Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-0408 PECN *STATE OF COLORADO COUNTY OF EAGLE 451 PROOF OF PUBLICATION SS, . THIS ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE tS HEREBY Qt11EN' that the Plann}nq and Environmental Commission and. the Design Re- view Board of the Town of Vail will _told a public heacinq in aocarde with Section 12 -3-6 of the Municipal Code of the Town of,Vail'on April all 2002 at 12:00 fl M, ih the Town cf Vail Municipal Building. Inconsideration of. A request for a }oir}t Worksasson with the Desiggn Review Board and plprlN tt; and -. nvironmeittaI commission to datum a *0061 # for , 0 conci tional . - t to . slfOW tor' a pyt 9rdtfaatlar! instttu - ton ond at request for dpvelop"W nt pri review to construct employee rousing and a vale educa- t9pnal UntALWag wtilin the Housin District.' and eettlng forth detoj '' regal f L at the site known aS "M aMa unplatted ppi#ece of- property, located at 160 N: Frontage qd hp bur piatled as Wt 1, Middle Croak - subdlvms on, I, Steve Pope, do solemnly swear that I am the Publisher of The Vail Daily, ilppticant Vail Local Housing Auihorffy, p er p rinted, in whole or in art and published in the County of Ea gle, St Al lmon byodailArchteets p p p P pl g Planner: Allison ()ctts - general circulation therein; that said newspaper has been published conti Tt� apphcaiion6 oral.' inwm,atlon. atsvlat me in said County of Eagle for a period of more than fifty -two consecutive , propos- publication of the annexed legal notice or advertisement; that said newspaper has been admitted to the United States mails as a periodical under the provisions of the Act of March 3, 1679, or any amend- ments thereof, and that said newspaper is a daily newspaper duly qualified for publishing legal notices and advertisements within the meaning of the laws of the State of Colorado. That the annexed legal notice or advertisement was published in the regular and entire issue of every number of said daily newspaper for the period of .... /....... consecut' a insertions; and that tth first publication of said notice was in the issue of said newspaper dated .... .�rC A, D. ,..r�. r ., and that the last publication of said notice was in the issue of said newspaper dated. ,�.J:.. C !~.r .. .. A, 1) .......... ........ In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand this .... .f... day of .........Ll ..` � ............... Publisher Subscribed and swgrn �q�fore me, a notary public in and for the County of Eagle, State of Colorado, this ............"r[#ay afr.......�.- �j Notary Public !My Commission expires ......,,.,!...:.�...� als are avallalifs for public Inspection during requ- lar office hours in the pro{ect•pfannees officd, iocsl ad at the Town or VW Comm unityty oeveioyment Department, 73 $doM fRertl. Reind, Tlrp pubic is invited to attend pro¢aa1vlatlon and the -6lte visits that Dreceds the ptrhllo,heatmg in the Town of V0 Communa Develpprism Department. Please call 476 -213$ for information. sign IarsguAg9 interpretation availaWs upon re- guest IyM 24-haur notification, F160se call 9'79- .2356, Telephone for the Hearing impaired, for in- formation. Comm iIY Devellopmont Department. Published Mardi 24, 2002 in the Waif Dally r1 :..` O JS ITEM MAY AF FECTECT }QU R() PUBLIC NOTICE V NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that ih I Plannfn ! nvranmante! Commission of the TI at Vad' . Id a public hearin w ill 1611- of.thy MuniOig Hr accordance with section . .Aprff 8, 2002 a pa Coda of the Town of Vaif PaJ guifdin In 2:00 P.M. in iheTown of Vail • g aonsidesetion ot: quest for a aoks , verfance from oP Vaif Tow ' ff-r t26Hfi ` ad at 303 Gale Creek Drift, & 2C..IOCat- Vag `il Village tsi F ding. r+ . h rN: Vick* p represented by Pam , it Pranr!?1,Gepr9g Fluther ff A request for a rezan ing horn H Family Oerciry nifty =(MF} to Lionshead Mixed Use _1� - i to allow for the radeveloprrgn{ Of the L 7, T onetread, located at 380E Uonshead CE at d Trod J. Block t Vail ®! Ing and Lot 6. Block 1, Vaa Lxweh ��F � Fi!- Badey, Appicant: Lodge at Li WIeIa Planrrkw,, Ruts Forrest rL. repreaeniad yy. Jeff A _Vest for a minor Subd vision Val Lions of Lot P. Block 1, � ftead Second Fling (Eve rgreen L and Lot F, V Village Second FWn9 fMed Lot 2, Bock 1, V { a rezone a POrGon of green Lodge} from Second SP-al D- nt �P Ever --. Fstrict•No. f4 to Uanshead Mixed Use t: a re- quest to rezone a portion Of Lot 2. Block 1 Ve .. SP®r dDeee Filing (Evergreens LpUg ®) frtsm. General U ��n{ District No. 14 to G - - - Yait Villa ra rai Se; a request M rezone a Portion of Lot { . from Gene Use 1 Filing =ad Center) - a � s Use t to amend to Lian sad Mixed Use 1; and - e s slucty defused area d in - .. the analsaad RadeaelOPrrtent Master Plats acrd '} - sem 2 torch doleils in regards thereto, located at 250 S. Frontage Rd. Wert! Lot 2, Block 1; 'Vaif l 1 -cruthead 2nd Filingg and 781 South Fen Road West 1 Lots E and F, Vail Vida � Mg... ,a ge Second FiF. !�pWir:ant: Evergreen Hotel and fie Vail Ved Msalcal Center oyl Planner, Allison Ochs. I .. .. - The applications and als are avaiieble for rmA^bn about the prdpos_ tar office h ours tdn during r y . ell at fwure r Town ' rt she prO�ect anners office l cal DO 10 ni o! Vail "Community Dewre,Gpr nfj . .. til aft South Fronts Road. The public - visr'ks that pra[aede P onente,"On and the s re of Vad nrnuraty hearing in the Tawn i Please call 47�21361pr infor 1 Department, rnalionl. Sign guest with 2a -hour nmtiifketion.8vatlafsle apps re- 2356, Telephone or the Heal ftasaep b 479 - rrmation� -y rV mPair for ir, THIS ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY PUBLIC NOTICE 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 * 41 r4o Town of Vail on April 8, 2002, at 2:00 P.M. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. In consideration of: A request for a variance from Section 12 -6H -6 (Setbacks), Vail Town Code, to allow for the remodel of Vail Townhouses, Units 2A & 2C, located at 303 Gore Creek Drive, Lot 2, Block 5, Vail Village 1 st Filing. Applicant: Vickie Pearson, represented by Pam Hopkins Planner. George Ruther A request for a rezoning from High Density Multiple Family (HDMF) to Lionshead Mixed Use —1 (LMU -1), to allow for the redevelopment of the Lodge at Lionshead, located at 380 E. Lionshead Circle /Lot 7, Tract I & Tract J, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 1" Filing and Lot 6, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 2n" Filing. Applicant: Lodge at Lionshead, represented by Jeff Bailey. Planner: Russ Forrest A request for a minor subdivision of Lot 2, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Second Filing (Evergreen Lodge) and Lot F, Vail Village Second Filing (Medical Center); a request to rezone a portion of Lot 2, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Second Filing (Evergreen Lodge) from Special Development District No. 14 to Lionshead Mixed Use 1; a request to rezone a portion of Lot 2, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Second Filing (Evergreen Lodge) from Special Development District No. 14 to 49 General Use; a request to rezone a portion of Lot F, Vail Village Second Filing (Medical Center) from General Use to Lionshead Mixed Use 1; and a request to amend the study area defined in the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan and setting forth details in regards thereto, located at 250 S. Frontage Rd. West 1 Lot 2, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 2 Filing and 181 South Frontage Road West 1 Lots E and F, Vail Village Second Filing. Applicant: Evergreen Hotel and the Vail Valley Medical Center 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 March 22, 2002 in the Vail Daily. ty TOWIN OF VAIL � • to THIS ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission and the Design Review Board 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 April 8, 2002, at 12:00 P.M. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. In consideration of: A request for a joint worksession with the Design Review Board and Planning and Environmental Commission to discuss a proposal for a conditional use permit to allow for a private educational institution and a request for development plan review to construct employee housing and a private educational institution within the Housing Zone District and setting forth details in regards thereto, located at the site known as "Mountain Bell " /an unplatted piece of property, located at 160 N. Frontage Rd. /to be platted as Lot 1, Middle Creek subdivision. Applicant: Vail Local Housing Authority, represented by Odell Architects 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 March 24, 2002 in the Vail Daily. • • A PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION PUBLIC MEETING SCHEDULE Monday, April 8, 2002 NEW MEMBER ORIENTATION 11:00 am PROJECT ORIENTATION / - Community Development Dept. PUBLIC WELCOME 12:00 pm MEMBERS PRESENT Site Visits : 1. Middle Creek — 160 N. f=rontage Road 2. Lodge at Lionshead — 380 E. Lionshead Circle Driver: George 9:00 pm Z NOTE: If the PEC hearing extends until 6:00 p.m., the board may break for dinner from 6:00 - 6:30 DINNER Public Hearing - Town Council Chambers 6:00 pm 2:00 pm Swearing in of reappointed PEC member Erickson Shirley and appointed PEC members George Lamb, Rollie Kjesbo and Gary Hartman - Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk. 2. Election of 2002 Chair — Vice -Chair — 3. A request for a joint worksession with the Design Review Board and Planning and Environmental Commission to discuss a proposal for a conditional use permit to allow for a private educational institution and a request for development plan review to construct employee housing and a private educational institution within the Housing Zone District and setting forth details in regards thereto, located at the site known as "Mountain Bell " /an unplatted piece of property, located at 160 N. Frontage Rd. /to be platted as Lot 1, Middle Creek subdivision. Applicant: Vail Local Housing Authority, represented by Odell Architects Planner: Allison Ochs 4. A request for a rezoning from High Density Multiple Family (HDMF) & Medium Density Multiple Family (MDMF) to Lionshead Mixed Use —1 (LMU -1), to allow for the redevelopment of the Lodge at Lionshead, located at 380 E. Lionshead Circle /Lot 7 Tract I & Tract J, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 15t Filing and Lot 6, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 2 nd Filing. Applicant. Lodge at Lionshead, represented by Jeff Bailey. Planner: Russ Forrest LJ TOWN O*VAIL MEMBERS ABSENT 5. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council, for a text amendment to Title 12, Section 2 -2, to amend the definition of "Fractional Fee Club" and to amend Title 12, Section 16- 7A-8, to amend the Use Specific Criteria & Standards, and setting forth details in regard thereto. 0 Applicant: Rob Levine Planner: George Ruther 6. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a text amendment to Title 11, Section 11 -5. Prohibited Signs, Sign Regulations, Vail Town Code, to allow for certain off -site advertising signs, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: George Ruther 7. A request for a variance from Section 12 -6H -6 (Setbacks), Vail Town Code, to allow for the remodel of Vail Townhouses, Units 2A & 2C, located at 303 Gore Creek Drive, Lot 2, Block 5, Vail Village 1" Filing. Applicant: Vickie Pearson represented by Pam Hopkins Planner: George Ruther TABLED UNTIL APRIL 22, 2002 8. A request for a minor subdivision of Lot 2, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Second Filing (Evergreen Lodge) and Lot F, Vail Village Second Filing (Medical Center); a request to rezone a portion of Lot 2, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Second Filing (Evergreen Lodge) from Special Development District No. 14 to Lionshead Mixed Use 1; a request to rezone a portion of Lot 2, Block 1. Vail Lionshead Second Filing (Evergreen Lodge) from Special Development District No. 14 to General Use; a request to rezone a portion of Lot F, Vail Village Second Filing (Medical Center) from General Use to Lionshead Mixed Use 1; and a request to amend the study area defined in the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan and setting forth details in regards thereto, located at 250 S. Frontage Rd. West / Lot 2, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 2 " Filing and 181 South Frontage Road Vilest / Lots E and F, Vail Village Second Filing. Applicant: Evergreen Hotel and the Vail Valley Medical Center Planner: Allison Ochs TABLED TO MAY 13, 2002 9. Approval of March 25, 2002 minutes 10. Information Update V Appointment of PEC rep to AIPP and Open Space Committee 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 Published April 5, 2002 in the Vail Daily. 1) PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION El • NEW MEMBER ORIENTATION PUBLIC MEETING RESULTS Monday, April 8, 2002 PROJECT ORIENTATION 1- Community Development Dept. PUBLIC WELCOME MEMBERS PRESENT John Schofield Erickson Shirley George Lamb Gary Hartman Chas Bernhardt Doug Cahill Rollie Kjesbo DRB MEMBERS PRESENT Clark Brittain Charles Acevedo Hans Woldrich Margaret Rogers Site Visits : 1. Middle Creek — 160 N. Frontage Road Driver: George 11 :00 am 12:00 pm 1 :00 pm NOTE: If the PEC hearing extends until 6:00 p.m., the board may break for dinner from 6 :00 - 6:30 DINNER Public Hearin - Town Council Chambers 6:00 pm 2 :00 pm Swearing in of reappointed PEC member Erickson Shirley and appointed PEC members George Lamb, Rollie Kjesbo and Gary Hartman - Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk. • 2. Election of 2002 Chair — John Schofield 7 -0 Vice -Chair — Erickson Shirley 7 -0 3. A request for a joint worksession with the Design Review Board and Planning and Environmental Commission to discuss a proposal for a conditional use permit to allow for a private educational institution and a request for development plan review to construct employee housing and a private educational institution within the Housing Zone District and setting forth details in regards thereto, located at the site known as "Mountain Bell " /an unplatted piece of property, located at 160 N. Frontage Rd. /to be platted as Lot 1, Middle Creek subdivision. TOW�NN O410 MEMBERS ABSENT Applicant: Vail Local Housing Authority, represented by Odell Architects Planner: Allison Ochs WORKSESSION — NO VOTE 4. A request for a rezoning from High Density Multiple Family (HDMF) & Medium Density Multiple Family (MDMF) to Lionshead Mixed Use —1 (LMU -1), to allow for the redevelopment of the Lodge at Lionshead, located at 880 E. Lionshead Circle /Lot 7, Tract I & Tract J, Block 1' , Vail Lionshead 1" Filing and Lot 6, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 2 r Filing. Applicant: Lodge at Lionshead, represented by Jeff Bailey. Planner: Russ Forrest MOTION: Doug Cahill SECOND: Gary Hartman VOTE: 7 -0 TABLED UNTIL MAY 13, 2002 5. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council, for a text amendment to Title 12, Section 2 -2, to amend the definition of "Fractional Fee Club" and to amend Title 12, Section 16- 7A-8, to amend the Use Specific Criteria & Standards, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Rob Levine Planner: George Ruther MOTION: Chas Bernhardt SECOND: George Lamb VOTE: 7 -0 TABLED UNTIL MAY 13, 2002 40 6. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a text amendment to Title 11, Section 11 -5 Prohibited Signs, Sign Regulations, Vail Town Code, to allow for certain off -site advertising signs, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: George Ruther MOTION: Doug Cahill SECOND: No second VOTE: Failed MOTION: To table and integrate the proposal into the comprehensive sign amendments currently being discussed by the Town of Vail_ MOTION: Chas Bernhardt SECOND: No second VOTE: Failed MOTION: To approve the proposal with the modification that only ramp signs utilizing international symbols be used on the ramps. MOTION: Doug Cahill SECOND: Rollie Kjesbo VOTE: 4 -3 (Bernhardt, Shirley Lamb opposed). MOTION: To deny the proposal as submitted and instead recommend that the proposal be integrated into the comprehensive sign amendments currently being discussed by the Town of Vail. The proposal would then be considered in the larger scope of the amendments 7. A request for a variance from Section 12 -6H -6 (Setbacks), Vail Town Code, to allow for the remodel of Vail Townhouses, Units 2A & 2C, located at 303 Gore Creek Drive, Lot 2, 'Block 5, Vail Village 1" Filing. 0 Applicant: Vickie Pearson, represented by Pam Hopkins Planner: George Ruther TABLED UNTIL APRIL 22, 2002 8. A request for a minor subdivision of Lot 2, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Second Filing (Evergreen Lodge) and Lot F, Vail Village Second Filing (Medical Center); a request to rezone a portion of Lot 2, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Second Filing (Evergreen Lodge) from Special Development District No. 14 to Lionshead Mixed Use 1; a request to rezone a portion of Lot 2, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Second Filing (Evergreen Lodge) from Special Development District No. 14 to General Use; a request to rezone a portion of Lot F, Vail Village Second Filing (Medical Center) from General Use to Lionshead Mixed Use 1; and a request to amend the study area defined in the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan and setting forth details in regards thereto, located at 250 S. Frontage Rd. West / Lot 2, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 2 nd Filing and 181 South Frontage Road West / Lots E and F, Vail Village Second Filing. Applicant: Evergreen Hotel and the Vail Valley Medical Center Planner: Allison Ochs MOTION: Chas Bernhardt SECOND: Rollie Kjesbo VOTE. 7 -0 TABLED TO MAY 13, 2002 9. Approval of March 25, 2002 minutes 10. Information Update ✓ Appointment of PEC rep to AIPP (George Lamb) and Open Space Committee (Chas Bernhardt) 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 401 i a,� i James Lamont From: James Lamont DflamontOvail.netj Sent: Monday, April 16, 2001 11:12 AM Subject: MBDPO41601 /Mountain Bell Site "Design Principles." VAIL VILLAGE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC President - Bob Galvin Secretary - Gretta Parks Treasurer - Patrick Gramm Executive Director - Jim Lamont Directors: Judith Berkowitz - Dolph Bridgewater - Ellie CauWns - Alan Kosloff - Ron Langley - Bill Morton To: Mayor Ludwig Kurz and Town Council Member From: Jim Lamont, Executive Director Date: April 16, 21001 RE: Mountain Bell Site "Design Principles." The Association, in support of the need for affordable housing, is considering recommending the following "design principles be applied to the planning and development of the Mountain Bell Site. The Association has an interest in what occurs on the site due to its proximity, high visibility, and strategic importance to Vail Village and its surrounding residential neighborhood. In your consideration of establishing priorities for the development of the Mountain Bell Site, please sate for what reasons the following "design principles" are not acceptable. Based upon your onse, the association remains open to modifying these principles. • Respect Vail Village Master Plan by retaining one half of the site as open space, which includes retaining open space adjacent to the Main Vail roundabout. • Integrate infrastructure support for Vail Village including, but not limited to, communications, parking, fire protection. Ioading and delivery facilities. • Maximize setbacks from Middle Creek and protect natural environmental assets on the site. • Provide a quaiity living experience that provides for privacy, social and economic stabiiity, in a neighborhood setting, with a diversity of housing types, support services, and facilities that are functionally and aesthetically compatible with the established character of Vail Village. o The proposed development for the site is evaluated as part of a Master Plan for the area abutting the North Frontage Road between the Main Vail Roundabout and the United States Post Office. Thank you for your consideration. Cc: Bob Galvin and Board of Directors Interested Parties is 12/9/20o i I 0 Monday, April s, 2002 Planning & Environmental Commission and Design Review Board Joint Worksession for Middle Creek 2:00 p.m. in Town Council Chambers Members Present Members Absent • Facilitator: Gary Severson, NWCCOG Time Topic Presenter 05 min Introduction and overview of ground rules Gary Severson 05 min Overview H zone district Allison Ochs 10 min VLHA and goals of project Mark Ristow 10 min Overview of project and process to date Otis Odell 10 min Identification of issues of PEC and DRB meetings Allison Ochs 10 min Identification of issues from applicant Otis Odell 05 min Topic clustering Gary Severson 05 min Break 75 min Open Discussion 15 min Public Comment 05 min Next steps Gary Severson 2 hrs 35 min 41 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission and Design Review Board FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: April 8, 2002 SUBJECT: A request for a joint worksession with the Planning and Environmental Commission and Design Review Board to discuss a request for a conditional use permit to allow for an Early Learning Center and a request for development plan review to allow for the construction of employee housing within the Housing zone district and setting forth details in regards thereto, located at the site known as "Mountain Bell'Yan unplatted piece of property, located at 160 N. Frontage Rd. /to be platted as Lot 1, Middle Creek subdivision. Applicant: Vail Local Housing Authority, represented by Odell Architects Planner: Allison Ochs I. PURPOSE OF THE JOINT WORKSESSION The purpose of this joint worksession with the Planning and Environmental Commission and Design Review Board is to review the proposal to locate employee housing and a private educational institution at the site known as Mountain Bell. Specifically, the purpose of this worksession is as follows: • Provide an overview of the Housing zone district • Understand the goals of the Vail Local Housing Authority and the project • Provide an overview of the project and process to -date • Identify and clarify the issues of the Planning and Environmental Commission and Design Review Board • Identify and clarify the issues of the applicant. • Provide a forum for open discussion on the project • Identify next steps in the process II. THE HOUSING ZONE DISTRICT In June of 1999, the Town Council directed the Community Development Department to create a new zone district, with the primary purpose of providing for sites for employee housing. The Staff Memorandum from the Planning and Environmental Commission hearing on the new zone district is attached for reference. The Town Council adopted Ordinance No. 3, Series of 2001, on second reading on March 6, 2001. Ordinance No. 3 included the following statements: • WHEREAS, the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail has held public hearings on the proposed amendments in accordance with T�►WhOFY4[L �i the provisions of the Town Code of the Town of Vail; and i • WHEREAS, the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail has recommended approval of these amendments at its January 22, 2001 meeting, and has submitted its recommendation to the Vail Town Council; and • WHEREAS, the Planning and Environmental Commission finds that the proposed amendments further the development objectives of the Town of Vail; and • WHEREAS, the Vail Town Council considers housing a high priority and recognizes the Town's role in providing duality living conditions for the community's workforce. • WHEREAS, the Vail Town Council recognizes the need to provide for adequate sites for employee housing within the Town; and • WHEREAS, the Vail Town Council considers it reasonable, appropriate, and necessary to adopt a new zone district to encourage and facilitate the development of employee housing; and • WHEREAS, the Vail Town Council considers it in the interest of the public health, safety, and welfare to adopt these amendments to the Zoning Regulations. The Housing zone district was amended by Ordinance No. 19, Series of 2001, Section 12 -61 of the Town Code reads as follows: 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 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 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 2 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: 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 employee housing and specifically serving the needs of the residents of the development, and developed in 40 conjunction with 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 barber shops, 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, 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 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. 3 Outdoor patios 49 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 increased if 75% of the required parking spaces are underground or enclosed, thus reducing the impacts of surface paving 0 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 (15) 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 -6I -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. 5 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 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 -1 0 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, 40 and phasing plans. 9 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. 5. 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" = 50'). 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 40 Planning and Environmental Commission, Design Review Board and Town Council may be required. 7 12- 61 -13: DEVELOPMENT STAN DARDSiCRITERIA 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. D. A pedestrian and vehicular circulation system designed to provide safe, efficient and aesthetically pleasing circuiation to the site and throughout the development. 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. III. PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION On March 11, 2002, the Planning and Environmental Commission voted to table the request for development plan review and the conditional use permit for the Early Learning Center at Lot 1, Middle Creels Subdivision. The following issues were identified by the Planning and Environmental Commission as critical concerns that need to be resolved prior to receiving final approval: 1. Submittal of a final landscape and grading plan, in accordance with Sections 12 -61 -12 and 12 -11 -4, indicating additional opportunities for landscaping, berming, etc. 2. Revisions to the vehicular and pedestrian circulation at the Early Learning Center with particular reference to pedestrian safety, a drop -off area, etc.. 3. Submittal of a noise mitigation plan, indicating berming and landscaping to alleviate noise from 1 -70. E 4. Revisions of Buildings G and H to allow for less building height at the front setback and to allow for additional for landscaping to buffer the buildings on private property. 5. Revision of the pedestrian circulation through the site to allow for vehicular and pedestrian separation. 6. Relocation of the recreation area uphill from Building C to allow for a more useable, sunny recreation area. 7. Revision of the rooflines, focusing on the prevention of roof runoff and snow shedding onto parking areas and pedestrian walkways. 8. Provision of written approval from CDOT stating that they will approve the proposed landscaping in the CDOT right -of -way. 9. Revision of Building A to allow for additional stepping of the roof and greater articulation of the building. 10. A recommendation that the Design Review Board review the proposed entry into the entire project, specifically the garage doors at located at the south side of Building A. In addition, the Planning and Environmental Commission had the following comment and concerns: 1. The bulk and mass of the buildings need to be reconsidered and adjusted. 2. The heights of the buildings along Frontage Rd. need to be reduced. 3. The vehicular and pedestrian circulation and drop -off at the Early Learning Center need to be reconsidered. 4. Building height should step with the topography of the site. 5. The amount of cut and fill is excessive. As proposed, the project is not environmentally friendly. 6. Consider roof run -off and snow shedding onto pedestrian walkways and parking areas. 7. Additional open space and recreation areas are needed on the site. This will allow for greater snow storage opportunities. Interior landscaping is totally inadequate. 8. Building bulk and mass should be at the back of the site, not along Frontage Rd. 9. The proposed surface parking is extremely visible and not very well screened. IV. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD Middle Creek then appeared before the Design Review Board on March 20, 2002, for a conceptual review. The following were their preliminary comments and concerns: 1. Generally, the proposed buildings are too massive, too blocky, and too large. Bulk and mass for the entire project needs to be reconsidered. The buildings are tall, long buildings swimming in a pool of asphalt and concrete. 2. This is a tremendously important site and development on this site will be the first impression that guests will have of the Town of Vail. At such a highly visible location, the development needs to be done with a sense of 9 • II. ROLES OF THE REVIEWING BOARDS Planning and Environmental Commission: Action: The PEG 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 approval of the proposed amendment to Title 12 (Zoning) of the Town Code to allow for the creation of a new zone district, the Housing Zone district subject to 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 in keeping with the character of the Town of Vail. IV. TEXT OF THE PROPOSED HOUSING ZONE DISTRICT ARTICLE I. HOUSING (H) DISTRICT All additions from the Jan. 8" memo have been underlined. SECTION: 12 -61 -1: Purpose 12 -61 -2: Permitted Uses 12 -61 -8: 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 2 12 -61 -9: Location of Business Activity 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 affordable and employee housing which, because of the nature and characteristics of affordable and 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 affordable and 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. Passive outdoor recreation areas, and open space. Pedestrian and bike paths. 12- 61-3: CONDITIONAL USES: Generally: 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 restricted employee housing and specifically serving the needs of the residents, and developed in conjunction with deed restricted 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, laundry mats, beauty and barber shops, 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. 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. C. Dwelling units are only created in conjunction with deed restricted employee housing. D. Dwelling units are compatible with the proposed uses and buildings on the site and are compatible with buildings and uses on adjacent properties. 0 Outdoor Patios Public and private schools and educational institutions Public buildings and grounds. Public parks. Public utilities installations including transmission lines and appurtenant equipment. 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 outlined above 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 Is areas, geologically sensitive areas and other environmentally sensitive areas. B. Proposed building setbacks will provide adequate availability of light, air and open space. G. Proposed building setbacks will provide a compatible relationship with buildings and uses on adjacent properties. Variations to the 20 ft. setback shall not be allowed on property lines adjacent to HR, SFR, R, PS, and RC zoned 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. 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 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 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 (15') with a minimum area not less than three hundred (300) square feet. 12 -61 -8: PARKING AND LOADING Off- street parking shall be rovided in accordance with Chapter 10 of this Title. No parking or loadinq 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 4 shall provide for a reduction in the parking requirements based on a demonstrated need for fewer p arking 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 unenelosed 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 prescribed by the Planning and Environmental Commission: 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 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_ 5. 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" = 50'). 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. 6 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 (8 112 " 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 -13: DEVELOPMENT STAN DAR DSICRITERIA 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. D. A pedestrian and vehicular circulation system designed to provide safe, efficient and aesthetically pleasing circulation to the site and throughout the development. 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. V. REVIEW CRITERIA AND FINDINGS FOR ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS The review criteria for a request of this nature are established by the Town of Vail Municipal Code. A. Consideration of Factors: 1, That the proposed amendments are consistent with the development objectives of the Town of Vail as stated in the Vail Land Use Plan. Staff believes the following land use plan goals /policies are applicable to the amendment and the rezoning request. With Ordinance No. 29, Series of 2001, Town Council approved the rezoning of the site, and with Resolution No. 6, Series of 2001, Town Council approved the Land Use Plan amendment, Both approvals are conditioned upon the filing of the final plat for Middle Creek Subdivision, and the approval of a development ,plan for the site. This application has been before the Planning and Environmental Commission on numerous occasions over the past few months to discuss the development plan for Middle Creek in a work session format. The applicant has requested a final review of the proposed development plan for Middle Creek and the conditional use permit for the Early Learning Center. If approved, today's review by the Planning and Environmental Commission will be the final review by this board. The applicant will be appearing before the Design Review Board at a future date. ROLES OF THE REVIEWING BOARDS A. Development Plan in the Housing Zane District Order of Review: Generally, applications will be reviewed first by the Planning and Environmental Commission for impacts of use /development and then by the Design Review Board for compliance of proposed buildings and site planning, and with the Town's Design Guidelines. Planning and Environmental Commission: Action: The Planning and Environmental Commission is responsible for final approval /denial of a development plan in the Housing zone district. The Planning and Environmental Commission is responsible for prescribing the following development standards: 1. Setbacks, 2. Site Coverage, 3. Landscaping and Site Development, 4. Parking and Loading, 5. Lot area and site dimensions, 6. Building height, 7. Density control (including gross residential floor area). In addition, the Planning and Environmental Commission is responsible for reviewing the application for compliance with the following: 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 0 2 properties, and when possible, are integrated with existing open space and recreation areas. D. A pedestrian and vehicular circulation system designed to provide safe, efficient and aesthetically pleasing circulation to the site and throughout the development. 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. Design Review Board: Action: The Design Review Board has no review authority on a development plan in the Housing zone district, but must review any accompanying Design Review Board application_ The Design Review Board is responsible for evaluating the proposal for: 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. Architectural compatibility with other structures, the land and surroundings, Fitting buildings into landscape, Configuration of building and grading of a site which respects the topography, Removal /Preservation of trees and native vegetation, Adequate provision for snow storage on -site, Acceptability of building materials and colors, Acceptability of roof elements, eaves, overhangs, and other building forms, Provision of landscape and drainage, Provision of fencing, walls, and accessory structures, Circulation and access to a site including parking, and site distances, Location and design of satellite dishes, Provision of outdoor lighting, The design of parks. Staff: The staff is responsible for ensuring that all submittal requirements are provided and plans conform to the technical requirements of the Zoning Regulations. The staff also advises the applicant as to compliance with the design guidelines. Staff provides a staff memo containing background on the property and provides a staff evaluation of the project with respect to the required criteria and findings, and a recommendation on approval, approval with conditions, or denial_ Staff also facilitates the review process. Town Council: Actions of Design Review Board or Planning and Environmental Commission maybe appealed to the Town Council or by the Town Council, Town Council evaluates whether or not the Planning and Environmental Commission or Design 3 Review Board erred with approvals or denials and can uphold, uphold with modifications, or overturn the board's decision. 0 B. Conditional Use Permit Planning and Environmental Commission: The Planning and Environmental Commission is responsible for approval /denial of a conditional use permit. The Planning and Environmental Commission is responsible for evaluating a proposal for: 1. Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town. 2. Effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities and public facilities needs. 3. Effect upon traffic, with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the streets and parking areas. 4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. 5. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed use. 6. The environmental impact report concerning the proposed use, if an environmental impact report is required by Chapter 12 of the Town Code. 7. Conformance with development standards of zone district Design Review Board: The Design Review Board has no review authority on a Conditional Use Permit, but must review any accompanying Design Review Board application. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION A. Development Plan in the Housing Zone District The Department of Community Development recommends that the Planning and Environmental Commission table the applicant's request for development plan approval. Staff believes that there are numerous issues that are still to be resolved, and that the application, as currently proposed, does not comply with the criteria as outlined in Section 12- 61 -12: Development Standards f Criteria for Evaluation of the Town Code. The issues identified by staff are further discussed in Sections Vl, VII, and V111 of this memorandum. B. Conditional Use Permit for the Early Learning Center The Community Development Department recommends that the Planning and Environmental Commission table the applicant's request for a conditional use permit to allow for the Early Learning Center based on the analysis provided in Section VIII of this memorandum, and that the application, as currently proposed, does not comply with Section 12 -16 -6: Criteria, Findings, of the Town Code. 46 0 V. SITE ANALYSIS Lot Area: Buildable Area: Hazards: Proposed Use: 6.673 acres 1290,676 sq. ft. 4.573 ac. 1 199,200 sq. ft. Moderate Debris Flow, Medium Severity Rockfall, Slopes in excess of 40 Employee Housing, Early Learning Center A complete zoning analysis is attached for reference. Vt. DISCUSSION ISSUES In March of 2001, the Town Council adopted Ordinance No. 3, Series of 2001, which adopted the Housing zone district. Then, through Ordinance No. 29, Series of 2001, the Town Council rezoned Lot 1, Middle Creek to the Housing zone district. Much like a Special Development District or the General Use zone district, the Housing zone district requires the Planning and Environmental Commission to prescribe development standards, including lot size, density, gross residential floor area, height, etc. A zoning analysis has been attached for reference. The following issues have been identified by the staff: The site is zoned Housing zone district, which was adopted by the Town of Vail in 2001. Its purpose is as follows: The Housing District is intended to provide adequate sites for 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. A. Density The applicant is currently proposing 142 dwelling units. The proposal includes 64 studio units, 18 one - bedroom units, 18 two - bedroom units, and 42 three - bedroom units. The Land Use Designation for this site is "High Density Residential" which is defined as: The housing in this category would typically consist of multi- floored structures with densities exceeding 15 dwelling units per buildable acre. Other activities in this category would include private recreational facilities, and private parking facilities and institutional/public uses such as churches, fire stations, and parks and open space facilities. For Middle Creek, the current density proposed is 21.3 dwelling units per acre or 31 dwelling units per buildable acre. This is a proposed total of 244 beds on the 5 site. In the Housing zone district, the Planning and Environmental Commission prescribes allowable density. Staff has provided density comparisons of other projects: 0 Development Zoning plumber of Units Timber Ridge SDD 198 Pitkin Creek SDD 156 Vail Commons CC3 71 Rivers Edge not in TQV 101 The Tarnes not in T ©V 130 Timber Ridge, located at Timber Ridge Village, 1280 N. Frontage Rd. West/ Lots C -1 through C -5, Lien's Ridge Filing No. 1: In 1979 the Town rezoned Lots C -1 through C -5 from Residential Cluster zone district to Special Development District No. 10. Timber Ridge was developed as a rental employee housing project and received deviations from the design guidelines and density requirements. The density for the site is 19.6 dwelling units per acre. Zoning: SDD No. 10 (no underlying zoning) LUD: High Density Residential Lot Size: 10.08 acres / 439,084.8 sq. ft Units: 198 dwelling units Density: 19.6 du /acre Pitkin Creek Park, located at 3971 Bighorn Rd. / Pitkin Creek Park: Special Development District No. 3, Pitkin Creek Park, was adopted in 1974. The underlying zoning is Medium Density Multiple Family zone district. Pitkin Creek Park was developed as an affordable housing project, with commercial elements, and received deviations to the design guidelines and density requirements. The affordability provisions expired after 7 years, and the units are now sold at market rate. Zoning: SDD No. 3, underlying MDMF Lot Size: 8.29 acres / 361,112 sq. ft. LUD: Medium Density Residential Units: 156 dwelling units Density: 18.8 du /acre Vail Commons, located at 2109 N. Frontage Rd. West/ Vail Commons: Vail Commons was developed under Commercial Core 3 zoning and was approved in 1995. It is a mixed -use project, with major commercial uses and deed - restricted employee housing including 53 for -sale units and 18 rental units. Zoning: CC3 Lot Size: 6.568 acres / 286,082 SF LUD: Community Commercial Units: 71 dwelling units Density: 10.8 du /acre Is C.1 B. Parking According to the Housing zone district, the parking requirements as outlined in Chapter 12 -10 of the Town Code must be met. However, the Housing zone district does allow for a reduction in the number of required parking spaces, subject to Planning and Environmental Commission review and approval of a parking management plan. Section 12 -61 -8: Parking and Loading, of the Vail Town Code, states: 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. The allocation of parking spaces is based on dwelling unit size. Chapter 12 -10 of the Town Code requires 1.5 parking spaces for units less than 500 sq. ft.; 2 parking spaces for units 500 to 2000 sq. ft.; and 2.5 parking spaces for units over 2000 sq. ft. As proposed„ the parking requirement would be as follows: Number and Type of Unit Parking ratio Total Spaces 64 studio units 1.5 96 18 one- bedroom units 1.5 27 18 two - bedroom units 2 36 42 three- bedroom units 2 84 Total 243 The applicant is proposing 243 parking spaces, meeting the parking requirement for total spaces, as prescribed by Chapter 12 -10 of the Town Code. However, a deviation to the parking requirement is required for the size of the parking spaces. As currently proposed, the spaces are configured as follows: 110 tandem spaces (45 %) 133 single spaces (55 %) 103 compact spaces (42 %) 25% is allowed by the Town Code 140 full -size spaces (58 %) 7 143 covered spaces (59 %) 100 surface spaces (41 %) The applicant has increased the percentage of enclosed and covered parking. Previously, the applicant was proposing to enclose 36 % of the proposed parking. With this current submittal, the applicant is proposing to enclose 59% of the parking. Staff believes that this is an appropriate percentage of enclosed parking for this site. The remaining surface parking must be screened with site walls, berms, or landscaping. The applicant has provided a parking management plan which is attached for reference. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve the development plan, this parking management plan is included in the approval. C. Snow Storage Title 14, of the Town Code states: All required parking and access areas shall be designed to accommodate on -site snow storage. A minimum functional area equaling 30 of the paved area shall be provided contiguous to the paved area and designed to accommodate snow storage. Turf areas and other areas without trees may be utliized for this purpose. If driveways are heated, then the minimum snow storage area may be reduced to 10% of the required parking and access areas. The applicant is providing snow storage equaling 20 % of the proposed paved area. The minimum requirement is 30 %. Staff believes that the amount of snow storage must be increased to meet the minimum standard. D. Setbacks Section 12 -61 -5 of the Town Code describes the setback requirements: 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. The applicant is proposing the following setbacks: Front -- 8 ft. Side — 74 ft. Side — 20 ft. Rear — 10 ft, As further discussed in Section VII of this memorandum, staff believes that deviations to the 20 ft. setback are appropriate on this site. However, staff also believes that there must be adequate areas for landscaping to buffer buildings and uses from the 1 -70 corridor. At some locations adjacent to the property line, buildings are proposed to be over 50 ft. in height. Staff believes that the building heights in these locations are inappropriate, given the residential character of the zone district. In addition, the site is generally graded to a 2:1 slope, making large trees difficult to plant. VII. REVIEW CRITERIA FOR A DEVELOPMENT PLAN IN THE H ZONE DISTRICT 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 respec t orientation is compatible surrounding neighborhood. to architecture, character, scale, massing and with the site, adjacent properties and the Adjacent uses to the project include the following: • Solar Vail — a multiple- family housing project currently zoned High Density Multiple Family. • Tract C, Vail Potato Patch — an open space tract currently zoned Natural Area Preservation District. • Parcel B, Spraddle Creek Ranch — an open space tract currently -zoned Natural Area Preservation District. This property is adjacent to Lot 1. • 1 -70 Right -of -Way — land owned by CDOT but located within Town of Vail boundaries. As a road right -of -way, there is no zoning on the property. This property is adjacent to Lot 1. White River National Forest — land owned by the United States Forest Service outside of the Town of Vail boundary. While the site lacks many direct neighbors, this site is of extreme importance as it is visible from the main entrance into the Town of Vail. The grades on the site run east to west, and staff believes that the building design and siting must be sensitive to this orientation. The siting of buildings and improvements must be responsive to the topography of the site. The majority of the proposed buildings on the site are oriented east to west, with the exception of Buildings C and H, which the applicant has oriented north to south. Most buildings which are located adjacent to the North Frontage Rd. also are oriented also east to west, to minimize grading and retainage. Staff continues to believe that east to west oriented buildings are more efficient for this site. However, staff believes that it is necessary to vary the roof lines of the east N to west oriented buildings. Stepping the main roof ridges, adding significant north to south dormers with useable GRFA, adding offsets in the buildings, stepping foundations, etc., will help to minimize the height, bulk, and mass of the buildings, making them more compatible with the site. Building A has a the roof ridge that is 80 ft. long, that changes 4 ft. in elevation, then continues an additional 90 ft. in length, Staff does not believe that this is the type of roof form appropriate given the visibility of the site. Staff also has concerns regarding the snow shedding and water runoff from the roofs, given the design, that snow will be deposited on walkways and parking areas. The Design Guidelines state: Roof lines should be designed so as to not deposit snow on parking areas, trash storage areas, stairways, decks, balconies, or entryways. Secondary roofs, snow clips, and snow guards should be utilized to protect these areas from roof snow shedding if necessary. Staff believes that additional consideration needs to be given to snow shedding and roof design. The use of dormers will allow for roof drainage to be directed to a common location, and will minimize the need for gutters.. Overall, staff does not believe that this criteria has been met. 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. Staff believes that the buildings, improvements, uses, and activities associated with the project are not designed or located in a functional and responsive manner. For example, the recreational amenities at the back of Building C are adjacent to a 43 ft. wall. Staff does not believe that this will function well as a gathering place. Staff does not believe that the proposed buildings, improvements, and activities have been well- integrated into the site. The buildings on the north side of the site have limited views of Vail Mountain, but the carports have spectacular views. Adding units above the carports and cantilevering the living space over the drive might eliminate bulk and mass from some of the other buildings. The setbacks in the Housing zone district shall be 20 ft. According to Section 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: E. Proposed building setbacks provide necessary separation between buildings and riparian areas, geologically sensitive areas and other environmentally sensitive areas.. F. Proposed building setbacks will provide adequate availability of light, air and open space. G. Proposed building setbacks will provide a compatible relationship with buildings and uses on adjacent properties. 10 H. 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. Building G is located 8 ft. from the front property line, and Building H is located 10 ft. from the front property line. The height of Building G at this elevation is 53 ft., while the height of Building H is 58 ft. While staff believes that deviations to the 20 ft. setback are appropriate, this building height at this location is excessive. Staff believes that it will be difficult to visually screen the buildings with any sort of significant landscaping as the grades are relatively steep, and leaves very little room for landscaping on the applicant's property. 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. The limits of disturbance for the west portion of the property keeps development out of the riparian corridor. Staff believes that this is a benefit of the development. However, there is a significant number of large cottonwood trees being removed. The applicant needs to submit additional information about the number and size of the trees being proposed.. As stated above, staff has some concerns regarding the lack of open space area and landscaping located on the site to buffer the buildings and uses. This site is highly visible as the major entry into Vail, and as such, the uses of the site must be screened appropriately. In addition, landscaping and open space buffering will help to reduce the noise from the highway. Staff believes that because the applicant is not providing many recreational amenities or useable open space areas on site, it is necessary to tie into existing areas. The nearest park is the Sandstone Tot Lot, which is located beyond Red Sandstone Elementary School. Q. A pedestrian and vehicular circulation system designed to provide safe, efficient and aesthetically pleasing circulation to the site and throughout the development. This site, due to its topography, is a difficult site to access. Staff believes that the vehicular circulation through the site has been designed to be as efficient as possible and meet the Town's regulations regarding access. Staff also believes that the vertical pedestrian circulation through the site, allowing pedestrians to access the upper portion of the site through the stairway at Building B, is an efficient and aesthetically pleasing solution to a difficult problem. However, staff is concerned about the lack of separation between the vehicular and pedestrian circulation for the site. Staff also believes that a bike path must be constructed from this project east to the Main Vail Roundabout and west to the pedestrian overpass into Lionshead. Staff has concerns about the exterior walkways to enter into units on many of the buildings. To enter into a unit, a resident will have to walk past the windows and entries of other units. Staff believes that the buildings should function more like 11 Building C, where there is vertical circulation and the exterior corridors have been eliminated. The Planning and Environmental Commission, Design Review Board, and staff have discouraged this type of circulation pattern in other projects, including the Westhaven Condominiums and Antlers, stating their concerns with an outdated circulation system. In addition, staff has concerns regarding the walkway between Buildings G and H, which appears to be cavernous and uninviting. Additional information is required regarding site lighting, which staff believes is an important aspect of pedestrian circulation. However, staff believes this can be considered at the Design Review Board. Staff has concerns regarding the lack of a drop off area at the Early Learning Center, and the lack of a separation between the parking area and the entrance to the building. The applicant has indicated that to the north of the parking lot, there will be a walkway adjacent to the building. At its maximum width, it is 3 ft. wide, then narrows to 2 ft. Staff believes that greater consideration should be given to the entrance and walkway to the Early Learning Center, specifically allowing for greater separation of pedestrians and vehicles. Great concern has been given to separate the housing from the Early Learning Center. However, parking for the housing has been located adjacent to the Early Learning Center. The integration of a bus stop into the development is a positive improvement to the development of the site The bus is able to enter the site entirely, not blocking traffic on the f=rontage Road, and exit the site in both directions. Staff believes the applicant has met the concerns of the Planning and Environmental Commission and staff concerning bus traffic. Staff does not believe that this criteria has been met. 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. The Environmental Impact Report, which was also reviewed during the major subdivision request, has been included for reference. Staff believes that by limiting development to the east side of Middle Creek, the project has limited its impact on Middle Creek. In addition, the development has not encroached onto the 40% slopes, located on the northern portion of the site. According to the Town of Vail hazard maps, Middle Creek Subdivision is located within a Medium Severity Rockfall hazard and Moderate Hazard Debris Flow. A site - specific study has been completed by R.J. Irish, dated August 16, 2401, and is attached. The consulting engineering geologists acknowledges that the risk of debris flow from the Middle Creek Valley to be high during the lifetime of the project, with a volume described as "small to quite large." The report indicates that the entire site is located within a high hazard debris flow area. The report also suggests that the risk could be minimized by mitigation measures. The report also acknowledges that the 12 risk of rockfall is medium during the lifetime of the project. Mitigation recommended by the report includes dislodging exposed boulders by hand prior to construction. It further states that any boulders would likely be trapped in the channel of the creek. The hazard reports have been included for reference. Staff believes that the site plan should indicate a limits of disturbance fence, as was required at Booth Falls for the mitigation system. In addition, the hazard mitigation plan also indicates large trees to screen the berm, but the landscape plan indicates shrubs and bushes. Staff believes that the berm must be screened similar to the screening requirements for the Boothfalls mitigation berm was required to be landscaped. An Environmental Impact Report has been completed by Stewart Environmental Consultants, Inc., and has been attached for reference. The report states that while the proposed development of Lot 1 will have an impact on plant and animal communities presently inhabiting the property, the loss of the 6.5 acres does not represent a significant impact to plant and animal communities. The report recommends that all trash dumpsters need to be made bear -proof and exterior lighting will need to be minimized. Both of these must be a condition of approval. The report additionally states that the impact to Middle Creek could include runoff from paved parking areas. A drainage study has also been included. F. Compliance with the Vail Comprehensive Plan and other applicable plans. The Vail Land Use Plan contains goals which staff considers to be applicable to this request. The applicable goals include: 0 1.0 General Growth /Development 1.1 Vail should continue to grow in a controlled environment, maintaining a balance between residential, commercial and recreational uses to serve both the visitor and the permanent resident. 1.2 The quality of the environment including air, water and other natural resources should be protected as the Town grows. 1.3 The quality of development should be maintained and upgraded whenever possible. 1.6 Development proposals on the hillsides should be evaluated on a case by case basis. Limited development may be permitted for some low intensity uses in areas that are not highly visible from the Valley floor. New projects should be carefully controlled and developed with sensitivity to the environment. 1.12 Vail should accommodate most of the additional growth in existing developed areas (infill areas). 5.0 Residential 5.1 Additional residential growth existing, platted areas and high hazards do not exist, should continue to occur primarily in as appropriate in new areas where 13 5.3 Affordable employee housing should be made available through private efforts, assisted by limited incentives, provided by the Town of Vail with appropriate restrictions. 5.4 Residential growth should keep pace with the marketplace demands for a full range of housing types. The Comprehensive Open Lands Plan identifies the Mountain Bell Site as "approximately half of the property is intended for affordable housing and the remainder of the site will remain open space." The Comprehensive Open Lands Plan is intended to identify and recommend actions for the protection of sensitive land and open space, not as a guide for development of other properties. The Land Use Designation for this site has been amended to High Density Residential. The High Density Residential designation is described as follows: The housing in this category would typically consist of multi - floored structures with densities exceeding 15 dwelling units per buildable acre. Other activities in this category would include private recreational facilities, and private parking facilities and institutional % public uses such as churches, fire stations and parks and open space facilities. The Vail Land Use Plan describes the Mountain Bell site as Tract 35 and states: The Mountain Bell microwave facility and two day care centers are located on a 25 acre site owned by the Town of Vail which is north of 1 -70. A portion of this site under the microwave facility is owned by Mountain Bell. Part of the entire site in located in an area of medium environmental hazards and should continue to remain in its present use, with possible expansions of the day car centers. It may also be an option for the cemetery, further discussed later. VII. REQUIRED CRITERIA AND FINDINGS - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT In addition to the request for development plan approval as required by the Housing Zone District, the applicant is requesting a conditional use permit for the relocation of the Early Learning Center to the eastern portion of the site. Schools, including day cares, are a conditional use in the Housing Zone District. According to Section 12 -16 -1: in order to provide the flexibility necessary to achieve the objectives of this title, specified uses are permitted in certain districts subject to the granting of a conditional use permit. Because of their unusual or special characteristics, conditional uses require review and evaluation so that they may be located properly with respect to the purposes of this title and with respect to their effects on surrounding properties. The review process prescribed in this chapter is intended to assure compatibility and harmonious development between conditional uses and surrounding properties and the town at large. Uses listed as conditional uses in the various districts may be permitted subject to such conditions and limitations as the town may prescribe to ensure that the location and operation of the conditional uses will be in accordance with development objectives of the town and will not be detrimental to other uses or properties. 14 Where conditions cannot be devised to achieve these objectives, applications for conditional use permits shall be denied. A. CONSIDERATION OF FACTORS: Relationship and impact of the use on the development objectives of the Town. The Vail Land Use Plan identifies the following goals with regards to community services: 6.0 Community Services 6.1 Services should keep pace with increased growth. 6.2 The Town of Vail should play a role in future development through balancing growth with services. 6.3 Services should be adjusted to keep pace with the needs of peak periods. In addition, the Vail Land Use Plan states that this site is to be used for future expansion of the ABC and Learning Trees Schools. Staff believes that this use is an important use for the Town of Vail and will have a positive impact on the Town. 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 the relocation and expansion of the Early Learning Center on this site is a benefit to the Town. According to the summary provided by the applicant, the Early Learning Center will provide early learning services for 45 preschool age children, with 12 full -time staff members, and 2 part -time staff members. The Early Learning Center has approximately 5,000 sq. ft. of floor area, and includes a 4,300 sq. ft. outdoor play area. Staff believes that it is beneficial to have this use located on this site, which is centrally locate in the Town of Vail. An important consideration in the review of this conditional use permit is the possibility for future expansion. Due to the parking, the proximity of the building to its property line, and the amount and location of play area, future expansion possibilities are limited. 3. Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and parking areas. The applicant has proposed 20 parking spaces for the Early Learning Center, including 3 compact spaces. In addition, there is additional parking for the housing project located adjacent to the parking for the 15 Early Learning Center. Because the times that the parking for the housing will be used are opposite the times that excess parking will be needed for the Early Learning Center, these spaces will be used for overflow parking from the Early Learning Center. Parking for uses not listed in Chapter 12 -10 of the Town Code shall be determined by the Planning and Environmental Commission. A memo has been attached from the applicant which explores the parking requirements of other communities. In each case, Boulder, Denver, and Lakewood, these municipalities would require 18 spaces. In addition, staff has reviewed parking requirements as outlined in "Off- Street Parking Requirements" Planning Advisory Service Report Number 432. It provides some of the following requirements: Aurora, CO -- two spaces for each three teachers and one off - street passenger loading place for every eight pupils. With the proposed Early Learning Center, Aurora would require 17 spaces. Orange County, CA — one space per staff member, and one space per five students. With the proposed Early Learning Center, Orange County would require 21 spaces. The Public Works Department has done traffic counts at the Early Learning Center and has found that at times there are more than 25 cars at the existing facility to drop off children. Staff is recommending 25 parking spaces be provided for the Early Learning Center. The Planning and Environmental Commission sets the parking requirement for uses not listed in Chapter 12 -10 of the Town Code. Some communities have extensive requirements regarding access and parking. Specifically, St. Louis County, MO, requires the following: Two spaces, plus one space for every employee on the maximum shift; a paved unobstructed pick -up space with adequate stacking area (as determined by the Department of Planning) shall be provided in addition to standard driveway and parking requirements, or one space for every six children; a safe pedestrian walkway system (as approved by the Department of Planning) through parking areas to the building entrance, with a safety zone a minimum of 15 feet in width between parking spaces and the front of the building entrance, shall be provided in addition to standards driveway and parking requirements. Staff has some concerns regarding the safety of the parking area and the interaction with pedestrians entering the building with small children. Staff believes that a separated sidewalk or entryway into the Early Learning Center must be provided. Staff also has concerns regarding snow storage for the Early Learning Center parking lot. The Town Code requires an equivalent of 30% of paved areas to be provided for snow storage areas. The applicant has provided 1,795 sq. ft. of snow storage area adjacent to the Early Learning 16 Center parking area. The Town Code would require 4,091 sq. ft. of snow storage. While the applicant has agreed to a snow management plan that would allow for snow to be hauled off -site, staff does not believe that this is an adequate area to store snow. 4_ Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. Staff believes that the use is appropriate for the character of the surrounding area. The maximum height of the Early Learning Center is at 41 ft. and that is the height of the tower element. The building is primarily a 2 -story building, which staff believes is appropriate given the heights and mass of the adjacent employee housing. a The Early Learning Center is 20 ft. off the side property line, and 14 ft, from the front property line. While the Housing zone district does permit deviations from the 20 ft. setback, subject to review by the Planning and Environmental Commission, staff has concerns regarding the ability to buffer the building and the play area with adequate landscaping. This buffering is important when considering the noise level from 1 -70. The Vail Mountain School has recently installed an air - conditioning system because the windows of the classrooms cannot be open during class because of noise issues. Staff recommends that a landscaping and sound berm, which will include large trees, be included in the landscaping plan for the Early Learning Center. Because the play area is located up to the property line, there is limited room far landscaping on the applicant's property. As proposed, all of the landscaping is located on the CDOT right -of -way. CDCOT allows trees that are 4 "+ in caliper to be planted 30 feet from the edge of the road. Staff believes that this should be further considered. GS inning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings 3ranting a conditional use permit: That the proposed location of the use is in accordance with the purposes of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code. 17 N 0 a N O V O 40 v W uj d Oq CD _0 d D N W W W W W W W W d d d ti IL a W d C. A � ..0 A A A A A A A d CL 'D U "O L T] "C'J 'b O cn .y o .N cr N y Q7 Q7 W 01 CL d 9- c C Cu c 0 C:, 0.. aa� m 0 N 0 N 0 N 0 N l ~ M N n L) [h J W v o N c C of C GD Cd N a +C w (O r OD r N 'tl' C W M �.!' Q O M at O r d 0 r r w r w r O M1 co N a LO m CD tD 90 C7 C a CM N O 10 M r N N 0 (O co co W O G M CL C7 (6 � ¢1 C iV C dC C Clli Y3 �f r of 3 m C C C M N 4C) Cl) co N N E 9 'or 7 tp [E td m C C C li n N �A N C� in N N L" C7 Lo N C Cl7 N N N 0 M L e � m Ri C R1 C Q. W CO ca QO N to ` LQ co co a E CL O n N N Y m l c Om c ' C O . ' � 7t O T- 9U S N N lid N t0 L CJ �# N cn co W -� m RF C IG C [C C m 4 co co OY E C f% i O v — v N •� Q O O N I m O CD m N N C', C` n CG C 'Ft 26 N w Q % 0 U) d N C_ O ^ a U) Ql N Ed m m L) 'D u- U cn - N M 47 N N O U N 0 a N O V O 40 Approved 03/25/02 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION 0 PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES Monday, March 11, 2002 PROJECT ORIENTATION / - Community Development Dept. PUBLIC WELCOME MEMBERS PRESENT Galen Aasland Chas Bernhardt Diane Golden John Schofield Brian Doyon Doug Cahill Erickson Shirley MEMBERS ABSENT -, Discuss members' terms and re- appointments. Site Visits : 1. Parks residence — 4166 Columbine Drive 2. Boothfalls — 3094 Boothfalls Road 3. Mountain Bell —160 N. Frontage Road 4, The Club —304 Bridge Street 5. Austria Haus — 242 E. Meadow Drive 6. Evergreen —181 S. Frontage Rd. West 12:00 pm 1 :00 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 A request for a conditional use permit to allow for a bank &financial institution, located at The Club, 304 Bridge Street/Lot H, Block 5A, Vail Village 1" Filing. Applicant: The Club Planner: Bill Gibson MOTION: Chas Bernhardt SECOND: Diane Golden VOTE: 7 -0 TABLED TO MARCH 25, 2002 2. A request for a variance from Sections 12 -6G-6 (Setbacks) & 12 -6C -9 (Site Coverage), Vail Town Code, to allow for the construction of a Type I Employee Housing Unit, located at 4166 Columbine Drive /Lot 18, Bighorn Subdivision. Applicant: Timothy Parks Planner: George Ruther TOIfd.V O WAIL t Approved 03125/02 George Ruther presented an overview of the staff memorandum. He then further described the definition of GRFA and reviewed the Town's regulations with regards to non - conforming sites, uses, and improvements. He stated that the staff's recommendation for approval is based on the criteria and findings for a variance, as discussed in the staff memorandum. He added that correspondence has been received by Joseph A. Sobin, which has been added to the record. Galen Aasland clarified as to which unit Joseph A. Sobin owned. Timothy Parks, the owner, stated that he purchased this house in August of last year. They will be making the residence their primary residence. He apologized for the delay, but they have spent considerable time and money to design a home with minimal impact to the site and to the neighborhood. Bill Pierce, the architect, stated that they are attempting to bring the site into compliance as much as possible with the current zoning regulations. He stated that they are actually eliminating site coverage from the setbacks. Bill Pierce stated that they have actually eliminated some GRFA from the setbacks. George Ruther asked if Bill Pierce could present plans indicating the change in the plans. Erickson Shirley asked what variances would then be required. George Ruther stated that the removal of 17.5 sq. ft. that was located in the setback, and the only variance required is for the 500 some sq. ft. that will be relocated from the basement, onto a second story. Charles Wilson spoke as an adjacent property owner. He resides at 4157 Unit #2. He requested that the item be tabled until the neighbors had time for further review. Steve McConahay, the neighbor to the west, stated that he recognized that this site needed to be upgraded, but his concern is how. He stated that this is a very small lot. He stated that if you scraped the house on this lot, you would not need any variances. He stated that the owner purchased this lot knowing the constraints, and that there is no guarantee for a variance. He also stated a concern for adding square footage in the Gore Creek setback and in a hazard area. He then voiced his concerns about the employee housing unit. He that he also represented Nancy and Pete Nelson, who own the other half of his duplex. He stated that development should be moved to the other side of the lot so that the character of the neighborhood would not be impacted. He requested that they have more time to review the plans. Galen Aasland stated that no variance application is a tradeoff for other issues. Specifically the employee housing unit is a use by right and not necessarily up for discussion. Steve Scare, an adjacent property owner, stated his concern for tree removal and traffic safety. John Nillson, a local real estate broker, stated his support for the project and how they have been extremely sensitive to the site. He then stated that he liked the plan and believed it was a good use of the property. Bill Pierce clarified the application. He stated that they are actually losing some square footage. He stated that they are losing 1100 sq. ft. due to the setbacks. He stated that it would not be in the best interest of many neighboring properties to be located entirely within the building footprint. He added that this property is not within an avalanche area. John Schofield asked about the height of the building, as compared to adjacent properties_ Approved 03/25/02 Bill Pierce clarified where the building would be at its maximum height. Doug Cahill asked about the bulk and mass in the setbacks. Bill Pierce stated that no second floor would be added in the side setbacks. The group again gathered around the table to look at the plans. Erickson Shirley asked about the availability of plans for adjacent property owners. He then asked about the annexation of the property. George Ruther stated that he would have to pull the ordinance to know what was said when the property was annexed. Brian Doyon stated that he believed the design of the project was sensitive to the site and to adjacent properties, and that he felt that the variance met the criteria for a variance request. Chas Bernhardt stated that he agreed with Brian Doyon. He further clarified that the Town does not require applicants to demo their house when they are requesting a remodel. Doug Cahill stated that he believed the applicant has done everything possible to be sensitive to the site, the neighbors, etc. and believes that the criteria for a variance request has been met. John Schofield stated that this lot was annexed into the Town, and that this request is not a grant of special privilege, and meets the criteria for a variance. Diane Golden stated that she believed that the applicant has been sensitive to the needs of the neighbors and has done everything possible to reduce the impact and amount of variance. Galen Aasland stated that he believed that this met the criteria for a variance request. George Ruther stated that the original annexing ordinance did not specifically deal with nonconformities, other than to refer to the Town Code. John Schofield made a motion for approval. Brian Doyon seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 7 -0 with conditions as stated in the staff memorandum. 3. A request for a Major Amendment to Special Development District #35, Austria Haus, to amend an existing condition of approval prohibiting the operation of restaurants within the special development district, and setting forth details in regard thereto, located at 242 B. Meadow Drive /Part of Tract B, Block 5B, Vail Village 1" Filing. Applicant: Johannes Faessler Planner: George Ruther George Ruther presented an overview of the staff memorandum, including the staff recommendation for approval. Sterling Bradbook, operator of Platz'I, stated that they began serving food in November. He clarified as to how they deal with loading and delivery and trash. Galen Aasland asked for public comment. There was none. Approved 03/25/02 Doug Cahill asked about their loading and delivery schedule. Sterling Bradbook stated that they are on the same delivery schedule as Pazzo's. 0 John Schofield asked about trash removal. Diane Golden stated that she sees this as an asset to the Town. Erickson Shirley stated that he believed this met the criteria for an SDD amendment. Brian Doyon asked about the landscaping to screen the mechanical equipment. Galen Aasland stated that he believed that this complied with the criteria for a major SDD amendment. Galen Aasland stated that he believed that staff could deal with the landscaping screening issue. He then asked about the conditional use permit for the real estate office. John Schofield made a motion to forward a recommendation of approval, in accordance with findings and criteria as listed in the staff memorandum with the conditions that: 1. The deed restriction be removed. Brian Doyon seconded the motion. The motion was amended that condition #2 be handled at staff level. The motion passed by a vote of 7 -0. 