Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2002-0610 PEC
• C Sor the continued' conversion of accommodation units into employee housing units and a request for a conditional use permit, to allow for Type Ili Win loyoe housing units located at the Vail Village Inn, p 100 East Meadow OrivelLots M and O. Block 5D, Vail Village let Filing. Applicant: Daymar Corporat.nn Planner. Russ Forrest and an I 10. A request f amendment 10a : develapmenplan na the tGeneral Use Zone District, to allow for an addition to the Town of Vail Public Works Strops• located at, 1289. Elkhorn Drive�Unpiatted- . Applicant: Tcwn of Vail,. represent' by Victor Mark Donaldson Arcnrtects " Planner. Allison Ochs 11. A request for a minor subdivision 01 ge¢ 2, Block 1. Val Lionshead Lodge) and Lot F-, Val Village Second (Fil ng or, (Medical Center); a request to roi a port iEver- Lot 2, Block 1, Vad Lionshead Second Fling (, green Lodgge) from Special Development District re No. 14 to Lionshead Mixed �sgc'it' VaelgLansheaa zone a portion of Lot 2, tram Special De- Second Filing (Evergreen Lodge) �velopmant Oistrfct No. 14 to General use, . a re- .quest to rezone a portion of Lot F: Vail Village Sec- ond Filing (Medical Center) lrom Gasfrao Use Lionshead Mixed Use 1: and a requ to the study area defined in the Lionshead Redevel- opment Master Plan and setting forth .details in re- . gaids ,ngreto, kroated al 250 S. Frontage R6 West 1 Lot 2, Block 1. Vail Lionshead 2nd Filing and 81 South Frcniage Road West 1 Lots E and F, Vail lage Socond Filing. . Applicant Evergreen Hoie4 and the I . Vail Valley Medical Cnnter Planner: Allison Ochs WITHDRAWN - 12.A request for a variance from Section 11-46- 1213 (4) Vail -town Code, to allow• tot a second Business projecting sign, located at 100 East Meadow Orive1ot O, Block 5D, Vail Village 1st Fil- ino Applicant: Master Gallery Planner: Bill Gibson WITHDRAWN - ) 13. Approval of P.nril 22, 2002 and May 13, 2002 minutes 14. Information Update Staff Approvals 1999 Gore Creek Property Trust PECO2.0021. Condominium Plat Review. Gore Village [ sit 0. d RowhouselLot 13. Block S Applicar." 1999 Gore Creek Property Trust, +ep- resented by Jay K, Peterson _ . The applications and lniurmaton about dUriingr re9u- at are available for public mspe0l led aft she Taownnof Vail Commis illy Development Department 75 South Frontage Road Please call 479 -2138 for information- ' Sign language interpretation available upon re- quest . with 24 hour notification, Hearing Im 4lf8cL r7in- . 2356, Telephone iq1: � - .inrmainn. -_- • PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL ' COMMISSION PUBLIC MEETING SCHEDULE I Monday, June 10, 2002 PROJECT ORIENTATION ! • Community Develop. ment Dept.. PUBLIC WELCOME 11!30 om MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT i Site Vislts : 12:30 pm i 1. Clark residence -- 4867 Juniper Lane f - 2. Vail Mountain Schoo X160 Katsos Ranch Road 3, Town of Vail Public Works Shops -1289 Elkhorn Drive 4. Lot 4, Spradrde Creek Estates -1094 Aiva Glen 5_ Veil Resorts Trampoline - 600 Lionshead Mall 6. Riva Ridge North - 133 Wifiow Pface . 7. Baggage Cheque - 141 E. Meadow Drive " 8. Vail Village Inn - 100 E. Meadow Drive Driver' George :.NOTE: It the PEC hearing extends until 6:00 p.m., the board may break for dinner from 6.00 - 6:30 Public Hearing•Town Council Chambers 2:00 pm � 1. A request for a variance from Sedian 11-4B ` 12B (4) Vail Town Code, to allow for a banner, to- • cated at 141 Gast Meadow Drive,'Lrn P, Block 50, Va,l Village 1st Filing. Applicant: The Baggage Cheque " Planner. George Ruther _ >2. A request to rezone the Lodge at lionshead iry cludingTracls I & J, Block 1, Vail Llorishead 1st Fil- ing from Agriculture Coen Space (AOS) to Lions- . head Mixed use -1 (LM1U -1) and a request to re- zone 360 E. Lionshead CirclelLot 7, Block 1, Vail Lionshead let Filing and 360 East L-onsstlead Crr- ele,'Lot 6, 81o4, 1, Vail Lionshead 2nd Filingg from High Density Multiple Famify (HDNIFI anc Ftedium Density Muitiple Family (MDMFI to Lionshead Mixed Use -1 (L1,1U -1)- Applicant Lodge at Lionshead, repro sented by Jeff Bailey PlannerR.uss Forrest J, 31 A request for a variance from Section 12 -6H -6 Setoacks), Val Town Code. to allow for the construction of a new front entry feature in the front setback at Riva Ridge North, located at 133 VVdi'1ow Place?Lof 6, Black 6, Vail Vdlace 1st Filing. Applicant_ Riva Ridge North Cha lets Condo Assoc.- represented by Peel/LargenwallerArchnrk : -s, L.LC. Planner: ' Biif Gibson d . A request for an exemption plat 10 amend a plat- - trd builthnrJ envelope. focatec ar 1L +94 Ri•r: G:en,'Lat 4, Spraddle Creek Estates. `I Applicant Sp, ^ddle Creek LL.0 Piarner: George Huther 5. A roquest for a variance Iron. Section 12 -6D -6 (Setbnecs) Vail Town Code. to ewaw for an addi- tion In the front setback. located at 4887 Juniper L.aner10178, Block 4, Bighorn 5th Addtion. A piicant: Stephen & Jackie: Clark Planner: Allison Ochs I 6. A request for a conditional use permit to allow for a private outdoor recreation facility, located at 600 Lionshead Mall ,Tract D, Vail Lionshead 1s'i Fil- ing. .Applicant: Vail Resorts ' Planner: George Ruther 7_ A request for a remmmendaticn to the Vat! # Town Council, of a text amendment to .Title 12,1 Section 2 -2, to amend the definition of 'Fraction , Fee Club' and to amend Title 12, Section 16- 7A -8,? to amerxd she Use Specific Criteria & Standards. + and setting rorlh rfclaiis in regard thereto. Applicant: Rob Levine Planner. George Rutter B. A request tar an amendment to the approved:' development plan; a request for conditional use' permits to allow for the construction of Type III EHU's. to allow for art expansion of the Vail Moun- tern School, to allow for a private outdoor recrea- tion facility to allow for a private scriooUoduwion• - of institution and to allow for temporary modular classroom structures; a request to modify the otiL vial Rockfall Hazard Map to indicate approved not; - rgahon; a request for a recommendation to the Vail - Txva n Council for a rezoning from T4vo- L-amily Res -_ iderbal to General Use (Tract C); a request for a recommendation to the Vail town' unoa rte ti ( amend the land use designation from Low Density Residential to Public;Semi -Public (Tract C) and a request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Councii for a text amendment to Sc=clion 12 -81 .(Density) Vail Town Code to amend me GRFA re quirements in the Agricultural and Ooen. Spacer Zone District. located at 3160 Katsos Ranclrl 1 Lots 11 & 12. Bock 2. Vail Village 1tm Filing and Tract C. Block 1, Vail Village 12th FIFna Applicant, Vail Mountain Scno01. rep resented by Brain Asscoates, Inc, Planner: Russ Forrest - f 9. A request icr a major amendment to Special Co.- vetopman District No. 6, Vail Village Inn.. to allow : i 0 THIS ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Town Council of the Town of Vail will hold a public hearing in accordance with Section 12 -3 -3 of the Town of Vail Code on Tuesday, June 4, 2002, at 7:00 p.m. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building, located at 75 South Frontage Road. In consideration of: ITEM[TOPIC: An appeal of the Design Review Board's denial of a proposed new primary residence and Type I EHU, located at 1880 W. Gore Creek Drive /Lot 48, Vail Village West 15` Filing. Applicant: DMC Inc. Appellant: DMC Inc. Planner: Allison Ochs The application and information about the proposal is available for public inspection, during regular business hours, in the Community Development Department, located at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. For additional information, contact Allison Ochs at the Department of Community Development at (970) 479 - 2369. Published May 17, 2002 in the Vail Daily. 0 L-1 �y TOWN OF V AIL A 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 t!