulations, the Zoning Ordinance and other pertinent regulations that the Planning and Environmental Commission deems applicable. 2. That the application is appropriate in regard to Town policies relating to subdivision control, densities proposed, regulations, ordinances and resolutions and other applicable documents, environmental integrity and compatibility with the surrounding land uses and other applicable documents, and effects on the aesthetics of the Town. If the Planning and Environmental Commission chooses to approve the minor subdivision, staff requests that the following conditions of approval be considered: 1. That the minor subdivision shall only be valid if the variance from section 12 -6D -5 is also approved. 2. That the applicant shall, in accordance with the Town's subdivision regulations, revise the plat prior to recording to indicate the total buildable area on the proposed lot, to delineate the buildable area on the proposed lot, and to indicate the locations of all applicable hazards. 3. That the applicant shall revise the plat prior to recording to designate a building Weiss Minor Subdivision and Variance Request, August 13, 2001 • 2 0 envelope in order to limit future construction to the 'buildable area of the site. Variance: The Department of Community Development recommends the Planning and Environmental Commission approve the applicant's request for a variance from Section 12 -6D -5, Town of Vail Code to allow for relief from the buildable area requirement subject to the following findings: 1. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the Primary/Secondary Residential Zone District. 2. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to this site that do not apply generally to other properties in the Primary/Secondary Residential Zone District. 3. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. III. BACKGROUND The Bighorn Subdivision, Second Addition was platted on .July 22, 1963. The Board of County Commissioners of Eagle County approved the platting as the property was then under Eagle County jurisdiction. Lots 11 & 12 have remained in the current configuration since being platted. The Bighorn Subdivision, Second Addition was annexed into the Town of Vail pursuant to Ordinances 13 & 20, Series of 1974. The annexation became effective on November 5, 1974. Upon annexation into the Town of Vail, Lots 11 & 12 were zoned Two Family Primary/Secondary Residential. At the time of annexation, a residential structure existed on Lot 12 and Lot 11 was vacant. Hazard Regulations In 1976, the Town of Vail contracted with Arthur I. Mears to complete a Geologically Sensitive Areas Study. For purposes of the study geologically sensitive areas were defined as snow avalanche, rock fall and debris flow. In response to the findings of Mr. Mears' study the Town of Vail adopted Geologic Hazard Maps for snow avalanche, rock fall and debris flow as components of the Town of Vail Comprehensive Plan. The maps were adopted by the Town in 1977. In 1978, the Town of Vail adopted Hazard Regulations. The purpose of the regulations is to help protect the inhabitants of the Town from dangers relating to development of flood plains, avalanche paths, steep slopes, and geologically sensitive areas; to regulate the use of land areas which may be geologically sensitive; and further to regulate development on steep slopes; to protect the economic and property values of the Town, to protect the aesthetic and recreational values and natural resources of the Town, which Weiss Mirror Subdivision and Variance Request, August 13, 2001 3 are sometimes associated with flood plains, avalanche areas and areas of geologic sensitivity and slopes; to minimize damage to public facilities and utilities and minimize the need for relief in cleanup operations; to give notice to the public of certain areas within the Town where flood plains, avalanche paths and areas of geologic sensitivity exist; and to promote the general public health, safety and welfare. Town of Vail Land Use Plan In 1986, the Vail Town Council adopted the Town of Vail Land Use Plan. Similar to the Geologic Hazard Maps, the Land Use Plan is a component of the Town of Vail Comprehensive Plan. According to the Land Use Plan, Lots 11 & 12 are designated "low density residential ". The purpose of the low- density residential designation is to provide sites for single- family detached homes and two- family dwelling units. Density of development with in this category would typically not exceed 3 structures per buildable acre. Also within this area would be private recreation facilities such as tennis courts, swimming pools, and club houses for the use of residents of the area. Institutional /public uses permitted would include churches, fire stations, and parks and open space related facilities. The Town of Vail Comprehensive Open Lands Plan In 1994, the Vail Town Council adopted the Comprehensive Open Lands Plan. The objectives of the plan are: • To identify citizen and visitor needs and preferences for a comprehensive system of open space uses such as parks, recreation, protection of environmental resources, trails, and to reserve lands for public use; • To prioritize available open lands for acquisition or protection; • To identify creative strategies to implement the acquisition and protection program; • To define a management system to appropriately manage Town -owned open space lands, and; • To buffer neighborhoods with open space. The Comprehensive Open Lands Plan is an action - oriented plan that identifies specific parcels of land that require some kind of action either for protection of sensitive lands, for trail easements, or for public use. In developing the plan, over 350 parcels were evaluated with 51 parcels on which actions were recommended. The recommendations were developed utilizing specific criteria to evaluate the areas of highest priority. Generally, areas received the highest priority if they met the stated objectives of the Town and its citizens and were an integral part of the open lands system. Within the 51 parcels, there are five priority areas made up of a number of recommended actions. These priorities are: • Protect sensitive natural habitat areas, riparian areas, and hazard areas; • Extend the Vail Trail to East Vail and add several trailheads to access the trail; • Add a new trail on the north side and western half of Town to connect existing trailheads and neighborhoods; • Add three "trailheads" in the core areas to access Vail Mountain trails and inform visitors of trail opportunities and provide better access to Gore Creek; • Add bike lanes to the north and south frontage roads and add paved shoulders to Vail Weiss Mirror Subdivision and Variance Request, August 13, 2001 • 4 Valley Drive. To date, the Town of Vail has taken action on at least 41 of the 51 parcels identified for action in the Plan. This most recently includes Lot 16 of Bighorn Subdivision, 2nd Addition. The Action Plan and Priority Plan of the Comprehensive Open Lands Plan identifies Lots 8, 10, and 11, Bighorn Subdivision, Second Addition as "Parcel 40" for implementation purposes. Parcel, 40 is classified as a "High Priority ". The high priority classification is based upon the Town's desire to acquire both the development rights and trail easements for the proposed South Trail extension. The plan also notes that Parcel 40 is located in a geologically sensitive area. Strategies for protecting Parcel 40 include purchasing the development rights, and/or acquiring an access easement through the parcel. As a high priority classification, Parcel 40 meets both Level One and Level Two Evaluation criteria. Level One Evaluation focuses on meeting community needs relating to the natural resource system, the recreation system, trails system, and reserving lands for future civic /public uses. Level Two Evaluation focuses on the availability of the parcel utilizing criteria such as the threat of development or irreversible damage, opportunities to leverage other funds, cost, unusual opportunity with a motivated seller, opportunity for trade with the USES, low management requirements on the Town of Vail and low liability to the Town. On Tuesday, July 17, 2001, Community Development staff met with the Town Council to determine the level of interest in acquiring Parcel 40. Due to the prevalence of geological hazards and the lack of potential for the development of the South Trail, the Town Council opted to take no action on Parcel 40. It was decided that the Town's hazard regulations and development standards may sufficiently guide and limit development on Parcel 40 in the tuture. The Council was amenable to the possibility of acquiring conservation easements upon Parcel 40 at the discretion of the land owners. Development Regulations The Town of Vail Zoning Code prescribes the land development regulations for development within the Town. The following code sections are particularly relevant to the evaluation of the applicant's proposal: Chapter 6 — Two- Family Primary /Secondary Residential Chapter 21 — Hazard 'regulations The purpose statement of Chapter 6 (Article D. Two - Family Primary /Secondary Residential (PS) District) states: "The Two - Family Primary/Secondary Residential District is intended to provide sites for single - family residential uses or two- family residential uses in which one unit is a larger primary residence and the second unit is a smaller caretaker apartment, together with such public facilities as may approperiately be located in the same district. The Two - Family Primary /Secondary Residential District is intended to ensure adequate light, air, privacy and open space for each dwelling, commensurate with 0 Weiss Minor Subdivision and Variance request, August 13, 2001 5 single- family and two - family occupancy, and to maintain the desirable residential qualities of such sites by establishing appropriate site development standards.' To date, there is no structure on Lot 11 and there is a single family dwelling on Lot 12. The applicant wishes to construct an addition to the existing residence on Lot 12 and essentially double the GRFA of this residence. By leaving the current lot configurations as they exist, there is insufficient development potential on Lot 12 alone to accommodate the proposed addition under Two - Family Primary /Secondary Residential zoning. By consolidating the lots, the applicant would gain sufficient development potential to construct the proposed addition. Development has been proposed on Lot 11 in the past. However, due to the difficulties presented by geological hazards and steep slopes, development has never occurred on the site. There are three geologic hazard analysis reports in the legal file for Lot 11. Each report identifies geologic hazards on the site including high severity rock fall, debris flow, and snow avalanche. There are varying opinions as to whether Lot 11 is located in a moderate or high hazard avalanche area. However, in a recent study of Lots 8, 10, & 12, Arthur Mears identifies an area of Red Hazard avalanche which clearly impacts Lot 11. Figures 6 & 7 have been attached for reference. All three of the reports suggest possible and potential hazard mitigation measures; earth -built structures, locational siting of the structure, boulder barriers, a rear concrete foundation wall protruding at least six feet above finished grade and "splitting wedges ". However, no construction is permitted in a Red Hazard Avalanche area so these building techniques would not be applicable. The purpose statement of Chapter 21 (Hazard Regulations) states: 0 "The purpose of this Chapter is to help protect the inhabitants of the Town from dangers relating to development of flood plains, avalanche paths, steep slopes and geologically sensitive areas, to regulate the use of land areas which may be subject to flooding and avalanche or which may be geologically sensitive; and further to regulate development on steep slopes; to protect the economic and property values of the Town, to protect the aesthetic and recreational values and natural resources of the Town, which are sometimes associated with flood plains, avalanche areas and areas of geological sensitivity and slopes; to minimize damage to public facilities and utilities and minimize the need for relief in cleanup operations; to give notice to the public of certain areas within the Town where flood plains, avalanche areas and areas of geologic sensitivity exist; and to promote the general public health, safety and welfare. " Furthermore, Section 12 -21 -10 (Hazard Regulations) states: A. No structure shall be built in any flood hazard zone or red avalanche hazard areas. No structure shall be built on a slope of forty percent or greater except in Single - Family Residential, Two - Family Residential, or Two - Family Primary /S'econdary Residential Zone Districts. The term "structure" as used in this Section does not include recreational structures that are intended for seasonal use, not including residential Weiss Minor subdivision and Variance Request, August 13, 2001 6 use, B. Structures may be built in blue avalanche hazard areas provided that proper mitigating measures have been taken. C. The Administrator may require any applicant or person desiring to build in an avalanche hazard zone of influence to submit a definitive study of the hazard area in which the applicant proposes to build if the Town's master hazard plan does not contain sufficient information to determine if the proposed location is in a red hazard or blue hazard area. The requirement for additional information and study shall be done in accordance with Chapter 12 of this Title. D. The Administrator may require any applicant or person desiring to build in an identified blue avalanche hazard zone to submit additional information or reports as to whether or not improvements are required to mitigate against the possible hazard. If mitigation is required, said information and report should specify the improvements proposed therefore. The required information and reports shall be done in accordance with Chapter 12 of this Title. The Town has adopted Official Hazard Maps (as described in section 12- 21 -15: Restrictions in Geologically Sensitive Areas) which identify areas located within or potential within rockfall, debris flow, or avalanche areas. Subdivision and/or development proposals within any geological hazard area requires a site- specific geologic investigation: According to section 12- 21 -15: 1. In any area located within the boundaries of the Lincoln DeVore Map, or in any area identified as a debris flow or debris avalanche area by the Mears Map, or in any area identified as a rock fall area by the Schmueser Map, no initial application for a building permit, grading permit or major or minor subdivision shall be approved until a site- specific geologic investigation is complete. For the purpose of this Section, a site- specific geologic investigation shall be deemed a detailed geologic investigation which is applicable to each respective site. All reports and studies required by this Section shall be prepared by a "professional geologist ", as defined by Colorado Revised Statutes section 34 -1 -01, as amended, or a "registered professional engineer" as defined by Colorado Revised Statutes section 12 -25 -102, as amended, under the direction of and at the expense of the owner /applicant and submitted to the Department of Community Development. 2. The extent of the site - specific ecologic investigation required shall be determined by the geologist or engineer who is responsible for the investigation; however, the investigation shall be of sufficient thoroughness and accuracy to allow such expert to certify to the following: a. For all structures other than single- family, duplex and primary/secondary dwellings, and "accessory uses" thereto as defined in Section 12 -6c -4 of this Code: (1) Whether the geologic conditions are such that the site can or cannot be developed for the specific structure or use proposed without corrective engineering or engineered construction, or other mitigation or Weiss Minor Subdivision and Variance Bequest, August 13, 2007 7 alterations. (2) Whether corrective engineering or engineered construction, or other mitigation or alterations can or cannot be accomplished to reduce the danger to the public health, safety or to property due to problems related to geologic sensitivity to a reasonable level, and not increase the hazard to other properties or structures, or to public buildings, rights of way, roads, streets, easements, utilities or facilities or other properties of construction. b. For single- family, duplex and primaryfsecondary dwellings, and "accessory uses" thereto as defined in Section 12 -6C -4 of this Title, the site- specific geologic investigation shall certify to the following: (1) Whether the site can be developed for the specific structure or use proposed without corrective engineering or engineered construction or other mitigation or alterations; or (2) That the site is a geologically sensitive area but development will not increase the hazard to other property or structures, or to public buildings, rights of way, roads, streets, easements, utilities or facilities or other properties of any kind. In order to provide reasonable notice to the public of the problems related to geologically sensitive areas, notice regulations and requirements (Section 12- 21- 15(F)) have been adopted. One of these requirements is that: All subdivision plats recorded after the effective date hereof shall identify and designate each lot and block, or portions thereof, located within any geologically sensitive area, together with applicable sub -zone designations, by a stamp or writing in a manner providing reasonable notice to interested parties. Weiss Minor Subdivision and 'Variance Request, August 13, 2001 A 0 IV. ZONING ANALYSIS LOT 11, BIGHORN SUBDIVISION, SECOND ADDITION Zoning Two - family Primary/Secondary Residential (PS) Existing Lot Size 2.23 Acres (97,139 sf) Proposed Lot Size to be eliminated Standard Allowed Existing Proposed Density: 2 DLIs + 1 EHU * n/a GRFA: 9,457 sf n/a Site Coverage: 19,428 sf * n/a Setbacks: Front -20 ft. n/a Sides -15 ft, n/a Rear- 15ft. n/a Weiss Minor Subdivision and Variance Request, August 93, 2009 9 Landscaping: 58,283 sf * n/a Building Height: 33' max n/a LOT 12, BIGHORN SUBDIVISION, SECOND ADDITION Zoning Two - Family Primary/Secondary Residential (PS) Existing Lot Size 0.71 Acres (30,928 sf) Proposed Lot Size 2.94 Acres (128,066 sf) Currently Proposed Proposed Standard Allowed Existing Allowed construction Density: 2 DUs + 1 EHU 1 DU 2 DUs + 1 EHU 1 DU GRFA: 6,146 sf ( +250) 3,350 sf 11,003 sf 6 „421 sf Site Coverage: 6,185 sf 11,378 sf 25,613 sf 2,935 sf Setbacks: Front -20 ft. 22.5 ft 20 ft 22.5 ft Sides -15 ft. 63 ft/17.5 ft 15 ft 17.5 ft/17.5 ft Rear- 15ft. 16 ft* 15 ft 16 ft* Landscaping: 18,557 sf 28,769 sf 76,840 sf 124,385 sf ** Building Height: 33' max 31' 33' max 31' *The roof of the existing structure encroaches 1.5 ft more than is acceptable into a required setback. This is a legally non - conforming situation 0 Weiss Minor Subdivision and Variance Request, August 13, 2001 10 0 V. MINOR SUBDIVISION CRITERIA A basic premise of subdivision regulations is that the minimum standards for the creation of new lots must be met. This subdivision will be reviewed under Title 13, Subdivision Regulations, of the Town of Vail Code. A. The first set of criteria to be considered by the Planning and Environmental Commission for a Minor Subdivision application is: Lot Area According to Section 12 -6D -5 of the Town of Vail Zoning Regulations, the minimum lot or site area in the Two - Family Primary /Secondary Residential District is 15,000 sf of buildable area. Staff Response: With only 13,755.8 sf of buildable area, the proposed lot (Lot 12) does not meet the minimum lot area requirement outlined in Section 12 -6D -5. Because both of the existing lots (Lots 11 & 12) were platted in Eagle County, and did not meet this requirement when the lots were annexed into the Town of Vail, they became legally non - conforming lots. By combining the lots, the degree of non - conformity does not change. Hence, staff does not believe that the deficiency in buildable area should have a bearing upon the minor subdivision request. For further clarification, buildable area is applicable only for subdivision purposes. The Town Code does allow construction to occur on slopes greater than forty percent (40 %) in the Primary- Secondary zone district. Frontage According to Section 12 -6D -5 of the Town of Vail Regulations, each lot in the Two - Family Primary /Secondary Residential District shall have a minimum frontage of thirty feet (30'). Staff Response: The proposed lot (Lot 12) complies with the minimum frontage requirement. Dimension According to Section 12 -6D -5 of the Town of Vail Regulations, each lot in the Two - Family Primary/Secondary Residential District shall be of a size and shape capable of enclosing a square area 80 feet on each side within its boundaries. Staff Response: The proposed lot meets the dimension requirement. B. The second set of review criteria to be considered with a minor subdivision request is outlined in the Subdivision Regulations, 13 -3 -4, and is as follows: "The burden of proof shall rest with the applicant to show that the application is in compliance with the intent and purposes of this Chapter, the Zoning Ordinance and other pertinent regulations that the Planning and Environmental Commission deems applicable.... The Planning and Weiss Minor Subdivision and Vatiance Request, August 13, 2001 11 Environmental Commission shall review the application and consider its appropriateness in regard to Town policies relating to subdivision control, densities proposed, regulations, ordinances and resolutions and other applicable documents, environmental integrity and compatibility with the surrounding land uses and other applicable documents, effects on the aesthetics of the Town. " The purpose section of Title 13, Subdivision Regulations, is intended to insure that the subdivision is promoting the health, safety and welfare of the community. The subdivision purpose statements from 13 -1 -2 (C) are as follows: "To inform each subdivider of the standards and criteria by which development proposals will be evaluated and to provide information as to the type and extent of improvements required. " Staff Response: Staff believes that the proposal is consistent with the intent and purposes of the Zoning Ordinance. 2. "To provide for the subdivision of property in the future without conflict with development on adjacent land. Staff Response: The Vail Land Use Plan identifies Lots 11 & 12 as areas for "low density residential" development. According to the Vail Land Use Plan, the purpose of the "low density residential" designation is to provide sites for single- family detached homes and two- family dwelling units. The density of development within this category would typically not exceed 3 structures per buildable acre. Development has never occurred on Lot 11 due to the obstacles which have been presented by the geologic hazards onsite. Although it also contains geologic hazards, a single family dwelling unit exists on Lot 12. This is consistent with the intent of the Land Use Plan. Over the years, the Bighorn Subdivision, First and Second Additions have been developed in concert with the Vail Land Use Flan as residential neighborhoods. The area has been zoned for single- family and two - family primary /secondary residential development. A majority of the lots in the neighboring area are also located within geologic hazard zones. Development on these lots, as with lots 11 and 12, is governed by the adopted Hazard Regulations in the Town of Vail Zoning Regulations. 3. 'To protect and conserve the value of land throughout the Municipality and the value of buildings and improvements on the land." Staff Response: Staff does not believe that the minor subdivision of Lots 11 & 12, Bighorn Subdivision, Second Addition would have any negative impacts on the value of land in the Town of Vail. Construction can not occur on a large portion of the Weiss Minor Subdivision and Variance Request, August 13, 2001 0 12 proposed lot due to the prevalence of red hazard avalanche. Furthermore, the owner of the subject property has expressed an interest in creating a conservation easement upon the lot to ensure the preservation of open space. 4. "To ensure that subdivision of property is in compliance with the Town's zoning ordinances, to achieve a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land uses, consistent with Town development objectives. " Staff Response: Staff does not believe that the proposed development potential for Lot 12 is consistent with adjacent properties or the development objectives of the Town. Table 1 has been attached for reference. This provides a summary of development potential for neighboring lots. However, staff recognizes that combining Lots 11 and 12 will actually reduce the cumulative development potential on the site_ Furthermore, staff believes that the Town's hazard regulations and development standards can sufficiently limit the future development of this site. 5. "To guide public and private policy and action in order to provide adequate and efficient transportation, water, sewage, schools, parks, playgrounds, recreation, and other public requirements and facilities and generally to provide that public facilities will have sufficient capacity to serve the proposed subdivision. " Staff Response: • The Town of Vail Comprehensive Open Lands Plan identifies a public purpose for Lots 8, 10, and 11 (Parcel 40), Bighorn Subdivision, Second Addition. The applicant has expressed an interest in meeting this need by creating a conservation easement upon the property. However, even without a conservation easement, the Town's hazard regulations and development standards can adequately guide future development with minimal impact upon Parcel 40. 6. "To provide for accurate legal descriptions of newly subdivided land and to establish reasonable and desirable construction design standards and procedures. " Staff Response: Staff believes that the current proposal satisfies this purpose statement. 7. "To prevent the pollution of air, streams and ponds, to assure adequacy of drainage facilities, to safeguard the water table and to encourage the wise use and management of natural resources throughout the Town in order to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the community and the value of the land. " Staff Response: Staff believes that the minor subdivision request will not conflict with this purpose statement. Weiss Minor Subdivision and Variance Request, August 13, 2001 13 VI. VARIANCE CRITERIA li A. Consideration_ of Factors Regarding the Variance The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. As proposed, staff does not believe that the requested variance will have any impact on potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The variance will not increase the degree of non - conformity with respect to buildable area. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without a grant of special privilege. Staff does not believe that the variance would constitute a grant of special privilege due to the fact that the lots were originally platted in Eagle County and did not meet the buildable area requirement when annexed into the Town of Vail. Again, the variance would not increase the degree of non - conformity with respect to buildable area. 3. The effect of the requested variance on flight and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. Staff does not believe that the requested variance will have any negative impacts on the above referenced criteria. B. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before gr a variance: That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. b, There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions Weiss Minor Subdivision and Variance Request, August 13, 2001 0 MI • applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. C. The strict Interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. Weiss Minor Subdivision and Variance Request, August 13, 2001 15 <I a 'u _O "C3 `C3 a u L O s a� �dhl T-4 .--r -H O J 0 • '-- o kmy, of rockfall hazard in the f3lidge Road and west Wine FIGURE 6 Map Of the m8ximum Want taken In 1997, thus recent construction Drive area. Map was produced f does not appear on the map. — i; ?h� i. 1" '. i p t ! ' 4, P.26r. A ,.. k, r: 11.,t..�• � �' ' 1, � r .S; 1� SJr {J i' $��� t Y. .4 vi' ' r � � ,. ��'Ir• - t 43: 'i1:' !r� ,�` '.�+. � M1 rt� 1 ^" 'I�i�i#�r•'r n �� t"•F'r �� +�., .r� +��: T i �'( +.. :�T `'Y ,.� . ,{;��!: �* 'l.�; 'f; iR, .}.. I, y y`y ,�Y r»�''+h�rr`u•V ::s y .i i IY *F.',� M a ¢�, � d: 7�i'S . ;r�:•.�.= F ;��'• iYa �k4 }r •.4 +�4 ( •'+1,. !r ` '�.lrr• �,'f.. '.w /r '�'t� ' ' �„' {.br� jj, 6 � .� _ „il, i4 '' 'T,� .,T .t..1#'4 � W - 4 ,� ' P'. A, - • 5 { ; .�' �af/, . i! y" '. +,. , fi y4 i t e � a r t � r� r + �� > t� k g il . - iJl e � ,g;�.. k . ) - E. 3' � - •'t�. ..�k lia }���p r � "F 4 r V K E -e cfi1 x4 dbe} r �rat�?f i,� 4 w I t± S 1 r .1 04 •• }'r1 �''. 4: �'r• v , �; ���j. .,.�+ rl•�. S � a i �^•�` 4• i r:S� -.r '�r - . MALAA V1 WT LO 7 tT- ....... . . . . . . FIGURE 7. Map of the maximum extent of snow or debris avalanches In the Bridge Road and west Lupine Drive area. Red (high hazard) and Blue (moderate hazard) zones are shown. Map ro uced from aerial photography taken in 1997, thus recent co not appear was p construction does d n on the map, SCALE. 1 100' I 1 P-j w kai 1� 4 R N A N m ro m m m i m `m m m d a� •. •. •- � c 'c 'c �`@ > i i i i Iq fFj +n [Fl h G G 4� di rn G 6 G G L G -Z 7L 1. 3 lL 3 a Q C a A m O a � v g O 0 0 O p C O C� C C C C C � A��❑ W 4.. U n 0 LL LL > Ia ❑ C L ❑ m C .0 16 d `� m m •t m m m d a m 9 m G CI ❑ G G ❑ 9 ❑ ❑ d q O Y ❑ S 2 S 2 Z 2 Z `s = 2 `a Z Z 2 Y 2 L 2 2 2 2 T a u C a c y R 41 d N +-3 A a V 3 m d N a 0 0 a s m b � a d m m q e� w@ 4 G '4 ❑ a G m d G m m C U m@ U m a a U a :3 g a -- a c _a �n 0 0 0 a a o a a a a .a 0 a o 4 S S' i Z Z a z a a a a a[ Z 4 a 0_ g a a a a a a LL q a a 3N nom ��rn N�roo °�3�RM`°�m°�c,ry —♦ Q 4 C` f` .^- .' �D l0 M a0 4 Q C9 N +L ffi K �D �V � Al m CA v Q of � ti W �i] M 60 O� � 4f1 It] � V l0 ID � �d 4 n) Y] Q N f0 N o d' y'1 �t3 m N aS CX C d N S K K a 0 In �������� fC U) a W m a a U) V) a a 0 N a a U) to a a N Ul a a W N a a UI a 4 q T 4 Q C C c c C 4 C C c c�R d N ry 4 O U❑ �+ O ❑ ° ❑❑ w C o C 4 C d G - 4 Q❑ C a 4 o � ,4 yi t so 4< 4 4 A N re a W LU m m M m o m. M w of M m m m m O. r u fV N X X S a{ ]z {' a[ i s s '^ °-- E c c c c c c c L O p O C 8 0 O M U 3 6 r� o m s U 2 c ❑+. C c O c c t c€ t a '�, c Om O1 — a m rn m f W W W m W Q ii" W m W M W W e w M wt a m m m ry m 0 2' ® m S 0? m m g fa m® r m a m m m _ Q r` N _ N m c. 0 0 w�. 6 a m m m m m m m m m d a a a m a m a@ a a m a d d m O ® 0 Q ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ O ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ a' ❑ ❑ ❑ C C m m m m @@ d a d C d d d d C d m m@ C C "& C a G a m a a Q � � n ry � � m cn � m � f• rn, m M ri V � w ui �� 9 �n m❑ Of O] m cq (6 m m M rr � m m M N ev O 6 n rn� O�1 m n n ro an 2 3 IO �G i+ .a M M J 8® � � m m oa rn m 00 ` m M M J 1 � W m m M � m a ri h Y L Y 7 a 0 �1 K i a � � E a _T d E LL S o b in 3 � i r ra a MILTON R. BROWN 2435 CLENTON ROAD • ROCKFORD, ILLINOIS b illy I I� ICJ July 18, 2001 The Town of Vail Community Development Department 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 Attention: Ann Kjerulf Subj: Subdivision proposals for Bridge Street Dear Ms. Kjerulf: On two occasions I have discussed with you the subdivision proposals for lots located on the south end of Bridge Street. It seems to me that this particular area is not appropriate for the construction of residences. The area is very steep as it rises with the mountain and many of the trees that shape the natural beauty of East Vail would have to be removed. I would think that it could also destabilize the land in an already avalanched designated area. I would appreciate it if the Planning and Environmental Commission would take these factors into consideration. Very truly yours, Milt Brawn 0 I 1 9 9 � a 4� 7q N ti t 1 1 �r 4 y s 3 _I a 9 lot a s , 11 1141 i'l 3 1 . 1 1 " a ! if t ! i x �y V h S! � +1 qH 1 lb ! Ifin x �y V h S! � +1 C� a i g r �r a r r r J r L a O z i �Fyl g! q 4 f� C� a i g r �r a r r r J r L a O z i �Fyl g! q 4 1] 0 � cf z 99� +i UI 7 t � k - a� U OMM0703 'A,LNfx.00 aMV3 4 1 VA 3O N.X01 NOLLIQ(IV QNOMS NOISIAIQSRS MHOHJIH 81 10 Mama dm OIHdvu!)0dOpL N a g /\ s \ yi Y 'e w F� s w ko In M. �w IR HiffiffimE . In R".431 E � w N1NW� 0 N & ` 4 i , � �+ � up��lk�#W p'- legnhnvudbq 1 p � a 1 :1. 53 of j i i O h 1 I! ,1 H 11 It in i ARTHUR I. +EARS, P.E.. INC. 1 Natural Hazards Canmltantz 222 E.t Gothic Ave. C, niwn. Colorado 81230 303 — 641.3236 E October 31, 1990 L _ ,h Mr. Bryan Hobbs Vail Associates Real Estate P.O. Box 7 Vail, CO 81658 Der M Hobbs The enclosed analysis of rockfall, snow avalanche, and debris avalanche affecting Lot 11, Bighorn Subdivision Second Addition was completed as we discussed earlier this month. Please contact me if you have any questions or desire additional consultation. Si cerely, MG nio Arthur I. Mears, P.E. Avalanche - control engineer Encl. R 0 k � 1 Mau Watting "• Amlmtchea • Aaaakmchc Control &vfnecrrng RCCHFAI.L, SNOW AVALANCHE, AND DEBRIS AVALANCHE ANALYSIS LOT 11, BIGHOPUN SBBDIVISION, SECOND ADDITION Prepared For Hr. Bryan Hobbs Prepared By Arthur I. Mears, P.E., Inc. Gunnison, Colorado October, 1990 v • 0 III BummA,Ry AND RZCOMMENDAT1O1 S is 0 0 Lot 11 is exposed to rockfall, snow avalanches, and debris avalanches over the entire area of the lot. Design- magnitude events, which must be considered in planning and engineering, have been considered in this analysis. The design ROCIKFXLL event, based on field observations and a computer simulation of rockfall, will consist of a 3 -foot diameter rock which becomes detached and begins rolling at the limestone cliffs, more than 300 feet above the building site. At the building site, this rock will have a velocity of roughly 70 ft /second (48 mph) and will be bouncing at least 13 feet above the ground. Such conditions require ranking the site as potentially High Hazard Rockfall Mitigation of rcckfall could be achieved only by construction of a catching fence immediately above the building site. However, such construction would not be practical because of the snow and debris avalanche exposure described below. The design SNOW AVALANCHE event will begin approximately 500 feet vertically above the building site (north end of Lot 11), will fall over the limestone cliffs and reach the building site at approximately 50 mph velocity. Stagnation pressures of such an event will exceed 1,000 lbs /ft Such high pressures define the building site as lying in a 22 entiallZ High Hazard Snow Avalanche area. In accordance with Town ot Vall ordinance, building is not permitted in high hazard areas. The design DEBRIS AVALANCHE event will begin on the steep slopes below the limestone cliff, will entrain wet snow, soil, rocks, trees, and other vegetation, and may deposit up to 15 feet deep at the building site. Although velocities and pressures are less than those associated with snow avalanches, impact with a structure will be complicated by debris entrained into the flow. MITIGATION of the rockfall, snow avalanche, can be achieved only by avoidance. At this be achieved by binding un�d erg�r o ^ nd �r tZrmt forcing the slope processes s zo pas over th residual risk would be maintained, however, one wishes to protect may not be inside the structure when the design event occurs. and debris avalanche site dance could Illside an e building. Some because the persons specially- designed I OBJECTIVES AND LIMITATIONS OF STUDY This analysis of "design- magnitude" rockfall, snow avalanche and debris avalanche on Lot 11, was requested by Mr. Bryan Hobbs of Vail Associates Real Estate and has the following objectives. a. Analysis lower portici b. Analysis on the lower C. Analysis on the lower and computation of rockfall hazard en the I of Lot 11; and computation of snow avalanche hazard portion of Lot 11; and and computation of debris avalanche hazard portion of Lot 11. The study is site specific, therefore the results and conclusions should not be applied to other sites. Furthermore, although the analysis presented in this report does provide analytical and quantitative descriptions of the rockfall and avalanche processes, design parameters for structures have not been provided and are beyond the scope of the present study. 2 ROMAILL ANALYSIS 2.1 PREVIOUS WORK As indicated on aerial- photo mapping completed for the Town of Vail in 1984, Lot 11 is located in a "High Severity" rockfall area which was defined as follows: "Rock outcrops were thick or numerous and more than 100 feet above the hillside with significant fracturing and perhaps a large number of rocks or boulders at the base of a steep hillside..." The Town of Vail study states that additional studies on rockfall phenomena may affirm, negate, or require substantial revisions to the findings of the Town study, including revisions to the hazard lines and severity definitions. 2.2 CURRENT FIELD OBSERVATIONS A field site inspection of the site was completed on October 23, 1990. observations made during this site inspection are summarized below. a. The rockfall sources consist of a massive limestone outcropping located south and approximately 320 to 360 feet above the site. Rackfall may also begin on the steep, aspen covered colluvial slope below the cliff, which has a lower terminus at the north end of Lot 11. . ' b. Racks of various sizes, up to 10 -feet in diameter Lot 11 in the past, have rolled down the slope and over however smaller rocks up to 3 feet in diameter are typical of this rockfall area. LV Rockfall is not a annu event at this location, C. however some fresh rockfal was observed on the steep slope where rocks had been stepped by trees. d. The slope supports a dispersed aspen forest and has a rough surface; bath factors were considered in computer simulation of rockfall at the site. ? . 3 SI AND RCCKFALL The rockfall process was simulated through application of the "Co lcrado Rockfall simulation Program," (CRSP), a computer heights, and prcgram that computes rockfall velocities, bounce runcut distances given input data about slope steepness, treats rockfall as a roughness, and hardness. The CRSP model in a large number of simulated rockfalls stochastic process which achieve various velocities, bounce heights, and of a given size distances, just as they do in nature. In modeling rocks runcut at Lot 1?, a 3 -foot diameter rock was assumed, and 100 rocks of this size were rolled (by CRSP) down the slope to produce a behavior. This computer model has statistical range in rockfall tested extensively and is used regularly in design of been rockfall mitigation in Glenwood Canyon. In application to the rockfall affecting Lot 11, slope steepness were was measured, and estimates of slope hardness and roughness the limestone obtained by climbing the steep colluvial slope to source area. The program was run and input parameters were distribution of rockfall stopping adjusted so that the observed along the Bridge Ro ad cul -de - sac was duplicated. The positions theoretical CRSP model, therefore, was forced to simulate what has actually occurred at the site. Because rockfall behavior at the building site located on the was north end of Lot 11 is of interest, an "analysis paint" of rockfall statistics by chosen at this location for generation "Exceedance of 5, 10, and 20% the CRSP model. probabilities" to determine the design rock behavior. This means were used that, according to CRSP, there are 5, 10, and 20% chances that 3 -foot diameter rock. the following values will be exceeded by a TABLE 1. Design Rockfall Characteristics Exceedance P yelocitY Bounce Ht Kinetic Energy 5 79 ft /s is ft 225,994 ft -lbs 5 10 76 ft /s 1b ft $ 209, 156 ft-lbs 172, 401 ft -lbs 20 69 ft /s 1.3 ft Inspection cf Table 1 indicates that the smaller probabilities correspond to higher velocity, higher energy, and higher bouncing rockfall events. However, even the least conservative (20 %) rockfall has large velocity, energy, and bounce heights and would be difficult to design for at this site. Apuendix A at the back of this report contains the detailed data generated by the CRSP rockfall model and will enable alternate values of exceedance probabilities to be used for design purposes, if desired. 3 SNOW - AVALANCHE ANALYSIS 3.1 'R �E'IIOV S WCRK Lot 11 is located in an "avalanche influence zone" on Town of Vail maps produced in 1977. This designation means that avalanches are thought to affect the site, but that the avalanche process has not been quantified to determine the level of severity ar potential hazard. 3.2 CURRENT FIELD OBSERVATIONS As noted in section 2.2, the slope was climbed on October 23, 1990. During this site inspection, clear evidence of snow avalanche impact immediately below the limestone cliff indicates that avalanches have begin above the cliff and fallen on the lower slope. In addition, observations indicate a sufficiently dispersed forest which will also allow small avalanches to begin within the trees below the limestone cliff. Damage to the trees, including broken limbs, bent main stems, and debris aligned down slope suggest periodic avalanche activity. 3.3 ANALYSIS A-MC ?rANT'IFICATION Off' SN ©W AVALANCHES The design- magnitude ( "100- year") avalanche, an event usually considered in planning and engineering of fixed facilities at Vail, was analyzed by the following 2 -step procedure. a. Avalanche runout distance, or stopping position, was determined through application of a statistical regression equation based on 112 documented rare (approx. 100 -year) avalanches studied in colorado. b. Avalanche velocities along the path profile were then computed through application of a 2- friction dynamics model given a starting position above the limestone cliff and a stopping position, determined in step "a," at the intersection of Lupine Drive and Bridge Road. The computed design snow- avalanche velocity and stagnation pressure at the building site on Lot 11 are summarized in Table z. TABLE 2. Design Snow Avalanche Characteristics Velocity: 22.6 m/s (50 mph) Stagnation Pressure: 51..1 KPa (1,068 lbs /ft Appendix B at the end cf this report contains the detailed computations of the avalanche- dynamics analysis. The pressure computed at the building site (1,068 lbs /ftz) is substantially in excess of the maximum pressure allowed in snow - avalanche "Blue" zones by Town of Vail ordinance, which allow up to 615 lbs /f- This means the building site, located at the northern end of Lot 11 is in an avalanche "Red" zone, an area in which residential construction is not permitted by Vail ordinance.. 4 DEBRIS AVALANCHES 4.1 PREVIOUS WORK As indicated in a 1984 report to the Town of Vail, Lot 11 lies within a high - hazard debris - avalanche area. Such areas are defined in the Vail study as follows: "These (high - hazard debris - avalanche) areas can experience severe structural damage by impact and deposition of wet snow, soil, rock., and debris.'" Building within these areas is not recommended by the Town of Vail unless mitigation can block the flow, thereby reducing the area of debris avalanche runout and preventing these events from reaching the proposed development. 4.2 CUP-RENT FIELD OBSERVATIONS Field observations made during the October 23, 1990 site visit indicate the steep slope above Lot 11 shows past evidence of debris avalanches. Such evidence consists of undulating (lobe - shaped) deposits and unsorted debris. The slope is similar in terms of slope, soil, and vegetation, to several that produced debris avalanching during the rapid thaw which occurred in the Vail area during May, 1984. 4.3 POTENTIAL DEBRIS-- AVALANCHE CONDITIONS Debris avalanches will be much slower- moving that the snow avalanches described in Section 3, consequently they will not travel as far into the runout zone. Nevertheless, Lot 11 is steep and debris avalanches will cross the entire lot. Based on J observations of many similar avalanche events in the Vail area during 1984, debris avalanches will consist of wet snow, soil, racks, and entrained aspen and other vegetation, consequently they would have a very high flow and deposit density. At the building site, deposits of up to 15 feet thickness could occur which, would produce vertical pressures of Sac} lbs /ft Dynamic thrust for debris avalanches that stop in the cul-de-sac about 5o feet below Lot 11 could reach 25 KPa (520 lbs /ft Although this is less than the design snow avalanche pressure discussed in Section 3, impact may be even more damaging than that associated with snow avalanches because the flow will contain tree trunks and rocks which can serve as battering rams on exposed structures. The present study, therefore, concurs with the "High- hazard" ruing for debris - avalanches defined in the Town of Vail study. Residential construction is not permitted in high- hazard areas. 5 MITIGATION Details of mitigation design are beyond the scope of this study. However, the following points should be Considered if mitigation is to be considered at this site. a. Surface buildings (with exposed uphill walls) will not be practical . because of high impact loads and would be in violation of Vail ordinance. b. Surface avalanche /rockfall defense structures, intended to stop avalanches and rockfall above the building site, would not be practical because of high impact loads. C. Certain types of underground construction which would avoid impact loading may be feasible, but m?y be undesirable from the standpoint of building design and /or appearance. Rep Art . prepared by, � Y�; a�j Arthur I. Mears, I.E. Avalanche- control engineer • • 0 COLORADO ROOF FALL STNULATION PROGRAM FILE NAME ',rccksi to \habb 1 ROCK STATISTICS C L SrHEnICAL ROCK 1.5 FT RADI NUMBER OF CELLS 7 NUMPER OF RM"'.S 1ID(D ANALYSIS POSIT T4C) INPUT DATA INITIAL Y ZONE 705 TO 7I5 INITIAL X VELOCITY 1 FT /SEC INITIAL Y VELOCITY — 1 FT/SEC TANGENT NORMAL SURFACE COEFF I C I ENT COEFFICIENT BEGINNING END I NG CELL # ROUGHNESS RESTITUTION X,Y X,Y p 1 .75 85 1 600 1 S ti 7 1 . 75 . 2 5 155 y 56 20 1 S te. 4 75 .25 205 57C, ' 7 - 9f_! y 4c 5 7 2 90 460 TLC 7 54o rso AE VDr,C A. Rockzall simulation using CRS2. A -" u m cU � ua � c 0 I n c� a7 4i cd E O �+ a PK m � N T r-I td ::s sz ixl 6 Ql O N r-4 r-I Q U � D LS 0 iC' --4 • 0 C] A -2 O � O a. FILE NAME- I r ;�. to "%hobby. 1 ANPLY �� 4 A MAXIMUM VELOCITY AVERAGE VELOCITY M T_ N I MUM VELOCITY STWARD DEVIATION (VELOCITY) ,AVERAGE POUNCE HEIGHT MAXIMUM BOUNCE HEIGHT MAXIMUM KINETIC ENERGY X= 3 40 Y= 41 85 FT /SEC 61 FT /SEC ~9 FT /SEC, 4.91 9 FEET ^1 FEET 263312 FT LB Cr ANA LYSIS POINT BOUNCE HEIGHT DISTRIBUTION Duu HEIGHT if FREQUENCY 7 1? 4 4 1? 4 16 1 5 r^ 4 14 4 is 1n � 1 Z 1 r Y `- 9 4 q j 'Y J Y r1 � 4 n 1 4 f if FREQUENCY 7 4 Y 4 4 39, 10% exceedance probability (tyo) 20 30 40 FREQUENC ANALYSIS r POINT VELOCITY DISTRIBUTION Err ££££ff££��fff £fr , VELOCIT(y 62 60 L r f� £C££r £f£ £ 50 r 65- 10% exceedance probability (typ) Statistical information of root velocity and bounce height generated at the "analysis paint" (building site)• • A -3 � FILE NAME: \rccksitex \\E / GRAEH §DUNES EIGHT 2S 4 I 2 $ r( r crc e » J ( \ � - \\ !7 ¥ a 3£E( \J( £E£! :££C . SEE!££ :£E rEC((£ {£ 15 a ��¥zzrrrrErr2r r�££ . ££_ £ »JE(_[£((£3 =£ rCrr \ / / 'rr {�_ r / { \ / / \ { \ / { \ {CCIEC £(£ -P rc_ J§{ z%{£ £££E{(CE(£([££££(J££{[£El�E[z£% ƒ £ !t_£:£!£E[£�££[�££��[££££!££!££ �e3 433 IOe HORIZONTAL DISTANCE VELOCITY BRASH VELOCITY¥ r 91 ¥ { 35 4 r££J //r fE£ {E{ / / {£ 77 4 £ £(£££ {(£((G(£J£i££c( 73 « [[[(E E£zE£££!!£�([EJ££ \(£(L { 67 E£££££r{£Z�z££££££J!£!(£E�EtE(� 61 4 55 ¥ 49 4 (((C(((E£E££££(([�L��.E�!!. -_� 47 ¥ £ l tRtG lE£££ZZ££ {£� { Err s7 v[[(((&(({{E£(((E£ j! C £££C£:CLE!!:E!&!!{£�EI£J£!££!! 433 U X16 H ORIZONTAL DISTANCE�- ££ 541 649 541 1649 2cce SeiEbta & ¥elo »z s G aooE slo oflle, A-4 E 0 i i� FILE NAME- ,r acksite shabbs. 1 CELL # MAXIMUM (FT/ AVERAGE VEL S STANDARD DEV � AVERAGE MAX I NUM P EC) O `Y HEIGHT (FT) HE I (FT) —*! ?c i 6? 49 4 -�' 9.51 5 4 14 4 r Ec --- 57 10.. 45 4 4' b i s b 11.04 4.4 E 1 i _ 4 7 NO ROCIVE PASSED FbINT X INTERVAL ROCKS STOP'P'ED ?70 TO 3Q0 FEET 1 'T90 TO 40 FEET 40 0 - 1 TO 41 FEET 41 TO 4 7 ' i FEET 8 4-6 TO 4 FEET 4 TO 4L-cs FEET 1 440 TO 450 FEET 5 45i i TO 460 FEET 9 460 TO 470 FEET 5 47 TO c a 4k� � FEET q 49C_) TO 490 FEET b 49c_; TO 5c x) FEET 7 5() i TO 510 FEET 6 51G TO 520 FEE FEE 1 ' _ 5_c y TO C. FEET 5'� i 540 TO �4i i FEET 4 TO 5. . :J FEET TO 56 FEET 5;6C) TO 57c i 1 EEET i 580 TO 550 FEET T 1 Statistics of rockfall behavior at various points that subdivide the slope profile, and distribution of stopping positions of rocks used to validate use of the CRISP model at this location. A-5 Enter name of file with profile and friction cae= ficient data. \praco \habbs Enter first guess for mass /drag ratio 300 Calculation process is starti n iteration come1ete wi th Run Oft Error = BC and Mass-Drag- Ratio = 3, its iteration comic l ete Run un Out Error = 47 and Mass -Dray* Ra ti o = `~1 S iteration Comp 1ete with Run Out Error = ^" and Mass -Drag Ratio = 172 iteration complete with Run Out Error = 11 and Mass - Drag Rati = 14e iteration complete with Run Out Error = 5 and Mass -Drag Rat = 1 : 7 : 7 iteration complete with Run Out Error = and Mass -drag Ratio = 1T7 iteration complete with Run Out Error = 1 and Mass -Drag Ratio = 11 Computations wer teminated. Measured Run Cut Distance = '4.0 metres Computed Run Out Distance = ?4,E metres . Mass - Drat Ratio = 131 metres Velocities at the top and bot - om for each segment in metres /sac. are as ' of is 0. C') 14.4 1 14.4 2 1 . 6 � =t 7 7 20.6 -- � 1 20. 6 C 1. ^ 7 :' 1.6 � 1. 9 1.9 r` 6 1 19.4 9.S 1 9.a • Press any k_ey to continue . . . i (2) HOBS AVALANCHE: East Vail, Colorado INPUT DATA SEGMENT LENGTH(m) ANGLE MU M /D(m) 3 36.9 t�,'�ti 1 -71 41.0 4G.t ti, 20 1~1 6 Z ' 7 6 ..9 0 . ?-0 131 7 55. t i 6 , t! =0 L4 5._ 1w1 VELOCITIES SEGMENT V(top) V(bottom) 0.0 m/s 14.4 m/s 14.4 m /s ^1.9 m 20.7 m/s 20 .6 m/s w J 4 '70.6 m/s 21.7 m/s 1.6 m/s ^1.9 m/s 1.9 m/s .6 m/s Avalanche does not stop. Iteration analysis used in calculating snow- avalanche velocities along statistically - determined runout path (1), and detailed grinout of velocities along the slope profile., (2). • B -1 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: August 13, 2001 SUBJECT: A request for a variance from Section 12 -6D -5, Vail Town Code, and a final review of a minor subdivision located at 3816 and 3826 Lupine Drive and 3828 Bridge Road/ Lots 8, 9. & 10, Bighorn Subdivision 2" Addition, Applicant: June Frazier and Jeff Dahl, represented by Steve Riden Planner: Ann Kjerulf DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicants, June Frazier and Jeff Dahl, represented by Steve Riden, have submitted an application to the Town of Vail Community Development Department for a minor subdivision of Lots 8, 9, and 10, Bighorn Subdivision, Second Addition. The Planning and Environmental Commission reviewed the minor subdivision request at a worksession on June 25, 2001. At that point in time, survey information for the subject lots was not available so staff was unable to perform a complete review and provide a recommendation to the Planning and Environmental Commission. Since that meeting, staff has received complete survey information and determined that, as proposed, Lot 10 would not meet the buildable area requirement specified in Section 12 -6D -5. Hence, the owner of Lot 10 is requesting a variance from this section in association with the application for minor subdivision. Minor Subdivision: The minor subdivision request involves the reconfiguration of the property lines shared by Lots 8, 9, and 10. Pursuant to the Vail Town Code, 13 -2 -2 (E), a minor subdivision is defined as follows: "Minor subdivision" shall mean any subdivision containing not more than four (4) lots fronting on an existing street, not involving any new street or road or the extension of Municipal facilities and not adversely affecting the development of the remainder of the parcel or adjoining property." Currently, Lot 8 is 0.87 Acres in size, Lot 9 is 0.34 Acres in size, and Lot 10 is 0.30 Acres in size. With a resubdivision of these lots, Lot 8 would become 0.802 Acres in size, Lot 9 would become 0.382 Acres in size, and Lot 10 would become 0.380 Acres in size. The total area under consideration is 1.56 Acres. There are currently no development proposals for any of the lots. However, staff anticipates that these would be forthcoming if the minor subdivision is approved. Frazier -Dahl Minor Subdivision and variance Request, August 13, 2001 1 u TOWN OF MIL Variance Request: Newly subdivided lots in the Two - Family Primary/Secondary Zone District must meet the lot area and site dimension criteria outlined in Section 12 -6D -5 of the Town Code: The minimum lot or site area shall be fifteen thousand (15, 000) square feet of buildable area, and each site shall have a minimum frontage of thirty feet (30)_ Furthermore, buildable area is defined as: "Any site, lot, parcel or any portion thereof which does not contain designated flood plain, red hazard avalanche area, or areas in excess of forty percent (40 %) slope." After red hazard avalanche areas and areas with forty percent (40 %) slopes or greater are eliminated, the total buildable area on Lot 10 is 7,314 sf. Due to the lack of buildable area on proposed Lot 10, a variance from section 12 -6D -5 is required in association with the minor subdivision request. II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Minor Subdivision: The Department of Community Development recommends the Planning and Environmental Commission approve the applicants' request for a minor subdivision in accordance with Section IV of this memorandum and subject to the following findings: That the application is in compliance with the intent and purposes of the Subdivision Regulations, the Zoning Ordinance and other pertinent regulations that the Planning and Environmental Commission deems applicable. 2. That the application is appropriate in regard to Town policies relating to subdivision control, densities proposed, regulations, ordinances and resolutions and other applicable documents, environmental integrity and compatibility with the surrounding land uses and other applicable documents, and effects on the aesthetics of the Town_ If the Planning and Environmental Commission chooses to approve the minor subdivision, staff requests that the following conditions of approval be considered: 1, That the minor subdivision shall only be valid if the variance from section 12 -6D -5 is also approved. 2. That the applicant shall revise the plat prior to recording, in accordance with the Town's subdivision regulations, to indicate the total buildable area on each proposed lot, to delineate the buildable area on each proposed lot, and to indicate the locations of all applicable hazards. Frazier -Dahl Minor Subdivision and Variance Request, August 13, 2001 is 2 Variance: The Department of Community Development recommends the Planning and Environmental Commission approve the applicants' request for a variance from Section 12 -6D -5, Town of Vail Code to allow for relief from the buildable area requirement subject to the following findings: That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the Primary/Secondary Residential Zone District. 2. There are exceptions or extraordinary setback circumstances or conditions applicable to this site that do not apply generally to other properties in the Primary /Secondary Residential Zone District. 3- There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. III. BACKGROUND The Bighorn Subdivision, Second Addition was platted on July 22, 1963. The Board of County Commissioners of Eagle County approved the platting as the property was then under Eagle County jurisdiction. Lots 8, 9, & 10 have remained in the current 40 configuration since being platted. The Bighorn Subdivision, Second Addition was annexed into the Town of Vail pursuant to Ordinances 13 & 20, Series of 1974. The annexation became effective on November 5, 1974. Upon annexation into the Town of Vail, Lots 8, 9, & 10 were zoned Two Family Primary/Secondary Residential. At the time of annexation, a residential structure existed on Lot 9, and Lots 8 and 10 were both vacant. Due to the minimum lot size requirements of the Two - Family Primary/Secondary Zone District, Lots 9 & 10 were rendered legally non - conforming. Hazard Regulations In 1976, the Town of Vail contracted with Arthur I. Mears to complete a Geologically Sensitive Areas Study. For purposes of the study geologically sensitive areas were defined as snow avalanche, rock fall and debris flow. In response to the findings of Mr. Mears' study the Town of Vail adopted Geologic Hazard Maps for snow avalanche, rock fall and debris flow as components of the Town of Vail Comprehensive Plan. The maps were adopted by the Town in 1977, In 1978, the Town of Vail adopted Hazard Regulations, The purpose of the regulations is to help protect the inhabitants of the Town from dangers relating to development of flood plains, avalanche paths, steep slopes, and geologically sensitive areas; to regulate the use of land areas which may be geologically sensitive; and further to regulate development on steep slopes; to protect the economic and property values of the Town, to protect the aesthetic and recreational values and natural resources of the Town, which Frazier -Dahl Minor Subdivision and Variance Request, August 13, 2001 3 are sometimes associated with flood plains, avalanche areas and areas of geologic sensitivity and slopes; to minimize damage to public facilities and utilities and minimize the need for relief in cleanup operations; to give notice to the public of certain areas within the Town where flood plains, avalanche paths and areas of geologic sensitivity exist; and to promote the general public health, safety and welfare. Town of Vail Land Use Plan In 1986, the Vail Town Council adopted the Town of Vail Land Use Plan. Similar to the Geologic Hazard Maps, the Land Use Plan is a component of the Town of Vail Comprehensive Plan. According to the Land Use Plan, Lots 8, 9, & 10 are designated "low density residential ". The purpose of the low- density residential designation is to provide sites for single- family detached homes and two - family dwelling units. density of development with in this category would typically not exceed 3 structures per buildable acre. Also within this area would be private recreation facilities such as tennis courts, swimming pools, and club houses for the use of residents of the area. Institutional /public uses permitted would include churches, fire stations, and parks and open space related facilities. The Town of Vail Comprehensive Open Lands Plan In 1994, the Vail Town Council adopted the Comprehensive Open Lands Plan. The objectives of the plan are: • To identify citizen and visitor needs and preferences for a comprehensive system of open space uses such as parks, recreation, protection of environmental resources, trails, and to reserve lands for public.use; • To prioritize available open lands for acquisition or protection; • To identify creative strategies to implement the acquisition and protection program; • To define a management system to appropriately manage Town -owned open space lands, and; • To buffer neighborhoods with open space. The Comprehensive Open Lands Plan is an action- oriented plan that identifies specific parcels of land that require some kind of action either for protection of sensitive lands, for trail easements, or for public use. In developing the plan, over 350 parcels were evaluated with 51 parcels on which actions were recommended. The recommendations were developed utilizing specific criteria to evaluate the areas of highest priority. Generally, areas received the highest priority if they met the stated objectives of the Town and its citizens and were an integral part of the open lands system. Within the 51 parcels, there are five priority areas made up of a number of recommended actions. These priorities are: • Protect sensitive natural habitat areas, riparian areas, and hazard areas; • Extend the Vail Trail to East Vail and add several trailheads to access the trail; • Add a new trail on the north side and western half of Town to connect existing trailheads and neighborhoods; • Add three "trailheads" in the core areas to access Vail Mountain trails and inform visitors of trail opportunities and provide better access to Gore Creek; • Add bike lanes to the north and south frontage roads and add paved shoulders to Vail Frazier -Dahl Minor Subdivision and Variance Request, August 13, 2001 • 4 Valley Drive. To date, the Town of Vail has taken action on at least 41 of the 51 parcels identified for action in the Plan. This most recently includes Lot 16 of Bighorn Subdivision, 2 nd Addition. The Action Plan and Priority Plan of the Comprehensive Open Lands Plan identifies Lots 8, 10, and 11, Bighorn Subdivision, Second Addition as "Parcel 40" for implementation purposes. Parcel 40 is classified as a "High Priority ". The high priority classification is based upon the Town's desire to acquire both the development rights and trail easements for the proposed South Trail extension. The plan also notes that Parcel 40 is located in a geologically sensitive area. Strategies for protecting Parcel 40 include purchasing the development rights, and/or acquiring an access easement through the parcel. As a high priority classification, Parcel 40 meets both Level One and Level Two Evaluation criteria. Level One Evaluation focuses on meeting community needs relating to the natural resource system, the recreation system, trails system, and reserving lands for future civic /public uses. Level Two Evaluation focuses on the availability of the parcel utilizing criteria such as the threat of development or irreversible damage, opportunities to leverage other funds, cost, unusual opportunity with a motivated seller, opportunity for trade with the USFS, low management requirements on the Town of Vail and low liability to the Town. On Tuesday, July 17, 2001, Community Development staff met with the Town Council to determine the level of interest in acquiring Parcel 40. Due to the prevalence of geological hazards and the lack of potential for the development of the South Trail, the Town Council opted to take no action on Parcel 40. It was decided that the Town's hazard regulations and development standards may sufficiently guide and limit development on Parcel 40 in the future.. The Council was amenable to the possibility of acquiring conservation easements upon Parcel 40 at the discretion of the land owners. Development Regulations The Town of Vail Zoning Code prescribes the land development regulations for development within the Town. The following code sections are particularly relevant to the evaluation of the applicant's proposal: Chapter 6 — Two - Family Primary/Secondary Residential Chapter 21 — Hazard Regulations The purpose statement of Chapter 6 (Article D. Two - Family Primary /Secondary Residential (PS) District) states. "The Two - Family Primary/Secondary Residential District is intended to provide sites for single- family residential uses or two - family residential uses in which one unit is a larger primary residence and the second unit is a smaller caretaker apartment, together with such public facilities as may approperiately be located in the same district. The Two - Family Primary/Secondary Residential District is intended to ensure adequate light, air, privacy and open space for each dwelling, commensurate with Frazier -Dahl Minor Subdivision and Variance Request August 13, 2001 5 single- family and two - family occupancy, and to maintain the desirable residential qualities of such sites by establishing appropriate site development standards. " To date, there are no structures on Lot 8 or on Lot 10. The applicants wish to reapportion the development potential among these three lots in order to accommodate future development. There are geologic hazards on this lot including avalanche and rockfall (see Figures 6 & 7 attached). The purpose statement of Chapter 21 (Hazard Regulations) states: 'The purpose of this Chapter is to help protect the inhabitants of the Town from dangers relating to development of flood plains, avalanche paths, steep slopes and geologically sensitive areas; to regulate the use of land areas which may be subject to flooding and avalanche or which may be geologically sensitive; and further to regulate development on steep slopes; to protect the economic and property values of the Town, to protect the aesthetic and recreational values and natural resources of the Town, which are sometimes associated with flood plains, avalanche areas and areas of geological sensitivity and slopes; to minimize damage to public facilities and utilities and minimize the need for relief in cleanup operations; to give notice to the public of certain areas within the Town where flood plains, avalanche areas and areas of geologic sensitivity exist; and to promote the general public health, safety and welfare." Furthermore, Section 12 -21 -10 (Hazard Regulations) states: 0 A. No structure shall be built in any flood hazard zone or red avalanche hazard areas. No structure shall be built on a slope of forty percent or greater except in Single - Family Residential, Two - Family Residential, or Two - Family Primary/Secondary Residential Zone Districts. The term "structure" as used in this Section does not include recreational structures that are intended for seasonal use, not including residential use. B, Structures may be built in blue avalanche hazard areas provided that proper mitigating measures have been taken. G. The Administrator may require any applicant or person desiring to build in an avalanche hazard zone of influence to submit a definitive study of the hazard area in which the applicant proposes to build if the Town's master hazard plan does not contain sufficient information to determine if the proposed location is in a red hazard or blue hazard area. The requirement for additional information and study shall be done in accordance with Chapter 12 of this Title. D. The Administrator may require any applicant or person desiring to build in an identified blue avalanche hazard zone to submit additional information or reports as to whether or not improvements are required to mitigate against the possible hazard. If mitigation is required, said information and report should specify the improvements proposed Frazier -Dahl Minor Subdivision and Variance Request, August 13, 2001 0 therefore. The required information and reports shall be done in accordance with Chapter 12 of this Title. The Town has adopted Official Hazard Maps (as described in section 12- 21 -15; Restrictions in Geologically Sensitive Areas) which identify areas located within or potential within rockfail, debris flow, or avalanche areas. Subdivision and /or development proposals within any geological hazard area requires a site - specific geologic investigation; According to section 12- 21 --15: in any area located within the boundaries of the Lincoln DeVore Map, or in any area identified as a debris flow or debris avalanche area by the Mears Map, or in any area identified as a rock fall area by the Schmueser Map, no initial application for a building permit, grading permit or major or minor subdivision shall be approved until a site- specific geologic investigation is complete. For the purpose of this Section, a site - speci'fi'c geologic investigation shall be deemed a detailed geologic investigation which is applicable to each respective site. All reports and studies required by this Section shall be prepared by a 'professional geologist ", as defined by Colorado Revised Statutes section 34 -1 -01, as amended, or a "registered professional engineer ", as defined by Colorado Revised Statutes section 12 -25 -102, as amended, under the direction of and at the expense of the owner /applicant and submitted to the Department of Community Development. 2. The extent of the site- specific ecologic investigation required shall be determined by the geologist or engineer who is responsible for the investigation however, the investigation shall be of sufficient thoroughness and accuracy to allow such expert to certify to the following: a. For all structures other than single - family, duplex and primary/secondary dwellings. and "accessory uses" thereto as defined in Section 12 -6C -4 of this Code. (1) Whether the geologic conditions are such that the site can or cannot be developed for the specific structure or use proposed without corrective engineering or engineered construction, or other mitigation or alterations. (2) Whether corrective engineering or engineered construction, or other mitigation or alterations can or cannot be accomplished to reduce the danger to the public health, safety or to property due to problems related to geologic sensitivity to a reasonable level, and not increase the hazard to other properties or structures, or to public buildings, rights of way, roads, streets, easements, utilities or facilities or other properties of construction. b. For single- family, duplex and primary/secondary dwellings, and "accessory uses" thereto as defined in Section 12 -6C -4 of this Title, the site- specific geologic investigation shall certify to the following: (1 ) Whether the site can be developed for the specific structure or use proposed without corrective engineering or engineered construction or other mitigation or alterations; or (2) That the site is a geologically sensitive area but development will not Frazier -Dahl Minor Subdivision and variance Request, August 13, 2001 7 increase the hazard to other property or structures, or to public buildings, rights of way, roads, streets, easements, utilities or facilities 49 or other properties of any kind. In order to provide reasonable notice to the public of the problems related to geologically sensitive areas, notice regulations and requirements (Section 12- 21- 15 (F)) have been adopted. One of these requirements is that: I. All subdivision plats recorded after the effective date hereof shall identify and designate each lot and block, or portions thereof, located within any geologically sensitive area, together with applicable sub -zone designations, by a stamp or writing in a manner providing reasonable notice to interested parties. Frazier -Dahl Minor Subdivision and Variance Request, August 13, 2001 0 III. ZONING ANALYSIS LOT 8, BIGHORN SUBDIVISION, SECOND ADDITION Zoning Two- Family PrimarylSecondairy Residential (PS) Existing Lot Size 0.87 Acres (37,888 s#) Proposed Lot Size 0.802 Acres (34,935 sf) Standard Allowed Existing Proposed Density: 2 DUs + 1 EHU 0 2 DUs + 1 EHU GRFA: 6,494 sf 0 sf 6,347 sf Site Coverage: 7,578 sf 0 sf 6,987 sf Setbacks: Front -20 ft. nla 20 ft. Sides -15 ft. nla 15 ft. Rear- 15ft. n/a 15ft. Landscaping: 22,733 sf undeveloped 20,961 sf Building Height: 33' max undeveloped 33' max 0 40 Frazier -Dahl Minor Subdivision and Variance Request, August 43, 2004 9 Frazier -Dahl Minor Subdivision and Variance Request, August 13, 2001 10 0 I-] LOT 9, BIGHORN SUBDIVISION, SECOND ADDITION Zoning Two - Family PrimarylSecondary Residential (PS) Existing Lot Size 0.34 Acres (14,941 sf) Proposed Lot Size 0.382 Acres (18,640 sf) Currently Proposed Standard Allowed Existing Allowed Density: 1 DU + 1 EHU 1 DU 2 DUs + 1 EHU GRFA: 4,164 sf ( +250) 4,764 sf ( +254) Site Coverage: 2,988 sf 3,328 sf Setbacks: Front -20 ft. 20 ft Sides -15 ft. 15 ft Rear- 15ft. 15 ft Landscaping: 8,956 sf 9,984 sf Building Height: 33' max 33' max "The Community Development Department does not have the existing development statistics on file for Lot 9 because this property was constructed in Eaaie County and subseauentiv annexed into the town. Frazier -Dahl Minor Subdivision and Variance Request, August 13, 2001 10 0 I-] • Frazier -Dan! Minor Subdivision and Variance Request, August 13, 2001 11 LOT 10, BIGHORN SUBDIVISION, SECOND ADDITION Zoning Two- Family Primary /Secondary Residential (PS) Existing Lot Size 0.30 Acres (12,898 so Proposed Lot Size 0.380 Acres (16,553 so Currently Proposed Standard Allowed Existing Allowed Density: 1 DU + 1 EHU 2 DUs + 1 EHU GRFA: 3,650 sf 4,755 sf Site Coverage: 2,580 sf * 3,311 sf Setbacks: Front -20 ft. 20 ft Sides -15 ft. 15 ft Rear- 15ft. 15 ft Landscaping: 7,739 sf 9,932 sf Building Height: 33' Max 33' max *Lot 10 is an undeveloped lot. • Frazier -Dan! Minor Subdivision and Variance Request, August 13, 2001 11 IV. MINOR SUBDIVISION CRITERIA 0 A basic premise of subdivision regulations is that the minimum standards for the creation of new lots must be met. This subdivision will be reviewed under Title 13, Subdivision Regulations, of the Town of Vail Code. A. The first set of criteria to be considered by the Planning and Environmental Commission for a Minor Subdivision application is: Lot Area According to Section 12 -6D -5 of the Town of Vail Zoning Regulations, the minimum lot or site area in the Two - Family Primary /Secondary Residential District is 15,000 sf of buildable area. Staff Response: Lots 8 and 9 meet the minimum buildable area requirement. The total buildable area for Lot 10 is 7,314 square feet. Because Lot 10 was platted in Eagle County. and did not meet this requirement when the lot was annexed into the Town of Vail, it became a legally non- conforming lot. By making the lot larger, it would actually become less non - conforming. Hence, staff does not believe that the deficiency in buildable area should have a bearing upon the minor subdivision request. For further clarification, buildable area is applicable only for subdivision purposes. The Town Code does allow construction to occur on slopes greater than forty percent (40 %) in the Primary- Secondary zone district. Frontage According to Section 12 -6D -5 of the Town of Vail Regulations, each lot in the Two - Family Primary /Secondary Residential District shall have a minimum 40 frontage of thirty feet (30'). Staff Response: The proposed lots (Lots 8, 9 & 10) comply with the minimum frontage requirement. Dimension According to Section 12 -6D -5 of the Town of Vail Regulations, each lot in the Two - Family Primary /Secondary Residential District shall be of a size and shape capable of enclosing a square area 80 feet on each side within its boundaries. Staff Response: Each proposed lot meets this dimension requirement. B. The second set of review criteria to be considered with a minor subdivision request is outlined in the Subdivision Regulations, 13 -3 -4, and is as follows: "The burden of proof shall rest with the applicant to show that the application is in compliance with the intent and purposes of this Chapter, the ,Zoning Ordinance and other pertinent regulations that the Planning and Environmental Commission deems applicable.... The Planning and Environmental Commission shall review the application and consider its Frazier -Dahl Minor Subdivision and Variance Request August 13, 2001 • 12 appropriateness in regard to Town policies relating to subdivision control, densities proposed, regulations, ordinances and resolutions and other applicable documents, environmental integrity and compatibility with the surrounding land uses and other applicable documents, effects on the aesthetics of the Town. " The purpose section of Title 13, Subdivision Regulations, is intended to insure that the subdivision is promoting the health, safety and welfare of the community. The subdivision purpose statements from 13 -1 -2 (C) are as follows: "To inform each subdivider of the standards and criteria by which development proposals will be evaluated and to provide information as to the type and extent of improvements required." Staff Response: Staff believes that the proposal is consistent with the intent and purposes of the Zoning Ordinance. "To provide for the subdivision of property in the future without conflict with development on adjacent land. " Staff Response: The Vail Land Use Plan identifies Lots 8, 9, & 10 as areas for "low density residential" development. According to the Vail Land Use Plan, the purpose of the "low density residential" designation is to provide sites for single- family detached homes and two- family dwelling units. The density of development within this category would typically not exceed 3 structures per buildable acre. Buildable area is defined as that area of a lot outside the 100 -year floodplain, red snow avalanche areas and slopes less than 40 %. Development has never occurred on Lots 8 & 10. Lot 9 contains a single family dwelling that was in existence when the Bighorn Subdivision, 2' Addition was annexed into the Town of Vail. Over the years, the Bighorn Subdivision, First and Second Additions have been developed in concert with the Vail Land Use Plan as residential neighborhoods. The area has been zoned for single - family and two - family primary /secondary residential development. A majority of the lots in the neighboring area are also located within geologic hazard zones. Development on these lots, as with lots 8, 9, & 10, is governed by the adopted Hazard Regulations in the Town of Vail Zoning Regulations. 3. "To protect and conserve the value of land throughout the Municipality and the value of buildings and improvements on the land." Staff Response: Staff does not believe that the minor subdivision of Lots 8, 9, & 10, Bighorn Subdivision, Second Addition would have any negative impacts on the value of land in the Town of Vail. Construction can not occur on a large portion of Lots 8 Frazier-Dahl Minor Subdivision and Variance Request, August 13, 2001 13 and 10 due to the presence of red hazard avalanche. Furthermore, the owners of Lots 8 and 10 have expressed interest in creating a conservation easement to 40 ensure the preservation of open space on Lots 8 and 10. 4. "To ensure that subdivision of property is in compliance with the Town's zoning ordinances, to achieve a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land uses, consistent with Town development objectives. " Staff Response: Staff believes that the proposed lot sizes and configurations are consistent with the development objectives of the Town and the goals of Title 13, Subdivision Regulations which call for 'The orderly, efficient and integrated development of the Town." Furthermore, staff believes that the Town's hazard regulations and development standards can sufficiently limit the future development of this site. 5. "To guide public and private policy and action in order to provide adequate and efficient transportation, water, sewage, schools, parks, playgrounds, recreation, and other public requirements and facilities and generally to provide that public facilities will have sufficient capacity to serve the proposed subdivision." Staff Response: The Town of Vail Comprehensive Open Lands Plan identifies a public purpose and recreational need for Lots 8, 10, and 11 (Parcel 40), Bighorn Subdivision, Second Addition. The owners of Lots 8 and 10 have expressed an interest in creating a conservation easement to ensure the preservation of open space.. However, even without this easement, the Town's hazard regulations and development standards can adequately minimize the impacts upon Parcel 40. 