4. A request for a minor subdivision of Lot 2, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Second Filing (Evergreen Lodge) and Lot F, Vail Village Second Filing (Medical Center); a request to rezone a portion of Lot 2, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Second Filing (Evergreen Lodge) from Special Development District No. 14 to Lionshead Mixed Use 1; a request to rezone a portion of Lot 2, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Second Filing (Evergreen Lodge) from Special Development District No. 14 to General Use; a request to rezone a portion of Lot F, Vail Village Second Filing (Medical Center) from General Use to Lionshead Mixed Use 1; and a request to amend the study area defined in the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan and setting forth details in regards thereto, located at 250 S. Frontage Rd. West 1 Lot 2, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 2 nd Filing and 181 South Frontage Road West / Lots E and F, Vail Village Second Filing. Applicant: Evergreen Hotel and the Vail Valley Medical Center Planner: Allison Ochs MOTION: Chas Bernhardt SECOND: Diane Golden VOTE: 7 -0 TABLED TO MARCH 25, 2002 5. A request for a rezoning from High Density Multiple Family (HDMF) to Lionshead Mixed Use —1 (LMU -1), located at 380 E. Lionshead Circle /Lot 7, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 1 Filing. Applicant: Lodge at Lionshead, represented by Jeff Bailey. Planner: Russell Forrest MOTION: Chas Bernhardt SECOND: Diane Golden VOTE: 7-0 TABLED TO MARCH 25, 2002 4 Approved 03/25/02 6. A request for an amendment to the Town of Vail Rockfall Hazard Map, that would approve rockfall mitigation, located at Boothfalls Townhomes, 3094 Boothfalls Road /Lot 12, Block 2, 0 Vail Village 12 Filing. Applicant: Boothfalls Homeowners Association Planner: Russ Forrest Russ Forrest presented an overview of the staff memorandum, including a recommendation for approval. Doug Cahill stated that he believed they have some sort of inspection to verify that the wall is maintained to Engineering requirements. Russ Forrest stated that the Town has entered into an agreement to inspect the wall every 2 years. John Schofield asked about maintenance agreements. He asked that if anytime the wall is not maintained to requirements, will this revert back into a hazard area? Diane Golden, Erickson Shirley and Chas Bernhardt stated that they had no comment. Galen Aasiand stated that he believed that the applicant should be responsible for the cost of maintenance of the wall. John Schofield made a motion to forward a recommendation of approval with the condition that: 1. The TOV enter into an inspection and maintenance agreement with the applicant as 40 appropriate. Doug Cahill seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 6 -0 -1, with Brian Doyon abstaining. 7. A request for a conditional use permit to allow for an Early Learning Center and a request for development plan review to construct Employee Housing within the Housing Zone District and setting forth details in regards thereto, located at the site known as "Mountain Bell " /an unplatted piece of property, located at 160 N. Frontage Rd. /to be platted as Lot 1, Middle Creek subdivision. Applicant: Vail Local Housing Authority, represented by Odell Architects Planner: Allison Ochs Allison Ochs presented an overview of the staff memorandum and staff's recommendation that the proposal be tabled, due to the unresolved issues identified in the staff memorandum. Mike Coughlin recognized the Commission and staff for their hard work and their willingness to collaborate with the applicant to solve problems. He also noted that there are several different competing interests involved with this project_ He noted that the RFP referenced a .75 parking space per unit requirement, however, as proposed, the plan now meets the regulations of the Town code, which is nearly double the .75 requirement. He noted that other jurisdictions require 18 spaces for the learning center and his own observations of the existing learning center noted a maximum of 20 cars at one time. He noted the integration of the bus stop into the site and stated that they have worked with several consultants to address the hazards, noise levels, and building code requirements. He made note of the pedestrian path along the length of the property along Frontage Road. He also expanded upon the snow management plan that was submitted. He noted that they have been working directly with the third parties that will be effected by this project (Qwest, CDOT, ABC, Learning Tree, and Shaw Construction). 5 Approved 03/25/02 Otis Odell presented an overview of the proposed project design and the revisions that have been made since the Commission's last review of the project. He noted that buildings A and B are now being located to provide retainage on the site and to provide accessible dwelling units. Approximately 60% of the parking is now covered. Also, with the use of CDOT right -of -way landscape buffering will be provided. He stated that the buildings have been oriented to provide visual variety and solar access. The pedestrian path between G & H is a design space. He stated that the road width is 24 feet and the north side of most buildings have extra parking, and the adjacent area will be a common pedestrian area. Trash will be stored and service from multiple enclosed building areas. He stated that the building layout provides significant landscaping opportunities. Brian Doyon questioned if the applicant is going to show their proposed landscaping on any of their plans. Otis Odell replied that it will be shown on a future landscape plan. Doug Cahill questioned what CDOT's requirements are for landscaping. Mike Coughlin stated that within 30 feet of pavement the plantings must be low in height, Otis Odell commented that the bus stop will be a great location for social interaction and that additional areas are provided on the north side of two buildings. He stated that residents will travel to the ski mountain or existing parks for some outdoor recreation. He presented simulated photos of the project from Rockledge Road, Vail Mountain, and 1 -70. He also presented an overview of the proposed architecture of the project which he feels fits the Vail character. He noted that they have carefully considered snow shedding. The building materials are predominantly stone, EIFS, and simulated wood. He also presented options for lowering the height of buildings G & H along the south setback line. He noted that some of the buildings are accessed with exterior walkways. He noted that exterior walkways are not an outdated building design. Galen Aasland asked if the recreation area in the rear is sloped, and Otis replied that there is some slope but it will be graded to accommodate rec uses. Galen recommended that additional recreation areas may be added in other locations of the site. Dennis Coughlin noted that they believe they have addressed the various public boards to the best of their abilities. He noted the contributions to this project from the Town of Vail, Eagle County, and the State of Colorado. He expressed concerns about the timing of this project. The noted that staff has been courteous and fair. He believes that this is a project that everyone can be proud of, but recognizes that no plan is perfect and they can't address the desires of everyone. Ned Gwathmey, representing the Spraddle Creek homeowners, noted that this project is "in your face" and could be stepped back to minimize their impact. He stated that this project was Copper Mountain without the Village appearance. There is tremendous potential, but the scale is too large. He feels that the entrance to the site is not pleasant and that the village should be designed around pedestrian ways and open space, not a roadway. Ludwig Kurtz, spoke as a Chairman of the Beaver Creek DRB and not as the Vail Mayor. He noted that the affordable projects that he was involved with took risks with building materials, parking requirements, etc. He recommended that the Commission examine what was constructed at Beaver Creek as an example. Andy Blumetti, DRB member, voiced a concern about the density of the project. He doesn't see the open space and doesn't feel that there is a hierarchy of buildings. He voiced concerns about the bulk and mass of the buildings and that the Learning Center is at an unrelated scale. The orientation of the buildings G & H do not relate to the other buildings on the site. He doesn't believe Approved 03/25/02 that this project relates to other areas of town. Kim Retolo, Housing Authority, expressed her excitement about the project. She said that the major concerns from the Housing Authority public meeting were from the pre - school concerning access and drop -off, but she believes that these concerns have been met. As a member of the Housing Authority she voiced her support for the project. Hans Woidrich noted that this is a tremendously important site in Vail_ He doesn't believe that the project fits the character of Vail, He noted the difficulty of designing a project such as this, however, this project looks like military barracks not the small village scale. Mo Mulrooney & Kristy, representing Learning Tree, thanked staff and Odell Arch. and Coughlin Company, She stated that the proposed childhood center is a beautiful building that is well sited. She noted that they need to have a decision about the future of their school and stated that ABC School and Learning Tree will be merging. Diane Golden asked if Mo is comfortable with the proposed parking. Mo Mulrooney replied that it is better than what they have now. Diane Golden asked if a better drop -off would be beneficial. Mo Mulrooney replied that it is a concern that they need to examine more closely. Brian Doyon asked how many employees currently work here and if they every intend to expand. Mo Mulrooney replied that they have 12 employees and don't for see a need to expand. Chuck Ogilby, Housing Authority and Council member, acknowledged that the Council has not created the Housing District in such a manor as to create an easy way to build employee housing, but he recommended that the PEC vote in favor. Herman Stauffer, representing the business community, stated that years ago businesses could pick and choose employees but now businesses have no choice in employees. He said there are many things discouraging people from working in flail including housing, but today the PEC has the opportunity to make history by providing employee housing in the Town of Vail and joining the Council and business community in the effort to build housing. Steve Lindstrom, Housing Authority and business owner, noted that the business community would like to see even more housing on this site. Sally Jackle, Housing Authority, urged the Commission to vote in favor of the project. She noted that the developer has been responsive to the Commission's recommendations. She also expressed that the height and density of this project is appropriate. She said it is not fair to make a political decision that this type of project is not appropriate on this site. Otis Odell clarified the design of the Learning Center parking. Brian Doyon asked if the landscaping plan was in error. Otis Odell replied that there may be an error on the plan. He also noted that the existing Learning Center ridge height is within 10 feet of the ridge height of the proposed buildings. Mike Coughlin noted that the proposal is very similar to want they proposed in December with a few minor changes. He noted that they are trying to balance numerous competing interests. Approved 03/25/02 Doug Cahill noted that he is a housing advocate but doesn't want us to "drop the ball" by approving a project that we will need to fix in the near future. He feels that the parking requirements are met. He noted that additional rec areas are needed and less snow storage may be appropriate. He noted that the buildings should be designed to integrate into the site. He approves of the learning center location, but has concerns about the drop -off areas. He recommended that the garages be used to provide additional housing, He recommended moving the bulk and mass to the rear of the site. The noted that the landscaping that can be provided in the CDOT ROW needs to be clarified. John Schofield asked about the lease of the Learning Tree center, the access to the rec area, and the solar access for the rec area. He also asked about storage for the residents, guest parking, and storage of trailers. Mike Coughlin replied to ,John's questions. John Schofield noted that the Commission is not anti - housing, however, he does agree with staff's concerns about the unresolved issues. In addition, he noted that additional landscaping is needed within the parking lot. He doesn't feel that snowstorage in the CDOT ROW along Frontage Road is appropriate. He feels that the north /south buildings don't relate to the other buildings. He noted that landscape buffering will be difficult. He stated that the parking for the Learning Center is adequate, however, the drop -off is not adequate and is dangerous. A drop -off without the need for parking needs to be provided. He wants to see further examination of minimizing noise from 1 -70. He also noted that snowshedding needs to be examined and the proposed berms need to be shown on the plans. Diane Golden noted that parking at the existing Learning Center is safe, but that Mo felt the parking at the proposed building is better. She noted that the parking numbers could be lowered and landscaping could be added. Erickson Shirley noted that a project like this is long overdue. He noted that the most significant point of staff's concerns is bulk and mass. He wanted the planners to explain the options that they have proposed. Allison Ochs noted some of the recommendations that staff has expressed to the applicant. Erickson Shirley asked the applicant how they respond to staff's concerns. Mike Coughlin responded. Chas Bernhardt asked if apartments can be built above the garages at the learning center. Mike Coughlin indicated that the Learning Center was designed to be separate from the housing. Brian Doyon thanked the applicants, the community, and staff for their hard work. He noted that there is significant site disturbance on this site. He notes the need for housing, but he's unwilling to sellout our assets for financial concerns. He feels that the design needs to fit the site. He restated Ned Gwaythmey's comment discouraging garage doors along the entrance to the site. He recommended eliminating part of the drive in front of building A. He noted that the proposed bus turn - around is similar to Timber Ridge and won't work well. He noted that snow storage needs to be increased and wants to see landscape plans and berms on the plans. He said a reduction in parking for the learning center may be appropriate if the area is converted to drop -off areas and there needs to be wider sidewalks at the Learning Center. He said berms need to be 4 -0 feet above floor level and he also wants to see written approval from CDOT for the landscaping. He also recommended that more garbage facilities need to be provided and recommended that 75 sq.ft. of storage per unit be provided. He agreed with the tandem parking for 2 and 3 bedroom apartments. 8 Approved 03/25/02 Chas Bernhardt noted that he is in favor of employee housing on this site. He noted that the 40% slopes may be an appropriate area for construction. He noted that the PEC is trying to assimilate the concerns of all the interested parties. He noted concerns about sidewalks and snowshedding. He also asked what the rental rates are going to be for these units. Mike Coughlin replied that many of the units will be deed restricted to a rate of 30% of the county median income levels. He also recommended that individuals may be willing to provide funds for this project. Galen Aasland noted that this project meets the mission and vision of the Town, even though not everything that he wants to see is included. He recommended approval with a stepping down of the roof for buildings G & H and a reduction of the parking at the Learning Center with a turn- around. He stated that the space between Building C & G is an attractive landscape area. Doug Cahill asked if any other bus stop layouts have been considered. Mike Coughlin responded, Chas Bernhardt stated concerns about rushing this project like Donovan Park without getting the proposal on their plans. Erickson Shirley noted that the PEC needs to be clear to the applicant about what they need for approval. Mike Coughlin noted that they would like to have a vote on this proposal with conditions at this time Brian Doyon and John Schofield noted that a complete application with all the revisions needs to be submitted and reviewed at the next meeting. George Ruther, agreed with Erickson that clear direction needs to be given to the applicant. However, any changes that are made to the plans affect other issues. Galen Aasland called for a straw pole if the Commission would approve this project. Erickson Shirley noted that he would vote in favor of the concept. Brian Doyon noted that he would not vote in favor of the concept. Chas Bernhardt noted that he would be in favor, if safety of the parking and the roof height are addressed. Doug noted that he would be in favor, but the details and plans need to be submitted. John Schofield noted that he wants to see a revised grading plan, drop -off at the daycare (not less than 20 spaces), not less than 243 parking spaces, interior landscaping of parking (15 %), noise mitigation, snow storage of at least (30 %), and recommendation to DRB to examine garage doors and the entrance, and examine building height. He's also concerned about views from Vail Mountain. Diane Golden noted that she would be in favor. Allison Ochs noted that significant criteria such as bulk and mass, or traffic safety are difficult to conditionally approve without reviewing any plans. Galen Aasland noted that he is in favor of the proposal with revisions. 9 Approved 03/25/02 Mike Coughlin proposed that the project be approved with conditions such as a maximum ridge height or sidewalk width, etc. Erickson Shirley made a motion to table this application, noting specific issues to be addressed by the applicant. Chas Bernhardt seconded the motion. John Schofield noted several issues to be addressed: 1. Grading plans and berming be submitted. 2. CDOT approval. 3. Revision of Learning Center parking and drop -off (6 parking space reduction). 4. Noise mitigation plan be submitted. 5, Step down buildings G & H. 6. Show pedestrian circulation. 7. That the DRB look at the garage doors at entrance. S. That the DRB looks at landscaping along Frontage Road. 9. That the recreation area be relocated. 10. That the applicant address snowshedding and run -off. The motion passed by a vote of 5 -2 , with Schofield and Golden opposed. 8. A request for a final review of a text amendment to Title 12, Chapter 3, Administration and Enforcement, of the Vail Town Code, to establish criteria for consideration for text amendments and rezoning requests and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: George Ruther George Ruther presented an overview of the staff memorandum. He also noted the proposed text amendments have been revised to address the Commission's recommendations from their previous hearing of this item. John Schofield requested that proposed criteria language referring to morals.. George Ruther and Matt Mire commented that this portion of the text could be removed. Erickson Shirley asked where this proposed language came from, and George Ruther replied that this language is based upon Chapter 1 of the Zoning Ordinance. Erickson Shirley also voiced concerns about using language general to the code in specific zoning changes. He voiced concerns about the proposed language referring to the health, safety, and public welfare as a criteria. Matt Mire replied that each proposal does not need to enhance safety, but address the issue and maintain the status quo_ Dominic Mauriello voiced concerns about Criteria C, which refers to the conservation or enhancement of the natural environment. Matt Mire replied that he is comfortable with the proposed text or Mr_ Mauriello's proposed text amendments. Erickson Shirley voiced his agreement with Mr. Mauriello's concerns. 10 Approved 03/25/02 Mr. Mauriello noted that he is in agreement with 98% of the proposed text, and that he only has concerns with a few words in the proposed text. He also expressed his concerns about an applicant's ability to meet the requirements of criteria E if the Town rigidly enforces the proposed language. John Schofield commented that Mr. Mauriello represents Vail Mountain School and his wife is a board member for the school, however, he does not believe he has a conflict of interest on this item. Erickson Shirley stated that the language of the proposed text should be clear as to if the applicant needs to promote an issue or have no negative impacts. Brian Doyon stated that he is comfortable with the text as proposed. He also commended staff on their proposal. Chas Bernhardt stated that he is comfortable with the text as proposed. Doug Cahill stated that he is comfortable with the text as proposed. John Schofield stated that he is comfortable with the text as proposed. He also recommended that criteria H should refer to any of factors for review as determined by the Commission or Council. Diane Golden stated that she is comfortable with the text as proposed. Galen Aasland stated that he is comfortable with the text as proposed. He recommended that Mr. Mauriello meet with staff prior to Council to further discuss his concerns. Brian Doyon made a motion for approval in accordance with criteria and findings of the staff memorandum with the addition of criteria H as proposed by Commissioner Schofield. George Ruther clarified that this will be added as criteria H and as criteria. E. Diane Golden seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 7 -0. 9. A request for a worksession to discuss planning issues and studies that should be recommended to the Town Council for action. Planner: Russ Forrest MOTION: Chas Bernhardt SECOND: Brian Doyon VOTE: 7 -0 TABLED 10. A request for a variance from Section 12 -6H -6 (Setbacks), Vaii Town Code, to allow for the remodel of Vail Townhouses, Units 2A & 2C, located at 303 Gore Creek Drive, Lot 2, Block 5, Vail Village 1" Filing. Applicant: Vickie Pearson, represented by Pam Hopkins Planner: George Ruther 0 TABLED UNTIL APRIL 8, 2002 11. Approval of February 11, 2002 12. Information Update Approved 03/25102 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 12 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: September 24, 2001 SUBJECT: A request for a major subdivision, a request to amend the Vail Land Use Plan to change the designation from "Open Space" to "High Density Residential ", and a request for a rezoning from "Natural Area Preservation District" to "Housing Zone District° to allow for the development of employee housing at the site known as Mountain Bell, located on an unplatted piece of property at 160 North Frontage Road. A complete metes and bounds legal description is available at the Department of Community Development. Applicant: Town of Vail Housing Authority, represented by Odell Architects Planner: Allison Ochs I. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUESTS The Town of Vail Housing Authority, represented by Odell Architects, is in the process of developing employee housing at the Mountain Bell site. The first step in this process includes the following actions: A major subdivision, to allow for the platting of the site known as Mountain Bell. The subdivision will be known as "Middle Creek Subdivision,° and will consist of Lot 1 (the housing site, known as Middle Creek Village), Lot 2 (the Mountain Bell tower site), and Tract A (the open space parcel). This is discussed in Section V of this memorandum. Reductions of the preliminary plat are attached in Appendix A. 2. A Land Use Plan amendment, to change the land use designation from "Open Space" to "High Density Residential "of Lot 1, Middle Creek Subdivision. This is discussed in Section VI of this memorandum. (Refer to Appendix B). 3. A rezoning, to rezone Lot 1, Middle Creek Subdvision, from "Natural Area Preservation District" to "Noosing Zone District ". This is discussed in Section VII of this memorandum. (Refer to Appendix C). II. BACKGROUND AND HISTORY OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY The Mountain Bell site was annexed into the Town of Vail by Ordinance No. 8, Series of 1969. In 1974, as part of an agreement with Vail Associates, Inc., regarding bus service, the property was deeded to the Town of Vail. A portion of the site is owned by Qwest and is the site of the Mountain Bell tower. In addition, ABC and Learning Tree are located on the site. The remainder of the site is currently open space. A title report has been attached in Appendix D. w 1 T01Y'V, OF VAIL Ill. ROLES OF THE REVIEWING BOARDS 0 A. MAJOR SUBDIVISON Planning and Environmental Commission: Action: The Planning and Environmental Commission is responsible for final approvalldenial of a major subdivision. The PEC shall review the proposal and make a recommendation to the Town Council on the compatibility of the subdivision with surrounding uses, consistency with the Vail Comprehensive Plans, and impact on the general welfare of the community. Design Review Board: Action: The FRB has NO review authority on major subdivisions.. Staff: The staff is responsible for ensuring that all submittal requirements are provided. The staff advises the applicant as to compliance with the Zoning and Subdivision Regulations. Staff provides a staff memo containing background on the property and provides a staff evaluation of the project with respect to the required criteria and findings, and a recommendation on approval, approval with conditions, or denial. Staff also facilitates the review process. B. LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT Planning and Environmental Commission: Action: The PEC is advisory to the Town Council. The PEC shall review the proposal and make a recommendation to the Town Council on the consistency of the proposed amendment with applicable review criteria and the policies, goals and objectives outlined in the Vail Land Use Plan and other applicable master plan documents. Design Review Board: Action: The DRB has NO review authority on Land Use Plan amendments. Staff: The staff is responsible for ensuring that all submittal requirements are provided. The staff advises the applicant as to consistency of the proposed amendment with applicable review criteria and the policies, goals and objectives outlined in the Vail Land Use Plan and other applicable master plan documents. Staff provides a staff memo containing background on the property and provides a staff evaluation of the project with respect to the required criteria and findings, and a recommendation on approval, approval with conditions, or denial. Staff also facilitates the review process. 0 2 Town Council: Action: The Town Council is responsible for final approvalldeniaf of a Vail Land Use Plan amendment. The Town Council shall review and approve the proposal based on the consistency of the proposed amendment with applicable review criteria and the policies, goals and objectives outlined in the Vail Land Use Plan and other applicable master plan documents. C. REZONING REQUEST Planning and Environmental Commission: Action: The PEC is advisory to the Town Council. The PEC shall review the proposal and make a recommendation to the Town Council on the compatibility of the proposed zoning with surrounding uses, consistency with the Vail Comprehensive Plans, and impact on the general welfare of the community. Desiqn Review Board: Action: The DRB has NO review authority on zoninglrezonings. 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 a staff memo containing background on the property and provides a staff evaluation of the project with respect to the required criteria and findings, and a recommendation on approval, approval with conditions, or denial. Staff also facilitates the review process. Town Council: Action: The Town Council, is responsible for final approvalldenial of a zoning /rezoning. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION A. MAJOR SUBDIVISION The Community Development Department recommends that the Planning and Environmental Commission approve the preliminary plat for Middle Creels Subdivsion located at a Part of the S1/2 of the SE1 /4 Section 6, Township 5 South, Range 80 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian, based upon the criteria evaluated in Section V of this memorandum. The recommendation of approval includes the following findings: 1. That the application is in compliance with the intent and purposes of the Major Subdivision Chapter, the Zoning Ordinance and other pertinent regulations that the Planning and Environmental Commission deems applicable. 3 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. In addition to the findings above, staff recommends the following conditions: At any time within one year after the Planning and Environmental Commission has completed its review of the preliminary plat, the applicant shall submit a final plat to the Department of Community Development for review by the Planning and Environmental Commission. 2. The final plat shall not be filed with the Office of the Clerk and Recorder of Eagle County, Colorado until such date that the Planning and Environmental Commission has approved a development plan for Lot 1, Middle Creek Subdivision. B. LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT The Department of Community Development recommends the Planning and Environmental Commission forward a recommendation of approval of the proposed amendments to the Vail Land Use Plan, based upon the criteria for evaluation listed in Section VI of this memorandum and the following findings: 1. The proposed plan amendment is consistent with the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan and compatible with the Town of Vail's development objectives. 2. That the proposed amendment is compatible with and suitable to adjacent uses and appropriate for the area. 3. That the proposed amendment is in the best interest of the public health, welfare and safety. In addition to the findings above, staff recommends the following condition: 1. That the Land Use Plan amendment shall take effect on such date that the final plat for Middle Creek Subdivision has been filed with the Office of the Clerk and Recorder of Eagle County, Colorado. C. REZONING REQUEST The Department of Community Development recommends that the Planning and Environmental Commission forward a recommendation of approval of the proposed rezoning, based upon the criteria for evaluation listed in Section VII of this memorandum and the following findings: 9 E 1. The proposed rezoning is consistent with the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan and compatible with the Town of Vail's development objectives. 2. That the proposed rezoning is compatible with and suitable to adjacent uses and appropriate for the area. 3. That the proposed rezoning is in the best interest of the public health, welfare and safety. In addition to the findings above, staff recommends the following condition: That the rezoning shall take effect on such date that the final plat for Middle Creek Subdivision has been approved and filed with the Office of the Clerk and Recorder of Eagle County, Colorado. V. MAJOR SUBDIVISION A. GENERAL OVERVIEW OF A MAJOR SUBDIVISION Title 13, Subdivision Regulations, of the Town of Vail Municipal Code establishes the review process and criteria for a major subdivision proposed in the Town of Vail. Pursuant to Chapter 13 -3 (Major Subdivision) of the Town Code, the first step in the review process is for the applicant to meet with a Town Planner to discuss the preliminary plan. Staff has met with the applicant on several occasions to discuss the proposal and address submittal requirements. Staff feels the applicant has successfully complied with the initial step in the review process. The Town of Vail is required to notify the following agencies that a major subdivision is proposed and that preliminary plans are available for review: a. Department of Public Works. b. Town Fire Department. C. Town Police Department. d. Public Service Company of Colorado. e. Holy Cross Electric Association. f. U.S. West g. Cablevision company serving the area. h. National Forest Service. i. Eagle River Water and Sanitation District. j_ Vail Recreation District. k. Eagle County Ambulance District. I. Other interested agencies when applicable. All of the above agencies have been notified. The next step in the review process shall preliminary plan by the Town of Vail Planning The applicant shall make a presentation to Commission at a regularly scheduled meetin 5 L e a formal consideration of the and Environmental Commission. the Planning and Environmental g. The presentation and public hearing shall be in accordance with Section 12 -3 -3 of the Town Code. The applicant's appearance before the Planning and Environmental Commission today shall serve to meet the public hearing and presentation requirement. The burden of proof that the application is in compliance with the intent and purposes of the Zoning Code and other pertinent regulations shall lie upon the applicant. In reviewing the preliminary plan, the Planning and Environmental Commission shall review the application and consider its appropriateness in regard to Town policies relating to: 1. Subdivision Control; 2. Densities proposed; 3. Regulations; 4. Ordinances, resolutions and other applicable documents; 5. Environmental Integrity; G. Compatibility with surrounding land uses; and 7. Effects upon the aesthetics of the Town and surrounding land uses. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall have twenty -one days from the date of the review of the preliminary plan to approve, disapprove or approve with conditions or modifications, the major subdivision request. Within ten days of making a decision on the request, the staff shall forward the Planning and Environmental Commission's decision to the Vail Town Council. The Council may appeal the Planning and Environmental Commission's action. The appeal must be placed within seventeen days of Planning and Environmental Commission's action. If the Council appeals the Planning and Environmental Commission's action, the Council shall hear substantially the same presentation by the applicant as was heard at the Planning and Environmental Commission public hearing. The Council shall have thirty days to affirm, reverse, or affirm with modifications the Planning and Environmental Commission decision. The appeal hearing shall be held during a regularly scheduled council meeting. The final step in the review process of a major subdivision request, after Planning and Environmental Commission preliminary plan review, is the review of the final plat. At any time within one year after the Planning and Environmental Commission has taken action on the preliminary plan, a final plat shall be submitted to the Town of Vail Community Development Department. The staff shall schedule a final review of the final plat. The final review shall occur at a regularly scheduled Planning and Environmental Commission public hearing. The review criteria for a final plat are the same as those used in reviewing the preliminary plan as contained in Section 13 -3 -4 of the Subdivision Regulations. The Town of Vail has the ability to require certain improvements when approving a major subdivision. The following improvements shall be required by the applicant unless otherwise waived by the zoning administrator, Planning and Environmental Commission, or Council. Is 1. Paved streets and parking lots; A 2. Bicycle and pedestrian path linked with the town system and within the subdivision itself; 3. Traffic control signs, signals or devices; 4. Street lights; 5. Landscaping; 6. Water lines and fire hydrants; 7. Sanitary sewer lines; 8. Storm drainage improvements and storm sewers; 9. Bridges and culverts; 10. Electric lines; 11. Telephone lines; 12. Natural gas lines; 13. Other improvements not specifically mentioned above but found necessary by the Town Engineer due to the nature of the subdivision. B. REVIEW CRITERIA FOR A MAJOR SUBDIVISION Section 13 -3 of the Town of Vail Code provides the criteria by which a proposed major subdivision is to be reviewed. Section 13 -3 -4: Commission Review of Application; Critera states: 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 Manning and Environmental Commission deems applicable. Due consideration shall be given to the recommendations made by public agencies, utility companies and other agencies consulted under subsection 13 -3 -3C above. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall review the application and consider its appropriateness in regard to Town policies relating to subdivision control, densities proposed, regulations, ordinances and resolutions and other applicable documents, environmental integrity and compatibility with the surrounding land uses and other applicable documents, effects on the aesthetics of the Town. 1. Subdivision Control There are three lots being platted as part of this major subdivision request: Lot Zoning Lot Size Buildable Area Frontage Lot 1 Housing 6.673 ac. 4.573 ac. 1145.75 ft. (p roposed) 290,676 s . fl. 199,200 s . ft. Lot 2 General Use 1.096 ac. Not applicable Via 40 ft. 47.742 s . ft. easement Tract A Natural Area 17.226 ac. Not applicable 1545.02 ft. Preservation 750,365 s . ft. Lot 1, Middle Creek Subdivision: is Lot 1 is proposed to be zoned to the Housing Zone District. According to Section 12- 61 -10: Other Development Standards: l►/ Prescribed By Planning and Environmental Commission: In the H District, development standards in each of the following categories shag 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). Therefore, the Planning and Environmental Commission shall prescribe the minimum lot size and frontage requirements. Staff believes that the lot size of 290,675.9 sq. ft. and the frontage of 1145.75 ft. are appropriate in this subdivision. Lot 2, Middle Creek Subdivision Lot 2 will remain zoned General Use. According to Section 12 -9C -5: Development Standards: Prescribed By Planning And Environmental Commission. In the General Use District, development standards in each of the following categories shall be as prescribed by the Planning and Environmental Commission: 1. Lot area and site dimensions. 2. Setbacks. 3. Building height. 4. Density control. 5. Site coverage. 6. Landscaping and site development. 