� Town of Vail on June 10, 2002, at 200 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 construction of a new front entry feature in the front setback at Riva Ridge North, located at 133 Willow Place /Lot 6, Block 6, Vail Village 15c Filing. Applicant: Riva Ridge North Chalets Condo Assoc., represented by Peel /Langenwalter Architects. L.L.C. Planner: Bill Gibson A request for an amendment to the approved development plan; a request for conditional use permits to allow for the construction of Type III EHU's.. to allow for an expansion of the Vail Mountain School, to allow for a private outdoor recreation facility, to allow for a private school /educational institution and to allow for temporary modular classroom structures; a request to modify the official Rockfall Hazard Map to indicate approved mitigation; a request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a rezoning from Two - Family Residential to General Use (Tract C); a request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council to amend the land use designation from Low Density Residential to Public /Semi - Public (Tract C) and a request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a text amendment to Section 12 -8A- 8 (Density) Vail Town Code to amend the GRFA requirements in the Ag and Open Space Zone District, located at 3160 Katsos Ranch Road 1 Lots 11 & 12, Block 2, Vail Village 12�h Filing and Tract C, Block 1, Vail Village 12'x Filing. 0 Applicant: Vail Mountain School, represented by Braun Associates. Inc. Planner: Russ Forrest A request for a variance from Section 12 -6D -6 (Setbacks) Vail Town Code, to allow for an addition in the front setback, located at 4887 Juniper Lane /Lot 78, Block 4, Bighorn 5t' Addition. Applicant: Stephen & Jackie Clark Planner: Allison Ochs A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for the operation of a private outdoor recreation facility, located at 560 Lionshead Mall/Tract D, Vail Lionshead 151 Filing. Applicant: Vail Resorts Planner: George Ruther A request for an exemption plat to amend a platted building envelope, located at 1094 Riva GlenlLot 4, Spraddle Creek Estates. Applicant_ Spraddle Creek LLC Planner: George Ruther 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 is Community Development Department. Please call 479 -2138 for information. TOWN O*VAIL 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 May 24, 2002 in the Vail Daily_ 2 r --1 L� 0 • • • PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION PUBLIC MEETING SCHEDULE Monday, June 10, 2002 PROJECT ORIENTATION 1- Community Development Dept. PUBLIC WELCOME MEMBERS PRESENT Site Visits : MEMBERS ABSENT 1. Clark residence — 4887 Juniper Lane 2. Vail Mountain School — 3160 Katsos Ranch Road 3. Town of Vail Public Works Shops — 1289 Elkhorn Drive 4. Lot 4, Spraddle Creek Estates — 1094 Riva Glen 5. Vail Resorts Trampolino — 600 Lionshead Mall 6. Riva Ridge North — 133 Willow Place 7. Baggage Cheque — 141 E. Meadow Drive 8. Vail Village Inn — 100 E. Meadow Drive Driver: George A G�1��9 11:30 pm FO 12:30 pm �o 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 variance from Section 11 -413-1213 (4) Vail Town Code, to allow for a banner, located at 141 East Meadow Drive /Lot P, Block 5D, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: The Baggage Cheque Planner: George Ruther 2. A request to rezone the Lodge at Lionshead includingTracts I & J, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 1 st Filing from Agriculture Open Space (AOS) to Lionshead Mixed Use -1 (LMU -1) and a request to rezone 380 E. Lionshead Circle/Lot 7, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 1 st Filing and 360 East Lionshead Circle/Lot 6. Block 1, Vail Lionshead 2nd Filing from High Density Multiple Family (HDMF) and Medium Density Multiple Family (MDMF) to Lionshead Mixed Use -1 (LMU -1). Applicant: Lodge at Lionshead, represented by Jeff Bailey. Planner: Russ Forrest 3. A request for a variance from Section 12 -6H -6 (Setbacks), Vail Town Code, to allow for the construction of a new front entry feature in the front setback at Riva Ridge North, located at 133 Willow Place /Lot 6, Block 6, Vail Village 15t Filing. Applicant: Riva Ridge North Chalets Condo Assoc., represented by Peel /Langenwalter Architects, L.L.C. Planner: Bill Gibson I TOI N OF *V,41L 4. A request for an exemption plat to amend a platted building envelope, located at 1094 Riva Glen /Lot 4, Spraddle Creek Estates. Applicant: Spraddle Creek LLC Planner: George Ruther 5. A request for a variance from Section 12 -6D -6 (Setbacks) Vail Town Code, to allow for an addition in the front setback, located at 4887 Juniper Lane /Lot 7B, Block 4, Bighorn 5'h Addition. Applicant: Stephen & Jackie Clark Planner: Allison Ochs 6. A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for a private outdoor recreation facility, located at 600 Lionshead Mall/Tract D, Vail Lionshead 1" Filing. Applicant: Vail Resorts Planner: George Ruther 7. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council, of a text amendment to Title 12, Section 2 -2, to amend the definition of "Fraction 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 8. A request for an amendment to the approved development plan; a request for conditional use permits to allow for the construction of Type III EHU's: to allow for an expansion of the Vail Mountain School, to allow for a private outdoor recreation facility, to allow for a private school /educational institution and to allow for temporary modular classroom structures; a request to modify the official Rockfall Hazard Map to indicate approved mitigation; a request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a rezoning from Two - Family Residential to General Use (Tract C); a request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council to amend the land use designation from Low Density Residential to Public /Semi- Public (Tract C) and a request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a text amendment to Section 12 -SA -8 (Density) Vail Town Code to amend the GRFA requirements in the Agricultural and Open Space Zone District, located at 3160 Katsos Ranch Road f Lots 11 & 12, Block 2, Vail Village 12th Filing and Tract C, Block 1, Vail Village 12" Filing_ Applicant: Vail Mountain School, represented by Braun Associates, Inc. Planner: Russ Forrest 9. A request for a major amendment to Special Development District No. 6, Vail Village Inn, to allow for the continued conversion of accommodation units into employee housing units and a request for a conditional use permit, to allow for Type I I I employee housing units located at the Vail Village Inn, 100 East Meadow Drive /Lots M,N and O, Block 5D, Vail Village 1�t Filing. Applicant: Daymer Corporation Planner: Russ Forrest 10. A request for a conditional use permit and an amendment to a development plan in the General Use Zone District, to allow for an addition to the Town of Vail Public Works Shops, located' at 1289 Elkhorn Drive /Unplatted. Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Victor Mark Donaldson Architects Planner: Allison Ochs • • • 11. 