6. 'To provide for accurate legal descriptions of newly subdivided land and to establish reasonable and desirable construction design standards and procedures. " Staff Response: Staff believes that the current proposal satisfies this purpose statement. 7. "To prevent the pollution of air, streams and ponds, to assure adequacy of drainage facilities, to safeguard the water table and to encourage the wise use and management of natural resources throughout the Town in order to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the community and the value of the land. " Staff Response: Staff believes that the minor subdivision request will not conflict with this purpose statement. Frazier -Dahl Minor Subdivision and Variance Request, August 13, 2001 14 0 VI. VARIANCE CRITERIA A. Consideration of Factors Regarding the Variance The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. As proposed, staff does not believe that the requested variance will have any impact on potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The variance, however, would allow for two dwelling units and one type II employee housing unit as opposed to one dwelling unit and one type 1 employee housing unit as is permitted currently. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of. this title without a grant of special privilege. Staff believes that a degree of relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of 12 -5D -5 is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in this case. By allowing Lot 10 to get bigger, the degree of existing non - conformity would actually be lessened. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. Staff does not believe that the requested variance will have any negative impacts on the above referenced criteria. B. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a variance: That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions Frazier -Dahl Minor Subdivision and Variance Request, August 13, 2001 15 applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. C. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. Frazier -Dahl Minor Subdivision and Vanance Request, August 13, 2001 0 • 16 • <-�IZ r?'� 0 • /�i.���i; �5 ° e ''1 te'• �:.!' - ,j. lyrt� �ry ^a r.+l rp'SFp Ci y�j��/`�' t.. Y ^•, K { r� •a �> ..W;� '•:: •S�.• [ +� k t r;�� T 1 ei,` , '4 °+� it } .. yM r�� c { yi�_ ��1 ° '_ . � •'• . S f e g e ..s � ��M. �I { ' S �� � r ° e: r' t 5 �' t� J is � ^. � r p i ���TuC �1 r�A � � c,r °iyc� ` a • °' 1 . P - J�' �� eh' Lf'' 17 ' r �1 'Y[ 1 9 �� La 6 , 4 t • 4 _' 4 �':: .� Y ` � ^A f i �, - . � r • { } � ' �.,r. r� 1 . ' A ,K J - ' � � . � � r .2'� d ' �ra� y ; {��. L ��•,• - ,' �� > +-�. wie '� 5 r , -.rte � : S•," .. i e i i - 1 h5 y !' �. �. .f � •f �, �' ` �+?• 'fir.- 41 � •,t. { �� i� /y � '� y �• h1 y+ iy k _(J 5, e . 4 . � � • a - . + : "1 ^ , s�`� h r, � 4 � z - ,"f°,� } ; , ,rA q r„' ° t t - �'t� + n4, } .} ,� tit �� � r'' " ti� 4 �r d• xt r. • � J{ y a � S e._ yy `dr i •' k � !1 S L r r °{ • J ♦y � � r Ic r�{ !:_ . � / � , � f � i t 3 q � a t R ° �• r�.r � { 1 �g -' �,. ..� �. ,� Sr _ .s. {�.�, � F _ fti � � - . ° .i' ,�r tY ; i...rA,J rt ` 'x "} ,. �: yy�. ° .51'� 4w. ;• t y ?: i i e ° .. ° n ^�rFr t0.` - ' a •..° t` � 1 >`n�� e.r 1. a & rN, Y P 4 a44j� ,p� i� {1 1�1 � ti t t,. <, •`. S � 5 ��',[al � °1 { � �� 4 r f',.f1 ,4" .!'N s sr. .. F , { �� �.�So •Lp '�jv}f� �1�� �' �W';56�1 ° . . �F F . ^ � h .i14}�f 4 •� � r, t 5 i i z ���''� ' p7 .. • T , r a n � 1 { y r �' M1 � �fh (� 1 �. , Y �,� 7 �;:•. .t.' ` .y �; r - �4 dX �• � a ' t i 1 r + a . � ° �. i14 §; t a —" ']�., , '' '{� �P i'S �rY. ,, -.. + .•!e h ; .� 'fit �.. 3[fa � � +.. �z� ri ��� i,� '� r � _ �7• h � pyy.. :T,,f '.. ti f � �' F � � � L �' %' "~ ° N� � •t � i1.� a -1 5 � '„ Z4i �y� '..�f . "s L Y e ti. _ �; �' k F�• � � � �`4_ r l `j J / r , 3 .Li r, - .� '.,1 ;... t � qa � ` ii J e -' �� 0 1 ?• 1' � � ��e {- 1f' � 1 � � Y �k r.•t}t $� S: i° � r�`� �dG. v., ' ~�k a .� � 41. '` •�. f�.��` �,. i. .•B �• L �� . � \. 4�• f •if l L .}i � ,; J., 1 �1 � .. (F�� `/ Sir �. 1� - t:{ i(. �;ii .���,y 12 r . � 1 � r{ n.���' n �� .,' , �.��t�y ,, ,�` a l�l.a"23f�'�r. Y .r { .+� •• �^fd, °Y; 1 " ! ' i • P, �, .: : j���,Cy. 6 � � +; -, , �, ' y �y �a 1 rat , t t °°• EJS i _ ,t e r - : f a y . �'�r r .. imum extent of rockfald hazard to the Bridge , Road thus rece co n str uc ti on FIGURE 6. Map of the max tion Drive area. Map was produced from aerial photography taken in 1997, does not appear an the map. SCALE.' 1"= 100' " �'� .r`'i:4r./ �' �`1' • �X/;.'e�.1:��...Aul"'2, � rw... r .h'..•.3.i`�� ! 7�; 1' S�! E:. I} e�k + *' ?5. = .�.F: _......; - x .:'!: ..w'..��',. �,' r "ra� _.... Yr'J!Y HA 'a7'r hM,�Y'j ti 3 - 3: - i•l •. , y - 1' ' ' v yyl U9, •S. F � 1 �i "-rY •�^Y. . 1F �Y' �Q' `Y' 1� 4 A��� f� t %f� 4� 1 1. {� YK' A k�i� 1 f a y A LL '• • Q P •� � f - 1 i 't. ,� -�h X i.. i _ ,�k - 1� ' �� ui�'!'6 I� d 'b'S *1 }' Sir y�# i - , ; - i 1' c,,ysy le�� 1�+'4� r 1hvti� i? .Y i l� y�. t " • Jddr sy r q �± r t�.�,•,�f l{ijrl;rw '5 w " ro rl'. K C yy `` ,Ys ;• " 81 '0 • sW"a ry. r r� �( .$.+ �, S. Y t H•s v 9 x t ! r7 d' i �y +yyt' 4- k •! , y'. } 1 _y4 f + IY. ` �l� ^�� F'• r "� M1 �A � r _ }Y" *.�h 4 `! I' 4 t4� �° f ti t +[P 6 eria s r +'' ! 3 f? f+. _7 �`�� 'v� >�:rfi e I r of + }' ) 'r �S gh "6 r' ��, t � r��+"t ti!>rw� I. s +P' �• �e -�. s ,� a x � " � 7���.. * • .,. } :"cr P7, jF : �� C� ��� � ka'. f 'y' a •i�, YR ii r f k S iiF 1 d �' s• tty�, S . rir-�"�Y terf. 1�a.... s' _'4'^' � rt „`l - 1 y r 'F ii�'' 3 ^�' t �� • ' '} � F s � x 4� q ay 3 s r s,. - a s+� 3� � ;�� r � a �� s � #fr'� r: �?°"�' � ' ' `9; �• .�� w. > ,. i� -_ r ''�.i.S• 1i-`�? . y, �'dJ i. t�4' ���1; • ,r ,� f '+�'�r ro {.',. �Fd �� '' a .I •� � �j _ , C i �' A:.1�` "+ y A '}'�'� ��:� ;'�1 t� i ;._ F� . r �g}�r !`. � p k `�'� °��e.•Yt�' " �'�t '� _ 3 °� Y1! F� � Y� `fir Yq !t 'r4 � q' �t �_'� �''° :.c d{• } S C �bc � �; 5 r �d +'r� h s��J ;• / j �i x + e d f l ” 3. f a •- 'iris 3 r r £ tp> a 3 Mf +} �F:s� a . x �� iggyy y�� rr ` ,, r .. ruro.,•�'krx�S A�� ¢ u F sZ�'� t � `� sis� ttT fM- '+`�'�. <y+ y,� 1 �,�y^� ''r�'�a4� iif' x}}r '�z� ii• Fr t 4,r�� 'y �r''t• r t " t 9• � � i� J ^h t 6 ++e 1' n lxt P. 5i °' r -- a Ufi f,✓. 1 ; -•r 'd r1°s ^'_� c 4* t'� :,�`` � �; "a. + t t = -!, , �4. f y. . � _� � ` ���q{�` yy (.��k .yd,+µ, ,,� 4� '',•s� I�1 ', 5a, ,r t ., } ro r .t � .. ! � � �;� tir't''f�• rF /':*4 t° hyTJ ia < ���,'.2 {ti�'. � i� i * ^r.� ;t y J - < < ? •i�YLa �"�' + 'v } } } � y �- wt l �e; �,'�' `d,� � ^'� t t: '� � .. y+ tr�a �"" a �'. �. - s �tl f;' i " +4'�` a —: . ,, s . f. � 'M d r T. �.,r q^7• y t � �>~ �Y�i r` 4F'�Itia�`^k���y,��rkvfV r°.. F�' #r ?x.' .; - f � ". I 'F � f -. •` j/ !+ t" t"�L r , •„ .� k kF��afa '��} t �'��•'. "� �4i I 1. tieF t a xS �}.. ��: +'• f ' e' p �. 'f rY T4. }F �' 1 r �.4 .e t _ * �� it , - f.. �K s �i.'. y�w�, . r • , t r. I r r . <. ` Q� �, 'I� Via. ,�, j ati •i r7 y ;• It " fief al t .� P r :� .rod ! x M I . { J S ; ''tj �` � 's' J,: � � � J tr r � a � v .J r { � • J � .ry,� s :: ' ,,/ ! jtl4 1• � 1 r yew d�ir i. ! x°s } I t + is �, 1 t s ° � t it e + "•�jfi ��"d. _s � �:, a �5 ,r . .'w�! �' e t yr y o b .� d r� '^'f� A a t� • r r - i� I '1 1. °r Pr Sty F N"• �r yfi 4 �r�' , tii M � _ ,, + i JN F }.,.. � /.. ��yL3.. I ' P. " n om r• 7 � *. � 't FIGURE 7. Map of the maximum extent of snow or debris avalanches in the Bridge Road acrd '. west Lupine Drive are Red (high hazard) and Blue (moderate hazard) zones are shown. Map h 1= was produced from aerial photography taken in 1997, thus recent construction does not appear on the map. ti SCALE: 1 "= 10 ;1 ` MILTON R. BROWN 2435 CLINTON ROAD • ROCKFORD, ILLINOIS 61103 • July 18, 2001 The Town of Vail Community Development Department 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO 81557 Attention: Ann Kjerulf Subj: Subdivision proposals for Bridge Street `+ Dear Ms. Kjerulf: On two occasions I have discussed with you the subdivision proposals for lots located on the south end of Bridge Street. It seems to me that this particular area is not appropriate for the construction of residences. The area is very steep as it rises with the mountain and many of the trees that shape the natural beauty of East Vail would have to be removed. I would think, that it could also destabilize the land in an already avalanched designated area. I would appreciate it if the Planning and Environmental Commission would take these factors into consideration. Very truly yours, Milt Brown 0 0 • 0 f Q d O , 1 C W i 5� k f ill 6 Pin r r � 1 I glib i E, 111 Mix, N V � r ! d i 5� k f ill 6 Pin r r � 1 I glib i E, 111 Mix, N V � r ! i 5� k f ill 6 Pin r r � 1 I glib i E, 111 Mix, N V � r k� w 4� w �I a w � m 5 � I :I IQ Q o C p a � In , 4 k� w 4� w �I a w � m 5 � I :I IQ � 0' n 1 A e a �s ,i oavaoio3 `Aimm nova ' jo mKoi NoLuaQV QHooas moI uaans muoHoig OT GNY 'a 's sioll u2ma avw omayu -Doaos iq L � N w' U Y k �a m i t sr A sl , i 1i8 1 Nil OPO� gQ p4 n 1 A e a �s ,i oavaoio3 `Aimm nova ' jo mKoi NoLuaQV QHooas moI uaans muoHoig OT GNY 'a 's sioll u2ma avw omayu -Doaos iq L � N w' U Y k �a m i t I � L � N w' U Y k �a m i t I � i 1i8 1 i'g.'i hO a' fit f 9 11,111 Gw �yRy, • r ROCKFALL AND AVALANCHE HAZARD ANALYSIS AND MITIGATION CONCEPTS LOTS 8, 10, AND 12, BIGHORN SUBDIVISION 2 ND ADDITION Prepared For • Mr. Steve Riden Prepared By Arthur N. Mears, P.E., Inc. Gunnison, Colorado May, 2001 • ARTHUR I. MEARS, RE., INC. Natural Hazards Consultants 555 County Road 16 Gunnison, Colorado 81230 Tel/Fax 970-641-3236 admears@nnLi.com May 10, 2001 Mr. Steve Riden P.O. Sox 3238 Vail, CO 81658 RE: Hazard and mitigation analysis, Lots 8, 10 and 12, Bighorn 2nd Addition Dear Mr. Riden; The analysis of hazard and mitigation design concepts you requested is attached. Although some exposure to the above - defined hazards does exist, site - specific mitigation, including fill against back walls or special fences, is feasible and can probably be incorporated without substantial expense. Please contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, Arthur I. Mears, P.E. Avalanche - control engineer Encl: Report • I * • Mass Wasting • Avalanches • Avalanche Control Engineering Al • • 1 REPORT SUMMARY The principal conclusions, recommendations and limitations of this study are detailed in Sections 2 — 6. The summary is as follows. 1.1 Exposure All lots, proposed buildings and additions considered in this study are within range of rockfall and avalanche hazards. These hazards originate within or directly below the obvious limestone cliff outcropping of the Maroon formation approximately 300 feet above the building sites (Figures 2 and 3). Both rockfall and avalanches of sizes sufficiently large to damage buildings are rare events (estimated return periods of 100 years or longer) but do require mitigation as discussed. R o clef all or Avalanche d3.rec�ti.on ; a. Protected House o + . o +; 0 4d�� ♦ f11{ 0 d .4 RECOMMENDED MITIGATION — Mitigation recommended for the building positions shown in the April, 2001 Steve Riden drawings consists of placing a fill to a height H against all back walls of proposed houses_ The fill should extend vertically for a height H" H = 10' on Lot 8 (upper), 8' on Lot 8 (lower), 10' on Lot 10, and 8' on Lot 12. Surface slope of fill should be 1 Y2: 1. This will protect from design - magnitude rockfall and avalanches. An alternate mitigation (a rockfall energy - absorbing fence) is discussed in Section B. 1.2 Mitigation Because of small velocities and energies of avalanches and rockfall, the recommended mitigation will consist of fill against the uphill walls of all buildings as shown in the above figure. The lower section of the walls must be reinforced for the resulting soil pressure, as determined by the structural engineer. Any walls and windows on the back walls within 12 feet of grade should be minimized in area and reinforced for a horizontal pressure of 100 Ibslft The fill will dissipate rockfall and avalanche energy such that buildings will not be damaged and rocks and debris will not be deflected adversely onto adjacent public or private property. This will protect residents and others and will satisfy the Town of Vail hazard regulations. 2 2 OBJECTIVES AND LIMITATIONS As requested by Mr. Steve Riden, this report has the following objectives: is a. Analysis of the dynamics and resulting hazard from design - magnitude' rockfall and avalanches on the subject properties; b. Quantification of the impact and/or static loads on exposed buildings; c. Recommendations of mitigation procedures that are feasible at or above the buildings; d. Discussion of any adverse deflection of rockfall and avalanches onto adjacent properties; and e. Discussion of risk. This report also has the following limitations which should be understood by all those relying on the results and recommendations; a. Only rockfall, and snow and debris avalanches are considered; other hazards or constraints to development, if any, are beyond the scope of the study; b. The analysis is based on building locations provided in the Steve Riden drawings given to me in April, 2001. c. Any substantial changes to the terrain or forest cover (e.g., by forest fire or landslides) above the building sites may increase the hazard; d. Extraordinary events (e.g., with return periods of 300, 1000 years or longer) may exceed the sizes delineated or analyzed in this report; and e. The study is site- specific and may not be applicable at other sites. 3 PREVIOUS WORK The Town of Vail has developed rockfall, debris avalanche, and snow avalanche maps which indicate Lots 8, 10, and 12 (as well as some adjacent lots) lie within hazard areas or potential hazard areas. These Vail maps are generalized thus do not indicate the physical characteristics or destructive potentials of the above processes. Modifications to these maps based on site- specific analysis and more detailed study have been provided in Figures 6 and 7 of this report. Additional site - specific hazard or hazard mitigation studies for Lots 8, 10, and 12 have not been completed since the original Vail studies. 4 TOPOGRAPHIC SETTING AND SITE OBSERVATIONS Figure 1 is a generalized location map of the project area taken from U. S. Geological Survey topographic data. The approximate location of the rockfall Design- magnitude — Events with return periods of approximately 100 years. Avalanches do have return periods because events of one year are not related to those of subsequent years, however, rockfall events may be dependent on events of prior years. x and avalanche area and lot locations are indicated and the general topography of the immediate area is shown. The steep colluvial (rock and debris) slopes below the limestone cliff shown in Figure 2 is littered with boulders smaller rocks and assorted debris. This material results from the combined effects of rockfall, • FIGURE 2. Oblique photograph (taken from the northeast on April 27, 2001) of Bridge Road cul- de -sac and the west end of Lupine Drive. Steep colluvial slopes below limestone cliff band can produce small -to- moderate sized avalanches. Rockfall o riginates within cliffs. FIGURE 3. Oblique photograph showing greater detail in project area (above Lupine Drive and south of cul -de -sac) and the runout area for the rockfall and avalanches. Very large limestone boulders near houses probably originate from glacial activity rather than rockfall. 41 4 • avalanches, other mass - wasting processes and glacial activity. Much of the upper Gore Creek Valley was the site of extensive glaciation during the Pleistocene glacial epoch which ended here 10,000 to 20,000 years before present. The extensive glaciation probably scraped rocks from the cliffs and deposited many near the present location of homesites as the ice melted. Alternately, a single or multiple rockfall, rock avalanche, or landslide event(s) may have occurred and deposited these rocks. However, the major boulders, appear to have been in place for over 1000 years, perhaps more than 10,000 years, judging from soil development and lichen growth on the rock surfaces (see Figure 4). 4 FIGURE 4. Major 8 -10 foot -long boulder in the vicinity of the lower building site on Lot 8. Boulder probably reached this position during or immediately following valley deglaciation, not from rockfall. It may have moved into place from landslides that occurred after valley deglaciation or by melting glacial ice. It is unlikely that this boulder fell from the cliffs as an isolated event because it would have rolled much farther or broken into smaller rocks. Soil around the boulder and lichen cover on the surface suggests it has been in the current position for at least 1000 -3000 years, possibly more than 10,000 years. Rockfall and debris - avalanches have also occurred since valley deglaciation and deposited smaller boulders in the vicinity of existing and proposed houses. Such examples are widespread on the colluvial slope above Lupine Drive and other areas within the valley. An example of a rockfall- deposited boulder is shown in Figure 5. This 3 -foot diameter boulder rests on the soil surface and probably has fallen into place during the past several centuries as a result of rockfall Rocks of this size have the capability of reaching the proposed houses and therefore require mitigation. They are the basis of the rockfall modeling conducted in this study. t 7 6 MITIGATION Two forms of mitigation from rockfall and avalanches is recommended. These recommendations are based on the observations and analyses presented earlier in this report. 6.1 Berms against back walls The recommended mitigation form consists simply of berms built against the uphill walls of buildings (Figure 8 ). These berms must be built to a height of 8 -- 10 feet to dissipate rockfall and avalanche energy. The required heights are given in Table 2. Table 2. Berm desi n criteria BERM HEIGHT BUILDING LOCATION 10 feet Lot $ building (upper) 8 feet Co-t8 building lower 10 feet Lot 10 building 8 feet Lot 12 building addition Berra surfaces should have a slope of 1 '/z : 1. Walls must be designed to withstand the static soil load, it being assumed that the impact loads of rockfall or avalanches will be dissipated by the deformable soil and rock material of the berms. :' rte T Roakfa.l.l or - Avalan.eha- _s protected a r HOUSe a pp FIGURE 8. Rockfalf and avalanche berms placed against the uphill walls will provide mitigation on Lots 8, 10, and 12. The required berm heights for various locations are provided in Table 2. Berm surfaces should be at a 1 % : 1 slope. Windows within the lower 12 feet of the back wall should be reinforced for a normal pressure of 100 lbs/ft Berms will not deflect rocks or snow /debris mixtures onto adjacent public or private property. *I 17J 4' Windows within the lower 12 feet of the back walls should either be avoided, minimized in surface area, or reinforced for a pressure of 100 lbslft 0 An alternate form of mitigation, which is primarily used for defense against rockfall is the enerav- absorbing fence (Figure 9). FIGURE 9. Energy- absorbing rockfall fence (manufactured by GeoBrugg of Sante re, NM) installed above a Douse near Telluride. This is a "medium- energy' absorbing fence which would be capable of dissipating rocks with the design energies above Lots 8, 10, and 92. Snow or debris avalanches could also reac t . f�nr rfn�fd rerruirra ac than in this photograph. This type of fence has been widely used in Europe and the United States, primarily above highway rockfall areas. The medium capacity fence shown in Figure 9 is approximately 9 feet high and would cost approximately $300 -$500 per foot installed. Each fence would be within approximately 50 feet of each building and would extend the full width of the structure. Modifications to the fence design would probably be required in order to withstand avalanche loads. Although either berms or rockfall fences could be used, the final choice will depend on cost, environmental disruption, and esthetic considerations. These choices can be made during the final design stage. Report prepared by Arthur 1. Mears, P.E. ID Avalanche- control engineer TECHNICAL APPENDIX A. Rockfall- dynamics analysis The following pages provide input and output data used in computing rockfall dynamics parameters at the building sites. Ir � LJ LJ CRSP Input File - D.Acrsp\Bighorn Lot 8.dat i Input File Specifications Units of Measure_ U.S. Total Number of Cells: 8 Analysis Point X- Coordinate I: 425 Analysis Point X- Coordinate 2: 481 Analysis Point X- Coordinate 3: Initial Y -Top Starting Zone Coordinate: 8660 Initial Y -Base Starting Zone Coordinate: 8640 Remarks: Cell Data Cell No. Surface R. Tan ent C_ Normal C, Begin X Be ' Y End X End Y 1 .5 .8 .5 0 8640 30 8600 2 .5 .8 .5 30 8600 150 8520 3 1.5 .7 .3 150 8520 340 8420 4 1.5 .7 .3 340 8420 425 8390 5 1.5 .7 .3 425 8390 465 8380 6 1.5 _7 3 465 8380 481 8376 7 1.5 .7 .3 481 8376 511 8374 8 .3 .8 .3 511 8374 561 8370 t CRS ' Input File - D:lcrsp\Bighom Lot 8 dam. dat *I Innut File Spec ifications Units of Measure: U.S. Total Number of Cells: 10 Analysis Point X- Coordinate 1: 440 Analysis Point X- Coordinate 2: Analysis Point X- Coordinate 3: Initial Y -Top Starting Zone Coordinate: 8660 Initial Y --Base Starting Zone Coordinate: 8640 Remarks: Cell Data Cell No, Surface R. Tangent C. Normal C_ Begin X Begin Y End X End Y 1 .5 0 8640 30 8600 2 .5 .8 . 5 30 8600 150 8520 3 .5 1.5 . 8 .7 .3 150 8520 340 8420 4 1.5 7 3 340 8420 425 8390 5 .7 .3 425 8390 440 8400 6 .5 5 7 .3 440 8400 455 8390 7 1.5 .7 .3 455 8390 465 8380 8 1.5 .3 465 8380 481 8376 9 1.5 .7 .7 .3 481 8376 511 8374 10 .3 .8 .3 511 8374 561 8370 0 y ! CRSP Analysis Paint Statistical Analysis - D:lcrsp\Bighom Lot 8.dat 0 Analysis Point 2 Analysis Point 2: X = 481, Y = 8376 Spherical Rock: 3 -ft dia., 2333 -1b Total Rocks Passing Analysis Point: 44 Cumulative Probabili Velocity (ft/sec) Energy (ft - lb) Bounce Height (ft) 50% 24.97 36668 0.69 75% 32.52 56410 8.49 90% 39.3 74167 15.51 95% 43.38 84827 19.72 98% 47.95 96792 24.45 Note: Velocity and kinetic energy are analyzed assuming a normal distribution. Bounce height is analyzed assuming a log distribution. C: CRSP Input He - D:lcrsp\Bighom Lot 8 damldat Input File Specifications Units of Measure: U.S_ Total Number of Cells: 9 Analysis Point X- Coordinate 1: 493 Analysis Point X- Coordinate 2: 0 Analysis Point X- Coordinate 3: 0 Initial Y -Top Starting Zone Coordinate: 8660 Initial Y -Ease Starting Zone Coordinate: 8640 Remarks Cell Data Cell No. Surface R, Tangent C. Normal C. Begin X Begin Y End X End Y • 1 5 .8 .5 0 8640 30 8600 2 .5 .8 .5 30 8600 150 8520 3 1.5 .7 .3 150 8520 340 8420 4 1.5 .7 3 340 8420 425 8390 5 1.5 .7 .3 425 8390 465 8380 6 1.5 _7 .3 465 8380 481 8376 7 .5 .7 .3 481 8376 493 8384 8 .5 .7 .3 493 8384 505 8376 9 .3 .8 .3 505 8376 561 8370 Y • • r CRSP Analysis Point Statistical Analysis - D:lcrsp\Bighorn Lot 8 damIdat 0 Analysis Point 1 Analysis Point 1: X = 493, Y = 8384 Spherical Rock: 3 -ft dia., 2333 -1b Total Rocks Passing Analysis Point: 4 Cumulative Probability Ye locit ft/sec Energy ft -lb Bounce Height ft 50% 8.48 7037 0.02 75% 8.48 7037 0.7 90% 8.48 7037 1.31 95% 8.48 7037 1.67 98/0 8.48 7037 2.08 Note: Velocity and kinetic energy are analyzed assuming a normal distribution. Bounce height is analyzed assuming a log distribution. 0 0 CRSP Input File _ D:lcrsp\Bighorn Lot 1O.dat Input File Specifications Units of Measure: U.S. Total Number of Cells: 10 Analysis Point X- Coordinate 1: 380 Analysis Point X- Coordinate 2: Analysis Point X- Coordinate 3: 1nitiai Y -Top Starting Zone Coordinate: 8660 Initial Y -Base Starting Zone Coordinate: 8640 Remarks: Cell Data Cell No. Surface R. Tan ent C. Normal C. Begin X Begin Y End X End Y 0 1 .5 .8 .5 0 8640 40 8600 2 .5 .8 .5 40 8600 110 8560 3 1.5 .7 .3 110 8560 230 8480 4 1.5 .7 .3 230 8480 360 8424 5 1.5 .7 .3 360 8420 400 8400 6 1.5 .7 .3 400 8400 420 8394 7 1.5 .7 .3 420 8394 465 8386 8 1.5 .8 .3 465 8385 490 8382 9 .3 .8 .3 490 8382 530 8378 10 .3 .8 .3 530 8378 570 9376 CRSP Analysis Point Statistical Analysis - D:Icrsp\Bighom Lot 10.dat 0 Analysis Point 1 Analysis Point 1: X = 380, Y = 8410 Spherical Rock: 3 -ft dia., 2333 -1b Total Rocks Passing Analysis Point: 91 Cumulative Probability Velocity (ft /sec) Energy ft -1b Bounce Hei ht ft 50% 32.83 59678 1.47 75% 42.43 89881 4.69 90% 51.07 117046 7.6 95% 56.25 133355 9.34 98% 62.07 151659 11.29 Note: Velocity and kinetic energy are analyzed assuming a normal distribution. Bounce height is analyzed assuming a log distribution. 0 • CRSP Input File - D:lcrsp\Boghom Lot 10 dam.dat Input File Specifications Units of Measure: U.S- Total Number of Cells: 12 Analysis Point X- Coordinate 1: 395 Analysis Point X- Coordinate 2_ Analysis Point X- Coordinate 3: Initial Y -Top Starting Zone Coordinate: 8660 Initial Y -Base Starting Zone Coordinate: 8640 Remarks: Cell Data Cell No. Surface R. Tangent C. Normal C. Begin X Begin Y End X End Y 1 .5 .8 .5 0 8640 40 8600 2 .5 .8 .5 40 8600 110 8560 3 1.5 .7 .3 110 8560 230 8480 4 1.5 .7 .3 230 8480 360 8420 5 1.5 _7 .3 360 8420 380 8410 6 .5 .8 .3 380 8410 395 8420 7 .5 .8 .3 395 8420 410 8410 8 1.5 .7 .3 410 8410 465 8386 9 1.5 .8 .3 465 8386 490 8382 10 .3 _8 .3 490 8382 S30 8378 11 .3 .8 .3 530 8378 570 8376 12 .3 _8 .3 570 8376 580 8375 � � e CRSP Analysis Point Statistical Analysis - D:IcrsplBoghorn Lot 10 dam.dat Analysis Point 1_ Analysis Point 1: X = 395, Y � 8420 Spherical Rock: 3-ft dia., 2333 -1b Total Rocks Passing Analysis Point: 11 Cumulative Probability Velocity ft /sec Energy ft -lb Bounce Hei ht ft 50% 13.5 14231 0335 75% 17.38 20946 6.36 90% 20.87 26987 11.77 95% 22.96 30613 15.01 98% 25.32 34683 18.66 Note: Velocity and kinetic energy are analyzed assuming a normal distribution. Bounce height is analyzed assuming a log distribution. • CR.SP Input File - D:lcrsp\Bighorn Lot 12.dat Input File Specifications Units of Measure: U.S. Total Number of Cells: 10 Analysis Point X- Coordinate l: 410 Analysis Point X- Coordinate 2: Analysis Point X- Coordinate 3: Initial Y -Top Starting Zone Coordinate: 8660 Initial Y -Base Starting Zone Coordinate: 8640 Remarks: Cell Data Cell No. Surface R. Tangent C. Normal C. Begin X Begin Y End X End Y • 1 .5 .8 .5 0 8640 35 8600 2 .5 .8 .5 35 8600 135 8520 3 1.5 .7 .3 135 8520 285 8440 4 1.5 _7 .3 285 8440 345 8420 5 1.5 _7 .3 345 8420 375 8410 6 1.5 .7 .3 375 8410 395 8398 7 1.5 .7 .3 395 8398 419 8396 8 .3 .8 .5 419 8396 456 8392 9 .2 .8 .5 456 8392 476 8390 10 .2 .8 .5 476 9390 516 8389 I ti i CRSP Analysis Point Statistical Analysis - D :lcrsplBighorn Lot 12.dat 0 Analysis Point _1 Analysis Point 1: X = 410, Y = 8397 Spherical Rock: 3 -ft dia., 2333 -1b Total Rocks Passim Analysis Point: 47 Cumulative Probability Velocity (ft/sec) Energy ft -lb Bounce Height ft 50% 24.43 38322 0.84 75% 33.67 65449 3.48 90% 41.97 89848 5.85 95% 46.96 104497 7.28 98% 52.56 120937 8.87 Note: Velocity and kinetic energy are analyzed assuming a normal distribution. Bounce height is analyzed assuming a log distribution, 4 I1 U TECHNICAL APPENDIX B. Avalanche- dynamics analysis The following pages provide slope profiles and avalanche- dynamics analysis used in determining the loading parameters and design specifications of the recommended avalanche mitigation. • 0 0 Sheetl • n l� • Avalanche Profile and xfy coordinates Bighorn Lot 8 Raw Data in feet. Data in meters Segment Data X -feet Y -feet X- meters Y- meters L- meters Ang - Deg Sum L 0 8600 0 2622 120 8520 37 2598 44 33.7 310 8420 95 2567 65 27.8 395 8390 120 2558 27 19.4 435 8380 133 2555 13 14.0 451 8376 138 2554 5 14.0 481 8374 147 2553 9 3.8 531 8370 162 2552 15 4.6 Avg Angle 0 44 33.7 109 30.1 137 28.0 149 26.8 155 26.4 164 25.2 179 23.4 Bighorn Lot 8 Avalanche Path 2640 2620 - 2600 p 2580 2560 uw 2540 2520 2500 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 Horizontal distance (m) Page 1 220 particles start from top segment. 339 particles deposited. C:\plk\bighorn lot 8.txt Path drops: 70 m Friction mu = 0.35 log M/D = 2.00 Random R = 0.200 Alpha = 25.3 degrees 0 Front stops at X = 146 m ........ ......................Front speed (max = 11.7 m/s) ________Mean speed (max = 10.7 m/s) Deposition (not to scale) Exit and view distributions in your file c:\plk\results.txt • • 0 results 0 Page 1 Please note: all v- variables are in meters /second. Please note' all t- variables are in seconds - Please note! NP is number of particles in packet. AVALANCHE ENTERING SEGMENT 2 NUMBER OF PARTICLES MOVING 220 NUMBER OF PARTICLES STOPPED 0 METERS TRAVELLED FROM START 44 vHIGH 8.84 PACKET tMIN tMAX vMEAN NP vLOW 3 -DO 1 0.55 1.37 3.00 6 vRANGE 5 -84 2 1.37 2.18 3.00 9 vMEAN 6.47 3 2.18 3.00 3.39 14 vSTDEV 1.81 4 3.00 3.82 4.35 18 5 3 -82 4.64 5.25 21 tHIGH 8.73 L. 4.64 5.46 6.07 25 tLOW 0.55 7 5.46 6.27 6.82 28 tRANGE 8.18 8 6.27 7 -09 7.49 30 tMEAN 5.68 9 7.09 7.91 8.07 33 tSTDEV 2.08 10 7.91 8.73 8.60 36 AVALANCHE ENTERING SEGMENT 3 NUMBER OF PARTICLES MOVING 286 NUMBER OF PARTICLES STOPPED D METERS TRAVELLED FROM START 110 vHIGH 14-92 PACKET tMIN tMAX vMEAN NP vLOW 1.78 1 8.41 9.10 11.66 3 vRAN6E 13.15 2 9.10 9.80 8.62 4 vMEAN 10.66 3 9.80 10.50 8.30 10 vSTDEV 1 -97 4 10.50 11.24 10.10 32 5 11.20 11.89 10.14 44 tHIGH 15.38 6 11.89 12.59 10.09 59 tLOW 8 -41 7 12.59 13.29 11.06 48 tRANGE 6.98 8 13 -29 13.99 11.59 32 tMEAN 12.53 9 13.99 14.69 11.92 35 tSTDEV 1 -38 10 14-68 15.38 11.16 19 AVALANCHE ENTERING SEGMENT 4 NUMBER OF PARTICLES MOVING 313 NUMBER OF PARTICLES STOPPED 0 METERS TRAVELLED FROM START 137 vHIGH 12.42 PACKET tMIN tMAX vMEAN NP vLOW 0 -43 1 11.06 13.89 8.75 37 vRANGE 12.00 2 13.89 16.72 8.38 188 vMEAN 7.68 3 16.72 19.54 7.76 59 vSTDEV 2 4 19.54 22.37 1.51 7 5 22.37 25.20 1.70 4 tHIGH 39.34 6 25.20 28.03 1.82 6 tLOW 11.06 7 28.03 30.86 1.79 5 tRANGE 28.28 8 30.86 33.68 1.29 2 tMEAN 16 -66 9 33.68 36.51 1.56 3 tSTDEV 3.99 10 36.51 39.34 1.80 2 AVALANCHE ENTERING SEGMENT 5 NUMBER OF PARTICLES MOVING 256 NUMBER OF PARTICLES STOPPED 70 METERS TRAVELLED FROM START 150 vHIGH 9.73 PACKET tMIN tMAX vMEAN NP vLOW 0.19 1 12.76 13.62 6.04 2 vRANGE 9.54 2 13.62 19.48 5.77 4 vMEAN 5.53 3 14 -48 15.34 6.66 17 vSTDEV 1.66 4 15.34 16-20 5 -63 32 5 16.20 17.06 6.03 51 0 Page 1 results tHIGH 18.36 6 14.16 15.00 12.08 28 tLOW 9.95 7 15.011 15.84 8.06 15 tRANGE 8.41 8 15.84 16.68 8.06 15 tMEAN 13-79 9 16.68 17-52 8.95 15 tSTDEV 1.73 10 17.52 18.36 8.35 4 AVALANCHE ENTERING SEGMENT 6 NUMBER OF PARTICLES MOVING 221 NUMBER OF PARTICLES STOPPED 7 METERS TRAVELLED FROM START 132 vHIGH 16.15 PACKET tMIN tMAX vMEAN NP vLOW 1.50 1 10.37 11.24 13.22 5 vRANGE 14.65 2 31.24 12.12 12.99 12 vMEAN 10.70 3 12.12 12.99 12.31 33 vSTDEV 2.98 4 12.99 13.86 12.24 36 5 13-86 14.73 10.94 60 tHIGH 19.09 6 14.73 15.61 10.05 27 tLOW 10.37 7 15.61 16.48 7.57 11 tRANGE 8.72 8 16.48 17.35 7.42 16 tMEAN 14.42 9 17.35 18.22 7.96 17 tSTDEV 1.61 10 18.22 19.09 7.63 4 AVALANCHE ENTERING SEGMENT 7 NUMBER OF PARTICLES MOVING 176 NUMBER OF PARTICLES STOPPED 66 METERS TRAVELLED FROM START 146 vHIGH 12.28 PACKET tMIN tMAX vMEAN NP VLOW 0 -44 1 11.51 12.45 9.85 6 vRANGE 11.84 2 12.45 13.38 9.13 10 vMEAN 7.76 3 13-38 14.32 8.52 28 vSTDEV 2.29 4 14.32 15.26 8.49 39 5 15.26 16.20 8.19 56 tHIGH 20.68 6 16-20 17.13 6.63 16 tLOW 11.51 7 17.13 18.07 4.54 4 tRANGE 9 -38 8 18.07 19.01 5.41 3 tMEAN 15.44 9 19.01 19.95 4.06 7 tSTDEV 1.81 10 19.95 20.88 2.64 7 AVALANCHE ENTERING SEGMENT 8 NUMBER OF PARTICLES MOVING 124 NUMBER OF PARTICLES STOPPED 125 METERS TRAVELLED FROM START 153 vHIGH 12.45 PACKET tMIN tMAX vMEAN NP vLOW 054 1 12.20 12.99 9.37 4 VRANGE 11.91 2 12.99 13.78 10.35 3 VMEAN 7.13 3 13.76 14.57 8.19 13 vSTDEV 2.41 4 14.57 15.36 6.93 23 5 15.36 16.14 7.99 33 tHIGH 20-09 6 16-14 16.93 6 -70 29 tLOW 12-20 7 16.93 17.72 4.96 14 tRANGE 7.88 8 17.72 18.51 4.34 4 tMEAN 15.77 9 18.51 19.30 0.00 0 tSTDEV 1.26 10 19.30 20.09 5.19 1 AVALANCHE ENTERING SEGMENT 9 NUMBER OF PARTICLES MOVING 9 NUMBER OF PARTICLES STOPPED 252 METERS TRAVELLED FROM START 165 vHIGH 7.45 PACKET tMIN tMAX vMEAN NP vLOW 5.27 1 14.30 14.62 6.27 3 vRANGE 2.18 2 14.62 14.94 0.00 0 vMEAN 6.12 3 14.94 15.25 0.00 0 vSTDEV 0.68 4 15-25 15.57 5.40 1 0 0 Page 2 re SuItS , 5 15.57 15.89 0 -00 0 tHIGH 17.47 6 15.89 16 -21 0.00 0 tLOW 14.30 7 16.21 16 -52 0.00 0 tRANGE 3.17 8 16.52 16.84 6.50 2 tMEAN 15.96 9 16.84 17.16 5.98 1 tSTDEV 1 -25 10 17.16 17.47 5.93 2 NUMBER OF PARTICLES MOVING 0 NUMBER OF PARTICLES STOPPED 265 FASTEST PARTICLE SPEED AT FRONT 15.6 m/s FASTEST PARTICLE SPEED (ANYWHERE) 17.4 m/s ALPHA 24.0 degrees MAX_DEPOSIT 168 meters MIN _DEPOSIT 126 meters RAN'GE_DEPOSIT 42 meters MEAN_DEPOSIT 151 meters STD_DEV_DEPOSIT 9 meters PaCket Max(m) Min(m) Particles 1 130 126 5 2 134 130 11 3 139 134 15 4 143 139 18 S 147 143 29 6 151 147 42 7 155 151 48 8 160 155 52 9 164 160 28 10 168 164 17 • is Page 3 Sheetl Avalanche Profile and wry coordinates Bighorn Lot 12 Raw Data in feet Data in meters Segment Data X -feet Y -feet X- meters Y- meters L- meters Ang - Deg Sum L 0 8600 0 2622 100 8520 30 2598 39 38.7 250 8440 76 2573 52 28.1 310 8420 95 2567 19 18.4 340 8410 104 2564 10 18.4 360 8398 110 2560 7 31.0 384 8396 117 2560 7 4.8 421 8392 128 2559 11 6.2 441 8390 134 2558 6 5.7 481 8388 147 2557 12 2.9 Avg Angle 0 39 38.7 91 32.6 110 30.1 120 29.2 127 29.3 134 28.0 146 26.3 152 25.5 164 23.8 Bighorn Lot 12 Avalanche Path 2640 I 2620 E 2600 c 2580 m 2560 w 2540 2520 2500 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 Horizontal distance (m) .. • • Page 1 192 particles start from top segment. • c:\plk\bighorn lot 12.txt Path drops: 64 m Friction mu = 0.35 log M/D = 2.30 Random R = 0.200 Alpha = 26.2 degrees 0 297 particles deposited. @ Front stops at X = 126 m ..... .........._..._._........Front speed (max = 10.7 m1s) _________Mean speed (max = 11.7 m/s) Deposition (not to scale) Exit and view distributions in your file c:\pIk\resUlts--t-xt • results Please note; all v- variables are in meters /second. Please note: all t- variables are in seconds. Please note; NP is number of particles in packet. AVALANCHE ENTERING SEGMENT 2 NUMBER OF PARTICLES MOVING 192 NUMBER OF PARTICLES STOPPED 0 METERS TRAVELLED FROM START 38 vHIGH 9.84 PACKET tMIN tMAX vMEAN NP vLOW 3.00 S 0.51 1.18 3.00 5 vRANGE 6.84 2 1.18 1.86 3.00 8 vMEAN 6.90 3 1.86 2.54 3.36 11 vSTDEV 2.11 4 2 -54 3.21 4.32 15 5 3.21 3.89 5.29 18 tHIGH 7.27 6 3.89 4.57 6.20 21 tLOW 0.51 7 4.57 .5.24 7.08 24 tRANGE 6.76 8 5.24 5.92 7.92 27 tMEAN 4.81 9 5.92 6 -59 8.72 30 tSTDEV 1.71 10 6159 7.27 9.48 33 AVALANCHE ENTERING SEGMENT 3 NUMBER OF PARTICLES MOVING 244 NUMBER OF PARTICLES STOPPED 0 METERS TRAVELLED FROM START 90 vHIGH 15.52 PACKET tMIN tMAX vMEAN NP vLOW 1.82 1 7.17 7 -66 10.68 3 vRANGE 13.70 2 7.66 8.15 11.53 4 VMEAN 11.68 3 8.15 8.63 9.98 9 vSTDEV 2.36 4 8.63 9.12 10.91 23 5 9.12 9.61 11.30 37 tHIGH 12 -04 6 9.61 10.10 11.30 48 tLOW 7.17 7 10.13 10.58 11.26 49 tRANGE 4.87 8 10 -58 11.07 12 -92 26 tMEAN 10.07 9 11.07 11,56 13.10 33 tSTDEV 0.94 10 11.56 12.04 12.50 10 AVALANCHE ENTERING SEGMENT 4 NUMBER OF PARTICLES MOVING 239 NUMBER OF PARTICLEES STOPPED 25 METERS TRAVELLED FROM START 110 vHIGH 13.67 PACKET tMIN tMAX vMEAN NP vLOW 1.98 1 9.52 10.17 9.54 10 vRANGE 11.66 2 10.17 10.82 10.81 16 vMEAN 9.87 3 10.82 11-47 10.28 46 vSTDEV 2.13 4 11.47 12.122 10.75 46 5 12.12 12.78 9.97 56 tHIGH 16.03 6 12.78 13.43 9.78 47 tLOW 9.52 7 13-43 14.08 6.89 14 tRANGE 6.51 8 14.06 14.73 0.00 0 tMEAN 12.08 9 14.73 15.38 2 -50 3 tSTDEV 1.06 10 15.38 16.03 1.98 1 AVALANCHE ENTERING SEGMENT 5 NUMBER OF PARTICLES MOVING 239' NUMBER OF PARTICLES STOPPED 34 METERS TRAVELLED FROM START 119 vHIGH 13.73 PACKET tMIN tMAX vMEAN NP vLOW 0.90 1 10.37 11.51 9.60 18 vRANGE 12'.83 2 11.51 12.65 9.91 73 vMEAN 9.25 3 12.65 13.79 9.77 90 vSTDEV 2.22 4 13.79 14 -94 8.96 42 5 14.94 16.08 5.12 8 4 • .- L. • • • Page 1 results Page 2 tHIGH 21.79 6 16.08 17.22 3.85 3 tLOW 10.37 7 17.22 18.36 2.36 2 tRANGE 11.42 8 18.36 19 -51 8. {10 0 tMEAN 13.14 9 19.51 20 -65 8.00 0 tSTDEV 1.58 10 20.65 21.79 1.18 3 AVALANCHE ENTERING SEGMENT 6 NUMBER OF PARTICLES MOVING 246 NUMBER OF PARTICLES STOPPED 34 METERS TRAVELLED FROM START 126 vHIGH 15.86 PACKET tMIN tMAX vMEAN NP VLOW 2.27 1 11.06 12.31 10.61 30 vRANGE 12.79 2 12.31 13.57 11.10 85 vMEAN 10.65 3 13.57 14.82 11.07 93 vSTDEV 2.85 4 14.82 16.07 9.71 24 5 16.07 17.32 7.41 6 tHIGH 23.58 6 17.32 18.57 6.48 3 tLOW 11.06 7 18.57 19.82 6.42 2 tRANGE 12.52 8 19.82 21.08 11.0{1 0 tMEAN 13.84 9 21.08 22.33 0.00 0 tSTDEV 1.66 10 22.33 23.58 6.18 3 AVALANCHE ENTERING SEGMENT 7 NUMBER OF PARTICLES MOVING 217 NUMBER OF PARTICLES STOPPED 70 METERS TRAVELLED FROM START 133 vHIGH 10.44 PACKET tMIN tMAX vMEAN NP VLOW 0.95 1 12.19 12.67 6.30 8 vRANGE 9.49 2 12.67 13-16 6.59 14 vMEAN 5.63 3 13.16 13.64 6.09 22 vSTDEV 1.88 4 13.64 14.13 6.01 35 5 14.13 14.61 6.09 36 tHIGH 17.03 6 14.61 15.09 5.74 32 tLOW 12.19 7 15 -09 15.58 5.45 36 tRANGE 4.84 8 15.58 16.06 4.34 17 tMEAN 14.52 9 16.06 16.55 3.36 11 tSTDEV 1.04 10 16.55 17.03 3.26 4 NUMBER OF PARTICLES MOVING 1 NUMBER OF PARTICLES STOPPED 297 FASTEST PARTICLE SPEED AT FRONT 11 m/s FASTEST PARTICLE SPEED (ANYWHERE) 15.7 m/s ALPHA 26.2 degrees MAX_DEPOSIT 143 meters MIN_DEPOSIT 90 meters RANGE - DEPOSIT 53 meters MEAN_DEPOSIT 131 meters STD DEV DEPOSIT 10 meters Packet Max(m) Min(m) Particles 1 95 98 7 2 101 95 5 3 106 101 6 4 111 106 9 5 116 111 5 6 122 116 2 7 127 122 7 8 132 12.7 29 9 138 132 183 10 143 138 44 Page 2 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: August 13, 2001 SUBJECT: A request for a final review of the proposed parking management plan for the Vail Gateway, located at 12 Vail Road / portions of lots O and N, Block 5D, Vail Village 1 s ` Filing. Owner: Mountain Owners, L.P. Applicant: Timberline Commercial Real Estate, represented by Braun Associates, Inc. Planner: Allison Ochs I. BACKGROUND OF THE REQUEST The applicant, Mountain Owners, L.P., submitted an application to the Department of Community Development for the Vail Gateway, located at 12 Vail Road. The proposal consists of three major elements: 1. Allowing office uses and other commercial uses on the first level of the building, 2. Adding two residential dwelling units and 4,345 sq. ft. of GRFA, and 3. Allowing a private parking club within the building. These three elements of the proposal require the following processes: 1. A rezoning of the underlying zoning of Commercial Core I to Commercial Service Center. 2. A major amendment to Special Development District No. 21, to allow for the changes in development standards as prescribed by the special development district. 3. A text amendment to Commercial Service Center to allow for a private club as a conditional use. 4. A conditional use permit for a private club. The private club proposed is a private parking club, which would allow parking on the site to be available for private use. 5. A conditional use permit to allow for residential dwelling units in the Commercial Service Center zone district. Multiple - family dwellings are a conditional use in the Commercial Service Center zone district. The Planning and Environmental Commission forward a recommendation of approval for items 1, 2, and 3 above. The Planning and Environmental Commission approved items number 4 and 5. The conditional use permit for the private parking club carried the following conditions: TOW*VML 1, Prior to first reading of the amending ordinance, that the applicant provides a parking plan which identifies the use and type of ownership of each individual parking space. This information will be kept on file with the Department of Community Development. Each space must be signed on the site accordingly. 2. That the approval of the conditional use permit for the private parking club is subject to the approval of the text amendments by the Town Council as outlined in Section VIII of the staff memorandum. 3. That no more than 39 of parking spaces shall be used as part of the private club. The applicant has provided a parking management as required by the first condition. The proposed parking management plan has been attached for reference. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends denial of the proposed parking management plan, subject to the following finding: 1. That there are adequate solutions available to the applicant which would allow the proposal to meet the requirements of Chapter 12-10 and Title 14 of the Town Code. PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN The Vail Gateway proposal is to add 2 additional dwelling units, convert existing retail and commercial space to office space, and to add a private parking club. The change of uses on the property changes the parking requirement. Staff has provided the following parking analysis: Total Required: 47 spaces Total Propsed: 93 spaces (42 tandem) (51 non - tandem) Office /Commercial: 34 spaces required Residential: 13 spaces required The applicant is proposing the following: Office Commercial: Residential Parking Club 41 spaces (34 tandem) 13 spaces (8 tandem) 39 spaces 2 LI r The applicant is providing an adequate number of parking spaces to meet Chapter 12 -10 of the Town Code. However, the applicant is using tandem spaces to meet the required number of parking spaces, Tandem parking is only allowed when valet service is also provided. The applicant is not proposing valet services. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission approve the parking management plan, this would be included as one of the deviations of the special development district major amendment. The applicant is proposing to utilize 39 parking spaces as part of the parking club. These parking spaces are not tandem spaces. These parking spaces are leased spaces and not assigned to a particular lease holder. Instead, the parking club member has a right to 1 of 39 parking spaces. Tandem Parking According to Title 14, "tandem parking is not permitted for commercial uses unless approved as valet parking." The applicant believes that as the owner of the office spaces, the building will manage the parking without the use of valet parking. Staff has identified alternatives that would allow the applicant to fully utilize the existing structure, meeting the parking requirement for the office and residential uses, without tandem parking. However, it does reduce the total number of parking spaces for the parking club if the applicant does not wish to use tandem 40 parking for the club. In addition, the applicant is able to meet the requirements of the Town Code by providing valet services. A recent example of a requirement for valet parking in conjunction with tandem parking spaces is the Austria Haus. When the Vail Gateway was originally approved, tandem parking was allowed as part of the 93 spaces which were required. However, valet service was provided. Staff does not believe that the current configuration as identified on the parking management plan is acceptable. There are solutions that would allow the proposal to meet the Town Code. Staff has numerous concerns regarding the proposed parking configuration. Primarily, the intent of providing adequate parking is to ensure that the needs of the development have been met. The parking requirements of the Town Code were recently amended as part of an overall parking study. Staff believes that the applicant should be required and is able to provide parking which meets the Town Code. In addition, staff believes that it is necessary to meet the requirements of the Town Code so as not to displace the parking onto other properties- Staff does not believe that tandem parking, without valet service, is acceptable for the uses proposed. • 0 13AIIA&RAUIN ASSOCIATES, IINC. PLANNING and COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MEMORANDUM To: Planning and Environmental Commi55ion From Timberline Commercial Real E state, represented by Braun A55ociate5, Inc. Date: August 10, 2001 Re: Gateway Building — Parking Plan On July 23, 2001 the Planning and Environmental Comm155ion approved a conditional use permit to allow a Parking Club at the Gateway Building. The approval allowed for 39 parking Spaces to be used by the Parking Club. As a condition of approval for the Parking Club, the Planning and Environmental Comm15510n required that the applicant return with a parking plan "which identifies the use and type of ownership of each individual parking 5pace." Enclosed is the proposed parking plan for the entire parking structure, including the parking 5pace5 for office/commercial use, residential use, and parking club use. Background The Gateway Building was approved in 1998. The approval, and subsequent conditional use permits, allowed for 3 restaurants, one bar, a bank, and numerous retail establishments. That approval also allowed for 93 enclosed parking spaces, 42 of which were tandem parking spaces. Town of Vail records, the adopting ordinance, and meeting minutes reflect that the tandem parking 5pace5 were allowed without a requirement for valet service. In fact, according to the meeting minutes, valet parking was not an item that wa5 mentioned or di5cu55ed. • Edwards Village Center, Suite C -209 Ph. - 970.926.7575 0105 Edwards Village Boulevard Fax - 970.926.7576 Post Office Box 2658 www.braunassociates.com Edwards, Colorado 8 1632 • Proposed U5e5 As approved at the July 23, 2001 PEC hearing, the proposed program for this building Includes two new residential unit5 (formerly restaurant space), office space on the second floor (formerly retail and restaurant space), and office space on the first floor. A portion of the first floor may also be utilized for retail or restaurant uses. Additionally, a parking club was approved with 39 parking spaces. The proposed uses require 8C parking spaces according to Town of Vail parking regulations. That's 34 spaces for officelcommercial uses, 13 spaces for residential uses, and 39 spaces for the parking club. That leaves 7 spaces for future changes in U5e5, should they occur, or additional visitor parking. Parking Plan The parking plan provides adequate parking for all of the uses on the property without the need for valet parking. Our plan designates the following: Office /Commercial Use: 41 spaces total (34 of which are tandem) Residential Use: 13 spaces (8 of which are tandem) Parking Club: 39 spaces Office and residential uses make the most sense for use of the existing tandem parking spaces. Leases for the office spaces will designate parking spaces to be utilized and office employees will be able to coordinate with one another to parking and move vehicles. Additionally, since there are 7 non -- tandem parking spaces available to the office uses, these are available for general building visitors or customers. Ownership All of the parking spaces on the property are and will be owned by the building owner. The residential parking spaces are provided by license to the dwelling unit owners. Parking club spaces will be long -term leased spaces. 0 Vail Gateway Building, Vail, Colorado Page 2 Braun Associates, dnc. ('nnrI I i -, inn We believe the building owner will be able to adequately manage the parking for thls building. There Is an adequate supply of parking provided for all of the uses proposed. We also believe the proposed uses for the building will allow a more efficient use of the cm5ting parking than the restaurant and retail uses already approved for the 55te. Our application has a net reduction In required parking for the property over what Is currently approved. • 0 Vail Gateway building, Vail, Colorado Pane 3 Braun A55ociatc5, Inc_ • Gateway Budding Parkinrj Plan Prepared for Timberline Commercial Real Estate August 13, 20011 • I . General Overview This plan 15 intended to provide a general guide for how parking will be managed at the Gateway Building. The uses contemplated for the building include office /commercial uses, residential condominiums, and a parking club. The parking plan may need to be amended from time -to -time to allow the management of the building to meet the needs of potential building users. 2. EX15ting Parking Conditions The parking for the Gateway Building 15 located on three levels of the parking garage containing 93 parking Spaces. forty -two of the parking spaces, a5 originally constructed, are tandem parking Spaces. The Gateway Building is also entitled to one Town of Vail "pay -in- lieu" space purchased for a previous use in the building. 3. Parking by Use Office/Commercial Use — 4 1 Spaces o 28 parking 5pace5 (tandem spaces) will be used by the office employees within the building. Office space employees will have designated Spaces and employees will be required to coordinate with officemate5 on the use of the spaces. Tandem spaces will be assigned so that only employees of individual office spaces will be required to coordinate with one another. o G parking spaces (tandem Spaces) will also be used by office and /or commercial employees (depending if the basement level i commercial space 15 an office use, retail use, or restaurant use). o 7 parking spaces (non - tandem) will be available as general visitor parking spaces. This number may be increased or reduced from time to time depending on how the need for visitor and employee parking 15 experienced. o All of the commercial/office parking Spaces will remain in the ownership of the building owner to afford maximum flexibility for use of 5pace5_ o Office parking 5pace5 may be made available to other allowable commercial uses as long as hours of operation do not conflict (e.g., a restaurant serving in evening hours). Residential Uses — 13 spaces o 13 parking spaces (8 tandem spaces and 5 non - tandem) will be assigned to residential units. These spaces will remain in the ownership of the building owner, however, the residential u5er5 are guaranteed a license to use their 5pace5. • Parking Club Use — 39 5pace5 0 Gateway Building Parking Plan o 35 parking spaces will be made available for parking club members. o Parking club spaces will be subject to a lease. The building owner may lease spaces such that the parking club member has a right to use I of 35 spaces, which space may not be definitively defined (i.e., member has a right to park, not a right to any specific space). 4. Location of Parking Spaces The building owner shall designate parking spaces, subject to the provisions herein, in locations as he see fits. The intent is to allow the owner the maximum flexibility with the function of the parking area so that he will able to develop the most effective and efficient plan and is able to react to market conditions, changes in building uses and users, and is able to meet the needs of the visitors to the property. 5. Governance and Inspection The owner agrees to allow the Town of Vail to inspect the parking conditions at anytime. If a nuisance develops from improper management of the parking on this property, the owner agrees to address valid concerns or violations of the Town of Vail in a cooperative manner. The owner further understands that the parking management plan js part of the conditional use permit for the residential and parking Club uses on the property and as such has the ability to take action in the future if it discovers violations to the conditional use permit. Substantial changes to the parking plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning and Environmental Comm155jon. C. Valet Parking As the owner continues to operate the parking areas to create efficient use of parking and provide effective service to building visitors, he may choose to modify the parking plan and reallocate spaces as necessary. This may include use of valet service on the property. Thjs will depend upon the ultimate mix of office or commercial users on the property and the hours of operation of certain uses. In no case will vehicles be valet parked off -site or will such valet parking interfere with the ability to gain adequate access to the site. A valet system may be added to the site without further review by the Planning and Environmental Commission. • Gateway Building Parking Plan n w (D 0 M la- U) cn (D a> L) M ( CL — c - f) 0 C/) a U 0> CV Cf) jf • 0 , g C4 q U EFE EFE EE cn 0 0 O� 011 Oy 0 0! > 0 : 0 P3 rl �E 0 EFE 0 0 0 0.0 FE 0 ti co u E E a, M2 r— 0 u n w (D 0 M la- U) cn (D a> L) M ( CL — c - f) 0 C/) a U 0> CV Cf) jf • 0 U EFE EFE EE cn 0 0 O� 011 Oy 0 0! > 0 : 0 CD �E 0 EFE 0 0 0 0.0 FE 0 0 n w (D 0 M la- U) cn (D a> L) M ( CL — c - f) 0 C/) a U 0> CV Cf) jf • 0 I • i x �s' ;s _ C U C u W � 0 a w ac z EA rg "0 'a ]7CO3 C3 C) U o 0 0 0 nn �..L Z3 =3 a cn co a) o m CD (D a) �' as m p. (n c) v a) o ; F- CL O; O O O o O ( D! m r- C /5 j as a) a) Q) as u a! a (D a a ?� C? w D > O� O O O O O O �- r d I 0 0 0 z /\ � . d S W § : � N � / a N o � � B to X22 � t:h < . � � » C) §� f7 ./ 2z ; A�0Jb� ! }$ § ml mill LLI § \J \\ < \ . U � / cu n . 2 �\ � . g.g U U q � . � . � 0 0 0 C: MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: August 13, 2001 SUBJECT: A request for a final review and recommendation of a major amendment, to allow for the proposed redevelopment of the Vail Village Inn, Phase IV, within Special Development District No. 6, and a conditional use permit, to allow for the operation of a fractional fee club in the Public Accommodation Zone District, located at 100 East Meadow Drive /Lots M, N, & O, Block 5 -D, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: Waldir Prado, Daymer Corporation Planner: George Ruther INTRODUCTION The applicant, Waldir Prado, d.b.a. Daymer Corporation, represented by Jay Peterson, is proposing to redevelop the Vail Village Inn, located at 100 East Meadow Drive. This new applicant has been submitted in response to an alleged error in the publication for a previous meeting. The proposal that has been submitted is identical to the previous proposal that the Town of Vail Planning & Environmental Commission, Design Review Board and Vail Town Council reviewed and approved in 199912000. The approved development plan is illustrated pursuant to the documents and plans adopted on May 2, 2000, upon second reading of Ordinance No. 4, Series of 2000. The applicant has submitted an application to the Town of Vail Community Development Department for review and consideration of a major amendment to Special Development District No. 6, Vail Village Inn. The major amendment application proposes changes to the existing approved development plan and is intended to facilitate the redevelopment of the existing Vail Village Inn, Phase IV Condominiums and allow for the construction of the Vail Plaza Hotel. The current proposal amends Phase IV of the Vail Village Inn Plaza only. No amendments are proposed to Phases 1 -III or V of the Vail Village Inn. A summary of the proposal is described in detail in the memorandum from the Town of Vail Community Development Department to the Planning & Environmental Commission dated February 28, 2000 and the Town of Vail public records. The applicant has identified what he believes to be public benefits that will continue to be realized by the Town as a result of the Vail Plaza Hotel redevelopment. The public benefits associated with the hotel proposal are: �4 TOWN OF VAIL • An increase in the annual occupancy rate through the redevelopment of an older, existing hotel. • The creation of approximately 10,500 square feet of new conference and meeting room facilities. • The implementation of the revised Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan improvements along Vail Road, the South Frontage Road and a portion of East Meadow Drive. • The re- investment and redevelopment of resort property in the Town of Vail. • The implementation of the development goals, objectives and policies adopted by the Town for the Vail Village Inn property. • A significant increase in the Town's supply of short -term, overnight accommodation to serve our guests and visitors. • The construction of a world -class "anchor" hotel providing a high -level of guest services and amenities. • A potentially sizeable annual contribution to the Town's declining sales tax revenue. II. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST Major Amendment Request The applicant, Daymer Corporation, represented by Jay Peterson, has submitted a request for a final review and recommendation of a proposed a major amendment, pursuant to Chapter 9 of the Town of Vail Zoning Regulation, to Special Development District No. 6, Vail Village Inn. The purpose of the major amendment is to amend the approved development plan to allow for the construction of the Vail Plaza Hotel in Phase IV of the District. The applicant is proposing significant improvements to Phase IV of the Vail Village Inn Special Development District. The existing hotel and restaurant are proposed to be demolished to allow for the new construction of the Vail Plaza Hotel. The hotel is intended to be a mixed -use development including residential, commercial and recreational uses. The applicant is proposing to construct 99 new accommodation units (hotel rooms) ranging in size from approximately 350 sq. ft. to 370 sq. ft, per unit, 50 part -time fractional fee club units, 18 employee housing units (38 beds) and 1 free - market condominium. The fractional fee club units are considered part -time, since during the summer months the hotel will retain ownership of the units to rent as short - term accommodation units, and then during the winter months (approximately 24 weeks) the units will be sold as fractional fee club units. The Vail Plaza Hotel also includes two restaurants, 4,047 square feet of accessory retail located within the hotel and along the plaza, a 15,338 square foot conference facility, a 24,799 square foot full - service spa and health club facility and approximately 249 new underground parking spaces. The approximate total gross square footage of the new hotel is 379,857 square feet. The following is an approximate square footage breakdown of the various uses within the hotel: 62,816 sq. ft. - fractional fee club units 5,499 sq. ft. — condominium 35,818 sq. ft. — accommodation units 6,332 sq. ft. - employee housing units .• 8,375 sq. ft. — restaurant/retail •:• 15,130 sq. ft. — conference /meeting rooms 24,817 sq. ft. — spa/health club 221,070 sq. ft. — common area (mechanical, maid closets, stairs /hallways, parking, office, lobby, etc.) 379,857 sq. ft. gross building square footage A complete set of reduced plans has been provided. 111. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department is recommending approval of the applicant's request for a major amendment to Special Development District #6 to allow for redevelopment of Phase IV of the Vail Village Inn. Staff's recommendation for approval is based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Section V of the memorandum dated February 28, 2000. The staff believes that the proposal is in general compliance with the nine design criteria as identified in the memorandum. Again, in reviewing the proposal, staff identified a number of pros and cons that we believe are associated with the hotel proposal. The list includes, but is not limited to, the following: PROS • The presence of economic redevelopment in Vail. • An increase to the Town's supply of hotel beds and an increased level of quality. • The implementation of the Town's development goals, objectives, and policies. • The creation of new, deed restricted employee housing to offset the housing impacts associated with the hotel. • The elimination of an unsightly surface parking lot. • The completion of the final phase of the Vail Village Inn Special Development District. • The construction of new conference and meeting room facilities within the Town. • The construction of public improvements funded with private dollars. • The potential increases in sales tax revenue. • An increased amount of public open space. • An improved and updated loading /delivery facility which is relocated from Vail Road. • The provision of 18 on -site employee housing units. CONS • Increased vehicular traffic on Vail Road. • Deviations from the underlying zoning development standards are required. 40 • The bulk and mass of the new hotel is significantly greater than the sizes of buildings presently on the development site. • There are increased impacts of shading on public areas. • The conference and meeting room facilities are potentially under- sized. • Additional views of Vail Mountain from public areas will be negatively impacted. • Only a portion of the dilapidated plaza paver surface is being replaced and improved. • Increased loading /delivery truck traffic on Town streets. • There is only a marginal net increase of true accommodation units over what exists today. • An eighteen to twenty -four month construction process (noise, construction traffic, etc). Should the Planning & Environmental Commission choose to recommend approval of the requested major amendment to the Vail Town Council, staff would recommend that the Commission make the following finding: "That the proposed major amendment to Special Development District #6, Vail Village Inn, complies with the nine design criteria outlined in Section 12 -9A -8 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code. The applicant, as required, has demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Commission that any adverse effects of the requested deviations from the development standards of the underlying zoning are outweighed by the public benefits provided or has demonstrated that one or more of the development standards is not applicable, or that a practical solution consistent with the public interest has been achieved. Further, the Commission finds that the requested conditional use permit to allow for the operation of a fractional fee club complies with the applicable criteria and is consistent with the development goals and objectives of the Town. Lastly, public notice of this public hearing has been sent to adjacent property owners and published in a local newspaper of record in accordance with Section 12 -3 -6C of the Town Code." Should the Planning & Environmental Commission choose to recommend approval of the requested major amendment, staff would recommend that the approval carry with it the following conditions: 1. That the Developer submits detailed civil engineering drawings of the required off - site improvements (street lights, drainage, curb and gutter, sidewalks, grading, road improvements, etc.) as identified on the off -site improvements plan to the Town of Vail Public Works Department for review and approval, prior to application for a building permit_ 2. That the Developer submits a detailed final landscape plan and final architectural elevations for review and approval of the Town of Vail Design Review Board, prior to application for a building permit. 3. The sdd approval time requirements and limitations of Section 12 -9A -12 shall apply to this major amendment and, in addition, the phasing of the construction of the hotel shall not be permitted. 4. That the Developer submits the following plans to the Department of Community Development, for review and approval, as a part of the building permit application for the hotel: a. An Erosion Control and Sedimentation Plan; 0 b. A Construction Staging and Phasing Plan; C. A Stormwater Management Plan; d. A Site Dewatering Plan; and e. A Traffic Control Plan. • 5. That the Developer receives a conditional use permit to allow for the construction of Type III Employee Housing Units in Phase IV of the District, in accordance with Chapter 12 -16, prior to the issuance of a building permit, to provide housing on -site. 6. That the Developer submits a complete set of plans to the Colorado Department of Transportation for review and approval of a revised access permit, prior to application for a building permit. 7. That the Developer meets with the Town staff to prepare a memorandum of understanding outlining the responsibilities and requirements of the required off -site improvements, prior to second reading of an ordinance approving the major amendment. 8. That the Developer submits a complete set of plans responding to the design concerns expressed by Greg Hall, Director of Public Works & Transportation, in his memorandum to George Ruther, dated 12113/99. The drawings shall be submitted, reviewed and approved by the Town Engineer, prior to final Design Review Board approval. 0 That the Developer records public pedestrian easements between the hotel and the Phase III Condominiums, between the hotel and the Phase V Building, and along the Vail Road frontage. The easements shall be prepared by the Developer and submitted for review and approval of the Town Attorney. The easements shall be recorded with the Eagle County Clerk & Recorder's Office prior to the issuance of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy. 10. That the Developer records a deed - restriction, which the Town is a party to, on the Phase IV property prohibiting the public use of the spa facility in the hotel. Said restriction may be revoked if the Developer is able to demonstrate to the satisfactior of the Town that adequate provisions for vehicle parking have been made to accommodate the public use of the spa. The restriction shall be recorded prior to th issuance of a building permit. 11. That the Developer submits a final exterior building materials list, a typical wall sections, architectural details and a complete color rendering for review and approve of the Design Review Board, prior to making an application for a building permit. 12. That the Developer submits a comprehensive sign program proposal for the Vail Plaza Hotel for review and approval of the Design Review Board, prior to the issuance of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy. 13. That the Developer submits a roof -top mechanical equipment plan for review and approval of the Design Review Board prior to the issuance of a building permit. All roof -top mechanical equipment shall be incorporated into the overall design of the hotel and enclosed and screened from public view. 14. That the Developer posts a bond with the Town of Vail to provide financial security for the 125% of the total cost of the required off -site public improvements. The bond shall be in place with the Town prior to the issuance of a 'building permit. 15. That the Developer installs bollards or similar safety devices at the intersection of the delivery access driveway and the sidewalk along the South Frontage Road to prevent conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles, prior to the issuance of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy. 16. That the Developer studies and redesigns the entrance on the north side of the hotel across from the entrance to the Gateway Building to create a more inviting entrance or a design that redirects pedestrians to another entrance. The final design shall be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Board prior to the issuance of a building permit. 17. That the Developer coordinates efforts with the owners of the Gateway Building to create a below ground access for loading and delivery to the Gateway from the Vail Plaza Hotel to resolve potential loading and delivery concerns at the Gateway. If a coordinated effort can be reached the Developer shall submit revised plans to the Town of Vail Community Development Department for review and approval, prior to the issuance of a building permit. 16. That the Developer revises the proposed floor plans for the Vail Plaza Hotel to provide freight elevator access to the lowest level of the parking structure. The revised plans shall be submitted to the Town of Vail Community Development Department for review and approval prior to the issuance of a building permit. 19. That the Developer redesigns the proposed elevator tower to create an architectural feature atop the tower and revises the proposed building elevations and roof plan prior to final review of the proposal by the Design Review Board. The Board shall review and approve the revised design. 20. That the Developer, in cooperation with the Town of Vail Public Works Department design and construct a left -turn lane on Vail Road and reconfigure the landscape island in the South Frontage Road median to eliminate left -turns from the loading /delivery. The construction shall be completed prior to the issuance of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy. 21. That the Developer provides a centralized loading /delivery facility for the use of all owners and tenants within Special Development District No, 6. Access or use of the facility shall not be unduly restricted for Special Development District No. 6. The loading /delivery facility, including docks, berths, freight elevators, service corridors, etc., may be made available for public and/or private loading /delivery programs, sanctioned by the Town of Vail, to mitigate loading /delivery impacts upon the Vail Village loading /delivery system. The use of the facility shall only be permitted upon a finding by the Town of Vail and the Developer that excess capacity exists. The Developer will be compensated by the Town of Vail and/or others for the common use of the facility. The final determination of the use of the facility shall be mutually agreed upon by the Developer and the Town of Vail. 0 22. That the Developer submits a written letter of approval from adjacent properties whose property is being encroached upon by certain improvements resulting from the construction of the hotel, prior to the issuance of a building permit. • • r r Vail Plaza Hotel Major SDD Amendment Attachments February 28, 2000 40 Attachment AA yA rr TJ VJ Clt wr Pei* Zu 5 ul Sys A A4 M rag gn xg I N N - Z I _Vh yA rr TJ VJ Clt wr Pei* Zu 5 ul A4 M rag gn xg I N N - Z I _Vh 4 H; J . . . . . . .... RE . yA rr TJ VJ Clt wr Pei* Zu 5 ul � � I � Q \ Q � j � � / � � / | *NNW +,i �' �' fl �. I i : �. ;,., r � 4 wwy �4 NMnr °w+ M�" t}f' 4 \t 4y �� �� �f P� A � A IFA� +l _ t 7� w� w ran nwr �,/' ��i V 1rM �� rm� C. � �� � � L �� � 9 ++� i �M N 0 • 7 0 -0 4L� -im-4 C ol l , MONO 0 WHO It I L71 • V jtoad OY Iv wT V jtoad OY Iv L I I - 1 f d FIUME 1' 41 I I mi L {V W L W O k..h.y u °V W L O nn W ,y 661 V II LIJ111 li Y 0 •> iV r- 0 M X © v i c O �*.j 1 � I Y r1 � 1 �y 1 L �/ j J 1 WW :3 /� - t V W V O Ln 9 0 C) Q Q v N O U b o 0 9 D zi L jam, LLI 'i I CC k � � °�►'k p, to I i4 ¢ 13h1Y� i u to c c W LA rz W c Q Z W I t I z I I I I I I I I I I I 0 I � I � W t r-+ CQ i C O V C� 11 N {fi t!r] Q) M 4 0 JI u CW q o� 0 0 0 0 � ° o O � U o +� ZO L M la 1� I � 131 �I �I�I�I I I I I I I I I I I � I -I I co ft W 3 I I I vu I I I I I l H I � I I I I 1 I L O T W LLJ O ►I � I I u I I I I I I 1 I �i 91 � �I a c O Ll d C ( ""' O FA ©p. coo ^ W 7 s a-- O I = �I = �I n 0 o 0 O 52 L ¢l 0 A �s GG lL o z Z i i ge12 �e P i I I I I r I I I I I I I I I I I i i I --------- - - - - -- L I i i I i i I I I I I I I ! I I l C� 1 Wo I 21M i V s 4 � Ln CN M :I o w 0 12 fl u N 2 ? 'it Z 2d 'it 4 �� 1 1 1 lJF \ f 1 J. 1 I I it -- ---- - - - - -- 1 1 n i i \ \ 1 � 1 n \ � Ly I F- \ 1 I � I I \ \ \ � C ! 1 9 \ E I I I I I I I I I I E I I I I I I i I I I ----- - - -__- s! ! ! f� s � � n ti. ! \ 1 l \ n ! V � I w r s_ I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 i I I L o Ln � v y us na ME ME T Jl r fil ti j J O b a U 9 N LA m x� gg�_ N t I I I I IL — — — �I I I \ I I r I I \ I ' r { I r � r � f r � / J d ' r 1 / J \ f f r r t e J ' l ' J ^' k d t o 1 O 4 4i � b sL � w 0 C�3 w• J � U rt 00 t \ 1 I G \ f f •, u I a e R s _ 1 I � Ln W) ji � v u, C` 9 0 O R1 4 u r^ � z z �� lag �� i { r { i • r Iy � }I / ry1. V tllld�li /l uiow�rrl►N 'TAN•" u{uul�lrui; — �ra�l n I. •��� � o I a I � l.r _ 0 r o � y / \/� W 1 ¢, 0 CJ M • • pl� I 0 z u p93 UA la 0 7 LU Ni ".* \ 4� 4 0 r II C d5 V � VJ W V 7 F lL O O zi LIA N Z .� c II I O 0 0 C I1o111 a d M acl v o� mi 13 ° Ch J. i t a = I a d r M ■ f' CI �, i O 0 G O N N O D G`� s � � f f — I � acl v o� S Ch r M ■ f' CI �, i O 0 G O N N O D G`� s � � f f — I � 0 f4Pl iii a. u ■ rv� s 7 p 2 -P U 3 r �y _, 197. in Wit • try ■ _ ■ ■�w ■■ =ice •�� ■■wwr■ NEW ■.wlrr■ ■�wra■■ ianu..� Ll =_ - fit ■ �� r IR ME ``� '111 11 ; ■' ::�:�:: t - - �_ ou a MEN ■■ww■■ `` l Ili�lll bflllllli� � 1� ■iii. �.� !! �o ��I a � ry r �y 1- JUN I lZRI:', o� o N Id � > N G v R OJ VS J Q Q � vv0 Q N 0 0 0 � f Ws N� � 4 Q J i 4- r O 8i � u ( A W 0 D o � G7 N O 0 ti f �o $ - r _y � 1 0 11, ipp IIIR,�NIIIIIINIII _ �I �� '. ua" .fat �� ���� r I ✓i_��ll �i� ■�I Imo. : am Noun Olson ■m'Jm■ r ON MWA won 'ANN IN- +I� `'� � � 1� ��1 �i X11 Ir• r� ■■ N ��. ■...■ � ICI ��ll�. � � �� � �] ��!��.► :k I i �s�— �`►� --� —fir �� � �. S , :, r T ■wsn � I ��� ■w.rE7 4 +� All- — MM s. Elffirium pp no ME n sm ,i.. I � � � � ��- °.mow■ w� -awi — ■ w w a1 ■ I.�, own 1� r 11ti111��sR .,T< R { Attachment A . � .jet � �_�_ 1 r � •,, , `.�- �`1.: ^•fir � .' _• �, �\ r ; ��'` �`� : t 1 y 1 U , =— ,�,� ' `�... ':, ? sa�• yam.' � ;s °.� tik -� � �• � ��`� f r l l �r } ' y ��..`�. ° } '-` r u v l,..a• rte 7 a I y k � 1- •` 1 s Pr "ytt� � ?S+r � .1 ��„ r • r .P �� „1i� i ..r } - � � '. �x ! 7.v�rt i S, y r s�].,C'�! ��.�: " � ��••ii• + err'! ', � � � ''t �- �S\ s..:. A•. T - _ r 1' f'.: �4 4'` �� y t ST Jr�' '$ 7 �/i ,•�' "\,7.,. �, �--r+ s ;• ' • ' -'. t '!`w'1.. f^'�;:���Ziy�„ 1 `+" , �,'1`'. • 4,5 �q fi a~arC `ti, •`*r s. rxr " r 1 �' - �' + g l� t on 7 r w"' s `' _ � I .��r�ys[ht• ;�6 . r 1a- i. C� r++s ' �' .`•°.; ,w.M1 i: k"5.�'S'J -w�`.r t�.�?�1# NH J .�.s ? fK.'� 3' 1. �f. ' °'S `1 ?tt� <' il ; v aiS+.+ v r7 ;•`r +2` w �.+ a .v J � �''^' K xM r`a';'n�r'�Y' Y' ��r,wL„ 65 � � I t3� ±? ..0 47V f�� *,rt 1. C�'75¢�J.�'�ase� r - 3" ka v v° �J ;I • 4 • 1 t �tr..a G.. s 1!' y4 � • ! 5 � e v t.�.+�3.u�i 1 , s �Y 1V2 S :�5'°a.�r .r .�.�I K - r I C r ' �i4!�#t•S ,.JiC . '4�'.,�4 . I 5 4 �4 a ti' y+(�Pl y ,.. 'fit � .. < '�` L- j # F s C R o, " j � � f , �!rv:., 'W" f're �. {a, � nr r 4.-x c n3'n r ._ ^^<a a. r • I J � � x �• •, p � � ��, n.'• °la n €., l ! r � e � �r,� , r y5 ''� .t 1 � s .a' t� } r t° 1 �', — 1 .Y .r,•• F ° — �.�_�,�i� . iti riF't"^L7°:.f3'�i rf;i* S � - f .. � } � ; )•rr.. �' _ r --------- :s ° .! , •. 1 . .f � _ti ��� � '�,r �4 }� I '� ,,, 1 ♦ 4r�1 � r s ti �- &${rw ¢r�ES !f rf+ s• r � � I f I I � J -� r 1 r 1� 1 1 ak l f � 4 1 L- 1 3 LJ I 1 a 4: c7 ro Aj N Qi • C O �a N c4 O N _m m ° G � N v N � O CO a N i' R N d 9 U) c 4m �' N ... .o m N C d LO Q C Q V co 0. C . 6 Q t — 16 ® G c Im l ' I Q O r�� N �- j y cry ? iA d j N O O_ h N h N Q v ay 11 i1 ' N fG f0_- I� O/ r In in h M T�� N ....'S j tn 9 N G � � O � v N 6 w' N@ Q V N 4 N 0 t — 16 N .0 r. N W R C Q OI cry ? N E ° O v a 11 i1 m �Q 0 N r N V U U dt C d C N U- K N C Q 1 `o ? C " a NIn v CL n m `o Q O r G v N N N iJ) w �•- v J° N -... Cn ip M O N m n N o O CA C� N N 090 oD N f I 1xC 0 N E O C r m O N N O 41 VIII W m Im — N d N L L N ° u'r C = e : UI N o m l'�7 g O C O L cp O r m � � pdjl N L ��pp Cjhf0 m a N �' m Q 4Q ma WJ N m :r >m Z Z Z 0� vA w m G � � O Q V t s .0 cry ? N E ° v a 11 i1 m �Q S � U U S g ca 46 j, y H Z3 � t ? C " III T CL a as © o v m �•- v J° N -... to QCD a N N N m 7 m n mN o O CA C� N 090 oD N f I 1p N O N 41 h n C Y r m � � ° 'p � Av ii G N C N x � rI N m N .C1 N >m m ° U a .. v E° O fA LL 1-1 co J U :3 y co T IL Attachment C Vail Plaza Hotel Proposal Comparison (revised 2/28/00) The following table compares the 1998 Vail Plaza Hotel proposal and the recent 1999 Vail Plaza Hotel approval to the revised 2000 proposal. Development 1998 SDD Major 1999 SDD Major Revised 2000 SDD Major Standard/ Amendment Proposal Amendment Approval Amendment Proposal Lot Area: 150,282 sq. ft. 150,282 sq. ft. 152,282 sq. ft. GRFA: 133% or 200,460 sq. ft. 117% or 175,666 sq. ft. 121% or 181,719 sq. ft. (129,156 sq, ft. proposed) (104,362 sq. ft. proposed) 110,415 sq. ft, proposed) Dwelling units per acre: 0.29 du /acre 0.29 du /acre 12.7 du /acre (276 au) (98 au) (15 ffu) (44 ffu) (1 du) (1 du) Site coverage: 62% or 92,637 sq. ft. 62% or 92,637 sq. ft. 61% or 92,036 sq. ft. Setbacks: front 12' 6' 16' sides: 5', 0', 8' & 6' 5', 0', 2', & 5' 5', 2', & 0' rea r. 8' 5' 5' Weight: 85.75' sloping 73' sloping 77.25' sloping 875 (arch.proj.) 73.75' (arch. proj.) 99.75' (arch. proj.) Parking: 394 parking spaces 288 parking spaces 291 parking spaces (249 new parking spaces) (42 existing @ Phase lll) Loading: six berths five berths five berths Commercial sq. footage: 23 % or 47,226 sq, ft. 26% or 46,124 sq. ft. 25% of GRFA or 45,228 sq, ft. Gross Building Area: approx. 395,862 sq, ft. approx, 295,557 sq. ft. Conference/ Meeting Facility: approx. 21,009 sq. ft. approx. 15,338 sq. ft. Spa Area: approx. 27,802 sq, ft. approx. 22,827 sq. ft. r1 U F Aeveryonelpeclmemos\00\vvi pc 1 Attachment: D L i H R A1 ASS -)CI A r[S. I \r Tuesday, October 19, 1999 Mr. George Ruther Senior Special Projects Planner Town of Vail Department of Community Development 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 3I657 Re: Vail Plaza Hotel George: This is a written description of off-site impacts and their proposed mitigation as requested by your letter dated 10/13/99. A. Pedestrian Impacts —Fail Road, We will be providing streetscape improvements -in accordance with the streetscape master plan for the eastern side of Vail Road from the corner of East Meadow Drive to the northern most property line of our site. These improvements include new "Village" light fixtures and standards, curb and gutter, and a six -foot wide brick paver sidewalk to match the color, pattern, and size of the existing sidewalk at East Meadow Drive.. Additional landscape improvements and final sidewalk configuration will be provided in accordance with design review zoning regulations, B. Pedestrian Impacts — East Nleadorw Drive. The Vail Plaza Hotel is proposing to provide streetscape improvements in accordance with the streetscape master plan for the northern side of East Meadow Drive from the comer of Vail Road to the westernmost of the Vail Village Inn Phase 1A structure to mitigate petestrian impacts in this area. The proposed improvements include replacement of the existing cube fixtures with new "Village" light fixtures and standards and a six - foot wide brick paver sidewalk to match the color, pattern, and size of the existing sidewalk at the comer of East Meadow Drive and Vail Road. Additional landscape improvements and final sidewalk configuration will be provided in accordance with design review zoning regulations, C. Pedestrian Impacts -- South Frontage Road. The Vail Plaza Hotel 'is proposing to provide strectscape improvements in accordance with the master plan for the southern side of the South Frontage Road from the corner of Vail Road to the westernmost curb of the Vail Village Inn Phase V driveway to mitigate pedestrian impacts in this area. The proposed improvements include new "Village" light fixtures and standards, curb and gutter, and a six -foot wide brick paver sidewalk to match the color, pattern. and size of the existing sidewalk at alone the South .Frontage Road. Additional landscape improvements and final sidewalk configuration will be provided in accordance with design review and other applicable zoning regulations as well as Colorado Department of Transportation. D. Pedestrian Impacts — South Frontage Road. The Vail Plaza Hotel is proposutg to provide streetscape improvements in accordance with the master plan for the southern side of the South Frontage Road from the easternmost curb of the Vail Village Inn Phase V driveway to the westernmost corner of East Nteadow Drive (Crossroads) to mitigate pedestrian impacts in this area„ The proposed improvements include white concrete standard curb and gutter, and a six -foot wide, four -inch thick, reinforced, white concrete sidewalk. These improvements specifically exclude utility relocation', engineered structures for retaining earth, or support of the sidewalk, handrails, . ^1t.V_'iill L�...! ..'lil_'F +i ^•'P �' ii�l c�1!. �kS�I��� •:l1Jf- ..lf'�:.'iK:.