7 Parking and loading. Therefore, the Planning and Environmental Commission shall prescribe the minimum lot size and frontage requirements. Staff believes that the lot size of 47,741.8 sq. ft. is appropriate for this subdivision. The frontage proposed for Lot 2 is via the existing platted access easement, which is 40 ft. Generally, the minimum frontage requirement within the Town of Vail varies from 30 ft. (residential zone districts) to 100 ft. (higher intensity commercial zone districts). Staff believes that given the current access and use of the site, the 40 ft. access easement provides acceptable access to the site. Therefore, staff believes that no frontage is acceptable for this subdivision. Tract A, Middle Creek Subdivision Tract A will remain zoned Natural Area Preservation District. There are no minimum lot size or frontage requirements in the Natural Area Preservation District. Staff believes that the configuration of Tract A is appropriate for this subdivision. • 2. Densities Proposed The density proposed for the entire 25 acre site is 192 dwelling units. This is approximately 7.68 dwelling units per acre. However, the development will be clustered on the 6.7 acre housing site. This will keep development out of the 40% slopes as required by the Chapter 12 -21 of the Town Code. Lot 1, Middle Creek Subdivision Lot 1 is proposed to be zoned Housing Zone District, with a land use designation of High Density Residential. The density allowed in the Housing zone district is prescribed by the Planning and Environmental Commission. The applicant is currently proposing 192 dwelling units on Lot 1. This is approximately 42 dwelling units per buildable acre and 29.7 dwelling units per gross acre. For comparison, the density allowed in Lionshead Mixed Use 1 is 35 dwelling units per acre. The land use designation of High Density Residential states that density in this designation would exceed 15 units per buildable acre. Staff believes that this density is appropriate for this subdivision. Lot 2, Middle Creek Subdivision Lot 2 is zoned General Use, with a land designation of PubliclSemi- Public. No dwelling units are proposed on Lot 2. The only allowable dwelling units in the General Use Zone District are Type III employee housing units. Tract A, Middle Creek Subdivision Tract A is zoned Natural Area Preservation District, with a land use designation of Open Space. No dwelling units are permitted in the Natural Area Preservation District. 3. Regulations Lot 1, Middle Creek Subdivision Lot 1 is proposed to be zoned to the Housing Zone District. For a discussion of the rezoning, please refer to Section VII of this memorandum. The Housing Zone District regulations have been attached in Appendix E for reference. The Housing Zone District requires an approved development plan in conjunction with development on the site. The rezoning is contingent on the Planning and Environmental Commission's approval of the development plan. Lot 2, Middle Creek Subdivision 40 Lot 2 will remain zoned General Use. The existing use of the property will continue. Any changes require an amendment to the approved development plan, subject to approval by the Planning and Environmental E Commission. The General Use Zone District regulations have been attached in Appendix F for reference. Tract A, Middle Creek Subdivision Tract A will remain zoned Natural Area Preservation District. The Natural Area Preservation District regulations have been attached in Appendix G for reference. 4. Ordinances, resolutions and other applicable documents In reviewing this proposal, staff relied upon the Town Code and the Vail Land Use Plan. The issues relating to the Town Code have been addressed previously. The Vail Land Use Plan contains goals which staff considers to be applicable to the major subdivision request. The applicable goals include: 1.0 General Growth /Development 1.1 Vail should continue to grow in a controlled environment, maintaining a balance between residential, commercial and recreational uses to serve both the visitor and the permanent resident. 1.2 The quality of the environment including air, water and other natural resources should be protected as the Town grows. 1.3 The quality of development should be maintained and upgraded whenever possible. 1.6 Development proposals on the hillsides should be evaluated on a case by case basis, Limited development may be permitted for some low intensity uses in areas that are not highly visible from the Valley floor. New projects should be carefully controlled and developed with sensitivity to the environment. 1.7 New subdivisions should not be permitted in high geologic hazard areas. 1.12 Vail should accommodate most of the additional growth in existing developed areas (infill areas).. 5.0 Residential 6.1 Additional residential growth should continue to occur primarily in existing, platted areas and as appropriate in new areas where high hazards do not exist. • 10 5.3 Affordable employee housing should be made available through private efforts, assisted by limited incentives, provided by the Town of Vail with appropriate restrictions. 5.4 Residential growth should keep pace with the marketplace demands for a full range of housing types. The Vail Land Use Plan identifies this neighborhood as Medium Density Residential. According to the Land Use Plan: The medium density residential category includes housing which would typically be designed as attached units with common walls. Densities in this category would range from 3 to 14 dwelling units per buildable acre. Additional types of uses in this category would include private recreation facilities, private parking facilities and institutional/public uses such as parks and open space, churches, and fire stations. 5. Environmentallntegrity According to the Town of Vail hazard maps, Middle Creek Subdivision is located within a Medium Severity Rockfali hazard and Moderate Hazard Debris Flow. A site - specific study has been completed by R.J. Irish, dated August 10, 2001, and is attached in Appendix H. The consulting engineering geologists acknowledges that the risk of debris flow from the Middle Creek Valley to be high during the lifetime of the project, with a volume described as "small to quite large." The report indicates that the entire site is located within a high hazard debris flow area. The report also suggests that the risk could be minimized by mitigation measures. The report also acknowledges that the risk of rockfall is medium during the lifetime of the project. Mitigation recommended by the report includes dislodging exposed boulders by hand prior to construction. It further states that any boulders would likely be trapped in the channel of the creek. The hazard reports have been included for reference. Staff continues to have concerns regarding the hazards on the site. The study indicantes that the entire site is located within a high debris flow area. Staff believes that prior to the final platting of the site, the mitigation of this debris flow should be further examined. Mitigation measures will be reviewed with the final platting of the site. As required by Chapter 12 -21 of the Town Code, no development will be permitted on slopes greater than 40/0. The lots have been configured to minimize the 40% slopes on Lot 1. An Environmental Impact Report has been completed by Stewart Environmental Consultants, Inc., and has been attached in Appendix 1 for reference. The report stated that while the proposed development of Lot 1 will have an impact on plant and animal communities presently inhabiting the property, the loss of the 5.5 acres does not represent a significant impact to plant and animal communities. The report recommends that all trash dumpsters need to be made bear -proof and exterior lighting will need to be minimized. The report additionally states that the impact to Middle Creek could include runoff from paved parking areas. A drainage study has also been included. 11 A wetlands assessment is currently being performed and will be submitted prior to final platting of the site. C-1 The drainage report has been completed by Peak Civil Engineering, Inc., which Is attached in Appendix J for reference. The drainage study states that runoff from the proposed development will follow existing drainage patterns. A preliminary traffic study has been attached in Appendix K for reference. Generally, the study states that the traffic generated by the proposal will be less than most apartment complexes, due to the proximity to other forms of transportation. When a design is finalized, a more in -depth study will be provided. All of the environmental studies will be updated to reflect the development plan as the development of Lot 1 is refined. All of the studies will be included in the final review of the plat. Compatibility with Surrounding Land Uses Adjacent uses to the entire Middle Creek Subdivision include the following: Solar Vail — a multiple - family housing project currently zoned High Density Multiple Family. Tract C, Vail Potato Patch — an open space tract currently zoned Natural Area Preservation District. Parcel B, Spraddle Creek Ranch — an open space tract currently zoned Natural Area Preservation District. This property is adjacent to Lot 1. 1 -70 Right -of -Way — land owned by CDOT but located within Town of Vail boundaries. As a road right -of -way, there is no zoning on the property. This property is adjacent to Lot 1. White River National Forest — land owned by the United States Forest Service outside of the Town of Vail boundary. 7 Staff believes that the subdivision is compatible with surrounding uses. Effects Upon the Aesthetics of the Town and Surrounding Land Uses The existing Mountain Bell tower and structure will not change with this application. Approximately 17 acres will remain open space. Lot 1 will be developed within the parameters of the Housing Zone District. According to Section 12- 01 -11: Development Plan Required: Compatibility With Intent: To ensure the unified development, the protection of the natural environment, the compatibility with the surrounding area and to assure that development in the Housing District will meet the intent of the District, a development plan shall be required. As the development plan will be approved at a later date by the Planning and Environmental Commission and the Design Review Board, staff believes that 12 10 there will be no negative effects upon the aesthetics of the Town and the surrounding land uses. VI. LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT A. GENERAL OVERVIEW OF THE PLAN The Vail Land Use Plan was initiated in 1985 and adopted in 1988 by the Vail Town Council. The main purposes of the Land Use Plan are two -fold: 1. To articulate the land use goals of the Town. 2. To serve as a guide for decision making by the Town. The Vail Land Use Plan is intended to serve as a basis from which future land use decisions may be made within the Town of Vail. The goals, as articulated within the Land Use Plan, are meant to be used as adopted policy guidelines in the review process for new development proposals. In conjunction with these goals, land use categories are defined to indicate general types of land uses which are then used to develop the Vail Land Use Map. The Land Use Plan is not intended to be regulatory in nature, but is intended to provide a general framework to guide decision making. Where the land use categories and zoning conflict, existing zoning controls development on a site. To be effective, the Land Use Plan must be updated to reflect current thinking and changing market conditions. The Vail Land Use Plan can be amended in three ways: 1) The Community Development Department can update and revise the plan periodically. The Community Development Department then makes recommendations for the proposed changes to the Planning and Environmental Commission, where these changes would then be considered in a public hearing format. The Planning and Environmental Commission would then make a recommendation to the Town Council, where another public hearing would be held. The Council then adopts the changes by resolution. 2) The Planning and Environmental Commission or Town Council can also initiate amendments to the Land Use Plan. Again, both boards hold public hearings and the changes are adopted by the Town Council by resolution. 3) The private sector can also initiate amendments to the Vail Land Use Plan. Applications may be made by a registered voter, a property owner, or a property owner's authorized representative. The amendments are then heard by both the Planning and Environmental Commission and the Town Council. The Town Council then adopts the changes by resolution. The applicant is proposing to change the land use designation from Open Space to High Density Residential. The Open Space designation is described as follows: 13 Open Space (CAS): Passive recreation areas such as greenbelts, stream corridors and drainageways are the types of areas in this category. Hillsides which were classified as undevelopable due to high hazards and slopes over 40% are also included within this area. These hillside areas would still be allowed types of development permitted by existing zoning, such as one unit per 35 acres, for areas in agricultural zoning. Also, permitted in this area would be institutional /public uses. The Comprehensive Open Lands Plan identifies the Mountain Bell Site as "approximately half of the property is intended for affordable housing and the remainder of the site will remain open space." The Comprehensive Open Lands Plan is intended to identify and recommend actions for the protection of sensitive land and open space, not as a guide for development of other properties. The High Density Residential designation is described as follows: The housing in this category would typically consist of multi - floored structures with densities exceeding 15 dwelling units per buildable acre. Other activities in this category would include private recreational facilities, and private parking facilities and institutional / public uses such as churches, fire stations and parks and open space facilities. The Vail Land Use Plan describes the Mountain Bell site as Tract 35 and states: The Mountain Bell microwave facility and two day care centers are located on a 25 acre site owned by the Town of Vail which is north of 1 -70. A portion of this site under the microwave facility is awned by Mountain Bell. Part of the entire site in located in an area of medium environmental hazards and should continue to remain in its present use, with possible expansions of the day car centers. It may also be an option for the cemetery, further discussed later. B. CRITERIA FOR CHANGING THE LAND USE PLAN Any amendments to the Land Use Plan require a public process. Adjacent properties are notified. the Planning and Environmental Commission holds a public hearing and makes a recommendation to the Town Council on the proposal. The Town Council adopts the changes by resolution. Any changes to the Land Use Plan must address the following three criteria: Criterion 1: How conditions have changed since the plan was adopted The Vail Land Use Plan was adopted in 1986. Since then the Town of Vail has completed three other important studies which involve the Mountain Bell site. Town of Vail Affordable Housing Study (1990) The Town of Vail Affordable Housing Study was completed in 1999. The primary purpose of the study is to provide guidance and direction by developing a series of policies and recommendations to address the 14 community's need for expanding the supply of affordable housing for its local residents, both year -round and seasonal. The Town of Vail Affordable Housing Study provided the following recommendations: a. Provision for accessory units in single- family, primarylsecondary, and duplex zone districts. b. Create new definitions in the land use code for permanently deed restricted affordable housing and studio housing units. c. Consider the role of the Town of Vail in overseeing and demonstrating actions on affordable housing. Create a Town of Vail Housing Authority to assist in the coordination and administration of the affordable housing program. Also, establish a demonstration housing project which is planned and coordinated by the Town of Vail, with the assistance and participation of the private sector. d. Amendment of standards and criteria for Special Development Districts to provide for affordable housing unit developments. e. Special development districts for commercial, mixed -use, or free market residential development to provide for affordable housing units. f. Waiver of development land processing fees related to the construction of deed restricted affordable housing units constructed within the Town of Vail. By Resolution No. 25, Series of 1990, the Town of Vail established the Town of Vail Housing Authority. The Housing Authority evaluated different sites for housing potential, The Mountain Bell site was the Authority's recommendation as the housing project to move forward with first. However, in 1093, the Town Council opted not to move forward on this project due to political concerns_ 2. The Comprehensive Open Lands Plan (1994) The Comprehensive Open Lands Plan primary purpose is to identify and develop strategies for acquiring or protecting key remaining open lands in Vail that would be valuable for recreation, protecting sensitive environmental resources, extending or connecting trails, providing adequate neighborhood open space, and creating a small amount of contingency land for unforeseen needs (e.g. employee housing, public facilities). The comprehensive Open Lands Plan identifies the Mountain Bell site and states: Approximately half of this property (7.71 acres) is intended for affordable housing and the remainder of the site will remain in open space 3. The Housing Needs Assessment (1999) The Housing Needs Assessment was completed in 1999, sponsored by Eagle County, Town of Eagle, Town of Vail, and Vail Resorts, Inc. The purpose of the assessment is to better understand current housing 15 problems and to provide information that can be used to address >• identified needs_ The Housing Needs Assessment identifies the need for additional housing in Eagle County. Specifically, it states: Develop affordable housing throughout the county except for seasonal workers, whose housing should be concentrated in Vail. Staff believes that these studies, all completed since the adoption of the Vail Land Use Plan, establish a need for additional housing opportunities in the Town of Vail. The Mountain Bell site, specifically examined by the 1990 Town of Vail Housing Authority and the Comprehensive Open Lands Plan, has been identified as a suitable site for housing. Staff believes that the conditions have changed since the adoption of the Vail Land Use Plan. Criterion 2: How the plan is in error The Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation and Geologic Hazard Studies are presented in Appendix H of this memorandum. As the studies indicate, the site is developable with mitigation of the existing hazards on the site. The Vail Land Use Plan indicates that minimum development should occur on the site, due to the hazards. However, staff believes that the Vail Land Use Plan is in error regarding the development potential of the site. The preliminary studies indicate that the site is developable for housing with mitigation. The hazards on the site and possible means of mitigation remain a concern of the staff. Criterion 3: How the addition, deletion or change to the plan is in concert with the ,plan in general Staff has identified the following objectives and goals, which staff believes are relevant to this proposal from the Vail Land Use Plan. 1.0 General Growth /Development 1.1 Vail should continue to grow in a controlled environment, maintaining a balance between residential, commercial and recreational uses to serve both the visitor and the permanent resident. 1.2 The quality of the environment including air, water and other natural resources should be protected as the Town grows. 1.3 The quality of development should be maintained and upgraded whenever possible. 1.6 Development proposals on the hillsides should be evaluated on a case by case basis. Limited development may be permitted for some low intensity uses in areas that are not highly visible from 16 the Valley floor. New projects should be carefully controlled and developed with sensitivity to the environment. 1.7 New subdivisions should not be permitted in high geologic hazard areas. 1.10 Development of Town awned lands by the Town of Vail (other than parks and open space) may be permitted where no high hazards exist, if such development is for public use. 1.11 Town owned lands shall not be sold to a private entity, long term leased to a private entity or converted to a private use without a public hearing process. 1.12 Vail should accommodate most of the additional growth in existing developed areas (infill areas). 5.0 Residential 5.1 Additional residential growth should continue to occur primarily in existing, platted areas and as appropriate in new areas where high hazards do not exist. 5.3 Affordable employee housing should be made available through private efforts, assisted by limited incentives, provided by the Town of Vail with appropriate restrictions. 5.4 Residential growth should keep pace with the marketplace demands for a full range of housing types. 5.5 The existing employee housing base should be preserved and upgraded. Additional employee housing needs should be accommodated at varied sites throughout the community. Staff believes that the proposed Land Use Plan amendment is in concert with the plan in general. VII. REZONING REQUEST A. ZONING REGULATIONS OVERVIEW The Town of flail Zoning Regulations are intended to: Promote the coordinated and harmonious development of the Town in a manner that will conserve and enhance its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of high quality. In contrast to the Land Use Plan, which serves as a guide in land use decision making, the zoning and subdivision regulations are regulatory tools used to control development for the benefit of the public health, safety and welfare. The 17 zoning regulations are specific with regards to development on property, including density, setbacks, height, etc. Where conflicts exist between the Land Use Plan and the zoning for a site, existing zoning controls development, However, in cases where a change in zoning is considered for a site, the land use designation and land use objectives as identified in the Land Use Plan are ,important considerations in the decision making process. B. REZONING CRITERIA The Town of Vail has established the following criteria in the review of a rezoning request: 1) Is the existing zoning suitable with the existing land use on the site and adjacent land uses? The existing zoning on the entire Mountain Bell site consists of Natural Area Preservation District and General Use. The General Use designation includes the portion of the site with the Mountain Bell facility and the two day care facilities. The rest of the site is designated Natural Area Preservation District. According to Section 12 -9C -1 of the Town Code, the purpose of the General Use zone district is as follows: The General Use District is intended to provide sites for public and 45 quasi - public uses which, because of their special characteristics, cannot be appropriately regulated by the development standards prescribed for other zoning districts, and for which development standards especially prescribed for each particular development proposal or project are necessary to achieve the purposes prescribed in Section 12 -1 -2 of this Title and to provide for the public welfare. The General Use District is intended to ensure that public buildings and grounds and certain types of quasi public uses permitted in the District are appropriately located and designed to meet the needs of residents and visitors to Vail, to harmonize with surrounding uses, and, in the case of buildings and other structures, to ensure adequate light, air, open spaces, and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of uses. According to Section 12 -8C -1 of the Town Code, the purpose of the Natural Area Preservation zone district is: The Natural Area Preservation District is designed to provide areas which, because of their environmentally sensitive nature or natural beauty, shall be protected from encroachment by any building or other improvement, other than those listed in Section 12 -8C -2 of this Article. The Natural Area Preservation District is intended to ensure that designated lands remain in their natural state, including reclaimed areas, by protecting such areas from development and preserving open space. The Natural Area Preservation District includes lands having valuable wildlife in habitat, exceptional aesthetic or flood control value, wetlands, riparian areas and areas with significant environmental constraints. Protecting sensitive natural areas is important for maintaining water quality and aquatic habitat, preserving wildlife habitat, flood control, protecting view corridors, minimizing the risk from hazard areas, and protecting the natural character of Vail which is so vital to the Town's tourist economy. The intent shall not preclude improvement of the natural environment by the removal of noxious weeds, deadfall where necessary to protect public safety or similar compatible improvements. The existing zoning is suitable with the existing land use of the site. However, the current proposal for the site is to establish employee housing on Lot 1 of Middle Creek Subdivision. Lot 2, Middle Creek Subdivision will remain General Use, Traci A will remain zoned Natural Area Preservation District. This rezoning request is to rezone Lot 1 to the Housing Zone District. Staff believes that this zoning designation is more appropriate given the proposed development of the site. The Comprehensive Open Lands Plan identifies this site for employee housing. Adjacent uses to the entire Middle Creek Subdivision include the following: Solar Vail — a multiple - family housing project currently zoned High Density Multiple Family. Tract C, Vail Potato Patch — an open space tract currently zoned Natural Area Preservation District. Parcel B, Spraddle Creek Ranch — an open space tract currently zoned Natural Area Preservation District. This property is adjacent to Lot 1. 1-70 Right -of -Way — land owned by CDOT but located within Town of Vail boundaries. As a road right -of -way, there is no zoning on the property. This property is adjacent to Lot 1. White River National Forest — land owned by the United States Forest Service outside of the Town of Vail boundary. Within Middle Creek Subdivision, Lot 1 is adjacent to Lot 2, and Tract A. 2) Is the amendment presenting a convenient workable relationship with land uses consistent with municipal objectives? The Town has continually stated that the provision of employee housing is an important objective and a high priority for the community. Staff believes that the amendment presents a convenient workable relationship with land uses consistent with stated municipal objectives. The purpose of the Housing Zone District is. The Housing District is intended to provide adequate sites for employee housing which, because of the nature and 19 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. The Housing Zone District is similar to a special development district in its flexibility in the development standards of the zone district. The Housing Zone District provides the following: Lot Size: as approved by the PEC Density: as approved by the PEC GRFA: as approved by the PEC Site Coverage: 55% or as approved by the PEC Landscape Area: 30% Setbacks: 20 ft. or as approved by the PEC Parking: per Ch. 12 -10 or as approved by the PEC 3) As part of the rezoning of Lot 1, Middle Creek Subdivision, to the Housing Zone District, the Planning and Environmental Commission would be adopting a development plan for the site. This will occur at future Planning and Environmental Commission meetings. The rezoning does not take effect until the final plat for Middle Creek Subdivision is approved and filed with the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder's (Office. Does the rezoning provide for the growth of an orderly viable community? In accordance with the provisions of the Town of Vail Zoning and Subdivision Regulations and Vail's Comprehensive Plan elements, staff believes this rezoning provides for the growth of an orderly viable community. The Housing Zone District sets, forth development standards and uses which the Town has found to be in the best interest of the Town's health, safety, and welfare. Staff believes that the designation of the Housing Zone District on this site will suit the proposed use and development of the site. The Housing Zone District regulations have been attached for reference. The Housing Zone District allows deed restricted employee housing as a permitted use. In addition, as conditional uses, the Housing Zone District allows for Type VI employee housing units, dwelling units (not EHUs) not to exceed 30% of the total GRFA constructed on the site, and accessory commercial uses_ Staff believes that the clear purpose and intent of the Housing Zone District, along with 20 the allowable uses within that zone district, will provide for the growth of an orderly viable community. 4) Is the change consistent with the Land Use Plan? The proposed land use designation of the property is High Density Residential, which, according to the Vail Land Use Plan, is described as: The housing in this category would typically consist of multi- floored structures with densities exceeding 15 dwelling units per buildable acre. Other activities in this category would include private recreational facilities and private parking facilities and institutional / public uses such as churches, fire stations, and parks and open space facilities. The proposed rezoning is consistent with the goals, objectives and policies as stated in the Vail Land Use Plan. Specific Land Use Plan goals that are relevant to this proposal include: 1.0 General Growth /Development 1.1 Vail should continue to grow in a controlled environment, . maintaining a balance between residential, commercial and recreational uses to serve both the visitor and the permanent resident. 1.2 The quality of the environment including air, water and other natural resources should be protected as the Town grows. 1.3 The quality of development should be maintained and upgraded whenever possible. 1.6 Development proposals on the hillsides should be evaluated on a case by case basis. Limited development may be permitted for some low intensity uses in areas that are not highly visible from the Valley floor. New projects should be carefully controlled and developed with sensitivity to the environment. 1.7 New subdivisions should not be permitted in high geologic hazard areas. 1.10 Development of Town owned lands by the Town of Vail (other than parks and open space) may be permitted where no high hazards exist, if such development is for public use. 1.11 Town owned lands shall not be sold to a private entity, long term leased to a private entity or converted to a private use without a public hearing process. 1.12 Vail should accommodate most of the additional growth in existing developed areas (infill areas). 21 5.0 Residential • 5.1 Additional residential growth should continue to occur primarily in existing, platted areas and as appropriate in new areas where high hazards do not exist. 5.3 Affordable employee housing should be made available through private efforts, assisted by limited incentives, provided by the Town of Vail with appropriate restrictions 5.4 Residential growth should keep pace with the marketplace demands for a full range of housing types. 5.5 The existing employee housing base should be preserved and upgraded. Additional employee housing needs should be accommodated at varied sites throughout the community. Staff believes the goals of the Vail Land Use Plan will be furthered by the rezoning to the Housing Zone District. The Vail Land Use Plan states that the provision of employee housing is an important objective of the Town. In addition to the Vail Land Use Plan, other Town documents support this objective. In 1999, the Town of Vail sponsored, along with Eagle County, Town of Eagle, and Vail Resorts, Inc., a housing needs assessment. The Housing Needs Assessment states: Develop more rental housing. The demand for units to house new employees and employees who now commute but want to five in Eagle County is sufficiently strong to support the additional development of apartments. Until the vacancy rates reaches a level more in line with other communities, efforts to develop apartments should not be curtailed. Staff believes that the rezoning of Lot 1, Middle Creek Subdivision to the Housing Zone District is consistent with the Land Use Plan and the Housing Needs Assessment. • 22 Approved 10/08101 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION PUBLIC MEETING RESULTS/MINUTES Monday, September 24, 2001 PROJECT ORIENTATION 1- Community Development Dept. PUBLIC WELCOME MEMBERS PRESENT Galen Aasland Chas Bernhardt Diane Golden John Schofield Brian Doyon Doug Cahill Dick Cleveland Site vi -qit- 1. Eagle River Water & Sanitation District — 5186 Black Gore Drive 2. Balas Residence — 5047 Ute Lane 3. Middle Creek Village — 160 North Frontage Road 4. Timber Ridge —1260 N. Frontage Road 12:00 pm 1:00 pm Driver: Brent * ** Wear Good Hiking Boots * ** 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 An appeal of an administrative determination regarding the procedural requirements for an application for subdivision of "the Fallridge Parcel," a Part of Lot 1, Sunburst Filing No. 3 J a portion of land adjacent to the Vail Golf Course Townhomes in the 1600 block of Golf Terrace. A graphic map description is attached for reference. Specifically, the appeal involves a staff determination that the subdivision of land within a recreational easement requires a Major Special Development District Amendment to the Fallridge Special Development District. Appellant: Fallridge Community Association, represented by Berenbaum, Weinshienk and Eason, P.C. Planner: Brent Wilson Brent Wilson presented an overview of the staff memorandum. Larry Eskwith and Mike Miller (representing the Fallridge Association), testified that the land which they wished to subdivide was not part of the dedicated recreation area from the original Special Development District #8. John Schofield asked where the legal descriptions came from. *11L TOIYN, MEMBERS ABSENT Approved 10108/01 Brent Wilson indicated that the legal descriptions came from the Fall Ridge Condo Association declarations and not from any easement instrument recorded in 1977. 0 Larry Eskwith indicated that the SDD did not include records of the location of the recreation area. John Schofield asked if legal descriptions for the properties were legally recorded. Mike Miller indicated that they can provide that information. Mike Helmer, surveyor with Johnson & Kunkel, testified as to the recorded location of the recreation area described in the Fallridge Condominium Declarations. He indicated that the property proposed to be subdivided was not part of the recorded recreation area described in the declarations. Brian Doyon asked if there was a title report for the proposed subdivided property. Larry Eskwith indicated that there was one available. Brent Wilson indicated that there are two separate and distinct issues: where the property legally described with the condo declarations is located and where the property encumbered for recreation under the SDD is located. Brent Wilson indicated that the recorded easement from 1977 has not been found. Larry stated that a separate easement was never recorded with the original SDD, however, the declaration indirectly created the recreation easement area. John Schofield indicated that the original SDD did not require the recreation area to be contiguous to the SDD, which leaves doubt as to the location of the recreation area, but also indicates the property could have been removed some distance from the Fallridge building. Dr. Hawkins asked if the purpose of this was to allow for future development of the property. Brent Wilson indicated that future development of the property is a possibility, however, today's discussion regarding the appeal deals only with procedural issues. Dick Cleveland asked if something different was filed in 1977, than 1978. He indicated that further documentation is needed before he can make a decision. Brian Doyon indicated that there is not enough information for him to make a decision. Chas Bernhardt agreed. Doug Cahill agreed. John Schofield stated that the legal description for the land contiguous to the building, needed to be confirmed. He said a legal description of both parcels is needed and record of ownership for both parcels of land, at the time of SDD #8, needs to be verified. Diane Golden asked why staff made their decision. Brent Wilson indicated that records from 1977 are not complete and the proposed area to be subdivided did have a recreation easement in place on the property. The SDD Ordinance required recreation areas and staff believes that the property in question was part of that requirement. Brent stated the site plan presented also indicated both areas were encumbered with a recreation easement. Galen Aasland agrees with the other Commissioners. He is comfortable that the area around the Approved 10/08/01 building does meet the "approximately 2 acres" requirement, however, there is still not enough information for the Commission to vote on this item. • Galen Aasland asked that if the appropriate information can be found, would this item need to come back to the PEC. Brent Wilson indicated that if the appropriate information is not available, that this item may have to return to the PEC. Brent agreed to conduct the title research at the Clerk and Recorder's Office to retrieve all relevant items. Pursuant to the PEC's authority in the Vail Town Code, the PEC decided to continue this item until additional information is received. John Schofield made a motion to table this item until October 8, 2001. Brian Doyon seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 7-0. 