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 2nd 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 WITHDRAWN 12. A request for a variance from Section 11- 4B -12B (4) Vail Town Code, to allow for a second Business projecting sign, located at 100 East Meadow Drive /Lot U, Block 5D, Vail Village 15t Filing. Applicant: Master Gallery Planner: Bill Gibson LTA k101a]:7tWyji, 13. Approval of April 22, 2002 and May 13, 2002 minutes 14. Information Update Staff Approvals 1999 Gore Creek Property Trust PECO2 -0021. George Condominium Plat Review_ 303 Gore Creek Drive, Vail Rowhouse /Lot 13, Block 5, Vail Village 1" Filing. Applicant: 1999 Gore Creek Property Trust, represented by Jay K. Peterson 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 Published June 7, 2002 in the Vail Daily. • • • PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION PUBLIC MEETING RESULTS Monday, June 10; 2002 PROJECT ORIENTATION I - Community Development Dept. PUBLIC WELCOME MEMBERS PRESENT Gary Hartman Doug Cahill Chas Bernhart Erickson Shirley Rollie Kjesbo George Lamb Site Visits : MEMBERS ABSENT John Schofield 1. Clark residence — 4887 Juniper Lane 2_ Vail Mountain School — 3160 Katsos Ranch Road 3. Town of Vail Public Works Shops — 1289 Elkhorn Drive 4. Lot 4, Spraddle Creek Estates — 1094 Riva Glen 5, Vail Resorts Trampolino — 600 Lionshead Mall 6. Riva Ridge North — 133 Willow Place 7, Baggage Cheque — 141 E. Meadow Drive 8. Vail Village Inn — 100 E. Meadow Drive Driver: George 11:30 am 12:30 pm 1*1))II 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 variance from Section 11- 46 -12B (4) Vail Town Code, to allow for a banner, located at 141 East Meadow Drive /Lot P, Block 5D, Vail Village ls� Filing. Applicant: The Baggage Cheque Planner: George Ruther MOTION: Doug Cahill SECOND: Rollie Kjesbo VOTE: 6 -0 TABLED UNTIL JUNE 24, 2002 2. A request to rezone the Lodge at Lionshead including Tracts I & J, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 1st Filing from Agriculture Open Space (AOS) to Lionshead Mixed Use -1 (LMU -1) and a request to rezone 380 E. Lionshead Circle/Lot 7, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 1st Filing and 360 East Lionshead Circle/Lot 6, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 2nd Filing from High Density Multiple Family (HDMF) and Medium Density Multiple Family (MDMF) to Lionshead Mixed Use -1 (LMU -1). Applicant: Lodge at Lionshead, represented by Jeff Bailey. Planner: Russ Forrest ";t t Ti7W1' O VAIL MOTION:Chas Bernhardt SECOND: Gary Hartman VOTE: 6 -0 RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL TO VAIL TOWN COUNCIL Based Upon The Findings In The Memo And That The Ordinance Consider View Corridor No. 3. i 3. A request for a variance from Section 12 -6H -6 (Setbacks), Vail Town Code, to allow for the construction of a new front entry feature in the front setback at Riva Ridge North, located at 133 Willow Place /Lot 6, Block 6, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: Riva Ridge North Chalets Condo Assoc., represented by Peel /Langenwalter Architects, L.L.C. Planner: Bill Gibson MOTION: Chas Bernhardt SECOND: George Lamb VOTE: 6 -0 APPROVED WITH 2 CONDITIONS: 1. That this approval is contingent upon approval of an associated site coverage variance and Design Review approval. 2. That the applicant executes an encroachment agreement, or similar agreement, as deemed appropriate by Town Staff prior to the application for building permits. 4. A request for an exemption plat to amend a platted building envelope, located at 1094 Riva Glen /Lot 4, Spraddle Creek Estates. Applicant: Spraddle Creek LLC Planner: George Ruther MOTION: Doug Cahill SECOND: Chas Bernhardt VOTE: 6 -0 APPROVED WITH 1 CONDITION: 1. That prior to the PEC chairperson signing the amended plat, the applicant shall submit to the Town of Vail Department of Community Development, a letter of approval to amend the building envelope on Lot 4, from the Spraddle Creek Architectural Control Committee. 5. A request for a variance from Section 12 -6D -6 (Setbacks) Vail Town Code, to allow for an addition in the front setback, located at 4887 Juniper Lane /Lot 713, Block 4, Bighorn 51" Addition. Applicant: Stephen & Jackie Clark Planner: Allison Ochs MOTION: Chas Bernhardt SECOND: Rollie Kjesbo VOTE: 6 -0 APPROVED WITH 1 CONDITION: 1. That prior to Design Review approval, the applicant submit as -built drawings of the dwelling unit so staff can confirm existing GRFA that is on file with the Town of Vail. Should the addition not comply with the GRFA requirements of the Primary/Secondary zone district, the approval of this variance shall be void. 6. A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for a private outdoor recreation facility, located at 600 Lionshead Mall/Tract D, Vail Lionshead 1" Filing. Applicant: Vail Resorts Planner: George Ruther MOTION: Rollie Kjesbo SECOND: George Lamb VOTE: 6 -0 2 APPROVED WITH 6 CONDITIONS: 1. That the applicant shall not be prohibited from using outdoor lighting in the operation of the salto - trampolino. 2. That the applicant submits a revised site plan to the Town of Vail Community Development Department for review and approval of a security fencing plan prior to the construction of the Salto- trampolino. 3. That the applicant shall be prohibited from installing and displaying any form of advertising signage in conjunction with the operation of the salto- trampolino. 4. That the applicant revises the site plan to illustrate the location of the salto - trampolino on the sodded area directly west of the Eagle Bahn Gondola and that the tramploline be constructed a minimum of 30 feet from the edge of the nearest bicycle and /or pedestrian pathway. 5. That the applicant operates the salto- trampolino in accordance the hours of operation and dates outlined in this memorandum. Any changes that increase the hours of operation or lengthens the duration of operation shall require approval of an amended conditional use permit in accordance with Chapter 16 of the Town of Vail Zoning Regulations. 6. That there be an expiration date of May 31, 2003 attached to this approval. 7. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council, of a text amendment to Title 12, Section 2 -2, to amend the definition of "Fraction 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: Doug Cahill VOTE: 5 -0 -1 (Lamb recused) TABLED UNTIL JUNE 24, 2002 8. A request for an amendment to the approved development plan; a request for conditional use permits to allow for the construction of Type IIl EHU's, to allow for an expansion of the Vail Mountain School, to allow for a private outdoor recreation facility, to allow for a private school /educational institution and to allow for temporary modular classroom structures; a request to modify the official Rockfall Hazard Map to indicate approved mitigation; a request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a rezoning from Two - Family Residential to General Use (Tract C); a request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council to amend the land use designation from Low Density Residential to public /Semi- Public (Tract C) and a request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a text amendment to Section 12 -8A -8 (Density) Vail Town Code to amend the GRFA requirements in the Agricultural and Open Space Zone District, located at 3160 Katsos Ran ch Road / Lots 11 & 12, Block 2, Vail Village 12`" Filing and Tract C, Block 1, Vail Village 12 Filing. Applicant: Vail Mountain School, represented by Braun Associates, Inc. Planner: Russ Forrest MOTION: Chas Bernhardt SECOND: Doug Cahill VOTE: 6 -0 TABLED UNTIL JULY 8, 2002 r 9. A request for a major amendment to Special Development District No. 6, Vail Village Inn, to allow for the continued conversion of accommodation units into employee housing units and a request for a conditional use permit, to allow for Type III employee housing units located at the Vail Village Inn, 100 East Meadow Drive /Lots M,N and O, Block 5D, Vail Village 15t Filing. Applicant: Daymer Corporation Planner: Russ Forrest MOTION: Doug Cahill SECOND: Rollie Kjesbo VOTE: 6-0 APPROVAL OF MAJOR AMENDMENT WITH 3 CONDITIONS: 1. That only building # 4 (26 units) be used for conversion to employee housing units. 2. That the approval of this major amendment to Special Development District No. 6 shall not supercede any previous approvals for this special development district. 3. That the Fire Marshal completes an inspection of building 4 prior to second reading of an ordinance amending SDD # 6 to ensure compliance with all applicable fire codes and safety provisions. Specifically annual maintenance is required with the fire suppression and alarm system MOTION: Doug Cahill SECOND: George Lamb VOTE: 6 -0 APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WITH 4 CONDITIONS: 1. That the conditional use permit to allow for Type III employee housing units shall expire on May 1, 2003. 2. That the applicant enters into a written agreement with the Town of Vail in a form approved by the Town Attorney stating that these units shall be used for employee housing until such date that the conditional use permit expires. 