�i# -i <<_; _i`r:?: F J . 3 ?. r �.4 e; ( .rNl }cars ?rlt} `31O?ti 4 ',L?� t }w.. Sl_ e I A 70 i I :I 11 E� {i Vail Plaza Hotel 961070.04 Zehren and Associates, Inc. 10/19/99 f` guardrails or walls meant to provide for the safety ofpedrstrians on the sidewalk, and/or drainage systerns meant to control surface water runoff. It is assumed that the items specifically excluded will be provided by another entity to be coordinated with the proposed sidewalk. Additionally it is assumed that all improvements along the South Frontage Road will be at the discretion of the Colorado Department of Transportation. E. Public Transportation Impacts — East Meadow ,Drive. The Vail Plaza Hotel is proposing to provide public transportation infrastructure improvements in accordance with the streetscape master plan for a new bus stop adjacent to the westernmost portion of the Vail Village Inn Phase IA structure to mitigate impacts in this area. The proposed improvements relocation of fixed bus signage and fixtures, and a bus stop similar in size, materials and character to the existing bus stop located on the south side of the roadway. Additional landscape improvements and final configuration will be provided in accordance with design review and other applicable zoning regulations. It is our understanding that the existing surface water runoff from the existing structures and the proposed structures on the site is would be in the same quantities and would drain to the same locations as currently exist. Additionally, we would assume no increase in surface water on our site would occur from the design of proposed drainage structures on the South Frontage Road. Therefore would assume that no major drainage infrastructure improvements would be necessary to accommodate the proposed structures. Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions or concerns. • Sincerely, Tim Losa Project Manager Zehren and Associates, Inc. • E H R E .s, 11) ASS Qt:l Tuesday, October 19, 1999 Mr. George Ruther Senior Special Projects Planner Town of Vail Department of Community Development 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 Re; Vail Plaza Hotel George; This a final written statement as requested by your letter dated 10 /13/99 to address design criteria A through I as outlined in section 18.40.080 of the town code. It is our understanding that these nine (9) criteria are to be used in evaluating the merits of the Vail Plaza Hotel, the final phase of the Vail Village Inn Special Development District. A. Design Compatibility. We believe that the Hotel is designed in such a way that is both compatible and sensitive to the environment, neighborhood, and adjacent properties. Setbacks are consistent with the underlying zoning in that they maintain an average of twenty feet (20') from most adjacent properties to the primary building walls. Additionally, the structure maintains setbacks consistent with adjacent properties along both the Frontage Road and Vail Road. Mass and bulk are sensitive to adjacent structures in that the hotel is designed to step up in height and bulk from both the street and adjacent smaller structures in order to maintain a comfortable pedestrian scale while maintaining consistent heights with adjacent structures roof lines and ridges. Additionally, we have purposefully hipped most of the'roof forms at or along public streets and plazas to provide a consistent bulk plane at street level. The stepping and broken ridge lines, along with variations in materials and wall planes act to break down the overall mass and bulk of the project and relate the hotel to the surrounding neighborhood. The architectural design is meant to be both compatible with both the Gateway building and the remainder of the special development district while providing some identity to the hotel as botli a recognizable and viable commercial structure within the community. B. Uses, Density, and Activity. The Vail Plaza Hotel is the last phase of the Vail Village Inn Special Development District and as such was always meant to be the anchor or most densely developed portion of the district. As a full service hotel, which includes conference, spa. restaurant, and commercial activities, the hotel meant to act as a "magnet" that draws people throug the other smaller, commercial based structures in the special development district, (including the Gateway building). Additionally, the hotel is legally required to provide loading and delivery services, automobile access, and parking for the remainder of the special development district, C. Parking and Loading. We believe our parking and loading facilities are in compliance with the requirements of chapter 18.52. We are providing six (6), 12' x 25 14' underground loading berths. The maximum required is five (5) 12' x 25' berths in accordance with 18.52.150. We believe our parking facilities meet required number of spaces required by zoning chapter 18.52. : 6 t" L. Hii;_ i. �jC �s': �' i!'..:; nti i..•l lvCEk l�_'tt:'?.:�.h�� �'+1:�::'.�!_'..i'.:fdF Rti. fJ 1`:� E1 a `ts•1JIi, S_��,L]r:ir t] {l EJ {} • I:i, -� �a.i= !_i',.;• y i- +'•. '. - f' ''4`. +- {11t�(1 Vail Plaza Hotel Zehren and Associates, Inc. 96I070.00 10/19199 D. Conformity with Master Plan. We believe our development substantially complies with the goals expressed in the various plans contained within the adopted Vail Village Master Plan. The Land Use Plan indicates our site as MediumrHigh Density Residential and as such recommends a lodging orientation with a limited amount of accessory retail. We are proposing to provide an increased amount of "urban open space" or pubiic plaza and buffering greenspace in the areas indicated as such in The Open Space Plan. We believe that our project complies with the recommendations in The Parking and Circulation Plan. We are proposing an internal cDnztection to the Vail Gateway shared pedestrian /auto area as indicated an improved pedestrian connection to East Meadow Drive including new bus facilities as indicated, and a secondary external pedestrian connection to Vail Road between phase five and our project. Additionally we would be providing sidewalk improvements from the new bus stop on East Meadow Drive to the Gateway on Vail Road, and Bike/Pedestrian sidewalk improvements from the Vail Gateway to the Vail Transportation Center on the Frontage Road. We believe that our design substantially complies with Building Height Plan in that the plan indicates buildings of five stories both to the east and west of our site along the frontage road and north and south of our site on Vail Road. Our design maintains this four to five story relationship with our neighbors. We feel as though the three to four story designation is inconsistent with current conditions and are not applicable as they relate to our site. It is our understanding that these heights indicated in the plan were based on preserving views to Vail Mountain from the four way stop at the Intersection of Vail Road and the Frontage Road prior to development of the Vail Gateway and the Roundabouts. Because these views no longer exist with the development of the Vail Gateway as acknowledged in the plan, and because stopping to view the mountain is actually discouraged by the movement of traffic in the roundabout, we feel that these standards may no longer apply. The Action Plan indicates our site as an area for potential residential/lodging infill in accordance with previous town approvals with which our proposed project is consistent. The Vail Village Stab Areas 1 -1 of the Vail Village Minster Plan indicates our site as the final phase of SDD #b. In doing so, it identifies a series of goals, which we believe we comply with. Item 1.2 encourages "the upgrading and redevelopment of residential and commercial facilities." Rein 2.3 "strongly encourages the development short term accommodation units" and recognizes that when units are "developed above the existing density levels, they should be managed in such a way that allows for short term overnight rental ". Item 2.4 encourages the development of new commercial infill compatible with existing land uses. Item 2.6 encourages the development of affordable housing units and may be required as part of any redevelopment project requesting a density over levels allowed by existing zoning_ Item 3:2 recognizes the will to "reduce vehicular traffic in the village to the greatest extent possible ". Item 4.1 encourages the improvement of existing open space to create new plazas with geenspace. Item 5.1 recognizes the need and desire to provide for parking demands on site and with underground and visually concealed parking. Item 6.1 recognizes the need to provide service and delivery facilities for existing and new development. E. Natural Hazards. We believe there are no natural hazards that may affect development of this site, F. Site and Building Design. We believe we have addressed this issue by compliance with the Vail Village Master Plan. 2 Vail Plaza Hotel Zeluen and Associates, Inc, 961070.00 10/19/99 G. Pedestrian/Vehicular Circulation. We believe we have addressed this issue by compliance with the Vail Village Master Plan. Additionally, traffic studies indicate that vehicular circulation patterns are considered safe and have relatively little impact on existing vehicular circulation systems. H. Functional and Aesthetic Landscaping. We believe we have addressed this issue by compliance with the Vail Village Master Plan. Additionally, we believe we have substantially improved on the amount and quality of publicly accessible plazas, greenspaces, and pedestrian circulation systems. I. Pleasing Plan. The development will be constructed in one phase with completion anticipated for late fall of 2001. Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions or concerns regarding the information presented. Additionally, if you need any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Tim Losa Project Manager Zehren and Associates, inc. 0 0 Attachinent E ty pg W.J _ _� � ; ���° �Ij� l p.1t ��� IC I ;'..,' �.. ll u5x u LU U=x NIT Li MUM/ :A P l�I II a)Il I LU Lu � c ` ,b - E Gr l ok c� 0 LU z 0 LL 2 iz LL z 0 Q J LU 0 r a cr- 0 u W c u g Lu moo. 0 LLJ U) If 0 L) W a � 0 M/ J m A2m&CI!£ f F L--A 0 � � .4 A n ■ � t � � . . . �. � � .- . . n z/ ! - °§ Q: u; ©- ®��§ \~ a a# �� \ \ ■» :. z— 22� � w� � �� � , N! , Im 1 1 Im- • ?3 e as t • • ^ a, } P �x . 46 k r r r � ! l r O CIA V\ i a'n � 1 Z z UL li. ku MI IL Z Q m W m ® ia Na �j tX Y ��5 1 � S N • v�-�t� Z z UL li. ku MI IL Z Q m W m ® ia Na �j tX Y ��5 • • • LU ui 4. t;-z- LU ui u • • z .4 FA t 4-0 el Pon* PEMO •P* z '0 Lu, � LLJ � � .■ � ■ c � t P . � � \f - «� ` . -/ -■ � � ^ - � ` . . , / § - ® • • 0 FA .. 0 4 C ,� an Ch C� ,a 0 pool z I Lu 3 �4 �- 9i' � 4 W ujQ Z N4 w E 40 a 0 zii ■ ota Z . - I Lu��21; w NZ • 0 W-W lu Ct 716 z L) 3:0 :7 V W- � � AA11 $ g iVK I`J •.�Y 1 j 1 t J J I a i i PENA T^" CPS w M D r W- � � AA11 $ g iVK I`J � 0 0 � . : � n ■ � # ■ � � � CN � 9 � 2® | L%�� � / \� I§ L u N | q INS 0 En rA 0 t tir 0 Z. LLI LLJ < 2 NiC ro 40 r G Gi lot r CI �1 n eh Ph • ti ZU � LIJm d cr V � m _ we9oa °s NZ :7 • �J h J POEM opm C1 Q1 Q\ rl M a M Z u =.W 8� w uto sg Nz • rA �Q Tin ran pt r cV il z Z LLJ tLI NZ K-7 un t N v O LLI. mo Z; I uj N z • 0 T i eC C r� • rte El tfi GA E z� LIJ Nsc • .,r e� C a> i a zZ LU N< n • c� C Q r Ci i a� ^o •� z Z- wN ; w �4 a � i1J'� Na $ FM q is 4 hIL"I �� "�2�� � � ^� � � \� � � �y �_ ©- \ \. : « ��» � . . . ` \« —y. \ � � � �� "�2�� � � ^� � ' � %�s� � 2� � yy >g � a �y �_ ©- \ \. : « ��» fy � (� \ , � ��� �� j \ � ��.^ , � � � � ^ � . r, ZZ } E \� \} ^� 6 IT MU fe u J ,P a� QM i�o 'j., 0 Cj � a " N Qj .p E r� W. LLq �n M! T =b 9 �� N _ • � U � N Q U} Qr Q� 0 � N c U •• POO Z Zu L L J cj W Lua 4R Na 9 C90 0 rk LU LLJ t .4 � a a a �a Q H �I a� r� PEN, eq z V W� wa "soa o - - N� _ Attachment H BAILEY & PETERSON A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATroRNEY's AT LAw WKSTSTAR BANK BLDG. 106 SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD WEST, SUITE 2D4 VAIL, COLORADO 91657 LINCOLN CENTER 1660 LINCOLN STREET; SUITE 3175 DENVER, COLORADO 90264 P.O. BOX 449 429 EDWARDS ACCESS ROAD, SUITE 203 EDWARDS, COLORADO 81632 TELEPHONE (970) 476-0092 FACSIMILE (970) 47640049 TO: George Ruther FROM: Jay K. Peterson DATE: October 19, 1999 RE: Vail Plaza Hotel TELEPHONE (303) 637 -1660 FACSIMILE (303) 937-0097 MEMORANDUM TELEPHONE (970) 926-9255 FACSIMILE (970) 926 -9296 • Dear George: The purpose of this memo is twofold. First, to set forth our employee housing proposal and, second, to explain the fractional fee concept. 1. Em to ee Housing. Attached to this memorandum is our Vail Plaza Hotel staffing requirements set forth by departments. The chart I believe is self - explanatory. As you can see, rather that full -time versus part -time, we have used work hour's per year which I believe is a more accurate way to calculate staffing requirements. We have calculated our existing staffing requirements the same way, in order to arrive at a net increase in employees for the new hotel. This net increase is 105 employees. Our proposal is to provide housing for 30% of these employees. Ideally, from our standpoint, we would like to provide all housing within the Town of Vail. However, because of limited opportunities within the Town, we would request the option to provide the housing outside the Town limits, if necessary. The numbers would be the same whether inside or outside the Town. 2. Fractional Fee The Vail Plaza. Hotel will contain forty -seven dwelling units which will be operated and managed by the owner of the Vail Plaza Hotel. The hotel would sell a maximum of twenty-eight prime winter and/or summer weeks with the hotel managing and operating those weeks for the owners. The remaining twenty -four weeks would remain with the ownership of the hotel and would be managed and operated the same as the hotel. There would be an obligation that the weeks remaining under the ownership of the hotel be available only as a "short-term rental," the same as any hotel room. The number of owners would be limited to a minimum of six and a maximum of twelve, pursuant to zoning requirements. If you have any questions, please call. Jay K. Peterson Attachment • 2 VPH STAFF (permanent and seasonal /part-time) Page 1 4 A B C D I E F I G H 2 VPH FUNCTIONS by department n o t a PERMANENT STAFF SEASONAL PART -TIME HELP Perma- nent staff. employees (note 1) work hours/ year = 40 hs/week X50 wklyear work hours per peak day maxi - mum peak days per year work hours per year _ 1 3 Lo i n hotel & Club l 4 lGeneral Manager 1 2,000 5 jAssistant manager 4 $,OOfl 6 Guest relations 2 4,000 16 92 1,472 7 Front Office 8 16,000 24 92 2,208 8 Concierg 2 4,000 8 92 736 9 Bell man 2 4,000 48 92 4,416 10 PBX 3 6,000 161 92 1,472 11 lReservations 3 - 6 OQO 12 Sales & Marketing 4 8,000 13 Accounting 6 12,000 14 Housekeeping sup ervisor 2 4,000 15 maid service 2 15 30,000 40 92 3,680 16 Engineering 91 18,000 24 92 2,208 17 Garage Operations 31 6,000 16 92 1,472 18 A Lodging (hotel & Club) Food & Beverage (F&B) manager +host 64I 3. 128,000 6,000 161 92 17,664 1,472 21 waiters +busboy(1:3 waiters) 11 13, 26,000 40 92 3,680 22 bar 3i 8 92 736 23 kitchen 16 32,000 24 Room Service: 4 8,000 16 92 1,472 25 Food & Beverage (F &B) 39 78,000 7,360 26 Conference Center 3 1 3 6,000 8 92'1 13,248 27 11jealth Club /SPA 28 Ireception 4 8,000 29 up keeping 4 8 16 92 1,472 30 therapist 4 &2 10 20,000 16 92 1,472 31 exercise room 21 4,000 32 Health Club /SPA 2 201 40,000 2,944 33 Retail (3 shops) - 6 f 12,000 161 92 1,472 34 IGRAND TOTALS: 132 264,000 42,688 35 1 hourslyear % 100 16% 36 lAverage part time help work hours/peak day 464 92 42,688 37 One full time work hours /year 2,000 38 Total part-time equivalent o full time 5 21 39 Grand Total full time equivalent 153 40 1 ,2 Average hours /part time employee /peak day Number of part time names =(avg hs.per peak day) notes /(hs/da ) 6 7 116 4 43 continue 44 _ 45 4 VPH STAFF (permanent and seasonal /part -time) Page 2 A B C D E F G H 46 note 1: includes "day off' coverage were applicable. note 2: Maid service is based on 10 occupied rooms/maid. Minor occasional fluctuations in 3 demand (less than 100 occupancy) will be covered with overtime of the permanent staff. 49 note 3: Occasional large banquettes will be serviced by the Conference waiter staff and the two shifts 50 restaurant and kitchen staff in overtime. 51 note 4: Same therapist may cover more than 1 of the 14 treatment rooms for some treatments. 52 note_ 5: The total 42,688 seasonal work hours/year divided by the regular one full 53 time employee 2,000 hours /year is = 21 equivalent full time 54 ern_ ployees. 55 note 6: it is a typical hours/peak day of a part time helper. 56 note 7: it is the total part time "names" on the payroll. Evidently depends on the average part -time hours/peakday 57 58 59 60 Employee Totals VPH VPH equiv i Ne IVVI increa- VVI equiv.* se 42 42 32� 7 full time 132 132 part time 116 21 61 total 248 153 741 49 ;' 105 62 * part time at same ratio as VPH . 63 641 VPH STAFFING IS BASED ON THE FOLLOWING 65 uses mote units quant. 66 Hotel 97 67 Club units 4 8 0 Hotel + Club Hotel & Club YEAR occupancy persons/occupied unit 8 units 143 75% 1.75 71 Hotel + Club population 9 persons 188 72 maid service occup rms/maid 10 73 walk in for lunch or dinner 10 customers/function /day 80 74 Restaurant & bar 11 sf 3,613 75 kitchen 11 sf 3,200 76 Conference 11 sf 7,004 77 Health Club/SPA 11 sf 7,009 78 Retaii 11 sf 3,550 79 80 11highest demand for restaurant/day 81 note lunch dinner 3 82 hotel & Club guests 12 1 1 per nights stay. 83 servestfunction/day 48 1 48 84 Walk in customers/function/day 85 serves/function/day 10 80 ers/function/day 86 Total serves/function /day 13 128 128 13 serves/waiter/function 87 breakfast is buffet type, served by the same lunch staff. 88 note 8: Hotel & Club are staffed as a unified operation 89 note 9: population for the specified number of units, occupancy, persons/room. 90 note 10: all hotel restaurants off the main pedestrian traffic (Ludwig, The Villager, etc.) rarely (if ever) achieve a high 91 walk in demand.This 80 serves/function/day is a very high assumption. 92 3 4 note 11: all these uses are staffed based on real demand and not based on sq.ft., or seats or any other parameter. note 12: It is established in the business that the restaurant at the hotel never captures more than 1 lunch and 1 dinner per 3 nights stay. It is part of guests program to dine out in 95 other restaurants. Vail is plenty of those. 96 note 13: The low ratio of 13 serves /waiter /shift/day indicates that this staff can serve 97 more than 2 times this demand. MAXIMUM HOLIDAYS AND PEAK WEEK ENDS 0 1999 holidays winter days/ holidays days /peak wk.end days total Veterans 11 -Nov 3 Thanksgiving Christm - - - 25-NOv 2 -Dec 9 -Dec 16 -Dec - 23 -De 3 7 NewYear - i Luther K I-inc,Val,Pre Ash StPatrick Good Fri winter tot45-Aug. 30 -De -- 6 -Jan' 13 -Jan 20 -Jan 27-Jan 3 -Fe 10 -Fe 7 -Fe 24 -Fe 3 -Ma 10-Mar 7-Ma 4 -Ma 31 -Ma 7 -Apr 7 3 3 3 3 - 3 35 - 3 3 3 3 12 47 me 3 3 3 3 3 Independ-Jul 3 Jul 15-Jul -Jul summer total 14-Apr 21 -Apr 3 15 18 28 -Apr Mother's 5 -May 3 Armed Forc 12 -May 19 -May Memorial GrandParen Father's Yom Kipur ® Columbus 26 -May 2-Jun 9-Jun 16-Jun 23 -Jun. 12 -Aug 19 -Aug 26 -Aug 2 -Sep 9 -Sep 16-Sep 23 -Sep 30 -Sep 7 -Oct 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 _ 14 -Oct 21 -Oct Halloween 28-Oct 3 4 -Nov_ ji _ 18 9 27 ___I ear total 5$ W1 92 Vail Plaza Hotel Parking Analysis (revised 2128100) Table 1: A Comparison of the Parking Requirements for Phase !V Attachment I Dwelling Unit 5,409 sq. ft. >2,000 sq, ft. Town 2.5 Vail Plaza Hotel 2.5 Fractional Fee Club 62,816 sq. ft. 500 <2,000 sq. ft. / >2,000 sq. ft. Town 98 Vail Plaza Hotel 98 Accommodation Units 35,818 sq. ft. 0.4 spaces/unit + 0.1 spaces /100 sq. ft. Town 75.4 Vail Plaza Hotel 75.4 Employee Housing Units * Town 0 Vail Plaza Hotel 0 • Restaurant 4,709 sq. ft. 1 space/8 seats Town 40 1 space /170.2 sq. ft. Vail Plaza Hotel 28.2 Retail 3,576 sq. ft. 1 space /300 sq. ft. Town 11.92 Vail Plaza Hotel 11.92 Conference /Meeting Rooms 13,846 sq. ft. 1 space /16 seats Town 42.87 Vail Plaza Hotel 42.87 Subtotal Town of Vail Requirement 270.7 Vail Plaza Hotel Proposal 258.9 Table 2: Existing Parking Requirements for Phases 1, 11, 111, & V Existing SDD parking spaces (Phases 1,2,3 & 5) 112 SDD Parking Deficit per Ordinance 75 Previously applied multi -use credit 2.5% 4. 7 Subtotal (b) - Parking requirement for Phases 1,2,3 & 5 191.7 Table 3: Total Parking Requirement for all Phases of SDD #6 • (a + b - existing spaces to remain) x multiple use credit = Grand Total Town of Vail Requirement (270.7 + 191.7 - 42) x 0.9 = 378.4 Vail Plaza Hotel Proposal 258.9 + - 42 x 0.9 = 367.7 * Employee parking is factored into existing requirements f:leveryonelpeclmemos1001vphpark Attachmaeut J • TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS Vail Plaza Hotel Prepared for: Zehren & Associates, Inc. P.O. Box 197$ Avon, CO 81 620 Client Contact: Mr. Timothy R. Losa Prepared by: Felsburg Holt & Ullevig Greenwood Corporate Plaza 7951 E. Maplewood Avenue, Suite 200 Englewood, CO 80111 3031721 -1440 Engineer: Holly A. Hefner Project Engineer: Chris J. Fasching, P.E. FHU Reference No. 98 -174 September, 1998 TABLE OF CONTENTS Paoe 1. INTRODUCTI ON ................. ..............................1 A. Land Use, and Study area Boundaries ....................... 1 B. Existing Conditions ............. . .................... 1 11, PROJECTED TRAFFIC CONDITIONS ...... . ....... 7 A. Trip Generation and Design Hourly Volumes ...................... 7 B. Trip Distribution ................... . . . . . ............. 8 C. Year 2015 Projected Traffic Volumes ........................... 8 Ill. YEAR 2015 TRAFFIC OPERATIONS .............................. . 12 A. Background Traffic ....... .............................. 12 B. Total Traffic ............ ............................... 12 IV. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............. . APPENDIX A - TRAFFIC COUNTS APPENDIX B - EXISTING CONDITIONS LOS APPENDIX C - YEAR 2015 BACKGROUND CONDITIONS LOS APPENDIX D - YEAR 2015 TOTAL CONDITIONS LOS • 0 LIST OF FIGURES Page 1. Vicinity Map ......................... . 2. Site Plan ...................... ..............................3 3. Estimated Existing Winter Conditions . ............................... 4 4. Trip Distribution ................ ............................... 6 6. Year 2015 Background Traffic Conditions ................. ... . ....... 10 7. Year 2015 Total Traffic Conditions . ............................... 11 LIST OF TABLES 1 . Existing Trip Generation Estimates .......... ............... .... 7 2. Proposed Trip Generation Estimates .............................. _ . . 0 I. INTRODUCTION A. Land Use, Site and Study area Boundaries Zehren and Associates, Inc, is proposing the Vail Plaza Hole! development to be located on the southeast corner of Vail Road and the South Frontage Road in Vail, Colorado. This development will be replacing three existing buildings with one building. The site location is shown in �ioure 1. The existing three buildings consist of a total of 41,643 square feet. The proposed ce will consist of a total of approximately 150,000 square feet of various uses including accommodation units, a restaurant, a lounge, a spa, and retail space. The proposed development will have one main access onto the South Frontage Road. The main access will serve as the entrance to the four level parking garage. A second access east of the main access, will be used for most deliveries. The site plan is shown in Figure 2, The impacts of the project traffic at the site access points and the roundabout south of 1 -7G are presented in this report. The purpose of this report is to address the projected traffic impacts associated with the Vail Plaza Hotel development proposal, and to identify any roadway or traffic control improvements required as a result of these impacts. B_ Existing Conditions t, i The existing conditions in the vicinity of the project site are illustrated in Figure 3. Currently there are two accesses to Vail Plaza Hotel site. The main access is on the South Frontage Road and the second access is on Vail Road. The South Frontage Road runs east /west through Vail with a posted speed limit of 25 MPH adjacent to the site. Vail Road runs north/south from the roundabout intersection with the Frontage Road providing access to several hotels, Vail Road is primarily used for local access south of Vail Plaza Hotel; The roundabout is located approximately 115 feet west of the main entrance to Vail Plaza Hotel, Most of the site traffic currently uses the roundabout as does traffic oriented to /from 1 -70. Since Vail is a ski resort, winter traffic volumes have typically been higher than summer volumes. Traffic counts were collected during the week of August 17, 1998, and these counts were used to estimate winter numbers based on 1990 data collected during the winter and summer. The estimated existing winter traffic volumes for the study area are shown in Figure 3 (the raw count data are shown in Appendix A). As indicated, the South Frontage Road east of the roundabout carries approximately 3000 vehicles during the winter PM peak hour. The volumes at the two accesses were calculated by estimating trip generation for the existing buildings. • 1 N 0 r.. Cs, � LL C m ill W Aw -0 cz 0 M m 0 L LL PI?Ob wimirm "REEW L m iv •1 o� • c f� c' J Z'-1 L. � K's. � � r r-4 .-•, L L d O r In Z LU 0 u J: o� � Q U m a o z = cz m Im 0 07 cn I1 e. 0 61 II It m * z • i s 0 2 CD C CO m p CF) i F 4 ,t p r m I �..0 8 cy I7 _C Ln Ln C! N cn C N x w CD E Cl? W m co rt 0 0 t4 C1 ry �, r- � •�' E95 t 1225 14� 530 � � r r-4 .-•, L L d O r In Z LU 0 u J: o� � Q U m a o z = cz m Im 0 07 cn I1 e. 0 61 II It m * z • i s 0 2 The total peak hour traffic volumes were used as the basis for subsequent LOS (levels of service) computations, the results of which are summarized in Figure 3 {worksheets are shown in Appendix C} as is the intersection lane geometrics, Level of service is a qualitative measure which describes traffic operations. A letter designation ranging from A to F is used as the measure. A LOS A is indicative of excellent '�affic operations with very little delay and no congestion, while a LOS F represents extreme delay and significant congestion. As shown in Figure 4 the left turn onto the South Frontage Road from the main site access currently operates at a LOS F during the PM peak hour. The left turn into the site from the South Frontage Road currently operates at a LOS C during the PM peak hour. All other movements operate at a LOS B or better during the PM peak hour. The minor movements to /from the second access along Vail Road currently operate at a LOS B or better during the PM peak hour. The roundabout currently operates at an overall LOS A. 5 ..qr G ¢i O • • coo D > o� ww� KM.. LL c � CL H. PROJECTED TRAFFIC CONDITIONS A. Trip Generation and Design Hourly Volumes Trip generation equations, as documented in Trip Generation Institute of Transportation Engineers (1TE), Sixth Edition 1997 were used to estimate the vehicle -trips generated by the existing and proposed development. It was assumed that 50 percent of the traffic to /from the restaurant, lounge, and specialty retail comes from outside while the other 50 percent is internal (as such, the trip generation associated with these uses was reduced 50 percent). Table 1 summarizes the trip generation results with existing conditions. Table '1 Existing Trip Generation Estimates Land Use AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Weekda y :. ,.1T6. ,... Type Gpde Size Unit In Out Total In nut Total In Qut Total Condo/ 230 22 Rooms 3 T 7 10 7 5 12 I 64 64 126 Townhouse Hotel 310 58 Rooms 20 12 32 19 17 36 239 239 478 Restaurant 831 2 1,000's 1 0 1 5 2 7 43 43 86 Sq. Ft. Drinking 836 1 1,000's 0 0 0 3 1 4 13 13 26 5q. Ft. E 852 2 1,000's 16 17 33 16 15 31 162 162 324 5q. Ft. Totals 39 37 76 50 40 90 521 1 521 1042 I Daily Drinking Total from 15% of PM Rates As shown in Table 1, the site currently generates approximately 1050 trips per day. The AM and PM peak hour trip generation is estimated to be approximately 75 and 90 trips, respectively. Table 2 summarizes the trip generation results for the proposed development. As shown, the proposed development is estimated to generate approximately" 3100 trips per day. The AM and PM peak hour trip generation is estimated to be approximately 175 and 260 trips respectively. App.rjximately three times as many trips are projected for the proposed development as compared to the existing uses on the site. • 7 Table 2 Proposed Trip Generation Estimates • Land Use AM Peak Flour PM Peak 'dour Weekday Building ITc I I — O " Ut 1 Tyne Code Size Unit In Total In Out Total I In pert Total Cando/ 230 16 Roams 2 5 7 5 4 9 47 47 94 Townhouse Hotel 310 276 I Rooms 95 60 155 89 79 168 1136 1136 2272 Restaurant 831 9 1,000's 3 1 4 22 12 34 I 201 201 402 Sq, i=t. Drinking 836 4 1,000's 0 0 0 14 7 21 69 69 138 Sq. Ft. Specialty 814 9 1,000's 5 6 11 14 14 28 87 87 174 Retail S Ft. Center Totals 104 1 73 1 176 1 144 115 259 1541 1541 3081 Dailv Drinking Total from 15% of PM Rates B. Trip Distribution The trip distribution estimates used in this analysis are shown in Figure 4. These percentages are based upon the existing traffic data previously presented (Figure 3), As shown, approximately 70 percent of the total site traffic is expected to be oriented to and from the west through the roundabout. Site generated traffic was assigned to the adjacent roadway network per these distribution patterns and are shown in Figure 5. C. Year 2015 Projected Traffic Volumes 40 Background Traffic Analysis of traffic impacts for a year 2015 scenario requires projecting background traffic volumes. The projected background traffic was a result of exponentially increasing the volumes by two percent per year. Year 2015 background traffic volumes and operational conditions are shown in Figure 6. Total Traffic The total year 2015 traffic volumes are shown in Figure 7. These volumes were determined by first removing existing site traffic then adding the site generated traffic to the year 2015 background traffic volumes. As shown, the Frontage Road is projected to carry approximately 4600 vehicles during the PM peak hour in 2015. Trips attributable to the proposed Vail Plaza Hotel would comprise approximately 6 percent of the total. 0 N, CD L Z) CD L- C E C (A U Ct3 L 1, �o 0 e� a z w ca w 0 • K's. 1 cil LL LO C] N c� C C3 C 0 U 7 c a �s m EN O 2 m M1 O ° o 2 i CL 4 3 Lr) fn c " Q c = N C a) Q U c� c� H C13 Fm- 0 c: > :D SKI Z 4 x Ili. YEAR 2015 TRAFFIC OPERATIONS 0 A. Background Traffic The peak hour traffic volumes shown in Figure 6 were used as the :basis for subsequent IeveIs of service computations, and the results are also summarized in Figure c (worksheets are shown in Appendix C). The roundabout will operate at an overall LOS D. However, the only movements that are lower than LOS S would be the south approach and right lane east approach. These movements are projected to operate at LOS C and F respectively. The LOS F from the east movement is a result of the high amount of volume turning to the north toward I -70 and the North Frontage Road. S. TotaI Traffic The total peak hour traffic volumes shown in Figure 7 were used as the basis for subsequent levels of service computations, and the results are also summarized in Figure 7 (worksheets are shown in Appendix D). AN movements on the roundabout will operate at the same LOS as the background traffic showed previously with the exception of the south approach which will operate at a LOS D. The left turning movement into the site (at the main entrance) will operate at a LOS F and the left turning movement out of the site will operate at a LOS F. Site generated traffic consists of approximately 1 .2 percent of the total traffic entering the roundabout. Of the right lane east approach the contribution from site generated traffic is approximately 2 percent. No improvements were used on the roundabout for this analyses. 0 The main access onto the South Frontage Road included two roadway improvements in the analyses: ► Provide a "storage" area in the existing median for site outbound left turning vehicles to safely pass eastbound traffic. A raised island already exists in the median from the roundabout to the site access providing separation between eastbound and westbound traffic. Minor modifications would need to be made to the island to provide for a storage area. With this "safe harbor," left turning vehicles could cross eastbound traffic in one maneuver and wait in the storage area prior to merging into westbound traffic. With the addition of the storage area the left turn movements out of the site would still remain at a LOS F, however, the delay time for this movement is improved significantly (more than 25 %). ► Construct a right turn deceleration lane into the site for eastbound traffic. This lane is needed to remove right turns from thru traffic lanes. This is of importance here because vehicles coming out of the roundabout do not have sufficient reaction time in the 115 foot distance to slow or stop for a right turning vehicle. • 12 Limiting movements to right in /right out or three- quarter movement was considered for the site's main access, This would require that vehicles exiting the site desiring to Use the Vail Road intersection with 1-70 (which is most of the site traffic) make a U -turn somewhere along the South Frontage Road. However, there is not a safe place for vehicles to make a U -turn within a reasonable distance. Therefore, it is recommended to improve the main access so as to accommodate full movement as safely as possible which includes a center "harbor" area and a right turn deceleration lane. The second access onto the site from the South Frontage Road will be used for deliveries. Due to space Limitations on site, trucks will need to back up onto the site from the Frontage Road. This should be done from a separate lane along the south side of the road. The existing right turn lane east of the site should be extended west to the site's delivery access. The design of the lane and driveway should accommodate backing trucks to allow no interference with eastbound though traffic. Physical or barrier separation should be incorporated into the design. is 0 13 IV. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The following highlight the significant findings and recommendations as a result g 9 u t of this traffic analysis: ► The total projected trips consist of subtracting the existing 1042 trips from the proposed 3082 site generated trips. ► Two roadway improvements will be necessary at the main access onto the Frontage Road. The first includes modification to the center median to provide a .storage area for vehicles turning €eft out of the site. This will allow for a two -step left turn with less delay. The second is an exclusive right turn lane into the site for eastbound traffic. This exclusive right turn lane will remove turning traffic from the though traffic lanes thereby improving safety characteristics. The roundabout will not be adversely affected by the proposed site traffic. The site traffic will consist of approximately one percent of the total traffic in the roundabout in year 2015. The auxiliary lane east of the site for right turning vehicles needs to be extended west to the second access. This lane will be used for delivery trucks backing into the site. This lane and the delivery driveway in which it will serve should be designed to allow backing activity without impacting the eastbound through traffic. Physical separation should be considered between the through lane and the auxiliary lane where backing would be taking place. • 14 Aug -18 -98 09:25A L_SC #Denver 3073 333 1107 p.01 Post4t` Fix Note 7672 No. at P as Date r c From F r II C� o T om ' l nc A Telept+a+e + Fax 0 iekcftre r Carnr (]gnY j� Dsom9xm LJ p. k� getu r O Cal far DOWP % sits code : 3 N -5 Street: MAIN YAIL ROUND -ABOUT E S TIME TOTAL 170ON 170ON 170 BEGIN CLASSIFIED SLIP ROW OFF 1:00 PM 954 14 62 48 1 :15 995 18 62 33 1:30 1009 15 66 38 1:45 970 14 69 44 HR TOTAL 3928. 61 261 163 2 :00 P? 928 5 47 49 2:15 819 15 . 60 40 2:30 945 8 59 47 2:45 959 38 64 40 HR TOTAL 3651 46 230 176 -------------- VAILN YAII ON OFF 103 133 103 153 93 156 48 157 397 599 89 154 72 129 102 134 86 149 349 $71 COUNTER MEASURES, INC. Direction Dir I .N VAILS PAILS EFRON EFRON ON OFF ON OFF 70 73 117 155 85 84 145 151 101 105 119 116 Be 67 13? 120 346 329 520 542 71 72 154 111 65 42 110 116 68 68 149 140 89 86 152 113 293 268 565 480 WFRON ON 122 82 133 106 443 103 104 92 94 393 PAGE: 1 FILE: YAIL DATE: 811719E WFROH OFF 57 79 63 68 267 68 66 78 68 284 DAY TOTAL 7579 107 491 334 746 1174 639 597 1085 1022 836 547 PERCENT of TOTAL 1.4 6.5 4.5 9.8 13.4 8.4 1,9 14.3 13.5 II.D 7.2 F] Aug -18-98 09:26A LSC##Denver- • ter n P) 0 3� 0 47-� m �1T • cn 0 L 303 333 1107 1 H 0 P.02 t ~ 40 • m AUG 19 '98 11 05 323 333 110? PPGE.a2 HCS: Unsignalized __.terser; ions Release 2.Ig ACC2.HCO Page - Center For Microcomputers in Transportation - - - - -- Unlversizy of Florida 512 Weil hall Gainesville, FL 32611 -2053 Ph: (904) 392 -037.5 Streets: {N -S} Va- Road (E -W) Access 2 Major Street Direction.... NS Length of Time Analyzed... 15 (min) Analyst..... .............. HAH Date of Analysis.......... 8/25/99 Other Information ......... leak Hour Existing Two -way Stop - control' -ed Intersection y 1 Northbound I Southbound Eastbound Westbound L T R I L T R I L T R I L T R 1 - - -- - - -= --- -I - - -- - - -- --- - ---- - - -- --- -1 - - -- - - -- - - -- No . Lanes 1 0 1 < 0 1 0 > 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 > 0 < 0 Stop /Yield 1 NI NI 1 Volumes I 695 11 14 530 1 I 1 11 PHF 1 .95 .951 .9s .95 I 1 .95 .95 Grade 1 0 I 0 1 0 MC's (1) I I 1 f Su /RV , s ( 01 1 CV's (e) 1 FC?'s 1 I1.Z0 I 11.10 1.10 Adjustment .Factors Vehicle Critical Follow -up Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf) Left Turn Major Road 5.00 2.10 Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60 Through Traffic Minor Road 6.00 3.30 Lett Turn Minor Road 6.50 3.40 • HCS. Ursignalized intersections Release 2.lg AC42.W Page 2 Wcrksheez for TWSC Intersection Step 1. RT from minor Street W3 E3 Conflicting Flows; (vph) 732 Potential Capacity: (pcph} 589 Movemen! Capacity: (pcph) 589 ?rob. of Queue -Free State: 0.98 S_ep 2: Ll from Mayor Street S3 NB Conflicting.Flaws: (vph) 733 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 757 Movement Capacitor: (pcph) 757 Prob. of Queue -Free State: 0.98 TR Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 RT Saturation Flaw Race: (pcphpl) Major LT Shared Lane Prob. of Queue -Free State: -------------------------------------------------------- 0.97 Step 4: LT from Minor .Street W3 F3 Conflicting Flows: (von) 1306 Potential. Capacity: (pcph) 185 Major LT, Minor TH Impedance Factor: 0.97 Adjusted impedance Factor: 0.97 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to impeding Movements 0.97 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 180 intersection Performance Summary 507 7.3 WE R 13 589 > S3 L 17 767 4.8 Intersection Delay = 0.0 3 7.3 0.0 A 0.1 0.1 sec /veh 0 Avg. 951 Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach Rate Cap Cap Delay Length = Delay- Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph)(sec /veh) (veh) (sec /veh) WE L ? 180 > 507 7.3 WE R 13 589 > S3 L 17 767 4.8 Intersection Delay = 0.0 3 7.3 0.0 A 0.1 0.1 sec /veh 0 17J HC.S: Unsianalized T- ntersecti.cns Release 2.1c ACC2.HC0 'Page 1 Center For Micr com_ouTte;s 1.n Transccrtat i fln rJn oz Florida 512 Neal F31 Gainesville, AL 32911 -2083 Ph: (9W 352 -0373 Sticets: (N -S) Main Access (E -W) South Frontage Road Major Street Direction.... EW Leng h of Time Analyzed ... 15 (min) Analyst ................... HAH Date cf ILnalysis.......... 6/25/98 O--He= Ynfcrmation ......... Peak Flour Existing Two -wa,v Slop - controlled lntersection I Eastbound I Westbound I Northbound I Southbound I L T R I L T R I L 1 - - -- T R I L T R - - - - - -- -1 - - -- - - -- --- - - - -- No . Lanes 1 0 2 e 0 11 3 0 11 - - -- --- -p - - -- - - -- - - -- 0 1 1 0 0 0 Stop /yield I NI NJ i Volumes 1 1205 251 10 1785 I 20 91 PKF I .95 -931 .95 .95 I 45 .951 Grade 1 0 1 0 I 0 1 MC' S M) 1 I I f su /RVI s ( o) ( I C IS (s) 1 I I PCEIS I 11 10 11 - 1.101 Adjustment Factors Vehicle Critical Follow -urn Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf) Legit Turn Major Road 5.50 2.10 Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60 Through Traffic Minor Road 6.50 3.30 Legit Turn Miner Road 7.00 3.40 17J :ICS_ Unsign alized 7nte-.,ections Release 2.1g ACC2.HC0 P 2 Page ----------- Workshee=- fo=- TIdSI ._'rtl`_ °-= 5Z__ or ,..-- - - - - -' ° -_ -_ Step 1: R A T-' from Minor Street NB SB _ Conflicting Flows: (vph) 647 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 651 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 651 Prob, of Queue -Free State: 0 -99 Step 2: LT from Major Street WE EB Conflicting Flows: (vph) 1294 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 346 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 345 Prob- of Queue -Free State: 0.97 Step 4: LT from Minor street NB SA ------------------------------- Conflicting Flows: (vph) 3171 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 70 Major LT, TH Impedance Factor: 0.c7 Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0.97 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 0.97 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 10 Intersection Performance Summary Avg. 95%; Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach Pace Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay Movement (ncph) (pcph) (pcph)(sec /veh) (veh) (sec /veh) NB 23 10 2 -4 F - - - -- 951.2 NB R 9 651 5.6 0.0 B WB L 12 346 10.8 0.0 C 0.1 Intersection Delay - 8.8 Sec /veh • The calculated value was greater than 999.9. ARRR TZ'ansport Research Ltd - SIDRA 5.11 relsburg Holt & U11evig - Y- 13 Registered User No. 123: T_me and Data of Analysis 9:12 AM, Aug 25,1998 3i1 Plaza Hotel :i s ting Condi _=ons Intersection No.: * RO u SIDRA US Highway Capacity Manual (1994) Version Roundabout 1 RUN INFORMATION --------------------------- * Basic Parameters: Intersection Type: Roundabout Driving on the right -hand side of the road SIDRA US Highway Capacity manual (1994) Version_ input data snecidied in US units Default Values File No. 11 Peak flow period (for performance): 30 minutes Unit time (for volumes) :120 minutes (Total Flow Period) Delay definition: Overall delay, Geometric delay included Delay formula: Highway Capacity Manual. Level of Service based on- (HCM) Queue definition_: Back of queue, 95th Parcentile Jail Plaza Hotel * ROUND Existing Conditions tersection No.: Ftoundabcn: t Cable S.3 - INTERSECTION PARR ETERS Degree of saturation (highest) 0.656 Practical Snare Capacity (lowest) - 30 Total vehicle flow (veh /h) = 3134 Total vehicle capacity, all lanes (veh /h) 9503 Average intersection delay (s) = 4.1 Largest movement delay (s) - 6.3 Largest back of queue, 95% (ft) - 162 Performance Index 148.58 Total fuel (ga /h) 102.0 Total cost ($) - 1237.29 Intersection Level of Service A Worst movement Level of Service A Vail Plaza Hotel * RCUND xisting Conditions : ntersection No.: Roundabout 'able S.6 - INTERSECTION PERF_0:;L NCE �al Total Aver. Prop. Eff. Pert. Aver. =low Delay Delay Queued Stop Index Soeed :veh /h) (veh -h /W (sec) Rate (mph) 3134 3.57 4.1 0.578 0.61 148.58 --- 14 -D_ jail Plaza Hotel * ROUND Existing Conditions Intersection No. Roundabout table S. 10 - MOV 14ENT CAPACITY JAZM PERFORMANCE SUMMARY Deg, Mov Mov A=v Total Lane Deg. Aver. Eff. 9595 ?per - .No. Typ Flow Cap. Util Satn Delay Stop Back of Index /h) (veh (veh (sec) nest: Rate Queue /h) /h) C x (sec) 0.349 (veh) A -lest: West A =_ roach 1280 0.237 3.4 A 13 R 74 12 L 355 1015 100 0.349 2.9 0.52 2.1 16.93 11 T 304 1280 68 0 -237 3.4 0.52 1.2 14 -21 13 R 74 312 68 0.237 3.5 0.56 1.2 . 3.34 South: South Annroach �81 6.; A - - - - -- 32 L 251. 100 0.323 6.2 0.69 1.7 4.10 31 T 203 629 100 0 -323 6.1 0.68 1.7 9 -78 33 R 102 316 100 0.323 5.9 0.70 1.7 4.61 East: East Approach ----- 22 L 107 383 43 0.279 4.9 0.66 1.4 5.18 21 T 254 908 43 0.280 4.5 0.59 1.4 11.97 23 R 634 966 100 0.656* 6.3 0,98 6.5 31.49 3orth: Borth Anproac°: ___ ______ ____ __ 42 L 374 1034 100 0.362 1.6 0.29 1.8 17.17 41,T 91 293 89 0.322 2.0 O. 1.5 4.04 43 R 215 673 89 0.321 2.0 0.37 1.5 9.33 NorthWest: North West Approach _-- - - - - -- 82 L 146 625 100 0- 234 3.6 0.57 1.1 7.17 81 T 121 518 100 0.234 4.0 0.57 1.1 5.73 - 83 R 72 308 100 '0.234 4.1 0.62 1.1 3.32 * Maximum degree of saturation Vail Plaza Hotel * ROUND .xisting Coneiitons .n tersection No.: Roundabout Table S.15 - CAPACITY AND L£VET OF SERVICE (HCM STYLE) Mov Mov Total Total Deg, Aver, LOS No- Typ Flow Cap. of Delay (veh (veh Satn /h) /h) (v/c) (sec) nest: West Annroa 12 L 355 1016 0.349 2.9 A 11 T 304 1280 0.237 3.4 A 13 R 74 312 0.237 3.5 A 733 2608 0.349 3.2 A aouth: South Appp=oach ?2 L 81 251 0.323 6.. A 31 T 2C3 629 0.323 6.; A • 33 R 102 316 0.323 5.9 A 336 2196 0.323 6.0 A Last: East A=roach 22 L 107 363 0.279 4.9 A 21 T 254 908 0.280 4.5 A 13 R 634 966 0.656* 6.3 A 995 2257 0.656 5.7 A. �Yorth: North Amvroach 42 L 374 1034 0.362 1.6 A 41 T 91 263 0.322 2.0 A 43 R 216 673 0,321 2.0 A 661 1990 0.362 1.8 A NorthWesz: Noz:h West Approach 82 L 146 625 0.234 3.6 A 81 T 121 518 0.234 4.0 A 83 R 72 -308 0.234 4.1 A 339 145 0.234 3.8 A - ALL VEHICLES: 3134 9503 0,656 4.1 A. 3NTERSECTION: 3134 9503 0.656 4.3 A Level of Service calculations are based an average overall delay (HCM criteria), independent of the current delay definition used. For the criteria, refer to the "Level of Service " tonic in the SIDRA Output Guide or the Output section of the on -line help. Maximum v/c ratio, or critical green periods - -- End of SIDRA Output - -- • APPENDIX C YEAR 2015 BACKGROUND CONDITIONS LOS • A-_ Transport Research Ltd - S:i4W to 5.11 ___ Felsburg Halt & ullevig 13 Registered User No. 1234 Time and Date of Analysis 9:10 AM, Aug 26,1998 Tail Plaza Hotel * 3ACE2 ' Lure Conditions itersection No.: S DRk US Highway Capacity Manual (1994) Version Roundabout RUN INE'ORMAT_ION t Basic Parameters: .Intersection Type: Roundabout Driving on the right -hand side of - - he road SIDRA US Highway Capacity Manual (1994) Version Innut data specified in US units Default Values File No. 11 Peak flow period (for perfor=ance): 30 minutes Unit time (for volumes) :120 minutes (Total Flow Period) Delay definition: Overall delay, Geometric delay included Delay formula: Highway Capacity Manual Level of Service based on: Delay (HCM) Queue definition: Back of queue, 95th Percentile Tail Plaza Hotel * BACK Future Conditions — tersection No.: Roundabout cable S.3 - INTERSECTION PARA*E TERS Degree of saturation (highest) _ 1.181 Practical Spare Capacity (lowest) - -28 $ Total vehicle flow (veh /h) = 4391 Total vehicle capacity, all lanes (veh /h) = 7313 Average intersection delay (s) - 45.1 Largest average movement delay (s) = 183.1 Largest back of queue, 95% (ft) = 2630 Performance Index - 366.41 Total fuel (ga /h) - 177.7 Total cost M = 2267.37 Intersection Level of Service = D Worst movement Level of Service = Vail Plaza Hotel * BACK Future Conditions Intersection No.: Roundabout Pare S.6 - INTERSECTION PERFORMANCE �'�1 -- Total Aver--- Prop--- Effy-- -J�erf _ -Averr- w Delay Delay Queued Stop Index Sneed (veh /h) (veh- h /h)(sec) Rate (mph) 4391 55.04 45.1 0.754 3.02 366.41 11.5 Jail Plaza Hotel Future Conditions Intersection No.; Roundabout 'able 8.10 - MOVEI-ENT CA_pAC - TTY AND PERFOR.MMCE 'SUtj -jA,jy CAPACITY AND LEVEL OF SERVICE (HCM STYLE) Mov Mov Ary Total Lane Deg. Aver. Eff 95% f - - ne_ Per _ -No. Typ Flow Cap. Util Satn Delay Stop Back of Index (veh (veh (veh Rate Queue (v /c) (sec) /h) M x (sec) (vet:) 12 L Test: West Approach 822 0.605 7.6 H 11 T 426 12 L X97 822 100 0.605 7.6 1.04 6.0 26.87 11 T 426 1016 69 0.419 6.7 0.80 2.7 21.45 13 R 104 248 69 0.419 6.8 O.B2 2.7 3.06 South: South Approach 0.832 31.4 C 31 T -- - - - - -- 32 L 114 137 100 0.832 31.4 1.96 10.4 8.68 31 T 284 341 100 0.833 30.1 2.01 11.6 20.82 33 R 143 172 100 0.831 29.0 2.05 11.6 10.27 °.ast. East App- ,..ca 22 L 307 41 0.489 9.4 0.96 3.3 7.97 21 T 3-a 729 41 0.488 9.0 0.92 3.3 18.50 23 R B88 752 100 1.181* 183.110.95 105.2 175.94 iorth: North Approach ----------------- 42 L 524 916 100 0.572 3.3 0.64 3.9 25.85 41 T 128 231 89 0.510 3.6 0.61 3.1 6.05 43 R 303 594 89 0.510 3.6 0.64 3.1 93.90 NorthWest: North West Approach ------------------- - - - - -- 82 L 204 443 100 0.460 8.0 0.90 2.9 10.99 81 T 169 367 100 0.460 8.9 0.90 2.9 8.66 83 R 101 219 100 0.461 9.3 0.93 2.8 5.18 * Maximum degree of saturation Trail Plaza Hotel . uture Co nditions .ntersection No.: Roundabout able :.?5 - CAPACITY AND LEVEL OF SERVICE (HCM STYLE) Mov Mov Total Total Deg. Aver. ' LOS No. Typ Flow Can_ of Delay (veh (veh Satn /h) /h) (v /c) (sec) West: West Approach 12 L 497 822 0.605 7.6 H 11 T 426 1016 0.41.9 6.7 H 13 R 104 248 0.419 6.8 B 1027 2086 0.605 7.2 B South: -�auth Approach �114 ^^ 32 L 137 0.832 31.4 C 31 T 284 341 0.833 30.1 C * BACK * * BACK * 33 R 143 172 0.831 29.0 C 541 650 0.833 30.1 C " 3ast: Last Aooroach A 22 L 150 307 0.489 9.4 H r 356 - 23 729 0.488 9.0 3 10 21 R 888 752 1.181* 183.1 F 1394 1788 1.181 119.9 F North: Norma AOaroach i 42 L 524 916 0.572 3.3 A s 41 T 128 251 0.510 3.6 A 43 R 303 594 0.510 3.6 A 955 1761 0.572 3.4 A North - West. North West Approach 82 L 204 443 0.460 8.0 H 81 T 159 367 0.460 8.9 H 83 R 101 .219 0.451 9.3 B 474 1029 0.461 8.6 B - ALL VEHICLES: 4391 7313 1.181 45.1 7 .INTERSECTION: 4391 7313 1 . 181 45.2. D Level of Service calculations are based on average Overall delay (HCM criteria), independent of the current delay definition used. For the criteria, refer to the "Level of Service" topic in the SIDRA output Guide or the Output section of the on -line help. Maximum v/c watio, or critical green periods - -- End of SIIDRA Output - -- �J APPENDIX D YEAR 2015 TOTAL CONDITIONS LOS • C` CS: U_nsi na? ized intersections Release 2.1g CC-R,; O P , Center Fcr Microcomputers in Transou_taLion University of Florida 512 Weil Hall Gainesville, FL 32511 -2093 Pr_: (904) 392 -0379 Streets: (N-S) Mgin ?access (E -W) South -rcn,age Road Major Street Direction .... £W Length of Time Analyzed... 15 (min) Analyst.... .. ....... t-rAK Date or Analysis.......... 8125198 Other information.— .....Peak Hour Year 2015 Two -way Stop- Contrclied Intersection- Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L T R I L T R 1 L T R L T R - - -- - - -= --- 1 - - -- - - -- --- - - - -- - - -- --- -1 - - -- - - -- - - -- No. Lanes 1 0 2 < 0 1 1 3 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 Stop /Yield Ni N1 Volumes 1790 1001 44 2570 1 83 351 PHF .95 .951 .95 .95 1 .95 .951 Grade 0 0 1 0 MC's (a) 5U /RV's (s)J CV's (a) f I I PCS's I 11.10 11.10 1.101 • Adjustment Factors vehicle Critical Follow -up Maneuver Gag (tg) Time {ti) Left'Turn Major Road 5.50 2.10 Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.50 Through Traffic Miner Road 5.50 3.30 Left Turn, Minor Road 7.00 3.40 HCS; i7nsignalized Intersections Release 2.1= Ac23.3C0 page - Follow -uo Center For Microcomou ors _r, Transncr:acicn Gan (tg) University of Florida 512 Wei, Hall Left Turn Major Road G ;-- FL 32511 -2083 2.10 ?h: (904) 392 -0378 5,50 Sure? =s. (N -S) Main. Access (E -W) South Frontace Road J Major Street Direction.... EW 6.50 Le ng -'= of Time A,nalyzed... 15 (min) Left Turn Minor Road Analyst ................... FIAF? 3.90 Data c= Analysis.......... 8/25/98 Other - Information ......... Peak Hour Year 2013 Two -wav Sto - controlled intersection I Eastbound I Westbcund Northbound I Southbound L T R I L T R j L T R -- L T R ,__ - - -- --- - I - - -- - - -- --- -I - - -- - - -- --- No . Lanes 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 0 0 0 -I - - -- - - -- - - -- 1 0 0 1 Stop/Yield ( NC NI Volumes I I 2570 83 °H^ .95 I -95 Grade 0 I I 0 Mv'S (U I I I I sU /RV' S( a) I I l I CV's (°s) PCE's I I I I 1.1a Adjustment Factors Vehicle Critical. Follow -uo Maneuver Gan (tg) Time (tf) Left Turn Major Road 5.50 2.10 Rigt Turn Minor Road 5,50 2.60 Through Traffic Minor Road 6.50 3.30 Left Turn Minor Road 7.00 3.90 • Adjustment Factors Vehicle HCS. nsignalize inzersecticns Release 2.16 ACCA. Pa 1 Maneuver Center For Microcomputers in Transportation Time WN Le =t Turn Major Road 5.50 University of Florida Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.50 512 Wail Hall 6.50 3.30 Nett Turn Minor Road Gainesville, 32611 -2063 3.40 Ph: (90) 392 -0375 Streets: (N -S) Main Access W—W) South Frontage Road Major Street Direction.... EW Length of Time Analyzed... 15 (min) Analyst .......... ......... H-0 Date or Analysis-- ........ 9/25/98 Other information ......... Peak Hour Year 2015 Two -way Stop- controlled intersection ------------------ �_---- a---- -�_ -__ - __.-- _- __ - - -ter- Eastbound I Westbound 1 Northbound Southbound J L T R I L T R I L 1 - - -- T R J L T R - - -- --- -1 - - -- - - -- --- -1 - - -- No . :tines 1 0 2 1 1 1 C 0 J 1 - - -- --- -1 - 0 1 1 - -- - - -- - - -- 0 0 0 _ Stop/Yield f NI NI Volumes J 1790 100 59 1 83 351 PHF I .95 .95J .55 1 .95 .951 Grade I 0 I 0 J 0 I MC'S (of J I J Su /RV "S ()J I J I `VAS 11) # I DoE's I 11.10 11.10 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1.101 Adjustment Factors Vehicle Critical Follow-up Maneuver Gag (tog) Time WN Le =t Turn Major Road 5.50 2.10 Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.50 Through Traffic Minor Road 6.50 3.30 Nett Turn Minor Road 7.00 3.40 s HCS: Unsiarna?zzed T- ntersecrti ---s Release 2.I "'- C __- __------ Workshee- for Tir�SC In_e-s--- 'on-------- - - - --- Szeu 1 . FT from Minor Stre NB SB Conflicting Flows: (vph) 942 Potential Capacity: (ocohj 461 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 46 - Proh. o."' Queue - Free Sate. 0.91 Step 2: LT from. Major Street W'B EB Conflicting Flows: (vph) 1989 Potential Capacity: (pcnh) 147 Movement Capacity: (pooh) 147 Prob. of Queue -Free State: 0.65 Step 4: LT from Minor Street NB SB Conflicting Flows: (vph) 1930 Potential Capacity. (pc-ph) 62 Major LT, Minor TH Impedance Factor: 0.65 Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0.65 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 0.6 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 40 Intersection Performance Summary Avg. 950 Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay Movement (ncph) (Pcph) (pcph)(sec /veh) (veh) (sec /veh) NB L 56 40 648.2 8.4 F 599.2 NB R 41 461 8 "6 0.2 B WB L 51 147 37.0 1.3 E 37.0 intersection Delay = 35.2 sec /veh • • HCS: Ur!signali.zed intersections Release 2.1g ACC.HCO Page Intersection Performance Summary— --------------+ - -- - - intersection -------------------- Avg - - -- ----- Step _. RT from Minor Street N3 SE Conflicting Flows: (vph) 994 Shared Total Potential Capacity: (pcph) 434 Movements Capacity: (pcph) 434 Cap Delay Prot. of Queue -Free State: -------------------------------------------------------- 0.9 Movement Step 3. LT from Major Street WS F,B (pcph)(sec /veh) Conflicting Flows; (vph) 1989 . NE Potential Capacity: (pcph) 147 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 147 NB R Prob. of Queue -Free State: 0.65 9.2 Step 4: LT from Minor Street N8 SB WE L Conflicting Flows: (vph) 4688 37.0 Potential Capacity: (pcph) I Major LT, Minor TH Impedance Factor: 0.65 Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0.65 Capacity Adjustment Factor cue to Impeding Movements 0.65 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1 Intersection Performance Summary— Intersecticn Delay = 893.3 sec %veh * The calculated value was greater than 999.9. • Avg 95s Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph)(sec /veh) (veh) (sec /veh) NE 96 NB R 41 434 9.2 0.2 B WE L 51 147 37.0 1.3 z 0.6 Intersecticn Delay = 893.3 sec %veh * The calculated value was greater than 999.9. • .jail Plaza hotel * -- 7,TT x :utu =e Conditions :ntersect_on No.: Roundabout `able S. 10 - ? 1OVEI-C- NT CA-PACITY AND. PERFORMANCE SLiMMARy Mov Mov Mov Ary Total Lane Deg. Ave,. Eff. 95% Per- No. Typ _ -_ Cap. Util Satn Delay Stop Back or Index (ve- (veh (v /c) (Sec) Rate Queue /h) /h) () x (sec) 0.615 (veh) B lest: West A_nvroach 1003 0.437 7.1 B 13 R 104 236 12 L 496 806 100 0.515 8.1 3,08 6.3 27.08 11 T 438 1003 71 0.437 7.1 0.83 2.9 22.25 '.3 104 238 71 0.437 7.2 0.85 2.9 5.11 .South: South Approach 32 L 114 130- 100 0.877 36.4 2.25 12.4 9.43 31 T 283 322 100 0.879 36.9 2.31 14.0 22.59 33 R 148 168 100 0.881 35.6 2.37 14.0 11.53 Fast: East Approach 22 L 153 306 42 0.500 9.5 0.98 3.4 8.16 21 T 366 731 42 0.501 9.1 0.94 3.4 19.08 23 R 908 753 100 1.206* 205.411.95 116.6 194.20 larth. North Approach - - 42 L 539 906 100 0.595 3.6 0.68 4.3 26.79 41 T 128 246 88 0.520 3.7 0.63 3.2 6.08 43 R 304 584 88 0.521 3.7 0.66 3.2 14.02 NorthWest: North West Approach - - 82 L 204 422 100 0.483 8.6 0.94 3.2 11.12 81 T 174 360 100 0.483 9.5 0.94 3.2 9.24 83 R 104 215 100 0.484 9.9 0.97 3.0 5.40 Maximum degree of saturation Vaal Plaza Hotel * FUT uture Conditions ;ntezzection No.: Roundabout Table 5.15 ° CAPACITY AND LEVEL OF SERVICE (HCM STYLE) Mov Mov Total Total Deg. Aver. LOS No. Typ Flow Cap. o- Delay (veh (veh Sa'tn /h) /h) (v /c) (Sec) vlest: West Approach 12 L 496 806 0.615 8.1 B 11 T 438 1003 0.437 7.1 B 13 R 104 236 0.437 7.2 B 1038 2047 0.615 7.6. B mouth: South Approach, 32 L 114 130 0.877 38.4 D 31 T 283 322 0.879 36.9 D is • HCS. Unsignalized lnterseczjcrs Rel-= se 2.1g ACCB.HCO Pa 2 =- TF --------- - - -[ Sues - -- --------------------------- - -- SCep - R"' from Minor S __ ee _ NB SB Cc .-listing Flows : (vp." ) 902 Potential Cagacity: (� nh) 483 movement Ca�::scity: (pcph) 483 ?rob. cf Queue -'ree state: 0.80 Zncersection Performance Summary Avg 95 ° s Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach Raze Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delav Movement Ipcph) (pcph) (pC `h) (sec /vah) (veh) (see /veh) 9.3 SB R 9S 483 9.3 0.8 B interseczion Delay _ 0.3 sec /ve h • ARRB Transport Research Ltd - 5IDRA. 5.11 Felsburg Holt 6 Ullevig 13 Registered User No. 1234 Time and Date of Analysis 9:11 AM, Aug 26,1996 Vail Playa 3c uel Fixture Cond Intersection No.: SIDRA CTS Highway Capacity Manual (1994) Version Roundabout RUN INFORMATION * Basin Parameters: intersection Type: Roundabout Driving on the right -hand side of the road SIDRA US highway Capacity Manual (1994) Version Input data specified in CIS units Default Values File No. 11 Peak flow period (for performance): 30 minutes Unit time (for volumes):120 minutes (Total Flow Period) Delay definition: Overall delay, Geometric delay included Delay formula: Highway Capacity Manual Level of Service based on: Delay (HCM) Queue definition: Back of queue, 95th Percentile Vail Plaza Hotel Future Conditions Intersection No.: Roundabout Table 5.3 - INTERSECTION PARAMETERS Degree of saturation (highest) = 1.206 Practical. Spare Capacity (lowest) - -30 $ Total vehicle flow (veh /h) - 4463 Total vehicle capacity, all lanes (veh /h) = 7189 Average intersection delay (s) - 50.9 Largest average movement delay (s) 205.4 Largest back of queue, 95% (ft) = 2916 Performance Index = 392.16 Total fuel (ga /h) - 185.3 Total cost W) - 2379.22 Intersection Level of Service = D Worst movement Level of Service - Vail Plaza Hotel 7uture Conditions Intersection, No.: Roundabout fable S.6 - INTERSECTION PERFORMANCE Total Total Aver. Prop. Eff. Perf. Aver. Flow Delay Delay Queued Stop Index Speed A veh /h) (veh- h /h)(sec) Rate (mph) 4463 63 -12 50.9 0.772 3.29 392.16 11.1 * k'CIT * ( * FUT * * FUT * C n 3 R 148 1613 0.881 35.6 D 545 620 0.881 36.8 D ast: East Approach 22 L `153 3.06 0.500 9.5 B 21 T 366 731 0.501 9.1 B 23 R 908 753 :7.206* 205.4 F 1427 1790 1.206 134.1 F North: North Approach 42 L 539 906 0.595 3.6 A 41 T 128 246 0.520 3.7 A 43 R 304 584 0.521 3.7 A 971 1736 (3.595 3.6 A Nor`.hWest: North Hest A_uaroach 82 L 204 422 0.483 8.6 H 81 T 174 360 0.483 9.5 B 83 R 104 -215 0.484 9.9 B 482 997 0.484 9.2 H ALL VEHICLES: 4463 7189 1 -206 50.9 D INTERSECTION: 4463 7189 1.206 50.9 D Level, of Service calculations are based an average overall delay (HCM criteria), independent of the current delay definition used. For the criteria, refer to the "Level of Service" topic in the SIDRA Output Guide or the Output section of the on-line help. Maximum v/c ratio, ar critical green periods ! - -- End of, SIDRA Output - -- 0 NOV. iC, 11.E b:14M 6LULA AAA AZ�ULIA FEL SB RG HOLT '& ULLEVI mr Aetring parka m r=4parwrian 501uncru November 1 6, 1999. Mr. Tlm L osa Zehren and Associates, Inc. P.O. Sox 1975 Avon, Calorrdo 81620 RE: Access issues - Proposed Vail Plaza Hotel FHU Hafarenca No- 99 -199 I Dear T1m: We have prepared this [attar in rssperrse to your latter dated November 4. 1 9 99"mgardlng access issues at the proposed Vail Plaza Haul. We have addressed each comment as follows: CaMmern 1- The p ssWlrty of tmffrc backing up to the mandabo ut from the south entry an Vail Road wiUmut a dedlcared left rum tare_ A total stacking distance cf 310 faet would be available along Vail Road between the Roundabout and the propasad southern Hotel eM y. This stacking distancs would accommodate a queue length of about 15 vehicles. On average, It Is forecasted that about 1 vehicle per minute wlll turn left into the sits, and about 13 vehicles per minute will con inue souah along Vail Road ,Under are extreme cnndition, if all 14 of these vehicles were to slop at the amr'y imersection, then a queue length of about 280 feet would be g SUC*3 a queue length wnuid not excaed the available stacking dlatance. However. this represents a waist case sccnaho. Queue lengths are expected to be significantly less than 280 feet. since more than S vehicle per minute are expectad to be able to tum left into the site. By evaluating ache avai ble "gap" time for left - taming vehicles along Vasil Road, it was estimatad that about 4 hlcles per minute, or 1 vehicle every 1 � seconds, could tur left Into tine site. In a 15 on Interval, about 4 vehicles ion average) are forecasted to head south along Vail Road. tf X11 4 f these vehicAes were to stop at the entry intersection, there a queue lesZgth of abas�z 8[3 feet would be generated. Such a queue would not even block the proposed exit drivewa of the Hotel site. (1 • ,Cf3.7II -1440 fax 3a3.721M32 tlx��„�.cs�ia i Cn=n -* d C.TMW& P1 I 791 E 1�4apl�waad A+c fix. � Ba *. CMC} CO 80112 v r. .�. ':.. v 1 i l -L Ii Lilll..l� n am 1%"QV V i!i 4 . V a . JJ J Frain: 1070 November 16, 1499 Mr- Tim Losa page 2 • comment 2- The safety a ndlor risks aw=sred with ifre hard exit located eight feet sGuM of the hall GmswwY acc on VaJT Road- in situations where two ac e" dtiveways are clately spaced, 1z is imperative from a safety starcipciltt that gaud sight distance is available at both a=e&s8Z Safety at such irttecsCs;fWn can also be improved by minimizing the number of cOnfnctirng tuma. T can be done by mstr)cting ingrass end/or egrasa turning movements. I t h e Case of the proposod Hotel, it is recornrnendL - d that the access be limited to outbound movementn only {i.a. an exit only). As noted in our September 27, 1999 letter neport, prohibiting inbound left -hems at thr3 across will elirninale overlapping left-turn cnnfllcts along Vail Road- Therefore, while this Spacing is not an ideal Condition, the provision of good sight distance, the restriction of movements 10111bound only!, the forec3sted lcwvatume of exiting traffic, and the relatively low speed environment should allow for an at=ePtabie c=dition. Cprnrr nt 3. The safety antler risks associated with the hato/ luadiry and ddlivffy enVY 010Y a=zp as uidicatdd in Qprion A and it's proxy "mitt' to tfi� racuida6out An the .South Fronrage Road, • The benefits and d awbackr, o1 the proposed design of the trOntage road access have been identified m foilo4: The propo ds�veway is designed such That delivery trucks tincluding serrli--traiier Yrucksl cart cio into the unloadmg /dock area of tha sits vwithout irtlpsc2inQ traffic on the frontage road- . The propo entry lams provides a refuge area for dece!eratirtg (right - turning) vehicles. thereby sing the likalihoccl of rearmed collla onsr from traffic *;citing - [he roundabout. Also, a ve Cie or truck can stop witfrin this refuge aired (while a dbiivery vehicle is maneuverirti within the site) and traffic alCr19 ttt�► Frontage Read will till not be impacted. • Wrong - wOY movements could be made up the inbound ac:.sss lane. However, this can be mitigated by pansting 1 00 Not Enter" and/or 'Wrong Way" signs. As noted hV ilk Town's Engineer. entering vehicles ccufd rear-end a Buell making :ac, CiiZg max'}euyess nn -4h. However, this Can be mitigated icy posted "Yield" signs at -he base of the entry lane. i his wni1 aier; an inc.:ming driver of ;ctential confliM • NOT IL BIT t.1D 'LtdXEA AAD A 6M'A From: 1070 rr FM r -7773�7 s J f I I � I I d I�t i i f 1 1 f dc E l i- j I - f 1 TOTAL Fill". M • • • Z E H R E N Date ece AND ASSOCIATES, INC. ive NOV 0 :; 1999 Thursday, November 04, 1999 Mr. Lawrence Lang Transportation Engineer II Felsburg, Holt and Ullevig Greenwood Corporate Plaza 7951 E. Maplewood Avenue, Suite 200 Englewood, Colorado 80111 Re: Vail Plaza Hotel W. Lang: I had recently reviewed your report dated September 27, 1999 with the town engineer. In reviewing the report and the associated access points, the engineer would Iike us to address a few additional items. Specifically, the town engineer would like us to address: 1. The possibility of traffic backing up to the roundabout from the south entry on Vail Road without a dedicated left turn lane. 2. The safety and/or risks associated with the hotel exit located eight feet, (eighteen feet from the centerline of the gateway drive), south of the Vail Gateway access on Vail Road. 3. The safety and/or risks associated with the hotel loading and delivery entry only access as indicated in Option A and it's proximity to the roundabout on the South Frontage Road_ It is our intention that 55' semi - trailers, and 45' passenger coaches use the drive (entry) lane for backing prior to departing through the east exit. Our feeling is that passenger coaches only frequent the hotel during the "off season" or low traffic periods due to the fact that the hotel operates as a fractional fee condominium half the year and does not have the remaining occupancy to be able to cater to large groups. Additionally, other than the initial equipment and furnishings move -in period, we foresee no semi- trailer traffic although it has been determined that we need to provide for such vehicles. It is our objective to have all other vehicles including 35' straight -body trucks and 50' articulated (beer delivery) be able to turn right out of the structure with minimal maneuvers. It is the town engineer's concern that vehicle entering the drive will rear -end vehicles using the drive lane for a backing movement. 4. The safety and/or risks associated with the hotel loading and delivery exit only access as indicated in Option A and it's proximity to the roundabout on the South Frontage Road. Specifically, the town engineer would like some comment on the feasibility and safety of bath autos and the larger service type vehicles turning left on the frontage road. We have preliminarily indicated medians for protection of the center turning lane in this option. Additionally, the town engineer had asked us to explore additional options for a combination Wout 90- degree access. Enclosed is Option B exploring that option. Please just generally discuss any positive or negative impacts associated with this scheme including safety concerns associated with its proximity to the roundabout. ARCHI T€ CTL 1 Rf- PLAt'4NING•INTERIORS•LANDSC-APE ARCHITECTURE P.O. Box 1976 • Avon, Colorado 81620 • 1970) 949 -0257 • FAX 1970) 949 -1080 Nn 111. 1999 � : 15Pk ZL thll AND Av5JG1A November 16, 1999 Mr, Tim Losa Page 3 N o. 111b V From; 1070 7 pve•ail, it should be noted that the volume of traffic entering and exiting the site 15 very low and truck related traffic is axpecYCd to be idrequent' During peak periaria, only 1 vehicle even 3 minutes (an averagel is foreGaswel to 'wm rota The Site, and about 1 vehicle evary 5 minutes is expe Za exit the site, an averago_ Also, it is anticipated that traffic will eater the site at law speeds, given that the acx;ess is located in ease proximity to a roundabout v, here exiting spaeda art low. Can aunt 4: The safety ancVcrr risks a5mciated with the hotd loading and delivery exit only aces as Indicated in Option A and it's proximity to the roundabout on the saLah Frantage Abed. &�ically, the mown arigum r would Irxe srrrsre comment on the hm ikry and safery of both ernes and the larger aandcs type vehicles turrung /aft an the fmarage road. in regards to he feasibility of trucks turning left onim the frontage rand, it appears from the turning templates Ihat you provided that this should not be a problern. From an operational standpoint. it was determined that the outbound left - turning Vafiic serial ex.perienea Iona daiayz (ievet of service of - P conditions) during peak periods. However. this clods not necassary imply that turning out of the site will be unsafe, but cniythasc drivers may have to wait for long periods before an acceptable gap in traffic is available for turning. Safety becomes an issue d a driver becomes, impatient and Tums onto the frontage road when a gap in traffic; is not Sufficient- In regards to the opjon of providing a Q- "egree access along the frontage mad, we believe that this also represents a viable optlon from an operational standpoinx provided rh= the antrY and exit grades meet Town criteria. However, it appears th= a 55 -foot semi trailer Gould not maneuver an - site without making a backing maneuver onto or off of the frontage road. Such a maneuver w ouid C, - eatC a very hazardous situaU if you have any Guesttons regarding our findings or if you treed additional assistance, pleasa Galt. Sincerely FaSWRG HOLT & ULLEVIG Lavrren ng i ranzportadon ear It Vail Plaza Hotel Zehren and Associates, Inc. 961 070.00 11/04/99 • The design intent of both options is to schematically meet the development standards and turning radii of the types and numbers of vehicles dictated by the town engineer and planning staff. It is our intention that we have the approved design fully engineered for confirmation of the ideas presented prior to permitting of the project by the town or CDOT. Please do not hesitate to contact me or the town engineer, Greg Hall, with any questions or concerns. We would hope to have confu=tion of these issues by Friday, November 1?, 1999 if it is at all possible. Sincerely, Tim Losa Project Manager Zehren and Associates, Inc. Cc: George Ruther, Senior Planner, Town of Vail Greg Hall, Town Engineer, Town of Mail Enclosures 2 Y I ' 1 i. ! f � f! ► fjff�I I I' I i � � I i ! R � � I � ► Q I I I I Y ► rl � r r I r r �J 1 i f j r , 6 � ' L.Zl T; I I • 0 O X I 5 iI � kl � I ! I � f l i i 1� if f 1 f � 1 I I I I � rf Y� � I ; I I I I C 4 r I P f I 1 II I / r a a i 7711=77L u � r r lr k { r r r ij 11 � r f I 'I f ! f r r a� l ! I r I{ sl 1 r ;I f r J i j r 1 1 r !� rrI / A f I : i ! fi r � r � II� l n I 0 • 0 \ V � II� l n I 0 • 0 • 9 ! 1 � d I Ip Ij f , i i 1f 14 f i I �" f II 4 I I I f i I I I f } }} I I I I ` I r f F f I Al r , I f ' f � Ir f 16 f r r,r F 1 � r r f i z � \ l \ I \ \ I I rf I I I 4 4 I I I r I 1 I i l I I 1 li I rll I I f r I r I IJ I I I "r Ir 1 f i r! IF E r ° t l i y 4h 4 �r t Z Y , d n . N � u U .E 1' P I / i Pi � I f JI g E 1 I I I I i ! I I �! r � J i I r � ti� 1 i i I I � I ! J I I I I i � I II I AI t rfly t- j I I II 1 111 t � ^� I 1 *• It � '•I I ( ,/ t �:. i I I • +1 � i d '' jd j I I 1 r , I if r r I r ' r r f ^ r A • r1J'. ! I � !� � ,fi j 1 ✓ J / / /J �� ! f ^ 4 v • 1 Front ( Accounting Attachment K 0 WN OF VAIL LY Department of Community Development 75 South Frontage Road Trail, Colorado 81657 970 -479 -2138 FAX 970 - 479 -2452 MEMORANDUM To: Town of Vail Design Review Board From: Community Development Department Date: December 1, 1999 Re: Vail Plaza Hotel -- Preliminary Recommendation to the Vail Town Council In anticipation of appearing before the Vail Town Council for first reading of an amending ordinance to allow for the redevelopment of Phase IV of the Vail Village Inn Special Development District, the applicant has requested a preliminary recommendation from the Design Review Board. f � Pursuant to the Town Code, in part, "no person shall building construction or demolition within the corporate limits ._ of the Town unless design approval has been granted in accordance with Title 12, Chapter 11 of the Town Code." Should the Design Review Beard choose to make a preliminary recommendation of approval to the Vail Town Council on the redevelopment proposal for the Vail Plaza Hotel, staff would suggest that the fallowing finding and conditions be made part of the recommendation: "Upon the preliminary review and consideration of the redevelopment proposal for the Vail Plaza Hotel, the Board finds that the Vail Plaza Hotel will be compatible with existing structures, the hotel's surroundings and with Vail's environment. The Board further finds that the proposal is in compliance with the applicable provisions of the Design Guidelines prescribed in Title 12, Chapter 11 of the Town Code and the Vail Village Master Plan & Urban Design Considerations. Therefore, the Board recommends approval of the redevelopment proposal for the Vail Plaza Hotel_ The Board's recommendation of approval carries with it the following conditions: 1. That the applicant submits a final landscape plan, final off-site improvements plan, and outdoor lighting plan in accordance with the provisions prescribed in the Zoning Regulations for review and approval of the Design Review Board, 2. That the applicant submits a final exterior building materials list and color rendering for review and approval of the Design Review Board. 3. That the applicant submits a comprehensive sign program proposal for the Vail Plaza Hotel. 4. That the applicant submits a rooftop mechanical plan prior to the issuance of a building permit. All roof- top mechanical equipment shall be enclosed and screened from public view. • ** RECYCLW PAP9R Attachkent L 0 Memorandum To: George Ruttier, Senior Special Projects Planner Front: Greg Hall, Director of Public 'Works and Transportation Date: December 9, 1999 Subject: Vail Plaza Motel— Review of the November 23, 1999 Plans I have completed my review of the Vail Plaza Hotel and have the following comments and concerns. Some of these are truly comments, which should be corrected as the project progresses through the development process, and others are concerns or conditions, which shall be taken care of at the appropriate times in the process. Required Plan Corrections * The scale stated on the site illustrative plan is incorrect, please label correctly. * Sheet -Level wlinus Two, the elevation of the ramp from above proceeding to the 6 % grade at the lowest level is not 145' as indicated. EI Provide the slope ( %) of the parking area in the lowest valet area and the location where the grades change from 128' to 130'. O Please show all access points and doorways to elevators and hallways. Specifically, access to the elevators in the Level Minus Two, this may cause valet spaces to be eliminated. Access to the small elevator lobby from the loading berth, and access from the loading berth to the freight elevators. The exact location of the garage door into the Phase III parking structure. Show the staging area in front of the frei �.rbt elevator and how this may impact access to Phase III and the safety of those using the elevator. Show the location of the trash pickup. 0 The eastside curb alignment of Vail Road is shown per the survey. However, there appears to be one shot out of line, this causes 'a jog ri; t at the hotel entry, which doesn't exist. The curb moves one foot at this location. ❑ The widths of Vail Road, the South Frontage Road and East Meadow Drive along with the exact locations of the curbs of the roundabout and median islands and opposite side of the street will need to be shown accurately prior to first reading; before the Town Council. Issues for Discussion There has been significant discussion with regards to whether a left -turn lane is required on Vail Road. The hotel location as it is presendy designed would not have to move if the desire for a left -turn is there. A pedestrian easement would be required to push the walk east to make room for the additional 12' lame. Virtually all of the landscaping oil the east side of the road would be lost. A space of 3' to 11' wide as you go north would exist on the south building and the space would be 8' to 15' along the north building. The need for a left-turn lane was specifically reviewed and evaluated by the traffic consulting firm of Felsburg, Holt & C.]llevig. In the Traffic Report prepared by the consulting engineer, the engineer has stated that based upon traffic projections, vehicles `backing up' into the roundabout traffic would not occur. A review of the roundabout design with regards to Vail Road traffic determined that at current volumes, there is a flow of 32.1 vehicles in the AM peak hour with a capacity to take 1501 vehicles and a maximum queue of 1 vehicle, in the PM peak flow was 484 vehicles with a capacity to take 1423 vehicles and a maximum queue of 2 vehicles. The roundabout design allows for a 50 % increase in peak flows with the AM having a peek hour flow of 481 vehicles with capacity of 1172 vehicles with a maximum queue of 2 vehicles. The PM peak flow would be 735 vehicles with a capacity of 1055 vehicles and a maximum queue of 7 vehicles, This queue does not impact the entry into this site. The Vail Plaza Hotel Traffic Report states the current northbound traffic volume of Vail Road is 695 vehicles. The added trips to Vail Road will be approximately 57 trips in and 40 trips out, during the peak PM period. They also analyzed that the trips were turning in against 900 vebicles verses the 735 trips. As estimated in the future roundabout calculations. The second issue is that the loading bay requirements for the site were to accommodate the taming ) maneuvers of a 30' single axle truck, a 45' over the road coach and a 50 -feat semi tractor trailer on -site, and to additionally to allow a 65' semi tractor trailer to maneuver without impeding the flow of traffic on the South Frontage Road. The applicant has provided an access and maneuverability plan, which illustrates that the maneuvering of the vehicles takes place partially off -site, in the right of=way. However, no backing motions occur across any sidewalks and the traffic flow on the South, Frontage Road is not impeded. Extending the proposed South Frontage Road median through this access point could solve the question of the left turn out for the frontage road access. It would be desirable to at least provide a left turn pocket east bound somewhere in the frontage road to allow U -turns of passenger cars at a point that is determined appropriate. This is most likely at Village Center Chute. The landscape median would need to be extended the entire length to ensure this takes place where determined. This entire access plan on the frontage road will require a Colorado Department of Transportation revised 41 access permit. The transportation engineers at CDOT have the authority to decide how the access functions. Required Improvements and Conditions 0 The required improvements for this development are a 6' heated paver walkway from the east property line of the SDD to the Gateway Building. In addition any revisions to the curb will require new curb and gutter and modifications or additions to the storm sewer system. The extension of Village -style street lights is also required. Any necessary modifications to utilities, landscaping, irrigation systems and required retaining walls shall be the responsibility of the developer_ The walkway will be delineated in pavers across the driveways behind the cross pans. 0 Frontage Road landscape medians to include curb and gutter, concrete unit paver aprons, any masonry rock walls, plant material, bedding mix to TOV specifications, and irrigation system and water connections and sleeves. 