2. A request for a conditional use permit and a request for Planning and Environmental Commission review of grading and landscape modifications within the 100 -year floodplain, to allow for the modification of an existing raw water intake and pump station facility, located at 5186 Black Gore Drive / Lot 8, Heather of Vail Subdivision. Applicant: Eagle River Water and Sanitation District Planner: Brent Wilson 0 Brent Wilson presented an overview of the staff memorandum. Galen Aasland asked if the PEC is being asked to make a single decision, or two separate decisions. Brent Wilson asked the PEC to make one motion for the conditional use permit, since the proposed findings include conformance with floodplain grading requirements. Dick Cleveland asked if the landscaping required DRB review. Brent Wilson indicated that it did, Lynne Schorr, (ERWSD), submitted a letter from their registered Professional Engineer indicating that there will be no change to the existing flood plain_ Tom Kassmel indicated that his review indicated that there is no grading in the 100 -year flood plain and if there is no grading in the 100 -year floodplain, then changes to the plans and a letter of verification are required. Lynne Schorr indicated that excavation would occur in the floodplain, however, no changes to the floodplain will occur. Lynne indicated that ERWS has an existing 404 permit from the Army Corps of Engineers. George Ruther stated that in the past the PEC has required existing topographic surveys and as- built topographic surveys. Boyd (ERWSD) indicated that there will be some minor changes to the creek bank. Doug Cahill stated that this is an improved application. John Schofield asked if notification was given to neighbors and if the landowner, (Heather Vail), has Approved 10108101 signed the application. Brent Wilson indicated that notification was given, however, the applicant has not signed the application. Staff's recommendation included a condition of approval be that the landowner sign a letter of approval prior to DRB review. Diane Golden had no comment. Dick Cleveland had no comment. Brian Doyon asked if this was a complete application. Brent Wilson asked if Lynne can secure a signature from Heather Vail within the next two weeks, Lynne Schorr asked if the PEG would require the signature as a condition. Chas Bernhardt is comfortable with the proposal and allowing staff to review the project after the Heather Vail signature is submitted. Galen Aasland agreed with the other Commissioners and commented that no further paving should occur adjacent to the pump station. Dick Cleveland expressed that by requiring a signature of the property owner may in effect bar the installation of a public utility within their easement. John Schofield made a motion for approval, per the staff memo and that a signature of the property owner be submitted and a topographic surveys of existing and constructed conditions be submitted- Brian Doyon seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 7 -0. 3. A request for a variance from Section 12- 11 -3(C), Vail Town Code, to allow for the continuance of nonconforming building materials, and setting forth details in regard thereto, located at 5047 Ute Lane, Unit BfLot 33, Vail Meadows Filing 1. Applicant. Robert Balas, represented by Rob Krumholz Planner: Bill Gibson Bill Gibson made a staff presentation per the staff memorandum. Rob Krumholz indicated that he believed that the requirement causing upgrading the entire duplex structure should not apply. Bill Gibson described the intent of the regulation. Dick Cleveland stated that he interpreted that the regulation applied to this request. He stated that with duplex structures, this situation could be expected. He did not believe that duplex structures were intended to look different. Brian Doyon agreed with the comments of Commissioner Cleveland. He believed that the regulations applied, as stated in the Zoning Regulations. He felt the request, if approved, would be a grant of special privilege. Chas Bernhardt agreed with his fellow Commissioners. Doug Cahill felt to approve the request would be a grant of special privilege. John Schofield did not believe that the variance could be approved and presented several C 4 Approved 1010$101 suggested options to consider. Diane Golden had no further comment. Galen Aasland had two issues. First, the elevations were incomplete and needed to be finalized. Once finalized, he felt that the siding on the adjacent unit would need to be replaced. Second, he believed that this would be a grant of special privilege. Brian Doyon moved to deny the request. Dick Cleveland seconded. The motion passed 7 -0, per the staff memorandum. 4. A request for a preliminary plan review for a major subdivision, a request to amend the Vail Land Use Plan to change the designation from "Open Space" to "High Density Residential" and a request for a rezoning from "Natural Area Preservation District" to "Housing Zone District" to allow for the development of employee housing at the site known as Mountain Bell, located on an unplatted piece of property at 160 North Frontage Road. A complete metes and bounds legal description is available at the Department of Community Development, Applicant: Town of Vail Housing Authority, represented by Odell Architects Planner: Allison Ochs /Brent Wilson Brent Wilson presented an overview of the staff memorandum. Russ Forest indicated that the PEC will review the specifics of the development plan at a future date. Otis O'Dell, O'Dell Architects, representing the Vail Housing Authority, indicated that this application was submitted prior to the PEC's introduction to this project. He stated that they are working to incorporate the PEC's initial comments into the final development plan. He presented several conceptual ideas for changes to the final development plan that fit within the physical limits of the proposed subdivision_ Russ Forest noted that there are physical constraints on the site. Otis O'Dell presented the details of the physical limitations for development on this site. Galen Aasland asked about the cottonwoods identified in the environmental report. Otis O'Dell indicated that they have an environmental specialist examining wetlands issues on this site. Mark Bristow stated that Otis O'Dell has represented the views of the Housing Authority. Kay Ferry stated that employee housing has a significant financial impact on Vail. She indicated that the business community is 100% behind this project. The business community would like to see the highest density possible on this site and request that the name be changed to not include the word "village." Nina Timm reminded the PEC that this item is for preliminary approval and will be before the PEC again. Doug Cahill stated the importance of employee housing. He asked if there are options to construct housing on top of a parking structure. Development on the steep slopes should be considered. He wants to keep an open mind and to consider all possibilities for development on this site. He likes that the development is clustered and that the daycare is separated from the housing. He stated Approved 10/08/01 that the hazards on the site should be mitigated. He stated that the zoning is appropriate. John Schofield stated that he is generally supportive of the project as a whole. He still has concerns about the final development plan. He doesn't want this project to turnout like other Town projects where details are being revised at the end of the review process instead of at the beginning. He stated that the specifics of the site layout should be revisited -- a north/south orientation is preferred. The surface parking will be very visible to guests from 'Vail Mountain and subsurface should be considered. He would like to see comparison charts to further describe the proposed density on the site. The setbacks and bus stop layout need to be further examined. The plat should identify the legal descriptions of the property. Diane Golden stated her support for the project as a whole, but details of the final development plan need to be finalized before the PEG moves forward. Dick Cleveland asked about the reduction of one building in terms of density and height/size of the buildings. Otis O'Dell indicated that the density remains the same, but the buildings become larger. Dick Cleveland stated concerns about density. Employee housing is important, but he is concerned that too much is being put into one location. He's concerned about the views from Vail Mountain, He's also concerned about giving preliminary approval when the lots are not fully defined. He's reluctant to change the zoning from medium to high density, but understands the need and is supportive. He feels that the transportation studies are appropriate, however, they may not reflect the realities of traffic flow and how people will walk to and from this site. Brian Doyon stated that he is in favor of the project as a whole. He asked if the applicant has completed a specific site inventory and analysis. He wants to know why the site is being platted the way it is being proposed. 0 Otis O'Dell and Jim Ellerbrook, Peak Land Development, explained the site conditions and the reasoning for the proposed subdivision layout. Brian Doyon is concerned about the location of the northern property line. Otis O'Dell stated that they wanted to the have enough property within this lot to provide adequate area for hazard mitigation. Brian Doyon stated his concern about a lack of open space and a large amount of site coverage. He is also concerned about providing adequate parking and storage. He is also concerned about site disturbance and being sensitive to the site. Chas Bernhardt indicated that he doesn't have any problems with changing the zoning and land use designation. However, he does feel that the site can be developed in a more efficient and aesthetically pleasing design. He recommended the use of structured parking. Galen Aasland stated his support for the project and agrees with Kay Ferry that a high density is required. He acknowledged the differing opinions of the Commissioners and the public. He feels that the area of the site being used is appropriate. He is in favor of the change in land use designation and rezoning, however, he is not supportive of approving the subdivision at this time. He stated his support for some elements of the site plan, but he wants to see further revisions and development to the site plan. He recommended the use of a central green space and a north /south orientation to the site. He stated his concern about the location and access to the bus stops. He also feels that there is a iot more potential for development on this site. Mike Coughlin stated that they hear the Commission's concerns and will be analyzing those concerns and incorporating as many items as they can. They are currently examining other layout options. .n Approved 10/08x'01 Nina Timm stated that the Town Council established the boundaries for this project with the RFP for this project. Brian Doyon stated that the steep slopes are not allowed to be developed and these areas should not be used for open space only because it is inconvenient for the applicant to provide it elsewhere, George Ruther and Russ Forest expanded on this issue. Doug Cahill asked if there are options to develop with the Mt. Bell site. Nina Timm and Otis O'Dell explained their attempts to work with Qwest_ John Schofield asked if Qwest has signed the application and if the property has a legal description. Brent Wilson and Otis O'Dell stated that Qwest has submitted their approval and a legal description have been established. Brent Wilson clarified the review process and procedures for this project. He explained that all of the applications are tied to the PEC's approval of the development plan and that if the PEC decides to deny the development plan at a later date, the rezoning, land use plan amendment and final plat do not go through. He stated the primary objective with the preliminary plat is to identify a suitable building area and the adequacy of the proposed frontage and access to infrastructure. He said since the hazard locations and steep slopes will not change, he recommended the PEC allow the applicant to move forward. Dick Cleveland stated that many of his questions have been answered and is prepared to move forward with a decision on the entire application. Mina Timm and Otis O'Dell stated that they are prepared to move forward with the process and will revise the development plan per the PEC's comments. Doug Cahill stated that he is comfortable with the delineation of the lot lines. John Schofield asked how this preliminary plan could be modified in the future. Brent Wilson indicated there is some flexibility, since the final plat will not be finalized or recorded until the development plan is approved by the PEC. Galen Aasland stated that he disagrees with portions of the Environmental Impact Report. Dick Cleveland stated that the Environmental Impact Report reads like a sales pitch for the project. Mike Coughlin and Otis O'Dell asked if there could be a condition of approval for a supplement to the EIR. Brent Wilson stated that specific development plan issues should be addressed later with the development plan application, rather than at this stage with the preliminary plat. Brent said the PEC could reject the portion of the EIR that references a specific development plan if the PEC feels the remainder of the EIR is sufficient to evaluate the impacts of the request. Otis O'Dell noted the portions of the EIR that do not refer to the specific building layouts. Galen Aasland asked when the applicant can return with revisions to the plans. The applicant indicated that they plan to submit revisions prior to the October 29, 2001 submittal deadline. Mike Coughlin stated that they want to examine the feasibility of the project options prior to Approved 10/08101 + submitting development plan revisions R Dick Cleveland stated that he is ready to move forward. 19 Brian Doyon stated that a revised EIR that will probably be biased and will not be necessary. Chas Bernhardt agreed. Doug Cahill asked if it was appropriate to proceed without the EIR. Brent Wilson indicated that if the PEC feels the rest of the geologic hazard, floodplain and environmental information they have received is adequate to assess the impacts, the PEC can move forward while rejecting the portion referencing the development plan. John Schofield is comfortable with proceeding, but has concerns. Diane Golden agreed with John Schofield. Chas Bernhardt asked if structured parking would require a rezoning. Brent Wilson stated that the Housing Zone District allows for public buildings and grounds similar to a municipal parking structure. Maior Subdivision Doug Cahill made a motion for approval, in accordance with the staff memorandum. Dick Cleveland seconded the motion. Galen Aasland recommends a condition that the updated EIR and revised site development details from October 29, 2001 be presented to the PEC at its second meeting in November. Doug Cahill amended the motion. Dick Cleveland seconded the amended motion. The motion passed by a vote of 5 -2 (Schofield and Doyon opposed). Land Use Plan John Schofield made a motion for approval, in accordance with the staff memorandum. Doug Cahill seconded the motion. The motion was approved by a vote of 7 -0. Rezoning John Schofield made a motion for approval, in accordance with the staff memorandum, with a modification that Condition #1 shall read "rezoning" instead of "land use plan amendment." Chas Bernhardt seconded the motion. The motion was approved by a vote of 6 -1 ( Doyon opposed). S. A request for a rezoning from "Special Development District No. 10" to "Housing Zone District" located at Timber Ridge Village, 1280 N. Frontage Rd. West / Lots C -1 through C -5, Lionsridge Filing No. 1. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner; Allison Ochs Approved 10108/01 John Schofield made a motion to table this to the October 8, 2001 meeting. Diane Golden seconded the motion. The motion was approved by a vote of 7 -0. 6. Approval of September 10, 2001 minutes Chas Bernhardt made a motion for approval as read. Diane Golden seconded the motion. The minutes were approved by a vote of 6 -0 -1, with Brian Doyon abstaining. 7. Information Update Brian Doyon made a motion to adjourn. Dick Cleveland seconded the motion. The motion was approved by a vote of 7 -0. I� 0 l cu i Q cn F jr� V c n cu CL aD c i log ^ C U ,'y l�� - �_ 5i ' - �� , � r rte) C L de co J E CL LLJ .► t` Ii. �� a ,_l r -- . Co a ca , tom Emu }� C H LL q jZH 'I ° 4 I • • • :7 I X w LIJ Q N Z cn z J Fy �nwa ^ a a2x onMDaoasoaa is* ra INSi# X377Is a;IIISO I!TAIV p f S■ � y w � Y ' f Y 1 y � r+ $ A i pp a a' n RR�Rrr pppp qqa yh p ■ ■ ■ !� C p 1 3 �I i f 7 71 4 ^ ti 9[ y pR yp w R lid` p�PF OA s ■xwY z 3y xM4 a� as a� n ci fly 0 x Ln - �0 V "CJ C C6 C 4? E c1. 0 W a� C3 C 0 CD Se 0 CD Q) Cc C1 a� U � - ca r t It yye { 1 C: r CL C v CL O y a U N 0 0 c^v co t CB r ■ hrh� p � � U ■ • C (LS O.. C q) E L2 N co a 0 2 as - 2 x cu U w n 0 ca ca `o 0 U • • • F u j 1 ; 5 f / I I I � I � / 1 I f 1 f f f 4 1 1 \R \ 1 1 1 1 \ 1 1 � 1 f ^^ C E Ca- 0 Q} Q m L Ne U a2 - v 2 0 0 U 7 -- cn m < Y c°5 � a U ca E L m c o 2 Lu a[a a� 0 ^^ C E Ca- 0 Q} Q m L Ne U a2 - v 2 0 0 U 7 If FA ► ► / r / i ► r ► w c cy) EL cv c ED m CL c 0 U � a> C]. 0 0 cli i m co �J • • '�.. I i C C6 CL C E CL 0 07 C 7 0 cc N cc a Y m C cu a 2 Q a T 0 0 U • 0 C7 LJ I f f 1 C C9 fZ C Q] E C_ 4 7 9] O cm O r 4] O Q m 2 C 0 a c� m o U) FL Q N [p E co C d [} W g co 7 Cf U3 C] I f f 1 C C9 fZ C Q] E C_ 4 7 9] O cm O r 4] O Q m 2 C 0 a c� o CES J CD (D -JZ- ca CL 2 cu U) 2i Cf) C13 bi e r a to ei HM O, 0 E2 N (-) • • 0 • • :7 A c N ) CD 9 9 � U ■ R rn m C y 00 cc C 13 .�I�a w,..w lve ✓ , . ••, , r 9 .4 I s• h 1 k k Jli CL `3 O e U O a _ 7 C R] CL d M Y a) (1] U W "L7 Z3 f i O cn O C? • 0 • c 2 c cy') N Q Q 9 q c R ) � co r e C R] CL d M Y a) (1] U W "L7 Z3 f i O cn O C? • 0 • • 0 ik C C , NI (N C = CL 2 cu 0 cu W - 0 M 00 cc C/) -j 1:N L J aa CSS a. ff 11 0 - 0 ca -2 0 L) C CO a E a 6 N } 0] d C Q 2 47 U as -s3 r J I n O RS 0 U 0 0 J CN o cj ■ U) ca d T f/J a p e�- "C7 C RS -j C CO a E a 6 N } 0] d C Q 2 47 U as -s3 r J I n O RS 0 U 0 0 A il V�,d ►C7t/ IvAJ *J�4�6,1/R�IVV� pRla A � ■�p�■� � V 1�MQL 3 N r 1 y 0 / .IJI��f.7�_1} O 0�117 w �yy�� L9i7 KM 3 RY A ❑ )EEHO .7 1�. M .Fa rnt[d�s30 3Lr0 '9�f ry .. aQwe . 1`, lii w r al Wd 410 • 14314 w 3DWW I e a M� (q w v l t v { 4 4 V M1 W f!h v WA 419 ' LSM 1/ 3' mu N NhA V� �-A'- J \k �\ ! 2�. | | I O�O�Oa'ALNaOD EnO�'mvA a0 NiOl d a0� ■G . oNlSnOa ariE[W50d" Mao MGM SKO� OO g�� | . ; X57 ; $2 `» ■)§�@ § ;;2& R m m U) � . � \ §■ � � | k / I _- i §. r� � � k §k 2§/ ||A ||| K «t ¥ ■ /| � / ■ § 1 \ ■ | 1111,:11 | . § � § |) ■, A� . � \ §■ � � | k / I ! | ■ |� E ei INA L r �l J i r i i i� r / i" r l r I f 1 � z a I 0 • HIP 1 � ! f ! I � r laq" 1 1 I r r 1 (+ r I r + r 1 r ! 1 r 1 f 1 I r p I I 1 1 t p f I x, r 1 I r I I I r I � 1 I 1 , I r r r r I g 0 1 1 1 r + rr + rt flit f1 + r I ! � r r r ' r 1 r r r I 1 1 7 1 1 f 1 f 1 i / 0 • i s 0 �1 1 OGVW AJNf14t? 3MV3 `d'af'A dO NMOl NV-W AMd0�3C1 o : , ■�W�� ONS)O 3 ?63 7 = M - LU Z., 11Y G!F\ W KNW � S O ! r r { {{ J I f ! r r j r/ 1 • ! r ,�.... r , 01 1 y � ( ' •� r,!, +fir �, r r r I 1 , 1 P 4 r r I s + 1 � , f � a ' iL I• 1 ! � rYhi` I Y p k1 %1d ro I F h• '41��5. �� �" � I 1 . Y� r 1 p ppQQ f I Ili - t I f r7t r I � r ,,�:1 Ik�i �'f�� 1 � , E . I'� : "ir u �' ' S �• i s 0 �1 0 J r , r - , 1 j r 0 • r 1 f ! I Y Z . � f l�3r / �F�r - , t. r II f eL i r � 1 r a 5 j r. i ! Il k 5r 'S • �T � ja 10H R - HV�r1 K3 3M CO Mv''m A.11lifl .fm o�; s F 7 r t j JJ Ij ,. I r k afJ>a r� I �` .� � f 'r '• f Lg�Bp �` P ' fJr g �'� �i I V—j � I I V 4r I 1 or " 1 yq a1�f1" f I I 1 r r f r I P d 1 I f 1 ' 1 i n 1 1 P 11 l P: 5 '7 � I !' r ! ! r �, , , f P r f f ! r 1 ',I • ` 1 1 1 ' r 1 r � 1 ; I r +P r JJ Ir� 4, 1; � ja 10H R - HV�r1 K3 3M CO Mv''m A.11lifl .fm o�; s F 7 � ja 10H R - HV�r1 K3 3M CO Mv''m A.11lifl .fm o�; s - = _ • _ a • .. • .neirrc�o • 5� a y 3 I/J Tj a ,d Pap �� r V j I oil e r 3 I/J Tj a ,d Pap �� r V j I oil 3 I/J Tj a ,d Pap �� • • • • • • •f •• s • - - -• •. _ • _ • ory � � W , -� era t :lf•' ! i r r + t2 r � :�•.t I CL � CL a- r ! i J - � 4 . �-•- a br r — _ i � � „i . t ,caw• i - ' � d r r t _ r •. 5..... d 1 � � 1 , 4 \ t I 1 , P;7 4 4 �_. •. ' f i f f f lri l f , ff 0 r ! fit P ��Ifd� �f j !i ! d[rl f i +l 1 id dl w II II }I� I! r ,r1df, Id f;li f Yr fr � � f f f / f f f fff f °r � f f f f /fl }"`ae b 1 • • • (MMIOAM) • • _,. ---__----__-__,.--- �r ra i I f :t C r� Q {B d O ao m! fi X 131 W �p a t 9 ;5: C d a } � ins �I C 49 E CL 0 CD CD a c� 0 0 ....... .. .. ....... . i f t f r F k h v r CD w C%j 2 75 co C-) — C_ LC VJ CL) - Q N a_ CL E r-� 0 (D (D zt= (1) CD CU n I � 0 O 0 � • ch N cm o cm CV 3 d7 C3 R7 C2 0 4 N z 0 U z c� a d U • a� E CL 0 y r) c 0 a� m - rJ' O Q G 3 Q7 Ill O cu O cu C] U 3 C N O C5 Q C1! 4? t U) U7 co 05 co cc-4:: I ri b F pr c tv c su E CL 0 m Qi of c O w a d au m U ay • a 0 0 U �I • cy o 0 cli �n co 9 R:l H Ci Z z O C7 Q 0 J as wli c tts c E a 0 a� 3 N 0 CJf C 3 O A? m O tl U as m ■ O cc CE7 CJ 0 ��.. - \ � ° �` 1` � � � G _� ` � �_•ti'� - � � te a` one AVE EL WE IL iG�A',•9`� _ l RzT-S� '-= 4 8217 7 IL US A IL '_{ it IMF i FII GCE aT 2fl (N o N � U C7 [Il Ql Lti c a cn ° o C m a_ C d] 0 } Cn 0 m 7E Y O C7 2 C1? � "C7 0 • • SIR I NS I IS 4 its 4 .q j WO (N o N � U C7 [Il Ql Lti c a cn ° o C m a_ C d] 0 } Cn 0 m 7E Y O C7 2 C1? � "C7 0 • • r r_�_���- psi / ,l {� ��j 1 j /( f � / `11���111 �'�rr�,r rr` �� \ \ \���.r \_ •��� '�`�,*\ � _ X\ \`��`��'����� EL I rA a �—IL EAC pr �.' s iA man � Eller F 1 r �\ - ti LQ EAhE � � S � — � - t , P _ O EL All lie IS 40V •.• ��. Ate•. �� /�► �•, � °,�' .� I'll • j I i ■I� ON ti to m7lA ' In °AE& $ Ea UK- —a EL J&-r La UR IL ~ i 1.6 XCE EL ! a \ Q EL EL I'll • j I i ■I� ON ti to m7lA ' In °AE& $ Ea UK- —a EL J&-r a-, t � Ilz ....... C� �3 CD N cc i �— i �a - i ��fIFL i IV I�El! r1 r Imim m )Avl DI YJtl7Q 71 A-,KtY `l3 !! -*-Am -u Q Ar3ur 3�Y3 ❑'l I - a Ain in \ XM'u —V liter 0 c a CS c cc CL rn 2 cr- c a_ 0 m d C U) Q7 A �I Y U as O U co 4 • C> CIA L I 2 co c m [i CL) E v_ v Cl CIO c Q CSS "c1 L d Q v U v iE T, O C v c. a v O a O C L Q) x 0 a cio a 0 U 0 0 • • y N O O N U 4b CIO C C CD E C] Q1 0 0 d C fl I Cif U Y D? N U a iE O cA C� U E CL 4n D C'V E 4o a 4 p 0 T N o N L n7 2 co N Q7 SU cn t17 Sp C 3 U] G C6 CL C Q7 E O N 417 O CTl C U3 O 417 ca SO a.. Y d7 N� U m 7 a � H r � V UP • 0 0 -0 4'6 0 o - U r7 r� ' a.it y ll 771 i E CL 4n D C'V E 4o a 4 p 0 T N o N L n7 2 co N Q7 SU cn t17 Sp C 3 U] G C6 CL C Q7 E O N 417 O CTl C U3 O 417 ca SO a.. Y d7 N� U m 7 a � H r � V UP • 0 0 -0 4'6 0 o - U 0 0 F f 1 I. � 7 1 � i a• I �,1 I � r , 1 f I >r I r r' lf,il �t I I j ,Y l t } i E Q O O CV [t7 Q r ct Cu 2' co d co 7 C!] ce) o �— N C [u co ca q W C d7 E CL Q 7 N 0 cm C 0 m Q Y ly CJ 'O CE:01 a� H Q z U 14 C7 �C7 N Q r n 4.I P I J, - �,� j 1. I�dli P ,1 I I ri a 7-, 7 •I Iv I I IA � E Q O O CV [t7 Q r ct Cu 2' co d co 7 C!] ce) o �— N C [u co ca q W C d7 E CL Q 7 N 0 cm C 0 m Q Y ly CJ 'O CE:01 a� H Q z U 14 C7 �C7 N Q r n 4.I 7 - r r ff f r I j � Al i } .. �` I I I� % i 11 y ,�'�'� 151\ _• � � � ' r , l, i _ M l li I I i CL c5 O CV I I is ' � I r �i f I I ti fJ j I D CD r N m c cd C d C17 C 7 C r rJ Si7 ao C: CL tl? E CL ? 47 m Q C to O Q7 ca 'O Y N U m m a U d U O ca CO 8 d U 7 • • N a) m CL {L} [!) r= C!) Lo N CD V- N Q .c Cv L1 0 CD f� Q] C rA 7 O 2 m X QJ v _m � C ■ O R7 `o ` Q W 5 � I a /` / rr s - `l E I i 11I 1 _ r W f r r 1 J _ I 1 v I 1i411` \tt, ii E ca ¢ Q At II N a) m CL {L} [!) r= C!) Lo N CD V- N Q .c Cv L1 0 CD f� Q] C rA 7 O 2 m X QJ v _m � C ■ O R7 `o ` Q W b x x 3> b ,4 -.SZT d 3 w Q c cis E [3, 0 d y II cm c 0 Z c� m — v Y w U as v v I i LnI � 4 U 0 0 0 U 7 • 1 v ,o-il: ,fl-,4ti E CO o ° r cn o c> N cn m co o � "C3 C CO A d � a d 3 w Q c cis E [3, 0 d y II cm c 0 Z c� m — v Y w U as v v I i LnI � 4 U 0 0 0 U 7 • 1 v ,o-il: ,fl-,4ti • 0 I r I b N E � ry O r N Q U m cB N ii 06 co O ! O 3 N CO r d y t C fL �C c4 U . E Q 0 2 L cz .P— W L U cu a m A A -Sty «, CD V CD C r _ U_ In CIO C C[3 L , _ U 4 0 0 U ■ • e CD E 4 O Cd O cm C O O O co v Q Y v K� O O C7 • • vy C cB y a 7 0 �i 0 ■ 0 ra .. Al � �P C Q? a O Q� �5 C O OJ cz 7 0 i O 4] OJ U A? 0 O CA O M C r-- c5 N • vy C cB y a 7 0 �i 0 ■ 0 ra .. Al � �P C Q? a O Q� �5 C O OJ cz 7 0 i O 4] OJ U A? 0 O CA O CD N O O ° C] r N C 00 tg CL 0 LL . U c� 0 U 0 Ar k " , CI a C CL a 7 07 CD C cn O N L] SII 6 Y Q7 `9 C) C7 67 CSS O Q U 0 0 0 ■ 1 I �I ry i i i I i i I 1 t 1 I 1 t 1 i t 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 i I I I I I 1 1 I I C I I yy I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 ---- -_ - - -J P ry C, N ° N cn �' ✓a x Z3 Luq3 u V U W C EL3 C Q co m 0 i71 to Rf a aL+ c U o cu C3 � 7 N 05 C14 U c o L ON w■ 41 • � ON w� �I Q U ca 0 U ■ C N E C. O l7J QI C U) O S m niS 0 Q se N 2 U N 6 Q O • 0 0 �r -II Y a ll ( 4 1) 3 r 0 1 e i r 1 I r 1 , 1 1 i I I J 1 1 1 J ______________ _ 1 1 1 1 / 1 1 1 1 t I I I I I I I y �i C j CD Q CN w � m 00 to rn c m d E CL _Q Q} Q Q J� L r � V CU 0 N L.7 I--1 }-I G "Q p � V O -' ca 4 Q C) ca 4 y U b" CD zs v E G] co C r tp CL O Q LL �Y fir[ y�y G X c ro v E a 0 v cm C Z3 O RS O Q Y SU N c CJ a U a III • L Q 1� ai is f■ ■7 A ii it•1 �IIrIn 11 /nlf� �IIr1111 �III�Y� � � II �I p Y n n� I 1`x,1111 ff If �umlr�����nlrm� � ufuff uwu • a■ e r■ 4 y U b" CD zs v E G] co C r tp CL O Q LL �Y fir[ y�y G X c ro v E a 0 v cm C Z3 O RS O Q Y SU N c CJ a U a III • L Q U LS') o cn Q - L • CO rL 0 a us LL.. { r 0 V 4 8 a 0 V 0 41 �i 41 a E CL 0 m c to co L sC fl3 GS U N I sl] ,, 0 SB Q C} Co c Q � in �s as c IL 0 LL- It \■ e� 'r OL r- CJ O C'] O • c a c aD r- CL 0 a� m c U) cu 0 cu Q w C7 a� a 0 ca cu 0 a U cu } • 0 i I F 1 E E r � p r If c 1 i 1 Y Y 1 3 1 9 Y S S t "l 1 I I I I I I I T I I I y I G I I I I I 1 I 1 1 1 N oN <5 N _N < U W m ., c0 CS7 C (V G �1 O cc cc d ►: C] CO o G 0} CV C � Cf9 CTS2 CO C1. O 1L Z Z a C7 L7 0 io l i► r E a 0 CD a N �I C T m Q tD U N ►i 0 o a 0 0 C? ' ctx • M N Q CV Q 0 [V � � t U m C 00 CO 0- U 0 N ■ • N, C R7 Cl. G W O N OY CD C O Lp CO - 2 O Q Y tU X77 C) ►� 6 Q d U �i a Oil �I MI :I �I �I �Ia � E m Ze, d �I M K a. Ln Cj o O� b (�� Q s as iu ca Q rn a m C1 I ci c a� E Q 0 as CD CD se d ab a� .n Q c� a) Ca a) U 0 a� U � 'cis • Ii !R �f ri !R f d � I ! [ I ! 1 N i I I ! I w V- o C'�] M cm d r.i X_ 'O U_ c co � r CO O 4 U- Ii 1 1� c R7 C1. c C a_ 4 CD CD N CSI C35 C U N M "C3 ; L - I Y LD 0a L N m r i i i i i i i CN cs CO LL] N W pp ao m C 0 102 m 0 U U a U cu a] E Q QS 7 Qa CD cn 0 Z _03 cri V w • Q Q Y S7 N U � a p 0 • • S 4� \F, �1 i1 \I< �; i L rar;;c� Illllllllllilllll� (Y) N Q � N V} 00 C 'r CO 4 ? LL 13 a I r� a� H C LSS CL. C (ll E Q Q? N C O 4A cu 'O Q 3C 43 U eu a D L3 O d U ►� 0 .yj- (V o [y:) Q I*n m i I u a U C7 0 U 14 0 c cm n C 4) E Q 4 47 7 C d c3 'dam Q I N U? N 0 'C3 CCf Q } • i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i 0 LO C-4 C) a7 Q N zi a (c m C � Ca Q. Q LL w� 41 S1 4M 4/ C R7 d c E o. a a: a� rn c . O M M ' L U ar c O Q 0 U G "C7 ca fl7 C RS a_ L ` LL CU Q cy') N ca mi Go r - n o I c� 0 U a Q 0 � y r �r G N C E C7. Q Q] dl CD 0 ca L Q r � V CD 0 ca ca C) .m • • • F O U cz cp kc f� U d8 c U w c } a c a a� cc co Q o d a3 � v 0 ay U R 'as C O W N cm C M m = Op o N ca cu m � cn co c a LL — — -- -- i i i i i i i i i j d e n U �1 Mt a /R1 c m LL ev C CL 0 S cm C Z3 0 z CD .n �a a x v aj U I as 00 0 z c� 0 Lso; • 0 0 U • • • N J co CS1 CIJ C RS a_ FAnl L O l-L u C7 U I I to CL I I CD ID 0 � I o as V �I al wl �� -••I= # I ?� m m II m aI l c Q " CC N N W a oa C cn U 4 r Q V r`7 F Q V LZ G Q] d O? C Q3 I I d � 0 Q3 � Q1 � LJ p 1 t 1 ® R ] a i1 MEW 0 =I # wI Q� aI l c Q " CC N N W a oa C cn U 4 r Q V r`7 F Q V LZ G Q] d O? C Q3 I I d � 0 Q3 � Q1 � LJ p 1 t 1 • • • II M I II i I �• I EI � � I I II 3 I n I �I u� I � •1 II; I I I ��• I II I II I III f II, . c CD N L L � U 'CS � d d nO c CO L O O L.L a 9 4� N m E a O a� m C 0 ai '2 d a� U m 70 - o 0 m 0 O ►� s 5 o Q m z? W ro to 2 00 L., Im c as cL a y U U z i O u d8 C7 lso;� g c c E CL C3 m n d 2 v D .]C d Q} ►m • d d O U - ca • 1\ C C fll L} 01 C C7 co QD .J Si3 LL! tJ) i6 O� `o r� LL- U Z y 0 U C� U • I N 83 Lnr3l t C[3 O E 0 n 0 co v PE� 0 as c� �I `° a CN L3 d3 C OCR W � t3] C E [II SU J 7+ [O Lll El e�E CJ r z 0. 0 u "G 0 U • C S6 C1. C E CL 4 m 0 2 w .n m a Q Y 4) � N � � CJ CS j L • l.� Y Y y �_ �9 C A 8 Y� CN od Q N a) uJ o � .� co a� as U C C cc$ as J T W m E 0 a a� a c . a) A [p 10 Q aS C? as v H U z U c� a U a co 0 0 CJ A- y N N i A 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FRONT: Community Development Department DATE: April 8, 2002 SUBJECT: A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of a text amendment to Title 11, Section 11 -5, Prohibited Signs, Sign Regulations, Vail Town Code, to allow for certain off -site advertising signs, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: George Ruther I. DESCRIPTION OF THE R'EQU'EST On February 19, 2002, the Vail Town Council directed staff to prepare a text amendment to Title 11, Sign Regulations, Section 11 -5, Prohibited Signs, of the Vail Town Code, to allow for Specific Information and Business Signs at the West Vail exit #173, as further regulated by the Colorado Department of Transportation. The request is the result of a discussion the Town Council had with Rick Scalpello, who is working in cooperation with a number of the West Vail merchants, to place informational signs on 1-70 in the vicinity of the West Vail exit #173. The proposed signs are the blue and white reflective informational signs often seen along interstate highways informing motorists of 'gas, food & lodging" businesses and other "attraction" opportunities located at upcoming interstate highway exits. The Colorado Department of Transportation classifies these signs as Specific Information and Business Signs. These sign are also known as LOGO Signs. The LOGO Signs include business plaques that are flat rectangular aluminum information signs which are attached to the larger sign that includes the name, name brand, or trademark, logo or symbol for businesses providing motorist services. The proposed signs would be located in the vicinity of the West Vail exit. Only those businesses located within the limits established for these types of signs would be permitted to participate in the sign program. According to the Rules and Regulations for Specific Information and Business Signs adopted by the Colorado Department of Transportation on November 30, 1998, "To be eligible for a Business Sign to be installed on a Specific Information Sign the maximum driving distance that gas, food, lodging and camping service facilities can be located from the main traveled way of the Interstate Highway shall not exceed 3 (three) driving miles in either 41 direction. If within that 3 (three) mile limit there are less than 6 participating services of the type being considered, the limit of eligibility may be extended to 5 driving miles. A gas, food, lodging, and camping 4 . service facility that is not within such maximum driving distance shall not I be eligible for a LOGO sign." Pursuant to Section 11 -5 -2, Prohibited Signs, of the Sign Regulations, in part, "The following signs shall not be permitted, erected or maintained in the Town... off premises advertising signs or any other sign not pertinent and clearly incidental to the permitted use on the property where located. " Staff has determined that the current regulations prohibit the installation of the informational signs as proposed since the proposed signs would include the name, name brand, logo, or trademark or symbol of the individual businesses. II. BACKGROUND In 1995, the Vail Town Council heard a similar request. Upon discussion of the proposal and consideration of the existing town codes, the Council denied the request. At that time, the Council identified two areas of particular concern. The first was the negative aesthetic impacts "billboard" types of signs have on the community, and second, was the Vail Town Code sign regulations strictly prohibit off - premises advertising signs or any other sign not pertinent and clearly incidental to the permitted use on the property where located (Title 11, Section 11 -5 -2 Q. In 1999, as part of the Town of Vail Wayfinding Sign Program, the Wayfinding Committee considered these signs for inclusion into the program. Upon deliberation and discussion, the Committee determined that these types of sign were in direct conflict with the premier, international world -class image we are trying to convey and should not be installed. The committee did, however, recognize the need to disseminate informational messages and recommended that, due to our international resort presence, informational signs, if installed, should use internationally recognized symbols (i.e., a gas pump; a plate, knife and fork; and bed and pillow). A copy of a letter from Jeff Corbin, of Corbin Design Group, has been attached for reference. At the request of the Town of Vail, the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) has installed informational signs at the Main Vail exit. The signs that were installed are a combination of international symbols and words (i.e., gas, food & lodging). On March 25, 2002, the Planning & Environmental Commission held a public hearing to discuss the proposed text amendment. Upon review of the application and consideration of the evidence and testimony presented, the Commission voted unanimously to table a final decision on this request until the April 8, 2002 meeting of the Planning & Environmental Commission. In approving to table the application, the Commission directed the staff and applicant to respond to several issues. The Commission asked that the following four questions be addressed. 1. Current rules and regulations outline that a business displaying its logo on a Specific Information sign must be within three (3) miles of the interstate highway ramp terminal. Can the Town of Vail further restrict the distance requirement? Response: The representative from the Colorado Department of Transportation has confirmed that the Town of Vail can further restrict the distance requirement as deemed appropriate by the local jurisdiction. Any additional restrictions must be adopted by resolution or ordinance and placed on file with the Colorado Department of Transportation. A possible option to determine the appropriate distance restriction might be to limit participation in the sign program to those business owners whose business location is closer to the West Vail exit than any other exit. So, for instance, the Fabulous Vail Glo Lodge /Best Western in Lionshead could not participate in the West Vail Exit sign program since it is located closer to the Main Vail exit than the West Vail exit. 2. Can the Town of Vail opt out of the Specific Information and Business Sign Program regulated by the Colorado Department of Transportation should the Department or Federal Highway Administration amend its regulations resulting in a set of rules and regulations that the town no longer wishes to participate in? Response: Yes, the Town can opt out of the program at anytime they choose. The Town would be obligated, however, to inform all business sign participates of this option to avoid potential future conflicts. Staff recommends that a "right to rescind" clause be required in all contractual agreements between Colorado Logos, Inc. and the participating business owners to prevent against future conflicts and to clearly spell out the Town's expectations. 3. The Vail Town Council stated that they do not want ramp signs along the exit ramps. They believed that the ramps would become even more cluttered with signs. Can the Town of Vail prohibit the installation of ramp signs along the exit ramps? Res Yes and no. Depending upon how the Town chooses to implement the sign program, ramp signs can be prohibited. According to Colorado Department of Transportation officials, if a participating business can not be seen by the traveling motorist from the top or bottom of the exit ramp, then a directional ramp sign must be provided. The Town could, however, effectively prohibit ramp signs by limiting only those businesses that can be seen to participate in the program. While this option addresses the ramp sign issue, it will likely create a fairness issue amongst the visible and non - visible business owners. The applicant has provided a copy of a sample ramp directional sign that that Town might consider. The copy has been attached for reference. 4. The Vail Town Council clearly stated that they only wished to have Specific Information and Business Signs at the West Vail Exit ( #173). The Council does not want these signs at the East Vail or Main Vail exits. Can the Town of Vail only allow this type of sign at one exit ramp location? IL Response: Yes, the Town of Vail can limit the placement of Specific Information and Business Signs to only one exit. This has been done in other communities within Colorado. The closest example is the community of Winter Park. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends that the Planning & Environmental Commission deny the request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of a text amendment to Title 11, Section 11 -5, Prohibited Signs, Sign Regulations, Vail Town Code, to allow for certain off -site advertising signs. The staff's recommendation for denial is based upon the circumstances created as a result of the off -site advertising request. Staff would recommend that this application be tabled until a more comprehensive review of the Town of Vail sign regulations is completed. The Vail Town Council recently approved a $15,000 expenditure to review and update the sign regulations. Additionally, staff foresees a conflict with the proposed text amendment and the recently approved wayfinding program for the Town of Vail. The approved wayfinding program addresses the need to provide traveler information along the 1 -70 corridor and is broader in scope as it provides inclusion of more businesses than only those that can be seen from the exit ramp areas. PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT 0 The Community Development Department is proposing the following text amendments: (ADD) Section 11 -1 -1, Definitions, SPECIFIC INFORMATION AND BUSINESS SIGN: An official sign with a white reflective legend and border, on a blue background, that displays the type of business (Gas, Food, Lodging, Camping) and the interstate exit number which includes a flat rectangular aluminum information sign that is limited to the display of the name, brand name, or trademark, logo, symbol for businesses providing motorists services for gas, food, lodging, camping and /or tourist attractions. (AMEND) Section 11 -5 -2 (L), Prohibited Signs Off- premises advertising signs or any other sign not pertinent and clearly incidental to the permitted use on the property where located. This prohibition shall not apply to Specific Information and Business Signs as defined in Section 11 -1 -1 of the Vail Town Code and as further regulated by the Colorado Department of Transportation. (ADD) Chapter 4, Sign Categories Article D. West Vail Exit #173 SECTION: 11 -4D -1: Scope 11 -4D -2 Specific Information and Business Signs 4 11 -4D -1: Scope. This Article concerns the display of Specific Information p Y p and Business Signs at the West Vail exit #173. This Article further includes the purpose of these signs, size, height, number, type of service, and location limitations. The following provisions are the sign regulations for Specific Information and Business Signs (aka LOGO signs). 11 -4D -2 Specific Information and Business Signs: A. Purpose: To provide directional information along the Interstate Highway to business establishments offering services for Gas, Food, and Lodging to the traveling public. B. Location: West Vail exit #173 and subject to review and written approval pursuant to the Rules and Regulations for Specific Information and Business Signs, as regulated by the Colorado Department of Transportation. C. Size: Subject to review and written approval, pursuant to the Rules and Regulations for Specific Information and Business Signs, as regulated by the Colorado Department of Transportation. D. Height: Subject to review and written approval pursuant to the Rules and Regulations for Specific Information and Business Signs, as regulated by the Colorado Department of Transportation. E. Number: Four (4) information signs total with a maximum of two per direction of travel and no more than six (6) business signs per information sign. F. Type of Service: The type of services permitted on a Specific Information sign shall be limited to "gas ", "food ", and "lodging", as regulated by the Colorado Department of Transportation. G. Eligibility: Participation is limited to only those businesses that are clearly visible to the exiting motorist from the top or bottom of the exit ramp, as determined by the Administrator shall be eligible for participation in the Specific Information and Business Sign program. The top and bottom of the exit ramp shall be that area from the start of the exit deceleration lane to the ramp terminal V. ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION FROM THE MARCH 25, 2002 MEETING 40 1. Eligibility According to the rules and regulations adopted by the Colorado Department of Transportation, in order "to be eligible for a inclusion on the sign the maximum driving distance that gas, food, or lodging service facilities can be located from the main traveled way of the Highway Interstate shall not exceed three (3) driving miles in either direction. A gas, food, or lodging service facility that is not within such maximum driving distance shall not be eligible for a LOGO sign." Staff roughly determined the three -mile driving distance from the West Vail exit and estimates that this area would include businesses as far east as the Vail Run Building on the north side of the interstate and all of Lionshead on the south side. If this text amendment were to be adopted staff would recommend that a far shorter maximum driving distance be established. If a shorter maximum driving distance were adopted careful consideration would be needed to determine which businesses are then eligible and which are not. 2. Directional Ramp Signs According to the rules and regulations adopted by the Colorado Department of Transportation, in part, "...where a displayed service is not visible from a ramp terminal, ramp signs shall be installed along the ramp or at the ramp terminal, and may be provided along the crossroad. " 0 In considering this proposal and prior to directing staff to prepare a text amendment proposal, the Town Council expressed their dislike for any additional signs as part of the program. Staff interprets the adopted rules and regulations to require additional signs which would be contrary to the Town Council's desires. Staff recommends that this issue be clarified prior to any formal recommendations being made. 3. Creativity The signs that are proposed would be the standard blue and white reflective sign used and displayed in Anytown, USA. In determining the appropriateness of these signs for inclusion in the recently adopted Town of Vail Wayfinding Program, the committee determined that blue and white logo signs were in direct conflict with the premier, international world -class image the town is trying to convey, and therefore, should not be installed. At the Town Council meeting on February 19, 2002, the representatives from Colorado Logos, Inc, expressed an ability to create a more interesting and unique sign display than the one used in other areas. To date, alternatives have not been submitted for consideration. Staff recommends that the sign company present alternatives for consideration by the Town prior to the Commission making a formal recommendation. • • DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RULES AND REGULATIONS �' - FOR SPECIFIC INFORMATION AND BUSINESS SIGNS EFFECTIVE NOVEMBER 30, 1998 COLORADO DEPARTMENT ,QF TRANSPORTATION 4201 East Arkansas Avenue Denver, Colorado 80222 1 Table of Contents A. GENERAL PROVISIONS ..................... ........................ . .. . ..... 2 B. LOCATION .................................. ............................... S C. TYPE OF SERVICES ......... S D. NUMBER OF SIGNS PERMITTED .............. ............................... I2 E. COMPOSITION ......................... ... ............................... 12 F. SIZE OF BUSINESS OR ATTRACTION PLAQUES ................................ 13 G. PERMITS AND PROCEDURE .................. ............................... 13 H. RENEWAL OF PERMITS ...... ............................... 16 I. REPLACEMENT -RESPONSIBILITY ........... . .............................. 16 J. PAYMENT AND FEES ........................ .............................1. 17 K. FEE SCHEDULE FOR ERECTING SPECIFIC INFORMATION SIGNS ................ 18 STATE OF COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Rules Regulations. and Standards Pertaining to S ecific Information and Business Signs A. GENERAL PROVISIONS PURPOSE: To establish rules, regulations, standards, and a permit system, hereinafter called "rules" for the erection and maintenance of Specific Information and Business Signs erected within highway right -of -way to provide directional information to business establishments offering services for Gas, Food, Lodging, Camping and Tourist Attractions to the traveling public. APPLICABILITY: The provisions of these rules are applicable to areas of the Interstate System. AUTHORITY: CRS 1973 43 -1 -415 (1981 Colo. Sess. Law, chapter 512) and 23 U.S,C. 109(d), 131(f), 315 and 44 CFR 1.48 (b) C.R.S. 1998, 43 -1 -420, 4. CONFORMITY WITH LAWS: Each business identified on a Specific Information Sign shall have given written certification to the Department of its conformity with all applicable laws concerning the provision of public accommodations without regard to race, religion, color, sex, or national origin, and shall not be in breach of that certification. DEFINITIONS: a. Specific Information Sign: Also known as "LOGO Sign ". An official sign with white reflective legend and border, on a blue background, that displays the type of business (Gas, Food, Lodging, Camping, and/or Tourist Attraction) and the interstate exit number. Business Plaque: A flat rectangular aluminum information sign which is attached to a Specific Information Sign either on the mainline or ramp sign limited to the name, brand name, or trademark, logo or symbol for businesses providing motorists services for Gas, Food, Lodging, Camping and /or Tourist Attraction. c. Centerline of the highway means aline equidistant from the edges of the median separating the main traveled ways of a divided Interstate highway. d. Contractor means the private independent contractor that is selected by the Department pursuant to a public- private initiative and that is responsible, by contract with the Department, for implementing and administering the LOGO sign program. See Section A. 6. of the rules and "Department" below. e. Department refers to the State of Colorado Department of Transportation, (CDOT). In the event that the Department contracts with a private contractor to maintain and administer all or part of the LOGO sign program, "Department" shall also mean that contractor to the extent required by that contract or the context of the Rules. See Section A. 6. of the Rules. f. Erect means to construct or allow to be constructed. g. FHWA means Federal Highway Administration. h. Interstate System means the system of highways as defined in CRS 43 -2- 101. LOGO Signs means Specific Information and Business Signs. j. MUTCD means the 1988 edition of the FHWA Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways and the Colorado Supplement thereto_ Terms used in these rules shall be in accordance with usage of the MUTCD. k. Maintenance means to preserve, keep in repair and clean. State SiZning Standards are those standard drawings and specifications adopted for use by the State Highway Commission as published in the 1986 Edition of the State Department of Highways, Division of Highways, State of Colorado, Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction, Section 713, Traffic Control Materials. M. Tourist Attraction means a Tourist Oriented attraction of regional interest to the traveling public. Tourist Attractions are limited to only the following: A natural phenomena; a site of historical significance; a site of cultural significance; an area of natural or scenic beauty; or an area naturally suited for outdoor recreation, as further defined in Section C.5 of the Rules. C Trailblazer means a small sign that displays a directional arrow to the business and, if necessary, the mileage to the business. Traveled Lane is the driving lane normally occupied by the traffic located left of the highway shoulder. P. Urbanized Area means that area within the boundary of a metropolitan area having a population of fifty thousand or more as determined by the United States Bureau of the Census in its latest census and as included on the urbanized area map approved by the Department. 6. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR PROGRAM ADMINISTRATOR The Department is authorized by Sections 43 -1- 420(2), 43 -1- 420(4), and 43-1 - 1202(1)(A)(XI), C.R.S., to negotiate and contract with an independent contractor, pursuant to a public- private initiative, for that contractor to implement and administer all or part of the Specific Information and Business Sign Program (or "LOGO Program ") described in the Rules. Based on that authority, the Department intends to issue a request for proposals and to negotiate a contract that is most advantageous to the State for the successful proposer to assume the administration and maintenance of the LOGO Program. Sections 43- 1- 420(2) and 43 -1- 420(4) specifically authorize that contractor to is determine the amount of fee(s) to be charged for a LOGO sign permit and to develop the method for the annual rotation of business signs. If such a contract is executed, the implementation and administration of the LOGO Program by that contractor may include the right of that contractor: I ) to determine and charge a new fee amount for a LOGO sign, different than that described in Section G.g of the Rules; and, 2) to develop and implement a new method for the annual rotation of LOGO signs, different than that described in Section G.6 of the Rules. If such a contract is executed, the complete terms of that contractor's implementation and administration of the LOGO Program will be described in detail therein, and the implementation and administration ofthe LOGO Program by that contractor will be subject to the Department's supervision. All sign permittees will be given prompt written notice of the effective date of the contract and will also be provided a copy of the contract. In the event that the terms • of the negotiated contract conflict with substantive terms of the Rules, the Department will amend the Rules to reflect such changes to the extent required by law. 7. STATEMENT OF BASrS STATUTORY AUTHORITY AND PURPOSE The Rules are promulgated by the Department of Transportation pursuant to the Specific Statutory Authority of Section 43- 1- 415(1)(f), The Statement and Basis, Specific Statutory Authority and purpose for the September 15, 1998 Rulemaking Hearing is hereby incorporated herein by this reference and shall be available for copying and public inspection during regular business hours from the Roadside Advertising Coordinator, Coioraglo Department of Transportation, 4201 East Arkansas Ave., Denver, Colorado 80222. B. LOCATION 1. LOGO Signs shall be located only on the interstate system, as follows: LOGO signs for Gas, Food, Lodging, and Camping shall be located only outside urbanized areas. LOGO signs for Tourist Attractions may be located both within urbanized areas and outside urbanized areas. Installation of Specific Information Signs shall be consistent with the State signing standards and in accordance with the MUTCD. A LOGO Sign shall be placed in advance of an interchange exit and shall be readable from the traveled way. The specific location of each LOGO sign is subject to Department approval. 2. LOGO signs shall not be located at the following locations, or under the following circumstances. a. At interchanges with other freeways. b. Where a U -turn or illegal movement is required to access a business. Where long sections of structure, retaining wall and/or installation of noise wall limit the convenient placement of a ground - mounted LOGO sign. Where the Department determines that, for safety, or operational, or other appropriate reasons, the installation of LOGO signs is not in the best interest of the traveling public. The Department shall base final approval of the location of a LOGO sign on the • following criteria. 0 a. Non- interference with existing regulatory, warning, guide signs or traffic control devices. Proposed Specific Information Signs shall not be allowed to block driver sight to any existing regulatory, warning or guide sign; or any other traffic control device.. Tourist attraction signs shall meet the minimum guide sign spacing as described in the MUTCD. C. Right -of -way width will be checked to determine if Specific Information Signs may be installed without interfering with existing guide signs. d. Utilities including sewer and drainage systems, gas lines, water lines, and electrical lines will be checked to determine if signs will conflict with such utilities. 4. RELATIONSHIP TO EXIT GORE: The Specific Information Signs shall be erected between the previous interchange and no closerthan 800 feet in advance of the exit direction sign at the interchange from which the services are available. There should be at least 800 feet spacing between the signs. Excess spacing should be avoided. (figure 1). 5. CONVENIENT REENTRY REOUiRED: Specific Information Signs shall not be erected at an interchange where the motorist cannot conveniently reenter the Interstate Highway and continue in the same direction of travel. EXIT RAMP SIGNS: At single -exit interchanges where a displayed service facility is not visible from a ramp terminal, ramp s'r ns shall be installed along the ramp or at the ramp terminal, and may be provided, along tl rossroaT Service information for visible facilities may be omitted. The signs shall include the distances to service installations and directional arrows in lieu of words. The minimum letter height should be 4 inches except that any legend on a symbol shall be proportional to the size of the symbol. Ramp signing may be used on ramps and crossroads at double -exit interchanges. LATERAL LOCATION: The Specific Information Signs should be located so as to take advantage of natural terrain, to have the least impact on the scenic environment, and to avoid visual conflict with existing traffic control signs within the highway right -of -way. Unprotected sign panel supports located within the clear zone shall be of CDOT breakaway standard. The Specific Information Sign shall • be located in accordance with standard accepted good engineering practices and approximately 30 (thirty) feet outside of the traveled lane. RELATIVE LOCATION: In the direction of traffic successive Specific Information Signs shall be those for "camping ", and /or "Tourist Attraction ", "lodging ", " food ", and "gas ", in that order. 9. DISTANCE TO GAS, FOOD, LODGING, AND CAMPING SERVICES: To be eligible for a Business Sign to be installed on a Specific. Information Sign the maximum driving distance that gas, food, lodging, and camping service facilities can be located from the main traveled way of the Interstate Highway shall not exceed 3 (three) driving miles in either direction. If within that 3 (three) mile limit there are less than 6 participating services of the type being considered, the limit of eligibility may be extended to 5 driving miles. A gas, food, lodging, and camping service facility that is not within such maximum driving distance shall not be eligible for a LOGO sign. 10. DISTANCE TO TOURIST ATTRACTION SERVICES To be eligible for a business sign to be installed on a specific information sign. The maximum driving distance that a tourist attraction can be located from an interchange within an urbanized area shall be limited to 3 (three) miles, and shall be limited to 10 (ten) miles maximum driving distance from an interchange outside of an urbanized area. A tourist attraction that is not within such maximum driving distance shall not be eligible for a LOGO sign. 1 1. A trailblazer sign may be used only when the directional information displayed on the LOGO sign is inadequate to direct the public to the business, such as where the signed business is not visible after exiting an interstate and /or where turns must be made onto one or more crossroads to get to the signed business. A trailblazer sign may be used at each such turn until the business is visible. A trailblazer sign shall be located only along the shortest route from the interstate to the business on a conventional roadway. A trailblazer sign shall comply with the following: a. Trailblazer signs are to be erected prior to the erection of ramp or mainline specific information and business signs. b. Trailblazer signs not on state highway right -or -way shall not be erected until appropriate written approval has been obtained from the jurisdiction having authority for sign placement. • C. The business will be responsible for furnishing the business plaque for use on the trailblazer assemblies. d. A trailblazer sign may be placed only on all weather roads clear of obstructions that could damage a vehicle while traversing that route. 12. Services and Tourist Attractions presently utilizing Department installed guide signing are not eligible for Specific Information Signs. C. TYPE OF SERVICES: The type of services permitted on a LOGO sign shall be limited to "gas ", "food ", "lodging" "camping ", and /or "Tourist Attraction ", as follows: 1. "GAS" LOGO SIGN: To qualify for a gas LOGO sign the business must have: a. Vehicle services, which shall include fuel, oil, and water; b. Restroom facilities and drinking water, C. Subject to availability of fuel there should be continuous operation at least 16 hours per day, 7 days a week. If fuel is not available the operator shall post on the premises the location of the nearest available source (see experimental program); and d. Public Telephone. 2. "FOOD" LOGO SIGN: To qualify for a food LOGO sign the business must have: a. Licensing or approval, where required; b. Continuous operation to serve food for a rninirnurn of 12 consecutive hours within the time frame of 7 :00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. 6 days a week, including operation with indoor sit down facilities for a minimum of 20 people; and C. Public Telephone. 9 0 d. Restroom facilities and drinking water. 3. "LODGING" LOGO SIGN: To qualify for a lodging LOGO sign the business must have: a. Licensing or approval, where required;. b. Lodging accommodation composed of units with a private entrance for each unit to accommodate at least two persons per unit with space for automobile parking; accommodations must be available for rental on a nightly basis 7 (seven) days a week; and C, Public Telephone. 4. "CAMPING" LOGO SIGN: To qualify for a camping LOGO sign a business must have: a. Licensing or approval, where required; b. A minimum of twenty spaces to accommodate camping tents and /or travel trailers and /or motorized campers; C. An adequate supply of drinking water; d. Plush toilets; C. A sanitary disposal system for travel trailers and /or motorized campers; f. Public Telephone; and g. Proof of maintenance in compliance with applicable State/Local Board of Health rules and regulations. 5. "TOURIST ATTRACTJON" LOGO SIGN To qualify for a tourist attraction LOGO sign a business must have: a. Licensing or approval, where required; b. Minimum of 20 (twenty) spaces for parking; 9 0 C. Restroom facilities and drinking water; d. Continuous operation at lease 8 (eight) fours per day, 7 (seven) days per week (in season, except that this requirement shall not apply to the "arena" category listed below in the table in Section 5. g.; e. Public telephone; f. Attendants on site and/or conduct tours, as required by D above; g. To qualify for a Tourist Attraction LOGO sign a business must also meet the minimum traffic generation criteria in the following table: TYPE OF SPECIFIC . CATEGORY I ° ' CATEGORY II * CATEGORY III ATTRACTION CRITERIA 1,000,000 OR MORE 50,000 TO 1,000,000 50,000 OR LESS REQUIRED REQUIRED REQUIRED POPULATION POPULATION POPULATION NATURAL ANNUAL 200,000 50,000 5,000 PHENOMENA ATTENDANCE HISTORIC SITE OR ANNUAL 200,000 50,000 5,000 DISTRICT ATTENDANCE CULTURAL ANNUAL 200,000 50,000 5,000 SITE ATTENDANCE AMUSEMENT ANNUAL 200,000 50,000 5,000 PARK ATTENDANCE - ARENA ANNUAL 200,000 50,000 5,0()0 ATTENDANCE AREA OF NAT ANNUAL 200,000 50,000 5,000 OR SCENIC BEAUTY ATTENDANCE GOLF .ANNUAL 200,000 50,000 5,000 COURSE ATTENDANCE MUSEUM ANNUAL 200,000 50,000 5,000 ATTENDANCE RECREATIONAL ANNUAL 200,000 50,000 5,000 AREA. ATTENDANCE ZOOLOGICAL OR ANNUAL 200,000 50,000 5,000 BOTANICAL PARK ATTENDANCE WINERY OR ANNUAL 200,000 50,000 5,000 BREWERY ATTENDANCE • CATEGORY POPULATIONS SHALL BE BASED ON BOUNDARIES ESTABLISHED AS URBANIZED AREAS. IF NONE CATEGORY SHOULD BE BASED BY CITYITOWN LIMITS. IF NONE THAN SHALL BE CONSIDERED CATEGORY 111, h. ELIGIBILITY To be eligible as a "Tourist- Oriented Attractions of Regional Interest to the Traveling Public ", a business must be one of the following: I , A NATURAL PHENOMENON A natural phenomenon is lL 0 • • limited to a feature created by nature. Examples include but are not limited to; unusual rock formations, caves, fossil beds, and waterfalls. HISTORIC SITE OR DISTRICT: A historic site or district shall be limited to a structure or site that is of definite historical significance as determined by the Colorado Historic Society as a historic attraction in the National Register of Historic Places as published by The United States Park Service, and it must be of State or National significance. CULTURAL SITE: A cultural site shall be limited to any facility for the performing arts, exhibits, or concerts. 4. AMUSEMENT PARK: An amusement park shall be limited to a permanent area which is open to the general public for three (3) or more of the following activities; picnicking, hiking swimming, boating:, entertainment rides, food services, etc., in operation more than 3 (three) months per year. 5. ARENA: An arena shall be limited to a stadium, sports complex, auditorium, fairground, civic or convention center or race track which has a capacity of at least 5,000 (five thousand) seats and is is holding events on at least 28 (twenty eight) days of the year. AREA OF NATURAL OR SCENIC BEAUTY: An area of natural or scenic beauty shall be limited to a naturally occurring area of outstanding interest to the general public, including State of National Parks, wilderness areas, mountain ranges, lakes, rivers, . canyons, and similar areas. GOLF COURSES: Golf courses shall be limited to a facility open to the public and offering at lease 9 holes of play. Miniature golf courses, driving ranges, chip - and -putt courses, and indoor golf shall not be eligible. MUSEUM A museum shall be limited to a facility, open to the public at least 100 days per year, in which works of artistic, historical, or scientific value are cared for and exhibited to the public. RECREATIONAL AREA: A recreational area shall be limited to an area that includes bicycling, boating, fishing, hiking, rafting, picnicking, snowmobiling, or cross country skiing. 10. WINERY OR BREWERY: A winery or brewery shall be limited to a licensed site that produces a minimum of 1,000 gallons of wine and/or beer per year and product commercially packaged for off - premises sale. Open to the public for tours, a minimum of 320 hours per year and provide an educational format for informing visitors about wine and beer processing. H. ZOOLOGICAL OR BOTANICAL PARK: A zoological or botanical parks hat I be limited to a facility in which living animals, insects, or plants are kept and exhibited to the public. D. NUMBER OF SIGNS PERMITTED: The number of Specific Information Signs permitted shall be limited to one for each type of service along an approach to an interchange with no more than four (4) signs per direction of travel per exit. E. COMPOSITION: SPECIFIC INFORMATION SIGN PANELS: The Specific Information Sign panels shall have a blue background with a white reflectorized border. Tile size of the Specific Information Sign panels shall not exceed the minimum size necessary to accommodate the maximum number of Business or Attraction Plaques Signs permitted using the required legend height, panel size and spacing. 2. BUSINESS PLAQUES ON SPECIFIC INFORMATION SIGNS: Business Signs to be mounted on Specific Information Signs shall have a business logo and may use a legend and shal I be of high intensity reflective sheeting. The principal legend should be at least equal in heightto the directional legend on the sign panel. Where business identification symbols or trademarks are used alone for a Business Sign, the border may be omitted, the symbol or trademark stealI be reproduced in the colors and general shape consistent with customary use, and any integral legend shall be in proportionate size. Messages, symbols, and trademarks which resemble any official traffic control device are prohibited. The vertical and horizontal spacing between Business Signs on sign panels shall not exceed 8 inches and 12 inches, respectively. Typical sign locations prepared from these standards are shown in figures I and 2. Material for Business Plaques shall conform to the state signing standards. 12 • 3. LEGENDS: All directional arrows oil exit ramp signs and all letters and numbers on Specific Information Signs, used in the name of the type of service and the directional legend shall be white and refiectorized. 4. SINGLE EXIT INTERCHANGES: On the Specific Information Signs, the name of the type of service followed by the exit number shall be displayed in one line above the Business Plaques. The "gas", "food ", "lodging ", "camping ", and "tourist attractions" Specific Information Signs shall be limited to six Business Plaques each, S. DOUBLE -EXIT INTERCHANGES: The Specific Information Signs shall consist of two sections, one for each exit. The top section shall display the Business Signs for the first exit and the lower section shall display the Business Signs for the second exit. The name of the type of service followed by the exit number shall be displayed in a line above the Business signs in each section. Where a type of motorist service is to be signed for at only one exit, one section of the Specific Information Sign may be omitted, or a single -exit interchange may be used. Tile number of Business Plaques on the sign panel (total of both sections) shall be limited to six for "gas ", "food ", "lodging ", and "camping and "tourist attractions ". 6. REMOTE RURAL INTERCHANGES: In remote rural areas, where a Specific Information Sign cannot becompletely utilized byasinglequalified typeof facility, two types of facilities maybe displayed on a single sign. Each type of facility must be displayed in a vertical row of two plaques with the identifying type of service located above each column with the exit and number to be located above the service identification line. F. SIZE OF BUSINESS OR ATTRACTION PLAQUES: Each Business Plaque displayed on the "gas ", "food ", "lodging ", "camping ", and "tourist attractions" Specific Information Sign shall be'contained within a 48 -inch wide and 36 -inch high rectangular background area, including border. 2. The Trailblazer Sign plaque shall be 18 inches high and 24 inches wide. 3. Leeends: All letters used in the name of the type of service and the directional legend shall be I0 -inch capital letters. Numbers shall be 10 inches in height. G. PERMITS AND PROCEDURE: 13 • No Business Sign will be installed on specific information panels prior to issuance of a permit by the Department. Permits will be issued by the Department in accordance with these rules. 2. Permit applications will be accepted at the appropriate region office in care of the Department. Applications transmitted by mail shall be effective from date of receipt rather than of mailing. 3. Permit applications shall specify the number of Business Signs requested per interchange. Separate application shall be required for each type of service requested. 4. The specific information sign and related business signs can remain until the area of the specific information location is needed for highway purposes or subject to paragraph G (12) below. 5. Application forms and fee schedules may be obtained from the Department and shall contain the following information. a. The name and address of the applicant. b. Type of service eligible under Section C, of these rules. C. A complete layout or sample of the brand, symbol or trademark or name or is combination of these, showing exactly what the business sign will display. d. A statement of conformity with laws in accordance with Section A4 of these regulations, Conformity with Laws. e. A statement that the permitted services are in accordance with rules in Section B 9, Distance to Services. f. A statement that type of services requested conforms with rules under Section C, Types of Services. g. A statement including the milepost number and name of the Interchange. h. A standard application processing and administration fee will accompany each application. Such fee will be returned if an application is denied or if after approval the business sign is not erected for reasons caused by the Department. 14 • i, The local city or county official responsible for control of signs within their jurisdiction must indicate their decision on the application. 6. An annual rotation procedure for granting permits will start January 1, after the specific information sign has been in place one full calendar year and will only effect new sign installations after March 12, 1987. Under this procedure, each business will be assigned a number according to the date of receipt of its permit application. If a business is thereby replaced on the specific information sign by another business, the business being replaced will be paid a portion of the original cost to erect the sign by the Department from monies paid by the new business advertiser. Tile reimbursed portion of the original cost to erect the sign will be less I /10 of that cost for each year the replaced business advertiser has been on the sign. At the end of the useful life of the specific information sign or after 10 years whichever is sooner, the current business permittees or if the sign is subject to rotation, the new business permittees will be charged equal shares of the full replacement cost of the specific information sign. The useful life of a specific information sign is estimated to be a minimum of 7 years and a maximum of 10 years. For the purpose of computing reimbursement, the useful life of the specific information sign shall be 10 years. A] I businesses grandfathered by the March 12, 1987 law change will be subject to the rotational plan after the 10 year useful life of the sign has been reached. 7. Permits for Business Signs shall be valid for a period of one year, beginning each January 1, without proration for periods less than one year. 8. The holder of permit shall have the right during the term of the permit to change the advertising copy so long as the copy conforms to these rules. Cost of such changes in the copy or legend of the Business Sign shall be at the expense of the permit holder. Permit holders will be charged an additional maintenance and administration fee for each plaque removed and/or remounted. 9. Once an application is approved, the owner shall remit the erection and maintenance fees with in ten days of receipt of written notice of such approval. Fees will be in the amount prescribed by the fee schedule, shall not be prorated for fractions of years, and will fulfill the owner's maintenance obligation for the first calendar year or fraction thereof during which a business sign is actually installed. If the fees are not received within 60 days of receipt of written notice, the business application is void and a new application and administrative fee will be required to be submitted for plaque instal lation. if the Department denies the owner's business sign application for safety or other highway related reasons, this fee will be returned_ 15 0 10. PERIOD OF OPERATION OF BUSINESS: For businesses operated on a seasonal basis, Business Signs denoting types of services not then available shall be covered or removed. This work shal l be done by the Department. An additional maintenance and administration fee shall be paid for this work. It shall be the responsibility of the business operator to notify the Department of the dates of unavailability of motorist service not less than 20 days prior to seasonal closure or unavailability of services, l 1 _ When the specific information sign needs to be replaced or substantially repaired for any cause, the cost to rebuild the sign will be charged in equal amounts to the current business (logo) sign permit holders. 12. When it is determined by the Department of Transportation that a business is no longer entitled to advertise under these rules, or that an advertised business service no longer is available, then the Business Sign for that particular business shall be removed or covered by the Department. Permit holders shall be entitled to notice and hearing prior to removal or covering of a sign pursuant to CRS 1973 43 -1 -412 (Colo. Sess. Laws chapter 512) and rules and regulations promulgated thereunder except where the Department has reasonable grounds to believe and finds that the public health, safety, or welfare imperatively require emergency action as provided in C.R.S. 24 -4 -1 04(4). In such instances a plaque may be immediately removed or covered. Such instance may include, without being limited to: a. Upon a business service no longer being available the Department shall give appropriate notice thereof to the permitter. 13. Permit applicants and holders are advised that upon an approved revision of the urbanized boundary to include the interchange where the specific information and business signs have been installed, such signs will then be prohibited pursuant to CRS 1987 43 -1 -420. Such signs will be subject to removal upon notice and a hearing will be provided pursuant to C.R.S. 1973, 43 -1 -412. H. RENEWAL OF PERMITS: 1. PROHIBITION: No permitshall be issued forany Business Sign which simulates any official traffic control device or sign. 2. DENIAL- REVOCATION: The provisions of Sections 43 -1 -410 and 412 C.R.S. and rules and regulations promulgated thereunder and shall apply to the denial or revocation of a permit or renewal of a permit. 