3. That only the 26 units in building # 4 be used for employee housing 4. That the Fire Department approve each EHU that will be occupied to ensure Fire Code compliance. 10. A request for a conditional use permit and an amendment to a development plan in the General Use Zone District, to allow for an addition to the Town of Vail Public Works Shops, located at 1289 Elkhorn Drive /Unplatted. Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Victor Mark Donaldson Architects Planner: Allison Ochs MOTION: Doug Cahill SECOND: Gary Hartman VOTE: 6 -0 APPROVAL WITH 1 CONDITION: 1. That prior to submittal for a building permit, the applicant submits additional information regarding erosion control for review and approval so that staff can ensure that proper erosion control measures will be taken. 4 • 0 11. 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 2nd 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 WITHDRAWN 12. A request for a variance from Section 11- 4B -12B (4) Vail Town Code, to allow for a second Business projecting sign, located at 100 East Meadow Drive /Lot O, Block 5D, Vail Village 1 �t Filing. Applicant: Master Gallery Planner: Bill Gibson WITHDRAWN 13. Approval of April 22, 2002 and May 13, 2002 minutes 14. Information Update Staff Approvals 1999 Gore Creek Property Trust PECO2 -0021. George Condominium Plat Review. 303 Gore Creek Drive, Vail Rowhouse /Lot 13, Block 5, Vail Village 15` Filing. Applicant: 1999 Gore Creek property Trust, represented by Jay K. Peterson 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 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: May 13, 2002 SUBJECT: A request for a variance from Section 11- 4B -12B (4) Vail Town Code, to allow for a temporary sale banner, located at 141 East Meadow Drive /Lot P, Block 5D, Vail Village 1" Filing. Applicant: The Baggage Cheque, represented by Colleen McCarthey Planner: George Ruther !. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The Baggage Cheque, represented by the owner Colleen McCarthey, is requesting a variance to allow for a temporary sale banner to be displayed in conjunction with the existing business sign at 141 East Meadow Drive (Crossroads Shopping Center). Section 11- 4B -12B (4) of the Town of Vail Sign Regulations states the following: Number. One sign per vehicular street of major pedestrranway which the business abuts, as determined by the Administrator with a maximum of two (2) signs, subject to design review. This application involves the placement of a 12.5 square foot professional made, weather resistant banner sign above the business' front door entry_ According to the applicant, the purpose of the sign is to announce to customers a SALE EVENT. The banner will be displayed daily between the hours of 10:00 am and 6:00 pm, from June 15, 2002 until September 15, 2002. The display of the banner is pending review by the Design Review Board and must comply with all applicable provisions of the Town's Sign Regulations. The Crossroads Shopping Center is located along East Meadow Drive at the intersection of Willow Bridge Road and East Meadow Drive. According to the Official Town of Vail Zoning Map, the property is zoned Commercial Service Center and is therefore regulated by Chapter 4, Article B of the Sign Regulations. Pursuant to these regulations, the applicant is prohibited from displaying a sign advertising a temporary event (sale). Temporary event signs are permitted as window signs and permitted provided they meet the criteria established for such a sign as prescribed in the sign regulations. According to the sign regulations, in part, `A sign or signs advertising temporary events are exempt from this definition, provided that a single sign does not exceed six (6) square feet with a maximum area of ten (1 D) square feet aggregate for all signs denoting temporary events, provided the sign or signs are removed at the conclusion of the temporary event and not erected prior to ten (10) days • before the event is scheduled to take place. A temporary event is one is which does not last more than thirty (30) consecutive days in any given calendar year." Furthermore, the design guidelines of the sign regulations state, "Temporary signs, other than site development signs, are discouraged except for nonprofit community events and public information signs, which should be located on public information kiosks." The applicant's statement of the nature of the variance request is attached for reference. II. REVIEWING BOARD ROLES The PEC is responsible for evaluating a 12rogosal for: 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity, or to attain the objectives of this Title without grant of special privilege. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. 4. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. Design Review Board: Action; The DRB has NO review authority on a variance, but must review any accompanying DRB application. The DRB is responsible for evaluating the FRB proposal for: - Architectural compatibility with other structures, the land and surroundings - Fitting buildings into landscape - Configuration of building and grading of a site which respects. the topography - Removal /Preservation of trees and native vegetation Adequate provision for snow storage on -site Acceptability of building materials and colors Acceptability of roof elements, eaves, overhangs, and other building forms Provision of landscape and drainage - Provision of fencing, walls, and accessory structures Circulation and access to a site including parking, and site distances Location and design of satellite dishes Provision of outdoor lighting III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Upon review of the criteria outlined in Section IV of this memorandum, the Community Development Department staff recommends denial of the variance request to allow for a temporary sale banner sign, located at 141 East Meadow Drive /Lot P, Block 5D, Vail Village 151 Filing, based upon the following finding(s): 1, That special circumstances or conditions do not apply to the land, building, topography, vegetation, sign structures or other matters on adjacent lots or within the right -of -way, which would substantially restrict the effectiveness of the sign. 2. The variance applied for departs from the provisions of the Vail Town Code more than is required to identify the applicant's business use. IV. CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION — SIGN VARIANCE A. Consideration of factors: 1. Special Circumstances Exist: There are special circumstances or conditions applying to the land, buildings, topography, vegetation, sign structures or other matters on adjacent lots or within the adjacent right -of- way, which would substantially restrict the effectiveness of the sign in question, provided, however, that such special circumstances or conditions are unique to the particular business or enterprise to which the applicant desires to draw attention, and do not apply generally to all businesses or enterprises. The applicant states this variance is necessary to facilitate business identification to pedestrians along East Meadow Drive for the following reasons: 1. Location of applicant's business relative to the pedestrian way along East Meadow Drive. 