0 Improvements to Vail Road include a heated 8' paver walkway from the Gateway Building property to East Meadow Drive. All additional improvements to allow for this to take place as similarly as stated above for the frontage road are also the responsibility of the developer. In addition, adding curb, gutter and a 5' concrete walk from the east property line of the SSD to and around the curb return of Village Center Chute on the South Frontage Road. Any modifications to the draiicage system to accomplish this work are considered the requirement of the curb. Work such as retaining walls and utility modifications are the responsibility of the Town of Vail. U Details of the improvements from Vail Road to the west edge of the Phase I building (Base Mountain Sports) along with the improvements of the bus stop along East Meadow Drive are as follows a heated paver walkway attached to the street and bus stop along with all modifications to drainage, utilities, retaining walls, drainage systerns, irrigation, landscape modifications street lighting and any adjacent property improvements impacted. 0 The orange street lights existing along the entire length of East Meadow Drive shall be changed to the Village -style street light fixture. This installation shall be completed by the developer. G A final lading and drainage plan be prepared and all drainage systems carrying runoff from public right of ways require drainage easements. The final grading plan will have all grades to the tenth of a foot . 9 O A final landscape plan showing sight distances, snow storage areas, and all existing vegetation 0 impacted. • The entire building will require a guttering system , heat tape and piping to the storm sewer. • That snow shedding is addressed for the entire building. • The pedestrian walks along Vail Road and the other pedestrian mews are established as public pedestrian easements. • Complete civil- engineered plans are reviewed and approved by the Town Engineer prior to submitting plans for the building permit. • All one -way cross over lanes shall be 18' in width and all two -way cross over lanes shall be 24' in width. This affects approximately four compact and seven valet spaces. ❑ The two-way drive aisle at the Porte- cochere is only 20' in width between the columns. The valet spaces drawn are only 16' in length. If full -size valet spaces are established as required, the drive lane width is further reduced down to 17'. To resolve the conflict the parking spaces need to be removed. ❑ The slopes of the heated and enclosed drive aisle ramps are allovved to be a maximum grade of 16 %m. An engineered- stamped design of the drive aisle is required prior to final DRB approval. ❑ The three Phase V parking spaces south of the hotel are not practical_ To enter the first to requires the driver to use the hotel porte-cochere as a roundabout. The one angled parking space, when drawn to the proper dimensions (9'x 19') reduces the drive aisle to the structure by 1'. This conflict could be resolved by moving the parking space closer to the Phase V building. However, the proposed 4 foot wide walk in this mew is then reduced to three feet in width when adjusted. The reduced width is too narrow next to the building.. The parking space design must be revised. ❑ The curb returns into and out of the site will need to be revised to allow proper turning and maneuvering. ❑ The south return Onto the site shall have a 15'radius. ❑ The north return out of the site shall have an S' radius. ❑ The South Fronta4r: Road exit shall be widened to accommodate the 65' semi tractor trailer. This t requires an adjustment to both sides of the drive aisle and to the landscape island. ❑ The brick paver sidewalk along Vail Road shall be 8' in width. 0 • PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION PUBLIC MEETING SCHEDULE Monday, February 28, 2000 MEETING RESULTS Pro`ect Orientation 1 PEC LUNCH - Community Development Department MEMBERS PRESENT Galen Aasland Diane Golden Tom Weber Chas Bernhardt Doug Cahill Site Visits West Vail Lodge -- 2211 N. Frontage Rd. C: Driver: George Fj 14tC Op` 12 :00 p.m. 1:30 p.m. NOTE: If the PEC hearing extends until 6 :00 p.m., the board will break for dinner from 6:00 - 6 :30 p.m. Public Hearing - Town Council Chambers 2 :00 p.m. 1. A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for the conversion of existing hotel rooms into employee housing units, located at 2211 N. Frontage Rd. (West Vail Lodge) /Lot 1, Vail das Schone #3. Applicant: Reaut Corporation Planner Brent Wilson MOTION: Chas Bernhardt SECOND: Diane Golden VOTE: 5 -0 TABLED UNTIL MARCH 13, 2000 L` 2. A request for a final review of a major amendment, to allow for the proposed redevelopment of the Vail Village Inn, Phase IV, within Special Development District No. 6, and a conditional use permit, to allow for the operation of a fractional fee club in the Public Accommodation Zone District, located at 100 East Meadow Drive /Lots M, N, & O, Black 5 -D, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: Daymer Corporation, represented by Jay Peterson Planner: George Ruther MOTION: Tom Weber SECOND: Doug Cahill VOTE: 4 -1 ( Chas Bernhardt opposed) APPROVED -- MAJOR AMENDMENT RECOMMENDATION TO TOWN COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT John Schofield Brian Doyon Ton, ' OF MIL �t M TIION: Doug- Cahill SECOND: Tom Weber `APPROVED —CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WITH 21 VOTE: 5 -0 CONDITIONS: That the Developer submits detailed civil engineering drawings of the required off -site improvements (street lights, drainage, curb and gutter, sidewalks, grading, road improvements, etc.) as identified on the off -site improvements plan to the Town of Vail Public Works Department for review and approval, prior to application for a building permit. 2. That the Developer submits a detailed final landscape plan and final architectural elevations for review and approval of the Town of Vail Design Review Board, prior to application for a building permit. 3. The sod approval time requirements and limitations of Section 12 -9A -12 shall apply to Ordinance No. 1, Series of 2000. In addition, the phasing of the construction of the hotel shall not be permitted. 4. That the Developer submits the following plans to the Department of Community Development, for review and approval, as a part of the building permit application for the hotel: a. An Erosion Control and Sedimentation Plan; b. A Construction Staging and Phasing Plan; C. A Stormwater Management Plan; d. A Site Dewatering Plan; and e. A Traffic Control Plan. 5. That the Developer receives a conditional use permit to allow for the construction of Type III Employee Housing Units in Phase IV of the District, in accordance with Chapter 12 -16, prior to the issuance of a building permit, to provide housing on -site. 6. That the Developer submits a complete set of plans to the Colorado Department of Transportation for review and approval of a revised access permit, prior to application for a building permit. 7. That the Developer meets with the Town staff to prepare a memorandum of understanding outlining the responsibilities and requirements of the required off -site improvements, prior to second reading of an ordinance approving the major amendment. 8. That the Developer submits a complete set of plans responding to the design concerns expressed by Greg Hall, Director of Public Works & Transportation, in his memorandum to George Ruther, dated 12/13199. The drawings shall be submitted, reviewed and approved by the Town Engineer, prior to final Design Review Board approval. 9. That the Developer records public pedestrian easements between the hotel and the Phase III Condominiums, between the hotel and the Phase V Building, and along the Vail Road frontage. The easements shall be prepared by the Developer and submitted for review and approval of the Town Attorney. The easements shall be recorded with the Eagle County Clerk & Recorder's Office prior to the issuance of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy. 10. That the Developer record a deed - restriction, which the Town is a party to, on the Phase IV property prohibiting the public use of the spa facility in the hotel. Said restriction may be revoked if the Developer is able to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Town that adequate provisions for vehicle parking have been made to accommodate the public use of the spa. The restriction shall be recorded prior to the issuance of a building permit. 2 11. That the Developer submits a final exterior building materials list, a typical wall sections, architectural details and a complete color rendering for review and approval of the Design Review Board, prior to making an application for a building permit. 12. That the Developer submits a comprehensive sign program proposal for the Vail Plaza Hotel for review and approval of the Design Review Board, prior to the issuance of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy. 13. That the Developer submits a roof -top mechanical equipment plan for review and approval of the Design Review Board prior to the issuance of a building permit. All roof- top mechanical equipment shall be incorporated into the overall design of the hotel and enclosed and screened from public view. 14. That the Developer posts a bond with the Town of Vail to provide financial security for the 125% of the total cost of the required off' -site public improvements. The bond shall be in place with the Town prior to the issuance of a building permit. 15. That the Developer installs bollards or similar safety devices at the intersection of the delivery access driveway and the sidewalk along the South Frontage Road to prevent conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles, prior to the issuance of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy. 16. That the Developer studies and redesigns the entrance on the north side of the hotel across from the entrance to the Gateway Building to create a more inviting entrance or a design that redirects pedestrians to another entrance. The final design shall be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Board prior to the issuance of a building permit. 17. That the Developer coordinate efforts with the owners of the Gateway Building to create a below ground access for loading and delivery to the Gateway from the Vail Plaza Hotel to resolve potential loading and delivery concerns at the Gateway. if a coordinated effort can be reached the Developer shall submit revised plans to the Town of Vail Community Development Department for review and approval, prior to the issuance of a building permit. 18. That the Developer revises the proposed floor plans for the Vail Plaza Hotel to provide freight elevator access to the lowest level of the parking structure. The revised plans shall be submitted to the Town of Vail Community Development Department for review and approval prior to the issuance of a building permit. 26. That the Developer, in cooperation with the Town of Vail Public Works Department design and construct a left -turn lane on Vail Road and reconfigure the landscape island in the South Frontage Road median to eliminate left -turns from the loading /delivery. The construction shall be completed prior to the issuance of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy. 21. That the Developer provides a centralized loadingldel!very facility for the use of all owners and tenants within Special Development District No. 6. Access or use of the facility shall not be unduly restricted for Special Development District No. 6. The loading/delivery facility, including docks, berths, freight elevators, service corridors, etc., may be made available for public and/or private loading/delivery programs, sanctioned by the Town of 3 Vail, to mitigate loading /delivery impacts upon the Vail Village loading /delivery system. The use of the facility shall only be permitted upon a finding by the Town of Vail and the Developer that excess capacity exists. The Developer will be compensated by the Town of Vail and/or others for the common use of the facility. The final determination of the use of the facility shall be mutually agreed upon by the Developer and the Town of Vail. 22. That the Developer submits a written letter of approval from adjacent properties whose property is being encroached upon by certain improvements resulting from the construction of the hotel, prior to the issuance of a building permit. A request for variances from Section 12 -6C -6, Section 12 -6D -6, and Section 12 -14 -6, Town of Vail Code, to allow for an extended entry„ trash enclosure and deck expansion, located at 706 W. Forest Road /Lot 9, Block 1, Vail Village 6' Filing. Applicant: Cliff Illig, represented by Beth Levine Planner: Allison Ochs TABLED UNTIL MARCH 13, 2000 4. A request for a minor subdivision, to allow for an amendment to a previously platted building envelope and a revised lot access, located at 1452 Lionsridge Loop / Lot 4, Ridge at Vail. Applicant: Mike Young Planner: George Ruther TABLED UNTIL MARCH 13, 2400 5. A request for final review of a proposed major amendment to Special Development District #4 (Cascade Village), located at 1000 S. Frontage Road West (Glen Lyon Office Building) /Lot 54, Block K, Glen Lyon Subdivision. Applicant: Dundee Realty, represented by Segerberg Mayhew Architects Planner: George Ruther TABLED UNTIL MARCH 13, 2000 6. A request for a variance from Sections 12 -61-1-6 and 12 -14 -6, Town of Vail Code, to allow for the addition of gross residential floor area and balconies within required setbacks, located at 303 Gore Creek Drive Vail Townhouse #2 -C /Lot 2, Block 5, Vail Village 1 h Filing. Applicant: Vicki Pearson, represented by Ron Diehl, Architect Planner: Ann Kjerulf TABLED UNTIL MARCH 13, 2000 7 A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for the construction of an addition to the existing raw water intake structure and pump station, located on Black Gore Drive /Lot 8, Heather of Vail. Applicant: Eagle River Water and Sanitation District Planner: Brent Wilson WITHDRAWN Information Update • 0 4 9. Approval of February 14, 2000 minutes. The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours in the project planners office located at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. Please call 479 -2138 for information. Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479 -2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. Community Development Department 0 • P Is Level 6 Zehren and Associates, Inc. 2/23/00 7,923.00 .i' Vail Plaza Hotel. Area 961070.00 Keys Level Ct Studio Gross Square Footage 2,053.00 Dwelling Unit 0.00 Dwelling Unit (upper level) 0.00 Club Units Area Unit Number Keys Club Unit 44 (Upper Level) Studio Club Unit 45 (Upper Level) 814.00 Club Unit 46 (Upper Level) 1.00 Club Unit 47 (Upper Level) 0.00 Club Unit 49 (Upper Level) 814.00 Club Unit 50 (Upper Levell 1.00 Sub -Total Club 0.00 Corridor (public) 814.00 Core (elevator) 1.00 Maid 0.00 Core (stair) 648.00 Mechanical (rooftop) 1.00 Sub -Total Area 0.00 Dwelling Unit Net 814.00 Club Unit Net 1.00 Other Net 0.00 Total Net 14.00 Net/Gross Difference P Is Level 6 Zehren and Associates, Inc. 2/23/00 7,923.00 Area Deck Area Keys Bedrooms Studio Pillows 2,053.00 0.00 0.00 1.D0 0.00 2.00 Area Deck Area Keys Bedrooms Studio Pillows 814.00 147.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 2.00 814.00 147.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 2.00 814.00 147.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 2.00 648.00 108.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 2.00 814.00 147.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 2.00 14.00 147.00 1.10 34 0-00 2/10 4,718.00 843.00 6.00 6.00 0100 12.00 0.00 150.00 0.00 0.00 222.00 372.00 2,053.00 4,718.00 372.00 7,143.00 780.00 90% Page I FEB 2 3 2000 Vail Plaza Hotel 961070.00 Level 5 Gross Square Footage Dwelling Unit Dwelling Unit (lower level) Club Units Unit Number Club Unit 35 (Upper Level) Club Unit 36 (Upper Level) Club Unit 37 (Upper Level) Club Unit 38 (Upper Level) Club Unit 40 (Upper Level) Club Unit 44 (Lower Level) Club Unit 45 (Lower Level) Club Unit 46 (Lower Level) Club Unit 47 (Lower Level) Club Unit 48 (Flat) Club Unit 49 (Lower Level) Club Unit 50 f Lower Level) Sub -Total Club Other Areas Corridor (public) Core (elevator, meth. shaft) Maid Core (stair) Sub -Total Other Areas Dwelling Unit Net Club Unit Net Other Net Total Net Net/Gross Difference 1,124.00 93% Page 2 Level 5 Zehren and Associates, Inc. 2123100 16,146.00 Area Deck Area Keys Bedrooms Studio Pillows 3 340.00 4.00 3.00 1.00 8.00 Area Deck Area KEYS Bedrooms Studio Pillows 814.00 147.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 2.011 814.00 147.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 2.00 814.00 147.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 2.00 814.00 147.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 2.00 857.00 147.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 2.00 912.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 4.00 979.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 4.00 486.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 2.00 513.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 2.00 858.00 0.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 4.00 992.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 4.00 955.00 00 -00 2.00 2_00 0.00 4.00 9,808.00 735.00 17.00 16.00 1.00 34.00 Area 1,617.00 151.00 0.00 0.00 1,768.00 3,446.00 9,808.00 1,768.0 15,022.00 1,124.00 93% Page 2 Vail Pla7a Hotel 9u 1070.00 Level Gross Square Footage Club Units Unit Number Club Unit 21 (Upper Level) Club Unit 22 (Upper Level) Club Unit 23 (Upper Level) Club Unit 28 (Upper Level) Club Unit 29 (Upper Level) Club Unit 34 (Flat) Club Unit 35 (Lower level) Club Unit 36 (Lower Level) Club Unit 37 (Lower Level) Club Unit 38 (Lower Level) Club Unit 39 (Flat) Club Unit 40 (Lower Level) Club Unit 41 (Flat) Club Unit 42 (Flat) Club Unit 43 (Flat) Sub -Total Club Accomodation Units Unit Type A Other Areas Corridor (public) Core (elevator) Maid Core stair Sub -Total Other Areas Club Unit Net Accommodation Net Other Net Total Net Net/Gross Difference • Ave. Area Keys Total Area 373°12 17.00 6 Area 3,017.00 150.00 512.00 271.00 3,950.00 14,478.00 6,343.00 93. 50.00 24,771.00 1,674.00 94% 79% Page 3 Level 4 Zehren and Associates, Inc. 2123100 26,445.00 Area Deck Area Keys Bedrooms Studio Pillows 790.00 147.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 2.00 790.00 147.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 2.00 790.00 147.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 2.00 790°00 147.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 2.00 790.00 147.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 2.00 798.00 147.00 1.00 1,00 0.00 2.00 513.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 2.00 1,034.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 4.00 1,034.00 0100 2.00 2.00 0:00 4.00 1,034.00 0.00 2.00 100 0.00 4.00 990.00 195.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 4.00 980.00 93.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 4.00 1,693.00 147.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 6.00 1,226.00 93.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 4.00 1226.00 93_00 2.00 2.00 0.00 4.00 14,478.00 I,503.00 24.00 22.00 2.00 48.00 Ave. Area Keys Total Area 373°12 17.00 6 Area 3,017.00 150.00 512.00 271.00 3,950.00 14,478.00 6,343.00 93. 50.00 24,771.00 1,674.00 94% 79% Page 3 Vail Plaza Hotel Level 3 Zehren and Associates, Inc. 961070.00 2123100 • Page 4 Level 3 Gross Square Footage 32,480 -00 Club Units Unit Tvne Area Deck Area Kevs Bedrooms Studio Pillows Club Unit 18 (Flat) 782.00 93.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 2.00 Club Unit 19 (Flat) 1,092.00 164.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 4.00 Club Unit 20 (Flat) 864.00 164.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 2.00 Club Unit 21 (Lower Level) 562.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 2.00 Club Unit 22 (Lower Level) 1,089.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 4.00 Club Unit 23 (Lower Level) 994.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 4.00 Club Unit 24 (Flat) 1,021.00 93.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 2.00 Club Unit 25 (Flat) 1,073.00 273.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 4.00 Club Unit 26 (Flat) 975.00 98.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 4.00 Club Unit 27 (Flat) 958.00 93.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 4.00 Club Unit 28 (Lower Level) 979.00 94.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 4.00 Club Unit 29 (Lower Level) 979.00 94.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 4.00 Club Unit 30 (Flat) 969.00 137.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 4.00 Club Unit 31 (Flat) 920.00 64.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 4.00 Club Unit 32 (Flat) 1,242.00 93.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 4.00 Club Unit 33 (Flat) 1,226.00 93_00 2 2.00 0_00 4.00 Sub -Total Club Units 55,724.00 1,553.00 28.00 22.00 6.00 56.00 Accornodation Units Ave. Area Kevs Total Area Unit Type A 361.04 26.00 9,387.00 Other Areas Maid 498.00 Corridor (public) 4,303.00 Core (elevator) 150.00 re stair 338.00 Sub -Total Other Areas 5,289.00 Totals Club Net 15,724.00 Accommodation Net 9,387.00 Cher Ne t 52 89.00 Total Net 30,400.00 Net/Gross Difference 2,080.00 94% 77% • Page 4 Level Gross Square Footage 34,972.00 Club Units Unit Type Area Deck Area Keys Bedrooms Studio Pillows Club Unit 6 (Flat) 907.00 93.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 2.00 Club Unit 7 (Flat) 1,235.00 93.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 4.00 Club Unit 8 (Flat) 1,263.00 93.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 4.00 Club Unit 9 (Flat) 946.00 98.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 4.00 Club Unit 10 (Flat) 976.00 98.00 2.00 1 .00 1.00 4.00 Club Unit 11 (Flat) 958.00 81.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 4.00 Club Unit 12 (Flat) 958.00 99.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 4.00 Club Unit 13 (Flat) 958.00 99.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 4.00 Club Unit 14 (Flat) 970.00 146.00 2,00 1.00 1.00 4:00 Club Unit 15 (Flat) 920.00 199.00 2.00 1.00 1,00 4.00 Club Unit 16 (Flat) 1,455.00 20.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 6.00 Club Unit 17 (Flat) 1,213.0 13 ® 00 20_00 2.60 2.00 0.00 4.00 Sub -Total Club Units 12,759.00 1,139.00 24.00 16.00 8.00 48.00 Accomodation Units Ave. Area Keys Total Area Unit Type A 361.75 36.00 13,023.00 Other Areas Maid 386.00 Corridor (public) 4,370.00 Core (elevator) 150,00 Core (stair) 325.00 Rooftop Deck 1,790.00 Sub -Total Other Areas 7,021.00 Totals Club Net 12,759.00 Accommodation Net 13,023.00 Other Net 7,021.00 Total Net 32,803.00 Net/Gross Difference 2,169.00 94% 74% �J Zehren and Associates, Inc. 2123/00 Studio Vail Plaza Hotel 0.00 2.00 Level 1.5 4.00 0.00 961070.00 1.00 4.00 t_00 4.00 2.00 Level 1.5 Gross Square Footage 26,380.00 Club Units Unit Tyne Area Deck Area Kevs Bedrooms Club Unit I (Flat) 908.00 11100 1.00 1.00 Club Unit 2 (Flat) 1,235.00 112.00 2.00 2.00 Club Unit 3 (Flat) 1,26100 95.00 2.00 2.00 Club Unit 4 (Flat) 948.00 112.00 2.00 1.00 Club Unit 5 (Flat) 975.00 95.00 2.00 1.00 Sub -Total Club Units 5.329.00 526.00 9.00 7.40 Accornodation Units Ave. Area Revs Total Area Pillows Unit Type A 353.25 20.00 7,065.00 40.00 Employee Housine Ave. Area Keys 'Total Area Pillows Unit Type A 351.78 9,00 3,166.00 17.00 Other Areas Maid 386.00 Corridor (public) 4,337.00 Core (elevator) 150.00 Core (stair) 324.00 Rooftop Dee k 4,114.00 Sub -Total Other Areas 9,311.04 Totals Club Net 5,329.00 Accommodation Net 7,065.00 Employee Housing Net 3,166.00 O ther Net 91311.00 Total Net 24,871.00 Net/Gross Difference 1,509.00 94% �J Zehren and Associates, Inc. 2123/00 Studio Pillows 0.00 2.00 0.00 4.00 0.00 4.00 1.00 4.00 t_00 4.00 2.00 18.00 Page 6 • Zehren and Associates, Inc. 2/23/00 Page 7 Vail Plaza Hotel Level 1 961070.00 Level 1 Gross Square Footage 39,970.00 Emplovee Housine Ave. Area Kevs Total Area Pillows Unit Type A 351.78 9.00 3,166.00 17.00 Retail Area Retail Three 564.00 Restaurant Area Oct. Factor Occupants Main Restaurant (Buffet) 2,155.00 18.00 119.72 Soecialtv Restaurant 1,503.00 25 ; O 60.12 Sub -Total Restaurant 3,658.00 179.84 Lounp, Area Oct, Factor - Occupants Lounge 1,141.00 25.00 45.64 Exterior Circulation Auto Ramp (North) 2,532.00 Pedestrian Entry (South) 4,685.00 Sub -Total Ext. Circ. 7,217.00 Other Areas Corridor (public) 3,680.00 Corridor (employee) 1,619.00 Corridor (service) 709.00 Kitchcn/Service 6,868.00 Truck Dock/Auto Circ. 7,233.00 Restrooms 600.00 Maid 29.00 Core (elevator) 254.00 Core (stair) 397.00 Sub -Total Other Areas 21,389.00 Totals Employee )lousing Net 3,166.00 Retail Net 564.00 Restaurant Net 3,658.00 Lounge Net 1,141.00 Exterior Circ. Net 7,217.00 Other Net 21.389.00 Total Net Area 37,135.00 Net/Gross Difference 2,835.00 93% • Zehren and Associates, Inc. 2/23/00 Page 7 Occ. Fact. 30.00 Level 0 Occup. 30.87 Page 8 Zehren and Associates, Inc. 2123/00 Vail Plaza Hotel i 961070.00 Level Gross Square Footage 42,216.00 Retail Retail One 1,473.00 Retail Two 1.539.00 Sub -Total Retail 3,012.00 Lobby Area Lobby 2,426.00 Administration Front Desk 1,969.00 Office/Sales 1,134.00 Accountine 1.887.00 Total Administration 4,990.00 Spa - Men's/Workout Men's Lockers/Facilities 3,019.00 Treatment 2,447.00 Deck 1,392.00 Exercise/Workout 1,686.00 Sub -Total Spa 8,544.00 Service Areas Service Corridor 1,263.00 Service -Receive/Storaiz LL34.00 Sub -Total Service 4,897.00 Exterior Circulation Covered Ramp (North) 930.00 Covered Auto Entry (West) 5,676.00 Pedestrian Access (West) 1,984.00 Auto Rarnp (South) 935.00 Pedestrian Access (East} 816.00 Sub -Total Ext. Cire. 10,341.00 Other Areas Mechanical 1,307.00 Core (elevator) 275.00 Core (Stair) 568.00 Corridor(Public) 1801.00 Total Other Areas 5,951.00 Parking Provided Valet Spaces 5.00 Totals Retail Net 3,012.00 Lobby Net 2,426.00 Administration Net 4,990.00 Spa Net 8,544.00 Occ. Fact. 30.00 Level 0 Occup. 30.87 Page 8 Zehren and Associates, Inc. 2123/00 Vail Plaza Hotel 961070.00 Service Net 4,897.00 Exterior Circulation Net 10,341.00 Other Net 5,951.00 Total Net 40,161.00 C 17J Net/Gross Difference 1,055.00 95% Level 0 Zehren and Associates, Inc_ 2/23/00 Page 9 C7 Zehren and Associates, Inc. 2!23100 Page 10 Vail Plaza Hotel Level -1 961070.00 Level Minus One Gross Square Footage 57,696.00 Spa Area Women's Lockers/Facilities 3,116.50 Treatment 2,853.00 Deck Area 6,266.00 Exercise /Workout 1,246.00 Pool Area 2.774.00 Sub -Total Spa 16,255.50 Conference rhea Occ. Factor Occupants Ballroom 6,92100 15.00 461.53 Pre-convene 2,358.00 7.00 336.86 Sub -Total Conference 9,281.00 Service 4,689.00 Other Areas Mechanical 0.00 Corridor(Public) 2,328.00 Core (elevator) 275.00 Core (stair) 542.00 Public Restrooms 856.00 Sub -Total 4,001.00 ParkinIZ Provided Spaces Area Area /Space Valet Spaces 0.00 Parking Spaces (Full Size) 45.00 Parking Spaces (Compact) 7.00 Parking Spaces (Accessible) 2.00 Sub -Total Parking 54.00 20,931.00 388 Totals Area Mer Areas Net 4,001.00 Spa Net 16,255.50 Conference Net 9,281.00 Service Net 4,689.00 Parking and Rama Net 20.931.00 Total Net 55,157.50 Net/Gross Difference 2,538.50 96% C7 Zehren and Associates, Inc. 2!23100 Page 10 Vail Plaza Hotel Level -2 Zehren and Associates, Inc. 961070.00 2123%00 Level Minus Two Gross Square Footage Conference Breakout Prc- convene Sub -Total Conference Service Other Areas Mechanical Corridor(Public) Core (elevator) Core (stair) Public Restrooms Sub -Total Parkiniz Provided Valet Spaces Parking Spaces (Full Size) Parking Spaces (Compact) Parking Spaces (Aceessiblel Sub -Total Parking Totals Other Areas Net Conference Net Service Net Parkin andg� Ramp Net Total Net Net/Gross Difference 49,858.00 Area Occ. Factor Occupants 3,364.00 15.00 224.27 2_ 885.00 7.40 355.00 5,849.00 8,483.00 0.00 220.00 152.00 285.00 0.00 657.00 Spaces Area Area/Space 0.00 45.00 7.00 2.00 54.00 20,928.00 388 Area 557.00 5,849.00 8,483.00 20.928.00 35,917.00 13,941.00 72% Page l l • • Level Minus Three Gross Square Footage 45,771.00 Other Areas Spaces Mechanical 0,00 Corridor (public) 221.00 Core (elevator) 152.00 Core (stair) 285.00 Sub -Total Other Areas 658.00 Area Spaces Valet Spaces 30.00 Parking Spaces (Full Size) 96.00 Parking Spaces (Compact) 11.00 Parking Spaces (Accesible) 4.00 Sub -Total Parking 141.00 Area Area/Saace 43,930.00 311.56 Totals Area Other Net 658.00 Parking and Ramp Nei 43.930.00 Total Net 44,588.00 Net/Gross Difference 1,183.00 97% 0 Vail Plaza Hotel Parking Summary 961070.00 Zehren and Associates, Inc. 2/23100 Page 13 Dwelline Units Total Area Park, Factor Park. Recq'd Dwelling Unit 1 5,499.00 52000 2.50 Club Units Total Area Factor Spaces Club Unit 1 (Flat) 908.00 500 <2000 2.00 Club Unit 2 (Flat) 1,235.00 500 <2000 2.00 Club Unit 3 (Flat) 1,263.00 500<2000 2.00 Club Unit 4 (Flat) 948.00 500<2000 2.00 Club Unit 5 (Flat) 975.00 500<2000 2.00 Club Unit 6 (Flat) 907.00 500<2000 2.00 Club Unit 7 (Flat) 1,235.00 500 <2000 100 Club Unit 8 (Flat) 1,263.00 500<2000 2.00 Club Unit 9 (Flat) 946.00 500 <2000 2.00 Club Unit 10 (Flat) 976.00 500<2000 2.00 Club Unit 11 (Flat) 958.00 50012000 2.00 Club Unit 12 (Flat) 958.00 500<2000 2.00 Club Unit 13 (Flat) 958.00 500<2000 2.00 Club Unit 14 (Flat) 970.00 500<2000 2.00 Club Unit 1.5 (Flat) 920.00 500<2000 2.00 Club Unit 16 (Flat) 1,455.00 500<2000 2.00 Club Unit 18 (Flat) 782.00 500<2000 2.00 Club Unit 19 (Flat) 1,092.00 500<2000 2.00 Club Unit 20 (Flat) 864.00 500<2000 2.00 Club Unit 21 (Two Level) 1,35100 500<2000 2.00 Club Unit 22 (Two Level) 1,878.00 500<2000 2.00 Club Unit 23 (Two Level) 1,784.00 500<2000 2.00 Club Unit 24 (Flat) 1,021.00 500<2000 2.00 Club Unit 25 (Flat) 1,073.00 500<2000 2.00 Club Unit 26 (Flat) 975.00 500<2000 2.00 Club Unit 27 (Flat) 958.00 500 <2000 2,00 Club Unit 27 (Two Level) 1,769.00 500 <2000 2.00 Club Unit 29 (Two Level) 1,769.00 500 <2000 2.00 Club Unit 30 (Flat) 969.00 500 <2000 2.00 Club Unit 31 (Flat) 920.00 500 <2000 2.00 Club Unit 32 (Flat) 1,242.00 500<2000 2.00 Club Unit 33 (Flat) 1,226.00 500<2000 2.00 Club Unit 34 (Flat) 798.00 500<2000 2.00 Club Unit 35 (Two Level) 1,327,00 50012000 2.00 Club Unit 36 (Two Level) 1,848.00 500 <2000 2.00 Club Unit 37 (Two Level) 1,848.00 500[2000 2.00 Club Unit 38 (Two Level) 1,848.00 500<2000 2.00 Club Unit 39 (Flat) 990.00 500 <2000 2.00 Club Unit 40 (Two Level) 1,837.00 500 <2000 2.00 Club Unit 41 (Flat) 1,693.00 500<2000 2.00 Club Unit 42 (Flat) 1,226.00 500<2000 2.00 Club Unit 43 (Flat) 1,226.00 500 <2000 2.00 Club Unit 43 (Two Level) 1,726.00 500<2000 2.00 Club Unit 45 (Two Level) 1,793.00 500 <2000 2.00 Club Unit 46 (Two Level) 1,300.00 500 <2000 2.00 Club Unit 47 (Two Level) 1,161,00 500 <2000 100 Club Unit 48 (Flat) 858.00 500 <2000 2.00 Club Unit 49 (Iwo Level) 814.00 500<2000 2.00 Club Unit 50 (Two Level) 814.00 500 <2000 2.00 Total Club Parkiug 62,816.00 98.00 Zehren and Associates, Inc. 2/23100 Page 13 1 Vail Plaza Hotel 961070.00 Accommodation Units Total Acc. Units Restaurant Total Restaurant Loun e Total Lounge Retail Total Retail Conference Ballroom Breakout Total Required Spaces Total Dwelling Unit Total Club Total Accommodation Total Restaurant Total Lounge Total Retail Conference a SDD Parking Re uired (phases 1,215 * Sub -Total Parking Mixed Use Reduction (10% Total Parking Required Total Parking Provided Parking Difference Parkine Provided Existing SDD spaces to remain* Level Zero Parking Level Minus One Parking Level Minus Two Parking Level Minus Three Parkin Total Parking Provided Percentage SDD Parkins Required Whases1.13,S) Existing SDD Spaces SDD Parking Deficit Sub -Total (Current Requirement) Previouly Applied Reduction- (2.5 %) Currently Phase 4 Spaces Total SDD Parking Required (phases 1,2,3,5) Parking Summary Zehren and Associates, Inc. 2123100 Area Kevs Formula Factor Spaces 35,818.00 99.00 .5+. 111 00s. f. 0.76 75.42 Area Seat Fact. Seats Factor Spaces 3,658.00 20.34 179.84 1:8 seals 22.48 Area Seat Fact. Seats Factor Spaces 1,141.00 25.00 45.64 1:8 seats 5.71 Area Factor 30 4 Spaces 3,576.00 1:300 sq. ft. 35 8 11.92 Area Seat Fact. Seats Factor S. paces 6,923.00 15.00 461.53 1:16 seats ** 28.85 6,923.00 15.00 224.27 1:16 seats ** 14.02 2.50 98.00 75.42 22.48 5.71 11.92 42.86 149.68 40556 -40.86 367.70 366.00 -1.70 Full Size Compact Valet Accessible Total 112 0 0 0 I12 0 0 5 0 5 45 7 0 2 54 45 7 0 2 54 96 11 30 4 141 298 25 35 8 366 81% 7% 10% 2% 100% 112 75 187 191.68 -42 149.68 Page 14 Vail Plaza Hotel Program Summary Zehren and Associates, Inc_ 961070.00 2/23100 Page 16 Dwelling Units Upper Area Lower Area Total Area Deck Area Kevs Bedrooms Studios Pillows Dwelling Unit 1 2,053.00 3,446.00 5,499.00 340.00 4,00 4.00 10.00 Club Units Upper Area Lower Area Total Area Deck Area Keys Bedrooms Studios Pillows Club Unit I (Flat) 908.00 0.00 908.00 112.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 100 Club Unit 2 (Flat) 1,235.00 0.00 1,235.00 112.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 4.00 Club Unit 3 (Flat) 1,263.00 0.00 1,263.00 95.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 4.00 Club Unit 4 (Flat) 948.00 0.00 948.00 112.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 4.00 Club Unit 5 (Flat) 975.00 0.00 975.00 95.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 4.00 Club Unit 6 (Flat) 907.00 0.00 907.00 93.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 2.00 Club Unit 7 (Flat) 1,235.00 0.00 1,235.00 93.00 100 2.00 0.00 4.00 Club Unit 8 (Flat) 1,263.00 0.00 1,263.00 93.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 4.00 Club Unit 9 (Flat) 946.00 0.00 946.00 98.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 4.00 Club Unit 10 (Flat) 976.00 0.00 976.00 98.00 100 1.00 1.00 4.00 Club Unit I 1 (Flat) 958.00 0.00 958.00 81.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 4.00 Club Unit 12 (Flat) 958.00 0.00 958.00 99.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 4.00 Club Unit t3 (Flat) 958.00 0.00 958.00 99.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 4.00 Club Unit 14 (Fiat) 970.00 0.00 970.00 146.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 4.00 Club Unit 15 (Flat) 920.00 0.00 920 -0 199.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 4.00 Club Unit 16 (Flat) 1,455.00 0.00 1,455.00 20.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 6.00 Club Unit 17 (Flat) 1,21100 0,00 1,213.00 20.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 4.00 Club Unit 18 (Flat) 782.00 0.00 78100 93.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 2.00 Club Unit 19 (Flat) 1,092.00 0.00 1,092.00 164.00 2.00 IM 1.00 4.00 Club Unit 20 (Flat) 864.00 0.00 864.00 164M I.00 1.00 0.00 2.00 Club Unit 21 (Two Level) 790.00 562.00 1,352.00 147.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 4.00 Club Unit 22 (Two Level) 790.00 1,088.00 1,878.00 147-0 3.00 3.00 0.00 6.00 Club Unit 23 (Two Level) 790.00 994.00 1,784.00 147.00 3.00 3.00 0.00 6.00 Club Unit 24 (Flat) 1,021.00 0.00 1,021.00 93.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 2.00 Club Unit 25 (Flat) 1,073.00 0.00 t,073.00 273.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 4.00 Club Unit 26 (Flat) 975.00 0.00 975.00 98 -0 2.00 1.00 1.00 4.00 Club Unit 27 (Fiat) 958.00 0.00 958.00 9100 2.00 L.00 1.00 4.00 Club Unit 27 (Two Level) 790.00 979.00 1,769.00 241.00 3.00 3.00 0.00 6.00 Club Unit 29 (Two Level) 790.00 979.00 1,769.00 241.00 3.00 3.00 0.00 6.00 Club Unit 30 (Flat) 969.00 0,00 969 -0 137.00 2.00 I -W 1.00 4 -0 Club Unit 31 (Flat) 920.00 0.00 920.00 64.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 4.00 Club Unit 32 (Flat) 1,242.00 0.00 124200 93.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 4.00 Club Unit 33 (Flat) 1,226.00 0.00 1,226.00 93.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 4 -0 Club Unit 34 (Flat) 798.00 0.00 798.00 147,00 1.00 1.00 0.00 2.00 Club Unit 35 (Two Level) 814.00 513.00 1,327.00 147.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 4.00 Club Unit 36 (Two Level) 814.00 1,034.00 1,848.00 147.00 3.00 3.00 0.00 6.00 Club Unit 37 (Two level) 814.00 1,034.00 1,848.00 147.00 3.00 3.00 0.00 6 -0 Club Unit 38 (Two Level) 814.00 1,034.00 1,848.00 147.00 3.00 3.00 0.00 6.00 Club Unit 39 (Flat) 990.00 0 -0 990.00 195.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 4.00 Club Unit 40 (Two Level) 857.00 980.00 1,837.00 240.00 3.00 3.00 0.00 6.00 Club Unit 41 (Flat) 1,693.00 0.00 1,693.00 147.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 6.00 Club Unit 42 (Flat) 1,226.00 0.00 1,226.00 93.00 2.00 2.00 0 -0 4.00 Club Unit 43 (Fiat) 1,226.00 0.00 1,226.00 93.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 4.00 Club Unit 43 (Two Level) 814.00 912.00 1,726.00 147.00 3.00 3.00 0.00 6.00 Club Unit 45 (Two Level) 814.00 979.00 1,79100 147,00 3.00 3.00 0.00 6 00 Club Unit 46 (Two Level) 814 -0 486.00 1,300.00 147.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 4.00 Club Unit 47 (Two Level) Club Unit 48 (Flat) 648.00 858.00 513.00 0.00 1,161.00 858.00 108.00 0 -0 2.00 2.00 100 1.00 0.00 1.00 4.00 4.00 Club Unit 49 (Two Level) 814.00 992.00 1,806.00 147.00 3.00 3.00 0.00 6.00 Page 16 Vail Plaza Hotel 961070.00 Adminstration Program Summary 814.00 Club Unit 50 (Two Level) 1,769.00 50 Total Club Units 48,782.00 Accommodation Unit 62,816.00 Total Ace. Units Room Area Residential Totals Total Area Restaurant 361.80 Main Restaurant 35,818.00 Specia]U Restaurant 211.00 Total Restaurant 104,133.00 LouniZe Scatiniz Area Lounge Seats Conference Facilites 2,155.00 Breakout 119.72 Ballroom L5010 Pre!cgnvene 60.12 Total Convention 3,658.00 spa 179.84 Uvel Zero 1,141,00 Level Minus One 45.64 Total Seating Area Retail Seats Retail One 3,364 Retail Two 224 Retail Three 6,923 Total Retail Adminstration Program Summary 814.00 95,5,00 1,769.00 147,00 48,782.00 14,034.00 62,816.00 6,299.DO Room Area Rooms Total Area Deck Area 361.80 99.00 35,818.00 0.00 211.00 142.00 104,133.00 6,639.00 Scatiniz Area Occ. Factor Seats 2,155.00 18.00 119.72 L5010 25.00 60.12 3,658.00 20.34 179.84 1,141,00 25.00 45.64 Seating Area Oer. Factor Seats 3,364 Is 224 6,923 15 462 2358 337 12,645 8,544.00 16,255.5 24,799.50 1473 1539 564.00 3,576.00 4,990.00 Page 17 Zchren and Associates, Inc. 2/23/00 3.00 3.00 0.00 6.00 108.00 89.00 19.00 216.00 Keyi Bedrourns Studios Pillows 99.00 99.00 0.00 198.00 211.00 142.00 19.00 424.00 0 R ° °• �' o a 0 c o a o e 0 0 Ca c ° e 0 q o 0 q 0 o e 0 In 0 a° 0 0 0° ° 0 0 °° °. ° o C° ° 0 ° 1 ^ -�j Vi C+ N �? �O 90 Ay a0 W ° C1 n p R a h ° in D w o v c� N M 0 N 0 r -: M N p 0 '4 v? Q-% a 00 vi a .3 7Q G1 M R N 1(j �' N IA �n V7 R1 00 Q M 99 C O O O �'' N h 4, M '6 w M M o0 a .r K 00 e M +o M M 9 .� �p Y h N N M .-1 N ''�`� 9• N try M C] O pppO N 1 !1 n r4 N a Cd p o O ^ j ° Q w-I P o N ei N N o al A w tn p G O O O Ld ± � [�p� O . •-• C O env -T M u r� s✓1 G� .. H .. 0 W g p � }I q�,y <f V r�•� O w) r- q p r1 00 Q N o p O DO m O O m e 7 y r �-' eq a a p o P r1 a o O O a G a y n v r. ry cn M M N M c-i O Q O bt cD Q �+ ? oc � N �� eq r^s M IA R r+1 7 M � rn N ••• N V O O 0 0 O C cD G7 c3 0 C p 0 p p S GG O d 0 ® a Q O O eb m 09 oOn Q, P O �' m N p O M N m G C9 N r�+i m a f3 y t� M h s p In [� C14 N c+7 v5 N r ? en N. 4 © O q O S O O Q 4 O O 0 pp 9 d O a c i N . N m o m 4 cN R V O m r, °o q p ^ © 'J5 N Q M O N rS — — oa — � r+1 � C- N In w 1 O a O O O O In ° � O e O y r+7 N m v1 a4 eQ n5 V] �p '•D y. R tiP V' m N M G1 !7 O h N N V In n+ y O5 M .R-� .- m N r N 14 N N v"1 O N N N C= C p b O a oo u . a ca c rri oo oo Ci O 0o r R V V'S N m N In M C M p O O O O O p en W h wi M N ao r Qw Q N N Q ca e9 -' � � �qqq T N '^ d O d c3 e fl Q va ° g � oo u � y� ON .. w U ay l: oa ` 1 - y a j C a co ?E ,F m X N ix s u +� a 34 1� h tw •� E Sy5 F C X75 es d F C d Q 9 G C d p O ("' w 4F V . O 4 O 'ti Q '{ i ti E a ? "� J 7 G " d O W at tl] a Q eF C 0. O P K O C R 3 Qy tC a Ci t p 0. S A U d W c, S U a. �4 w w v3 W tx a 2 u3 con 03 a. a W U U CJ U U s � • VAIL PLAZA HOTEL 2000 REVISED MAJOR AMENDMENT PROPOSAL Town of Vail Planning & Environmental Commission February 28, 2000 u • TowN o vA T L�"l Department of Community Development 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 970- 479 -2138 FAX 970 - 479 -2452 Vail Plaza Hotel Executive Summary (2128100) The Town of Vail Community Development Department and the Public Works Department, with the aid of various outside consultants, have completed the review of the proposal for the redevelopment of the Vail Plaza Hotel. Upon completion of your review, the Town staff is recommending approval of the proposed project. The staff's recommendation for approval carries with it 22 conditions. The details of the staff's recommendation and the recommended conditions can be found in Section 1l1 of this memorandum. In evaluating the proposal, the Town staff relied upon the regulations, policies and guidelines outlined in the various land- planning related documents adopted by the Town of Vail. Throughout the course of the development review process staff remained primarily focused on the technical aspects of the proposal. The matters of design and policy were left up to the Town's Boards. A detailed narrative of the staff's findings based upon the established review criteria is outlined in Section ViI of this memorandum. A complete breakdown and technical analysis of the proposal has been prepared, in the Vail Plaza Hotel Zoning Analy (revised 2128100) and the Vail Plaza Hotel Proposal Comparison (revised 2128100), staff provides analysis and comparison of the various development standards prescribed by the Zoning Regulations and compares the figures of the 2000 proposal to those of the 1999 approval and the 1998 proposal which had been rejected by Town Council nearly one year ago. Also included in the analysis documents are a Vail Plaza Hotel View Analysis, Vail Plaza Hotel SunlShade Analysis and a Vail Plaza Hotel Parking Analysis (revised 2128100). The purpose of these documents is to provide a comparison of existing conditions relative to proposed conditions should the hotel be constructed. Accompanying this information is also a revised Vail Plaza Hotel Traffic Impact Report The original report had been prepared for the 1998 proposal. Since its original formulation, the report has been revised and supplemented in response to changing conditions and requests of staff and others. The basic findings of the report conclude that while the redeveloped hotel will have impacts of current traffic patterns, the projected impacts can be successfully mitigated. Complete copies of these six reports and other relevant information have been provided as exhibits and are found in the back of this memorandum. Lastly, a brief overview of the development history of the Vail Village Inn Special Development District has been prepared. This overview is intended to provide a basic understanding of the proposed changes that have occurred within the District since its original adoption in 1976. The development history of the Vail Village Inn is outlined in Section IV of this memorandum. L,$ RF YCLIsDPAPER • • VAIL PLAZA HOTEL Staff Memorandum (2/28100) TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 . INTRODUCTION ....................... ............................................................................................................... ..............................1 11. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUESTS .................................................................................................... ..............................2 A. Major Amendment to Special Development District ............................................ ...... „.......................2 B. Conditional Use Permit ............................................................................................ ..............................3 III STAFF RECOMMENDATION .................................................................................................. ..............................3 A . Pros /Cons ................................................................................................................ ............................3 -4 B . Conditions of Approval ........................................... .. .......................................................................... 4 -7 IV BACKGROUND ..................................................................,.............................,........,............ ............................7 -8 V. PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION ZONE DISTRICT ...................................................................... ..............................8 VhZONING ANALYSIS .............................................................................................................. ...........................9 -10 VII. SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT MAJOR AMENDMENT PROCESS ......................... ..........................10 -11 A. Design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate environment, neighborhood and adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones, identity, character, visual integrity and orientation ........ ......................................................................................... 11 -13 Villl. B. Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity ................................................................................ ..........................13 -14 Employee Housing Requirement ............................................................ ..........................14 -15 Employee Housing Generation Analysis .... ..................................................................... 15 -17 C. Compliance with parking and loading requirements as outlined in Chapter 18.52. of the Town of Vail MunicipalCode ................................... .... ....................................................................................... ........ ........ 17 -18 D. Conformity with the applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, Town policies and Urban DesignPl an .................................. ........................................................................................................................ 18 VailLand Use Plan ................................................................................................ ..........................18 -20 VailVillage Master Plan ........................................................................................ ..........................20 -23 Vail Village Design Considerations .................................................... .......................................... 23 -24 UrbanDesign Considerations . ........... .......................................................................................... 24 -30 Architect Landscape Considerations . .............................................................. ..........................30 -40 E. Identification and mitigation of natural and/or geologic hazards that affect the property on which the special development district is proposed .......................................................................... .............................40 F. Site plan, building design and location and open space provisions designed to produce a functional development responsive and sensitive to natural features, vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of thecommunity ...................................................................................................................... ..........................40 -41 G. A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and off -site traffic circulation................................................................... ............................... ....41 H. Functional and aesthetic iandscapin9 and open space In order to optimize and preserve natural features, recreation, views and functions ... ............................................................................................... 41 -42 1. Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional and efficient relationship throughout the development of the special development district ................................. .............................42 CRITERIA AND FINDINGS FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT., ........................................................................... 42-45 ATTACHMENTAA - L .......................... ........ .................................................... ............................... ....... • MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: February 28, 2000 SUBJECT: A request for a final review and recommendation of a major amendment, to allow for the proposed redevelopment of the Vail Village Inn, Phase IV, within Special Development District No. 6, and a conditional use permit, to allow for the operation of a fractional fee club in the Public Accommodation Zone District, located at 100 East Meadow Drive /Lots M, N, & ©, Block 5 -D, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: Waldir Prado, Daymer Corporation Planner: George Ruther INTRODUCTION The applicant, Waldir Prado, d.b,a. Daymer Corporation, represented by Jay Peterson, is proposing to redevelop the Vail Village Inn, located at 100 East Meadow Drive. The applicant has submitted two applications to the Town of Vail Community Development Department for i s review and consideration: Major Amendment Request 1) A request for a major amendment to Special Development District #6, Vail Village Inn. The major amendment application proposes changes to the existing approved development plan and is intended to facilitate the redevelopment of the existing Vail Village Inn, Phase IV Condominiums and allow for the construction of the Vail Plaza Hotel. The current proposal amends Phase IV of the Vail Village Inn Plaza only. No amendments are proposed to Phases 1 -111 or V of the Vail Village Inn. Conditional Use Permit Request 2) A request for a conditional use permit, pursuant to Chapter 16 of the Town of Vail Zoning Regulations, to allow for the operation of a fractional fee club within the proposed Vail Plaza Hotel. The fractional fee club will be comprised of 50 fractional fee club units operated and managed by the owner of the Vail Plaza Hotel. The applicant has identified what he believes to be public benefits which will be realized by the Town as a result of the Vail Plaza Hotel redevelopment. The public benefits associated with the hotel proposal are: TOW. %VAL&L • An increase in the annual occupancy rate through the redevelopment of an older, existing hotel. • The creation of approximately 10,500 square feet of new conference and meeting room facilities. • The implementation of the recommended Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan improvements along Vail Road, the South Frontage Road and a portion of East Meadow Drive. • The re- investment and redevelopment of resort property in the Town of Vail. • The implementation of the development goals, objectives and policies adopted by the Town for the Vail Village Inn property. • A significant increase in the Town's supply of short -term, overnight accommodation to serve our guests and visitors. • The construction of a world -class "anchor' hotel providing a high -level of guest services and amenities. • A potentially sizeable annual contribution to the Town's declining sales tax revenue. if. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUESTS Major Amendment Request The applicant, Daymer Corporation, represented by Jay Peterson, has submitted two development review applications to the Town of Vail Community Development. The first application is a request for a final review and recommendation of a proposed a major amendment, pursuant to Chapter 9 of the Town of Vail Zoning Regulation, to Special Development District No. 6, Vail Village Inn. The second request is for a conditional use permit to allow for the operation of a fractional fee club. The purpose of the major amendment is to amend the approved development plan to allow for the construction of the Vail Plaza Hotel in Phase IV of the District. The applicant is proposing significant improvements to Phase IV of the Vail Village Inn Special Development District. The existing hotel and restaurant are proposed to be demolished to allow for the new construction of the Vail Plaza Hotel, The hotel is intended to be a mixed -use development including residential, commercial and recreational uses. The applicant is proposing to construct 99 new accommodation units (hotel rooms) ranging in size from approximately 350 sq. ft. to 370 sq. ft. per unit, 50 part -time fractional fee club units, 18 employee housing units (38 beds) and 1 free - market condominium. The fractional fee club units are considered part -time, since during the summer months the hotel will retain ownership of the units to rent as short -term accommodation units, and then during the winter months (approximately 24 weeks) the units will be sold as fractional fee club units. The Vail Plaza Hotel also includes two restaurants, 4,047 square feet of accessory retail located within the hotel and along the plaza, a 15,338 square foot conference facility, a 24,799 square foot full- service spa and health club facility and approximately 249 new underground parking spaces. The approximate total gross square footage of the new hotel is 379,857 square feet. The following is an approximate square footage breakdown of the various uses within the hotel: 62,816 sq. ft. - fractional fee club units • :• 5,499 sq. ft. — condominium • :• 35,818 sq ❖ 6,332 sq 8,375 sq •;• 15,130 sq • :• 24,817 sq ?• 221,070 sq lobby, etc.) ft. — accommodation units ft. - employee housing units ft. — restaurant /retail ft. — conferencelmeeting rooms ft. — spa /health club ft. — common area (mechanical, 379,857 sq. ft. gross building square footage Conditional Use Permit Request maid closets, stairs /hallways, parking, office, The second application submitted for review is for a conditional use permit to allow for the operation of a fractional fee club in the Public Accommodation zone district. The granting of a conditional use permit by the Town of Vail would allow the applicant to operate 50 fractional fee club units within the Vail Plaza Hotel. The applicant is proposing that the club units be sold on an interval basis. The club units would be sold for 24 weeks during the winter months with the remaining 28 weeks owned by the hotel for use as short -term accommodations units. It is believed by the applicant that this sales structure will maximize the occupancy of the units and optimize the availability of the units for marketing the conference facility of the hotel during the summer months and shoulder seasons. To further improve occupancy potential of the fractional fee club, the 50 club units have been designed to include up to two "lock-off' spaces per unit. This design creates a total of 108 "keys" and 216 "pillows" for the fractional fee club component of the hotel (1 key = 1 room). 0 A complete set of reduced plans has been attached for reference (Exhibit AA). III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department is recommending approval of the applicant's request for a major amendment to Special Development District #6 and a conditional use permit, to allow for redevelopment of Phase IV of the Vail Village Inn. Staff's recommendation for approval is based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Sections V & VI of this memorandum. The staff believes that the proposal is in general compliance with the nine design criteria and the criteria for a conditional use permit, as identified in this memorandum. In reviewing the proposal, staff identified a number of pros and cons that we believe are associated with the hotel proposal. The list includes, but is not limited to, the following: WBETiW • The presence of economic redevelopment in Vail. • An increase to the Town's supply of hotel beds and an increased level of quality. • The implementation of the Town's development goals, objectives, and policies_ • The creation of new, deed restricted employee housing to offset the housing impacts associated with the hotel. • The elimination of an unsightly surface parking lot. • The completion of the final phase of the Vail Village Inn Special Development District. • The construction of new conference and meeting room facilities within the Town. 3 • The construction of public improvements funded with private dollars. • The potential increases in sales tax revenue. • An increased amount of public open space. • An improved and updated loading /delivery facility which is relocated from Vail Road. • The provision of 18 on -site employee housing units. MNS • Increased vehicular traffic on Vail Road. • Deviations from the underlying zoning development standards are required. • The bulk and mass of the new hotel is significantly greater than the sizes of buildings presently on the development site. • There are increased impacts of shading on public areas. • The conference and meeting room facilities are potentially under - sized. • Additional views of Vail Mountain from public areas will be negatively impacted. • Only a portion of the dilapidated plaza paver surface is being replaced and improved. • Increased loadingldelivery truck traffic on Town streets. • There is only a marginal net increase of true accommodation units over what exists today. • An eighteen to twenty -four month construction process (noise, construction traffic, etc). Should the Planning & Environmental Commission choose to recommend approval of the requested major amendment to the Vail Town Council, staff would recommend that the Commission make the following finding: "That the proposed major amendment to Special Development District #6, Vail Village Inn, complies with the nine design criteria outlined in Section 12 -9A -8 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code. The applicant, as required, has demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Commission that any adverse effects of the requested deviations from the development standards of the underlying zoning are outweighed by the public benefits provided or has demonstrated that one or more of the development standards is not applicable, or that a practical solution consistent with the public interest has been achieved. Further, the Commission finds that the requested conditional use permit to allow for the operation of a fractional fee club complies with the applicable criteria and is consistent with the development goals and objectives of the Town. Lastly, public notice of this public hearing has been sent to adjacent property owners and published in a local newspaper of record in accordance with Section 12 -3 -6C of the Town Code." I Should the Planning & Environmental Commission choose to recommend approval of the requested major amendment, staff would recommend that the approval carry with it the following conditions: 1. That the Developer submits detailed civil engineering drawings of the required off -site improvements (street lights, drainage, curb and gutter, sidewalks, grading, road improvements, etc.) as identified on the off -site improvements plan to the Town of Vail Public Works Department for review and approval, prior to application for a building permit, 2. That the Developer submits a detailed final landscape plan and final architectural elevations for review and approval of the Town of Vail Design Review Board, prior to application for a building permit. 49 0 3. The sdd approval time requirements and limitations of Section 12 -9A -12 shall apply to Ordinance No, 1, Series of 2000. In addition, the phasing of the construction of the hotel shall not be permitted. 4. That the Developer submits the following plans to the Department of Community Development, for review and approval, as a part of the building permit application for the hotel: a. An Erosion Control and Sedimentation Plan; b. A Construction Staging and Phasing Plan; C. A Stormwater Management Plan; d. A Site Dewatering Plan; and e. A Traffic Control Plan. 5. That the Developer receives a conditional use permit to allow for the construction of Type III Employee Housing Units in Phase IV of the District, in accordance with Chapter 12 -16, prior to the issuance of a building permit, to provide housing on -site. 6. That the Developer submits a complete set of plans to the Colorado Department of Transportation For review and approval of a revised access permit, prior to application for a building permit. 7. That the Developer meets with the Town staff to prepare a memorandum of understanding outlining the responsibilities and requirements of the required off -site improvements, prior to second reading of an ordinance approving the major amendment. 8. That the Developer submits a complete set of plans responding to the design concerns expressed by Greg Hall, Director of Public Works & Transportation, in his memorandum to George Ruther, dated 12113199. The drawings shall be submitted, reviewed and approved by the Town Engineer, prior to final Design Review Board approval. 9. That the Developer records public pedestrian easements between the hotel and the Phase III Condominiums, between the hotel and the Phase V Building, and along the Vail Road frontage. The easements shall be prepared by the Developer and submitted for review and approval of the Town Attorney. The easements shall be recorded with the Eagle County Clerk & Recorder's Office prior to the issuance of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy. 10, That the Developer record a deed - restriction, which the Town is a party to, on the Phase IV property prohibiting the public use of the spa facility in the hotel. Said restriction may be revoked if the Developer is able to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Town that adequate provisions for vehicle parking have been made to accommodate the public use of the spa. The restriction shall be recorded prior to the issuance of a building permit_ 11. That the Developer submits a final exterior building materials list, a typical wall sections, architectural details and a complete color rendering for review and approval of the Design Review Board, prior to making an application for a building permit. 12. That the Developer submits a comprehensive sign program proposal for the Vail Plaza Hotel for review and approval of the Design Review Board, prior to the issuance of a Temporary 0 5 Certificate of Occupancy. 0 13. That the Developer submits a roof -top mechanical equipment plan for review and approval of the Design Review Board prior to the issuance of a building permit. All roof -top mechanical equipment shall be incorporated into the overall design of the hotel and enclosed and screened from public view. 14. That the Developer posts a bond with the Town of Vail to provide financial security for the 125% of the total cost of the required off -site public improvements. The bond shall be in place with the Town prior to the issuance of a building permit. 15. That the Developer installs bollards or similar safety devices at the intersection of the delivery access driveway and the sidewalk along the South Frontage Road to prevent conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles, prior to the issuance of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy. 16. That the Developer studies and redesigns the entrance on the north side of the hotel across from the entrance to the Gateway Building to create a more inviting entrance or a design that redirects pedestrians to another entrance. The final design shall be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Board prior to the issuance of a building permit. 17. That the Developer coordinate efforts with the owners of the Gateway Building to create a below ground access for loading and delivery to the Gateway from the Vail Plaza Hotel to resolve potential loading and delivery concerns at the Gateway. If a coordinated effort can be reached the Developer shall submit revised plans to the Town of Vail Community Development Department for review and approval, prior to the issuance of a building permit. 18. That the Developer revises the proposed floor plans for the Vail Plaza Hotel to provide freight elevator access to the lowest level of the parking structure. The revised plans shall be submitted to the Town of Vail Community Development Department for review and approval prior to the issuance of a building permit. 19. That the Developer redesigns the proposed elevator tower to create an architectural feature atop the tower and revises the proposed building elevations and roof plan prior to final review of the proposal by the Design Review Board. The Board shall review and approve the revised design. M That the Developer, in cooperation with the Town of Vail Public Works Department design and construct a left -turn lane on Vail Road and reconfigure the landscape island in the South Frontage Road median to eliminate left -turns from the loading /delivery. The construction shall be completed prior to the issuance of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy. 21. That the Developer provides a centralized loading/delivery facility for the use of all owners and tenants within Special Development District No. 6. Access or use of the facility shall not be unduly restricted for Special Development District No. 6. The loading/delivery facility, including docks, berths, freight elevators, service corridors, etc., may be made available for public and /or private loading /delivery programs, sanctioned by the Town of Vail, to mitigate loading /delivery impacts upon the Vail Village loading /delivery system. The use of the facility shall only be permitted upon a finding by the Town of Vail and the Developer that excess capacity exists. The Developer will be compensated by the Town of Vail and /or others for the G 0 common use of the facility. The final determination of the use of the facility shall be mutually agreed upon by the Developer and the Town of Vail. 22. That the Developer submits a written letter of approval from adjacent properties whose property is being encroached upon by certain improvements resulting from the construction of the hotel, prior to the issuance of a building permit. IV. BACKGROUND The development review process for the Vail Plaza Hotel has been a lengthy, labor intensive process that has included numerous meetings with the various Town boards, Town staff, and interested members of the community. The review process began over two years ago when the applicant submitted the original redevelopment proposal application to the Community Development. Fallowing a nine month review process including a final review and recommendation of approval from the Planning & Environmental Commission and the Design Review Board, the Vail Town Council informed the applicant that a favorable vote could not be made on the application and directed the applicant to revise the proposal. The primary concerns of the Council were building height, compliance with the Town's planning documents, off -site traffic impacts, loading and delivery capabilities and vehicular site access. In response to the Council's concerns the proposal has been revised and resubmitted to the Community Development Department. The revised proposal has been reviewed and evaluated by the Planning & Environmental Commission, the Design Review Board and the Town staff. The Commission has held five meetings while the Board has held five conceptual reviews of the revised plans. Additionally, the applicant held an open house to present the plans to interested members of the community. All the submitted plans, models and related materials have been available for review at the Office of Community Development and on various web sites. The following is a summary of the existing phases and development with the Vail Village Inn Special Development District: Phase I — This phase consists of the buildings located at the southeast corner of the District. Phase I includes one residential dwelling unit approximately 3,927 square feet in size and nine commercial /retail spaces. Phase it — This phase consists of three residential dwelling units totaling approximately 3,492 square feet in size and three commerciallretail spaces. Phase II is generally located in the center of the District. Phase III — This Phase consists of twenty -nine residential dwelling units totaling approximately 44,830 square feet in size and six commercial /retail spaces. Phase III is located at the northeast corner of the District. Phase IV — This is the original and oldest Phase in the District. This Phase consists of one residential dwelling unit approximately 5,000 square feet in size and seventy -two accommodation units comprising approximately 16,585 square feet of floor area. Phase IV is generally located in the northwest corner of the District. Phase V - This Phase consists of eleven residential dwelling units and three 0 7 accommodation units totaling approximately 9,972 square feet of floor area and four commercial /retail spaces. Phase V is located in the southwest corner of the District at the intersection of Vail Road and East Meadow Drive. A map illustrating the location of the various Phases has been attached for reference (Exhibit A). The following is a brief summary of the amendments to Special Development District No. 6 since the original adoption: o In 1976, the Vail Town Council passed Ordinance No. 7, Series 1976, establishing Special Development Districts No. 6, Vail Village Inn, to ensure the unified and coordinated development of a critical site to the Town of Vail, as a whole, and in a manner suitable for the area in which it is situated. Li In 1985, the Vail Town Council passed Ordinance No. 1, Series 1985, providing certain amendments to the approved development plan for Special Development District No. 6. The amendments included a requirement for a minimum of 175 accommodation units and 72,400 square feet of GRFA devoted entirely to accommodation units in Phase IV. o In 1987, the Vail Town Council passed Ordinance No. 14, Series 1987, which amended and modified Section 8 relating to the allowed density of the development plan for Special Development District No. 6. This amendment broke Phase IV into two distinct phases, Phase IV and Phase V. This amendment established the maximum allowable GRFA for the entire District at approximately 120,000 square feet. Further, the amendment reduced the minimum accommodation unit requirement to 148 units and 67,367 square feet of GRFA. Li In 1989, the Vail Town Council passed Ordinance No. 24, Series of 1989, amending the density controls of the District. This amendment increased the allowable GRFA to 124,527 square feet and allowed Unit #30 to be created in a commercial space. The amendment maintained the previous approval requiring a minimum 148 accommodation units and 67,367 square feet of GRFA devoted to units in Phases IV and V. o In 1991, the Vail Town Council passed Ordinance No. 9, Series 1991, providing for certain amendments to the approved development plan for Special Development District No. 6, which relates specifically to Phase IV. ❑ In 1992, the Vail Town Council passed Ordinance No. 2, Series 1992, allowing for modifications and amendments to various sections of Special Development District No. 6 which related directly to Phase IV, and which made certain changes to the approved development plan for Special Development District No. 6 as they relate to Phase IV. When originally considering deviations from the underlying zoning in 1976, the Town Council found that such deviations were acceptable, as the community was to realize a substantial increase in the hotel bed base. An increase in short -term accommodations has been a long- standing objective of our resort community. V. "PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION ZONE DISTRICT" According to the Official Town of Vail Zoning Map, the applicant's property is zoned Public Accommodation. Pursuant to the Town of Vail Municipal Code, the Public Accommodation Zone 8 district is intended, " to provide sites for lodges and residential accommodations for visitors, together with such public and semi - public facilities and limited professional offices, medical facilities, private recreation, and related visitor oriented uses as may appropriately be located in the same district. The Public Accommodation District is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space, and other amenities commensurate with lodge uses, and to maintain the desirable resort qualities of the District by establishing appropriate site development standards. Additional nonresidential uses are permitted as conditional uses which enhance the nature of Vail as a winter and summer recreation and vacation community, and where permitted are intended to function compatibly with the high density lodging character of the District." The Public Accommodation Zone District is intended to provide sites for lodging units with densities not to exceed 25 dwelling units per acre. The Public Accommodation Zone District, prior to January 21, 1997, did not permit interval ownership. On January 21, 1997, the Town Council adopted regulations allowing interval ownership subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit. Previously, interval ownership was only allowed as a conditional use in the High Density Multi - family Zone District. On October 5, 1999, the Vail Town Council approved Ordinance No. 23, Series of 1999, amending the development standards prescribed in the Public Accommodation Zone District. The amendments included an increase in allowable GRFA up to 150 %, an increase in site coverage, the elimination of AU's and FFU's in the calculation of density, revised setback requirements, and other various aspects in the development of properties zoned Public Accommodation. The allowable building height, landscape area and limitation on commercial square footage remained unchanged. VI. ZONING ANALYSIS The development standards for a Special Development District shall be proposed by the applicant. Development standards including lot area, site dimensions, setbacks, height, density control, site coverage, landscaping and parking and loading shall be determined by the Town Council as part of the approved development plan, with consideration of the recommendations of the Planning and Environmental Commission. Before the Town Council approves development standards that deviate from the underlying zone district, it shall be determined that such deviations provide benefits to the Town that outweigh the effects of such deviations. This determination is to be made based upon the evaluation of the proposed Special Development District's compliance with the Review Criteria outlined in the following section of this memorandum. The Community Development Department staff has prepared a zoning analysis for the proposed Vail Plaza Hotel. The Vail Plaza Hotel Zoning Analysis compares the development standards outlined by the underlying zoning of Public Accommodation (revised 10/99), to the existing development, the applicant's proposed 1998 major amendment (which was not approved) the approved 1999 major amendment and the 2000 revised proposal. It is important to note that the comparison is based on the entire area of the Special Development District. A copy of the Vail Plaza Hotel Zoning Analysis has been attached for reference (Exhibit B). 