16 • 3. Applications for renewals for Business Signs permits shall be made before the first day of December of each year, and shall be accompanied by a maintenance and administration fee per permit as shown in the Fee Schedule. If the renewal application is not received prior to the first day of January of the renewal year the Business Sign permit shall expire and the sign shall be removed, pursuant to G 12 (a) above. Permits will be issued at Regional Offices, presently located in Greeley, Grand Junction, Pueblo, Aurora, and Metropolitan Denver. Applications may be obtained from and mailed to the respective Department Offices. All renewal applications for of permits shall be mailed to The Roadside Beautification Section, 4201 E. Arkansas Ave_, Denver, CO 80222. I. REPLACEMENT - RESPONSIBILITY: The Department shall not be responsible for lost, stolen, defaced, deteriorated, dainaged or destroyed Business Signs regardless of the cause. The applicant shall be responsible for delivering a replacement or renovated sign to the Department to replace any sign which is lost, stolen, defaced, destroyed or which is in a deteriorated condition. J. PAYMENT AND FEES: Fees forerecting, maintaining and administration of the Specific Information Signs shall be paid in advance by approved applying business and/or businesses in accordance with the Schedule as amended and updated by the Department. flees for erecting Specific Information Signs are calculated to cover the total cost ofthe signs and are a one time charge as is the Processing and Administration charge. The Maintenance and administration fee shall be charged on an annual basis at a rate to be determined by the Department pursuant to CRS 1973, 43 -1 -420, as amended. Business Signs to be placed on the Specific Information Signs shall be furnished and paid for-by the business being identified. In case of a single approved applicant business that party will be held responsible for the entire Specific Information Sign cost with a right of reimbursement from subsequent approved applicant businesses so that each approved applicant business will share equally in the total sign cost. Once the equal share of total cost of the sign for each advertiser has been established, each new advertiser will pay the Department the cost determined by the rotation procedures outlined in G, 6 of the regulations. That cost will then be refunded to the business advertiser whose business sign is required to be removed from the specific information sign. 17 • Cost Share Schedule: Number of Applicants Percent One 100 Two 50 Three �3 1/3 Four 25 Five 20 Six 162/3 To effect the above cost sharing schedule, first determine the total sign cost and then divide that share equally with the existing approved applicant businesses. For example If there are three applicants for a four panel lodging sign, the three applicant businesses will each have to pay one third of the total cost for the Specific Information Sign. When a fourth applicant for that Specific Information Sign is approved that applicant wi ll pay 25% ofthe cost ofthe Specific Information Sign and the Department will distribute the funds between the original three applicants. Thereafter there shall be no right to reimbursement. K. FEE SCHEDULE FOR ERECTING SPECIFIC INFORMATION SIGNS The fee schedule for erecting a specific information sign is based upon the total actual costs of erecting and maintaining the sign and of the administration of the sign program. This total cost figure is subject to frequent and immediate change. To eliminate the additional increased costs of promulgating new regulations each time the total actual program costs change, the actual fee to be charged a particular applicant will be determined by the Department at the time of such application based upon the appraisal of total costs then existing for the program. The current fee schedule is attached as an addendum hereto by this reference for informational purposes only. All such costs fora specific information sign will be billed equally to each business advertiser on that specific information sign. 18 0 �1 LJ Figure 1.22 1. TYPICAL SIGNING FOR SINGLE -EXIT INTERCHANGES (4 AND ? PANEL LOGOS) TRAVEL DISTANCE MEASURED FACW THIS POINT �•u iAJLkP SIGNS IAS REQUIRED AT ZD0' SP At{NG1 '�c 1 F000+ '�--- + Loacrncr" tAMF ��— 1 At IOkI 44 P • sb M1+tropofts utopiQ Metropolis Utopia 1 tuna f 800' MIN. 800' MIN. 900' MtN. +..t4 BOO Mt N. 900 Ytk. OR OR ►4q4 - ilOT 4t POOO - CT 44 3R L0604%0 - DWI M an 44 OR CAAW%NO - CW 41 CAMPOM - WT M `NOTE: A MAXIMUM OF FOUR LOGO SERVICES ARE PERMITTED AT A GIVEN INTERCHANGE. IN THE ABOVE FIGURE AN ATTRACTION LOGO MAY BE SUBSTITUTED. Figure 1.22.2. TYPICAL SIGNING FOR SINGLE -EXIT INTERCHANGES (6 AND 3 PANEL LOGOS) TRAVEL DISTANCE 6kA5URED FROM THIS POINT ORAWP SIGNS : AS REQUIRED AT 200' $PACINGI A KCt r 56 m0ropolls Utopia rxrT a 5b Metropolis Uto pia 1 wL[ F DOD) 0 �+ Doc INC) 4 - E CAMPING)* —I ATTRACTIONSO OR vm M 1 1:3M f - [JUT EJ Q =1 Q ii 1100• OR loan - rya 44 moo - sm 44 a�a t 00• WIN. OR coo�aa�s _ arr 44 toDiar's - CCT � too- E�� 11 IN OR M N. ta{AV7N - oaT 4.1 R/NA/yM -an M 1100• MIN. • *NOTE: A MAXIMUM OF FOUR LOGO SERVICES ARE PERMITTED AT A GIVEN INTERCHANGE. IN THE ABOVE FIGURE AN ATTRACTION LOGO MAY BE SUBSTITUTED. - Feb 13 02 04:54p Miss.Logas (601)853 -7107 p.3 c HISTORY INTERSTATE LOGOS, LLC In June of 1988, Interstate Logos was formed for the express purpose of providing; Logo Signing Programs to states. Everett Stewart assumed the responsibility for development of this new Company which now oversees the operation of twenty -one (21) logo sign companies, eight (8) Tourist Oriented Directional Signing Programs, as well as a silk screening operation in Baton Rouge, and a sign construction company in Georgia. One of the first steps in the development of Interstate Logos, L.L.C. was to researchexisting state logo programs and then to assemble the highest caliber staff possible including engineering expertise with specific experience in logo signing programs. Interstate Logos, L.L.C. was successful in locating three (3) highly qualified individuals, recently retired from engineering positions with state highway departments, each of whom had been instrumental in both the development and implementation phases of their respective state -run logo signing programs. These gentlemen provided technical expertise in logo signing to the already extensive knowledge in signing and marketing that existed within other employees of the Company. LOGOS Prior to the formation of Interstate Logos, privatized logo signing programs had already been instituted in four (4) states, Arizona, Wisconsin, Indiana, and Minnesota. Since that time, Interstate Logos has submitted proposals for providing a logo signing program in each of the twenty-three (23) states and the Province of Ontario that have made the decision to either implement a private contract logo program or go through a new solicitation of proposals. Of these twenty -three submissions, Interstate Logos has been successful in obtaining the contracts through a selection process with eighteen (18) of the submissions - Nebraska - January 26,1989, Oklahoma -April 17,1989, Utah -June 6, 1990, Missouri- February 6, 1991, Ohio- January 10, 1992, Texas -April 13, 1993, Mississippi - September 21,1993, Georgia -April 28,1995, Minnesota -May 8, 1995, South Carolina- August 1, 1995,Virginia- October 1, 1995, Michigan -May 14, 1996, New Jersey -May 21, 1996, Florida - December 11, 1996, Province of Ontario- Logos, September 4,1998, Colorado- Apri120,1999, New Mexico -July 21,1499, Delaware - August, 1999, and most recently Maine- January, 2001. In addition to these eighteen (18) contracts, Interstate Logos acquired the assets of TravelSigns, Inc. on July 17, 1996, and assumed the operation of the Kansas program. Interstate Logos has also acquired the assets of Logo 'Signs of America- Wisconsin who was handling the programs for the states of Kentucky and Nevada. The twenty -one (21) contracts require that Interstate Logos, through its subsidiaries, market, construct, administer, and maintain the logo signing program for each state for contract periods that vary in length from four (4) to twenty (20) years. Interstate Logos is proud of the ongoing success of its logo signing programs which is substantiated by the on time or early completion of sign construction in each of the contract logo projects, and the high level of business participation in the programs. To date Interstate Logos through its logo companies, was responsible forthe construction and erection of more than 27,000 background panels and installation of over 89,000 business logos. Interstate Logos is the largest logo program provider in the country. Since January of 1989, Interstate Logos has been responsible for the erection of approximately $80 million of logo signing structures in the United States and approximately $15 million logo/TODS structures in the Province of Ontario. Feb 13 02 04:54p Miss.Logos (601)853 - 7107 p.4 A The overlapping of programs is made possible due to the decentralized nature of our logo operations where each operation is staffed with an experienced local General Manager, a local sales and office staff. One or more local signing sub - contractors are utilized in over 85% of the states. The management staff of Interstate Logos is then free to travel extensively to the various operations to serve in a technical and management advisory capacity as well as monitor regulatory and contract compliance. Throughout its contract periods, Interstate Logos is pleased to have maintained excellent relations with both customers and the highway agencies in each of the contracted states. TORS In December, 1995, Interstate Logos, through its subsidiary Ohio Logos, Inc. was awarded the contract to operate its first Tourist Oriented. Directional Signing (TODS) program for the State of Ohio, On November 30th, 1996, a contract was signed between Interstate Logos and the Ministry of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism of Ontario, Canada for Interstate Lagos through its subsidiary, Canadian TODS Limited, to operate the Tourist Oriented Directional Sign Program for the Province of Ontario. In December, 1995, Interstate Logos was notified by the Nebraska Department of Roads that Nebraska. Logos, Inc., a subsidiary of Interstate Logos, was chosen to operate the Tourist Oriented Directional Signing program in the State of Nebraska. Upon the acquisition of the logo sign program for the State of Kentucky in July, 1996, Interstate Logos also acquired the contract to administer the TODS program for the State. In September, 1997, Michigan Logos, Inc. contracted with the Michigan Department of Transportation to market, construct, administer, and maintain the Michigan TODS program. The Colorado Department of Transportation included the TODS program in the contract award of its logo program to Interstate Logos's subsidiary in April of 1999. The Department of Transportation for the State of New Jersey awarded a TODS contract to New Jersey Logos, Inc, on 71111999. Our most recent contract for a TODS program was signed with the Missouri Depariment of Transportation in May of 2000. Interstate Logos, through its subsidiaries, now oversees 8 TODS programs. • Feb 13 02 04:53p Mliss.Logos (601)853 -7107 p -2 • • • *' CORPORATE OFFICE President- Everett Stewart Vice President - Connie Jame+ 5551 Corp. +nee 131vd., Suite M2A Satan Rau);c, LA 70608 1.800466.7605 Fax:1225) 928.J)3t7 I NTERSTATE LOGO FABRICATION (Silk Scrccn Division) Gntetal Manager- Juanita Cutts 1986 Bcaumunt Dr. Barnn Ruugc, LA 70806 1.600.468 -7805 F2x :(IZ5)9?3.3147 Iq CANADIAN TODS. LTD. LOGO PROGRAM ITODS General Manager -Liza Hanrun 120 Whitm.ttt Rd.. Unit 8 Wu,,.lbridge, ON 1,41. 6A3 1. 886. 263.9333 Fax,(905)851.4724 COLORADO LOCOS, INC. COLORADOTODS General Manager•lirie Knox 44 Union Boulcvard.Suity #640 Lskew W, CO 80128 1.886. 634.5646 Fox:(303)462.2325 DELAWARE LOGOS, L.L.C. Rugivaal Manaxcr -Floyd Wdhanii 1230 Parkway Avc.. Suite # I N) West Trenton, N) 08628 1- 800. 889 -3 &78 Fax:(609)406.9514 0 FLORIDA LOGOS, INC. General Managcr -Craig Shackelford 4706 Capital Circle. SW Tolhhassce, FL 32310 1.888.608.0833 Fax:(850) 249.9886 GEORGIA LOGOS, L.L.C. Regional Manager -Floyd Wilhams 6597 Peach Tree hidustrial Bled., Suite A Norcroia, OA 3DD92 1.800. 7834361 Fsx:(770)g17 -6537 KANSAS LOGOS, INC. General Maniixet -Tatra Coleman 1100SW Wanamaker Rd., Suite #3 Topeka, KS 66604 1 -600- 449 -4820 Fxx:(785)272 -0168 KENTUCKY LOGOS, L.L.C. KENTUCKY 7ODS Crcnttal Manareri -J. R. )atvis 3D5 Ann St., Suite #6 Frankfurt. KY 40601 1.800- 469.5646 Fax:(502) 227.7286 0 MAINE LOGOS, L.L.C. Marketing Managcr•Gaiy F. VLilicuK 93 Wcitern Avenue Augusta, ME 04330 1. 677. 945.5646 Fox:(207) 622.7835 MICHIGAN LOGOS, INC. MICHIGAN TODS General Managcr -Mike Ktwalehiek 5030 Nnnis.rin.! Dt:ve,Suite M 103 East Lansing, MI 48623 1.868.6454467 Fax:(517)337.4881 MINNESOTA LOGOS, INC. CrLlteral Managcr -have DCSUtter 201 W. Travelers Tuil.Suite #230 Burnsville. MN 55337 1.600. 769.3197 Fax.(612) 695 -8499 MISSISSIPPI LOGOS, L.I.-C. Regiunal Manager- rohnny Durrett 116 Villoge Bled., Suite D Madiaon,M$ 39110 1- 800. 815.5646 Fax.1600 85)4107 MISSOURI LOGOS MISSOURI TORS General Mauagcr -MegJY Cntdcn 3702 WesT Truman Blvd., Suite # 122 f effers +n City, MO 65109 1- 500.666.3514 Fox.(573) 89)•7148 NEBRASKA LOGOS, INC. NEBRASKA TODS General Managet -Kurt Griffin 315 South 9ch St.. Suite #207 Lincoln, NL 69508 1.600.333.6467 Fax:(402)435.5371. NEVADA LOGOS, INC. General Manager -Bryan McDaniel 1280Tenninal Wxy, Suite #26 Rtnn, NV 89502 1. 800 - 642.5720 F.":(775) M34779 NEW JERSEY LOGOS, L.L.C. NEW JERSEY TORS General Manager -Lcc HadJaway 1230 Parkway Avc..Suuc # t00 West Tienruu, NJ 08628 1.886. 655 -6467 F2x :(6D9j406.9524 NEW MEXICO LOGOS. INC. General Manogt•i -Brian $auhcr 7820 Fan American Ficcway NE. Suite 2 Alhuqucrquc,NM 87109 1 -688. 858.2238 Fox:(505)858.1530 OHIO LOGOS, INC- OHIO TODS Regional ManagcT•Rugct Rust• 4384 Tulser Road 0ublin.0H 43017 1.800.860.5646 Fax:(6141 717 -0836 OKLAHOMA LOGOS, L.L.C. Genctal Managet- JLtetny Tilton 4334 N.W. Expressway, Suite # l69 OklahumaCiiy.OK 73116 1.600.888 -7446 Fsx4405)840 -1554 SOUTH CAROLINA LOGOS, INC. General Monaker -Paige Youmans 1221 Atlas Road Columbia, SC 292D9 1- 800.332 -1727 Fax:(803)763.1366 'TEXAS LOCOS, L.P. General Munger -Bill Junes 1501 N. Norwood Drive, Suite # 145 Hurst,TX 76054 1- 800. 5464577 F3x:(817)282.848I 9h UTAH LOGOS, INC. Regional Managcr- GiaryTuinci 447 Whitepine Dtive Mutray, UT 84123 1.800- 388.2363 rmx:(801) 263 -7384 VIRGINIA LOGOS, INC. General Mamget -Jahn Spacek 10001 Yatteraun Avenue Richtnond, VA 23233 1 -800 -229 -2809 F2x:(804) 754.0976 CO PORATE, FABRICATION FACILITIES, AND STATE OFFICES n x a - � s I 8 3 y I�1 • • a'd S2EZ29bE0E sc�201 opoicloo dla :21 a❑ 5t Rai Page 1 of 1 C • LI George Ruther - Signs From: Kent Rose <ksase @ewpartners.com> To: <gruther @ci.vail.co.us> Date: 02/27/2002 2 :38 PM Subject: Signs George- Please convey to the Vail PEC and Town Council my objection to allowing advertising within the interstate corridor. When I was on the Town council, we worked very hard to get special consideration from CDOT not to allow the big blue signs within the Town boundaries. I think that West Vail can solve their own problems with revisions to the sign code allowing something different on their buildings, but I do not think allowing off -site advertising is a good idea. Once you allow it, you will never be able to go back and the visual pollution could have a long lasting negative effect on our valley. Be very careful of unintended consequences. Tbank you- Kent Rose file:HC:\Windowsltemp\GW )OOOOI.HTM 03/05/2002 access = success • Monday, April 1, 2002 Corbin Suzanne Silverthorn Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO 81557 Suzanne, you've asked us to clarify the role of signage along Interstate 70 as it relates to the wayfinding program for the Vail Valley and how it might impact commercial destinations located in West Vail. As you know, the information hierarchy we established for the wayfinding program relies at the highest level on calling out the names of the six "villages" and assigns each a unique color. In our ongoing negotiations with the State of Colorado Department of Transportation, we are requesting that this color and information convention be utilized on signage along I -70. You have examples of our proposed designs. 40 As part of that request we have suggested to C -DOT that the inclusion of this information on signage along I -70 could be seen as a more effective way to direct visitors than the usual Interstate Logo program, given the number of accommoda- tions and other commercial destinations in the immediate area. Thus, commercial destinations would rely on the information hierarchy of the wayfinding program, by directing their customers to "exit at the West Vail exit ". There would be no need to utilize the Interstate Logos program; it would be redundant. Additional signs could be added along the frontage roads to reinforce directions to the West Vail area if necessary. A major benefit of this approach would be that as commercial destinations came and went, no changes would be required to the signage, to say nothing of the improved aesthetics along I -70 and consistency in the directional "language" of the Valley. Je in, President • 109 East Front Street 304 Traverse City, M149684 231 947.1236 231 947.1477 fax maii @corbindeslgn.com www.rorbindesign.com 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: April 8, 2002 SUBJECT: A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council, for a text amendment to Title 12, Section 2 -2, to amend the definition of "Fractional Fee Club" and to amend Title 12, Section 16 -7A -8, to amend the Use Specific Criteria & Standards, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Rob Levine Planner: George Ruther DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST Rob Levine General Manager of the Antlers in Lionshead, is requesting a worksession with the Planning & Environmental Commission to discuss the Town's regulations with regards to fractional fee ownership of real property. The Antler's redevelopment project has recently been completed. The redevelopment included the construction of 17 new residential condominium units. The Antler's Condominium Association is currently in the process of selling the new condominiums. Ill. TOWN CODE The following is a brief summary of the applicable regulations outlined in the Vail Town Code: DWELLING UNIT: Any room or group of rooms in a two - family or multiple - family building with kitchen facilities designed for or used by one family as an independent housekeeping unit. A dwelling unit in a multiple - family building may include one attached accommodation unit no larger than one -third (1 /3) of the total floor area of the dwelling. FRACTIONAL FEE: A tenancy in common interest in improved real property including condominiums, created or held by person, partnerships, corporations, or joint ventures or similar entities, wherein the tenants in common have formerly arranged by oral or written agreement or understanding, either recorded or unrecorded, allowing for the use and occupancy of the property by one or more cotenants to the exclusion of one or more cotenants during any period, whether annually reoccurring or not which is binding upon any assignee or future owner of a fractional fee interest or if such agreement continues to be in any way binding or effective upon any cotenant for the sale of any interest in the property. FRACTIONAL FEE CLUB: A fractional fee project in which each condominium unit, pursuant to recorded project documentation as approved by the Town of Vail, has no fewer than six (6) and no more than twelve (12) owners per unit and whose use is established by a reservation system. Each of the fractional fee club units are made available for short -term rental in a managed program when not in use by the club members. The project is managed on -site with a front desk operating twenty four (24) hours a day, seven (7) days a week providing reservation and registration capabilities. The project shall include or be proximate to transportation, retail shops, eating and drinking establishments, and recreation facilities. FRACTIONAL FEE CLUB UNIT, A condominium unit in a fractional fee club described as such in the project documentation and not an accommodation unit within the fractional fee club. TIME -SHARE ESTATE A time -share estate shall be defined in accordance with Colorado Revised Statutes section 38 -33 -110. TIME -SHARE LICENSE: A contractual right to exclusive occupancy of specified premises; provided, that the occupancy of the premises is divided into five (5) or more separate time periods extending over a term of more than two (2) years. The premises may consist of one parcel, unit or dwelling or any of several parcels, units or dwellings identified at the time the license is created to be identified later. No time share is a time -share license if it meets the definition of interval estate, time -share or time -span estate. USE: The purpose for which a site or structure or portion thereof is arranged, designed, intended, erected, moved, altered, or enlarged, or for which either a site or structure or portion thereof is or may be occupied or maintained. Ill. STAFF RECOMMENDATION As this a worksession, staff will not be making a formal recommendation at this time. Instead, staff recommends that the applicant, staff, and Commission engage in a discussion regarding the applicability of the Town's current regulations as they apply to fractional fee ownership of real property. IV. DISCUSSION ISSUES The Vail Town Code allows for time -share units and fractional fee clubs in the Lionshead Mixed Use 1 zone district. It does not address fractional fee, The definition of fractional fee and a fractional fee club are entirely different. Fractional fee, by definition, is a type of ownership of real property. A fractional fee club is a type of land use. Fractional fee clubs are regulated as conditional uses in the various zone districts. Therefore, in order to operate a fractional fee club a property owner must first receive approval of a conditional use permit, subject to the applicable rules and regulations outlined in Title 12, Chapter 16, of the Vail Town Code. A copy of the conditional use regulations and requirements is listed below: CHAPTER 16 CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS 12 -16 -1: PURPOSE; LIMITATIONS: In order to provide the flexibility necessary to achieve the objectives of this Title, specified uses are permitted in certain districts subject to the granting of a conditional use permit. Because of their unusual or special characteristics, conditional uses require review and evaluation so that they may be located properly with respect to the purposes of this Title and with respect to their effects on surrounding properties. The review process prescribed in this Chapter is intended to assure compatibility and harmonious development between conditional uses and surrounding properties and the Town at large. Uses listed as conditional uses in the various districts may be permitted subject to such conditions and limitations as the Town may prescribe to ensure that the iocation and operation of the conditional uses will be in accordance with development objectives of the Town and will not be detrimental to other uses or properties. Where conditions cannot be devised to achieve these objectives, applications for conditional use permits shall be denied. 12 -16 -2: APPLICATION: CONTENTS: Application for a conditional use permit shall be made upon a form provided by the Administrator. The application shall be supported by documents, maps, plans, and other material containing the following information: A. Name and address of the owner and /or applicant and a statement that the applicant, if not the owner, has the permission of the owner to make application and act as agent for the owner. B. Legal description, street address, and other identifying data concerning the site. C. A description of the precise nature of the proposed use and its operating characteristics, and measures proposed to make the use compatible with other properties in the vicinity. D. A site plan showing proposed development of the site, including topography, building locations, parking, traffic circulation, usable open space, landscaped area, and utilities and drainage features. E. Preliminary building plans and elevations sufficient to indicate the dimensions, general appearance, scale, and interior plan of all buildings. F. Such additional material as the Administrator may prescribe or the applicant may submit pertinent to the application and to the findings prerequisite to the issuance of a conditional use permit as prescribed in Section 12 -16 -6 of this Chapter. G. A list of the owner or owners of record of the properties adjacent to the subject property which is subject of the hearing. Provided. however, is notification of owners within a condominium project shall be satisfied by notifying the managing agent, or the registered agent of the condominium project, or any member of the board of directors of a condominium association. The list of owners, managing agent of the condominium project, registered agent or members of the board of directors, as appropriate, shall include the names of the individuals, their mailing addresses and the general description of the property owned or managed by each. Accompanying the list shall be stamped, addressed envelopes to each individual or agent to be notified to be used for the mailing of the notice of hearing. It will be the applicants responsibility to provide this information and stamped, addressed envelopes. Notice to the adjacent property owners shall be mailed first class, postage prepaid. 12 -16 -6: CRITERIA: FINDINGS: A. Factors Enumerated: Before acting on a conditional use permit application, the Planning and Environmental Commission shall consider the following factors with respect to the proposed use: 1. Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town. 2. Effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities and public facilities needs. 3. Effect upon traffic, with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the streets and parking areas. 4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. 5. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed use. 6. The environmental impact report concerning the proposed use, if an environmental impact report is required by Chapter 12 of this Title. B. Necessary Findings: The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a conditional use permit: 1. That the proposed location of the use is in accordance with the purposes of this Title and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. 2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of this Title. 12 -16 -7: USE SPECIFIC CRITERIA AND STANDARDS: The following criteria and standards shall be applicable to the uses listed below in consideration of a conditional use permit. These criteria and standards shall be in addition to the criteria and findings required by Section 12 -16 -6 of this Chapter. 8. Time -Share Estate, Fractional Fee, Fractional Fee Club, Or Time - Share License Proposal: 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 are 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 gross residential floor area (GRFA) as fractional fee club unit gross residential floor area (GRFA). b. Lock -off units and lock -off unit square footage shall not be included in the calculation when determining the equivalency of existing accommodation units or equivalency of existing square footage. c. The ability of the proposed project to create and maintain a high level of occupancy. d. Employee housing units 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 required will be consistent with employee impacts that are expected as a result of the project. e. The applicant shall submit to the Town a list of all owners of existing units within the project or building; and written statements from one hundred percent (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 was signed by the owner more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of filing the application for a conditional use. Fractional fee ownership in the Lionshead Mixed Use -1 zone district is not addressed in the conditional use permit criteria and factors for consideration. As written, fractional fee ownership is required to address the same criteria in this zone district as it is required to address in other zone districts. For example, it appears the criteria were written to respond to applications for development in the Public Accommodation zone district. The criteria speak directly to the impacts that fractionalized ownership has on the availability of accommodation units (i.e., hotel rooms). Unfortunately, while fractionalized ownership is allowed in the Lionshead Mixed Use-1 zone district, a use by right form of development in that district is condominiums with no requirement to ever build accommodation units. The same holds true for the High Density Multiple Family zone district. In that district, fractional fee clubs are not allowed, however, fractional fee ownership is allowed, subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit. The staff would like input from the Planning & Environmental Commission on how this regulation should be applied, if at all and if so, should the Zoning Regulations be amended to reflect the development objectives of the Town? Short -Term Vacation Rentals: Residential or Commercial Use? By Alan pu f'S(T. A mericans love to vacation as much as they lave their vacation destinations, and demographers have noticed. New migration patterns into some of the fastest growing communities in the country : resort towns — suggest that many people are relocating to the places that were once just summer or weekend getaways. According to Peter Wolf, author of Hot Towns, `A new species of American is on the move: not, as in the past, the needy, but the comfortable, well- educared, and well - trained; not the job seekers and risk takers, but those with leisure, choices, and the wherewithal to seek out the best." By Wolf's estimates, this migration includes anywhere from 700,000 to 1.6 million people per year. The strong 1990s economy brought a wave of second -home purchases as investments and family retreats. Resort areas -- coastal, mountain, and lakeside —have what these trendsetters want_ natural beauty, fresh air, and recreation. Communities with such amenities are prime candidates for conflicts in land -use planning. What happens when people live and vacation in the same town, where vacation homes and permanent homes are often side by side? Regulations that govern short -term rentals in residential districts are getting more attention as planners and residents notice that these vacation homes can have a much greater impact on the community than those that house year - round residents. Angry neighbors say short -term rentals look 0 e single - family homes but function more like commercial es. The crux of the matter for planners is finding a balance between the interests of year - round, seasonal, and vacationing people while considering the effects on property rights, economic vitality, and the sanctity of residential neighborhoods. of almost 40 tourist- oriented communities was taken for this issue of Zoning News, The dynamics vary from one town to the next, but the issue seems to grow more contentious as more vacationers and year - round residents live next to one another. A survey of almost 40 tourist - oriented communities was taken for this issue of Zoning Newt in order to shed light on this increasingly vexing land -use phenomenon. Relevance and Research Background In 2001, Al'A's planning Advisory Service recorded an increase in the number of inquiries about planning for and regulating short -term rental properties in residential areas — particularly single - family districts. The survey revealed that a significant percentage experienced an increase in conflicts between these and adjacent land uses. 'While some have recently drafted ordinances to address the short -term rental problem, others are still in the process of doing so or have expressed the need for change, and because resort communities have different attitudes toward tourism, each approaches the issue in a different way. Impacts The impact of a short -term vacationer compared with year-round residents can be significant. Seasonal populations live and work in the community, and thus become somewhat integrated. Naturally, they increase demands on infrastructure and services. Impacts associated with short -term vacationers, however, are more nuisance related, often generating noise and light pollution. Generally, the shorter the stay, the less inclined one might be to respect neighbor diplomacy. Late -night music and merrymaking, floodlights, garbage taken out to the Street on off days, dogs at large, illegal parking, and negligent property maintenance are garden- variety complaints often cited by annoyed neighbors. Neighbors, planners, and property owners point to the correlation between such problems and length of stay for the rental property. In other words: the shorter the stay, the higher the impact. The stereotypical "weekend warrior"— trying to pack the most fim into the least amount of time —will invariably generate more trips to the store or beach, keep later hours, and create a greater disruption with light and noise. Still, for some communities, the concern is not so much the negative impacts as the lack of community involvement typical of transients. Affordable Horsing A more insidious problem with short -term rentals is their impact on housing costs. When property owners decide to increase their "rent stream" with short -term rental agreements rather than renting by the season or year, they essentially "squeeze" the Politics Planners admit to a dilemma: Many property owners rely on the rent streams and spending dollars generated by vacationers, but locals want to preserve their neighborhood's residential character. Furthermore, business owners would prefer to see an expansion of the local vacation lodging market. When property owners are unwilling to forfeit certain rights, leaving them at odds with neighbors who want the relative quietude expected in a single- family neighborhood, what should be done? Indeed, people "vote with their feet" when choosing vacation destinations or a permanent home, so politicians try to appease the greatest number of constituents. Invariably, residents will threaten to abandon a once - beloved community or resort locale if renting a house on the beach or settling into a neighborhood means an endless stream of nuisances- from disruptive vacationers. � { f Q 7 I Z 3 supply of housing, pushing up the demand and, subsequently, the cost. Ty Simrosky, planning director for Ivey West, Florida, says, "It's another means of financing the acquisition of local housing by non -local people and it fuels speculation in a rising housing market." Simrosky explains that by allowing short -term rentals, investors can cover the carrying costs of a house for a year or two while the property appreciates in value and then sell it for a healthy profit. Simrosky also says that while long -term hosnebuyers are strongly opposed to short -term rentals in a prospective neighborhood, investment buyers are less inclined to care if a neighboring property is a short -term rental. This can create a snowball effect that eventually replaces year -round neighborhood residents with vacationers_ Communities most affected by a housing shortage are those with businesses chat rely on lower - paying service and tourism jobs. High housing costs have pushed many workers out of the community, even beyond commuting distance. Simrosky also speculates chat there are workers being bused in from the Florida mainland to sleep in bunk -house conditions just to work for three- or Four -day periods in Key West. r1 �J (Above, left) Short -term rentals in Ship Bottom, New feneje Paved yards and excessive numbers of vehicles at short term rental houses are a common complaint of neighbors. Believe it or not, these are the fronts of the houses. (Above, right) Most short -term renters are unaware ofgarbage collection schedules. (Left) Boat and recreation vehicle parking is an unpleasant sight for neighbors in that Monroe County, Florida, neighborhood. Residents of Monroe County, Florida, put the issue on a ballot, narrowly deciding--51 to 49 percent — against allowing short- term rentals in improved subdivisions (single - family districts). Subdivisions retained the right to vote on the issue separately. Health, Safety, and General Welfare Historically, property owners in resort communities could rent a home, regardless of the duration of the stay, by claiming char the house was not used "primarily for commercial purposes." What this really meant was that the structure could not be used for such purposes for more than 50 percent of the year. However, planners claim that approach is difficult to monitor and easy to abuse. Most feel zoning codes and a licensing system offer a better solution despite the time and expense required for administering and enforcing new regulations. Most of the surveyed communities deal with short-term rentals through the zoning code. Imperial Beach, California, justifies its interim short -term rental ordinance with a purpose and intent that states "there is a current and immediate threat to the public health, safety, or welfare of ics citizens by owners or their agents renting or selling units for periods of thirty Permitted This matrix is not exhaustive. Every reasonable anempt was made to achieve accuracy and thoroughness, but variations in ordinance language, format, and local practice made a "complete' matrix impossible. Thus, it is meanr only as a quick reference guide for readers of this article. The shorn -term rental survey evolved is it was being conducted, so not all questions were asked uniformly or of every survey participant. L This indicates any section of the code that is dedicated to short -term rentals, such as interim ordinances or amendments. 2. Language varies from code to code in terms of how they specify a rime period. Where a month or four weeks was used as the length of the term, 30 days is the default RSp m o mu 3. Community preferred oat be mentioned by same 4. Decision made by subdivision bylaws. 5 - STRs nor permitted by tight in any of the zones. A. In most restrictive districts, they arc petnitted m rent three times or fewer per year for a total of 30 days or less. 3 Regulate Specific Number of Number Community Short -Term Rentals Ordinance Provisions' Term Used Consecutive Days' of Times Per Year By Zone License Required Year Adopted Legal Challenges Aspen, [0 No ..> . NC Yes 1f o Boone, NC No Burlington, YT No Cape Cod, MA No Carmel- by -lhe -Sea, CA Yes Yes Transient 30 Prohibiled . 1915 Commercial Use Cocoa Beach, FL Yes Yes Transient Lodging 36 3 . . . Yes 2000 Colchester, VF Na Eagle County, CO Yes per /?U D" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Imperial Beach, CA Yes Yes Short-term Rental 30 Prohibited Yes . 2001 Yes Isfamoroda, FL Yes Yes Vacation Rental 28 Yes Yes Key West, FL Yes Yes Transient Lodging 30 1998 Yes Kiawah Island, SC Drafting Shod -term Rental 30 Yes Yes In drah Maggie Valley NC No Manchester, VT . No Marathon, FL Yes Yes Vacation Rental 3Il Yes .. Yes 2000 Melbourne Beach, CA Yes No Resort Dwelling 30 Yes Mendocino County, CA Yes No Transient fiabilalion 30 Yes 19B7 Monroe County, FL Yes Yes 30 Yes Yes Yes /Upheld Monterey, CA Yes No Short -term Prohibited Residential Rental 30 Muskegon, All Yes No 7 Yes . . . . Na . Myrtle Beach, SC Yes Yes Transient 30 Yes Yes Accommodation Nantucket, MA . No . . . . . . . . . . Yes . . . . . Ocean [icy, MD - Ponca Coatllly, FL Yes Yes ^ Yes t 30 3 - Yes Yes 199'9 Saco, ME Yes Yes _Short- _ReMol Seasonal Rental ~ 4 months — _ _ Prohibited .— Yes _ Daily Rental 1 San Juan County, WA Yes Yes Transient 30 1498 Accommodation/ Residence /Guesthouse Sanibel, FL Yes Yes Resort Housing 30 Yes Yes . , . . 200 . . . Santa Cruz', CA No/rrnnsit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1984 . . . . . . . . Occupancy Tax Shormerm Rental Saugatuck, MI No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . South Haven, Ml Yes Yes . , Shad -term 2 Yes Na . . . . Dwelling Unit Stowe, VT Na Sturgeon Bay, WI NoAa nsit . . . . . . . . . ¢ _ Occupancy Tax - Sullivan's Island, SC Yes Yes Vacation Rental 28 Yesi Yes Telluride, 10 Yes Shormerm . . 30 S' . . . . . 1992 Dwelling Unit Traverse City, Ml . . . . No . . Vail, CO No . . . . . . . . . . . . . Yachats, OR Yes Yes Transient Rental 30 Alle'we'd in Yes 1992 all Zones g This matrix is not exhaustive. Every reasonable anempt was made to achieve accuracy and thoroughness, but variations in ordinance language, format, and local practice made a "complete' matrix impossible. Thus, it is meanr only as a quick reference guide for readers of this article. The shorn -term rental survey evolved is it was being conducted, so not all questions were asked uniformly or of every survey participant. L This indicates any section of the code that is dedicated to short -term rentals, such as interim ordinances or amendments. 2. Language varies from code to code in terms of how they specify a rime period. Where a month or four weeks was used as the length of the term, 30 days is the default RSp m o mu 3. Community preferred oat be mentioned by same 4. Decision made by subdivision bylaws. 