2. Serious economic hardship 3. Presence of a parking lot separating the customers from the business location. The applicant has stated that the location of her business relative to the location of the pedestrian way results in a special or unique circumstance that necessitates the variance. The Baggage Cheque is located approximately 150 feet from the pedestrian way of East Meadow Drive in the northeast corner of the property. Given the applicant's business location it could not be located further from the pedestrian way. The applicant contends that the sign regulations unjustly limit her business advertising since her allowable sign area is equal to that allowed for businesses located on the south side of East Meadow Drive in the Village Center commercial spaces. The Village Center commercial spaces are located immediately adjacent to the street and are within 30 feet of the centerline of East Meadow Drive. Given the disparity in distance, 30 feet versus 150 feet, the applicant believes that relief from the sign regulations must be granted. Secondly, the applicant contends that given the events of September 11, 2001, her business has suffered exponentially. While it is true that many businesses have felt the negative affects of the September 11 tragedy, a fine luggage and travel accessory business, being directly correlated to the travel industry, her business has felt the affects more than other businesses in town. The applicant believes that the opportunity to display the temporary sale banner will prevent her from losing the business entirely and having to close her doors. f=inally, the applicant argues that the presence of the parking lot and the separation it creates is a physical hardship that requires relief from the strict and literal interpretation of the sign regulations. Studies have shown, all things being equal, that physical separations between retail store fronts and the pedestrian way has negative impacts on the success of a business. The Town of Vail has taken steps in responding to this issue in the adoption of the Lionshead i Redevelopment Master Rfan. In that plan, the Town responds to this issue by creating minimal setbacks from property lines and creating build -to -lines with the intention of improving pedestrian access to retail store fronts. Staff believes that there may be special, unique circumstances on this site that warrant a deviation in the application of the Town's Sign Regulations. Staff, however, does not believe that the remedy to the possible special circumstances is the granting of a variance that would permit a temporary sale banner 12.5 square feet in size. Staff recognizes the impacts that the parking lot separation and distance from the pedestrian way may have on the applicant's business. In an effort to combat against these impacts, staff recommends that, instead of displaying a temporary banner that now all other businesses too will be requesting, the applicant turns the existing sign 90 degrees so that the sign is more easily seen from East Meadow Drive, that the pedestrian access into the Crossroads Shopping Center be improved to eliminate the many existing barriers and impediments, and that the Commission considers a variance for a second joint directory sign. 2. Applicant Not Responsible: That such special circumstances were not created by the applicant or anyone in privy to the applicant. Staff does not believe that there are special, unique circumstances on this site that were created by the applicant or anyone privy to the applicant. Any special 4 0 circumstances that may exist are pre - existing circumstances. 3. Harmony Maintained: That granting of the variance will be in general harmony with the purpose of the sign code, and will not be materially detrimental to the persons residing or working in the vicinity, to adjacent property, to the neighborhood, or to the public welfare in general. Staff believes an approval of this variance request would be materially detrimental to the persons residing or working in the vicinity, to adjacent property, to the neighborhood, or to the public welfare in general_ if this variance request were approved as the solution to the apparent problem, all of the businesses in Crossroads will be before the Planning & Environmental Commission requesting approval of a similar temporary sale banner. Staff believes that other solutions must be pursued. 4. In Line With Provisions: The variance applied for does not depart from the provisions of this Title any more than is required to identify the applicant's business or use. Staff believes that this request departs more from the provisions of the sign regulations than is necessary to address the circumstances. Again, staff recommends that this variance request be denied and that the applicant pursues other more viable and appropriate options. 5. Other f=actors: Such other factors and criteria as the Planning and Environmental Commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. B. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a variance: That special circumstances or conditions apply to the land, building, topography, vegetation, sign structures or other matters on adjacent lots or within the right -of -way, which would substantially restrict the effectiveness of the sign. 2. That such special circumstances were not created by the applicant. 3. That granting the variance will be in general harmony with the purpose of this title and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 4. The variance applied for does not depart from the provisions of the Vail Town Code more than is required to identify the applicant's business use. • Charlie Davis Windstrea m Condos .._.:.. ......:, v_.. �_.. ,. ....� ... �,... _.. ... Page 1 In short, they need to install NFPA 13R fire sprinklers replace all Sensco electrical panels abate asbestos in all disturbed ceilings install addressable fire alarm per code (many of the battery detectors were inoperable) rebuild party walls repair roof rehab fireplaces (red tagged since last fall) CC: Fire Officers • • From: Mike Mcgee To: Charlie Davis Date: 519102 5:31 PM Subject: Windstream Condos In short, they need to install NFPA 13R fire sprinklers replace all Sensco electrical panels abate asbestos in all disturbed ceilings install addressable fire alarm per code (many of the battery detectors were inoperable) rebuild party walls repair roof rehab fireplaces (red tagged since last fall) CC: Fire Officers • • THE BAGGAGE CHEQUE FINE. LUGGAGE & TRAVEL ACCESSORIES 141 E. MEADOW DR. VAIL, CO. 81657 April 13,2002 Town of Vail Dept. of Community Development Planning & Environmental Commission 111 S. Frontage Rd West Vail, CO. S 1657 RE: Sign Code Variance Application. This letter is submitted for your approval to allow The Baggage Cheque, (a luggage and travel related business) to display a professional made, weather resistance banner for the purpose of announcing a SALE EVENT. This sign would be displayed daily between the hours of 10:00a.m. and 6:00p.m , from June 15,2002 thru September 15,2002. Please see photo of requested location. The need for such a request is one of a serious economic hardship. Please let me provide you with brief history. In August of 1999, my landlord gave me [and 4 other local businesses] 30 day notice to vacate. I had been a tenant for over 14 years, in the One Vail Place Bldg. With lawsuit threats and the landlord's decision to sell to Interwest , little choice was left but to re- locate. After being out of business for 7 weeks, surviving a weak winter of 9912000, a marginal summer of 2000, I looked forward to the winter of 2000/2001. My sales showed good growth and I was making a go of a very difficult location, in the Crossroads Shopping Center, along with spending a great deal of money in the local advertising markets. The summer of 2001 was off to a slow start. June proved to be weak and the 0' of July holidays was a disaster. Customer traffic was not making it `s way to the top of Crossroads. I needed to do something quick and radical. After working with a friend as a consultant, it was decided to liquidate merchandise. Convert merchandise to cash and get back on my feet. These were goods that sold in the old location, where window displays and walk by traffic stimulated impulsive purchases. By having a radical sale it provided the necessary cash flow to meet monthly expenses. This sale was held from July 9,2001thru August 11,200I .I promoted the event by having an $'x30" weather - resistance banner. I hung the banner daily between the hours of 10:00a m. and 6:00p.m., in the same location I am now requesting. This marketing choice proved to be successful and provided my business with the cash flow to finish out the summer of 2001. The plan to gear the store towards more travel related goods rather than gifts was taking shape. Then the events of September I 1 'h occurred and sales within travel related business virtually came to a halt. As a business that