1] For comparative purposes, the Community Development Department has also completed an analysis comparing the 1998 proposal and the 1999 approval to the 2000 proposal. The purpose of the analysis is to provide a direct comparison of the 1998 proposal and the 1999 approval to the applicant's revised 2000 proposal. A copy of the Vail Plaza Hotel Proposal Comparison has been attached for reference (Exhibit C). VII. THE SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT MAJOR AMENDMENT PROCESS Chapter 12 -9 of the Town Code provides for the amendment of existing Special Development Districts in the Town of Vail. According to Section 12 -9A -1, the purpose of a Special Development District is, "To encourage flexibility and creativity in the development of land, in order to promote its most appropriate use; to improve the design character and quality of the new development within the Town; to facilitate the adequate and economical provision of streets and utilities; to preserve the natural and scenic features of open space areas; and to further the overall goals of the community as stated in the Vail Comprehensive Plan. An approved development plan for a Special Development District, in conjunction with the properties underlying zone district, shall establish the requirements for guiding development and uses of property included in the Special Development District." According to Section 12 -9A -2, a major amendment to a Special Development District its defined as, 0 "Any proposal to change uses; increase gross residential floor area; change the number of dwelling or accommodation units; modify, enlarge or expand any approved special development district (other than "minor amendments" as defined in this Section), except as provided under Sections 12 -154, "Interior Conversions ", or 12 -15 -5, "Gross Residential Floor Area (250 Ordinance)" of this Title." The Town Code provides a framework for the amendment of a Special Development District. According to the Town Code, prior to site preparation, building construction, or other improvements to land within a Special Development District, there shall be an approved development plan for the Special Development District. The approved development plan establishes requirements regulating development, uses and activity within the Special Development District. Upon final review of a proposed major amendment of an existing Special Development District, a report from the Planning and Environmental Commission stating its findings and recommendations and a staff report shall be forwarded to the Town Council, in accordance with the provisions listed in Section 12 -16 -6 of the Town Code. The Town Council's consideration of the Special Development District shall be in accordance with the provisions of the Town Code and approved by two readings of an ordinance. An approved development plan is the principal document in guiding the development, uses, and activities of the Special Development District. The development plan shall contain all relevant 1.0 material and information necessary to establish the parameters with which the Special Development District shall adhere. The development plan may consist of, but not be limited to: the approved site plan; floor plans, building sections, and elevations: vicinity plan; parking plan; preliminary open space /landscape plan; densities; and permitted, conditional, and accessory uses. The determination of permitted, conditional and accessory uses shall be made by the Planning and Environmental Commission and Town Council as part of the formal review of the proposed development plan. Unless further restricted through the review of the proposed Special Development District, permitted, conditional and accessory uses shall be limited to those permitted, conditional and accessory uses in the property's underlying zone district. The Town Code provides nine design criteria, which shall be used as the principal criteria in evaluating the merits of the proposed major amendment to a Special Development District, It shall be the burden of the applicant to demonstrate that submittal material and the proposed development plan comply with each of the following standards, or demonstrate that one or more of them is not applicable, or that a practical solution consistent with the public interest has been achieved, The applicant has submitted a report outlining a review of the criteria (Exhibit D). The nine SDD review criteria are listed below: NOTE. Staffs analysis is based in part on an analysis by Jeff Winston, an independent design consultant. A. Design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate environment, neighborhood and adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones, identity, character, visual integrity and orientation. Staff believes the applicant has designed a structure which relates well to the site and the surrounding neighborhood. The mass of the Vail Plaza Hotel is significantly greater than that of the existing buildings on the site. However, staff believes the increased mass is appropriate for the site and takes into consideration the massing of the buildings on the adjoining properties and in the immediate vicinity. The applicant has modified the building mass by redesigning various roof elements, articulating the building fagade along the South Frontage Road, reconfiguring the tower elements and by lowering the roof eave lines. The lowered roof eave lines match more closely to the eave lines of the adjoining buildings to the east, west and south, thus insuring a smooth transition of building mass between properties. To further address building mass the tallest portions of the building have been located near the center of the development site. This design reconfiguration reduces the perceived height of the hotel in the immediate area. The applicant has revised the building footprint in response to the Town Council's request to maintain the twenty -foot setback along Vail Road. The revised footprint does not maintain the full twenty -foot setback as requested. The proposed plan shows that the building encroaches a maximum of four feet into the Vail Road setback. The encroachment is on the southwest corner of the building. The total square footage of building area in the setback is approximately 56 square while the total amount of GRFA in the setback is roughly 36 square feet. Staff believes that the intent of the Town Council's direction has been met since there is now adequate space for the required landscape and sidewalk improvements. The Vail Plaza Hotel exterior building materials are a mixture of stone, stucco and wood. The roof material is proposed to be a terra cotta colored concrete tile with copper flashing. The applicant has proposed to incorporate irrigated flower boxes and copper chimney caps into the design of the hotel to serve as attractive accent elements. A grayish -brown granite stone will be used around the base of the building. The use of non - 11 reflective glazed windows all around the building reduces the potential of unwanted glare. The applicant has proposed that the exterior stucco color be an off -white or cream color to blend in with the exteriors of the buildings on the adjoining properties. Staff believes that the combination of building materials proposed has been well incorporated into the design of the Vail Plaza Hotel. The Town of Vail Design Review Board will have the opportunity to review the building exterior prior to final approval of the hotel. The height of the Vail Plaza Hotel exceeds the allowable building height of the Public Accommodation zone district by approximately 29 feet. The building height standards of the underlying zone district indicate that the maximum height for buildings with sloping roofs shall be 48 feet. The applicant is requesting that the maximum building height for the Vail Plaza Hotel be approximately 77 feet. This figure does not include the proposed architectural feature or landmark element atop the elevator tower. The height of the elevator tower is approximately 99 feet. The building height is based on an interpolated topography of the Vail Village Inn property, and not the original topography of the site (pre - development). Original topography of the site is not available, as the site was originally developed prior to zoning (and before the requirement that a topographic survey be submitted prior to development). Staff believes, based upon the topography in the vicinity of the development site, that the interpolated topography is a reasonable and appropriate method to determine building height. According to the Vail Village Master Plan Conceptual Building Height Plan and the Building Height Profile Plan (Exhibit E), the development site of Phase IV of the Vail Village Inn is in an area with conceptual building heights of 3 -4 stories, with a building story being approximately nine feet, excluding the roof. The applicant is proposing to construct a five -story hotel, excluding roof. The Building Height Plan element of the Vail Village Master Plan, states in part, 0 "Generally speaking, it is the goal of this plan to maintain the concentration of low -scale buildings in the core area while positioning larger buildings along the northern periphery (along the Frontage Road), as depicted in the Building Height Profile plan. The Building Height Plan also strives, in some areas, to preserve major views from public rights -of -way. The building heights expressed on the Illustrative Plan are intended to provide general guidelines. Additional study should be made during specific review processes relative to a building's height impact on the streetscape and the relationship to surrounding structures." In response to the general guidelines provided in the Vail Village Master Plan relative to building height, staff has requested that the applicant prepare a view analysis from eight different locations from the public rights -of -way. This Vail Plaza Hotel View Analysis provides a "before & after' depiction of the proposed building (Exhibit F). The view analysis and on -site inspections have indicated that the view from public rights -of -way will not be negatively impacted. In addition, a Vail Plaza Hotel Sun /Shade Analysis was prepared to illustrate the building's height impact on the surrounding streetscape (Exhibit G). The sun /shade analysis compares the height impact of the existing structures to the height impact of the proposed structures. The result of the comparison shows that substantially more of the streetscape along the South Frontage Road east of the roundabout will be shaded. The increase in shading results from the increase in building height, the increased encroachment into the front setback and the additional building mass proposed. To offset the impacts of the increase in shading during the winter months, the applicant has proposed to improve the pedestrian streetscape along the South Frontage Road by installing heated sidewalks and drive aisles and has redesigned 12 the roof form of the hotel to minimize the shading impact on adjacent properties. To help mitigate the building's mass, the applicant has proposed to construct exterior decks and balconies, along with providing horizontal stepping of the building, along the South Frontage Road. To respect the relationship of the hotel to surrounding structures on adjoining properties, and at the request of the Planning & Environmental Commission, the applicant has removed 2 to 2 1 /2 stories from the original proposed (1998) building, increased the vertical stepping of the building and increased the width of the Vail Road setback. Because of the increased vertical stepping of the building and the minimum twenty -foot setback above grade, staff believes that the proposed hotel is respectful of existing development and uses on adjacent properties. The net effect of these changes results in the maximum height of the building being located in the center portions of the site away from the adjoining property lines and structures. Staff believes that the applicant has designed a building which relates well to the site and the surrounding neighborhood. Further, staff believes that the proposed building complies with the general guidelines and basic intent of the Conceptual Building Height Plan and the Building Height Profile contained in the Vail Village Master Plan. Much has been said regarding the potential "loss" of the "established view corridor" from the intersection of the South Frontage Road and Vail Road, as a result of the construction of the Vail Plaza Hotel. No adopted view corridor exists in this area. Staff and the Town's Urban Design Consultant believe that the true loss of the view and the real negative impacts occurred when the Vail Gateway Plaza was constructed. Through the construction of the five -story tall Vail Gateway Plaza, the view from the intersection was substantially lost. While the existence of the view corridor was recognized during the development review process of the Gateway Plaza Building and attempts were made to respect the view, the efforts fell short of protecting the view. This, coupled with the fact that the intersection configuration and traffic flow pattems of the South Frontage Road have changed since the original adoption of the master plan, is justification for additional encroachments upon the view. Furthermore, staff and Jeff Winston believe additional development and building height behind the Vail Gateway Plaza will have minimal impacts on the remaining view. While the Vail Village Master Plan discusses the importance of maintaining views from public rights -of -way, it did not establish a view corridor in the vicinity of the proposed development site, nor did intend to protect views from private property. The Town of Vail has five established view corridors and is proposing five additional view corridors in Lionshead, to be protected by ordinance. These protected view corridors are generally located in Vail Village and Lionshead. B. Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity, The Vail Plaza Hotel is located within the mixed -use development area of the Vail Village Inn Special Development District. The uses, activities and densities for the Vail Plaza Hotel development site are prescribed by the underlying zoning for Special Development District No. 6. According to the Official Town of Vail Zoning Map, the underlying zoning for Special Development District No. 6 is Public Accommodation. The Public Accommodation Zone District encourages the development of lodges (accommodation units) and accessory eating and drinking establishments at a density of twenty -five dwelling units per acre. The surrounding uses and zoning designation include Public Accommodation to the south and west (Sonnenalp Holiday Haus & Chateau at Vail), Commercial Service Center to the east (Crossroads) and Commercial Core I /SDD #21 (Gateway) to the north. The same development standards that apply to the Vail Plaza 13 Hotel development site apply to the Sonnenalp, Holiday Haus and Chateau at Vail properties. The Commercial Service Center zoning applicable to the Crossroads property is intended primarily for commercial development together with a limited amount of multiple - family and lodging types of residential use. The Commercial Core I underlying zoning of the Gateway Special Development District is intended to provide sites for a mixture of commercial and residential development. The Vail Plaza Hotel is proposed to be a mixed -use type of development. The mixture of uses includes commercial, lodging, recreational and residential. Staff believes the proposed mixture of uses and its proximity to both Vail Village and Lionshead is consistent with the intended purpose of the underlying zoning of Public Accommodation and in keeping with the intent of Vail Land Use Plan. Further, staff believes that the proposed uses within the Vail Plaza Hotel will compliment those existing uses and activities on surrounding and adjacent properties. The proposed density of the hotel and the presence of the conference facilities will improve and enhance the viability and success of the existing restaurant and retail businesses in the immediate area. Additionally, through the redesign of the redevelopment proposal, staff believes that the applicant has improved the integration of the hotel with the adjacent properties. Examples of improved integration include a pedestrian connection and sidewalk adjacent to the Gateway Building, an internal service corridor providing loading /delivery access from the centralized loading and delivery facility to the entire District, lowering of roof eaves to relate to the existing conditions of the neighboring properties, and more appropriately sized pedestrian walkways throughout the plaza areas to ensure congestion free flow, Employee Housing Requirements As indicated in a number of the goals and objectives of the Town's Master Plans, providing affordable housing for employees is a critical issue which should be addressed through the planning process for Special Development District proposals. In reviewing the proposal for employee housing needs, staff relied on the Town of Vail Employee Housing Report. This report has been used by the staff in the past to evaluate employee housing needs. The guidelines contained within the report were used most recently in the review of the Austria Haus and Marriott development proposals. The Employee Housing Report was prepared for the Town by the consulting firm Rosall, Remmen and Cares. The report provides the recommended ranges of employee housing units needed based on the type of use and the amount of floor area dedicated to each use. Utilizing the guidelines prescribed in the Employee Housing Report, the staff analyzed the incremental increase of employees (square footage per use), that results from the redevelopment. A copy of the Suggested Employment Categories and Ranges for Vail Expressed as Employees per 1000 Square Feet has been attached for reference. The figures identified in the Housing Report are based on surveys of commercial -use employment needs of the Town of Vail and other mountain resort communities. For comparison purposes, Telluride, Aspen and Whistler B.C. all have "employment generation" ordinances requiring developers to provide affordable housing for a percentage of the "new" employees resulting from commercial development. "Nevi' employees are defined as the incremental increase in employment needs resulting from commercial redevelopment. Each of the communities assesses a different percentage of affordable housing a developer must provide for the "new" employees. For example, Telluride requires developers to provide housing for 40 % (0.40) of the `new" employees, Aspen requires that 60% (0.60) of the "new" employees are provided housing and Whistler requires that 100% (1.00) of the "new" employees be provided housing by the 14 developer. In comparison, Vail has conservatively determined that developers shall provide housing for 15% (0.15) or 30°Ja (0.30) of the "new" employees resulting from commercial development. When a project is proposed to exceed the density allowed by the underlying zone district, the 30% (0.30) figure is used in the calculation. If a project is proposed at, or below, the density allowed by the underlying zone district, the 15/0 (0.15) figure is used. The Vail Plaza Hotel special development district major amendment proposal does not exceed the density permitted by the underlying zone district. However, the 30% figure was used. • The applicant is proposing to provide employee housing for a percentage of the "new" employees resulting from the hotel construction. Based upon an analysis completed by the applicant and provided to the Community Development Department, the new hotel is expected to generate 125 "new" employees. The "new" employees are in addition to the 74 employees already working full -time or part -time at the Vail Village Inn. The applicant is proposing to provide deed - restricted employee housing for 30% (32) of the "new " employees. Due to the unavailability of private vacant land resources within the Town limits, the applicant anticipates that all or a portion of the deed - restricted housing will be provided in an out -of -town or down - valley location. In order to maximize the benefit of the housing to the Town of Vail, the applicant has suggested that the housing will be available only to Vail Plaza Hotel employees. It is further anticipated that some form of transportation will be provided to the employees from the out -of -town or down - valley location to the hotel. The Planning & Environmental Commission has briefly discussed the employee housing alternatives with the applicant and expressed that, based upon the information provided to date, the proposal seems reasonable and appropriate. A copy of the "Vail Village Inn Staffing Roster" has been attached for reference (Exhibit H). EMPLOYEE HOUSING GENERATION ANALYSIS The staff analysis below indicates the top, the middle and the bottom of the ranges recommended by the Town of Vail Employee Housing Report, as well as a staff recommended figure which was used in determining the employee housing needs of the Vail Plaza Hotel. The staff analysis does not take into account full -time versus part-time employee needs. A summary of the Employee Housing Generation Analysis is as follows: • Bottom of Range Calculations: a) Retail /Service Commercial = 4,047 sq. ft. @(511000 sq. ft.) =20.2 employees b) Health Club = 24,799 sq. ft. @(111000 sq. ft.) =24.8 employees c) Restaurant /Lounge = 5,775 sq. ft. @(511000 sq. ft.) = 28.8 employees d) Conference Center = 10,368 sq. ft. @(1/1000 sq. ft.) =10.4 employees e) Lodging =99 units @(.251unit) = 24.8 employees f) Multi Family (Club Units) =50 units @(.4 /unit) =20.0 employees Total Employees =128.2 employees ( -74 existing employees) = 54.2 employees is (X 0.30 multiplier) =16.3 "new" employees 0 Middle of Range Calculations: a) Retail /Service Commercial = 4,047 sq. ft. @(6.511000 sq. ft.) =26.3 employees b) Health Club = 24,799 sq_ ft. @(1.2511000 sq. ft.) =31.0 employees C) Restaurant /Lounge = 5,775 sq. ft. @(6.511000 sq_ ft.) =37.5 employees d) Conference Center = 10,368 sq. ft. @(9!1000 sq. ft.) =10.4 employees e) Lodging = 99 units @(.751unit) =74.3 employees f) Multi Family (Club Units) =50 units @(.4 /unit) =20.0 employees Total Employees =198.7 employees ( -74 existing employees) =124.7 employees (X 0.30 multiplier) = 37.4 "new" employees Top of Range Calculations: a) Retail /Service Commercial =4,047 sq. ft. @(811000 sq. ft.) =32.4 employees b) Health Club = 24,799 sq. ft. @(1.511000 sq. ft.) =38.0 employees G) Restaurant/Lounge = 5,775 sq. ft. @(811000 sq. ft.) = 46.2 employees d) Conference Center =10,368 sq, ft. @(111000 sq. ft.) =10.4 employees e) Lodging =99 units @(1.25 /unit) =123.8 employees f) Multi Family (Club Units) =50 units rz7(.4 /unit) =20.0 employees Total Employees =270.0 employees ( -74 existing employees) =196 employees (X 0.30 multiplier) = 58.8 "new" employees Staff Recommended Range Calculations: The staff believes that the Vail Plaza redevelopment will create a need for 125 additional employees, Of the 125 additional employees, at least 38 employees (30 %) will need to be provided deed - restricted housing by the developers of the Vail Plaza Hotel. The staff recommended range is based on: 1, the type of retail and commercial use proposed in the commercial space within the Vail Plaza Hotel; 2. the size of the Vail Plaza Hotel lodging component; 3. the level of services and amenities proposed by the developers for the guests of the Vail Plaza Hotel; and 16 'Lodaing has a particularly large variation of employees per mom, depending upon factors such as size of facility and level of servicelsupport services and amenities provided. Depending upon the size of the employee housing unit provided, it is possible to have up to two employees per bedroom. For example, a two - bedroom unit in the size range of 450 - 900 square feet, is possible of accommodating three to four employees. These figures are consistent with the requirements for the Type III employee housing units outlined in the Municipal Code.. Overall, staff believes that the density and uses proposed by the applicant for the Vail Plaza Hotel do not conflict with the compatibility, efficiency or workability of the surrounding uses and activities on adjacent properties. In fact, staff feels that the proposed Vail Plaza Hotel redevelopment will substantially enhance the existing uses and activities in the community. C. Compliance with parking and loading requirements as outlined in Chapter 12 -10 of the Vail Town Code. The Vail Plaza Hotel proposal has been reviewed for compliance with the parking and loading requirements prescribed in Chapter 12 -10 of the Vail Town Code. Pursuant to the prescribed regulations, 378 parking spaces are required for all of Special Development District No_ 6_ The applicant is proposing to provide a total of 368 parking spaces. The difference between what is required by Code and what the applicant is proposing is 10 parking spaces. To account for the difference, the applicant is requesting a deviation from the prescribed parking requirement pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 12 -9. A copy of the Vail Plaza Hotel Parking Analysis prepared by staff and the applicant has been attached for reference (Exhibit 1). 40 The Vail Plaza Hotel has proposed a centralized loading facility for the hotel and surrounding uses within the special development district. Pursuant to the prescribed loading regulations, five loading berths are required to be provided. To insure compliance 17 4. the result of research completed by Town of Vail staff of similar hotel operations in the Vail Valley. a) Retail /Service Commercial =4,047 sq. ft. @(511000 sq. ft.) = 20.2 employees (bottom of range) b) Health Club = 24,799 sq. ft. @(1.5/1000 sq, ft.) =37.2 employees (top of range) C) Restaurant /Lounge =5,775 sq. ft. @(6.511000 sq. ft.) =37.5 employees (middle of range) d) Conference Center = 10,368 sq_ ft. @(111000 sq. ft.) =10.4 employees (range does not vary) e) Lodging = 99 units @(.751unit) = 74.3 employees (middle of range) f) Multi Family (Club Units) = 50 units @(.4 /unit) =19.2 employees (range does not vary) ------------------------------------ Total = 198.8 employees ( -74 existing employees) = 124.8 employees (X 0.30 multiplier) = 38 "new" employees 'Lodaing has a particularly large variation of employees per mom, depending upon factors such as size of facility and level of servicelsupport services and amenities provided. Depending upon the size of the employee housing unit provided, it is possible to have up to two employees per bedroom. For example, a two - bedroom unit in the size range of 450 - 900 square feet, is possible of accommodating three to four employees. These figures are consistent with the requirements for the Type III employee housing units outlined in the Municipal Code.. Overall, staff believes that the density and uses proposed by the applicant for the Vail Plaza Hotel do not conflict with the compatibility, efficiency or workability of the surrounding uses and activities on adjacent properties. In fact, staff feels that the proposed Vail Plaza Hotel redevelopment will substantially enhance the existing uses and activities in the community. C. Compliance with parking and loading requirements as outlined in Chapter 12 -10 of the Vail Town Code. The Vail Plaza Hotel proposal has been reviewed for compliance with the parking and loading requirements prescribed in Chapter 12 -10 of the Vail Town Code. Pursuant to the prescribed regulations, 378 parking spaces are required for all of Special Development District No_ 6_ The applicant is proposing to provide a total of 368 parking spaces. The difference between what is required by Code and what the applicant is proposing is 10 parking spaces. To account for the difference, the applicant is requesting a deviation from the prescribed parking requirement pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 12 -9. A copy of the Vail Plaza Hotel Parking Analysis prepared by staff and the applicant has been attached for reference (Exhibit 1). 40 The Vail Plaza Hotel has proposed a centralized loading facility for the hotel and surrounding uses within the special development district. Pursuant to the prescribed loading regulations, five loading berths are required to be provided. To insure compliance 17 with the applicable regulation the applicant is proposing to provide five loading berths within an enclosed facility. Vehicular access to the facility is taken from the South Frontage Road. The design of the access creates forward -in and forward -out traffic flow and provides adequate maneuvering and turning space within the lot lines of the development site. The flow of traffic on the South Frontage Road will not be impeded by the maneuvering of delivery vehicles. Furthermore, pursuant to the prescribed regulations, the loading facility will not be located in the required setback, nor will it block access to the parking spaces within the Phase III Condominium Building. Lastly, the five loading berths more than adequately meet the size requirements (12' x 24' x 14') outlined in the regulations. Upon review of the proposed parking and loading /delivery plan for the Vail Plaza Motel, the staff finds that the proposal meets the intent of the Town's parking requirements and exceeds the loading and delivery requirements. Staff recognizes this as a benefit. We believe that given the proposed and existing uses within the district, the proximity of the development site to the Vail Transportation Center, the immediate availability of public transportation and recent trends in destination resort travel, the 368 proposed parking spaces will adequately provide for the needs of District. Additionally, in a recent parking study undertaken by the Town of Vail, the consultant working with the Town recommended a significant reduction in the required number of parking spaces for fractional fee club units. The reduction has been recommended as the use of the club unit is more similar to the use of an accommodation unit. The maximum parking space requirement for an accommodation units is one space, regardless of size. Staff has been informed of a potential parking space violation within the District. The apparent violation stems from a real estate transaction that transferred a Phase V condominium unit separate from the required parking spaces, thus creating a situation where a residential property does not have the required number of parking spaces. Staff believes this issue could be addressed and resolved if an appropriate number of parking spaces were provided in the newly created parking structure. D. Conformity with the applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, Town policies and Urban Design Plan. Vail Land Use Plan The Vail Land Use Plan map and the goal statements are intended to serve as the primary focus for the review of development proposals, along with Town ordinances and regulations. Any project should be reviewed with the context of the intent of the overall Plan Document. The Land Use Plan is intended to provide a general framework to guide decision making but is not intended to be regulatory in nature. The goals contained in the Vail Land Use Plan are to be used as the Town's policy guidelines during the review process for a major amendment to an existing special development district. According to the Vail Land Use Plan, the proposed hotel redevelopment site is located within the Vail Village Area. According to the prescribed key goals of the Vail Land Use Plan for the Vail Village Area, in part, Commercial growth should be concentrated primarily in existing commercial areas to accommodate both local and visitor needs, and 18 New hotels should continue to be located primarily in the Village and Lionshead areas, and Increased density for commercial, residential and lodging uses in the Care areas would be acceptable so long as the existing character of each area is being preserved, Staff has reviewed the Vail Land Use Plan and believes the following policies are relevant to the review of this proposal: 1. General Growth /Development 1.1 Vail should continue to grow in a controlled environment, maintaining a balance between residential, commercial and recreational uses to serve both the visitor and the permanent resident. 1.2 The quality of the environment including air, water, and other natural resources should be protected as the Town grows. 1.3 The quality of development should be maintained and upgrade whenever possible. 1.4 The original theme of the old Village Core should be carried into new development in the Village Core through continued implementation of the Urban Design Guide Plan. 1.12 Vail should accommodate most of the additional growth in existing developed areas (infill). 3. Commercial 3.1 The hotel bed base should be preserved and used more efficiently. 3.2 The Village and Lionshead are the best location for hotels to serve the future needs of the destination skier. 3.3 Hotels are important to the continued success of the Town of Vail, therefore conversion to condominiums should be discouraged. 3.4 Commercial growth should be concentrated in existing commercial areas to accommodate both local and visitor needs. 4. Village Core/Lionshead 4.1 Future commercial development should continue to occur primarily in existing commercial areas. Future commercial development in the Core areas needs to be carefully controlled to facilitate access and delivery. 4.2 Increased density in the Core areas is acceptable so long as the existing character of each area is preserved through the implementation of the Urban Design Guide Plan and the Vail Village Master Plan. 19 5. Residential 0 5.1 Quality timeshare units should be accommodated to help keep occupancy rates up. 5.2 Affordable employee housing should be made available through private efforts, assisted by limited incentives, provided by the Town of Vail, with appropriate restrictions. The Vail Land Use Plan projects a need for additional lodging units in the Town of Vail. While the statistical information used to project need is most likely outdated, staff believes there continues to be a need for additional lodging units in the Town of Vail. The Plan projected a need for a total of 395 additional lodging units by the year 2000. The Staff believes the proposed major amendment of Special Development District No. 6 meets the intent, goals, and policies of the Vail Land Use Plan as outlined above. Vail Village Master Plan According to the Vail Village Master Plan, the Plan is intended to serve as a guide to the staff, review boards and the Town Council in analyzing future proposals for development in Vail Village and in legislating effective ordinances to deal with the such development. The most significant elements of the Master Plan are the goals, objectives, policies and action steps. They are the working tools of the Master Plan. They establish the broad framework and vision, but also layout the specific policies and action steps that will be used to implement the Plan. As noted on page 35 of the Master Plan, "It is important to note that the likelihood of project approval will be greatest for those proposals that can fully comply with the Vail Village Master Plan." Staff believes this statement re- emphasizes that the Master Plan is a general document providing advisory guidelines to aid the Town in analyzing development proposals and that 100% compliance is not required in order for a project to be approved. The staff has identified the following goals, objectives and policies as being relevant to this proposal: Goal #1 Encourage high quality redevelopment while preserving the unique architectural scale of the Village in order to sustain its sense of community and identity. 1.1 Objective: Implement a consistent Development Review Process to reinforce the character of the Village, 1.1.1 Policy: Development and improvement projects approved in the Village shall be consistent with the goals, objectives, policies and design considerations as outlined in the Vail Village Master Plan and Urban Design Guide Plan. 20 0 1.2 Objective: Encourage the upgrading and redevelopment of residential and commercial facilities.. 1.2.1 Policy: Additional development may be allowed as identified by the action plan as is consistent with the Vail Village Master Plan and Urban Design Guide Plan. 1.3 Objective: Enhance new development and redevelopment through public improvements done by private developers working in cooperation with the Town. 1.3.1 Policy: Public improvements shall be developed with the participation of the private sector working with the Town. Goal #2 To foster a strong tourist industry and promote year -round economic health and viability for the Village and for the community as a whole. 2.1 Objective: Recognize the variety of land uses found in the 10 sub- areas throughout the Village and allow for development that is compatible with these established land use patterns. 2.3 Objective: Increase the number of residential units available for short- term, overnight accommodations. 2.3.1 Policy: The development of short-term accommodation units is strongly encouraged. Residential units that are developed above existing density levels are required to be designed or managed in a manner that makes them available for short -term overnight rental. 2.4 Objective: Encourage the development of a variety of new commercial activities where compatible with existing land uses. 2.5 Obiective; Encourage the continued upgrading, renovation and maintenance of existing lodging and commercial facilities to better serve the needs of our guests. 2.5.1 Policy: Recreation amenities, common areas, meeting facilities and other amenities shall be preserved and enhanced as a part of any redevelopment of lodging properties. 2.6 Objective: Encourage the development of affordable housing units through the efforts of the private sector. 2.6.1 Policy: Employee housing units may be required as part of any new or redeveloped project requesting density over that allowed by existing zoning. 21 Goal #3 To recognize as a top priority the enhancement of the walking experience throughout the Village. 3.1 Objective: Physically improve the existing pedestrian ways by landscaping and other improvements. 3.1.1 Policy: Private development projects shall incorporate streetscape improvements (such as paver treatments, landscaping, lighting and seating areas), along adjacent pedestrian ways. 3.1.3 Policy: Flowers, trees, water features and other landscaping shall be encouraged throughout the Town in locations adjacent to, or visible from, public areas. 3.2 Objective: Minimize the amount of vehicular traffic in the Village to the greatest extent possible. 3.2.1 Policy: Vehicular traffic will be eliminated or reduced to absolutely minimal necessary levels in the pedestrianized areas of the Village. 3.4 Objective: Develop additional sidewalks, pedestrian -only walkways and accessible green space areas, including pocket parks and stream access. 3.4.2 Policy: Private development projects shall be required to incorporate new sidewalks along streets adjacent to the project as designated in the Vail Village Master Plan and/or Recreation Trails Master Plan. Goal #4 To preserve existing open space areas and expand green space opportunities. 4.1 Objective: Improve existing open space areas and create new plazas with green space and pocket parks. Recognize the different roles of each type of open space in forming the overall fabric of the Village. 4.1.4 Policy: Open space improvements, including the addition of accessible green space as described or graphically shown in the Vail Village Master Plan and /or Urban Design Guide Plan, will be required in conjunction with private infill or redevelopment projects. Goal #5 Increase and improve the capacity, efficiency and aesthetics of the transportation and circulation system throughout the Village. 5.1 Objective: Meet parking demands with public and private parking facilities. 22 5.1 .1 Policy: For new development that is located outside of the Commercial Core 1 Zone District, on -site parking shall be provided (rather than paying into the parking fund) to meet any additional parking demand as required by the Zoning Code. 5.1.5 Policy: Redevelopment projects shall be strongly encouraged to provide underground or visually concealed parking. Goal #6 To insure the continued improvement of the vital operational elements of the Village. 6.1 ©biective: Provide service and delivery facilities for existing and new development, Vail Village Master Plan Building Height Plan Generally speaking, it is the goal of the Building Height Plan to maintain the concentration of low -scale buildings in the Core area, while positioning larger buildings along the northern periphery. According to the Conceptual Building Height Plan contained within the Vail Village Master Plan, the Vail Plaza Hotel is located within an area proposed to have building heights with a maximum range of three to four stories. A building story is defined as 9' of height, not including the roof. The applicant is proposing five stories, excluding the roof with a 10' 6" floor to floor height. Vail Village Master Plan Action Plan The Action Plan graphically expresses a summary of possible development which would be consistent with the elements of the Vail Village Master Plan. It is not an all- inclusive list, nor is it intended to restrict proposals that are not identified on the Action Plan. It is intended to provide suggestions and to act as a guide for implementing the Master Plan. The Vail Plaza Hotel is located in sub -area #1 of the Action Plan. Sub -area #1 is the mixed use activity center for Vail Village. It is distinguished from the Village core by the larger scale buildings. The area is further distinguished by the mixture of residentialllodging and commercial activity. According to the Plan, a significant increase in the Village's overnight bed base will occur within the area. According to the Action Plan, the Vail Plaza Hotel property is located within the mixed -use sub -area concept area #1 -1. This concept area is; an area intended for the completion of the final phase of the Vail Village Inn as established by the development plan Special Development District #6. Commercial development at ground level to frame the interior plaza with greenspace, The mass of buildings shall "step -up" from the existing pedestrian scale along East Meadow Drive to 4 -5 stories along the South Frontage Road. The design of the development must be sensitive to maintaining a view to Vail Mountain from the 4 -way stop (aka roundabout). Vail Village Design Considerations The Town of Vail adopted the Vail Village Design Considerations in 1980. The Design Considerations were revised in 1993. The Design Considerations are considered an 23 integral part of the Vail Village Urban Design Plan. The Design Considerations are intended to; 0 • guide growth and change in ways that will enhance and preserve the essential dualities of the Village; and • serve as design guidelines instead of rigid rules of development; and • help influence the form and design of buildings. The Vail Village Design Considerations are divided into two categories (urban design considerations and architectural /landscape considerations): URBAN DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS These considerations relate to general, large -scale land use planning issues, as well as form considerations which affect more than one property or even whole areas. These considerations are primarily the purview of the Planning and Environmental Commission. A. PEDESTRIANIZATION A major objective for Vail Village is to encourage pedestrian circulation through an interconnected network of safe, pleasant pedestrian ways. Many of the improvements recognized in the Urban Design Guide Plans, and accompanying Design Considerations, are to reinforce and expand the quality of pedestrian walkways throughout the Village. Since vehicular traffic cannot be removed from certain streets (bus routes, delivery access), a totally car -free pedestrian system is not achievable throughout the entire Village. Therefore, several levels of pedestrianization have been identified. The level of pedestrianization most appropriate for the proposed Vail Plaza Hotel redevelopment is separated use and joint vehicle /pedestrian use of the roadway. Staff Response: The applicant has met with the Town staff to discuss pedestrian improvements. The staff has concluded that the improvements recommended for the South Frontage Road, Vail Road and East Meadow Drive in the 1991 Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan should be implemented. This includes constructing a heated brick paver sidewalk with landscape planters along Vail Road; a heated decorative paver sidewalk from the western property line of Phase IV to the eastern property line of Phase 111 with the remainder of the sidewalk continuing to Village Center Road unheated; landscaping in the median and along the South Frontage Road adjacent to Phases 111 & IV; a new sidewalk in the Town right -of -way at the northwest corner of the Gateway Building property; and streetscape improvements on public property along East Meadow Drive from the western corner of the Base Mountain Sports retail space to the intersection of at Vail Road. The final materials used in the construction of the improvements shall be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Board. B. VEHICLE PENETRATION 0 To minimize congestion to the extent possible, all non- resident traffic should be routed along the Frontage Road to Vail Village /Lionshead Parking Structures. 24 In conjunction with pedestrianization objectives, major emphasis is focused upon reducing auto penetration into the center of the Village. Vail Road and Vail Valley Drive will continue to serve as major routes for service and resident access to the Village. Road constrictions, traffic circles, signage, and other measures are indicated in the Guide Plans to visually and physically discourage all but essential vehicle penetration upon the Frontage Road. Alternative access points and private parking relocation, where feasible, should be considered to further reduce traffic conflicts in the Village. • Staff Response: The redevelopment of the Vail Plaza Hotel will increase vehicular traffic in the Main Vail Roundabout and on Vail Road. According to the "Conclusion and Recommendations" contained in the Traffic Impact Analysis —Vail Plaza Hotel Redevelopment, prepared by Felsberg, Holt & Ullevig: • The total projected trips consist of subtracting the existing 1042 trips from the proposed 3082 site generated trips. • Two roadway improvements will be necessary at the main access onto the Frontage Road. The first includes modification to the center median to provide a storage area for vehicles turning left out of the site. This will allow for a two -step left turn with less delay. The second is an exclusive right turn lane into the site for eastbound traffic. This exclusive right turn lane will remove turning traffic from the through traffic lanes thereby improving safety characteristics. The roundabout will not be adversely affected by the proposed site traffic. The site traffic will consist of approximately one percent of the total traffic in the roundabout in the year 2015. The auxiliary lane east of the site for right turning vehicles needs to be extended west to the second access. This lane will be used for delivery trucks backing into the site. This lane and the delivery driveway in which it will serve should be designed to allow backing activity without impacting the eastbound through traffic. Physical separation should be considered between the through lane and the auxiliary lane where backing would be taking place. A complete copy of the report has been attached for reference .(Exhibit J). Staff agrees with the traffic engineer's assessment of the potential traffic impacts. There will be an increase in traffic on Vail Road. There will not be an increase in traffic on the pedestrian portion of East Meadow Drive. The applicant will be required to implement the mitigation measures recommended by the Traffic Engineer should the major amendment be approved. Staff feels the applicant has addressed traffic issues to the extent possible. C. STREETSCAPE FRAMEWORK To improve the quality of the walking experience and give continuity to the pedestrian ways, as a continuous system, two general types of improvements adjacent to the walkways are considered: 25 Open space and landscaping, berms, grass, flowers and tree planting as a soft, colorful framework linkage along pedestrian routes; and plazas and 0 park greenspaces as open nodes and focal points along those routes. 2. Infill commercial storefronts, expansion of existing buildings, or new infill development to create new commercial activity generators to give streetlife and visual interest, as attractions at key locations along pedestrian routes.. It is not intended to enclose all Village streets with buildings as in the core areas. Nor is it desirable to leave pedestrian streets in the open in a somewhat undefined condition evident in many other areas of Vail. Rather, it is desired to have a variety of open and enclosed spaces, both built and landscaped, which create a strong framework for pedestrian walks, as well as visual interest and activity. Staff Response: The Vail Plaza Hotel redevelopment improves the streetscape framework through the creation of the new hotel and the resulting enhanced visual interest along Vail Road. Through the construction of both the internal and external walkways, staff believes the proposed redevelopment creates the critical commercial connection between Vail Gateway Plaza and East Meadow Drive and provides new street life where very little currently exists. D. STREET ENCLOSURE 0 While building facade heights should not be uniform from building to building, they should provide a "comfortable" enclosure for the street. Pedestrian streets are outdoor rooms, whose walls are formed by the buildings. The shape and feel of these "rooms" are created by the variety of heights and massing (3- dimensional variations), which give much of the visual interest and pedestrian scale unique to Vail. Very general rules about the perception of exterior spaces have been developed by designers, based on the characteristics of human vision. They suggest that: "an external enclosure is most comfortable when its walls are approximately 112 as Nigh as the width of the space enclosed; if the ratio falls to 114 or less, the space seems unenclosed; and if the height is greater than the width it comes to resemble a canyon ". In actual application, facades are seldom uniform in height on both sides of the street, nor is this desired. Thus, some latitude is appropriate in the application of this 112 to 1 ratio. Using the average facade height on both sides will generally still be a guide to the comfortableness of the enclosure being created. In some instances, the "canyon" effect is acceptable and even desirable. For example, as a short connecting linkage between larger spaces, to give variety to the walking experience. For sun /shade reasons it is often advantageous to orient any longer segments in a north /south direction. Long canyon streets in an east/west direction should generally be discouraged. When exceptions to the general height criteria occur, special consideration should be given to create a well - defined ground floor pedestrian emphasis to overcome the 26 0 "canyon" effect. Canopies, awnings, arcades and building extensions can all create a pedestrian focus and divert attention from the upper building heights and "canyon " effect. • Staff Response: Vail Road and the sidewalks on either side, adjacent to the Vail Plaza Hotel, averages approximately 70 feet in width. The Vail Plaza Hotel (eaveline) along Vail Road is approximately 44 feet in height. Given that the Nine Vail Road Condominiums are not constructed parallel with Vail Road and the proposed landscaping at the ground level of the proposed building, staff believes the Vail Plaza Hotel creates a "comfortable" enclosure of the street and does not create an undesirable "canyon" effect. However, staff does believe there is an opportunity to reduce the apparent height of the eaveline along Vail Road. Staff would suggest that the applicant be required to continue to study and then present several streetscape alternatives for the streetscape at the front entrance of the hotel to the Design Review Board for review and final approval. Special attention should be given to create a design that is not only functional and meets the technical design requirements, but is also aesthetically pleasing and attractive in nature. E. STREET EDGE Buildings in the Village core should form a strong but irregular edge to the street. Unlike many American towns, there are no standard setback requirements for buildings in Vail Village. Consistent with the desire for intimate pedestrian scale, placement of portions of a building at or near the property line is allowed and encouraged to give strong definution to the pedestrian streets. This is not to imply continuous building frontage along the property line. A strong street edge is important for continuity, but perfectly aligned facades over too long a distance tend to be monotonous. With only a few exceptions in the Village, slightly irregular facade lines, building jogs, and landscaped areas, give the life to the street and visual interest for pedestrian travel. Where buildings jog to create activity pockets, other elements can be used to continue the street edge: low planter walls, tree planting, raised sidewalks, texture changes in ground surface, arcades, raised decks. Plazas, patios, and green areas are important focal points for gathering, resting, orienting and should be distributed throughout the Village with due consideration to spacing, sun access, opportunities for views and pedestrian activity. Staff Response: The Vail Plaza Hotel has street frontage along Vail Road and the South Frontage Road. The remainder of the building has building fronts internal to the development. The edge of the building has been designed at the street level to be varied and irregular through the use of recessed entries, arched arcades and horizontallvertical steps in the building foot 49 print. Staff believes that at the street level the design of the building conforms with the intent of the street edge design consideration. F= BUILDING HEIGHT 27 Vail Village is perceived as a mix of two and three story facades, although there are also four and five story buildings. The mix of building heights gives variety to the street, which is desirable. The height criteria are intended to encourage height in massing variety and to discourage uniform building heights along the street. • Staff Response: As discussed previously, the Vail Plaza Hotel exceeds the allowable building height prescribed for the Public Accommodation Zone District. However, staff does not feet that the proposed height of the Vail Plaza Hotel is excessive, given the location of the building at the northern periphery of the Village core and the height of the buildings on the adjoining properties (Gateway, Nine Vail Road Condominiums, and the Phase Ill and V Buildings). The applicant has submitted a scale model of the Vail Plaza ,Hotel in its Village context and this model will be available for use by the Planning & Environmental Commission, Design Review Board and the Town Council during the final review process. G. VIEWS AND FOCAL POINTS Vail's mountain /valley setting is a fundamental part of its identity. Views of the mountains, ski slopes, creeks and other natural features are reminders to our visitors of the mountain environment and, by repeated visibility, are orientation reference points. Certain building features also provide important orientation references and visual focal points. The most significant view corridors in the Village have been adopted as part of 40 Chapter 12 -22 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code. The view corridors adopted should not be considered exhausted. When evaluating a development proposal, priority should be given to an analysis of the impacted project on public views. Views that should be preserved originate from either major pedestrian areas or public spaces, and include views of the ski mountain, the Gore Range, the Clock Tower, the Rucksack Tower and other important man -made and natural elements that contribute to the sense of place associated with Vail. These views, which have been adopted by ordinance, were chosen due to their significance, not only from an aesthetic standpoint, but also as orientation reference points for pedestrians. Development in Vail Village shall not encroach into any adopted view corridor, unless approved under Chapter 12 -22. Adopted corridors are listed in Chapter 12 -22 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code. Whether affecting adopted view corridors or not the impact of proposed development on views from public ways and public spaces must be identified and considered where appropriate. • Staff Response: Although not directly impacting one of the five adopted view corridors, as listed in Chapter 12 -22 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code, the height of the building will have impacts on the view from various locations near the roundabout. Public views of Vail Mountain will be partially impacted from these areas. Again, a view analysis has been completed depicting "before and after' conditions. Overall, given the building's location, the recent changes to the intersection resulting from the construction of the roundabout and the development pattern on adjacent properties, staff feels that the Vail Plaza Hotel complies with the intent of the Vail Village Urban Design Considerations. H. SERVICE AND DELIVERY 2 8 Any building expansion should preserve the functions of existing service alleys. The few service alleys that exist in the Village are extremely important to minimizing vehicle congestion on pedestrian ways. The use of, and vehicular access to, those alleys should not be eliminated except where functional alternatives are not provided. In all new and remodeled construction, delivery which avoids or reduces impacts on pedestrian ways should be explored; and adopted whenever practical, for immediate or future use. Dear access, basement and below ground delivery corridors reduce congestion. Weather protection increases delivery efficiency substantially. Below grade delivery corridors are found in a few buildings in Vail Village (Sitzmark/Gore Creek Plaza, Village Center, Vail Village Inn). Consideration should be given to extending these corridors, where feasible, and the creation of new ones. As buildings are constructed or remodeled, the opportunity may exist to develop segments of a future system. • Staff Response: Through the course of staff's review of the Vail Plaza Hotel redevelopment proposal, several loading and delivery options were explored. The applicant had originally proposed to provide far fewer berths than what the current design proposes. However, the applicant has amended the plans to provide a total of five berths on the property. These five berths will be able to be utilized by the entire Vail Village Inn Plaza and are connected via a series of elevators and below grade service areas. The service areas are located away from areas of major pedestrian activity. The main service area is adjacent to the South Frontage Road in an enclosed facility. The centralized approach to this facility is unprecedented in Vail. Staff would recommend that the applicant continue to explore opportunities to improve the truck traffic and passenger car traffic interface in the access way within the enclosed facility. SUN /SHADE Due to Vail's alpine climate, sun is an important comfort factor, especially in winter, fall and spring. Shade areas have ambient temperatures substantially below those of adjacent direct sunlight areas. Can all but the warmest of summer days, shade can easily lower temperatures below comfortable levels, and thereby, negatively impact use of those areas, All new or expanded buildings should not substantially increase the spring and fall shadow line (March 21 - September 23) on adjacent properties or the public right -of -way, In all building construction, shade shall be considered in massing and overall height consideration. Notwithstanding, sun /shade considerations are not intended to restrict building height allowances, but rather to influence the massing of buildings. Limited height exceptions may be granted to meet this criteria. • Staff Response. AL 29 Although the proposed height of the building will diminish the amount of sun light reaching the ground in certain areas, and likewise increase shading along the South Frontage 0 Road (north side of the project), the provision of heated public walkways effectively mitigates this consideration, thus providing ice -free and snow -free sidewalks. Overall, staff believes the proposal complies with the above - described considerations. 2. ARCHITECTUREILANDSCAPE CONSIDERATIONS ROOFS Where visible, roofs are often one of the most dominant architectural elements in any built environment. In the Village, roof form, color and texture are visibly dominant, and generally consistent, which tends to unify the building diversity to a great degree. The current expression, and objective, for roofs in the Village is to form a consistently unifying backdrop for the architecture and pedestrian streetscape, and to avoid roofs which tend to stand out individually or distract visually from the overall character. Roof Forms Roofs within the Village are typically gable in form and of moderate -to -low pitch. Shed roofs are frequently used for small additions to larger buildings. Free - standing shed roofs, butterfly roofs and flat roofs, can be found in the Village, but they are generally considered to be out of character and inappropriate. Hip roofs likewise, are rare and generally inconsistent with the character of the Gore Area. Towers are exceptions, in both form and pitch, to the general criteria, but do have an established local vernacular -style which should be respected. 0. Staff Response The roof form of the Vail Plaza Hotel is a mixture of gables, barrel vaults and clipped hips. While a hip roof is generally considered inconsistent with the character of the Village, the applicant believes this roof form and the incorporation of dormers helps to reduce the mass of the building and blends well with the roof forms of the surrounding buildings Pitch Roof slopes in the Village typically range from 3112 to 6112, with slightly steeper pitches in limited applications. Again, for visual consistency this general 3/12 -6112 range should be preserved. • Staff Response The pitch of the proposed Vail Plaza Hotel roof is 7112 and is generally in compliance with this guideline. Overhangs Generous roof overhangs are also an established architectural feature in the Village - a traditional expression of shelter in alpine environments. Roof overhangs typically range from 3 to 6 feet on all edges. Specific design consideration should be given to protection of pedestrian 30 ways adjacent to buildings. Snow slides and runoff hazards can be reduced by roof orientation, gutters, arcades, etc. Overhang details are treated with varying degrees of ornamentation. Structural elements such as roof beams are expressed beneath the overhangs, simply or decoratively carved, The roof fascia is thick and wide, giving a substantial edge to the roof. • Staff Response The overhangs on the Vail Plaza Hotel vary, depending on location, and are generally four feet in depth. The overhangs are supported by timber bracing which adds character and visual interest to the overall appearance of the building. Staff believes that the proposal complies with the above - described criteria. Compositions The intricate roofscape of the Village as a whole is the result of many individual simple roof configurations. For any single building a varied, but simple composition of roof planes is preferred to either a single or a complex arrangement of many roofs. `As individual roofs become more complex, the roof attracts visual attention away from the streetscape and the total roofscape tends toward "busyness" rather than a backdrop composition. Staff Response The roof form on the Vail Plaza Hotel would be considered a simple composition of roof planes. Staff believes the roof composition proposed by the applicant is consistent with the intent of this architectural consideration. Stepped Roofs As buildings are stepped to reflect existing grade changes, resulting roof steps should be made where the height change will be visually significant. Variations which are too subtle appear to be more stylistic than functional, and out of character with the more straight - forward roof design typical in the Village. • Staff Response The Vail Plaza Hotel site is relatively flat (by Vail's standards). While the building does not need to step to follow the topography, vertical and horizontal steps and dormers have been incorporated into the roof design. The vertical and horizontal steps and dormers provide a reduction in the overall mass of the building and adds to the architectural and visual interest of the building. Staff believes that the stepped roofs of the Vail Plaza Hotel comply with the intent of the above - described criteria. Materials Wood shakes, wood shingles, and built -up tar and gravel are almost exclusively used as roof materials in the Village. For visual consistency, any other materials should have the appearance of the above. 40 • Staff Response 31 Most recently, wood shakes and wood shingles are being discouraged for use as a roofing material due to fire safety concerns. At the recommendation of the Town of Vail Fire Department, the staff has been encouraging developers to use gravel, asphalt, tile, metal and other more fire - resistant roofing materials on new buildings. The applicant is proposing to use a blend of greenish concrete tiles on the roof of the hotel. The tiles will be similar in appearance to those used on the recent redevelopment of the Austria Haus. The staff believes this is an appropriate roof material to use on this project. Construction Common roof problems and design considerations in this climate include: - snowslides onto pedestrian walks - roof dams and water infiltration - gutters freezing - heavy snow loads Careful attention to these functional details is recommended, as Well as familiarity with the local building code, proven construction details, and Town ordinances. For built -up roofs, pitches of 4112 or steeper do not hold gravel well. For shingle roofs, pitches of 4112 or shallower often result in ice dams and backflow leakage under the shingles, Cold -roof construction is strongly preferred, unless warm -roof benefits for a specific application can be demonstrated. Cold -roofs are double -roofs which insulate and prevent snow melt from internal building heat. By retaining snow on the roof, many of the problems listed can be reduced. Pedodic snow removal will be required and should be anticipated in the design. 40 Roof gutters tend to ice -in completely and become ineffective in the Vail climate, especially in shaded north -side locations, Heating the interior circumference with heat -tape elements or other devices is generally necessary to assure adequate run -off control in colder months. Staff Response: The applicant is proposing a cold -roof construction atop the Vail Plaza Hotel. Through the review of a building permit, staff will ensure the roof construction complies with the standards prescribed the Vail's climatic conditions. FACADES Materials Stucco, brick, wood (and glass) are the primary building materials found in the Village. While not wishing to restrict design freedom, existing conditions show that within this small range of materials much variation and individuality are possible white preserving a basic harmony. Too many diverse materials weaken the continuity and repetition which unifies the streetscape. Of the above materials, stucco is the most consistently used material. Most of the buildings in the Village exhibit some stucco, and there are virtually no areas where stucco is entirely absent. It is intended to preserve the dominance of stucco by its use in portions, at least, of all new facades, and by assuring that other materials are not used to the exclusion of stucco in any sub- area within the Village, 40 32 0 • Staff Response The exterior materials proposed by the applicant are a combination of stone, stucco and wood. No one material is proposed to dominate the exterior of the hotel. Staff believes the applicant has complied with this particular architectural consideration. The final approval of the exterior materials and their application will be addressed by the Design Review Board at a latter date. Color There is greater latitude in the use of color in the Village, but still a discernible consistency within a general range of colors. For wood surfaces, trim or siding, darker color tones are preferred - browns, grays, blue - grays, dark olive, slate- greens, etc. Stucco colors are generally light - white, beige, pale -gold, or other light pastels. Other light colors could be appropriate, as considered on a case -by -case basis. Bright colors (red, orange, blues, maroon, etc.) should be avoided for major wall planes, but can be used effectively (with restraint) for decorative trim, wall graphics, and other accent elements. Generally, to avoid both "busy- ness ", and weak visual interest, the variety of major wall colors should not exceed four, nor be less than two. A color /material change between the ground floor and upper floors is a common and effective reinforcement of the pedestrian scale of the street. W 9 Staff Response The applicant has proposed an exterior building color that is compatible with the color of the existing buildings in the vicinity of the hotel. Staff would like to point out that the applicant is required to obtain Design Review Board approval prior to construction and that any concerms of the Commission on this topic will be brought to the attention of the Board. Transparencv Pedestrian scale is created in many ways, but a major factor is the openness, attractiveness, and generally public character of the ground floor facade of adjacent buildings. Transparent store fronts are "people attracters ", opaque or solid walls are more private, and imply "do not approach." On pedestrian - oriented streets such as in the Village, ground floor commercial facades are proportionately more transparent than upper floors. Upper floors are typically more residential, private and thus less open. As a measure of transparency, the most characteristic and successful ground floor facades range from 55% to 70% of the total length of the commercial facade- Upper floors are often the converse, 30%© -45 %o transparent. Examples of transparency (lineal feet of glass to lineal feet of facade) on ground level. Covered Bridge Building 58% Pepi's Sports 71% Gasthof Gramshammer 48 % 33 - The Lodge 66% - Golden Peak House 62% - Casino Building 30% - Gorsuch Building 51% Staff Response Transparency of the Vail Plaza Hotel is really only an issue along the retail space fronting on the plaza area. A measure of transparency of the Vail Plaza Hotel (east /south courtyard elevations) indicates that 58% of the ground floor facade is transparent. Staff believes that the ground level is transparent enough to provide the street appearance encouraged by the design considerations. Windows In addition to the general degree of transparency, window details are an important source of pedestrian scale- giving elements. The size and shape of windows are often a response to the function of the adjacent street. For close -up, casual, pedestrian viewing windows are typically sized to human dimensions and characteristics of human vision. (Large glass -wall store - fronts suggest uninterrupted viewing, as from a moving car. The sense of intimate pedestrian scale is diminished). Ground floor display windows are typically raised slightly 18 inches V and do not extend much over 8 feet above the walkway level. Ground floors, which are noticeably above or below grade, are exceptions. The articulation of the window itself is still another element in giving pedestrian scale (human - related dimensions). Glass areas are usually subdivided to express individual window elements - and are further subdivided by mullions into small panes - which is responsible for much of the old -world charm of the Village. Similarly, windows are most often clustered in banks, juxtaposed with plain wall surfaces to give a pleasing rhythm. Horizontal repetition of single window elements, especially over long distances, should be avoided. Large single pane windows occur in the Village, and provide some contrast, as long as they are generally consistent in form with other windows. Long continuous glass is out of character. Bay, bow and box windows are common window details, which further variety and massing to facades - and are encouraged. Reflective glass, plastic panes, and aluminum or other metal frames are not consistent in the Village and should be avoided. Metal -clad or plastic -clad wood frames, having the appearance of painted wood have been used successfully and are acceptable.. Staff Response The Vail Plaza Hotel proposal is in compliance with the above - described design consideration. Staff believes the use of dormers with windows, bay windows and windows with mullions adds to the architectural charm and visual integrity of the hotel. Staff recommends that the use of mullions in the windows at the ground level become a condition of final Design Review approval. Doors Like windows, doors are important to character and scale- giving architectural elements. They 49 should also be somewhat transparent (on retail commercial facades) and consistent in detailing with windows and other facade elements. 34 Ah Doors with glass contribute to overall facade transparency. Due to the visibility of people and merchandise inside, windowed doors are somewhat more effective in drawing people inside to retail commercial facades. Although great variations exist, 25 -30% V transparency is felt to be a minimum transparency objective. Private residences, lodges, restaurants, and other non - retail establishments have different visibility and character needs, and doors should be designed accordingly. Sidelight windows are also a means of introducing door - transparency as a complement or substitute for door windows. Articulated doors have the decorative quality desired for Vail. Flush doors, light aluminum frames, plastic applique elements all are considered inappropriate. As an expression of entry, and sheltered welcome, protected entry-ways are encouraged. Doorways may be recessed, extended, or covered. • Staff Response Staff believes the applicant's proposal complies with the above - described criteria. Trim Prominent wood trim is also a unifying feature in the Village. Particularly at ground floor levels, doors and windows have strong, contrasting framing elements, which tie the various elements together in one composition. Windows and doors are treated as strong visual features. Glass - wall detailing for either is typically avoided. • Staff Response: Staff believes the applicant's proposal complies with the above- described criteria. DECKS AND PATIOS Dining decks and patios, when properly designed and sited, bring people to the streets, opportunities to look and be looked at, and generally contribute to the liveliness of a busy street making a richer pedestrian experience than if those streets were empty. A review of successful decks /patios in Vail reveals several common characteristics: - direct sunlight from 11:00 - 3:00 increases use by many days /year and protects from wind. - elevated to give views into the pedestrian walk (and not the reverse). - physical separation from pedestrian walk. - overhang gives pedestrian scale /shelter. Decks and patios should be sited and designed with due consideration to: - sun - wind - views - pedestrian activity 0 • Staff Response; The majority of the decks and patios on the Vail Plaza Hotel are located on the south side of the building, facing Vail Mountain and the plaza. With the exception of the two outdoor dining decks on the plaza, these decks and patios are for the use of the guests of the hotel and not the 35 general public. Staff believes that the proposal complies with this design consideration. 1 were] 011 ;K Balconies occur on almost all buildings in the Village which have at least a second level facade wall. As strong repetitive features they: - give scale to buildings- - give life to the street (when used). - add variety to building forms. provide shelter to pathways below. Staff Response Again, the majority of the balconies on the Vail Plaza Hotel are located on the south side of the building facing Vail Mountain and away from the 1 -70 traffic noise_ Staff believes that the proposal complies with this design consideration. Color Balconies contrast in color (dark) with the building, typically matching the trim colors. Staff Response Like the exterior color of the building, the Design Review Board will be reviewing this aspect of the proposal. do Size Balconies extend far enough from the building to cast a prominent shadow pattern. Balconies in Vail are functional as will as decorative. As such, they should be of useable size and located to encourage use. Balconies less than six feet deep are seldom used, nor are those always in shade, not oriented to views or street life_ ■ Staff Response Staff believes this criteria has been met. Mass Balconies are commonly massive, yet semi - transparent, distinctive from the building, yet allowing the building to be somewhat visible behind. Solid balconies are found occasionally, and tend to be too dominant obscuring the building architecture. Light balconies lack the visual impact which ties the Village together. • Staff Response The balconies on the Vail Plaza Hotel are proposed to be semi- transparent in appearance. Materials a Wood balconies are by far the most common. Vertical structural members are the most dominant visually, often decoratively sculpted. Decorative wrought iron balconies are also consistent visually where the vertical members are close enough to create semi - transparency. 36 0 Pipe rails, and plastic, canvas or glass panels should be avoided. • Staff Response The material to be used in the construction of the balconies on the hotel is wood, with vertical structural members. A detail of the railing will be reviewed by the DRS. ACCENT ELEMENTS The life, and festive quality of the Village is given by judicious use of accent elements which give color, movement and contrast to the Village. Colorful accent elements consistent with existing character are encouraged, such as! Awnings and canopies - canvas, bright color or stripes of two colors. Flags, banners - hanging from buildings, poles, and even across streets for special occasions. Umbrellas - over tables on outdoor patios. Annual color flowers in beds or in planters. Accent lighting- buildings, plazas, windows, trees (even Christmas lights all winter). Painted wall graphics - coats of arms, symbols, accent compositions, etc. Fountains - sculptural, with both winter and summer character. • Staff ,Response: Accent lighting on the building, annual flowers in containers and in the planting beds, potted trees decorated with Christmas lights and irrigated flower boxes are proposed to provide colorful accent elements on the Vail Plaza Hotel. Staff would suggest that the applicant provide an additional accent symbol (clock, crest, etc.) on the main elevator tower. The tower is visible from a distance as illustrated in the view analysis and would serve as an important focal point to guests and visitors. LANDSCAPE ELEMENTS Landscape considerations include, but go beyond, the placement of appropriate plant materials- - plant materials - paving - retaining walls - street furniture (benches, kiosks, trash, etc.) - lighting - signage Plant Materials Opportunities for planting are not extensive in the Village, which places a premium on the plant selection and design of the sites that do exist. Framework planting of trees and shrubs should include both deciduous and evergreen species for year round continuity and interest. Native plants are somewhat limited in variety, but are clearly best able to withstand the harsh winter climate, and to tie the Village visually with its mountain setting. Trees Shrubs 37 Narrow -leaf cottonwood Willow Balsam poplar Dogwood Aspen Serviceberry Lodgepole pine Alpine currant Colorado spruce Chokecherry Subalpine fir Mugho pine Potentilla Buffaloberry Staff Response A conceptual landscape plan has been submitted by the applicant. The plan has been developed with some assistance of Town staff since a majority of the landscape improvements are proposed on Town property. The proposed landscape design takes into consideration factors such as the location of the plantings (sun /shade), maintenance, climate, etc. Staff would suggest that the final landscape plan be reviewed by the Design Review Board along with the final streetscape improvements. Pavin The freeze /thaw cycle at this altitude virtually eliminates common site -cast concrete as a paving surface (concrete spall). High- strength concrete may work in selected conditions. Asphalt, brick (on concrete or on sand), and concrete block appear to be best suited to the area. In general, paving treatments should be coordinated with that of the adjacent public right -of -way The Town uses the following materials for all new construction: - asphalt: general use pedestrian streets - brick on concrete: feature areas (plazas, intersections, fountains, etc_) * Staff Response The paving material used in the public areas around the Vail Plaza Hotel has yet to be determined and finalized. Again, the staff would suggest that the final paving treatment be determined with the assistance of the Design Review Board. Retaining Walls Retaining walls, to raise planting areas, often protects the landscape from pedestrians and snowplows, and should provide seating opportunities: Two types of material are already well established in the Village and should be utilized for continuity: - split -face moss rock veneer - Village Core pedestrian streets (typical). - rounded cobble hidden mortar - in open space areas if above type not already established nearby. Staff Response Landscape retaining walls are proposed on the north, west and south sides of the building. The retaining walls are needed to provide proper grading and drainage around the building. The surface material of the new landscape retaining will match the stone on the exterior of the building. 