5 - STRs nor permitted by tight in any of the zones. A. In most restrictive districts, they arc petnitted m rent three times or fewer per year for a total of 30 days or less. 3 consecutive calendar days or less ... and that such rentals in the residential zones of the city ... may create adverse impacts." Commonlv cited reasons for drafting an ordinance or provision for short -term rentals include protecting residential character, maintaining housing affordability, managing infrastructure and service requirements, and complying with hurricane evacuation capacity. Zoning ordinances, business permits, and transient occupancy taxes are ways of managing this quasi- commercial use. Definitions are often at the root of governing short -terra rentals. Unfortunately, many zoning codes have a discrepancy between defined terms and the provisions that use them. Terms are sometimes defined at the beginning of the ordinance bur then never used in the provisions. Conversely, provisions may contain undefined terms, rendering the code too ambiguous. For example, some towns prohibit "transient rentals" in certain districts without about what actually is a short- term rental. Length of stay (where not determined by a definition of transient) is an important factor in defining short -term rentals. There is a wide range of occupancy tenure in a short -term rental ordinance. Communities specify the maximum length of stay in days, weeks, or months. Some simply distinguish the use by type of occupant, usually transient or tourist, in which case the terms should be clarified in the definitions section. Measures of occupants' permanency can include everything from specifying the length of stay to whether the residence is the legal address of its occupants. At this fundamental level, communities can best begin to guide local land -use practices. Here, parameters are set largely according to the nature of a community's tourist population, the importance of tourism on the local economy, and community goals. V .. aeaw w� (Above, left) Short -term rental property prominently displayed on a corner lot in Lewes, Delaware. The impact: Vehicles of vacationers spilling over from the driveway onto the street, The problem: This type Of impact occurring for weeks or months on end. (Above, right) Apparently, more pavement, less yard means more parking and less yard mainrenance for this short -term rental property in Monroe Count}, Florida. (Right) Driveway signs for a Kiawab Islandd, South Carolina, short -term rental welcome the next round of families sharing a house, defining the term "transient." Distinctions can be easily made between the various types of lodging and rental property, and only those uses that are specifically listed as permitted or conditional should locate to designated districts. However, where single family residences are a permitted use, and the length of tenure is unspecified, nothing in the ordinance can stop property owners from renting the house on a short -term basis. Definitive Criteria For communities grappling with such disputes, clear definitions are essential. Other terms for short -term rentals include transient commercial use, vacation rental home, vacation property, transient lodging, resort dwelling, and resort housing. Because transient also is used in the definition of other terms, it roo should be defined in context to alleviate confusion and ambiguity. These terms are defined using various criteria, such as structure type, length of stay, measures of occupants' perma- nency, number of occupants, and the type of occupants (family members or unrelated people). The type of structure (single or multifamily) often is not specified in the ordinance, allowing room for interpretation Regulating the number of occupants also can mitigate the impacts of rental properties. Some communities specify total number of occupants by persons per bedroom, family members, or non - related persons, not withstanding local fire codes. Islamorada, Florida, limits occupancy to two people per bedroom plus two additional persons. Other communities simply limit occupancy to a single family, as defined in their ordinance (see "Definitions and Distinctions" for examples and commentary on relevant terms). Defining family also can complicate the matter. Restricting the use of single- family homes to families can be a difficult way to regulate short -term rentals, mainly because the term family is open to a wide range of literal and legal interpretations. Even so, "traditional" families are not devoid of impact risks, including noisy infants or rowdy teenagers. The ever - changing family paradigm does not make it the best measure by which to regulate short -term rentals. Once Defined, Where Are Short -term Rentals Allowed? Tolerance levels about the impacts of short -term rentals will vary C among communities. ommunities with an intense interest in 4 • • ■ BED wive B$EA"AST C mmentarv: Bed and breakfasts are similar in appearance and location to many short -term rentals in residential areas. However, the primary distinction is the mitigating presence of the owner/ operator. Definitions: Generally small, owner -op- erated businesses providing the primary financial support of the owner. Usually the owner lives on premises. The building's primary usage is for business. Inns advertise, appropriate taxes, and post signs. Breakfast is the only meal served and only to overnight guests. The inn may host events such as weddings, small business meetings, etc. Room num- bers range from four to 20 with a small, but increasing number up to 30. Reser- vations may be made directly with the property. (,Professional Association of Innkeepers International) Bed and breakfast means the use of an owner- occupied or manager- occupied residential structure providing no more than four rooms for temporary lodging for transient guests on a paying basis- A "Bed and Breakfast Inn" may include meal service for guests. (Blue Springs, Mo -) E B OARDING H O USE _ Gommentarv: A boardinglroomingllodg Ing house differs from the short - term rental house because it has multiple rooms or units for rent and occupants share com- mon kitchen or dining facilities. Occupants of a boarding house also tend to be less transient (the definition of which depends on community standards) - Df i �1 Lions: A single- family dwelling where more than two, but fewer than six rooms are provided for lodging for defi- nite periods of times. Meals may or may not be provided, but there is one common kitchen facility. No meals are provided to outside guests_ (Champaign, Ill., which uses the term "boarding /r+oominghouse ) An establishment with lodging for five or more persons where meals are regularly prepared and served for com- pensation and where food is placed upon the table family style, without service or ordering of individual portions from a menu. (Vemoe, FIa.) 8 FAmLy Commentary; Restricting the use of single- family homes to families can be a problematic way W regulate short -term rentals, mainly because the term fam- ily is open to a wide range of literal and legal interpretations. Even so, a "tradi- tional" family is not without impacts, such as vocal infants or rowdy teenag- DEFLMTIONS AND DISTINCTIONS ers- The definition of family or single- family house is not the most widely used or recommended tool for short -term rental regulation. Dpfmitions: One or more persons occupy - ing a single dwelling unit, as a single housekeeping unit, provided that unless all members are related by blood, mar - riage, or adoption, no such family shall contain over six persons, including any roomers, boarders and /or domestic ser- vants. A home for Independent living with support personnel that provides room and board, personal care and habilitation ser- vices in a family environment as a single- housekeeping unit for not more than six resident elderly or disabled persons (men - tally and /or physically impaired) with at least one, but not more than two resident staff persons shall be considered a fam- ily. (Tulsa, Okla.) One or more persons, related by blood, marriage, or adoption, occupying a living unit as an individual housekeep- ing organization. A family may include two, but not more than two, persons not related by blood, marriage, or adoption. (Iowa City, Iowa) One or two persons or parents, with their direct lineal descendants and adopted or legally eared for children (and including the domestic employees thereof) together with not more than two persons not so related, living together in the whole or part of a dwelling comprising a single housekeeping unit. Every additional group of four or fewer persons living in such housekeeping unit shall be consid- ered a separate family for the purpose of this code. (St. Paul, Minn.) Two or more persons related to each other by blood, marriage, or legal adop- tion living together as a single house- keeping unit; or a group of not more than three persons who need not be re- lated by blood, marriage, or legal adop- tion, living together as a single house- keeping unit and occupying a single dwelling unit. (Lake County, III.) One or more persons occupying a premise[s] and living as a single house- keeping unit as distinguished from a group occupying a boardinghouse, lodg- ing house, or hotel as herein defined. (Scottsdale, Ariz.) ■ GUEST HOUSE oR GUEST COTTAGE Commentary: Guest cottages can present a loophole for short -term rentals in single - family residential districts unless certain specifications are made — namely that usage is only allowed for non -pay- ing guests. Definition: Guest house (accessory dwelling unit) means a detached or at- tached accessory structure secondary to the principal single - family residen- tial unit designed and most commonly used for irregular residential occu- pancy by family members, guests, and persons providing health care or prop- erty maintenance for the owner- (San Juan County, Wash.) ■ HOTEL oa M OTEL Commentary: Hotels /Motels typically have separate entrances and an on -site management office - Definitions: A building in which lodging is provided and offered to the public for compensation, end which is open to tran- sient guests and is not a rooming or boarding house as herein defined. (Boone County, Mo.) A building or group of buildings in which lodging is provided to transient guests, offered to the public for compen- sation, and in which access to and from each room or unit is through an exte- rior door. (Cecil County, Md.) ■ Twmsm= Commentary: "Transient" can be used to describe a person or a land use. Am- biguous or subjective words-­ short, "long," "seasonal," "temporary " -- should be either avoided altogether or clarified with precise units of time — number of hours, days, weeks, or months. When a community defines a transient as a per- son living in a dwelling unit for "a short time only," the term "short" could be interpreted in a variety of ways. To al- leviate further confusion, the nature of a- person's stay may be clarified, as is done in the definition below from Stur- geon Bay, Wisconsin. Definitions: A person who travels from place to place away from his or her per- manent address for vacation, pleasure, recreation, culture, or business. (Stur- geon Bay, Wis.) Any person who exercises occupancy or is entitled to occupancy by reason of concession, permit, right of access, li- cense or other agreement for a period of 30 consecutive calendar days or less, counting portions of oalendar days as full days. Any such person so occupy- ing space in a visitor accommodation fa- cility shall be deemed to be a transient until the period of 30 days has expired unless there is an agreement, in writ- ing, between the operator and the occu- pant providing for a longer period of oc- cupancy. (Monterey, Calif.) promoting tourism may be more permissive, allowing them in restricted districts, while others will diligently protect residential districts. In the most restrictive communities, short -term rentals may be prohibited outright in residential districts. Monroe County, Florida, prohibits them unless a majority of homeowners vote them into a subdivision. Communities may permit short -term rentals as a conditional use or allow them only when rented fewer than four times each year. Conditional uses and Licensing Whether short -term rentals ate allowed by right or as a conditional use, additional requirements to benefit both the occupants and neighbors are recommended. For example, operating a short -term rental may require physical inspection to determine the safety of the structure from hazards such as fire and over occupancy. Other requirements might include posting a "notice to occupant" reminding visitors of mandatory evacuation in case of a hurricane (in prone areas) or a "code of conduct" for the neighborhood, which might list regulations for occupancy, parking, boat dockage, fines, or helpful information such as garbage and recycling pick-up. Both should be printed in a large font and prominently displayed. Regulating by Ratio Mendocino County, California, settled on an acceptable ratio of short -term rental properties to year -round residents: Locals deemed 13 year -round resident houses to one short-term rental house tolerable. The community requires operating permits for short -term rental properties. An additional vacation rental permit is issued for every 13 new residential units. The number of permits is finite but siting is still flexible. To maintain an orderly and fair distribution of permits, the county does not allow them to be sold or transferred. The countvconsiders short -term rentals a commercial use, allowing additional short-term rentals as part of a 50/50 mix of commercial and long -term residential dwelling units in minted -use districts. Legal Challenges Legal challenges will invariably arise in neighborhoods where homeowners enjoying the comforts of a quiet back yard are suddenly interrupted by noise or light from an adjacent short - term rental property. Places with restrictions on short -term rentals such as Key West and Imperial Beach have faced legal challenges, which may include vesting, consistency with the comprehensive plan, definition of family, and allowable time for amortization. However, anecdotal evidence suggests that the longer an ordinance has been in place, the more accepted it is_ Most of the planners interviewed for this article were confident in the defensibility of their short -term rental ordinances. Mitigation and Amortization . Some of the mitigation tools used to offset the impacts of short - term rentals include having a 24 -hour contact person or management service, vehicle registration, and short -term rental medallions —a . sign or badge on the front of the home identifying the residence as a vacation property, the name of the management company, and a contact person. The use of medallions is widely criticized because critics say they invite thieves and vandals. Such mitigation measures are typically paid for and provided by the property owner as a condition of receiving an operating permit. Other measures, such as increasing code enforcement staff —as is done in Key West —or bolstering visitor awareness through signage to politely inform them of the neighborhood's quiet residential character may be paid for with tax revenue generated from short -term rental properties. To avoid a takings challenge, communities that have recently enacted more restrictive codes also have included an amortization schedule that phases our short -term rental properties. Islamorada allows two years for amortization and Imperial Beach is proposing five -year amortization. Sullivan's Island, South Carolina, requires proof of use as a short -term rental during the previous 12 -monrh period to reduce the number of rental properties. Those that lapse are not eligible for future licensing. Enforcement Detection of problem rentals can occur either from complaining neighbors or a dedicated municipal enforcement staff: Penalty fines range from $100 a day in Saco, Maine, to $500 for each day of violation in Kiawah Island, South Carolina. Other penalties include denied permit renewals, permit revocation, or misdemeanor citations. Fines are a comparatively small expense for property owners whose short -term rentals generate healthy returns, so some owners virtually ignore the restrictions, says Monroe County planner Marlene Conway, Saco requires property owners to renew permits annually. A history of complaints is kept on file and those with more than two recorded complaints will not be issued a permit for the coming year. Administering a short -term rental ordinance burdens both the budget and staff Issuing permits and code enforcement takes time and money. Permit or licensing fees and taxes on short -terra lodging can offset these expenses. Fees vary from a fixed amounr to a sliding scale based on the percent of income generated per calendar year —both of which usually amount to $100 to $200. In states that grant local governments the authority to tax this type of land use, the taxes for the lodging fee can range from four percent on the low end to seven percent in Deschutes County, Oregon. Santa Cruz, California, taxes 10 percent. Conclusion Technology, telecommuting, and lifestyle priorities will continue to fuel the infiltration of newcomers into resort communities with long- established residents. For these and other reasons, the populations of traditional get -away destinations will surge and change, bringing with them increased pressure to adapt to new people and new land -use challenges. Deciding whether short - term rentals are commercial or residential land uses is an important first step in addressing the issue. Perhaps the zoning code is the best defense in preserving the tranquility that made such places attractive in the first place. Selected ordinances from the short -term rentals survey are available to Zoning News subscribers. Please contact Michael Davidson, Co- editor, Zoning News, American Planning Association, 122 South Michigan Avenue, Suite 1600, Chicago, IL 60603, or e-mail mdavidson @planning.org. ZoningNrws is a moorhly newsletter published by the American Planning Association. Subscriptions are available for $60 (U.S_) and $82 (Foreign). W. Paul Farmer. AICP, Executive Director; William R. Klein, Alcr, Director of Research. Zorring Newr is produced at APA. Jim Schwab, AICP, and Michael Davidson, Editors; Barry Bain, AMP, Heather Campbell, Fay Dolnick, ]Mate Hutcheson, Sanjay Jeer, Auer, Megan Lewis, AICP, Marya Morris, Arcr, Reporters; Sherrie Matthews, Assistant Editor Lisa Barton, Design and Production. Copyright 02002 by American Planning Association, 123 S. Michigan Ave., suite 1600. Chicago, 1L 60603. The American Planning Association also has offices at 1776 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Washington, DC 20036; www.planning.org All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and rerrieval system, without permission in writing from the American Planning Association. Printed on recycled paper, including 50 -70% recycled fiber and l4% posrconsumer waste. F_ - I LJ r1 LJ • PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION • • NEW MEMBER ORIENTATION Approved April 22, 2002 11:00 am PROJECT ORIENTATION I - Community Development Dept. PUBLIC WELCOME 12:00 pm MEMBERS PRESENT John Schofield Erickson Shirley George Lamb Gary Hartman Chas Bernhardt Doug Cahill Rollie Kjesbo DRB MEMBERS PRESENT Clark Brittain Charles Acevedo Hans Woldrich Margaret Rogers Site Visits : 1. Middle Creek -- 160 N. Frontage Road 2. Lodge at Lionshead — 380 E. Lionshead Circle Driver: George 1:00 pm Z NOTE: If the PEC hearing extends until 6:00 p.m., the board may break for dinner from 6:00 - 6:30 DINNER Public Hearing - Town Council Chambers X6:00 pm 2:00 pm Swearing in of reappointed PEC member Erickson Shirley and appointed PEC members George Lamb.. Rollie Kjesbo and Gary Hartman - Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk. 2. Election of 2002 Chair — John Schofield 7 -0 Vice -Chair — Erickson Shirley 7 -0 A request for a joint worksession with the Design Review Board and Planning and Environmental Commission to discuss a proposal fora conditional use permit to allow for a private educational institution and a request for development plan review to construct employee housing and a private educational institution within the Housing Zone District and setting forth details in regards thereto, located at the site known as "Mountain Bell"/an 1- PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES Monday, April 8, 2002 MEMBERS ABSENT *VAILTOMI O Approved April 22, 2002 unplatted piece of property, located at 160 N. Frontage Rd./to be platted as Lot 1, Middle Creek subdivision. Applicant: Vail Local Housing Authority, represented by Odell Architects Planner: Allison Ochs Gary Severson, acting as the meeting facilitator, outlined the process for the afternoon meeting. Allison Ochs provided a brief overview of the Housing Zone District. A copy of the zone district regulations was attached to the staff memo for reference. Mark Ristow spoke on behalf of the Housing Authority with regard to this project. He stressed the importance of affordable housing in the Town of Vail. Mark stated the goals of the project as adopted by the Vail Town Council. Otis Odell provided an overview of the project and process to date. He discussed the rezoning process and the land use plans amendment. Otis discussed the history of the design process. Allison Ochs presented an overview of the PEC /DRB comments. She passed a copy of a letter from the Vail Village Homeowners Association, Inc. Otis Odell stated that he believed that the PEC(DRB goals for this project were his goals. He stated how the project complied with the parking requirements. He wished to know if the parking requirement could be different? Could the parking requirement be reduced by 32 spaces? Where can the bulk and mass be located on the site? Should "zones" of bulk and mass be identified? Dialogue amongst the group ensued. John Schofield summarized and further clarified the issues and concerns of the Planning & Environmental Commission, as formulated at their March 11, 2002, meeting. Erickson Shirley stated that bulk and mass remain huge issues for the PEC. Dialogue ensued regarding child drop -off. Numerous individuals spoke on the matter. Clark Brittain turned the microphone over to Hans to discuss the DRB's concerns. Hans Woldrich stated that Town's goals were the DRB's goals. Hans pointed out the following issues: the buildings are too bulky and massive, the buildings are swimming in a sea of asphalt, the site is a tremendously visible site and it must meet the design requirements of the site, the roof ridge lines are too straight and must be broken up, building locations are under utilized and there is too much site disturbance. Gary Severson explained the next steps of the afternoon meeting. John Schofield stated that the issues had been boiled down into two categories: bulk and mass, relationship of height and relationship between buildings on the site. Too much asphalt, parking needs to be addressed. He stated that if these issues were addressed, then many of the other issues (landscaping, snow storage, ridgelines, etc.) would be addressed as a result. 0 Otis Odell asked if a reduction in parking was acceptable? 2 Approved April 22, 2002 Chas Bernhardt, speaking for the PFCIDRB, said no_ Clark Atkinson talked to the impacts of building parking structures. John Schofield stated that the Commission could grant flexibility in the number of tandem and compact spaces. Gary Severson clarified that this concern would be addressed by reducing the effective mass of asphalt by removing square footage of asphalt, not by screening it with landscaping and berming. Otis Odell asked the group to define zones of acceptable height and massing. Hans Woldrich recommended that they focus the mass near the rear portion of the site with buildings stepping up from the Frontage Road going lower to higher as you go north on the site and low to high from east to west; west to east. He said the center of the site is immediately east of the mountain bell tower. Otis Odell asked if a single footprint building was acceptable. The group agreed that may be ok. Jim Lamont spoke on behalf of the Vail Village Association. He stated that aesthetics and a regional approach needs to be taken. He believes this site should be maximized for development and the revenues used to develop affordable housing in all locations. He also felt that quality development is needed to meet the expectations of the community and resort. Gary Severson summarized the direction and comments of the group. 4. A request for a rezoning from High Density Multiple Family (HDMF) & Medium Density Multiple Family (MDMF) to Lionshead Mixed Use —1 (LMU -1), to allow for the redevelopment of the Lodge at Lionshead, located at 380 F. Lionshead Circle /Lot 7, Tract & Tract J, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 1" Filing and Lot 6, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 2n Filing. Applicant: Lodge at Lionshead, represented by Jeff Bailey. Planner: Russ Forrest TABLED UNTIL MAY 13, 2002 Doug Cahill made a motion to table this item. Gary Hartman seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 7 -0. A request for a recommendation to the VaiC Town Council, for a text amendment to Title 12, Section 2 -2, to amend the definition of "Fractional Fee Club" and to amend Title 12, Section 16- 7A -8, to amend the Use Specific Criteria & Standards, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Rob Levine is Planner: George Ruther George Ruther presented an overview of the staff memorandum. Approved April 22, 2002 Erickson Shirley asked if there are any current regulations prohibiting fractional ownership. Matt Mire, Town Attorney, stated that the discussion that is in front of the Planning and Environmental Commission should be involved in ownership regulation. Erickson Shirley asked if there was any current regulations of the Town of Vail which regulate multiple ownership of single properties. Rob Levine, representing Antlers Condominium Association, clarified the situation at the Antlers. He stated that in the end, their redevelopment will be approximately $2,000,000 in the hole. He stated that they have sold 14 of their units at $700,000, as condominiums. They would like to sell the remainder at quarter shares at $200,0100. He then spoke about the rental pool at the Antlers. John Schofield asked Rob Levine if he believed a code change was required to do what he is requesting. Rob Levine stated that they already have multiple units which are owned by corporations and that no Town of Vail regulations applied. Erickson Shirley asked if they approve this, would everyone in Lionshead do this? Rob Levine said he didn't think so and that there are benefits to condominiums. He stated that he didn't see any of the Lionshead properties doing hotel rooms, but that they would likely do something more like what they are proposing. Matt Mire, Town Attorney, asked if everyone did this, would it be necessarily a bad thing? Erickson Shirley stated that Antlers is apparently making a profit from his .proposal. If the market works, then wouldn't everyone want to do this? Rob Levine stated that he believed these units would be more likely to be short- termed rentals and that he sees this as a benefit to the Town. Doug Cahill asked for clarification George Ruther stated that at the time Fractional Fee Clubs were considered, there was great concern about the cumulative effects of Fractional Fee Clubs. He stated that since the regulations were put into place, we've had 4 Fractional Fee Clubs approved; 2 built. Erickson Shirley stated that when these were originally approved, a Fractional Fee Club was required to have a front desk and be run more like a hotel. With so many owners, he asked how does maintenance work. Rob Levine stated that you wouldn't want fractions at more than 1112. People will not walk away from it. He stated that at'l shares, people are more vested in the property. Doug Cahill asked about having more than '1 shares. Rob Levine stated that he wasn't sure about Vail Resorts plans. The chairman asked for public input. Dominic Mauriello representing the Sonnenalp stated that he is interested in the fractional fee club ownership in the PA zone district. He encouraged the board to focus on the use, not the ownership of a project. He believed that maintenance is an issue, but that new state 4 Approved April 22, 20702 regulations now require homeowners to have adequate reserves for maintenance. He questioned why we care whether an ownership is 1112 or 1 /2 0 th as long as there is a i maintenance reserve. Erickson Shiriey asked whether the regulations prevent more than one owner. Dominic Mauriello believed that the regulations don't speak to it other than the purpose statement of residential zone districts. Dominic encouraged the board to let the market dictate how many owners exist. John Schofield closed public input and asked Matt Mire whether this is prohibited. Matt Mire said he is not aware that it is illegal today, but that he would look into it. Erickson Shirley asked George whether the Lionshead Master Plan encourages warm beds. George Ruther reviewed how the various master plans encourage warm beds. Erickson Shirley asked whether any developers have developed properties in a residential area for the purpose of having a divided ownership. George Ruther believed that this has occurred in Vail. Rollie Kjesbo stated that his concern was about whether or not this would be a use which would proliferate throughout the Town. George Ruther clarified that this had no impact on accommodation units. Specifically, he stated 40 that in the PA Zone District, this use must be run more like a hotel. However, in other zone districts, condominiums are an allowable use. Doug Cahill stated that he saw this as an opportunity in the higher density zone district. He sees it more as a conditional use in Lionshead. He asked about the redevelopment of buildings in Lionshead and what kind of accommodation units we would see in Lionshead. George Ruther stated that in LMU -1, accommodation units are not counted towards density. Chas Bernhardt stated that with Rob Levine as the expert, he recommends that Rob draw up the guidelines for this type of use and regulations. George Lamb stated that he deals a lot with this type of relationship. He applauds Rob for doing small ownerships, because he has seen these partnerships falling apart. He would Bike to see the agreements, maintenance agreements. etc. that Rob is proposing for the project. Rob Levine then talked about condominium laws across the country. He talked about applying these on more of a micro- level. He clarified that if the partnership isn't working, they can sell their portion of the ownership fee - simple. He stated that the association is in charge of maintenance. Erickson Shirley stated that Vail would be pretty cheesy if it were all hotels. He then stated that he used to live above the Red Lion and that's why he's on the Board today. He stated that he believed the town should encourage a greater mix of residential unit types. Gary Hartman stated that he believed that having this type of ownership will encourage live beds. But he has concerns about this use spreading beyond the core areas and that there should be some sort of percentage cap, or conditional use process for this use. Approved April 22, 2002 John Schofield stated that what this application is before them, is not really what they had envisioned as "fractional fee ". He stated that regulating this ownership may not be something that the Town wants to enter into. He believes that this ownership is already allowed by code. The real question is do we regulate use or do we regulate ownership? He questioned about other's thoughts that allowing this will create a bonanza. He stated that he believed that the concerns about long -term maintenance are things that they don't want to get into regulating. He stated let's regulate use, not ownership. Rob Levine stated that he believed the market would define the amount of these units. He further stated that he agrees that a mix of uses is beneficial to the Town. He stated that it is more beneficial to have these units, rather than only used 2 to 4 weeks per year. Erickson Shirley stated that Lionshead isn't very appealing. His concern is that people will move to Sun Valley. He stated that this has kind of a time -share feel to it, and he believes that there needs to be a balance. He believes that this is a commercial enterprise and has a different feel to it than corporations purchasing units. He stated that communities have regulations because the market doesn't always do what's best for the community. John Schofield stated that he has concerns about a mix of uses on a site, much like Vantage Point. George Ruther stated that the discussions he's had with Park City have indicated that the mix of uses has been a problem for them. Chas Bernhardt made a motion to table this until May 13 2002. George Lamb seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 7 -0. 6. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a text amendment to Title 11, Section 11 -5, Prohibited Signs, Sign Regulations, Vail Town Code, to allow for certain off -site advertising signs, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: George Ruther George Ruther presented an overview of the staff memorandum. On March 18 the Town Council directed staff to move forward with Interstate business signs for the West Vail Interchange. George reviewed how these types of signs are located and operated by the Colorado Department of Transportation. George further reviewed the sign code and how these types of signs are prohibited signs since they are off -site advertisement. George also reviewed the previous attempts to put Interstate business signs in the Town of Vail. The Way- Finding Committee also reviewed these types of signs and concluded that these types of signs were not the most effective way to direct guests to businesses. They developed an alternative way finding program and they have concluded that the proposed Interstate signs would be in conflict with the way finding sign program. George reviewed the questions from the last PEC meeting. The questions and answers were: 1) Can the Town further restrict the distance from an interchange (from 3 miles) that signage could promote. The answer is that yes, the Town could further limit the distance from the interchange that the signs could promote. 2) Can the Town opt out of the sign program if the rules change at a State or Federal level. The answer to this question is that the Town could choose not to adopt those changes or to opt out of the program completely. 6 Approved April 22, 2002 3) The Vail Town Council stated that ramp signs should not be allowed. The question is can the Town prohibit ramp signs. The answer to this question is that if a business is not visible from the ramp then ramp signs shall be installed. If the business is in sight of a ramp then a ramp sign may not be regulated. George Ruther reviewed various alternatives for how ramp signs could work with a round - about. Erickson Shirley asked whether CDOT is more flexible with the ramp sign versus Interstate signs. George Ruther stated that the answer was yes. Chas Bernhardt asked about whether the Town could just have signs at the West Vail Interchange. George Ruther stated that the answer to this question is yes — other communities have done that. George Ruther then reviewed the specific text changes to change the sign code. He then reviewed the staff recommendation. Rick Scapello stated that based on the conditions, they can be resolved and that the PEG should forward a recommendation to approve or deny. He also stated that the ramp signs could be flexible. Rick mentioned that the purpose is to divert people off the Insterstate that may be passing through. Erickson Shirley asked Rick whether Council was aware that businesses would have to be excluded since ramp signs would be prohibited. Rick Scapello agreed that businesses that are not visible would not be eligible or you would have to have ramp signs. Erickson Shirley asked whether the wayfinding committee considered allowing Interstate business signs. Greg Hall, Public Works Director, discussed how the committee pursued a more creative way - finding signage. John Schofield asked whether we could do something more creative. Greg Hall said we are pursuing a creative sign program with the Federal Government. Eric Knox reviewed that you did not have to have ramp signs. However, he had assumed that all the businesses could be seen. After a sight visit it was concluded that not all the businesses were visible. So be began pursuing creative signage for a roundabout. He believed that a creative ramp sign could be created to work within the Town. Sonny Caster expressed his support for the Interstate business signs. Sonny believed this would help business in West Vail. He did not see any reason not to have them. George Lamb wondered where the way - finding program is and expressed interest in tabling this item until the two programs could be coordinated. 0 Erickson Shirley would propose the use of signs on 1 -70, but not on the ramps. Approved Aprii 22.. 2002 Gary Hartman stated Vail needs to look at the comprehensive sign program and it needs to look at how the Interstate signs would be integrated with this comprehensive approach. Gary thought we should go for the International symbols. 40 Rollie Kjesbo stated we should table this until this is considered as part of a comprehensive sign program. Doug Cahill said everyone is concerned with generating business, but he is concerned about the fairness issue. Erickson Shirley asked whether we (TOV) could put wayfinding signs on the Interstate. Greg Hall said that the wayfinding signs will need to be reviewed by the Federal Government, but we can put the International Icons on the Interstate. Rick Scapello stated that in the discussion with 1 -70, the icons were discussed, but that the Councii felt that the business logo signs were the best way to go. Doug Cahill questioned the hours of operation to get a logo on the sign. Rick Scapeilo reviewed the rules and regulations for putting a spe6fic type of business sign on the Interstate. Doug Cahill further asked whether Sonny Caster could put his logo on the sign, given that he would close his bathrooms and drinking water. George Ruther confirmed that the ordinance in front of the PEC would require business owners to comply with the Federal regulations on business operation before they could have a logo on the sign. 0 Chas Bernhardt is for moving forward with Interstate signs and International logos on the ramps. John Schofield is not comfortable with the exclusion of the Main Vail and the East Vail Interchange. John would like to integrate this effort into the sign regulations that are be redrafted. As a world class resort, we should be distinct and unique. The Town should pursue International icon signs and creative wayfinding signs on the Interstate. He also wondered if many business would meet with the minimum standards set out in the Federal regulations. Erickson Shirley is concerned that the Town can not put out signs on the Interstate. Greg Hall stated that the Town can not put alternative signs on the Interstate, unless we get Federal approval. Doug Cahill made a motion to table this proposal until integrated into a comprehensive sign plan. There was no second and the motion died. Chas Bernhardt moved to approve the request, but only allowing ramp signs using International icons. There was no second and the motion died. 0 Erickson Shirley expressed his support for the logo signs and suggested that if better signage became available we could remove the business logo signs. Approved April 22, 2002 Doug Cahill again expressed concern about the inequity involved with this program. Doug Cahill made a motion to deny the proposal with specific direction to the Council to integrate this idea into the sign code revisions and the way finding program. Rollie Kjesbo seconded the motion. The motion passes 4 -3, with Chas Bernhardt, Erickson Shirley and George Lamb opposed. 7. A request for a variance from Section 12 -6H -6 (Setbacks), Vail Town Code, to allow for the remodel of Vail Townhouses, Units 2A & 2C, located at 303 Gore Creek 'Drive, Lot 2, Block 5, Vail Village 1 Filing. Applicant: Vickie Pearson, represented by Pam Hopkins Planner: George Ruther TABLED UNTIL APRIL 22, 2002 8. A request for a minor subdivision of Lot 2, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Second Filing (Evergreen Lodge) and Lot F, Vail Village Second Filing (Medical Center); a request to rezone a portion of Lot 2, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Second Filing (Evergreen Lodge) from Special Development District No. 14 to Lionshead Mixed Use 1; a request to rezone a portion of Lot 2, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Second Filing (Evergreen Lodge) from Special Development District No. 14 to General Use, a request to rezone a portion of Lot F, Vail Village Second Filing (Medical Center) from General Use to Lionshead Mixed Use 1; and a request to amend the study area defined in the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan and setting forth details in regards thereto, located at 250 S. Frontage Rd. West / Lot 2, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 2 nd Filing and 181 South Frontage Road West / Lots E and F, Vail Village Second Filing. Applicant: Evergreen Hotel and the Vail Valley Medical Center Planner: Allison Ochs Chas Bernhardt made a motion to table item 8 to the first meeting in May. Rollie Kjesbo seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 7 -0. 9. Approval of March 25, 2002 minutes The PEC approved the minutes as read. TABLED TO MAY 13, 2002 10. Information Update • Discussed banning cell phones in meetings. The group agreed to that. Appointment of PEC rep to AIPP and Open Space Committee George Lamb was appointed to AIPP • Chas Bernhardt was appointed to the open space committee Meeting adjourned.