is travel related as well as tourist dependent, you can appreciate the economic challenges I am facing. Based on my solution for last summer [I was unaware and not notified by the Town of any violation and with the approval of my landlord], I believed I could put up a SALE sign for this season rather than having merchandise outside on a display rack. I have enclosed photographs of the location of where I had the sign last summer and this past winter. The photo's show the sign location as it is seen from Meadow Dr. in front of Village Center. The other photo's are shots from the Meadow Dr. /Crossroads bus stop. In light of the current study by the Town of Vail and the Vail Chamber and Business Association to update the existing sign codes I have been asked to follow this application process. I ask for your help and approval of this temporary request, which I believe to be crucial to the survival of my business in Vail. I am not a big proponent of outdoor displays although I can see outdoor displays in the summer or coinciding with a special holiday or event. I believe the outdoor displays has evolved from the increase in summex temperatures and lack of proper cooling systems within our commercial spaces and a way to encourage shopping within our town. Thank you for your time and consideration of this application and special request. Sincerel , Colleen McCarthy Owner/Mgr. The Baggage Chegi CJ • i U CL 0 0 w cc M Z) z rr LLI 0 W z z LLJ Liz x C IE w 0 0 • • .I • Slifer Management Company Property Management & Leasing April 12, 2002 Town of Vail Department of Community Development 1 l l S. Frontage Road West Vail, CO 81657 Re: The Baggage Cheque To Whom It May Concern: This letter will serve as written approval from the Crossroads of Vail Condominium Association and Trevina L.P., the Landlord, for The Baggage Cheque store to display merchandise and/or a banner in the common area outside of the store. This approval shall be valid unless and until the Association and /or the Landlord chooses to revoke said approval. The Association and the Landlord reserve the right to revoke said approval at any time in the future although neither party expects to do so. We would appreciate it if the Town of Vail would allow The Baggage Cheque to display merchandise and /or a banner in the common area outside of the store as The Baggage Cheque is a valuable part of the Crossroads Shopping Center and this will help the store survive a difficult retail economy and hopefully prosper in the future. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, �•�' W�� Steve Stafford Managing Broker, Slifer Management Company, Inc. President, Crossroads of Vail Condominium Association Managing Agent For Trevina L.P. townoNail l diskyl 143 East Meadow Drive, Suite 360, Vail, Colorado 81657 ln1 n% At7L 1^ T 1 -L- ff5"7./�1 1-1 -- • • • MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: June 10, 2002 SUBJECT: A request to rezone the Lodge at Lionshead includingTracts I & J, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 15t Filing from Agriculture Open Space (AOS) to Lionshead Mixed Use —1 (LMU -1) and a request to rezone 380 E. Lionshead Circle /Lot 7, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 1st Filing and 360 East Lionshead Circle /Lot 6, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 2nd Filing from High Density Multiple Family (HDMF) and Medium Density Multiple Family (MDMF) to Lionshead Mixed Use -1 (LMU -1). Applicant: Lodge at Lionshead represented by Jeff Bailey Planner: Russell Forrest • DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST This is a request to rezone the Lodge at Lionshead including Tracts I & J, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 1 St Filing from Agriculture Open Space (AOS) to Lionshead Mixed Use —1 (LMU - 1) and a request to rezone 380 E. Lionshead Circle /Lot 7, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 1St Filing and 360 East Lionshead CirclelLot 6, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 2 d Filing from High Density Multiple Family (HDMF) and Medium Density Multiple Family (MDMF) to Lionshead Mixed Use —1 (LMU -1) (See attachment A). The Lodge at Lionshead is in the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan study area. However, based on a request from the property owners both the Lodge at Lionshead and Vail International were excluded from a multiple property rezoning that occurred in 1999 to begin the Lionshead Master Redevelopment Plan implementation. The property owners of the Lodge at Lionshead are now requesting to be rezoned to Lionshead Mixed Use -1 Zoning. The applicant is not proposing any physical changes at this time. 11. BACKGROUND AND HISTORY OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES The Lodge at Lionshead has three phases (I, II, & lll), Phases 1 and 11 are zoned High Density Multi Family. Phase III consists of two zone district with 29 % of the property zoned High Density Multi - Family and the other 71 % zoned Medium Density Multi Family. The existing Phase III structure is predominantly in the High Density Multi - Family Zone District which is the north side of the Phase Ill site. • The Lionshead Master Redevelopment Plan was adopted in December of 1998. The study area included the land between Middle Creek and Red Sandstone Creek south of 1 -79 (see exhibit below). In 1999, the Town initiated a rezoning proposal for the study area to Lionshead Mixed Use I and II. Two properties were eliminated from this rezoning at the owner's request. Those properties included the Lodge at Lionshead and Vail International. All other properties were rezoned to LMU —1 or LMU — 2 in the Lionshead Master Plan study area in 1999. The Land Use Plan designation for this area is Tourist Commercial. Lionshead Master Plan Study Area III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION REZONING The Department of Community Development recommends the Planning and Environmental Commission forward a recommendation of approval of the proposed rezoning to the Vail Town Council, based upon the criteria for evaluation listed in Section VI of this memorandum and the following findings: 1. The proposed rezoning is consistent with the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan, Lionshead Master Redevelopment 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. 2 0 • • 3. That the proposed rezoning is in the best interest of the public health, welfare and safety. IV. ROLES OF THE REVIEWING BOARDS ZONING /REZONING 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. Design Review Board: Action: The DRB has NO review authority on zoning /rezonings. 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 approval /denial of a zoning /rezoning, The Town Council shall review and approve the proposal based 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. V. ANALYSIS OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL The following tables summarize the development statistics for Phases 1 through III and Tracts I and J. Again, it should be noted that Phase III has both High Density Multi - Family (HDMF) and Medium Density Multi - Family (MDMF) Zoning on the property. Tracts I & J are both zoned Agriculture Open Space (AOS). Zoning Analysis for Phases I- III Description Current Zonin g Lionshead Mixed Use 1 Zoning Phase 18.11 Phase III Phase I &III Phase III Zoning HDMF HDMF (29 %) LMU1 (proposed) LMU 1 MDMF 71% (proposed) Lot Area 59,629 (1.3 12,399 (HDMF) 59,629 421785 acres) 30,377 MDMF 42,785 Total GRFA Allowed 35,777 18,077+ 1,917 134,165 106,962 (250 credit on MDMF) Total = 19,990 GRFA Existing 57,841 20,043 57,841 20,043 Site Coverage 32,796 20,109 41,740 29,949 Allowed Site Coverage 161796 11,626 16,796 11,626 Existing Height Allowed 48' sloping 38' sloping roof 71 (ave) /82.5' 71 (ave) /82.5' roof max max Height Existing 51' 40' 51' 40' Setback 20' Front, 20' Front, Back 10' Front, Back & 10' Front, Back Allowed Back & Side & Side Side & Side Setbacks Front: 30' Front:512' Front: 30' Front:51.2' Existing Rear: 35' Rear:32.1' Rear: 35' Rear:32.1' Side 1: 