38 Lighting Light standards should be coordinated with those used by the Town in the public right -of -way, • Staff Response As part of the streetscape improvements along Vail Road, East Meadow Drive and the South Frontage Road, the applicant will be installing new Village light fixtures, The number and locations of the new lights was determined through consultation with Town staff. Signage Refer to Town of Vail Signage Ordinance Staff Response: Given the staging of the application, signage has not yet been considered by the staff or the applicant_ The staff has requested that the applicant prepare a comprehensive sign program for the Vail Plaza Hotel for review at a future date. The comprehensive sign program will be reviewed by the DRB. SERVICE Trash handling is extremely sensitive in a pedestrian environment. Trash collection is primarily made in off -peak hours. It is the building owners responsibility to assure that existing trash storage problems are corrected and future ones avoided. Trash, especially from food service establishments, must be carefully considered; including the following: - quantities generated - pick -up frequencylaccess - container sizes - enclosure location/design - visual odor impacts Garbage collection boxes or dumpsters must be readily accessible for collection at all times yet fully screened from public view - pedestrians, as well as upper level windows in the vicinity. Materials Exterior materials for garbage enclosures should be consistent with that of adjacent buildings. Construction Durability of the structure and operability of doors in all weather are prime concerns. Metal frames and posts behind the preferred exterior materials should be considered to withstand the inevitable abuse these structures suffer. • Staff Response. The applicant is proposing to incorporate a trash dumpster and recycling bin into the design of the main loading /delivery area, The dumpster and bin will be completely enclosed and ION, accessible from inside the building. Access to the dumpster and bins will not impede the operation of the loadingldelivery functions. The driveway and interrarbuilding height is designed to accommodate trash trucks. Staff believes the applicant's proposal complies with the above - described criteria. E. Identification and mitigation of natural and /or geologic hazards that affect the property on which the special development district is proposed. According to the Official Town of Vail Hazard maps the Vail Plaza Hotel development site is not located in any geologically sensitive areas or the 1 Utz -year floodplain. F. Site plan, building design and location and open space provisions designed to produce a functional development responsive and sensitive to natural features, vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the community. The site plan, building design and location and open space provisions of the proposal have been reviewed at length by the staff, the Town of Vail Design Review Board and Jeff Winston, of Winston & Associates, the Town's Urban Design Consultant. This review is the culmination of numerous meetings between the staff and applicant's design team, five conceptual reviews by the Design Review Board and three meetings with Mr. Winston. The staff's review has focused primarily on the technical aspects of the proposal (vehicular access, driveway grades, required distances between structures, sidewalk widths, building orientation, development standards, etc.) while the Board and Mr. Winston focused on reviewing the proposal for compliance with the design guidelines and other applicable elements of the Town's planning documents. is Upon review of the proposal, the Town of Vail Design Review has voted 3 -0 to forward a preliminary recommendation of approval, with conditions, to the Vail Town Council. In reviewing the proposal the Board was most concerned with the aesthetic qualities of the hotel and less concerned with the development's responsiveness and sensitivity to natural features and vegetation. The lack of concern with the latter criteria is to due to the absence of any existing natural features or vegetation on the development_ A condition of the Board's approval was a request for a detailed landscape plan to insure adequate provisions are made for vegetation on the development site. The plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Board as part of their final review process. A copy of the Board's preliminary recommendation to the Town Council has been attached for reference (Exhibit K). Similar to the Design Review Board, Jeff Winston,. the Town's Urban Design Consultant, has also recommended approval of the hotel proposal. As stated previously, the consultant's review focused primarily upon compliance with the design guidelines and the urban design considerations outlined in the Vail Village Master Plan. The findings of the consultant are that with the exception of opportunities to lower the eave lines of the hotel, the proposal generally complies with the master plan. The staff reviewed the technical aspects of the proposal for compliance with the prescribed regulations, Upon review of the proposal, staff finds that the applicant will need to be provided relief for the proposed deviations from the building height, setback and multi -use parking credit formula if this proposal is to be approved. As discussed previously, staff believes that the request for additional building height is reasonable and appropriate given the existing circumstances and the ability to provide employee housing units on -site. We also believe that relief should be provided from the parking requirements of the regulations. Staff feels that relief is justified given size of the hotel, the mixture of uses within the hotel and within the District as a whole, and recent trends 40 in resort travel. Staff is no longer concerned with regard to the proposed Vail Road setback. We believe that some encroachment of building improvements into the front setback is appropriate given the context of the built environment of the area, the hotel design along the street facade, and the provision of open plaza space on the interior of the development. While the applicant speaks of average setbacks, staff is more focused on the minimum distances the face of the hotel and the back of the curb along Vail Road. The minimum distance proposed is now 22 feet from the multi -story face of the hotel to the back of the curb. Within this area the applicant can provide an eight -foot wide paver sidewalk, landscaping, with room for snow storage. Staff would recommend that the applicant not be required to increase the proposed Vail Road setback. G. A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and off -site traffic circulation. The on-site /off -site vehicular and pedestrian circulation system design has been discussed in great detail. Much of the discussion with the Board and Commission centered on providing adequate pedestrian and vehicular access to, from and within the development site. In response to the concerns, the applicant has redesigned many areas of the plan. The pedestrian areas include the pedestrian connection through the hotel to the Gateway Building, the alleyway spaces between the hotel and Phases III & V, the plaza area south of the hotel, and the pedestrian link from the hotel entrances to the new bus stop on Bast Meadow Drive. The vehicular areas included providing adequate turning and maneuvering area at the porte cochere, the entrance only and exit only driveway locations on Vail Road and the entering and exiting design of the loading/ delivery facility. Pursuant to the submittal requirements for the major amendment request, the applicant was required to submit a Traffic Report, A Traffic Report has been prepared by the traffic consulting firm of Felsburg, Holt & Ullevig. The purpose of the report is to evaluate the impacts of the hotel development and the proposed traffic pattern circulation on the Town's street system. This report has been used by staff to analyze traffic impacts of this project. In summary the transportation engineers find that the proposed vehicular circulation system is reasonable and appropriate. It is believed that through minor mitigation measures such as signage and an enter only /exit only design the traffic impacts and safety concerns of the Town can be resolved. A copy of the Traffic Report and a memorandum from Greg Hall to George Ruther, dated December 9, 1999 have been attached for reference (Exhibit L). Overall, staff believes that with several minor changes and revisions to the plans, the proposal meets the criteria of providing adequate on -site and off -site vehicular and pedestrian circulation systems. H. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and preserve natural features, recreation, views and functions. Staff believes that the landscape improvements proposed will be beneficial to the quality of the landscaping in both the public and private spaces in the vicinity of the hotel. Through the implementation of the Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan, a portion of East Meadow Drive will be enhanced aesthetically. The improvements will include new heated brick paver walkways, the completion of the bus stop, updated streetscape lighting, and wider pedestrian walkways and stairs. The landscape elements of the proposal have been reviewed on a conceptual basis by 41 the Town of Vail Design Review Board. Upon review of the proposal the Board has voiced a favorable response to the applicant. A final landscape plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Board prior to the issuance of a building permit. The design of the plaza area south of the hotel is consistent the previous direction and intent of the overall development of the District. The creation of the plaza, with the associated pool area, landscaping, outdoor cafe, pedestrian walkways and retail store fronts complies with the guidelines of the Open Space Plan, an element of the Vail Village Master Plan. Pursuant to the Open Space Plan, the area south of the hotel and interior to the development is intended to be a public plaza with greenspace opportunities. Staff believes that based upon the sun /shade analysis prepared by the applicant, the plaza area will receive adequate amounts of sun light throughout the year. The access to sun light will insure a pleasant, useable plaza area in the Town. The proposed pool and hot tub deck area is intended to address the recreational needs of the District. The use of these recreational amenities will be made available to the owners of property within the District. The new pool will replace the existing pool on the Phase IV development site and will insure consistency with the general direction of the Open space Plan. Overall, staff believes that the proposal complies with this criteria. Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional and efficient relationship throughout the development of the special development district. The need for the phasing of the hotel redevelopment is not anticipated at this time. A construction staging plan will be required at the time of building permit issuance. The plan will be reviewed to maximize the workable and functional relationship between the redevelopment of the hotel and the existing uses, structures and traffic systems in the vicinity of the development site. The goal of the plan will be maximize the efficiency of the construction process and to minimize the negative impacts inherent to major construction projects, VIII. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Upon review of Section 18.60, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the request for a conditional use permit to allow for the operation of a 50 unit fractional fee club within the Vail Plaza Hotel based upon the following factors: A. Consideration of Factors: Before acting on a conditional use permit application, the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) shall consider the factors with respect to the proposed use: 1. Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town. In January of 1997, the Vail Town Council adopted Ordinance No. 22, Series of 1996. In part, this ordinance amended the Public Accommodation Zone District allowing fractional fee clubs as a conditional use and set forth criteria for the Commission to consider when evaluating such a request. Since that time the Austria Haus Club redevelopment project has been completed and the Gore Creek Club has been approved by the Town. The Austria Haus contains 28 fractional fee club units and 42 0 the Gore Creek Club has been approved to construct 66 units. The applicant is requesting the issuance of a conditional use permit to allow for the operation of a fractional fee club within the Vail Plaza Hotel. The proposed club would be comprised of 50 two and three bedroom club units. These units would range in size from 920 square to 2,282 square feet. The average club unit size is approximately 1,335 square feet in size. Each of the units has been designed in such a manner as to provide multiple "keys" to for lock -off units. The total number of "keys" in the club is 108. According to the applicant, the ownership of the club units will be divided into a maximum of 1112'" intervals for the 24 winter weeks during the ski season, while the remaining 28 shoulder season and summer weeks would be owned by the hotel. This ownership program allows for the most attractive weeks of the year to be sold as club units with the proceeds helping to finance the redevelopment project_ The remaining interest in the clubs is then used by the hotel to support the conference facility during the summer months. According to the applicant this program will create the best possible occupancy of the hotel and maximize the viability of the conference facility. Through the adoption of Ordinance No. 22, Series of 1996, the Town further recognized the need for lodging alternatives for our guests and visitors. In passing the ordinance the Town Council found that quality fractional fee clubs are an appropriate means of increasing occupancy rates, maintaining and enhancing short -term rental availability and diversifying the resort lodging market product within the Town of Vail. Equally as important, the Council believed that fractional fee clubs were simply another of many forms of public accommodations. It has been a long held belief that in order for the Town to remain competitive and on the leading edge of resort development, that alternative lodging opportunities must be created and creative financing vehicles for hotel redevelopment must be implemented. Staff believes that the conditional use permit for a fractional fee club within the Vail Plaza Hotel will be beneficial to the Town and will have a positive impact on the development objectives of the Community. 2. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities needs. Staff believes that this review criteria has been satisfied as previously discussed in Section IV of this memorandum. 3. Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and parking areas. Staff believes that this review criteria has been satisfied as previously discussed in Section IV of this memorandum. 4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in 43 relation to surrounding uses. 0 Staff believes that this review criteria has been satisfied as previously discussed in Section IV of this memorandum. 5. Prior to the approval of a conditional use permit for a time -share estate, fractional fee, fractional fee club, or time -share license proposal, the following shall be considered: a. If the proposal for a fractional fee club is a redevelopment of an existing facility, the fractional fee club shall maintain an equivalency of accommodation units as presently existing. Equivalency shall be maintained either by an equal number of units or by square footage. If the proposal is a new development, it shall provide at least as much accommodation unit GRFA as fractional fee club unit GRFA. The Vail Plaza Hotel proposal is a redevelopment of an existing hotel. The proposed hotel shall be required to maintain an equivalency of the presently existing number of accommodation units. The applicant is proposing to meet the equivalency requirement by replacing an equal number of accommodation units. According to information on file in the Community Development Department 78 accommodation units exist in Phase IV of the Vail Village Inn. The applicant is proposing to replace the existing units with 99 new hotel rooms totaling approximately 35,818 square feet. b. Lock -off units and lock -off unit square footage shall not be included in the calculation when determining the equivalency of existing accommodation units or equivalency of existing square footage. Even though lock -offs cannot be counted towards meeting the equivalency requirement, nor are they needed in this case, the applicant has maintained 62 lock -off units in the Vail Plaza Hotel_ The staff and applicant feel that these units will be rented as short -term accommodations when not in use by the club members, and thus enhance the overall hotel bed base in Town. C. The ability of the proposed project to create and maintain a high level of occupancy. The fractional fee club component of the Vail Plaza Hotel proposal is intended to provide additional hotel and "hotel- type" accommodation units in the Town of Vail. The applicant is proposing to incorporate 50 member - owned club units (fractional fee club units with 62 lock -off units), with 99 new accommodation (hotel) rooms. Although not included in the equivalency requirement, the fractional fee club units have been designed to accommodate lock -off units.. Staff believes that lock -off units provide an additional community benefit of added "pillows ". If a fractional fee club unit owner purchases an interest in a multiple bedroom unit, and does not desire to utilize all the bedrooms, they can then have the opportunity of returning the unused bedrooms (lock -off units) to a rental program. 44 Staff feels that by providing lock -off units, and managing the availability of the lock -off units in a rental program when not in use, a fractional fee club project can significantly increase the availability of accommodation units in the Town of Vail. Through our research on the fractional fee issue back in 1996, staff then identified some potential positive impacts of fractional fee units in the Town of Vail: A) Activity during the "shoulder seasons" tends to increase due to an increase in year -round occupancy; B) The attraction of revenue - generating tourists; C) The efficient utilization of resources. This is the "warm beds" concept; D) More pride of ownership and community buy -in with fractional fee club units than with accommodation units; E) Increased levels of occupancy; and F) Increased resort exposure due to the extensive number of interval owners. d. Employee housing may be required as part of any new or redevelopment fractional fee club project requesting density over that allowed by zoning. The number of employee housing units will be consistent with employee impacts that are expected as a result of the project. The staff included the fractional fee club units into the calculation of the employee generation resulting from the proposed major amendment of the Special Development District. Based strictly on the number of club units, the development will generate a need for 125 "new" employees. When the multiplier of 0.30 is factored in, the fractional fee club generates 38 of the "new'° employees, which the developer must provide deed - restricted housing for. e. The applicant shall submit to the Town a list of all owners of existing units within the project or building; in written statements from 100% of the owners of existing units indicating their approval, without condition, of the proposed fractional fee club. No written approval shall be valid if it is signed by the owner more than 60 days prior to the date of filing the application for a conditional use. The applicant, Waldir Prado, d.b.a. Daymer Corporation, and legally represented by Jay Peterson, is the sole owner of the property. No other written approval is required. 45 PEC 2/28100 1 (Other unrelated matters were heard which 2 are not herein transcribed.) 3 MR. AASLAND: Okay, we're back on the 4 record.. And item number 2 on the agenda is the 5 request for a final review of a major amendment for 6 the VVI for SDD and we're- also reviewing a conditional 7 use permit. 8 Most of us sat through a fair number of 9 meetings on this project. And so I think we're all at 10 a certain level fairly familiar with it. What we're 11 going to ask is first we're going to ask George to do 12 'a staff presentation primarily dealing with the 13 changes, just kind of an overview of the project just 14 for the record. And then we'll ask the applicant to 15 give a presentation. Any public comment after that, 16 and then we'll ask for the commissioners. 17 And, George, I think if you could briefly 18 explain at the beginning, I believe what we're being 19 asked to do is basically a completely new approval to 20 reconsider. And just make sure that is how the 21 applicant is proposing that this be done, be put on 22 the record, if you could please. And so, George, give 23 us your presentation. 24 MR. RUTHER: Sure. We had an opportunity at 25 a premeeting to briefly go through the Vail Plaza T Page 2 • n �J PEC 2/28/00 r Page 3 �1 Hotel 2000 revised major amendment proposal memorandum 2 that has been provided by staff to the planning and 3 environmental commission. I'm not going to go through 4 this thick document word for word. Everyone has had a 5 chance, I believe, to read through this document. The 6 criteria for consideration has been addressed in this 7 document and been considered. 8 I did notice, and it has been brought to my 9 attention there are some errors in the memorandum. 10 I'd like to clear those errors up. And as I go 11 through this, 7 will do that. 12 MR. AASLAND: George, and just one other i 3 thing. One other item that we were given was, I 14 believe, attachment D was missing a page. And before 15 the meeting, you handed'that out to us. And if anyone 16 in the public or the applicant would like a copy of 17 that, that will be available through George. 18 MR. RUTHER: Thank you. Again the request 19 is a request for a final review of a major amendment 20 request, special development district number 6, phase 21 IV of the Vail Village Inn special development 22 district. In the case of the major amendment, the 23 planning commission is being asked for a 24 recommendation of approval or denial to the Vail town 25 council for their review and consideration. NEC 2/28/00 1 In the case of the conditional use permit, 2 the role of the planning and environmental commission 3 is a role of a decision - making body, and your decision 4 on the conditional use permit would be final. So 5 there is a slight distinction between the two types of 6 requests that you're seeing here today. 7 There have been several changes to the 8 proposal as a result of the applicant providing the 38 9 employee beds on site as requested by the Vail town 10 council. Those changes most notably are in overall 11 increase of approximately three and a half feet of 12 additional building height to add 18 employee dwelling 13 units on the property, type III employee housing 14 units. An encroachment of four feet into the Vail 15 Road setback, and I have boards here that we can go 16 through to illustrate some of these changes. From the 17 20 -foot setback approved by the town council to a 18 16 -foot Vail Road setback proposed by the applicant. 19 A total of 36 square feet of building floor area, 20 interior floor area for the building will be 21 encroaching into the southwest corner of the property. 22 And, again, I'll point that out as we go through. 23 The overall square footages, and some of the 24 square footage breakdowns on the numbers of units and 25 square footage in the building has been adjusted r Page 4 • F_ - I LJ PEC 2/28/00 s Page 5 I 1 slightly. Those adjustments were made as a result of 2 providing the employee housing units on site and then 3 meeting code requirements for providing ingress and 4 egress and exiting requirements in and out of the 5 building. So there are slight deviations in the 6 numbers that you had seen previously. 7 1 don't think anything deviates more than 5 8 percent. And, in fact, in most cases there's been a 9 reduction in square footage. For example, fractional 10 fee units. The fractional fee unit overall square. 11 footage for the building, while there has been a net 12 increase of two additional fractional fee units on the �3 property, there's been a decrease of approximately 700 14 square feet of fractional fee unit square footage. 15 And, again, the same holds true for the rest 16 of the square footage in the building. And again 17 that's a result of having to manipulate the floor 18 plans to accommodate the employee housing on site. 19 The applicant is proposing, with this 20 amendment, is proposing 99 accommodation units on 21 site, one free market dwelling unit, 50 fractional fee 22 club unit, and then the 18 employee housing units, and 23 then accessory retail, commercial, conference, spa, 24 meeting room types of facilities on the property. 25 Again, a distinction from what was looked at PEC 2/28/00 I by the council in January a month or so ago, there's 2 been a slight decrease in the total number of keys 3 associated with the property. That's been a result of 4 again reconfiguring the numbers of rooms. That 5 reduction is a reduction of approximately two keys -- 6 two or three keys. I think we went from 214 down to 7 211 total keys within the building. within the 8 fractional fee club component of the hotel itself, 9 there's 108 keys for 50 fractional fee club units. 10 On page 3 of the staff memorandum, staff is 11 recommending approval of the applicant's request for 12 the major amendment and for a conditional use permit 13 to allow for the redevelopment of the phase IV site of 14 the Vail Village special development district. 15 On page 4 of the memorandum, should the 16 planning and environmental commission choose'to 17 recommend approval of the requested amendments to the 18 town council, we would -- we, staff, would encourage 19 that the commission make a finding similar to that 20 finding in the middle of page 4. 21 Beginning in the bottom of page 4, 22 continuing on to page 7 are 22 conditions of approval. 23 Those 22 conditions of approval are essentially those 24 same conditions of approval approved by the town 25 council when they saw the project again a month or so Y Page 6 • • PEC 2/28100 I Page 7 f 1 ago. Notably there has been a removal of two 2 conditions. 3 One condition that all of the employee 4 housing units either be on site or half the units be 5 on site or provided within the town. of Vail. Since 6 the current proposal shows the employee housing units 7 on site, if approved, that condition would no longer 8 be applicable so that was removed. 9 Secondly, the condition placed on the 10 approval by the town council that the applicant 11 maintain a 20 -foot setback along Vail Road, that has 12 been removed. If it's your desire to see that placed 13 back in, that could be put back in. 14 And then all other 22 conditions of approval 15 that were forwarded by the planning commission to the 16 town council are in this ordinance with the exception 17 of the one condition that the council took out that 18 the planning commission was recommending, and that was 19 the elimination of the elevator tower. If you recall, 20 it was your desire -- this commission's desire to see 21 that the elevator tower be eliminated. 22 The town council wanted to see the elevator 23 tower detailed and expanded upon and made an integral 24 element of the building. So that condition is not in 25 here. If it's your desire to have that condition put PEC 2/28/00 1 back in, we can make that motion as well. 2 On page 15 of your memorandum, the middle 3 paragraph, there's a typographical error. The 4 applicant is proposing restricted housing not for 32 5 employees, but instead 38. 6 MR. AASLAND: Which page was that on again? 7 MR. RUTHER: Page 15. That changes 8 everything. I would like to point out some additional 9 information that has been added to the memorandum and 10 some additional review that went into this 11 application. 12 On page 18, under letter D, conformity with 13 applicable elements of the Vail comprehensive plan, 14 town policies and urban design guide plan, the Vail 15 -:land use plan. I'm not going to read that to you 16 verbatim other than to point out that some additional - 17 review and some additional criteria from that plan was I 18 pulled and put into this ordinance --- or, excuse me, 19 this memorandum. 20 Specifically, according to the prescribed 21 key goals of the Vail land use plan for the Vail 22 Village area to which this development is a part, 23 commercial growth should be concentrated primarily in 24 existing commercial areas to accommodate both local 25 and visitor needs. And new hotels should continue to Wage 8 C • PEL 2/28100 Page 9 1 be located primarily in the Village and Lions dead 2 areas and increased density for commercial, 3 residential and lodging uses in the core areas would 4 be accessible so long as existing character of each 5 area is being preserved. Again, that was additional 6 information added. 7 Page 20 under the Vail Village master plan, 8 staff has gone through and highlighted the intent and 9 the purpose of the Vail Village master plan, what its 10 intended role is in the planning process. And then 11 gone through and identified the goals, objectives and 12 policies taken from that plan that we believe are 13 relevant to this application. And those are listed on 14 pages 22 -- 20 through 24. 15 Continuing on with the nine criteria on page 16 40 of this memorandum, the criteria talks about the 17 site plan, building design and location of the plan. 18 If you recall, staff had a concern all through the 19 development review process of what we're calling the 20 1999 . proposal that the proposed setback along Vail 21 Road did not comply with the intent of setbacks. 22 We believe, however, that this application 23 with a four -foot encroachment into the 20 -foot 24 setback, of which 36 square feet of building area is 25 located in the setback, that the intent of the setback PFC 2/28100 Page 10 1 in the right -of -way adjacent to Vail Road is now being 2 met in that there is ample opportunities for the 3 required landscaping, snow storage, utilities, 4 pedestrian easements and access, light and air and 5 separation between buildings is all being provided 6 for. And that is no longer a concern to staff. 7 If you recall, the previous proposal was for 8 a nine -foot setback. We've gained an additional seven 9 square feet of lineal distance between the edge of the 10 street and the corner of the building. There's -- 11 excuse me -- a substantial increase in the amount of 12 landscape, snow storage and pedestrian areas now in 13 front of the building that did not exist prior to this 14 proposal, 15 On page 42 is the criteria and findings for 16 a conditional use permit. Again, I won't go through 17 that, all of this criteria word for word. It is 18 listed in the memorandum, and the memorandum is part 19 of the record for this proposal. The applicant is 20 proposing 50 fractional fee club units on the 21 property. That is a total increase of two new 22 fractional fee units on the property. However, there 23 is a net reduction again of 700 square feet of 24 fractional fee club area that is a result of the 25 allocating and redesigning some of the square footage • 0 • PEC 2/28/00 Page 1 i ' 1 on the property. 2 The operation and average size range of the 3 units remains substantially the same. The operation 4 will be that the 24 winter weeks are sold on 5 one - twelfth intervals, and that 28 weeks of ownership 5 is returned to the hotel for summer season uses to 7 compliment the conference facility on site. 8 In your attachments, in going through the 9 attachments, I believe Tim will be able to answer and 10 talk to your questions relative to the site plan and 11 the building elevations being proposed and the net 12 impacts of the additional three to three and a half 13 feet of overall building height added by the proposal. I 14 So I won't go into that here. 15 There's also a revised sunshade study -- or 16 sun study that's being done. The intent of that sun 17 study is to depict the impact of the proposed building 18 height providing light and air to adjacent structures 19 and properties in public areas. So that's in there 20 for consideration. And, again, there's a copy here we 21 can speak to if you have specific questions. 22 On the Vail Plaza Hotel zoning analysis, 23 under the approved 1999 SDD major amendment, there 24 should be a correction to the front setback. Instead 25 of nine feet, it should be 20 feet. what I was PEC 2/28/00 Page 12 :, 1 comparing was what the applicant was proposing with 2 the '99 proposal. If you recall, the council approved 3 20 feet, so that should be changed to 20 feet. 4 MR. AASLAND: George, which page is that on? 5 MR. RUTHER: There is not a page number. 6 It's attachment B, the Vail Plaza Hotel zoning 7 analysis. It's the first chart after the sunshade 8 analysis and landscape plans. 9 MR. AASLAND: So which one is that again, 10 George, please? 11 MR. RUTHER: Under the 1999 approval, the 12 i front setback should be changed to 20 feet. The 13 council approved a 20 -foot setback. The number I 14 have -- 15 MR. AASLAND: It,says nine? 16 MR. RUTHER.: It says nine, correct. That 17 was the proposal. The council approved 20, however. 18 And then on the next page, attachment C, 19 Vail Plaza Hotel proposal comparison, the same 20 correction needs to be made. 21 MR. AASLAND: Where it says six? 22 MR. RUTHER: Correct. It was in flux. 23 MR. AASLAND: Would it help if we just saw 24 it upside down, George? 25 MR. RUTHER: That way has probably been the • • n PEC 2128100 Page 13 1 way I've been looking at this for a while now, 2 so . . . 3 I believe that is all of the changes that I 4 have noted. Additionally, I "d like to point out and 5 enter into the record as part of the review of this 6 project, pursuant to chapter 12 --3 -6c of the town code, 7 we have sent notice to the adjacent property owners of 8 this meeting and of this public hearing today. Notice 9 was sent again to each of the adjacent property 10 owners. 11 There was some concern from the owners in 12 the Vail Gateway Plaza Building that they had not ! 13 received notice of previous meetings. So notice was 14 sent to multiple addresses at Stoltz Brothers 15 Management who is identified as the property owner for 16 that project. 17 Additionally, a courtesy letter was sent out 18 to all of the adjacent property owners on February 19 14th. That list of owners was downloaded from the 20 Eagle County assessor's information for all adjacent 21 property owners adjacent to the Vail Plaza Hotel. I 22 do want to point out that one letter was received by 23 our office returned, and that letter was sent to 24 Jeffrey and Joyce Diskin in Montville, Colorado, and 25 we received that returned to us. However, notice PFC 2/28/00 1 again was sent pursuant to our current town of Vail 2 regulations. 3 Notice was published in the paper, and it 4 was published in the Vail Daily on Friday, January -- 5 or, excuse me, February 11th of 2000. So we had 6 notice as of that. 7 MR. AASLAND: George, in regard to these 8 letters, it's like there'.s no assurance in a future 9 project that the town would notify absolutely every 10 person as we've done with -- what you've done, what 11 the applicant or the town, however it's been done, has 12 notified all the people as required and then the 13 additional letters are just a courtesy that we've done 14 for this project; is that true? 15 MFG. RUTHER: Correct. The additional 16 letters that were sent out were sent out as a 17 courtesy. And it states that in the letter that was sent. 19 MR. AASLAND: But this is not a change in 20 town policy. There's no assurance in the future that 21 additional letters will be sent out? 22 MR. RUTHER: Correct. All right. With 23 that -- 24 (Inaudible discussion) 25 MR. AASLAND: George, and Diane had a Page 14 • • PEC 2/28/00 Page 15 1 question. Did you have a question? 2 MR. RUTHER: What was your question? 3 MS. GOLDEN: No, I'm fine. I don't have a 4 question. 5 MR. AASLAND: Okay, and before the applicant 6 makes a presentation, Tom wants to disclose something. 7 MR. WEBER: Yeah, I'd like to disclose for 8 the record that I contacted Jay about providing 9 off -site housing a couple months ago. I do not 10 believe that this affects my vote. But if anybody 11 wishes to object, I will abstain from the vote. 12 MR. PETERSON: I certainly don't object. I X 13 don't think he would be influenced by our conversation 14 on his vote one way or the other. 15 MR. AASLAND: Jay, do you want to just -- 16 MR. PETERSON: It had to do with employee 17 housing located off the site, but in the town of Vail. 18 And also the conversation happened after the town 19 council had already voted and approved our project. 20 MR. AASLAND: And just for the record, I've 21 disclosed it before, but Jay is, in fact, my attorney. 22 But I always pay him unfortunately. And if anyone has 23 a problem with me voting in this, please disclose it. 24 Okay. 25 Jay, did you want to start a presentation? PEG 2/28/00 1 George, have you finished? 2 MR. RUTHER: I just wanted to go through and 3 show the setback that's being proposed. Did you want 4 to come up and take a look at it. 5 MR. PETERSON: The red line is where we were 6 in the approval -- in their last approval. This line 7 here is the 20 -foot setback line. This is our 8 encroachment into the 20 -foot setback. And the blue 9 represents the area that we could occupy up to our 10 setback that we are not. 11 The red, the outline is our old approved. -- 12 the old approval from the board. When we got to 13 council, then our approval was based on the 20 -foot 14 setback line. We did that the day of the council 15 meeting. We went out to the site and said: Okay, we 16 can hold it back, we will come back with a plan 17 showing it. 18 Since then, we have analyzed this to death. 19 And we have with the building, we lost about 14 feet 20 out of our lobby already, and we've had to 21 reconfigure, as George explained, a significant amount 22 of hotel rooms and fractional fee. We are asking for 23 this amount of encroachment, 36 square feet, into the 24 setback, and we are giving up this amount outside of 25 the setback that we could build in. Page 16 PEC 2 /28/00 Page 17 1 And if we did this, what would happen is 2 we'd have to -- we had a plan rotating this building. 3 And service lines became all skewed, and it didn't 4 make any sense to do it that way. I mean the building 5 was strange. And so we felt that this area here -- 6 and you say, well, why didn't you just take out that 7 little encroachment, is that it really does squeeze 8 our parking area down below, our portecochere, and 9 also we start to lose the big rooms. 10 But mostly it has to do with that ground 11 level, that we have taken out so much out of the lobby 12 now. And to push it back further, and the way the 13 pillars have to sit for structure in going in with all 14 of this -- because remember all of this is our 15 entrance area -- it became very, very difficult. 16 And we felt that this area in exchange for 17 this was more than sufficient. And we felt it really 18 made sense, and it really was the intent and meets the 19 intent of staying out of the 20 -foot setback 20 considering we could fill in this area which would 21 ' have a far greater impact on Vail Road., certainly on 22 the Gateway and certainly across the street, than 23 this. 24 MR. WEBER: To clarify, how many levels does 25 the 36 square feet happen on? PEC 2128/00 1 MR. LOSA: Three levels. 2 (Inaudible discussion) 3 MR. AASLAND: I think what we would ask at 4 this time is that the applicant make a presentation, 5 you can save that and make that once we start to do 6 the public comment, please. 7 (Inaudible discussion) 8 PEC MEMBER: Yes, please, and if you'd just 9 keep -- I mean if you need some paper to write down 10 what you want, we'd be happy to provide that. 11 MR. PETERSON: So we felt that that was a 12 valid tradeoff. And the way the entire building 13 works, we felt it was certainly something that was 14 worth pursuing. At first I said no, to take it out, 15 because it would be easier to take out that whole 16 area. But there's repercussions on the whole building 17 on that side. And rotating the building was not a 18 pleasant redo as far as the roof angles and how the 19 (inaudible) did not line up on the building if you try 20 to rotate it. 21 PEC MEMBER: Can you identify yourself. 22 MR. LOSA: I'm Tim Losa for the applicant. 23 MALE: Okay. 24 MR. LOSA: The ground floor plan here says 25 stair, and this comes up from a parking, a required Page 18 { • • PFC 2/28/00 Page 19 1 egress. And then based on the town's technical review 2 and their standard would be a minimum width access. 3 So this corner just represents essentially 4 (inaudible). 5 MR. RUTHER: Can you talk to the employee 6 housing units, where they're located and how you 7 provided them with only -- 8 MR. PETERSON: One thing in which you're 9 reviewing today is that we're asking you to pass on 10 the entire project again. If it were to be turned 11 down by the town council, the project doesn't go away. 1.2 We just simply go back to our old approval. And so we ! 13 end up with basically no employee housing. We do have 14 to, however, if they were to hold us to this, we would 15 have to honor that 20 -foot setback. That would be the 16 only thing that would change in our previous approval. 17 We felt that by coming back in and adding a 18 (end of tape 1) -- to compromise the project 19 internally as far as (inaudible) are concerned and 20 mainly hallways, bathrooms and things like this where 21 all your mechanical runs go, that we want to make sure 22 that we can have a first class building and to try to 23 save a foot and a half or so and compromise all that 24 on such a large scale building, it just doesn't make 25 much sense. PEC 2128/00 1 And the whole proposal is based on is it 2 worth having 38 beds on site for three and a half feet 3 maximum on the project? And the answer to us was yes, 4 we feel that that's a good proposal and something that 5 the town should (inaudible). 6 MR. LOSA: We have looked at it in terms of 7 providing employee housing. Previously on level one 8 we had truck loading bays, and that determined the 9 height of rooms involved. We had 14 feet plus another 10 three feet for structure, 14 feet for the trucks. By 11 adding three and a half feet, we can start to utilize 12 the area (inaudible) because the floors match up. We 13 have additional area office, lobby. So what we did 14 was we filled over the top of the service areas with 15 employee housing at three and a half feet and then 16 over the office areas in here, and left the lobby as 17 two -story space and two -story space over the 18 portecochere. 19 MR. PETERSON: So it was noncritical areas 20 that we were able to draw from basically two stories 21 down to one story and pick up internally that cubic 22 square footage and put it in the (inaudible). 23 MS. GOLDEN: So the employee housing doesn't 24 open up overlooking the lobby? 25 MR. LOSA: We have the corridors that open e � Page 20 r • PEC 2/28/00 Page 21 1 up, and we have to maintain our egress. We have a 2 stair that exits in this corner, and then we have our 3 second exit in this corner. Then we have these 4 bridges that kind of go across. 5 MR. WEBER: Is this glass or anything? 6 MR. RUTHER: I think the answer to your 7 question, you don't -- I don't believe you look from 8 inside the unit down into the lobby. 9 MR. LOSA: No. 10 (Inaudible discussion) 11 MR. LOSA: We do have a couple of units that 12 look into the atrium space over in this area. We have X 13 hotel rooms that stack like that. So this is -- it's 14 an enclosed area. You see sunshine. It's kind of 15 like an Embassy Suites comparison. 16 MR. PETERSON: And they're nice rooms. I 17 mean everybody has windows and everything else. It's 18 basically a hotel room. And we had room for it and we 19 made it into employee housing so it's not a buried 20 unit underground or anything like that. 21 MS. GOLDEN: But it's separated from the 22 guests? 23 MR. PETERSON: It's separated from the 24 guests. You know, it's a -- you know, because they're 25 on their own level. But we fully intend to have any PEC 2/28/00 Page 22 1 employees who will be on site, and they will be living 2 on site, we do not envision them -- trying to keep 3 them separate from guests or anything when they're off 4 duty. We feel it's more of a positive than any kind 5 of negative, to be honest with you. We feel guests in 6 this type of hotel will like the interaction with 7 employees. It's something I think has been lacking in 8 the Village. 9 MS. GOLDEN: So you are not worried about 10 noise? 11 MR. PETERSON: Yeah, we can certainly 12 control that. We have absolute control over that. if 13 it's too loud, we simply tell them to turn it down. :F 14 If they don't do it, they don't live there anymore. 15 And so we don't really view that as a problem. And l 16 think the employees will understand that, you know, 17 they are in a hotel and so they're going to have to be 18 cognizant of that. 19 I think we'll probably have more problems 20 with guests. I think that typically happens. And if 21 they get rowdy, they're on vacation. The employees 22 that are working all the time, they're not necessarily is 23 partying in their rooms, so . . . 24 MR. RUTHER: Do you have the building height 25 profiles that show the difference of the incremental • • PEC 2128/00 Page 23 M 1 increase in building (inaudible)? 2 MR. LOSA: These are the building height 3 diagrams. The red line represents what has been 4 approved. And then the new building line shows what 5 we're proposing. And in terms of the model, you'd be 5 looking at a quarter -inch of height, three - sixteenths 7 inch in height difference. 8 MR. AASLAND: (Inaudible), does that show 9 the 20 -foot setback on the existing building, or is 10 that what the presentation is (inaudible)? 11 MR. LOSA: The north elevation here, this is 12 the frontage road elevation. �3 MR. AASLAND: Okay. 14 MR. LOSA: This west elevation is Vasil Road. 15 (Inaudible discussion) 15 MR. LOSA: The red dashed line shows the 17 building back. The red line is the old one. 18 MR. AASLAND: But that's not what was 19 approved by council? 20 MR. PETERSON: By this board, actually it is 21 basically this. This is what you approved. 22 MR. AASLAND: But the town council did not 23 approve that? 24 MR. LOSA: No, we pulled it back to the 20 25 feet, and that's what this represents. The north PEC 2/28100 1 elevation complies with the 20 feet. 2 MR. AASLAND: Oh, there's another -- there's 3 a second -- 4 MR. LOSA: The south elevation which is this 5 corner that we're asking for three feet, which is 6 essentially to right there. 7 MR. AASLAND: Okay, so that line would 8 approximately be where the town council did before? 9 MR. PETERSON: That's right. We'd have to 14 go back and have that -- that would be the only 11 difference that we'd have to get approval for in 12 reliance on our old approval. We'd have to come back 13 and say can we encroach basically 36 square feet. 14 MR. LOSA: And again what we were looking at 15 doing is minimizing the kind of visual aspects or 16 impact of that setback. Design review had given us 17 initial preliminary approval on it. The indication 18 was that most people liked the elevations. It was not 19 a substantial redesign to that elevation. 20 MR. CAHILL: Going back to the building 21 height, why did you need to increase it? 22 MR. LOSA: Our whole building height was 2.3 based on truck loading delivery previously. We had 14 24 feet clear for the trucks, another three feet for 25 structure and mechanical. That gave us 17 foot first Page 24 0 PEC 2/28/00 Page 25 �1 floor. By adding three feet to that or three and a 2 half feet, we can put in two floors, one at ten feet 3 and one at ten feet six. And that allows us to put 4 employee housing over the nonservice areas. 5 MR. WEBER: What was being nonutilized. 6 MR. LOSA: Yes. (Inaudible) So our loading 7 delivery is at level 165 which is down here in this 8 volume. This is dedicated to loading and delivery, 9 and then we snuck in employee housing over the top. 10 MR. WEBER: You're not loading and delivery 11 underneath the employee housing, _are you? 12 MR. PETERSON: No, that's service. 13 MR. WEBER: That's not where that 14 incremental increase came from? 15 MR. LOSA: No. This L- shaped portion is 16 open. 17 MR. WEBER: Oh, I see. It's where the floor 18 above the employee housing was defined as what you 19 needed for ceiling height. 20 MR. LOSA: And then we utilized the same 21 floor space because our floors have to match up with 22 the elevators, we utilized the same floor space above 23 the office areas, check -in desks, accounting, 24 receiving, in these areas. So our lobby is still 25 two -story space, and then employee housing PEC 2128/00 Yag� 26 1 (inaudible). 2 MR. BER.NHARDT: So in the upper areas, did 3 you reduce your floor height from ten six to nine foot 4 to help squeeze that down? 5 MR. PETERSON: No, we can't go down to nine 6 because it's not physically possible to get the 7 structure in. What we are analyzing right now -- 8 that's why I talked about the maximum of three and a 9 half feet -- is squeezing a little bit per floor. And 10 the Austria House got caught in that bind because they 11 maximized at 48 feet so they squeezed the building. 12 If you walk into that building and go down the hall, 13 it's seven foot (inaudible). 14 MR. BERNHARDT: That's too short. 15 MR. PETERSON: And so we are reluctant - 16 what we're trying to do is take out inches. And 17 that's what we're going to be studying over the next 18 two weeks if we get the go -ahead is that we feel we 19 can squeeze it some to squeeze out -- to drop down to 20 ten feet is difficult, but we do have to knock it down 21 by a foot and a half or so. And so we're still 22 analyzing that. 23 What we don't want to do is really 24 compromise the building to save a foot. Nobody is 25 going to perceive that in the overall size of the • 0 PEA. 2/28/00 Page 27 1 building, and yet they will perceive that potentially 2 inside our hotel. And that's what we're trying to 3 stay away from. And we feel we can squeeze some. 4 MR. BERNHARDT: So did you say Sonnenalp 5 maintained their 48 -foot height"? 6 MR. PETERSON: The Austria House is 48 feet. 7 Yeah, it would have been much -- they were up around I 8 think 52 or so, and then squeezing down. And it shows 9 in the building. It shows in their parking structure, 10 and it shows in their lobby. That's too bad. You 11 know, I think the building would have been far better 12 inside and certainly (inaudible). To me that's a 3 shame to do that. 14 MR. BERNHARDT: But 48 feet, and you say 15 seven foot ceilings, and on a five foot story if you 16 had a foot per room, then you'd get 15 feet, but 17 currently you're at 77. 18 MR. PETERSON: But we have five floors, we 19 have five stories above grade. 20 MR. BERNHARDT: Right. 21 MR. PETERSON: But you have to remember ours 22 is a totally different proposal than the -- the 23 Austria House was -- 100 percent of their project was 24 at basically 48 feet. Our project, when the original _25 SDD was approved back in 1976, there were tradeoffs PEC 2/28/00 I for East Meadow Drive. Right along East Meadow Drive, 2 that could have been 48 feet. Those buildings are two 3 stories tall. 4 And so what the SDD 6 did was move low 5 heights along Meadow Drive except for architectural 6 features, and with the taller part up in the frontage 7 road. But you can't stay 48 feet here and be down at 8 30 some feet down there. That doesn't work. 9 And so that was the whole purpose -- that's 10 the whole purpose of the SDD. Not just this SDD but 11 any SDD, is to get the flexibility to provide 12 incentives to a developer to do certain things where 13 the town is getting something in return, especially 14 along pedestrian ways, and then giving something back 15 in areas that really can stand the height. 16 And so the whole idea of this SDD was a flow 17 of low to high. And when you look at even the master 18 plan, there's been a lot of discussion, everybody 19 keeps talking about the master plan being three 20 stories up here or four stories, that's simply not 21 true. It talks about this area here -- this is right 22 out of the action plan that this is four to five 23 stories along the frontage road and then it drops down 24 along Meadow Drive down there. 25 And you'll notice that the master plan also { Page 28 0 PEC 2128100 Page 29 1 at Gateway is that this is totally nonconforming 2 according to the master plan. And when the original 3 SDD was done, Gateway wasn't there. We had a gas 4 station there, and that was zoned commercial service. 5 And that had a maximum height of -- he had a sloped 6 roof of 38 feet. And 33 feet it was a flat roof or a 7 mansard roof. 8 And so when they went up, all of a sudden 9 the rules really changed. And the new master plan 10 reflects that. The original plan for that area along 11 this was one to one and a half stories. One story 12 here and possibly two back here. And then when they P came in, that really changed. And, of course, the 14 Roundabout changed everything. We've been through 15 this in the last go- around, but that has changed 16 everything. Because the four -way stop is in the 17 middle of the island. In fact, it's on the south part 18 of the island. 19 MR. CAHILL: (Inaudible) 20 MR. PETERSON: No, it's really hard because 21 there's so many (inaudible)_ This is to show you 22 what's more than 48 feet and what's under 28 feet. 23 It's about as close as we can get. I mean there's so 24 many roof angles and things like that. But, once 25 again, we've been through this on our previous PEC 2128/00 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 approvals, but we feel that adding, you know, a maximum of three and a half feet to this area through here is well worth getting 38 beds on site. MR. AASLAND: (Inaudible) MR. PETERSON: Yeah, this one is a little bit in conflict with what this talks about because of this area here. This building on the master plan will not be there. This is originally -- in the original 1976 approval, there was nothing in this area. That was going to be open space. And then Joel built on this space, and there were some tradeoffs that were made. Built on this space, filled it in. MR. AASLAND: Was that on SDD? MR. PETERSON: This is from the SDD. That's space 5 of the SDD. And so in the master plan, this is non -- basically a nonconforming aspect. The Gateway is a nonconforming aspect. I mean they say when the master plan was done, the building had not been approved -- had not been built yet. It was approved but not built. They said if it doesn't get built, then you need to relook at that building. MR. LOSA: (Inaudible) It's too tall. And that was based on this being one to two stories, three to four stories and stepping up to four to five. You Page 30 <: • • PEC 2128/00 Page 31 1 know, as you step this way and this way. 2 MR. PETERSON: Then that makes some sense 3 then. And that's actually what the plan showed from I 4 believe the 1984 (inaudible). And so this steps up 5 this way and everything -- and went up actually this 6 way. And in effect actually what has happened now is 7 that it's stepping up, which makes more sense, I think 8 the master plan shows that, is it steps up from Meadow 9 Drive up to the frontage road which does make sense. 10 You go from pedestrian to vehicular roads. 11 But this really set the tone for this area. 12 Plus the four -way stop was there when the master plan 1 13 was done. And that really did change everything in 14 that area. You don't stop there. Nobody looks to the 15 east anymore; you're always looking to the west when 16 you're going into the Roundabout. And so your eyes 17 are always just flowing around with the traffic. It's 18 a totally different area. 19 And so we feel -- I think everybody, even 20 me, and the Gateway people that -- I think it was 21 brought up that they said well, everybody relied on 22 that old approval when they brought (inaudible) in 23 town. Well, you know, there's that. And I think 24 (inaudible) talked to John Dunn about it, and there is 25 that view (inaudible). PEC 2/28/00 I And that adds a couple different components 2 as far as he was concerned, and that was that the 3 Gateway, Leo Palmer at the time, the developer of the 4 project, said that each purchaser would be fully 5 informed in writing of the approved development rights 5 belonging to the VVI, number one. In addition to 7 that, that prior to any sale, he'll obtain a signed 8 waiver of any interest, claim or what the purchaser 9 may have in an unobstructed view from the Gateway 10 project across the VVI property. 11 It`s not according to any approved plan or 12 anything else. That was paragraph one that they know 13 there's a plan in effect, but in addition to that you 14 don't have any right to complain about a view going 15 across my property. And:what Joe was concerned about 16 at that time is that he had changed a couple of 17 different times up to that point. Up to that point it 18 had been (inaudible) involved with three 19 modifications. And since then we've had now another 20 one, another two. 21 And so he was concerned about there was no 22 residential on that site, that that was a heavy 23 service district. And so I don't -- he didn't want 24 people complaining that hey, we're going to have 25 residential units here, and now these people are Page 32 • • PEC 2/28/00 Page 33 i1 complaining that I've got a big project back here and 2 they don't want it anymore. Well, he was concerned 3 about that. And people look at that record against 4 all of the Gateway project and all of their title work 5 shows that document. 6 And so they've had notice that they 7 certainly could have come over and they should have 8 seen that hey, this project has been modified several 9 different times. It was modified in -- first one was 10 '76. It was changed after that. It was changed in 11 '84. There was a couple different approvals after 12 that that never got built. And then Joe did the last X 13 one I think in 1992 for that last little (inaudible). 14 And so we think they've had plenty of 15 notice. And once again this has nothing to do with 16 the town or this board, but in trying to say what's 17 fair and what's fair to people, they had some notice 18 that this was going to be a hotel back there and this 19 was not a residential site. I think they did. I 20 don't know how they did not for the record. And so we 21 have done -- we have been more than fair to them, and 22 we have done certain things that, you know, trying to 23 be a compatible neighbor. But this is a hotel site, 24 and this was always to be where the height was. 25 I mean phase III and phase IV, and even PLC 2/28/00 1 phase V was really tall. But this area was always 2 where the height was. And even if you look at the 3 1984 approval, we are within a few feet of the height 4 here and here. There's an area behind here that was 5 absolutely flat because that was the corridor through 6 there that everybody was concerned about before the 7 Gateway was built. But once the Gateway was built, 8 it's gone. That view was gone. And that's what we 9 show with our site analysis here from various parts is 10 what does our building look like behind the Gateway X11 building. 12 MR. LOSA: This is the view from the 13 four -way stop. And the encroachment into that 1 14 supposedly for -- 15 MR. PETERSON: :This is the middle of the 16 highway. 17 MR. AASLAND: Jay, can you speak to this 18 while you're here about the height of this from that 19 previous approval, what year was that? 20 MR. LOSA: This building here -- this 21 represents the -- this is the gas station. 22 (Inaudible) And this was a flat roof, and that 23 preserved the view from the four -way stop which was 24 here up to Gold Peak. 25 MR. AASLAND: So how long -- Page 34 Is • P'EC 2/28100 Page 35 01 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 MR. LOSA: With this proposal with the employee housing, we're about four and a half feet taller, MR. PETERSON: You can see this ridge in comparison to these three. MR. AASLAND: Do you have an elevation that shows these two? MR. LOSA: We have one with the previous plan. And we're three and a half feet taller. (Inaudible discussion) MR. LOSA: This is the floor plan that the set plans overlay, and this is the previous approval. MR. AASLAND: Actually, I guess what I'd be interested in is comparing. MR. PETERSON: I think this green is -- (Inaudible discussion) MR. LOSA: So we're actually fairly close even though Gateway has a significant impact on these -- MR. AASLAND: But the center portion did not go across? MR. PETERSON: That's right, the center court did not. And, once again, whether that could have been built like that or not, and no encroachments D knows. But it did make sense at that PEC 2128!00 Page 36 1 time because that was a significant flat roof. 2 MR. LOSA: This elevation, is this elevation 3 here from Gateway as superimposed? q , MR. AASLAND: Oh, that's the Gateway, it's 5 not this. 6 MR. RUTHER: No, it's not the gas station. 7 It's the Gateway. 8 MR. LOSA: The Gateway's in front here. See 1 9 the flat roof in here, the ridge in here, and then it 10 steps down. 11 MR. CAHILL: So actually that ridge line is 12 identical to this ridge line? 13 MR. LOSA: We're asking to go up three and a 14 half feet from this point. 15 MR. PETERSON: This is our plan that's 16 approved. And so if the new plan is not approved, 17 this is what we would go back to, 18 MR. LOSA: This is along Vail Road. This is 19 the flat roof in here, the tall portion, and then this 20 is that ridgeline. 21 MR. AASLAND: So this and this, and this one 22 will compare with that elevation? 23 MR. LOSA: Yes, this elevation and this 24 elevation. 25 MR. AASLAND: Okay, and this -- basically PEC 2/28/00 Page 37 1 because this side is dropping across here. And that's 2 why this is lower across there? 3 MR. LOSA: Uh -huh. 4 MR. PETERSON: So the question is simply is 5 this worth the three and half feet. And we would give 6 you (inaudible) that we would study that. And, once 7 again, by the time we got to council you would 8 hopefully be (inaudible). It could be two. It's not 9 going to -- it's going to go up a little bit. It's 10 not going up, it will only go down, maximum three and 11 a half. I would guess we would end up around two and 12 a half. X 13 MR. LOSA: This plan was in place when the 14 master plan. This plan was approved and in place, and 15 the master plan does acknowledge that this was an 16 approved plan. 17 MR. AASLAND: (Inaudible) 18 MR. LOSA: This is 1988. 19 (Inaudible discussion) 20 MR. AASLAND: The approval was in '84 or 21 '88? 22 MR. PETERSON: '84. 23 MR. LOSA: This was in place when the master 24 plan --- and the master plan does acknowledge that this 25 was the direction that they wanted to go with this PLC 2128/00 PEC 2128/00 Page 38 1 site. If you look here, this was their loading and 2 delivery area, and it was one, two, three, four, five, 3 six and a half story building. 4 MR. PETERSON: Everybody kind of remembers 5 that building as -- you know, they remember what they 6 want to about that building. And also you can see 7 here, there's a lot of negatives to it too. This is 8 where it -- 9 (Inaudible discussion) 10 MR. PETERSON: You can see that the loading 11 came in here. This is for service. And so trucks 12 would back up from Vail Road, come into here, of 13 course block all parking. And this was the entryway 14 into the parking garage to here and then it came out 15. here. But this was the extent of their sloping. And 16 everybody had to back up from Vail Road. 17 So we have put all that up here, taken the 18 trucks off of Vail Road and simply put our lobby down 19 there. Here's how the original plan goes. But the 20 building was not significantly smaller than -- 21 MR. WEBER: It looks like they're attaching 22 to phase III. 23 MR. RUTHER: Yes, they attached into phase 24 III. 25 MR. LOSA: So they were all under one PEC 2128/00 Page 39 1 ownership at that point? 2 MR. RUTHER: Right When you go into phase 3 III today, there's that entrance for structured 4 parking. It actually circles around in there, 5 circulated in there, and then came back out into this 6 building for parking and then exiting. 7 MR. PETERSON: All of their parking flowed 8 through phase III into their parking structure. 9 MR. WEBER: Right, which is why that 1.0 entrance is on that side right now. 11 MR. PETERSON: Exactly correct. And so 12 we've (inaudible). We're keeping our parking separate �3 for the hotel. 14 MR. AASLAND: Jay, do you have any other 15 items that you'd like to present? 16 MR. PETERSON: No, I think that's -- I'd be 17 happy to answer any questions. 18 (Inaudible discussion) 19 MR. AASLAND: Okay, if you could identify 20 yourselves for the microphone so that we can keep a 21 record, please. 22 MS. SCALPELLA: My name is Gwen Scalpella. 23 I'm a part -time resident and I'm also president of the 24 homeowners association over there. And I believe I 25 spoke to this body back in December, having received PEC 2128/00 1 notice of the final meeting of the PEC by accident. 2 It's the only notice we've ever received. So although 3 we've taken some shots for being late in the game, I 4 apologize, but we have gotten no notice of any of 5 this. 6 You asked about how high the three and a 7 half foot encroachment into the -- four foot 8 encroachment into the setback was. And you were told 9 - the answer you got was three stories. And I'd like 10 to take issue with that, quite frankly. 11 When you start counting at zero and your 12 numbers go from zero, one, one and a half, two, you 13 get at least four. Can the south wing of this 14 building, zero, if I read the plans correctly, and I 1.5 may be wrong, level zero is lobby, level one I think 16 is rooms, then they've got another one and a half and 17 a level two. And I believe the first group setback on 18 this south wing of the building on Vail Road is the 19 next level up. So that tells me that we've got four 20 full facade levels, if I'm counting correctly, that 21 are into the 20 -foot setback that the council has 22 approved. 23 On the north side or on the north wing, if 24 you will, on Vail Road, if we count the same way, I 25 believe before you get your first roofline setback, Page 40 0 PEC 212$100 Pape: 41 p 1 you have level zero, one, one and a half, two and 2 three. When you have two more levels which are set 3 back which gives you seven stories in the north wing 4 on Vail Road, six stories in the south wing. But 5 those that are not set back are not -- zero, one, one 6 and a half, two, four stories and five stories, I 7 believe, on the two sites. 8 We have to count the levels, and you have to 9 start with zero. And that makes it trouble when we 10 start counting zero. 11 MR. AASLAND: Do you have additional things 12 that you'd like to talk about, or do you want -- would ,13 you like them to address that with you, or how would 14 you like to do that? 15 MS. SCALPDLLA: I'd like a response. If I'm 16 counting correctly, I think Mr. Peterson's entitled to 17 tell me that I'm counting incorrectly. I studied 18 these plans and tried very hard to count. And if I'm 19 counting them wrong, I think it's only fair that he 20 rebut. 21 MR. AASLAND: Okay. Jay or 'Tim, could you 22 please help us with that, please. 23 MR. LOSA: We've got ---- this is the west 24 elevation from Vail Road. We've got -- I believe 25 George is counting here. We've got one story which is PEC: 2/28/00 1 our lobby, two stories, the balcony, three stories if 2 we count windows. Three stories and then -- 3 MR. AASLAND: (Inaudible) 4 MR. LOSA: Excuse me? 5 MR. AASLAND: You have additional 6 (inaudible). 7 MR. RUTHER: Yes, which -- the Vail. Village 8 master plan talks to that, however. The Vail Village 9 master plans talks to the stories of the building 10 (inaudible). So it says three stories plus a roof, 11 four stories plus a roof, five stories plus a roof. 12 It doesn't imply that to get to that service story you 13 have a flat roof. 14 MS. SCALPELLA: But the first story is a 15 double story too, so you really have to count that as 16 two. 17 MR.. AASLAND: How high is the first story? 18 MR. LOSA: It's 20 feet floor to floor, and 19 that's where we have put the employee housing. 20 MR. BERNHARDT: And the master plan does 21 call for a story equal to nine feet. 22 MR. LOSA: Yes, which is technically not 23 feasible. 24 MR. PETERSON: It never was possible. 25 MR. AASLAND: George, can you answer, we Fage 42 • U FEC 2/28/00 Page 43 '1 dealt with this a few years ago on the Lions Head 2 master plan. And when we did that, we talked about a 3 higher floor to floor on the first story. Is that 4 applicable to the Vail Village or how -- could you 5 just stress that maybe? 6 MR. RUTHER: In the Lions Head redevelopment 7 master plan, we identified because of changing trends 8 and construction and hotel properties, I believe the 9 floor to floor is ten six or less feet floor to floor. 10 MR. AASLAND: That's the minimum or maximum? 11 MR. RUTHER: Well, that's maximum. That's 12 how you come up with an 82 -foot overall building 13 height. 14 MR. AASLAND: Was part of that process that 15 we talked about a higher floor to:.floor on the first 16 level? 17 MR. RUTHER: It wasn't -- 18 MR. AASLAND: Yeah, we did. 19 MR. RUTHER: I'm not aware of it. If you 20 did, you did, but I'm not aware of that. 21 MR. AASLAND: Is that applicable at all to 22 this? 23 MR. RUTHER: That applies to Lions Head. 24 MR. AASLAND: Okay. So that wouldn't be 25 applicable to this then? PEC 2/28/00 1 MR. RUTHER: No. 2 MR. LOSA: Retail, restaurant, hotel lobby, 3 it's not salable unless you've got at least a ten foot 4 ceiling. And that's an absolute minimum.. 5 MR. PETERSON: When you look in hotel 6 lobbies, they may be 14 feet, 15 feet, it's certainly 7 something that you see all the time. And that's what 8 the Lions Head master plan has been updated. The Vail 9 Village master plan has not be updated for those . 10 things. But you will not see major hotels built with 11 a ceiling (inaudible). 12 MR. AASLAND: So can you just address this 13 one more time with the stories. So can you talk what 14 you feel are your stories, and could you maybe say how 15 you feel about that? 16 MR. PETERSON: T would say what she's 17 saying. What we've got is we were thinking -- that 18 first story is 20 feet floor to floor, so you have a 19 fair amount of structure. There's probably, what, an 20 18 -foot ceiling or 17 -foot ceiling. 21 MR. LOSA: Seventeen foot. 22 MR. PETERSON: Seventeen -foot ceiling. And 23 if you take out the structure, we've divided that into 24 two floors. We've taken ceiling footage in the office 25 areas, not in the lobby area, and we've just -- and e i Page 44 • 0 PEC 2/28/00 Page 45 1 we've made that into an additional floor. We needed a 2 little bit more height because of the structure to get 3 two floors out of what this space was, 20 foot floor 4 to floor. 5 But, once again, we're both right. I mean 6 she's not incorrect when she says now in certain areas 7 on this, if you count floors or count windows, we'd 8 have an additional floor in this office area. In the 9 front it does not read that way. You know, because 10 the lobby is what you see in the front. 11 MS. SCALPELLA: (Inaudible) And you've got 12 one, two, three, four levels above that roof setback X13 area. We counted zero, that's five. The first floor 14 level has always been counted as -- you know, it's 15 always been two. So it depends on how you want to 16 count. If you count the equivalent master plan 17 building floor to floor height levels, your intrusion 18 into the setback is four stories. 19 MS. GOLDEN: So that's your objection is 20 that this (inaudible). If it wasn't in the setback 21 area -- 22 MS. SCALPELLA: What I was trying to do is I 23 was trying to make a point of clarification. I took 24 issue with what -- it sounds like a little bit of a de 25 minimus response to the question. A question was PP,C 2128100 Page 46 1 asked: How many stories is this intrusion into the 2 setback? And the answer was three. To me that was a 3 little bit of an unfair answer because in cases 4 relative to building heights, it's four any way you 5 count it. And I wanted to make that point. 6 MR. PETERSON: Okay, so we have 36 square 7 feet in that one little area. In the middle we only 8 really have three floors, one of which is almost a 9 double story. This is our lobby area. But you're 10 right, in that one little corner which is 36 square 11 feet if it's multiplied by four, that gives you an 12 accurate 13 MR. WEBER: There's no floor level on this 14 lower level, though. 15 MR. LOSA: No. You are 90 percent -- or.70 16 percent over. 17 MR. WEBER: It's just that structure of the 18 apportioned share. 19 (Inaudible discussion) 20 MR. PETERSON: Actually in the setback that 21 we do have, isn't there three floors in that setback 22 area? 23 MR. LOSA: Well, no, this is setback so that 24 is not in the setback. 25 MR. PETERSON: So it is over three floors. .............. -1 ............ PF,C 2/28/00 3 Page 47 1 It's two floors in the setback because the 2 portecochere is in the setback, and this top story 3 because it's in the roof is a setback. 4 MR. WEBER: This half level is not in the 5 setback either because that's part of the portecochere 6 as well, correct? 7 MR. PETERSON: That's right. 8 MR. WEBER: So really it's 36 square feet 9 times two. 10 MR. AASLAND: Okay. 11 MR. PETERSON: This is getting ridiculous. 12 But a point of clarification, but in that area, 1 13 because it's this area right here that, as you can 14 see, this area is all open until -- the first two 15 levels actually. But one level is open. 16 MR. AASLAND: Okay. Just to keep this 17 moving, Jay, could you speak about this portion here. 18 MR. PETERSON: None of that portion is in 19 the setback. That's out of the setback. 20 MR. AASLAND: Is that the way you understood 21 it too? 22 MR. PETERSON: Yeah. All of the blue is out 23 of the setback. Our building starts back here. 24 MR. CAHILL: The blue is where you could go. 25 MR. PETERSON: The blue is where we could PEC 2128/00 Page 48 1 go. And that's what we looked at doing is turning and 2 rotating the building (inaudible). So if we honored 3 the setback, we could do it that way. We felt that 4' this was, one again, in the underlying zone district, 5 the 20 foot is not a magic setback. And you can 6 present reasons why you are encroaching in certain 7 areas. We feel that the encroachment here is 8 certainly valid tradeoff for all of that. And that is 9 in the underlying zone district. 10 MR. AASLAND: Do you have additional 11 questions? 12 MR. SCAPELLO: (Inaudible) We reviewed at 13 the February quarterly meeting with the board of 14 directors where we stood, and they asked us to 15 represent them. And we.are here to (inaudible) the .. 16 subsequent sessions. 17 MR. AASLAND: Okay, so you're a homeowner, 18 and you're in this building over here? 19 MR. SCAPELLO: Uh -huh. Comments on two 20 points. First is the four -foot setback. Which of 21 these -- this one shows the employee housing, correct? 22 MR. LOSA: Uh- huh. 23 MR. SCAPELLO: Employee housing is here, 24 four -foot setback is here, there is no impact on the 25 four -foot housing -- four -foot setback by the employee • 0 PEC 2/28/00 Page 49 1 housing. 2 MR. WEBER: Correct. 3 MR. LOSA: well, where that space -- this is 4 the minimum distance that the town engineer has 5 allowed us for two way. This egress and this corner 6 is where we need our second egress on our safety 7 codes. If we start to push this back, we don't 8 maintain the integrity of our elevation, we don't 9 maintain our egress for this employee housing. 10 MR. PETERSON: I'm aware of the employee 11 housing. where is the second floor? What is this'? 12 MR. AASLAND: Third floor. This is level E 13 one and a half. 14 MR. PETERSON: What it is is when we met, 15 you featured all of this for the employee housing 16 because all of this had to do -- you started all of 17 this with the employee housing along with the setback. 18 Because the whole building in that area was 19 reconfigured. So it's not just the employee housing 20 that was redone. All of this stuff over the employee 21 housing also had to be reconfigured. 