6.3' Side 1: 23.6' Side 1: 6.3' Side 1: 23.6' Side 2: 3.5' Side 2: 6.3' Side 2: 3.5' Side 2: 6.3' Allowed Density 25 /acre 25 1acre (HDMF) 35 1acre or 33% 35 /acre or 33% 18 /acre increase increase „(MDMF) whichever is whichever is greater greater Existing Density 31.5 1acre 12.54/acre 31.5 /acre 12.54 /acre Dwelling Units 41 12 41 12 Required 82 24 82 24 Parking (2 per du assuming D.U. range from 500 -2000 s . ft. Existing Parking 45 18 45 18 • • 0 • Zoning Analysis for Tracts I and J Description Current Zoning Lionshead Mixed Use i Zoning Tract I Tract J Tract I Tract J Zoning Agricultural Open Agricultural Open LMU -1 (proposed) LMU -1 Space (AOS) Space (AOS ro osed Lot Area 5,326 sq. ft 5,156 sq. ft. 5,326 sq ft 5,158 sq. ft. GRFA One dwelling One dwelling 13,315 12,895 Allowed shall be allowed shall be allowed on a lot or parcel on a lot or parcel of less than 35 of less than 35 acres which acres which contains 1 acre of contains 1 acre of buildable area. buildable area. Such dwelling Such dwelling shall not exceed shall not exceed 2000 square feet 2000 square feet of GRFA of GRFA GRFA 0 0 0 0 Existing Site 266 257 3,728 3,610 Coverage Allowed Site 0 0 Coverage Existing Height 33' sloping roof 33' sloping roof 71 (ave)f82.5 71 (ave)182.5 Allowed max max Height 0 0 0 0 Existing Setback 20' Front, 15' 20' Front, 10' Front, Back & 10' Front, Back Allowed Back & 15' Side 15' Back Side & Side 15' Side Setbacks NIA N/A Existing Allowed 1/35 acres or 1/35 acres or 35/acre or 33% 35 /acre or 33% Density 1 /acre of 1 /acre of increase increase buildable area buildable area whichever is whichever is greater greater Existing 0 0 31.5/acre 12.54/acre Density Dwelling 0 0 41 12 Units I►'J.a Summary of Potential Floor Area Change Total existing GRFA today_ 77,884 sq. ft. Total GRFA with LMU Zoning: 267,340 sq. ft Difference: 189,456 sq. ft. (over existing) REZONING REQUEST; CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION The Town of Vail 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 master plans, 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 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. REZONING CRITERIA Before acting on an application for a zone district boundary amendment, the Planning & Environmental Commission and Town Council shall consider the following factors with respect to the requested zone district boundary amendment: 1) The extent to which the zone district amendment is consistent with all the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan and is compatible with the development objectives of the Town This property is located in the Lionshead Master Plan study area. Based on the purpose statement of the Lionshead Master Plan and the objectives of the Lionshead Master Plan this rezoning would achieve the municipal objectives. Specifically the objectives of the Lionshead Master Plan include: Policy Objective 2.3.1: "Lionshead can and should be renewed to become warmer, more vibrant environment for guests and residents. Lionshead needs and appealing and coherent identity, a sense of place, personality, 6 • a purpose, and an improved aesthetic character." Taking advantage of the development rights proved by LMU will require the owners to also implement the design guidelines in the Lionshead Master Plan. Policy Objectives 2.3.3 "In order to enhance the vitality and viability of Vail, renewal and redevelopment in Lionshead must promote improve occupancy rates and the creation of additional bed base through new lodging products." Rezoning to LMU -1 will provide strong incentives for creating warm beds in that accommodation units, fractional fee units, and employee housing units do not count towards density. Policy Objective 2.3.6: "Financially creative fiscally y realistic strategies must be identified so that adequate capital may be raised from all possible sources to fund desired private and public improvements." This rezoning wilt provide revenue opportunities to enhance the overali character of the property consistent with the deign guidelines of the Master Plan, 2) The extent to which the zone district amendment is suitable with the existing and potential land uses on the site and existing and potential surrounding land uses as set out in the Town's adopted planning documents Staff believes that the existing zoning designations is generally suitable with the existing land use on the site and adjacent uses. However, the rezoning requests will allow for redevelopment which is more suitable to the Town's objectives. In addition, zoning in the Town of Vail is parcel based. Phase III has two zone districts on one parcel. This proposal would create one zone district for the entire property. In addition, the property currently exceeds height, GRFA, setbacks, and density standards given the existing zoning. The proposed rezoning to LMU - 1 would reduce or eliminate the (legal) non - conformity on the property with the exception of parking and side setbacks. The rezoning is consistent with the Lionshead Master Plan and the Tourist Commercial designation in the Land Use Plan. The adjacent uses include Town of Vail lands such as the Library, Parking Structure, and Stream Tract. The only private adjacent use is Tree Tops Condominiums which is zoned Lionshead Mixed Use 1. Any future redevelopment would need to continue to promote and enhance the existing stream walk. The Plan would require step back from the streamwalk to help ensure a comfortable pedestrian experience. The Lionshead Master Plan also identifies a view corridor over Phase III of the Lodge at Lionshead that could impact height and limit the height of any future redevelopment on the east side of the building, 9 i 3) The extent to which the zone district amendment presents a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land uses consistent with municipal development objectives This area is in the Lionshead Master Plan area and the Plan recommends that this area be rezoned to Lionshead Mixed Use 1 District. The plan contemplates how Gore Creek separates the multi- family and guest accommodation from the low density residential area on the south side of Gore Creek. The Library buffers this site from the Low Density Residential area to the east. 4) The extent to which the zone district amendment provides for the growth of an orderly viable community and does not constitute spot zoning as the amendment serves the best interests of the community as a whole; and In accordance with tha provisions of the Town of Vail Zoning and Subdivision Regulations and the Lionshead Master Plan, staff believes this rezoning provides for the growth of an orderly viable community. The proposed amendment would place the Lodge at Lionshead in one zone district versus three, which would simplify planning for potential future redevelopment. The density provided with the Lionshead Mixed Use — 1 zoning would help facilitate redevelopment consistent with the design guidelines of the Master Plan and incentives the creation of accommodation units, lodge units, and /or fractional fee units. • 5) The extent to which the zone district amendment results in adverse or beneficial impacts on the natural environment, including but not limited to water quality, air quality, noise, vegetation, riparian corridors, hillsides and other desirable natural features The riparian area along Gore Creek is on Town Land. This rezoning should have no significant impact on the natural environment. 