22 And so if somebody -- I mean to say that 23 this doesn't touch the employee housing and so 24 consequently we can't do that, number one is this is 25 the major amendment to the SDD and this is part of our PEC 2128100 1 proposal so we have every right to ask for that. And 2 so that's what we're doing. And the reason that we 3 started that is because of the employee housing along 4 with the requirement of that 20 -foot setback also. 5 And, once again, I mean I think this stands 6 on its own. 7 MR. AASLAND: And under the PA zoning, 8 you're allowed to encroach if you can present 9 reasonable reasons why it should be, you're allowed to 10 encroach into -- say you were to do this in a variance 11 procedure, you wouldn't even have to ask for a 12 variance to do that. 13 MR. PETERSON: 'That's exactly right. You 14 don't even have to show a variance under the 15 underlying zoning law. 16 MR. BERNHARDT: What is in these units? 17 MR. L ©SA: These are fractional fee units on 18 one and a half. 19 (Inaudible discussion) 20 MR. AASLAND: Back to that, that actually 21 occurs on single family -- every zoning property in 22 town has allowed that. 23 (Inaudible discussion) 24 MR. AASLAND: I guess from the board's 25 standpoint, we're reviewed SDD but if we reviewed a Wage 50 • PEC 2/28/00 Page 51 1 single family residence or most any other property in 2 town, a balcony would be allowed by right. 3 MR. SCAPELLO: 'What we have here, however, 4 is the approval that was granted by the council of 96 5 hotel units. We now have 99 hotel units. So I don't 6 see where these three additional feet are preventing 7 the developer from providing the 38 employee housing 8 units without going into the 20 -foot setback. 9 I see it as a separate incremental request 10 beyond responding to the 38 employee housing units. 11 MR. RUTHER: Galen, if I can respond to 12 that. The council did approve 96 accommodation units r 13 on the property and required a 20 -foot setback along 14 the property line. That was at second reading of the 15 ordinance. The applicant was asked: What is the 16 impact of maintaining the 20 -foot setback on the 17 property? The applicant guessed it was three 18 accommodation units, so we said three accommodation. 19 units. 20 Obviously from this plan, the applicant was 21 incorrect in his speculation that it was three 22 accommodation units and, in fact, it could maintain or 23 substantially maintain. the 20 -foot setback without 24 losing any accommodation units. I don't know if the 25 council would have approved 99 that way or not. I PEC 2/28/00 1 think it's up to them. 2 But I think the point to consider here is 3 the applicant was asked at a public hearing: How many 4 hotel rooms are you going to lose? They estimated 5 three accommodation units. Three accommodation units 6 went into the ordinance that way. 7 Just as the applicants indicated to you 8 there will be -- they're proposing a maximum building 9 height of an additional three and a half feet; 10 however, with additional study, I don't think they're 11 going to make the same mistake again and say, yeah, we 12 can do it at 18 inches and realize we can't do it at 13 18 inches and they need 20 inches to do it. So I 14 think what they're saying is the same thing they said 15 at the meeting here, yes, we're going to lose three. 16 Obviously they did not need to lose an entire three 17 accommodation units with the intent of the setback on 18 the building. 19 MR. PETERSON: What they did was -- I mean 20 it's not simply -- we thought it would be just a 21 simple matter of just lobbing off the building. And 22 we did not do that. We went back in and redesigned 23 all of those floors after we lost 1,200 square feet of 24 GRFA, reconfigured, lost two keys, actually the first 25 of three keys. They came out of not of hotel rooms Wage 52 • C PEC 2128/00 Page 53 ` 1 which is a positive thing for the town; they came out 2 of the fractional fee. 3 MR. RUTHER: But consideration that also 4 came up at the council level very early on in this 5 project was there was a question as to the incremental 6 increase and the number of accommodation units that 7 this hotel project was provided. I think there's 76 8 hotels on the site today. This will provide an 9 additional 23 accommodation units. Obviously there's 10 a fractional fee component. 11 If I recall correctly, the council member 12 brought that up as a concern. Specifically wanted to 1 13 see more accommodation units on the property. 14 MR. SCAPELLO: My whole point on this is the 15 setback. The intrusion into the setback is not 16 necessary to meet the 38 employee housing units 17 because it can be done by rebalancing the additional 18 three hotel units that are being requested. 19 MR. AASLAND: Fractional fee units. 20 MR. SCAPELLO: No, additional three hotel 21 units. 22 MR. AASLAND: Okay. 23 MR. SCAPELLO: The second point is the 24 parking. The number of additional units that they've 25 added and the employee housing units, and there is no PEC 2 /28 /00 1 increase in the parking spaces allowed for employee 2 housing. 3 MR. AASLAND: is that true, Jay? 4 MR. PETERSON: Yes. what it is -- George, 5 do you want to respond? 6 MR. RUTHER: If you turn in your attachments 7 to the parking analysis we provided. As you're all 8 aware, parking in the town of Vail is proportioned 9 based upon the square footage of the uses being 10 proposed in the building. In the parking square 11 footages that the code requires, it assumes parking 12 spaces for not only the guests for the users of that 13 space, but it also takes into consideration the 14 employees that are either housekeepers for the 15 accommodation units, waiters, waitresses, hostess, 16 chefs in a restaurant or cashiers and clerks in retail 17 spaces. So it takes that into account in the parking 18 numbers. 19 On attachment I, when we went through these 20 numbers and looked at the employee housing that was 21 being provided on site, the original employee housing 22 required (inaudible). in looking at the parking 23 requirements that are proposed, it does not 24 contemplate that employee housing units are located at 25 the same site as the employee locating or where Page 54 LJ • PEC 2/28/00 Page 55 1 they're working. So when it takes into consideration 2 drive -in parking, in the numbers already for parking 3 at the restaurant, for example, parking is also 4 considered not only for guests but for employees of 5 the restaurant. 6 With the employee housing units being on 7 site, we did not believe it was appropriate to require 8 an additional parking requirement for the employee 9 housing units that are on the same site as the 10 location that the employees go to work. Essentially 11 we thought it's double dipping the developer or the 12 applicant for parking spaces. It's not like I'm going I 13 to leave the restaurant and go from one parking space 14 and move my car to the one next door. 15 1 MR. WEBER: Or, more importantly, you're not 16 going to live there and not work at the hotel. 17 MR. PETERSON: That's right. An issue was 18 raised by a gentleman earlier this afternoon, he said 19 well, what about the employee that can potentially go 20 to another job (inaudible). Once the employee is on 21 site, he lives there and his car is there all the 22 time. He works eight or ten hours a'day. There could 23 be another employee coming in behind him to take over 24 his function for the second shift, but his car is 25 still there, where if he's living off site, his car PEC 2/28100 1 would be potentially gone. 2 I guess there's a certain validity to that. 3 But, once again, it is a matter of us controlling our 4 parking. We have met 100 percent of our parking 5 requirement with Vail, very few valet spaces. And 6 that could happen for the odd person, I would guess. 7 But most of the people that live here will probably be 8 working four hours at this hotel and probably work 9 less hours at another job because they are living 10 there in town. 11 Also, if it does become a problem, our 12 overall concern is the guest. The employees are 13 obviously important to us, but we can restrict the 14 fact that whether an employee can have a car or not if 15 he lives on site. There's very little reason for them 16 to have a car if they are on site. If we can control 17 the person that is going to be living in a facility 18 like this will be a person that has come to work for 19 us and our first six months, maybe a year, and then 20 when he's hopefully still with us, he will probably 21 get other housing and live elsewhere. And then the 22 next wave of transient employees would come and stay 23 in this type of a facility. 24 And I think it's easily controlled. That's 25 a point to ponder, but I guess that could happen in Page 56 • • PEC 2128/00 Page 57 ` 1 all facilities when you have employees. They come and 2 they go to work at your facility, they park there, 3 they go to a different job, their car is still there 4 potentially. If they're still in town, I don't think 5 they're going to move their car. But also when that 6 person is there during the day, at nighttime if 7 somebody else --- if we have a problem with parking, it 8 will obviously be at night at that point. And the 9 parking structures in town are never full at night. 10 We should have a parking problem in town at night. 11 MR. RUTHER: I think a simple solution to 12 this is we can simply go to the applicant, simply go �3 back and add valet spaces to the parking structure. 14 It doesn't increase the capacity of parking on the 15 property. It doesn't change the parking structure 16 inside or configuration one bit. It just provides -- 17 MR.. WEBER: Well, that's what my question 18 is. I think we saw an application with tandem 19 parking. 20 MR. PETERSON: Yeah, we took out -- in this 21 proposal, what we also did is we redesigned our 22 parking lot, went down another half level and so we 23 were able to get rid of -- we do not have many valet 24 spaces left. And so technically you end up with a lot 25 more spaces. So we have plenty --- if anybody wants to PEC 212$100 1 play that game, we can certainly play it as far as 2 valet spaces. Realistically they would never be used, 3 but we can mark them. It's just a matter of control. 4 The other thing is on this parking, 100 5 percent of our parking is located inside which the 6 parking ordinance gives you no credit for. And 7 typically in the wintertime here in a parking lot you 8 are going to lose I would guess 30, 40, 50 percent of 9 your parking because you don't have the stripes and 10 because of snow storage. A hundred percent of our 11 parking is usable 100 percent of the time so I think 12 we have plenty of parking, and if we have to provide 13 additional parking for a nonexistent problem, it's 14 ridiculous. .15 MR. SCAFELLO: There are two 16 interpretations, and both are extremes in this 17 situation but true. Including if the employee housing 18 is on site, then (inaudible). Clearly the employees 19 are working at the hotel, in the time during which 20 they are working is accounted for as (inaudible) the 21 way the hotel and service area -- hotel spaces versus 22 parking spaces are accounted for. 23 However, the truth is in between. They are 24 working approximately eight hours a day. There's 16 25 hours a day that they are residents, and that is not Page 58 ' 0 �J PEC 2128/00 Page 59 ` 1 accounted for in the parking. I think you need to 2 address that because this may be the first time you 3 have seen this, and I think you will need to address 4 this in a way that sets the standards of how you're S going to address it in the future. 6 I don't think you can take either of the two 7 extremes. You have to account for the fact that they 8 are there 24 hours a day and only working eight or 9 nine. True, additional spaces are required. I don't 10 know how many. 11 MR. PETERSON: I disagree with that, but 12 we'll go ahead, if somebody would like us to, we will 1 13 certainly mark spaces on the map. 14 MR. LOSA: Only a portion of the employees 15 (inaudible). There are not three shi.fts for every 16 employee. 17 MR. RUTHER: Is it physically possible to 18 show 38 more valet parking spaces? I believe it is. 19 MR. AASLAND: Actually I'd have a question 20 for you then in regard to that. Beings one of the 21 reasons that we're here is because the town council 22 requested I believe it was on approval that they come 23 back and ask for employee housing on the site, do you 24 think it's an unfair burden to not only have them put 25 employees on site, but the parking additionally to PEC 2/28/00 1 that, or do you think it's fair to have both? 2 MR. SCAPELLO: You cannot put employees on 3 the site and not give them any place to park. 4 MR. PETERSON: That's not true. We could 5 certainly not allow them to have cars. That's a 6 simple solution. But if you want to live right in 7 town, I mean it happens all the time. Most of the 8 employees that will be there would probably not have a 9 car anyway. So that is the simplest solution is if 10 that's required, that's something that we would do. 11 It seems ridiculous to make that requirement when 12 we're going to have a parking garage that's literally 13 going to be 50 percent empty. 14 MR. SCAPELLO: I think you could declare 15 that and leave it up to council as to whether they 16 want to accept it. 17 MR. WEBER: It's not uncommon for businesses 18 in the Vail Village core to not provide parking. I 19 can think of lots of different -- 20 (Inaudible discussion) 21 MR. SCAPELLO: You need to address it. You 22 need to either say since no additional spaces are 23 provided, employee parking must be off site; or since 24 some level of employee parking is provided, how many 25 additional spaces are required. Page 60 is 0 PEC 2128100 Page 61 1 MR. PETERSON: I think that's absolutely 2 correct. When we made the proposal for employee 3 housing units to the town council, I think I remember 4 specifically stating that there would not be 5 additional parking places because of adding employee 6 housing to the site because they were already -- they 7 would be driving there anyway. There would be the S primary employees there. I just don't think it's 9 necessary. 10 And as part of our proposal, this is what 11 our proposal is, and you have every right to vote on 12 that in the SDD process. And you certainly have the 1 13 power to allow that to happen. Not only does it from 14 a legal standpoint, but from a practical standpoint, 15 it's absolutely valid. 16 MR. AASLAND: Actually you brought up a very 17 good point. Do you have any other questions? 18 (Inaudible discussion) 19 MR. AASLAND: Yeah, we're doing public 20 comment right now. So if you'd like to say anything 21 in regard to this, please just come forward and 22 identify yourself. 23 Okay, do you want to identify yourself. 24 MS. MACKEY: My name is Annette Mackey. 25 MR. AASLAND: You're just supporting? PEC 2/28/00 PEC 2/28/00 Page 62 1 MS. MACKEY: Yes. 2 MR. AASLAND: Okay. With that, I think -- 3 MR. WEBER: Galen, there's additional public 4 comment. 5 MR. AASLAND: Oh, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. 6 Certainly. 7 MR. JENSEN: For the record, my name is Wes 8 Jensen. I'm with Mountain Air Properties, 9 Incorporated. It's an exclusive managing agent for 10 Mountain Owners which is the proud owner of 17,644 11 square feet of Gateway. We probably known to this man 12 as the white elephant, among other things. 13 I'm not here today -- also we are the 14 majority owner of the Gateway building since it is all 15 -- the majority condo owner. I'm not here to speak or 16 represent what the residential condo owners have 17 identified as their own issues. I am here to simply 18 state for the commercial space how we feel about these 19 particular issues that are on the table here today. 20 I praise their efforts here at -- I think 21 this is a great trio for this work of encroachment as 22 opposed to doing what they could do as a solution. 23 Because the commercial spaces will have little if any 24 view once this building is done. But the views are 25 not issue. View for our commercial space is -- really PEC 2/28/00 Page 63 1 do not take on the nature that is an issue with us. 2 We're really more concerned about seeing 3 this project get developed and have the synergy of the 4 hotel with the commercial spaces that are there, The 5 signs in these spaces up here in this corner would 6 definitely impact us in this blue- shaded area if it 7 were built on it as they could be allowed to do. So I 8 think this is a great tradeoff. I think it's 9 substantial, and I think it's acceptable. 10 As I said, we have no issues with height 11 from the commercial spaces' standpoint. So those are 12 my brief comments. I think you should at least note M 13 that part of the Gateway building is supportive. 14 MR. AASLAND: Great. Thank you very much 15 for coming in. Chuck, do you -- 16 MR. OGILBY: No. 17 MR. AASLAND: Okay, if there's no additional 18 public comments, I think we'll take about five 19 minutes. Let's take five minutes. 20 (Pause) 21 MR. AASLAND: Okay, we're going to go back 22 on the record, please. We'd like to go back on the 23 record, please. Okay, we're going to go back and go 24 to commissioner comments and questions next. Chas, 25 did you want to say something first? PEC 2/28/00 PFC 2128100 Page 64 . 1 MR. BERNHARDT: Sure. In trying to learn 2 more about this whole process going on here, I have 3 been in communication with the Gateways representative 4 and which Jay has already alluded to. And I got some 5 of my information so I could get more background 6 informational stuff. 7 I'm not using any of that in my discussions. 8 I'm just using the proposal -- or this packet put 9 together by George. 10 MR. AASLAND: Okay. If we can go to 11 commissioner comments and questions, let's go to Doug 12 first, please. 13 Oh, wait, start on the other side with Tom. 14 I'm sorry. It's important to alternate. 15 MR. CAHILL: I'll pass the table to Tom 16 again. 17 MR. WEBER: Thanks. I guess I really have 18 too many points, and I'll try to address the public 19 comment as well. First of all, as I stated before, 20 I've been in favor of this project in that I've also 21 been in favor of the deviation from the master plan, 22 specifically in regard to the additional accommodation 23 units that are being placed on this site which are 24 much needed in a town which I see as a deficit in the 25 town. And so I believe that those are outweighed, PFC 2128100 Page 65 1 although they're not a given. And I think we've had 2 some give and take with these guys so far. 3 In addition, I do think that this 4 application is a lot better than the previous one that 5 frankly I approved. In fact, I approved a much larger 6 encroachment on that setback prior, and this one is 7 much better. 8 And really the reason why I did approve the 9 larger setback is really to be more in conformance 10 with the buildings on each side in terms of their 11 encroachment on that street. And just in terms of 12 street scape architecture, it makes more sense to try M 13 to line up with the buildings next to you. 14 But I do think that this application is 15 better_ I also think that they've demonstrated that 16 vehicular access can be accommodated better with the 17 addition of that left turn lane. I haven't seen that 18 drawn on any plans before, but I think that that is -- 19 was an element that I was concerned with before, and I 20 definitely like seeing that on there. 21 I'm also very much in favor of having the 22 EHUs on site. I actually at a prior meeting that I 23 would be in favor of actually adding an entire floor 24 to get those EHUs on site because I felt like that was 25 such an important component. PEC 2/28100 I I think the three foot encroachment that 2 they're proposing now is -- doesn't bother me that 3 much. And I would really be concerned with, I guess 4 -- how should I say this -- deviating from really what 5 needs to be quality hotel bedrooms and trying to stick 6 these guys to a smaller floor to floor height. I 7 definitely wouldn't want to try to have these guys 8 squeeze six or twelve inches out of it because I think 9 that's probably the same hole that other developers 10 fell into in the 1 70s and '80s when they built their 11 hotel rooms which are frankly grossly outdated now. 12 And I'm also very much in support with the 13 addition of the Ags, as I've said. That's really the 14 main benefit of this project are those accommodation 15 units. And frankly if they could add three or four 16 more, I'd still be in favor of it. 17 And in terms of the parking, I can see both 18 sides of the argument. I could also argue that most 19 of the employees that are going to be working in this 20 hotel frankly don't have a car. And I do have 21 firsthand knowledge of this in that I live around 22 people who work in this hotel. Especially if they're 23 going to live in -- you know, if they're going to get 24 such a great unit anyway, I don't see why they'd need 25 a car. And it's certainly within the developer's best Page 66 0 C PEC 2 /28/00 Page 67 1 interest to keep parking clear for really the guests, 2 which is what it's needed for. 3 And so I guess I am in favor of the 4 application as well as the findings as stated by the 5 staff. 6 MR. AASLAND: Doug, please. 7 MR. CAHILL: All right. Start out with 8 thanking George for all the work he's put into this 9 and the efficient use of so much paper. 10 Yeah, going through the list and starting 11 with the building height, it was real interesting 12 looking at those '84 plans. I hadn't seen those 13 before, and that comes right in at the same height in 14 '84. 15 The only issue I really have with the 16 building was, you know, which worried me from the 17 beginning was just the bulk and mass on, you know, 18 Vail Road itself. Just creating a cavern in there. 19 And I had an issue with that third lane, and those 20 have been addressed. And that's setback, that's great 21 to have that setback come out within the 20 feet. And 22 that small three and half foot out of the corner, no 23 matter how tall it is, just doesn't make any 24 difference. I think you want to keep the integrity of 25 the building. PEC 2/2$100 Page 68 1 1 think Jay mentioned something about it had 2 to do with the underground stuff too. And I think I'm 3 very comfortable with whatever you can go right up 4 to the front underground by keeping the setback. If 5 you need an extra parking space underground, I'm all 6 in favor of going into the setback underground. So 7 the three-foot setback is not a problem at all. 8 Overall square footage, I think there was a 9 small increase in square footage overall from the last 10 proposal. And due to the employee housing, I think 11 that's fantastic, get that employee housing in there 12 and unfortunately that may put the height again up 13 that three and a half feet. But I think you're doing 14 due diligence in trying to keep that three and a half 15 foot at a maximum and, as Tom said, keep the integrity 16 of the interior of the building. I think you've come 17 this far, and you're still working on that portion; 18 you want to make it a good project so stay with that. 19 Parking numbers. Parking numbers is a wash, 20 1 think. You know, the total number of parking spaces 21 is 376 or whatever versus 387. Those numbers are 22 huge. I don't know what parking structure before, 23 other than the Vail and the Lions Head parking 24 structures. And dealing with the parking issues, the 25 research going on, I think we're very ample in PFC 2/28/00 Page 69 1 parking. We've got plenty of parking for the project. 2 And if it does become a problem, the 3 instance of having employees park outside or 4 otherwise, you know, those can be handled. I don't 5 think you're going to run into a problem personally. 6 But there are instance where, I think, the Sunbird 7 itself, you know, for Vail project, there's no parking 8 as an employee unit. And those employee units don't 9 have parking on site either, and it's handled. 10 The conditions, we've got quite a long list 11 of conditions. And I hope you agree with all those 12 conditions, and those are part of it. Do you have any 13 questions against any of those conditions? 14 MR. PETERSON: No, no. Actually the list 15 has gone down a little bit. But most -of those 16 conditions when you read through them really have more 17 to do with just how we go from point A to point B to 18 get our building permit. 19 And on any project that is approved whether 20 it's an SDD or you're specifically going through the 21 Design Review Board, you see a list of probably 15 22 conditions where they all have to do with basically 23 engineered drawings, things like that, drainage, 24 things that just have to be --- we have to provide at 25 the building permit level or at TCO actually in some PEC 2/28/00 Page 70 1 1 cases. So even though the list seems long, and that 2 bothered some people, almost all of them are simply 3 housekeeping matters and everybody _- we want to have 4 a complete list so everybody knew, everybody was on 5 the same page, what was expected prior to building 6 permit. 7 MR. CAHILL: Yeah, and the other 8 recommendation is you approach council too -- I don't 9 know if you have a rebuttal to each of those 10 conditions that would kind of help you out. 11 MR. PETERSON: I think we explained it 12 several times. And actually there was just one member 13 of council that continually had questions about it, 14 saying there were so many conditions you must not be 15 ready to go yet. But, once again, if you start by 16 stacking the conditions, you can see what they are. 17 MR. CAHILL: Let's see, as we move on to the 18 conditional use permit for the fractional fee units, I 19 guess I'm in favor of warm beds. I think Aus you're 20 at 99 AUs and the fractional fee units, and I like the 21 idea of how they can transfer over, I believe, in the 22 summertime for use as convention space also to having 23 all within the building. 24 MR. PETERSON: Actually, the fees we'll sell 25 a certain number of weeks, basically the winter weeks. C7 • 0 PEC 2128/00 Page 71 1 There could be some prime summer weeks that get sold, 2 but on the whole there's going to be more weeks that 3 we keep than we sell. And we control them 100 4 percent, and they will operate then as part of the 5 hotel. 6 MR. CAHILL: Has that been done in other 7 places or -- 8 MR. PETERSON: I don't know. Not that I'm 9 aware of. Now typically what you'll see are weeks 10 bundled. And you buy the prime week and you get 11 another week during the summer or the shoulder season, 12 or you get one or two weeks and then you get a right 13 to make reservations for the other weeks, basically I 14 first come, first served. And that's the way it is at 15 the Austria House, you know, your typical project. 16 We feel it's very important because of the 17 conference facility, because it is much, much larger 18 than what just the AUs would dictate. But that we 19 have control of those rooms for the shoulder and the 20 summer seasons to be able to use our convention 21 facilities. And that's why we will own those weeks. 22 They will not be given to other people, nor will they 23 be committed to for any length of time because we want 24 that control. 25 MR. CAHILL: I think that's a great move. I PEC 2128/00 1 think that's about it. 2 MR. AASLAND: Okay, thank you. Before we go 3 to Chas, Tom, did you have one more thing? 4 MR. WEBER: No. 5 MR. AASLAND: Okay. Chas. 6 MR. BERNHARDT: As far as the parking goes, 7 based on the testimony of Johannes Faessler a few 8 months ago, another parking study, he had a lot of 9 extra parking and it doesn't appear that there's going 10 to be any problem in parking at all. 11 I think it's really creative the way you've 12 been able to stick the 20 housing in there. It's 13 basically unused space. And, George, this was 14 phenomenal, putting this whole thing together. It was 15 so much easier to understand. Had I been able to 16 understand it as completely as I do now, I don't think 17 I would have voted for it last time. 18 As much as I think this is a great project 19 that needs to be developed, I'm really concerned about 20 the height restrictions. But I think it would be 21 foolish to deny approval of it now for an additional 22 three and a half feet for all the extra benefits that 23 we're getting.. 24 The encroachment on the front, just for the 25 record, I had a project with an encroachment this big, Page 72 z • PEC 2128/00 Page 73 f 1 three inches by nine inches on a triangle that was 2 turned down in 1983 for effect. And I thought that 3 was --- nobody was served. And if the town council 4 still says 20 foot and you can squeeze that back, 5 terrific. But 36 square feet, I have a tough time for 6 all the benefits we're getting out of it now, I'd have 7 to say let's go for it. And if you can move it back, 8 if the town council says move it back, then I'm sure 9 you'll figure it.out. 14 MR. PETERSON: If I could make one comment, 11 Chas, and I think Chas hit on the exact thing that I 12 think the board should be looking at. And that is is X 13 the project as given, we have approval for it at the 14 town council level, now is the project better today 15 with the employee housing and with the three and a 16 half feet maximum, in addition to that plus that minor 17 encroachment in exchange for the other, what is behind 18 the setback. That's the question. You were able to 19 get around that and look at that even though you said 20 well, I voted for it at the beginning. But is this 21 better than what's been approved, and you answered in 22 a positive way. And I think that is the question. 23 And I think that's the question to the town 24 council also. Isn't this better, not from day one, 25 not if you go back to day one, but from what the PEC 2/28/00 I approval -- where the approval currently is. And the 2 answer to that, you were able to do that. That's 3 exactly what the question is which took me two hours 4 to get to. 5 MR. AASLAND: Thank you. Diane. 6 MS. GOLDEN: Well, my answer to the question 7 is yes, it is a better product. I'm a huge proponent 8 of employee housing in town. I`m glad you were able 9 to do this on site. I think some of housing situation 10 is going to be tough, having three people live in kind 11 of a large room, you know. Maybe I'm old and --- 12 MR. WEBER: That happens all the time, by 13 the way. 14 MR. PETERSON: Usually four. 15 MS. GOLDEN: Well, I think there's going to. 16 have to be some monitoring. I can see some noise 17 levels getting kind of out of hand and stuff. So I 18 think there will have to be some sort of monitoring of 19 these employees. But they need to realize how lucky 20 they are to be living in the middle of town and -- 21 MR. PETERSON: I think that is true. Yeah, 22 and most of the -- there's two rooms that have three; 23 all the others are with just two. And you're right, I 24 mean it could take some, but if it does, it does: And 25 that is just something that we just internally have to Cage 74 1 • r - L YEC 2128/00 Page 75 1 do. 2 MS. GOLDEN: I hope it doesn't hurt the rest 3 of the project, so, you know. 4 MR. PETERSON: It's not going to hurt the 5 rest of the project. We can control it, if we have 6 to. I just don't think we have to. I mean I don't 7 think it's going to be any problem. I'm excited about 8 it. 9 MS. GOLDEN: I am too. And I do think 10 there's a substantial tradeoff for the setback, the 36 11 square feet, given the rest of the building moving 12 back so I applaud that, that you were able to move 13 that back and make the whole entrance better. 14 And my question was the same as Doug's, that 15 you're agreeable to all 22 conditions,:. and you've said 16 that. 17 And I think the height deviation, it won't 18 make that big of a deal to the overall project. And, 19 like you said, hopefully it won't be three and a half 20 feet and it will be smaller than that. 21 MR. PETERSON: That's my dream. 22 MS. GOLDEN: And the parking, that is an 23 incredible amount of parking. And I thank you for 24 providing that in town. And maybe in the future we'll 25 be able to use some of that parking. We'll come to PEC 2/28/00 Page 78 1 And I would basically -- the way I see this 2 project, after really a lot of thorough review, I 3 think this proposal complies with the town master plan 4 and associated planning documents. And I think it's 5 important for us as a commission if we decide to 6 approve this to say that. 7 And I really sincerely believe that this 8 project has been reviewed in context with the 9 neighbors, and we've really given very serious 10 consideration to that. I do believe the town needs to 11 grow and change, and I think that this project is an 12 important part of that. 13 On the revised letter, I think attachment D, 14 that zehern & Associates October 19th, the second page 15 of that, George, a question about that would be the 16 improvements that it talks about on the frontage road, 17 could you just -- is that an issue that's being 18 addressed through the town council, those issues, or 19 how is that being dealt with? Top paragraph on that 20 letter. 21 MR. RUTHER: Public transportations. 22 MR. AASLAND: No, above public 23 transportation. It is assumed that these items 24 specifically exclude, will be provided by another 25 entity. PFC 2128/00 . 7 s f Page 79 1 MR. RUTHER: The runoff work. There you 2 will notice, Galen, under item number 7, condition 3 number 7 on page 5 -- 4 MR. AASLAND: Okay. 5 MR. RUTHER: States that the developer meets 6 with the town staff to prepare a memorandum of 7 understanding outlining the responsibilities and 8 requirements of the required off -site improvements 9 prior to second reading of an ordinance approving the 10 major amendment. That is something that's forthcoming 11 in working with the applicant. We're not sure whether 12 or not we're going to agree 100 percent on what the 13 applicant provides financially or is obligated to 14 construct. 15 But what we do foresee is preparing for the 16 council, providing them with the information so they 17 can make the decision as to -- and I think what we're 18 talking about here is drainage and surface water 19 management on the site. I think Greg Hall, our town 20 engineer, public works director, has a slightly 21 different view than Tim Losa of Zehern & Associates. 22 But that's something that they can work out and then 23 let the council make the final determination since the 24 town's paying for it out of the town budget. 1 5 MR. AASLAND: Okay. So what I understand PEC 2128100 PEC 2128/00 Page 80 1 from that is Tim's -- what it says in his letter is 2 being superseded by this condition number 7? 3 MR. RUTHER: What it will be is when we go 4 to the town council, we will provide them with the 5 memorandum which outlines all of the construction 6 responsibilities and obligations of this project. And 7 the final decision will be made by the town council as 8 to whether or not the applicant is responsible for 9 these surface water improvement or the Town of Vail is 10 responsible for this improvement. 11 We're still coming to terms on a portion of 12 the off -site improvements that deal with the frontage .13 road. There's a -- I don't want to say a 14 disagreement, but there's a difference of opinion on 15 exactly whose obligation that should or should not be. 16 You know, is it an existing problem that the town 17 needs to address and should address today, or is it 18 something that is a direct impact of the construction 19 of the hotel? And that's what we need to work 20 through. And, like I said, the council will make the 21 final determination as to whose obligation that 22 specific item is. 23 I believe everything else when it comes to 24 off -site improvements and public improvements is 25 agreed upon, mutually agreed upon between the town PEC 2128/00 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 n r staff and the applicant. And we're down to one issue. MR. AASL,AND: Another question for George would be, and it will kind of follow up to Diane's question, about privacy and the EHUs. And that was brought up when Stan Cope (phonetic) came in with the athletic club. And has the staff ever identified any position on that? Or the fact that they have just provided the beds, is that what's sufficient for the town ordinance? MR. RUTHER; You will also notice under conditions of approval under item -- well, it's in here -- it's an item -- requiring a conditional use permit to allow -- I'm sorry, it's item number 5, that the developer receives a conditional use permit to allow for the construction of type III employee housing units on site. We would like to see staff -- and we've communicated this to the applicant, we'd like to see additional information on the employee housing component outside of just where the units are located, like the provision of, you know, amenities, employee lounges, meal programs, the parking issue that has come up, those type of quality of life issues. And that's why that conditional use permit L' -- employee housing unit is not part of this PEC 2/28/00 Page 81 4 ; • a Page 82 1 application today. We're waiting to see additional 2 information from the applicant. It may be, Galen, 3 that staff would recommend we see a few more 4 improvements provided for the employees on site. But 5 at this time we do not have the information to make 6 that determination. So we'll wait for that for a 7 future meeting and come back to the conditional use 8 permit for that particular component of the project. 9 But the answer to your question is no, we do 10 not have a position on the employee housing unit 11 amenities or quality at this time. I would say we do 12 believe it is, like Chas, a very creative solution to 13 a design problem. And I think when we initially heard 14 the need to put employee housing units on the site, we 1.5 all envisioned what most of us did, and that was that 16 we were just going to, you know, have to raise the 17 building and slide another floor in. In this case 18 that otherwise would have been void types of spaces in 19 the building has been put to even better use. 20 MR. AASLAND: Another question for George 21 would be: Where does it say that the FFUs can't be 22 sold in the summer, as George has described? Is that 23 part of the ordinance? 24 MR. PETERSON: yeah, I think it -- actually 25 we can sell -- it was defined by the number of weeks S, PEC 2/28/00 Page 83 1 in the ordinance. I believe it was we can sell 28 2 weeks. I think, George, you had it put back in your 3 memo (inaudible). But if you sell 28 weeks, we had to 4 keep 24. We can sell no more than 28 weeks. And so 5 there may be some winter weeks that we don't sell, and 6 there may be some summer weeks that we do sell, July 7 potentially, something like that. 8 MR. RUTHER: In addition to that, the 9 applicant has a stack of paperwork they will need to 10 fill out and complete as part of the registration 11 requirements, both to comply with the Town of Vail's 12 requirement for integral ownership as well as the 13 state statutes for selling integral ownership real 14 estate in the state of Colorado. That will all be 15 defined in those documents and be in accordance with 16 the Town of Vail's regulations when it comes to 17 integral ownership marketing. 18 MR. AASLA.ND: Okay. One other item that I'd 19 like to address would be attachment E, as I see this, 20 the Gateway building is five stories. It is 21 nonconforming. And I think that affects my view -- 22 definitely affects my view on the height of this 23 building. 24 But I'd also like to address on page 12 25 where the building (inaudible) of the Vail Village PFC 2 /28A)O PEC: 2128 Page 84 1 master plan is addressed in the staff memorandum. I �► 2 specifically like to address that in our approval. 3 Let's see, I agree with Diane and Chas in 4 regard to the setback. I appreciate the public ,d 5 comment in regard to the several feet that that 6 encroaches, but I think that the way it's been done is 7 I think is basically I think very fair to both the 8 town and the neighbors. And I like the way the 9 applicant's done that. 10 Let's see, in regard to the parking, my 11 feeling is that the applicant shouldn't be unfairly 12 burdened for having put employee housing units in the 13 building. I think if these employee housing units 14 were, in fact, not in the building, employee housing 15 was built in West Vail or East Vail, that the 16 applicant wouldn't have to provide these units on 17 site. And I don't think we should heap on the 18 applicant everything in the world. I think there's 19 ( end of tape 2 ) -- 20 On the finding you asked us to make, the 21 last sentence, it says lastly, public notice of this 22 public hearing has been sent. Do we exactly want to 23 word it like that? We haven't seen the envelopes go 24 out so do we want to say we believe that public 25 notices have been sent, or is that -- PEC: 2128 Page 85 1 MR. MOORHEAD: What you are doing is finding 2 -- making a finding based on the evidence that's been 3 presented. My understanding is that George Ruther has 4 made a presentation in regard to the notice, how it 5 was sent. So that would be an appropriate finding. 6 MR. AASLAND: Okay, thank you, Tom. 7 MR. MOORHEAD: If you believe George. 8 MS. GOLDEN: Oh, well, therein lies the rub. 9 MR. AASLAND: Okay. With that,. what I 10 believe we're being asked to do is make a motion -- 11 actually two motions on this project. One for final 12 review of the major amendment and one for the 13 conditional use. I would suggest that we would add 14 the portions that say that we thoroughly reviewed 15 this,:the finding, as we just stated on page 2, and 16 we've also got these other findings on page 4, 5 and 17 6. Let's see, and that we thoroughly reviewed the 18 deviation. 19 With that, does someone have a motion? 20 MR. WEBER: Mr. Chair, after thoroughly, I 21 guess, looking at the staff memorandum, I move that we 22 grant a recommendation for approval to the town 23 council for the major amendment to allow for the 24 proposed redevelopment of Vail Village Inn, phase IV, 25 within special development district number 6, in PEC 2128100 1 accordance with the staff memorandum. 2 And the findings specifically on page 2 -- 3 or excuse me, page 4 regarding the public notice, I 4 would also like to add into my -- 5 MR. AASLAND: Do you want to say that whole 6 finding on page 4? WEBER: Oh, I'm sorry, I meant to talk 7 MR. WEBER: Exactly. The whole finding On 8 page 4 as well as the conditions listed on page 4, 5 9 and 6 with the exception of condition number 19. 10 MR. AASLAND: You'd like to eliminate number 11 19? 12 MR. WEBER: I would like to eliminate 19. 13 MS. GOLDEN: What page is that on? 14 MR. WEBER: On page 6. 15 MR. AASLAND: The tower amendment. 16 MR. WEBER: Because I don't think that that 17 added bulk is needed, and that was kind of added not 18 by this board anyway, so . . . 19 MR. AASLAND: Okay, we have a motion. Oh, 20 George. 21 MR. RUTHER: I'm sorry, you may want to 22 amend that condition 21 and 22 on page 7. 23 MR. WEBER: Oh, I'm sorry, I meant to talk 24 about all Of the conditions, 1 through 22 with the 25 exception of number 19. Page 86 • • PEC 2/28/00 y %, . , Page 87 1 MR. RUTHER: Okay. 2 MR. AASLAND: We have a motion on the floor. 3 Do we have a second. 4 MR. CAHILL: Second. 5 MR. AASLAND: That's seconded by Doug. Do 6 we have further discussion? Chas. 7 MR. BERNHARDT: Yeah, I have further 8 discussion on it. I said to Jay, I think this is 9 better than the last proposal. But I can't in good 10 conscious vote for it because I don't agree with the 11 entire finding here because I think it still is a 12 violation of the master plan and I don't agree that 13 all the -- 14 MR. AASLAND: Is this the finding on page 4? 15 MR. BERNHARDT: Yes. And I don't believe 16 that all the deviations have been mitigated to my 17 satisfaction. So as far as discussion goes, that's 18 why I can't vote for it. 19 MR. AASLAND: Okay. All right, is there any 20 further discussion? 21 Okay. There's been a motion on the floor 22 and it's been seconded. All those in favor? 23 SEVERAL VOICES: Aye. 24 MR. AASLAND: Opposed. 25 MR. BERNHARDT: Aye. PEC 2128100 r c 1 MR. AASLAND: The motion carries four to 2 one, Chas Bernhardt opposed. And that is for the -- 3 which one are we doing? We're doing the major 4 amendment. 5 Okay, the next item on the agenda would be 6 the conditional use. Do we have a motion on that, 7 please? 8 MR. CAHILL: Mr. Chairman, I recommend move 9 for request for a conditional use permit pursuant to 10 chapter 16 of the Town of Vail zoning regulations to 11 allow for the operational of a fractional fee club 12 within the proposed Vail Plaza Hotel. The fractional 13 fee club will be comprised of 50 fractional fee club 14 units operated and managed by the owners of Vail Plaza 15 Hotel. And there's criteria and findings on page 16 42 -- 17 MR. PETERSON: 43. 18 MR. CAHILL: 44, 45. 19 MR. AASLAND: And, Doug, do you want to add 20 that in accordance with the staff memorandum? 21 MR. CAHILL: In accordance with the staff 22 memorandum dated February 28th, 2000. 23 MR. AASLAND: We have a motion. Do we have 24 a second? 25 MR. WEBER: Second. Page 88 1 0 PF C 2128100 PF,C 2/28100 90 1 C E R T I F I C A T E I 2 3 I, Doris Harris, do hereby certify that I I 4 prepared the foregoing transcript from a cassette g 9 p tape 5 provided to me. I that this transcript is 6 complete and accurate to the best of my ability to 7 hear and understand the proceedings. i 8 1 further certify that I am not employed by - 9 nor related to any parties herein and have no interest 10 whatsoever in this matter. 11 Dated this 27th day of October, 2000. 12 13 14 15 16 Doris Harris Bruno Reporting Company 17 899 Logan Street, #208 Denver, Colorado 80203 18 303 831 -1667 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 AN ORDINANCE REPEALING ORDINANCE NO. 1, SERIES OF 2000 AND TO ENACT ORDINANCE NO. 4, SERIES OF 2000, ADOPTING A REVISED APPROVED DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 6, VAIL VILLAGE INN, PHASE IV, TO ALLOW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE VAIL PLAZA HOTEL; AND SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO. WHEREAS, In 1976, the Vail Town Council adopted Ordinance No. 7, Series of 1976, establishing Special Development District No. 6, Vail Village Inn; and WHEREAS, Section 12 -9A -10 of the Zoning Regulations permits major amendments to previously Approved Development Plans for Special Development Districts; and WHEREAS, Waldir Prado, dba Daymer Corporation, as owner of the Phase IV property, has submitted an application for a revised major amendment to Special Development District No. 6, Vail Village Inn, Phase IV; and WHEREAS, the purpose of this ordinance is to repeal Ordinance No. 1, Series of 2000 and to enact Ordinance No. 4, Series of 2000, to adopt a revised Approved Development Plan for the Vail Village Inn Special Development District, Phase IV to allow for the construction of the Vail Plaza Hotel; and WHEREAS, the revised major amendment to the Special Development District, including the provision of deed - restricted housing for 38 employees and the resulting 1 feet of additional building height, is in the best interest of the town as it meets the Town's development objectives as identified in the Town of Vail Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, in accordance with the provisions outlined in the Zoning Regulations, the Planning & Environmental Commission held a public hearing on the major amendment application; and WHEREAS, the Planning & Environmental Commission has reviewed the prescribed criteria for a major amendment and has submitted its recommendation of approval and findings to the Vail Town Council; and WHEREAS, all public notices as required by the Town of Vail Municipal Code have been sent to the appropriate parties; and WHEREAS, the Vail Town Council considers it in the best interest of the public health, safety, and welfare to adopt the revised Approved Development Plan for Special Development District No. 6, Vail Village Inn, Phase IV, Vail Plaza Hotel; and Village Inn, Phase IV, Vail Plaza Hotel and the development standards in regard thereto shall not establish precedence or entitlements elsewhere within the Town of Vail. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1. Purpose of the Ordinance The purpose of Ordinance No. 4, Series of 2400, is to adopt a revised Approved Development Plan for Special Development District No. 6, Vail Village Inn, Phase IV, Vail Plaza Hotel. The Approved Development Plans for Phases I, III & V remain approved and unchanged for the development of Special Development District No. 6 within the Town of Vail, unless they have otherwise expired. Only the Approved Development Plan for Phase IV, the Vail Plaza Hotel is hereby amended and adopted. 49 Section 2. Amendment Procedures Fulfilled Planning Commission Report The approval procedures described in Section 2 -9A of the Vail Municipal Code have been fulfilled, and the Vail Town Council has received the recommendation of the Planning & Environmental Commission for a major amendment to the Approved Development Plan for Special Development District No. 6, Vail Village Inn, Phase IV, Vail Plaza Hotel. Requests for amendments to the Approved Development Plan shall follow the procedures outlined in Section 12 -9A of the Vail Municipal Code. Section 3. Special Development District No. 6 The Special Development District and the major amendment to the Approved Development Plan for Phase IV are established to assure comprehensive development and use of the area in a manner that would be harmonious with the general character of the Town, provide adequate open space and recreation amenities, and promote the goals, objectives and policies of the Town of Vail Comprehensive Plan. Special Development District No. 6 is regarded as being complementary to the Town of Vail by the Vail Town Council and the Planning & Environmental Commission, and has been established since there are significant aspects of the Special Development District that cannot be satisfied through the imposition of the standard Public Accommodation zone district requirements. Section 4. Development Standards - Special Development District No. 6, Vail Village Inn, Phase IV, Vail Plaza Hotel Development Plan- - The Approved Development Plan for Special Development District No. 6, Vail Village Inn, Phase IV, (as may be further revised by the Town of Vail Design Review Board) A. Site Illustrative Plan B. Site Vignettes Key Plan (noted "for illustration purposes only') C. Site Vignettes D. Site Plan (revised) E. Level Minus Two F. Level Minus One G. Level Zero H. Level One I. Level One & 1/2 J. Level Two K. Level Three L. Level Four M. Level Five N. Level Six O. Roof Plan P. Roof Plan (Mechanical Equipment) Q. Street Sections (Vail Road Elevation /North Frontage Road Elevation) R. Plaza Sections (South Plaza Elevation /East Plaza Elevation) S. Building A Elevations T. Building A Sections U. Building B Elevations V. Building B Sections W. Building Height Plan 1 (Absolute Heights /Interpolated Contours) X. Building Height Plan 2 (Maximum Height Above Grade /Interpolated Contours) Y. Pool Study (Pool Sections) Z. Vail Road Setback Study AA. Loading and Delivery plan BB. Street Entry Studies (Vail Road /South Frontage Road) DD. Landscape Improvements Plan EE. Off -site Improvements Plan Permitted Uses-- The permitted uses in Phase IV of Special Development District No. 6 shall be as set forth in Section 12 -7 of the Vail Town Code. Conditional Uses-- Conditional uses for Phase IV shall be set forth in Section 12 -7A -3 of the Town of Vail Zoning Regulations. All conditional uses shall be reviewed per the procedures as outlined in Chapter 12 -16 of the Town of Vail Zoning Regulations. Density— Units per Acre - Dwelling Units, Accommodation Units, & Fractional Fee Club Units The number of units permitted in Phase IV shall not exceed the following: Dwelling Units —1 Accommodation Units — 99 Fractional Fee Club Units — 50 Type III Employee Housing Units —18 (38 employee beds totaling 9,618 square feet of floor area) Density-- Floor Area The gross residential floor area (GRFA), common area and commercial square footage permitted for Phase IV shall be as set forth in the Approved Development Plans referenced in Section 4 of this ordinance. Setbacks -- Required setbacks for Phase IV shall be as set forth in the Approved Development Plans referenced in Section 4 of this ordinance. The front setback along Vail Road shall be a minimum of 16'. 0 Height- - The maximum building height for Phase IV shall be as set forth in the Approved Development Plans referenced in Section 4 of this ordinance. For the purposes of SDD No. 6, Phase IV, calculations of height, height shall mean the distance measured vertically from the existing grade or finished grade (whichever is more restrictive), at any given point to the top of a flat roof, or mansard roof, or to the highest ridge line of sloping roof unless otherwise specified in Approved Development Plans. Site Coverage -- Landscaping- - The minimum landscape area requirement for Phase IV shall be as set forth in the Approved Development Plans referenced in Section 4 of this ordinance. Parking and Loading_ The required number of off - street parking spaces and loading /delivery berths for Phase IV shall be provided as set forth in the Approved Development Plans referenced in Section 4 of this ordinance. In no instance shall Vail Road or the South Frontage Road be used for loading/delivery or guest drop - off /pick -up without the prior written approval of the Town of Vail. The required parking spaces shall not be individually sold, transferred, leased, conveyed, rented or restricted to any person other than a tenant, occupant or user of the building for which the space, spaces or area are required to be provided by the Zoning Regulations or ordinances of the Town. The foregoing language shall not prohibit the temporary use of the parking spaces for events or uses outside of the building, subject to the approval of the Town of Vail. Section 5. Approval Agreements for Special Development District No. 6 Phase IV Vail Plaza Hotel 1. That the Developer submits detailed civil engineering drawings of the required off -site improvements (street lights, drainage, curb and gutter, sidewalks, grading, road improvements, Vail Road landscape median improvements, etc.) as identified on the off -site improvements plan to the Town of Vail Public Works Department for review and approval, prior to application for a building permit. 2. That the Developer submits a detailed final landscape plan and final architectural elevations for review and approval of the Town of Vail Design Review Board, prior to application for a building permit. 3. The SDD approval time requirements and limitations of Section 12 -9A -12 shall apply to Ordinance No. 4, Series of 2000. In addition, the phasing of the construction of the hotel shall not be permitted. 4. That the Developer submits the following plans to the Department of Community Development, for review and approval, as a part of the building permit application for the hotel: b. A Construction Staging and Phasing Plan; C. A Stormwater Management Plan; d. A Site Dewatering Plan; and e. A Traffic Control Plan. 5. That the Developer receives a conditional use permit to allow for the construction of 18, Type III Employee Housing Units in Phase IV of the District, in accordance with Chapter 12- 16, prior to the issuance of a building permit, for the housing of 38 employees totaling 9,618 square feet of floor area. 6. That the Developer submits a complete set of plans to the Colorado Department of Transportation for review and approval of a revised access permit, prior to application for a building permit. 0 7. That the Developer meets with the Town staff to prepare a memorandum of understanding outlining the responsibilities and requirements of the required off -site improvements, prior to second reading of an ordinance approving the major amendment. 8. That the Developer submits a complete set of plans responding to the design concerns expressed by Greg Hall, Director of Public Works & Transportation, in his memorandum to George Ruther, dated 12113199. The drawings shall be submitted, reviewed and approved by the Town Engineer, prior to final Design Review Board approval. 9. That the developer records a public pedestrian easement between the hotel and the Phase III Condominiums and between the Phase V Building property lines. The easement shall be prepared by the developer and submitted for review and approval of the Town Attorney. The easement shall be recorded with the Eagle County Clerk & Recorder's Office prior to the issuance of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy. is 10. That the Developer record a deed - restriction, which the Town is a party to, on the Phase IV property prohibiting the public use of the spa facility in the hotel. Said restriction may be revoked if the Developer is able to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Town that adequate provisions for vehicle parking have been made to accommodate the public use of the spa. The restriction shall be recorded prior to the issuance of a building permit. 11. That the Developer submits a final exterior building materials list, a typical wall- section and complete color rendering for review and approval of the Design Review Board, prior to for review and approval of the Design Review Board, prior to the issuance of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy. 13. That the Developer submits a roof -top mechanical equipment plan for review and approval of the Design Review Board prior to the issuance of a building permit. All roof -top mechanical equipment shall be incorporated into the overall design of the hotel and enclosed and screened from public view. 14. That the Developer posts a bond with the Town of Vail to provide financial security for the 125 % of the total cost of the required off -site public improvements. The bond shall be in place with the Town prior to the issuance of a building permit. 15. That the Developer installs bollards or similar safety devices at the intersection of the Is delivery access driveway and the sidewalk along the South Frontage Road to prevent conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles, prior to the issuance of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy. 16. That the Developer studies and redesigns the entrance an the north side of the hotel across from the entrance to the Gateway Building to create a more inviting entrance or a design that redirects pedestrians to another entrance. The final design shall be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Board prior to the issuance of a building permit. 17. That the Developer coordinate efforts with the owners of the Gateway Building to create a below ground access for loading and delivery to the Gateway from the Vail Plaza Hotel to resolve potential loading and delivery concerns at the Gateway. If a coordinated effort can be reached the Developer shall submit revised plans to the Town of Vail Community Development Department for review and approval, prior to the issuance of a building permit. is 48-: That the Developer revises the proposed floor lans for the Vail Plaza Hotel to provide p p freight elevator access to the lowest level of the parking structure. The revised plans shall be submitted to the Town of Vail Community Development Department for review and approval prior to the issuance of a building permit. 19. That the Developer, in cooperation with the Town of Vail Public Works Department design and construct a left -turn lane on Vail Road and reconfigure the landscape island in the South Frontage Road median to eliminate left -turns from the loading /delivery. The construction 20. That the Developer provides a centralized loading /delivery facility for the use of all owners and tenants within Special Development District No. 6. Access or use of the facility shall not be unduly restricted for Special Development District No. 6. The loading /delivery facility, including docks, berths, freight elevators, service corridors, etc., may be made available for public and/or private loading/delivery programs, sanctioned by the Town of Vail, to mitigate load ingldelivery impacts upon the Vail Village loading/delivery system. The use of the facility shall only be permitted upon a finding by the Town of Vail and the Developer that excess capacity exists. The Developer will be compensated by the Town of Vail and /or others for the common use of the facility. The final determination of the use of the facility shall be mutually agreed upon by the Developer and the Town of Vail. 21. That the Developer submits a written letter of approval from adjacent properties whose is property is being encroached upon by certain improvements resulting from the construction of the hotel, prior to the issuance of a building permit. 22. That the Developer executes a Developer Improvement Agreement to cover the completion of the required off -site improvements, prior to the issuance of a building permit. 23. That the Developer record Type III deed- restrictions of each of the required employee housing units, with the Eagle County Clerk & Recorder's Office, prior to the issuance of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy. 24. That the required Type III deed - restricted employee housing units not be eligible for resale and that the units be owned and operated by the hotel and that said ownership transfer with the deed to the hotel property. Section 6. If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held 0 to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it would have passed this ordinance, and each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. Section 7. The repeal or the repeal and re- enactment of any provisions of the Vail Municipal Code as provided in this ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any violation that The repeal of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein. Section 8. All bylaws, orders, resolutions and ordinances, or parts thereof, inconsistent herewith are hereby repealed to the extent only of such inconsistency. The repealer shall not be construed to revise any bylaw, order, resolution or ordinance, or part thereof, heretofore repealed. INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, APPROVED, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED ONCE IN FULL ON FIRST READING this 4 "d day of April, 2000, and a public hearing for second reading of this Ordinance set for the 2 nd day of May, 2000, in the Council Chambers of the Vail 0 Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado. Ludwig Kurz, Mayor ATTEST: Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED this 2 " day of May, 2000. Ludwig Kurz, Mayor ATTEST: • Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk MEMORANDUM C] TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: August 13, 2001 SUBJECT: A request for a final review and recommendation to the Vail Town Council of proposed text amendments to the Vail Town Code, Chapters 12 -71-11 & I, Lionshead Mixed Use 1 & Lionshead Mixed Use 2, to amend the regulations regarding commercial ski storage and to amend Chapter 12 -2, Definitions, and setting forth details in regards thereto. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Allison Ochs BACKGROUND OF THE REQUEST The Town of Vail has recognized a need to re -visit the issue of commercial ski storage within certain commercial zone districts within the Town of Vail. This discussion resulted from a recent application regarding commercial ski storage in Lionshead and the difficulty of determining locations as "first level" or "basement level." In 1989, the zoning code was amended to allow commercial ski storage as a permitted use only in the basement and garden level of buildings in CCI and CCII. At that time, there were several existing ski storage facilities located in basements that had been approved by the Town of Vail as an accessory use to an existing ski shop. Prior to 1989, the Town Code did not specifically deal with commercial ski storage as a separate use, instead, it was considered a personal service. In 1997, an application was submitted to the Town of Vail by Vail Associates to permit outdoor commercial ski storage in the Commercial Core I and Commercial Core 11 zone districts. Originally, the application included amending CCI and CCII to allow for commercial ski storage on all levels of a building. However, the Planning and Environmental Commission did not look upon this favorably, and that portion of the proposal was removed. The Planning and Environmental Commission voted 4 to 2 in favor of allowing outdoor commercial ski storage in the CCI and CCII zone districts. However, the ordinance failed at the Town Council level, and no amendments were made to the zoning code regarding commercial ski storage. The Town Council has asked the staff to pursue an ordinance which would allow commercial ski storage at additional locations in Lionshead. The Planning and Environmental Commission and staff have identified two options for allowing commercial ski storage in Lionshead. They are as follows: • TOf,NOF � Option A. Commercial Ski Storage as a conditional use in LMU1 and LMU2 Option B. Commercial Ski Storage as an accessory use in LMU1 and LMU2 In addition to these two options, staff is recommending that the following amendments also be considered: 1. Adding a definition of "accessory use" 2. Adding a definition of "pedestrianway" The intent of these amendments is to clarify Title 12, improve the development review process, and maintain consistency in various zone districts. II. ROLES OF THE REVIEWING BOARDS Planning and Environmental Commission: Action: The PEC is advisory to the Town Council. The PEC shall review the proposal for and make a recommendation to the Town Council on the compatibility of the proposed text changes for consistency with the Vail Comprehensive Plans and impact on the general welfare of the community. Staff: The staff is responsible for ensuring that all submittal requirements are provided. The staff advises the applicant as to compliance with the Zoning Regulations. Staff provides analyses and recommendations to the PEC and Town Council on any text proposal. Town Council; Action: The Town Council is responsible for final approval/denial on code amendments. The Town Council shall review and approve the proposal based on the compatibility of the proposed text changes for consistency with the Vail Comprehensive Plans and impact on the general welfare of the community. III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning and Environmental Commission forward a recommendation of approval to the Town Council regarding the Town Code text amendments to allow for commercial ski storage as an accessory use as outlined in Section V of the staff memorandum with the following findings: That the proposed amendments are consistent with the development objectives of the Town of Vail as stated in the Vail Land Use Plan and Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. 2. That the proposal is consistent and compatible with existing and potential Uses within Vail and generally in keeping with the character of the Town of Vail. 4 F IV. CURRENT REGULATIONS 0 Section 12 -2 -2 of the Town Code defines "commercial ski storage" as: Storage for equipment (skis, snowboards, boots and poles) and /or clothing used in skiing- related sports, which is available to the public or members, operated by a business, club or government organization, and where a fee is charged for hourly, daily, monthly, seasonal or annual usage. Ski storage that is part of a lodge, or dwelling unit, in which a fee is not charged, is not considered commercial ski storage. Commercial ski storage is listed as a permitted use at the basement or garden level in the Commercial Core I, Commercial Core II, Lionshead Mixed Use I, and Lionshead Mixed Use il. `Basement or garden level" is defined by the zoning code as: The "basement" or "garden level" shall be defined as that floor of a building that is entirely or substantially below grade. The Uniform Building Code defines a "basement" as: Any floor level below the first story in a building, except that a floor level in a building having only one floor level shall be classified as a basement unless such floor level qualifies as a first story as defined herein. The Uniform Building Code defines "first story" as: i The lowest story in a building that qualifies as a story, as defined herein, except that a floor level in a building having only one floor level shall be classified as a first story, provided such floor level is not more than 4 feet below grade, as defined herein, for more than 50 percent of the total perimeter, or not more than 8 feet below grade, as defined herein, at any point. Recently, staff denied an application to locate commercial ski storage within Banner Sports. Staff identified the location as "first floor" which is defined by the Town Code as: The "first floor" or "street level" shall be defined as that floor of the building that is located at grade or street level along a pedestrianway. In response to that staff decision, the Town Council requested that staff review this policy, and bring forth an amendment to the Town Code, specifically with regards to commercial ski storage in Lionshead. Staff has identified the following statements in the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan which apply to this request. According to the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan: 1.2 The Pedestrian Environment. The defining characteristic of Lionshead is its pedestrian environment, and the emphasis of the master plan is to improve its quality as a generator of activity. Pedestrian connections are intended to be the underlying framework of the physical plan. Two primary pedestrian corridors are proposed to provide for a cohesive, 3 consistent, well defined pedestrian and retail environment serving both the destination guest and the local community. 4.5.1 Renewal and Redevelopment. Lionshead can and should be renewed and redeveloped to become a warmer, more vibrant environment for guests and residents. Lionshead needs an appealing and coherent identity, a sense of place, a personality, a purpose, and an improved aesthetic character. 4.5.2 Vitality and Amenities. We must seize the opportunity to enhance guest experience and community interaction through expanded and additional activities and amenities such as performing arts venues, conference facilities, ice rinks, streetscape, parks and other recreational improvements. 3.3.3 Renewed and expanded retail frontage. For properties fronting the Lionshead retail mall and retail pedestrian streets, the renovation and expansion of the ground floor retail level is perhaps the most critical element in revitalizing the Lionshead retail core. 5.8.5 Retail Space Allocation. A primary goal of the Lionshead Master plan is to increase both the amount and the quality of retail space in the pedestrian core. The sunny south - facing sides of buildings (for example, at the Lifthouse Lodge and the creek side of the VA core site) are ideal for restaurants. The shadier north - facing sides are more appropriate for retail uses that do not benefit as much from a direct relationship with the outdoors. Use of ground floor commercial space for offices is not recommended on the primary pedestrian mall, • these businesses should be located instead on the second story or outside the main pedestrian corridor. Staff has also identified the following goals and objectives from the Vail Land Use Plan. Staff believes that the following apply to this proposal: 2.0 Skier/Tourist Concerns 2.1 The community should emphasize its role as a destination resort while accommodating day skiers. 2.2 The ski area owner, the business community and the Town leaders should work together closely to make existing facilities and the Town function more efficiently. 2.3 The ski area owner, the business community and the Town leaders should work together to improve facilities for day skiers. 2.5 The community should improve non skier recreational options to improve year -round tourism. 3.0 Commercial 4 3.4 Commercial growth should be concentrated in existing commercial areas to accommodate both local and visitor needs. 3.5 Entertainment oriented business and cultural activities should be encouraged in the core areas to create diversity, More nighttime businesses, on -going events and sanctioned "street happenings" should be encouraged. 4.0 Village Core / Lionshead 4.1 Future commercial development should continue to occur primarily in existing commercial areas. Future commercial development in the Core areas needs to be carefully controlled to facilitate access and delivery. 4.3 The ambiance of Vail Village is important to the identity of Vail and should be preserved. (scale, alpine character., small town feeling, mountains, natural setting, intimate size, cosmopolitan feeling, environmental quality.) 44 The connection between the Village Core and Lionshead should be enhanced through: a) Installation of a new type of people mover. b) Improving the pedestrian system with a creatively designed connection oriented toward a nature walk, alpine garden, andlor sculpture plaza. c) New development should be controlled to limit commercial uses, Staff has researched how other resort communities address commercial ski storage. Of the communities contacted (Breckenridge, Park City, Aspen), none of the communities treat commercial ski storage as a separate use. Theretore, there is no specific regulation regarding its location. In addition, because of proximity to a mountain, it is not necessary to regulate ski storage in some communities. Aspen has regulations pertaining to outdoor ski storage, which have been attached for reference. V. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS The Town Council, staff, and applicants have recognized that convenient ski storage enhances the guest experience. By having the ability to store ski equipment, the guest is able to more freely experience the Town after skiing, providing benefits to the retail establishments, restaurants, and the Town in general, However, these benefits must also be weighed against the importance of a vibrant retail pedestrian corridor through dynamic retail storefronts. Input from the planning and Environmental Commission and Town Council originally indicated that ski storage should be allowed as a conditional use with specific limitations on the area devoted to commercial ski storage. However, input from the most recent Planning and Environmental Commission meeting has indicated that some members would prefer to see commercial ski storage as an accessory use to a commercial unit. Below are the proposed changes to Lionshead Mixed Use 1 and Lionshead Mixed Use 2; I -I -Al 5 Option A. Commercial Ski Storage as a Conditional Use Originally, the direction received from the Town Council and the Planning and Environmental Commission was to allow commercial ski storage as a Conditional use on the first and second levels of buildings in Lionshead. The changes that staff brought forth to the Planning and Environmental Commission are indicated below: 12 -7H -3: PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES; FIRST FLOOR OR STREET LEVEL: C. Conditional Uses Commercial Ski Storage, not to exceed 15°J of net floor area or 500 sq_ ft., of a commercial unit. 12 -7H -4: PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES; SECOND FLOOR AND ABOVE: B. Conditional Uses Commercial Ski Storage, not to exceed 15% of net floor area or 500 sq. ft., of a commercial unit. 12 -71 -3: PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES; FIRST FLOOR OR STREET LEVEL: C. Conditional Uses Commercial Ski Storage, not to exceed 15% of net floor area- or 500 sq. ft., of a commercial unit. . 12 -71 -4: PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES; SECOND FLOOR AND ABOVE: D. Conditional Uses Commercial Ski Storage, not to exceed 15% of net floor area or 500 sq. ft., of a commercial unit. In addition, staff believes that it is appropriate to add commercial ski storage to Section 12 -16 -7: Use Specific Criteria and Standards, which would add specific criteria in the review of a conditional use permit for commercial ski storage. Staff recommends the following amendment, should commercial ski storage be allowed as a conditional use: 12- 16 -7A. Uses and Criteria 11. Commercial Ski Storage: a. Ski storage and all associated activities shall take place entirely within a building. b. Ski storage and all associated activities shall not be visible from any pedestrianway, public way, street, walkway, or mall. c. That the retail character of the space shall be maintained and that commercial ski storage shall not dominate a storefront. • :7 • 1.1 Option B. Commercial Ski Storage as an Accessory Use The Planning and Environmental Commission, at the July 23, 2001, meeting, directed staff to explore allowing commercial ski storage within buildings in Lionshead as an accessory use. As an accessory use, the proposed amendments are as follows: 12 -7H -6: ACCESSORY USES: The following accessory uses shall be permitted in the Lionshead Mixed Use 1 District: Commercial Ski Storage, located entirely within a building and customarily incidental and accessory to permitted or conditional commercial uses within an individual commercial unit The commercial character of the unit shall be maintained and commercial ski storage shall not dominate a storefront. 12 -71 -6: ACCESSORY USES: The following accessory uses shall be permitted in the Lionshead Mixed Use 2 District: Commercial Ski Storage, located entirely within a building and customarily incidental and accessory to permitted or conditional commercial uses within an individual commercial unit. The commercial character of the unit shall be maintained and commercial ski storage shall not dominate a storefront. This change would allow for commercial ski storage on any Level of a building. Because it is an accessory use, it would not be allowed to be the primary use of a property, and therefore could not exceed 49% of the floor area of a commercial unit. With the proposed amendment above, staff believes that there is also need for clarification of the term "accessory use." The following definition of "accessory use" is proposed: ACCESSORY USE: Use of land or of a building or portion thereof customarily incidental and subordinate to the principal use of the land or building and located on the same lot or site as the principal use. In addition to Option A and Option B listed above, staff believes that a definition of "pedestrian way" should be added to the Town Code to clarify the descriptions of first floor or street level. The current definition of "first floor or street level" states: The "first floor" or "street level" shall be defined as that floor of the building that is located at grade or street level along a pedestrianway. Staff is proposing a definition of "pedestrian way" as follows: PEDESTRIANWAY. The area at ground level between or around buildings or structures used for pedestrian circulation, including but not limited to sidewalks, walkways, malls, stairways, public plazas, recreation paths, public spaces, and public right -of -way. Staff has identified that part of the difficulty in the determination of "first floor" or "street level" is based on the lack of clarification regarding pedestrian way. By "defining 7 pedestrian way ", applicants will have less ambiguity in the determination of "first floor" or "street level ". 0 Staff recommends that the Planning and Environmental Commission forward a recommendation of approval (refer to Section III of this memorandum) to allow for commercial ski storage as an accessory use in Lionshead Mixed Use 1 and 2. By allowing commercial ski storage as an accessory use, with the limitations as listed above, staff can adequately review and enforce the commercial ski storage regulations without the need for additional review by the Planning and Environmental Commission, as would be required by allowing commercial ski storage as a conditional use. In addition, staff believes that as an accessory use, commercial ski storage will not dominate existing commercial establishments, maintaining the intent of horizontal zoning and remaining consistent with the Lionshead Redevelopment Master 'Plan. In addition, allowing commercial ski storage as an accessory use provides for additional ski storage opportunities, meeting a need that has been identified by the Town Council and various merchants in the Town of Vail, and, perhaps most importantly, enhances the guest experience. VI. COUNCIL DIRECTION On July 17, 2001, the Town Council provided staff with input regarding commercial ski storage in Lionshead. While most of Council members agreed that Commercial Ski Storage is an acceptable conditional use on the first and second floor of buildings in Lionshead, they generally did not believe that it was necessary to cap the maximum amount of floor area which could be devoted to such use. Some members believed that the use should not be subject to a conditional use permit and should be a "use by right." One member suggested that commercial ski storage be regulated as an accessory use and allowed with a limited amount of square footage. Specifically, the Town Council provided the following thoughts on commercial ski storage: Kevin Foley: believes that the definitions needs clarification. He stated that the Town should consider outdoor ski storage, with restrictions similar to Aspen's requirements. He stated that he doesn't like ski storage on the first floor. Greg Moffet: believes that horizontal zoning has failed in Lionshead. He stated that market forces should determine the highest and best use. He believes that commercial ski storage should be a conditional use, but with no caps on square footage of the use. He also stated that it was acceptable to have different regulations in.the Village and Lionshead. Sybill Navas: believes that the Town should have uniform regulations with the Village and Lionsheaed. She stated that commercial ski storage should be a conditional or accessory use on any floor. She also stated that outdoor ski storage would be acceptable. Rod Slifer: believes that it is necessary to clarify the definitions. He stated that Lionshead is struggling and the Town needs to accommodate the guest. He stated that allowing it on the first floor as a conditional use is acceptable. He further stated that he would like input from the Planning and Environmental Commission. Diana Donovan: believes that it is unfair to treat Lionshead different from the Village. She believes that commercial ski storage should be treated as an accessory use with a limited portion of floor area. She also stated that it is necessary to clarify the definitions. She further stated that commercial ski storage is best in the basement or garden level or on the second floor or above. Chuck Ogilby: believes that a conditional use permit system which would be uniform is acceptable for commercial ski storage on the first floor. He stated that he agreed with Galen's ideas. Ludwig Kurz: absent. • 9 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: August 13, 2001 SUBJECT: A request for a final review and recommendation to the Vail Town Council of proposed text amendments to the Vail Town Code, Chapter 12 -61, Housing Zone District, and Chapter 12 -2, Definitions, to allow for additional uses and to amend definitions in regard thereto. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Allison Ochs I. BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST In March of 2001, the Town Council adopted ORDINANCE NO. 3, SERIES OF 2001: An ordinance amending the Town Code, Tittle 12, Chapter &, to the Town of Vail Zoning Regulations to allow for the addition of Article 1. Housing (N) District, amending Chapter 4, Districts Established; amending Section 12 -15 - 2: GRFA Requirements by zone district; amending Title 12, Sigh Regulations, Chapter 4, Sign Categories, Section 1 1-4A - 1: Signs Permitted in Zoning Districts and setting forth details in regard thereto. The purpose of this ordinance is to adopt the Housing Zone District. An independent legal firm has reviewed the Housing Zone District to ensure the viability of the zone district. The lawyers recommended a few changes. to broaden the scope of Section 12 -61, Housing Zone District. Specifically, the changes include amending the conditional uses allowed in the Housing Zone District to include Type VI employee housing units. Generally, Type VI employee housing units are a new type of EHU which are governed by a management plan as approved by the Planning and Environmental Commission. The changes are intended to allow for a broader scope of uses within the Housing Zone District. The changes are indicated in Section IV of this memorandum. IL. ROLES OF THE REVIEWING BOARDS Planning and Environmental Commission: Action: The PEC is advisory to the Town Council. The PEC shall review the proposal for and make a recommendation to the Town Council on the compatibility of the proposed text changes for consistency with the Vail Comprehensive Plans and impact on the general welfare of the community. Staff: The staff is responsible for ensuring that all submittal requirements are provided. ti TOWN OF PAIL �� The staff advises the applicant as to compliance with the Zoning Regulations. Staff provides analyses and recommendations to the PEC and Town Council on any text proposal. 0 Town Council: Action: The Town Council is responsible for final approval /denial on code amendments. The Town Council shall review and approve the proposal based on the compatibility of the proposed text changes for consistency with the Vail Comprehensive Plans and impact on the general welfare of the community. III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning and Environmental Commission forward a recommendation of approval to the Town Council regarding the Town Code text amendments as outline in Section IV of the staff memorandum with the following findings: 1. That the proposed amendments are consistent with the development objectives of the Town of Vail as stated in the Vail Land Use Plan. 2. That the proposal is consistent and compatible with existing and potential uses within Vail and generally keeping with the character of the Town of Vail. IV. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS A. Amendments to Section 12 -61, Housing Zone District The intent of the proposed changes to the Housing Zone district is to allow for Type VI employee housing units as a conditional use. The following amendments are proposed to the Housing Zone District. The entire text of the zone district is attached for reference. (Text which has been added is indicated in bold, text which is to be deleted is indicated in sirike -!hFew .) ARTICLE I. HOUSING (H) DISTRICT SECTION: 12 -61 -1: Purpose 12 -61 -2: Permitted Uses 12 -61 -3: Conditional Uses 12 -61 -4: Accessory Uses 12 -61 -5: Setbacks - 12 -61 -6: Site Coverage 12 -61 -7: Landscaping and Site Development 12 -61 -8: Parking and Loading 12 -61 -9: Location of Business Activity 2 12- 61 -10: Other Development Standards 12- 61 -11: Development Plan Required 12- 61 -12: Development Plan Contents 12- 61 -13: Development Standards /Criteria for Evaluation 12 -61 -1: PURPOSE: The Housing District is intended to provide adequate sites for deed FeGtFi^* employee housing which, because of the nature and characteristics of employee housing, cannot be adequately regulated by the development standards prescribed for other residential zoning districts. It is necessary in this district to provide development standards specifically prescribed for each development proposal or project to achieve the purposes prescribed in Section 12 -1 -2 of this Title and to provide for the public welfare. Certain nonresidential uses are allowed as conditional uses, which are intended to be incidental and secondary to the residential uses of the District. The Housing District is intended to ensure that employee housing permitted in the District is appropriately located and designed to meet the needs of residents of Vail, to harmonize with surrounding uses, and to ensure adequate light, air, open spaces, and other amenities appropriate to the allowed types of uses. 12 -61 -2: PERMITTED USES: The following uses shall be permitted in the H District: Deed restricted employee housing units as further described in Chapter 12 -13 of this Title. Passive outdoor recreation areas, and open space. Pedestrian and bike paths. 12 -61 -3: CONDITIONAL USES: Generatfy: The following conditional uses shall be permitted in the H District, subject to issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 16 of this Title: Commercial uses which are secondary and incidental (as determined by the Planning and Environmental Commission ) to the use of deed Fes -.ta, I employee housing and specifically serving the needs of the residents, and developed in conjunction with deed rer- , trir- employee housing, in which case the following uses may be allowed subject to a conditional use permit: Banks and financial institutions. Eating and drinking establishments. Health clubs. Personal services, including but not limited to, Laundromats, beauty and barbershops, tailor shops, and similar services. Retail stores and establishments. Dwelling units (not employee housing units) subject to the following criteria to be evaluated by the Planning and Environmental Commission: A. Dwelling units are created solely for the purpose of subsidizing employee housing on the property and; 3 B. Dwelling units are not the primary use of the property. The GRFA for dwelling units shall not exceed 30% of the total GRFA constructed on the property and; C. Dwelling units are only created in conjunction with deed Festri employee housing and; D. Dwelling units are compatible with the proposed uses and buildings on the site and are compatible with buildings and uses on adjacent properties. Outdoor patios Public and private schools and educational institutions, including day -care facilities. Public buildings and grounds. Public parks. Public utilities installations including transmission lines and appurtenant equipment. Type VI employee housing units, as further regulated by Chapter 12 -13 of this Title. 12 -61 -4: ACCESSORY USES: The following accessory uses shall be permitted in the H District: Home occupations, subject to issuance of a home occupation permit in accordance with the provisions of Section 12 -14 -12 of this Title. Minor arcades Private greenhouses, tool sheds, playhouses, attached garages or carports, swimming pools, or recreation facilities customarily incidental to permitted residential uses. Other uses customarily incidental and accessory to permitted or conditional uses, and necessary for the operation thereof. 12 -61 -5: SETBACKS: The setbacks in this district shall be 20' from the perimeter of the zone district. At the discretion of the Planning and Environmental Commission, variations to the setback standards may be approved during the review of a development plan subject to the applicant demonstrating compliance with the following criteria: A. Proposed building setbacks provide necessary separation between buildings and riparian areas, geologically sensitive areas and other environmentally sensitive areas. B. Proposed building setbacks will provide adequate availability of light, air and open space. C. Proposed building setbacks will provide a compatible relationship with buildings and uses on adjacent properties. D. Proposed building setbacks will result in creative design solutions or other public benefits that could not otherwise be achieved by conformance with prescribed setback standards.. Variations to the 20 ft. setback shall not be allowed on property lines adjacent to HR, SFR, R, PS, and RC zoned properties, unless a variance is approved by the Planning and Environmental Commission pursuant to Chapter 17 of this Title. 12 -61 -6: SITE COVERAGE: Site coverage shall not exceed fifty -five percent (55 %) of the total site area. At the discretion of the Planning and Environmental Commission, site coverage may be 4 increased if 75% of the required parking spaces are underground or enclosed, thus reducing the impacts of surface paving provided within a development, and that the minimum landscape area requirement is met. 12 -61 -7: LANDSCAPING AND SITE DEVELOPMENT: At least thirty percent (30 %) of the total site area shall be landscaped. The minimum width and length of any area qualifying as landscaping shall be fifteen feet (16) with a minimum area not less than three hundred (300) square feet. 12- 61-8: PARKING AND LOADING Off- street parking shall be provided in accordance with Chapter 10 of this Title. No parking or loading area shall be located within any required setback area. At the discretion of the Planning and Environmental Commission, variations to the parking standards outlined in Chapter 10 may be approved during the review of a development plan subject to a Parking Management Plan. The Parking Management Plan shall be approved by the Planning and Environmental Commission and shall provide for a reduction in the parking requirements based on a demonstrated need for fewer parking spaces than Chapter 10 of this title would require. For example, a demonstrated need for a reduction in the required parking could include: A. Proximity or availability of alternative modes of transportation including, but not limited to, public transit or shuttle services. B. A limitation placed in the deed restrictions limiting the number of cars for each unit. C. A demonstrated permanent program including, but not limited to, rideshare programs, carshare programs, shuttle service, or staggered work shifts. 12 -61 -9: LOCATION OF BUSINESS ACTIVITY: A. Limitation; Exception: All conditional uses by 12 -61 -3 of this Article, shall be operated and conducted entirely within a building, except for permitted loading areas and such activities as may be specifically authorized to be unenclosed by a conditional use permit and the outdoor display of goods. B. Outdoor Display Areas: The area to be used for outdoor display must be located directly in front of the establishment displaying the goods and entirely upon the establishment's own property. Sidewalks, building entrances and exits, driveways and streets shall not be obstructed by outdoor display. 12- 61-10: OTHER DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS: Prescribed By Planning and Environmental Commission: In the H District, development standards in each of the following categories shall be as proposed by the applicant, as prescribed by the Planning and Environmental Commission, and as adopted on the approved development plan: A. Lot area and site dimensions. B. Building height. C. Density control (including gross residential floor area). 12- 61 -11: DEVELOPMENT PLAN REQUIRED: A. Compatibility With Intent: To ensure the unified development, the protection of the natural environment, the compatibility with the 9 surrounding area and to assure that development in the Housing District will meet the intent of the District, a development plan shall be required. B. Plan Process And Procedures: The proposed development plan shall be in accordance with Section 12 -61 -12 of this Article and shall be submitted by the developer to the Administrator, who shall refer it to the Planning and Environmental Commission, which shall consider the plan at a regularly scheduled meeting. C. Hearing: The public hearing before the Planning and Environmental Commission shall be held in accordance with Section 12 -3 -6 of this Title. The Planning and Environmental Commission may approve the application as submitted, approve the application with conditions or modifications, or deny the application. The decision of the Planning and Environmental Commission may be appealed to the Town Council in accordance with Section 12 -3 -3 of this Title. D. Plan As Guide: The approved development plan shall be used as the principal guide for all development within the Housing District. E. Amendment Process: Amendments to the approved development plan will be considered in accordance with the provisions of Section 12 -9A -10 of this Title. F. Design Review Board Approval Required: The development plan and any subsequent amendments thereto shall require the approval of the Design Review Board in accordance with the applicable provisions of Chapter 11 of this Title prior to the commencement of site preparation. 12- 61 -12: DEVELOPMENT PLAN CONTENTS: A. Submit With Application: The following information and materials shall be submitted with an application for a proposed development plan. Certain submittal requirements may be waived or modified by the Administrator if it is demonstrated that the material to be waived or modified is not applicable to the review criteria, or that other practical solutions have been reached. 1. Application form and filing fee. 2. A written statement describing the project including information on the nature of the development proposed, proposed uses, and phasing plans. 3. A survey stamped by a licensed surveyor indicating existing conditions of the property to be included in the development plan, including the location of improvements, existing contours, natural features, existing vegetation, watercourses, and perimeter property lines of the parcel. 4. A title report, including Schedules A and B4. 6. Plans depicting existing conditions of the parcel (site plan, floor plans, elevations, etc.), if applicable. 6. A complete zoning analysis of the existing and proposed development including a square footage analysis of all proposed uses, parking spaces, etc. 7. A site plan at a scale not smaller than one inch equals twenty feet (1" = 20'), showing the location and dimensions of all existing and proposed buildings and structures, all principal site development features, vehicular and pedestrian circulation systems and proposed contours and drainage plans_ 8_ Building elevations, sections and floor plans at a scale not smaller than one- eighth inch equals one foot (118" � 1'), in sufficient detail to determine floor area, circulation, location of uses and scale and appearance of the proposed development. 9. A vicinity plan showing existing and proposed improvements in relation to all adjacent properties at a scale not smaller than one inch equals fifty feet (1" = ',0'). 10. Photo overlays and /or other acceptable visual techniques for demonstrating the visual impact of the proposed development on public and private property in the vicinity of the proposed development plan. 11. An architectural or massing model at a scale sufficient to depict the proposed development in relationship to existing development on the site and on adjacent parcels. 12. A landscape plan at a scale not smaller than one inch equals twenty feet (1" = 20'), showing existing landscape features to be retained and removed, proposed landscaping and other site development features such as recreation facilities, paths and trails, plazas, walkways and water features. 13. An environmental impact report in accordance with Chapter 12 of this Title unless waived by Section 12 -12 -3 of this Title. 14. Any additional information or material as deemed necessary by Administrator. B. Copies Required; Model: With the exception of the model, four (4) complete copies of the above information shall be submitted at the time of the application. When a model is required, it shall be submitted a minimum of two (2) weeks prior to the first formal review of the Planning and Environmental Commission. At the discretion of the Administrator, reduced copies in eight and one -half inches by eleven inches (8 1/2" x 11") format of all of the above information and additional copies for distribution to the Planning and Environmental Commission, Design Review Board and Town Council may be required. 12- 61-1.3: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS /CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION: The following criteria shall be used as the principal means for evaluating a proposed development plan. It shall be the burden of the applicant to demonstrate that the proposed development plan complies with all applicable design criteria: A. Building design with respect to architecture, character, scale, massing and orientation is compatible with the site, adjacent properties and the surrounding neighborhood. B. Buildings, improvements, uses and activities are designed and located to produce a functional development plan responsive to the site, the surrounding neighborhood and uses, and the community as a whole. C. Open space and landscaping are both functional and aesthetic, are designed to preserve and enhance the natural features of the site, maximize opportunities for access and use by the public, provide adequate buffering between the proposed uses and surrounding properties, and when possible, are integrated with existing open space and recreation areas. F 7 D. A pedestrian and vehicular circulation system designed to provide safe, efficient and aesthetically pleasing circulation to the site and throughout the development. 0 E. Environmental impacts resulting from the proposal have been identified in the project's environmental impact report, if not waived, and all necessary mitigating measures are implemented as a part of the proposed development plan. F. Compliance with the Vail Comprehensive Plan and other applicable plans. B. Amendments to the definition of Employee Housing Unit In addition to the above changes, staff believes that it is necessary to amend the definition of "employee housing unit." This will allow for the changes indicated above, and to delete redundant regulations which are duplicated in the Section 12 -13 of the Town Code. The amendment is proposed as follows (text to be added is indicated in bold. Text to be deleted is indicated in s 4;ke- +hr9r,nh ) EMPLOYEE HOUSING UNIT (EHU): A dwelling unit which shall not be leased or rented for any period less than thirty (30) consecutive days, and shall be occupied ren ted #e by at least one person who is an fl III -tim4a empinvcr —, o CI...II In rh I he a llowed i i r ed n nnr+nn zene din +rGts nn emp employee. emplY yee. Cf Ip I 'p °._7r - nR 'I oG a IIP fRGU�IY G� ✓I [Cltl`7 Y- C1tTE.r�17C1 IC7 CG CI.7 p R G h ap � ,�hi,S +i +�1z;� the purposes of this definitions "fl'- + employee shall mean a person who works a minimum of an average of thirty (34) hours per week on a year round basis in Eagle County Colorado. Them shall -berme (5) Galegerfes of E #mss: Type 1 , Ty pe I1 Ty Type V anr1 Typ n +n ,inn Ty pe , I � III � I, I, I ,-�,� I p al IQ T�,e V Pr�vi;•;iens relating -� eaeh + �� -e# , EMU #4-- C. Amendments to Chapter 13, Employee Housing In addition to the changes above, there are some additional requirements which must be added to Chapter 12 -13 of the Town Code to allow for Type VI employee housing units. The following changes are proposed: 12 -13 -3: General Requirements -Type VI Employee Housing Units: G. For the purposes of this Title, a Type VI employee housing unit is an employee housing unit which shall be governed by a written management plan or other written program approved by the Planning and Environmental Commission. The management plan is the principal document in guiding the use of a Type VI employee housing unit. The management plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning and Environmental Commission as part of the conditional use permit application for a Type VI employee housing unit in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 16 of this Title. H. Management Plan — Required Contents 1. The management plan shall contain all relevant material and information necessary to establish the parameters of the Type VI employee housing unit. 2. The management plan shall demonstrate that Type VI employee housing units are exclusively used for and remain available for employee housing, as defined in this Title. 3. The management plan shall provide a mechanism to provide adequate notice of record to prospective owners to ensure that the requirements of the plan shall be met with any future changes in ownership. 4. The management plan shall include adequate provisions to ensure that the employee housing units shall be occupied, and shall not remain vacant for a period to exceed five (5) consecutive months. 5. The management plan shall provide provisions to maintain the affordability of the units. Affordability shall be defined by the management plan. 6. No later than February 1 of each year, the owner of a Type VI employee housing unit shall submit 2 copies of a sworn affidavit to be obtained from the Department of Community Development, to the Department of Community Development setting forth evidence establishing that the employee housing unit has been used in compliance with the management plan. 7. Such other items as the Planning and Environmental Commission or the Administrator may deem necessary to the proposed management plan. I. Management Plan — Findings: 1. In addition to the findings in Section 12 -16 -613 of this Title, the Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before approving the management plan: a. That the management plan is in accordance with the intent and purposes of Chapter 12 -13 and Chapter 12- 61 of this Title. b. That the management plan effectively provides for the provision of employee housing as defined in Section 12 -2 -2 of this Title. C. That the management plan effectively provides for adequate notice to prospective owners of the requirements of the management plan and the occupancy requirements for a Type VI employee housing unit. • N c O U N m • a 0 r • vj N jo Sin u c�� 0 c ., ; D X .. o •N cc I-- f�1f C C C a E �s E E r Q c 0 LL © 4C7 .0 v .0uiu U Q/ N N @ 'm N Qf i c o N •E C *' 0 L cu O — `m ro IL co a. L) L .0 IL @ W m O o U) m m�� ar cc E y c o (D @ y 0 (D> a C a , ,.S 0c� a)= 0 a .0 CL LU @ C1 W- 4) � Rd) •0MCD 0 CnOC� tB N a @ @ 0. c a, E N 0 N U @ R 0 Q � C 0 E @ ¢ L7 � c @ d v i ch -0 LU U � � c — c c @ @ co CO C0_? @ N � � C E 0 ¢� QC 7 n��a..w c L ` -p o 0 N t d 4? Q c 'iYi .0 " o v C o� - .� @ C o A W 0 a) = C 3 a) C71 C d N m m 0 o- C ci 0 cn V a 'n m G O v 0 c 06 cm C) .- c m NIlU� U = LU �-- • a 0 r • I OTOWN OF V2 _ ►y Department of Community Development 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 970 -479 -2138 FAX 970- 479 -2452 www.ci.vail.co.us August 2, 2001 Vail Run Community Association, Inc. c/o Fred Gold, Secretary/Treasurer 1000 Lionsridge Loop Vail, CO 81657 and Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC); Adjacent property owners Re: A request for a minor amendment to the approved development plan for the Vail Run Special Development District, located at 10 Lionsridge Loop / Lot 10, Block 6, is Lionsridge Filing 1. Dear Vail Run Community Association, PEC members, and adjacent property owners: Based upon the Department of Community Development's review of the required findings contained in Chapter 12 -9A, Vail Town Code, the above- referenced amendment to the Vail Run Special Development District development plan has been approved by the Department of Community Development. Staff's approval of this development plan amendment request will be reported at a public heannq before the Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) on Monday, August 13' at 2.00 p.m. in the Vail Town Council Chambers (75 S. Frontage Road). The PEC reserves the right to "call up" a staff decision for additional review at this hearing. There will also be an opportunity for public comment at this hearing. BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The proposal was for the addition of emergency egress stairwells as required by the Town of Vail Fire Department and the Uniform Fire Code. A graphic description of the stairwells (one interior, one exterior) has been provided for reference. Pursuant to Section 12 -9A -2, Vail Town Code, a "minor amendment" is defined as follows: O W RECYCLED PAPER [' MiNOR AMENDMENT (STAFF REVIEW): Modifications to building plans, site or landscape plans that do not alter the basic intent and character of the approved special development/ski base recreation district, and are consistent with the design criteria of this Chapter. Minor amendments may include, but not be limited to, variations of not more than five feet (5) to approved setbacks and /or building footprints; changes to landscape or site plans that do not adversely impact pedestrian or vehicular circulation throughout the special development district, or changes to gross floor area (excluding residential uses) of not more than five percent (5 %) of the approved square footage of retail, office, common areas and other nonresidential floor area, except as provided under Sections 12 -15 -4 (Interior Conversions) or 12 -15 -5 (250 Additional GRFA) of this Title. Pursuant to Section 12- 9A -10, Vail Town Code, "minor amendment" procedures are as follows: Minor modifications consistent with the design criteria outlined in subsection 12- 9A-2 (definition of "minor amendment ") of this Article, may be approved by the Department of Community Development. All minor modifications shall be indicated on a completely revised development plan. Approved changes shall be noted, signed, dated and filed by the Department of Community Development. IL CRITERIA AND FINDINGS A. Section 12 -9A -2: Minor Amendment (staff review): Modifications to site plans that do not alter the basic intent and character of the approved district and are consistent with the design criteria of this Chapter, may include changes to landscape or site plans that do not adversely impact pedestrian or vehicular circulation. The Department of Community Development has determined the stairwell additions are necessary for the protection of public health, safety and welfare. The building materials and colors proposed are identical to the existing colors and materials at the Vail Run building. Staff believes this proposal is consistent with the existing character of the special development district and that pedestrian circulation and safety will be greatly enhanced with the addition of the new stairwells. B. Section 12- 9A -10: Minor modifications consistent with the design criteria outlined in subsection 12 -9A -2 may be approved by the Department of Community Development. Notification of a proposed minor amendment and a report of staff action shall be provided to all property owners within or adjacent to the district that may be affected by the amendment. Notification shall be postmarked no later than 5 days following staff action on the amendment and shall include a brief statement describing the amendment and the time and date of when the Planning and Environmental Commission will be informed of the staff decision. , The proposed amendment is consistent with the design criteria outlined under subsection 12 -9A -2. Notification of the hearing and a summary of the proposal will be mailed to all adjacent property owners within 5 days of today's date. Staff's approval of the request will be reported to the Planning and Environmental Commission on August 13` 2001. Pursuant to Section 12- 9A -10, Mail Town Code, appeals of staff decisions may be filed by adjacent property owners, owners of property within the special development district, the applicant, Planning and Environmental Commission members or members of the Town Council as outlined in Section 12 -3 -3 of the Town of Vail Zoning Regulations. If you would like to discuss this matter in greater detail, please contact me at (970) 479 -2140. Sincerely, Brent Wilson, AICP Senior Planner Attachments 0 rA "JL 4, J , 3 "f D All CL VAIL RUN BUILDING 1000 LIONSRIDGE LOOP VAIL. COLORADO m 0 0 0 0 z NJ v E Dil a•\ r r, 1 �,'-'� i } � }4 'r Y��j� r - Ax "JL 4, J , 3 "f D All CL VAIL RUN BUILDING 1000 LIONSRIDGE LOOP VAIL. COLORADO m 0 0 0 0 z NJ v E Dil • r • r Ao- V o f Id VAIL FAUN BUILDING �s�d 11 I 1000 LIONSRIDGR LOOP VAIL. COLORADO i ' z r r S �o 'r 1 R !p a { � I L■ a � � �C C? x v r I VA,IL RUN BUILDING 1000 LIONSRIDGE LOOP -- VAIL,.COLORADO I Q Z • • VAIL RUN BUILDING .� i g I 1000 LIONSRIDGE LOOP 1 H41 VAIL, COLORADO • 4 m M r m c b a z s v r s b v D Z fig m r s z z b O IR° VAIL RUN BUILDING EA I 1000 LIONSFUDGE LOOP VAIL. COLORADO • • i r� wa as %l[ F A n L r � §0 m da 3g mQ# z ax > m�wwxa ° wx3� 4 a Qar r 8( • VAIL RUN BUILDING 1000 LIONSRIDGE LOOP @� VAIL, COLORADO �• i4 1I � iit�6 rs � § F } Z K j , p `� H c � I MF %l[ F A n L r � §0 m da 3g mQ# z ax > m�wwxa ° wx3� 4 a Qar r 8( • VAIL RUN BUILDING 1000 LIONSRIDGE LOOP @� VAIL, COLORADO �• i4 VAIL RUN BUILDING c 1000 LIONSRIDGE LOOP VAJL, COLORADO 1 • • 1-1 :7 I ! I � I I I I �f I I I I I r r r P O v z z F I 0 I I au n � 4 = r T m ww r O O A s o I �I I I i I 1 1 i � I I� i I 1 xv I I I I I I Wb '1/ I f 0 r r O O z Q I I � R I • r F '1 0 r r r 8 I I I I i 9 3 �y ' RRR I I I i IV 1� VAIL RUN BUILDING BFI 1000 LIONSRIDGE LOOP �a^ PAIL, COLORADO y t• • 1 • E 0 X ------- m r 0 V VAIL RUN BUILDING 1000 UONSRIDGE LOOP VA]" COLORADO # M O 4 Y C3 23 t 1 t t f t t b ` i 8 6 8 ■ ■ ■ . i m $ i3 _ • r • • • m • • • N • n r s i t 4 + ,, �. , +. It it It � tt tl tt If ff ff ff av � §t , 7 1 ...... m l u VIII i C111 viii l IIIIi II I 1111111 Lj IF77 I III IIlI � i i pp C L o,7 R4 , a iii ° - F VAIL RUM BUILDINGB 1 i= 1000 LIONSRIDGE LOOP � i6 i VAIL. COLORADO 9 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES Monday, July 23, 2001 PROJECT ORIENTATION 1- Community Development Dept. PUBLIC WELCOME MEMBERS PRESENT Dick Cleveland Brian Doyon John Schofield Galen Aasland Chas Bernhardt Doug Cahill Site Visits : 1. Fitz & Gaylord — 523 S. Frontage Rd. West 2. Gateway — 12 Vail Road 12:00 pm 1:15 pm Driver: George NOTE: If the PEC hearing extends until 6.00 p.m., the board may break for dinner from 6:00 - 6:30 Public Hearing - Town Council Chambers 2:00 pm 1. A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for a Type II Employee Housing Unit, located at 84 Beaver Dam Road /Lot 28, Block 7, Vail Village 1 Filing. Applicant: Petrus Financial Management, LTD. Planner: Bill Gibson Bill Gibson gave an overview of the criteria and findings used to evaluate the conditional use permit request. He stated staff's recommendation was for approval with the condition outlined on page 2 of the staff memorandum. Dick Cleveland had no comments. Brian Doyon stated he hoped the unit remained occupied. Chas Bernhardt had no comments. John Schofield had no comments. Doug Cahill had no comments. Galen Aasland stated concerns with the town's deed restrictions but said it was not an issue for the applicant to address. lA TOWN O14 VA[L 1 MEMBERS ABSENT Diane Golden John Schofield moved to approve, in accordance with the staff memo. Doug Cahill seconded. The motion carried 6 -0. 2. A request for a final review of the rezoning from Commercial Core I to Commercial Service Center, a major amendment to Special Development District Igo. 21, a text amendment to Section 12 -7E -4 of the Vail Town Code, to allow for private clubs as a conditional use in the Commercial Service Center zone district, a conditional use permit for a private parking club in the Commercial Service Center zone district, and a conditional use permit to allow for residential dwelling units in the Commercial Service Center zone district, located at 12 Vail Road / portions of lots O and N, Block 5D, Vail Village 1" Filing. Applicant: Mountain Owners, L.P., represented by Braun Associates Planner Allison Ochs Allison Ochs presented an overview of the requests and the zoning implications. Allison presented the criteria for review of all of the requests. She stated staff's recommendation was that the applicant provide a total of eight employee beds. Dominic Mauriell_o gave a presentation to the PEC on behalf of the applicant. Dominic presented an analysis of employee generation based upon existing and proposed future uses. He also presented the zoning implications with regard to the applicant's request. • John Schofield asked Dominic to provide a presentation on the private parking club operation and the amount of parking provided for the residential uses. 40 Dominic Mauriello explained the operation of the club and the excess spaces not required under the town code provisions. He then discussed the application of the employee generation methodology with this proposal and previous SDD amendments. Kevin Deighan spoke on behalf of Timberline Commercial Real Estate. He stated his issues with the employee generation analysis and called the analysis discriminatory. There was no public input or comment on this item. Allison Ochs explained the employee generation methodology and how it was applied to this application. Doug Cahill stated he was in accord with the staff recommendations. He said the PEC was attempting to mitigate development impacts that exist for the entire scope of the project. He stated the employee housing was a recognized public benefit and that it needed to be provided in some form — either on -site or off -site. Dick Cleveland stated he thought the rezoning was appropriate and consistent with the Town's master plan. He stated the additional 7500 square feet of GRFA generated some new development impacts. Dick stated he supported the request for the private parking club and the text amendments. Dick stated he thought employee housing was perhaps the only "tangible" public benefit and that although 8 beds may not be necessary, some provision for employee housing should be made. 4 Brian Doyon stated he thought the application should be reviewed under current standards. Brian outlined the deviations from the underlying zoning and iterated a need to mitigate that deviation with public benefits. He stated employee housing was a necessary component and that a parking management plan and parking study should be submitted for review. He 2 stated he would leave the final number on housing generation up to the Town Council, but that some employee housing should be required. Chas Bernhardt stated he agreed with Brian on the issue of mitigation. He stated employee housing could be provided off -site. John Schofield stated he thought the existing building does not work. John stated his support for the office and residential portions of the application, but said he was in opposition to the private parking club. He said the physical layout of the tandem parking spaces made the full utilization of the parking spaces nearly impossible. John stated some type of employee housing should be required, even if it is off -site. The PEC took a five- minute recess. Allison Ochs suggested that basing the employee generation numbers on the new GRFA and dwelling units only would generate a need for .8 employee beds. Allison also reiterated a staff condition regarding a parking management plan for the private club. Dominic Mauriello requested the option of housing employees off -site and asked for some flexibility to provide effective parking management. Dominic stated he thought the requirement for public benefits in exchange for a rezoning constituted "contract zoning." Brian Doyon moved to recommend approval of the rezoning from. CCI to CSC, subject to the findings in the staff memo. Chas Bernhardt seconded. 0 The motion carried 5 -0. Dick Cleveland stated that one employee housing unit would be a reasonable requirement. Brian Doyon stated that the number of required EHU's should be determined by the Town Council, Chas Bernhardt stated that the EHU could be provided off -site. Doug Cahill stated he would recommend one unit to the Vail Town Council. Brian Doyon moved to recommend approval of the major SDD amendment with the findings and conditions in the staff memo and with a text amendment listed on the bottom of page 19 of the staff memo and modifying condition #3, that no less than one and no greater than 5 employee beds be provided within the Town of Vail. Dick Cleveland seconded. The motion passed 4 -1 (Doug Cahill opposed). Brian Doyon moved to recommend approval of the proposed text amendments in accordance with the staff memo. Doug Cahill seconded. 41 The motion passed by a vote of 4 -1 (Schofield opposed). Doug Cahill moved to approve the conditional use permit for the private parking club, in accordance with the staff memo, Brent Wilson reviewed the motion with amendments. The motion carried 6 -0. 4. A request for a recommendation to the Town Council to amend Sections 12- 7H -3C, 12 -7H- 413, 12- 71 -3C, and 12- 71 -413, Vail Town Code, to allow for commercial ski storage as a conditional use on the first and second floors of buildings in the Lionshead Mixed Use 1 and Lionshead 'Mixed Use 2 zone districts, and to amend Section 12 -2 -2, Vail Town Code to add a definition of "pedestrian way." Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Allison Ochs Allison Ochs gave an overview of the staff memorandum. She stated that this item had been reviewed previously and that staff was now requesting a final recommendation to the Town Council from the Planning and Environmental Commission. She outlined the changes that had been made to the memorandum since the Planning and Environmental Commission had reviewed the item previously. This included the feedback received from the Town Council worksession to review the proposal. Galen Aasland asked for public comment. Jonathon Greene spoke on behalf of Vail Resorts. He noted that there needed to be consideration for the type of storage to be allowed. He noted that there is short -term outdoor storage and long -term storage. He suggested that the market could control the amount of ski storage because it would not be financially feasible to have storage be the majority of the use of a business. He stated that storage is a great benefit for guests. Galen Aasland asked for clarification on the type of storage being reviewed. Allison Ochs stated that the proposal was only to review indoor storage. Joe Macy spoke on behalf of Vail Resorts. He noted his frustration in having to deal with vertical zoning with respect to ski storage. He added that it needed to be easier for guests to store their gear, inside and out. He could not provide a demonstration because he didn't bring ski boots along. Brian suggested that the guest be responsible for mandating the parameters for ski storage. Galen Aasland noted that Vail Resorts had done a poor job of managing outdoor ski storage in the past. He noted that it needed to be easy for the guest but it needed to be done aesthetically. He then asked for additional public comment, Jeff Babb spoke on behalf of Vail Resorts. He noted that the ski storage business in Lionshead is in the toilet. He suggested that the business has not been located somewhere accessible to guests, unlike in the Village- He added that ski storage should not be hidden from public view. Jonathon Greene agreed that ski storage should be aesthetic, but that it is also a business and needs to be accommodated in order to be successful. Doug Cahill noted the changing needs of the guest and need to adapt to these needs. He suggested that there should be no limitation to the extent of the use indoors. John Schofield agreed with Doug. He referred to the recent retail survey which determined 0 that the market should be allowed to regulate uses. He stated that the definition should be consistent with the UBC and that the ski storage should be a use by right on all levels. Dick Cleveland stated that retail merchants should decide how to run their businesses. He stated that the use should be accessory and not conditional and that again, the market should determine uses. Brian Doyon stated that ski storage needs to be a conditional use permit because though the use is inside, there is an effect outside and there will be an impact on the town. In terms of the extent of the use indoors, he stated that the market can control this effectively. He noted that the definition of street level and first floor should be consistent, so that Dominic can not use this to his benefit in the future. Galen Aasland stated that the definition should be simple. He added that ski storage should be a conditional use with no time limit. He noted that transparency should be maintained. Allison Ochs summarized the Commissioners' comments. Russ Forrest elaborated. The PEG took a straw poll to determine whether or not the proposal should include the Village and whether the use should be accessory or conditional. The straw poll was not conclusive. Allison Ochs stated that she would explore all options and that the PEC could make a decision and final recommendation at the next PEC hearing to discuss this item. Dick Cleveland motioned to table the item to August 13, 2001. Brian Doyon seconded the item. The motion carried 6 -0. 5. A review of the proposed Arts in Public Places Strategic Plan. Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Braun Associates, Inc. Planner: Ann Kjerulf Ann Kjerulf gave an overview of the staff memorandum and the AIPP strategic plan. Dominic Mauriello presented the AIPP's plan and the notion of site integrated art. He also discussed potential programs and funding sources for both public and private art. Galen Aasland asked for public comment. Rick Scalpello stated he thought it was inappropriate for the government to require private development to provide public art. Jonathan Greene stated the intent of the document was to inspire creative implementation of streetscaping improvements. Dick Cleveland said he supported the notion of a percent for art program. He thought the Town needs to raise its own standards for public projects. Dick said he had concerns about requiring public art as development impact mitigation, but favored the provision of incentives for developers. Dick said he'd like to see more AIPP involvement with the Community Development Department's development review process. 7 Brian Doyon said he didn't think art should be required, but rather encouraged. He stated he thought people's tastes may vary and that one of his concerns was how subjective art projects can be. He said he thought the AIPP should acquire more money /grants to provide art and rely less on private funding. Doug Cahill agreed with Brian's comments and said art provisions should be encouraged and not required. Doug said he supported the notion of site - integrated art. Doug suggested public /private partnerships or incentives for developers. John Schofield stated the term "encourage" was the limit of the Town's authority with the provision of art from private sources. John also stated that, as a taxpayer, he did not support the "percent for art" notion_ John suggested more AIPP involvement at the DRB level. Galen Aasland thanked the AIPP for doing a good job on the plan. He said he agreed with Dick, but said he had concerns with requiring art for projects at a smaller scale and thought it may be appropriate for larger commercial projects. Galen said he thought the use of RETT funds could be difficult given constraints on their use. 6. A request for a recommendation to the Town Council to allow for an amendment to Section 12 -61 -2 (Housing Zone District — Permitted Uses), Vail Town Code, to allow for the addition of "employee housing" as a permitted use in the Housing Zone District, and to amend Section 12 -2 -2, Vail Town Code to amend the definition of "employee housing." Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Allison Ochs TABLED UNTIL AUGUST 13, 2001 7. A request for a recommendation to the Town Council for the adoption of two view corridors within Lionshead, as identified within the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, View Corridor 1 is located approximately at the main pedestrian exit looking southwest towards the Gondola lift line. View Corridor 2 is located approximately from the pedestrian plaza at the east end of the Lifthouse Lodge looking south up the Gondola lift line. A more specific legal description of the two view corridors is on file at the Community Development Department. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Allison Ochs Allison Ochs presented the history of the proposed corridors as part of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan and the direction received from the Town Council thus far. She explained the exact locations proposed. She also read the criteria used for evaluation of the proposed view corridors. Galen Aasland and John Schofield inquired about the location of the view corridors with regard to private property lines. They requested that the surveyor superimpose setback and property lines on the property map. • Estaquio Cortina thanked the PEC for all of their volunteer work. He requested that the surveyor superimpose the setbacks and property lines onto the map for view corridor #2. He suggested the view corridor be amended so it corresponds to the building setback lines. Larry Barnes from Vail Home Rentals said there was no problem with View Corridor #1 but said View Corridor #2 should be amended to reflect setback lines. He had some concerns with the ability to vent mechanical equipment or expanding condominiums into the corridor. There was no other public comment. 0 Doug Cahill requested the additional overlay lines on the map. John Schofield agreed and also asked for build -to lines. Dick Cleveland agreed. Brian Doyon agreed and added a concern about following the outline of the buildings, rather than using a straight line to delineate the corridors. He said it would be better to use a straight line. John Schofield moved to table the item to the next meeting. Doug Cahill seconded. The motion passed 5 -0. 8. A request for a final review and a recommendation to the Vail Town Council on the Town of Vail's proposed Meadow Drive streetscape improvement project, located at East /West Meadow Drive, Vail Village. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: George Ruther 0 Brian Doyon moved to table the item. 0 John Schofield seconded. The motion passed 6 -0. TABLED UNTIL AUGUST 13, 2001 9. A request for a final review of a minor subdivision proposal, located at 3834 & 3838 Bridge Road/ Lots 11 & 12, Bighorn Subdivision 2 nd Addition. Applicant: Gary Weiss, represented by Steve Riden, Architect Planner: Ann Kjerulf TABLED UNTIL AUGUST 13, 2001 10. A request for a final review of a minor subdivision proposal, located at 3816, 3826, and 3828 Bridge Road/ Lots 8, 9, & 10, Bighorn Subdivision 2 nd Addition. Applicant: Jeff Dahl and June Frazier, represented by Steve Riden, Architect Planner: Ann Kjerulf TABLED UNTIL AUGUST 13, 2001 11. Approval of June 25, 2001 and July 9 , 2001 minutes 12. Information Update Performance Bond Process — update PEC attendance @ APA Conference RSVP deadline 7/30101 9 The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours in the project planner's office located at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. Please call 479 -2138 for information. Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification, Please call 479 -2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. Community Development Department 0 10 Approved 8127/01 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION PUBLIC MEETING RESULTSIMINUTES Monday, August 13, 2001 PROJECT ORIENTATION I - Community Development Dept. PUBLIC WELCOME MEMBERS PRESENT Galen Aasland Chas Bernhardt Diane Golden Brian Doyon Doug Cahill Dick Cleveland Site Visits: 1. Weiss Lots — 3834 & 3838 Bridge Road 2. Frazier /Dahl Lots — 3816 & 3826 Lupine Drive, 3828 Bridge Road 3. Vail Village Inn — 100 E. Meadow Drive 4. Gateway Building — 12 Vail Road Driver: George 12:00 p.m. 1:00 P.M. 0 1*: 3� NOTE: If the PEC hearing extends until 6:00 p.m., the board may break for dinner from 6:00 - 6:30 Public Hearing - Town Council Chambers 2:00 p.m. A request for a variance from Section 12 -6D -5 ( "Lot Area and Site Dimensions "), Vail Town Code, and a final review of a minor subdivision located at 3834 and 3838 Bridge Road/ Lots 11 & 12, Bighorn Subdivision 2 nd Addition. Applicant: Gary Weiss, represented by Steve Riden, Architect Planner: Ann Kjerulf Ann Kjerulf presented the staff memorandum, the criteria for review, the required findings and staff's recommendation and proposed conditions of approval. Ann discussed the history of the application and the need to obtain a variance to facilitate the applicant's minor subdivision request. Ann also requested the removal of a trash shed enclosure for Lot 12 from the Town right -of -way. Steve Riden mentioned the applicant was working with the Eagle Valley Land Trust to provide a conservation easement on a portion of the lot. Brian Doyon asked about the minimum lot size required for a new subdivision. Chas Bernhardt stated he agreed with Ann and that the proposal was an improvement over existing conditions. - TOW * VAIL , N O MEMBERS ABSENT ,John Schofield Approved 8127141 Doug Cahill asked about the status of the conservation easement. Doug said he was hesitant to approve a house that was greater than 11,000 square feet of GRFA and that something more consistent with the neighborhood character would be more appropriate_ Steve Riden said the applicant was amenable to a reduction in GRFA with the proposal. He said 7,500 square feet of GRFA was more than necessary. Diane Golden stated she agreed with staff. Galen Aasland said he thought the application could comply with the subdivision regulations if a diligent effort were made. He said they needed to consider something that "fits in" with the neighborhood as their ultimate goal. He said he thought the existing application was inconsistent with the neighborhood character. Dick Cleveland said he agreed with Galen. He said he'd prefer to see the lots remain divided. Steve Riden said his client needed to keep the property within one lot with a conservation easement over the red hazard avalanche portion. He said the applicant would be happy with a plat restriction on GRFA. Galen Aasland suggested Steve Riden meet with staff to establish appropriate plat restrictions and return to the PEC at a future meeting. Steve Riden agreed to do that. The various PEC members debated the concept of either a plat restriction on GRF, versus the designation of a building envelope on the plat. Galen Aasland stated he'd be happy providing the same development potential that exists today (7,597 square feet)_ Steve Riden agreed to return with a plat note for PEC review. Chas Bernhardt moved to table to 8/27. Dick Cleveland seconded. The motion carried 6 -0. 2. A request for a variance from Section 12 -6D -5 ( "Lot Area and Site Dimensions "), Vail Town Code, and a final review of a minor subdivision located at 3816 and 3826 Lupine Drive and 3828 Bridge Road / Lots 8, 9, & 10, Bighorn Subdivision 2nd Addition. Applicant: Jeff Dahl and ,tune Frazier, represented by Steve Riden, Architect Planner: Ann Kjerulf Ann Kjerulf presented the staff memorandum, the criteria for review, the required findings and staff's recommendation and proposed conditions of approval. Ann discussed the history of the application and the need to obtain a variance to facilitate the applicant's minor subdivision request. 49 Steve Riden had nothing to add. There was no public comment. Approved 8/27/01 Doug Cahill and Diane Golden had no comments. Dick Cleveland inquired who owned each lot. He asked if a conservation easement was also considered for these lots and what the applicant's goal was with the application. Steve Riden stated they wanted to reallocate GRFA among the lots. Dick Cleveland inquired about the parking in the right -of -way. Steve Riden clarified that the parking would be dealt with at the DRB level Brian Doyon stated that he felt that the parking issues needed to be dealt with as part of this application. If not, he was not in favor of the application. Chas Bernhardt stated that because many of the remaining lots in Town are non- conforming, it is going to take creative solutions. He stated that because the proposal is bringing the lots more into compliance, he was in favor. Galen Aasland stated he had concerns with the existing parking in the Town's right -of -way. He asked about the sale of the lots and the conditions of the sale of the lots. He asked if the application should be for the creation of two new conforming lots. He inquired about the buildable area for the existing lots. Galen asked for a condition that the parking be removed from the right -of -way. Brian Doyon moved to approve the minor subdivision request with staff's conditions and that within one year of today's date (or prior to recording of the plat), the parking within the Town right -of -way shall comply with all Town standards. Doug Cahill seconded. The motion carried 6 -0. Brian Doyon moved to approve the variance subject to staff's findings and conditions. Chas Bernhardt seconded. The motion carried 6 -0. 3. A request for a final review of the proposed parking management plan for the Vail Gateway, located at 12 Vail Road / portions of lots O and N, Block 5D, Vail Village 1" Filing. Applicant: Mountain Owners, L.P., represented by Braun Associates Planner: Allison Ochs Galen Aasland stated, for the record, that he was not recusing himself from this application, as he did not think he had any conflicts of interest. Allison Ochs presented the applicant's request and the history of the proposal. Allison discussed the details of the required parking and the applicant's proposed parking plan. Allison stated the applicant's proposed use of tandem parking is only allowed (per Title 14, Vail Town Code) with the use of an approved valet parking program. She said the applicant is not proposing to use a valet parking service for the project, therefore staff recommended denial of the proposed parking management plan. Approved 8127101 Dominic Mauriello spoke on behalf of the applicant. Dominic discussed the history of the building and how parking has been managed thus far. He stated the applicant thought the individual tenants could manage the use of the tandem spaces more effectively than the parking club users. He stated a valet service might be employed during peak periods. He stated the original SDD application was approved in 1988 with the use of tandem parking. Galen Aasland iterated the PEC's ability to "call up" the parking plan for additional review if problems should arise. Dominic Mauriello requested the PEC allow the applicant the opportunity to demonstrate the program will work, absent any evidence that the plan will not work. Allison Ochs explained the zoning implications with the request and the provisions for conditional use permit approval. There was no public comment Dick Cleveland said the tandem parking was an existing issue with the building configuration, but that Title 14 specifically states tandem parking must be accompanied by a valet parking service. Thus, Dick stated he was obliged as a PEC member to uphold the provisions of Title 14. Therefore, he said he'd vote to deny the request, Brian Doyon asked Dominic how many office spaces were proposed. He said he was concerned there may not be enough "free" spaces available for office use with the tandem configuration. Brian requested a specific condition that the PEC could call the item up if problems arise. Chas Bernhardt stated he understood Dick's position, but thought the conditional use permit "revocability" provisions afforded a measure of comfort to at least test the program to see how it operates. Doug Cahill stated he thought this could be an interesting test case to see how this type of parking program. He suggested a Town planner inspect the provisions once the office space reached 50% capacity. Diane Golden said she agreed and she supported the applicant's parking plan. Galen Aasland said he respected Dick's comments, but thought this SDD offered some substantial public benefit and thought that the revocability of the conditional use permit afforded some safety. Brian Doyon moved to approve the plan, subject to the condition that the CUP is revocable if problems arise in the future. Galen Aasland suggested a staff report on the conditions in the future. Brian Doyon amended his motion so the staff report is transmitted within one year or when the office space is leased at 75% of capacity. Diane Golden seconded. The motion carried 5 -1, with Dick Cleveland opposed_ 4. A request for the final review of a major amendment to Special Development District 6, Vail Village Inn, to allow for the redevelopment of an existing hotel, located at 100 East Meadow Drive, Lots M and O, Block 5 -D, Vail Village 1 Filing. Approved 8!27109 Applicant: Daymer Corporation, represented by Jay Peterson Planner: George Ruther Galen Aasland indicated that all of the records for this project are available for public inspection at the back of the room and in the Community Development Department, George Ruther presented an overview of the staff memorandum. He clarified that due to allegations with regard to notice requirements, the application is back to the PEC for review. He further clarified that the proposal has been reviewed by Town Boards more than 15 times during the process. He then reviewed the uses proposed on site. George Ruther stated the Community Development Department was recommending approval of the request, based upon the criteria identified in Section V of the staff memorandum. George also provided a recommended finding and recommended conditions, beginning on page 4 of the staff memo. George stated all of the originally - reviewed PEC materials were available for public review and were incorporated into the record. George also noted the February 28, 2000 PEC memo, attachments, and meeting transcripts were available for review and were incorporated into today's record. Galen Aasland verified the conditions listed in the staff memo were the same conditions approved originally by the Town Council. Jay Peterson spoke on behalf of the Daymer Corporation. He introduced Tim Losa, the architect, and Waldir Prado, the developer. He then further explained the concerns regarding the defect in the publication requirements, specifically the omittance of the date of the hearing. The applicant stated that they believe that by coming back before the PEC with the same information and documentation would be preventative medicine. He stated that the PEC should take all public comment regarding the proposal, but again, there are no changes to the application from its previous approvals. Galen Aasland inquired about the relevance of the Vail Plaza Hotel West approval which was recently approved. Jay Peterson stated that he did not believe that project has any relevance to the current proposal and that the owner would return to the PEC should any changes or amendments be proposed. Dick Cleveland asked about whether or not the courts could rule the original application void and if they did, would they applicant have to reappear in front of the Planning and Environmental Commission. Jay Peterson stated that he believed that this would prevent this from happening. Galen Aasland asked if the applicant had anything further to add. The applicant did not. Diane Golden asked if this application would then return to the Town Council. Galen Aasland asked about the decision the PEC would be making today. George Ruther clarified the request. He stated that should the PEC choose to forward a recommendation of approval, the conditions should read as stated in the adopting ordinance (Ord. No 4, Series of 2000). Brian Doyon asked about the conditions in Ordinance No. 4, pages 5 through 8, for clarification. Approved 8127101 Galen Aasland asked for any public comment. Mr. Charles Lipcon did not speak nor present any testimony to the Commission. Rick Scalpello, representing 9 Vail Rd., asked questions regarding the interpretation of the conditional use regarding the employee housing. George Ruther clarified the condition regarding the EHUs. Rick Scalpello asked about the physical layout of the EHUs. He also asked about the changes in the parking regulations since the original approvals. Galen Aasland asked about the changes in code that have occurred since the original SDD approval. George Ruther stated that the parking requirements have been amended and that the amendments have reduced the required parking and therefore the applicant is in excess of the required parking. He then clarified that the EHUs are a different configuration than the Vail Plaza Hotel West, but other amenities were included, including a lounge area and storage. Diane Golden clarified the number of units and number of beds in the project for EHUs. Jay Peterson stated that no changes are proposed for the EHUs. Dick Cleveland asked to see the layout of the EHUs. 0 Jay Peterson discussed the parking requirements of the entire SDD and that this project was required to make up for a deficit for parking on the entire SDD. Galen Aasland asked if the applicant has run additional calculations. Jay Peterson stated that they have not. Brent Wilson stated that the reductions were approximately 30% across the board. Dick Cleveland asked if they would be coming in to amend the parking requirement. Jay Peterson stated that he is not requesting that with the application today. Brian Doyon asked about what the argument would be. Galen Aasland stated that the application must stand under the application today. Jay Peterson clarified the parking situation and the SDD requirements. Galen Aasland stated that the plans are available for public view. Tim Losa explained the layout of the EHUs. Additional questions were posed regarding the EHUs. George Ruther clarified the parking requirements of the SDD. 6 Approved 8127101 Tim Losa stated that the applicant is making up a deficit for the entire SDD of approximately 40 spaces. 40 The applicant stated that they could provide 1 more parking space within the building. Galen Aasland stated that the PEC would be breaking for 15 minutes to look at the evidence as provided. He then recalled the meeting to order. He asked about the setbacks between the Vail Gateway and the Vail Plaza Hotel. George Ruther clarified the increase from 14 ft. to 20 ft. of the setback along Vail Road and further discussed other setbacks. Doug Cahill stated that there were some special circumstances regarding this project and that the additional issues brought forward were being considered by the applicant. He further stated that the new information regarding the other project, Vail Plaza Hotel West, has lead him to reconsider some of the merits of this project, especially regarding some of he duplicated uses and the mass and bulk of the project. Jay Peterson stated that because many of the uses that are duplicated are actually below grade, the mass and bulk of the building would not substantially change with the elimination of certain uses. He further stated that the mass and bulk for this site were found to be appropriate for the site, compliant with the Master Plan, and generally beneficial for the Town of Vail. Doug Cahill stated that he agreed, but he did feel that the public benefits of the project need to be considered. Diane Golden stated she appreciated the applicant's congeniality and she will continue to support this project. Dick Cleveland stated for the record that he was not on the PEC when the project was originally approved. He stated that generally he felt it is a good project. He then stated his concerns regarding the bulk and mass, the traffic, impacts, etc. He then stated that he felt all of the buildings in this area need to be looked at as a whole and he questions the justification of the big buildings. He would appreciate the building being smaller and stepping back. He stated that the additional 2 ft. for the EHUs to be on site was acceptable. He did not feel that parking was an issue. He stated his concerns about the dual facilities, but he felt that was for the applicant to work out. Brian Doyon stated his thanks and appreciation to the applicant, owner, and architect for their understanding regarding the publication situation. He stated that he was in favor of the application and he did not believe that the EHU or parking situations were a concern. Chas Bernhardt stated that he is on record for stating that he felt had he had a better understanding of the Master Plan, he would have voted against the project originally. He stated that due to the effect of the proposal on light and air, he is not in favor of this project. Galen Aasland stated that he believed the bulk and mass of the building were a reasonable expectation to the neighboring properties. He further stated that the Gateway received benefit from being an SDD also. He also stated that he felt the parking was no longer an issue. He further stated that he felt that the EHU should be reconsidered. He stated that the project stands on its own. Doug Cahill made a motion to forward a recommendation of approval to the Vail Town Council, in accordance with the staff memorandum and the conditions as outlined in Section 5, Ord. No. 4, Series of 2000. Approved 8127101 Diane Golden seconded the motion. George Ruther clarified the findings: "That the proposed major amendment to Special Development District #6, Vail Village Inn, complies with the nine design criteria outlined in Section 12 -9A -8 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code. The applicant, as required, has demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Commission that any adverse effects of the requested deviations from the development standards of the underlying zoning are outweighed by the public benefits provided or has demonstrated that one or more of the development standards is not applicable, or that a practical solution consistent with the public interest has been achieved. Further, the Commission finds that the requested conditional use permit to allow for the operation of a fractional fee club complies with the applicable criteria and is consistent with the development goals and objectives of the Town_ Lastly, public notice of this public hearing has been sent to adjacent property owners and published in a local newspaper of record in accordance with Section 12 -3 -6C of the Town Code." Doug Cahill stated that his motion was so amended. George Ruther entered the publication and notice information as part of the record. Doug Cahill amended his motion. Diane Golden seconded. The motion was passed 4 -2 (Cleveland and Bernhardt opposed.) 5. A request for a final review and recommendation to the Vail Town Council of proposed text 40 amendments to the Vail Town Code, Chapters 12 -7H & I, Lionshead Mixed Use 1 & Lionshead Mixed Use 2, to amend the regulations regarding commercial ski storage and to amend Chapter 12 -2, Definitions, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Allison Ochs Allison Ochs presented the history of the proposed text amendments and staff's position on the issue. Allison provided two options for consideration: offering commercial ski storage as either a conditional or an accessory use within the Lionshead Mixed Use I and II Zone Districts. Allison stated staff recommended the PBC forward a recommendation of approval to the Town Council to allow for commercial ski storage as an accessory use in LMU I and LMU 11. Allison also presented some amended definitions for the Town code to clarify matters relating to commercial ski storage. Galen Aasland requested public comment. Torn Neyens spoke as a commercial ski storage provider. He stated his concerns with enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance. He said changes to the existing ordinance could have substantial financial impacts to many businesses. He stated the provisions should apply to both Vail Village and Lionshead. He stated he supported ski storage as a permitted use. Bill Jewett spoke as a Lionshead business owner. He said it would be in the Town's best interest to allow sales tax generating businesses at street level. He said he didn't think ski storage or offices should occur at street level. He stated concerns regarding the viability of retail in Vail and said Vail's retail was being outdone by Aspen. He stated uses which are considered inappropriate for the Village should be treated the same in Lionshead. He said Approved 8/27101 Lionshead needed the same stringent standards for quality if the Town wants to incent redevelopment and revitalize Lionshead. Kaye Ferry spoke against a change in the ordinance. She stated street level ski storage would have negative impacts and suggested the Town buy out everyone's lease who invested money in basement level ski storage. There was no other public comment. Dick Cleveland said he agreed that changes should apply to both the Village and Lionshead. He also agreed that sales tax should be applied to long-term ski storage. He said he thought it was up to the individual business owner decide what works best. He supported providing it as a conditional use. Brian Doyon said he had mixed emotions on the issue. He said he still had a ,problem with the definitions and that some buildings may have multiple first floors. He said providing unfair advantages to new businesses at other levels could be problematic. He said the same standards should apply in Lionshead and the Village. He said it should not occur at street level. Chas Bernhardt stated he agreed with Brian and said he would consider at as an accessory use, if it is considered at all. Doug Cahill agreed that Lionshead and the Village should be treated the same and that long -term storage should occur outside of street level and that street level should be reserved for uses oriented to short -term visitors. He said the "pedestrian way" definition could be applied just about anywhere and that perhaps mapped pedestrian routes should be established. Doug said an accessory use up to 49% of floor area would be appropriate for short-term ski storage, with no long -term storage at street level. Diane Golden said street level should be reserved for interesting tourist - oriented uses and not for ski storage. She said Vail Village and Lionshead should be treated consistently. Galen Aasland stated the Village and Lionshead should be treated the same. He said sales tax is the lifeblood of the Town. He said he thought allowing ski storage at street level, without review by the PEC would be a death toll for the Town. He said he would vote against the proposal, especially as an accessory use at up to 49% of floor area. He was more supportive of allowing it as a conditional use. Doug Cahill stated he thought there needed to be strong controls on the use of street level commercial space. Brian Doyon moved to recommend denial allowing commercial ski storage as an accessory use at all levels (still permitted at basement level) to the Vail Town Council. Diane Golden seconded. The motion carried 5 -1 (Cleveland opposed). No consensus was reached on the issue, therefore no change was recommended by the PEC. 6. A request for a final review and recommendation to the Vail Town Council of proposed text amendments to the Vail Town Code, Chapter 12 -61, Housing Zone District, and Chapter 12- 2, Definitions, to allow for additional uses and to amend definitions in regard thereto. Approved 8/27101 Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Allison Ochs Allison Ochs presented the recommendations from the consulting legal team and some changes proposed as a result of the legal input. She outlined the changes as they appear in the staff memorandum. Dick Cleveland asked about ownership provisions in the ordinance and how they may impact the existing definition of employee housing unit. Doug Cahill said he was in favor of the management plan. Diane Golden and Dick Cleveland had no comments. Brian Doyon asked about the future applicability of the Housing Zone District and where it may be used. Chas Bernhardt inquired who would approve the management plan. Allison Ochs said the PEC would approve the management plan. Galen Aasland said he had concerns about rent controls and how this ordinance would address the issue. Galen said otherwise he thought it was great. Allison Ochs said she could remove the "affordability clause" from the PEC's recommendation if the PEC wished to do so. Chas Bernhardt moved to recommend approval of the changes to the Town Council, with the findings and recommendations outlined in the staff memorandum, adding the amendment procedures to number 8 in Item H, and that staff have the attorney review the affordability criteria. Brian Doyon seconded. The motion carried 5 -1 ( Aasland opposed). 7. A staff report on an approval of a minor amendment to SDD #5, Vail Run, to allow for the remodel of an egress staircase, located at 1000 Lionsridge Loop /Lot C -11, Lions Ridge Filing 1, Applicant: Vail Run Resort Community Association, Inc. Planner: Brent Wilson Staff decision upheld 8. A request for a final review and recommendation to the Town Council for the adoption of two view corridors within Lionshead, as identified within the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. View Corridor 1 is located approximately at the main pedestrian exit looking southwest towards the Gondola lift line. View Corridor 2 is located approximately from the pedestrian plaza at the east end of the Lifthouse Lodge looking south up the Gondola lift line. A more specific legal description of the two view corridors is on file at the Community Development Department. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Allison Ochs TABLED UNTIL AUGUST 27, 2001 H Approved 8/27/01 9. A request for a final review and a recommendation to the Vail Town Council on the Town of 40 Vail's proposed amendment to the Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan, located at Eastlest Meadow Drive, Vail Village. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: George Ruther TABLED UNTIL AUGUST 27, 2001 10. A request for a variance from Title 14 (Development Standards) Town Code, to allow for improvements to an existing residential private drive, located at 1450 Buffehr Creek Road /Lot 2, Cliff side Subdivision. Applicant: Mike Young Planner: Brent Wilson WITHDRAWN 11. Approval of July 23, 2001 minutes 12. Information Update • «• CAPA Aspen Conference logistics Doug Cahill made a motion to adjourn. Chas Bernhardt seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 6 -0. The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours in the project planner's office located at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. Please call 479 -2136 for information. Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479- 2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. Community Development Department • 1i