6) The extent to which the zone district amendment is consistent with the purpose statement of the proposed zone district. The use of the site is consistent with the purpose statement of the Lionshead Mixed Use Zone District. This purpose statement is: "intended to provide sites for a mixture of multiple- family dwellings, lodges, hotels, fractional fee clubs, time shares, lodge dwelling units, restaurants, offices, skier services, and commercial establishments in a clustered, unified development. Lionshead Mixed Use 1 District, in accordance with the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of buildings and uses and to maintain the desirable qualities of the District by establishing appropriate site development standards. This District is meant to Q 40 encourage and provide incentives for redevelopment in accordance with the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan." 7) The extent to which the zone district amendment demonstrates how conditions have changed since the zoning designation of the subject property was adopted and is no longer appropriate. Since the property was placed in its current zoning, the property was incorporated into the Lionshead Mater Plan study area in 1998. The current zoning is not inappropriate for the existing use. However, LMU 1 zoning would decrease several of the non conforming development parameters on the site. 8) Such other factors and criteria as the Commission and/or Council deem applicable to the proposed rezoning. Necessary Findings: Before recommending and/or granting an approval of an application for a zone district boundary amendment the Planning & Environmental Commission and the Town Council shall make the following findings with respect to the requested amendment: 1) That the amendment is consistent with the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan and compatible with the development objectives of the Town; and 2) That the amendment is compatible with and suitable to adjacent uses and appropriate for the surrounding areas; and 3) That the amendment promotes the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the Town and promotes the coordinated and harmonious development of the Town in a manner that conserves and enhances its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of the highest quality. 0 • 0 Attachment A Proximity Map & Current Zoning ALATTED I Lodge at Lionshead Addrr..0 - h# Block. -teal 91ro,ts 1.# Saundry B..n Subtll•Isims ulltllnps Crr.t Faf(x} pwo SODS ;nna ❑Idrlcl. EAST I.IONSHEAD CIRCILE �1'tl,nll.I 31np1. Famly - - - 7.w -rrmay Racd,rllal �.. FN mvy 3--dwY Rrsltlrnllrr R—id, hal Ciu.tr 45 �1.0 �,f. Law O.nsity Multl pie Family . M.d1um O.n.dy Wutlplr Famlly . Hlgh C,n.ity Mu"IPTO Famlly . - Publlo Amam M1ipdatian CC mow, - -,= 6ammvaisi Car.1 G �pry, V w7 - Cammrr W Gar:] C . — -i, Carr3 L` LLo Nad?A -d Ustl1 V - '. Lf -:h..d m—d u, 2 452 - f .- . - � : Cam —i,t S-,Aa. C.ne.r Arttrial S.A—s - Hovy $rrNM - f Autdoor R.cn.ldon T l�,�,� � Agri wturai d -r` up. V3paa. 6ki bas. R,ore.11cn P.Wnp ALATTED I • • 11 EMORANDUM TO: Planning and 'Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: June 10, 2002 SUBJECT: A request for a variance from Section 12 -6H -6 (Setbacks), Vail Town Code, to allow for the construction of a new entry feature in the setback at Riva Ridge North, located at 133 Willow Place /Lot 6, Block 6, Vail Village 1" Filing. Applicant: Riva Ridge North Chalets Condo Assoc., represented by Peel /Langenwalter Architects, L.L.C. Planner: Bill Gibson I. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant, Riva Ridge North Chalets Condo Association, represented by Peel /Langenwalter Architects, L.L.C, is requesting a variance from Section 12 -6H -6 (Setbacks), Vail Town Code, to allow for the construction of a new entry feature in the setback at Riva Ridge North, located at 133 Willow Place /Lot 6, Block 6, Vail Village 1" Filing. The proposed new entry feature will replace the existing entry located on the east side of the Riva Ridge North building along Gore Creek Drive. The existing entry is currently located within the front setback and within the Gore Creek Drive right -of -way. The proposed front entry feature will also be located within the front setback and within the Gore Creek Drive right -of- way. In comparison to the existing entry, the proposed new entry feature will be located approximately 10 inches further away from the edge of asphalt of Gore Creek Drive; however, the overall width of the proposed entry will be approximately 4 feet 6 inches wider than the existing entry. Drawings of the proposed entry feature have been attached for reference. The construction of this proposed entry feature will also require the Planning and Environmental Commission's approval of a site coverage variance. Please be aware, that a site coverage variance request for this proposed entry feature has been scheduled for review by the Planning and Environmental Commission at its June 24, 2002 public hearing. If approved, the applicant will be required to execute an encroachment agreement with the Town of Vail to accommodate this proposed construction within the Gore Creek Drive right -of- way. TO NV OF' 4'A '� II. BACKGROUND At its March 20, 2002 public hearing, the Town of Vail Design Review Board conceptually reviewed the proposed new entry feature at Riva Ridge North. The Design Review Board was generally supportive of the proposal and encouraged the applicant to proceed through the Town's development review process. Since Riva Ridge North is proposing to construct a portion of its new entry feature on Town of Vail property (i.e. the Gore Creek Drive right -of -way), Town Council permission is required to proceed through the development review process. At its Tuesday, May 7, 2002 public hearing, the Town Council, acting as the property owner of the Gore Creek Drive right -of -way, granted the applicant permission to proceed through the development review process. III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends that the Planning and Environmental Commission approve the applicant's request for a variance from Section 12 -6H -6 (Setbacks), Vail Town Code, to allow for the construction of a new entry feature in the setback at Riva Ridge North, located at 133 Willow Place. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve this variance request, the Community Development Department recommends the following conditions: 1. That this approval is contingent upon approval of an associated site coverage variance and Design Review approval. 0 2. That the applicant executes an encroachment agreement, or similar agreement, as deemed appropriate by Town Staff prior to the application for building permits. IV. REVIEWING BOARD ROLES The PEC is responsible for evaluating a proposal for: 1, The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity, or to attain the objectives of this Title without grant of special privilege. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. • 2 Design-Review Board: Action: The DRB has NO review authority on a variance, but must review any accompanying DRB application. The DRB is responsible for evaluating the DRB proposal for: - Architectural compatibility with other structures, the land and surroundings - Fitting buildings into landscape - Configuration of building and grading of a site which respects the topography - Removal /Preservation of trees and native vegetation - Adequate provision for snow storage on -site - Acceptability of building materials and colors Acceptability of roof elements, eaves, overhangs, and other building forms Provision of landscape and drainage Provision of fencing, walls, and accessory structures Circulation and access to a site including parking, and site distances Location and design of satellite dishes Provision of outdoor lighting 0 V. ZONING STATISTICS Lot Size: 11,930 sq.ft. (0.274 acres) Zoning: High Density Multiple Family Development Standard Setbacks: East: South: North: West: Site Coverage: GRFA Allowed /Required Existing Proposed 20 ft. 0 ft. 0 ft. 20 ft. 6 ft. No Change 20 ft. 9 ft. No Change 20 ft. 4 ft. No Change 6,566 sq.ft. (55 %) 7,133 sq.ft. (60 %) 7,151 sq.ft. (60 %d) 7,158 sq.ft. 13,466 sq.ft. No Change 3 VI. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS ri A. Consideration of Factors Regarding the Setback Variances: 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. This proposed entry feature is in keeping with the architectural character of the neighborhood since the design of this proposed entry is based upon the design of the entry feature at the adjacent Riva Ridge South, located at 114 Willow Place. This proposed entry feature will replace the existing entry for Riva Ridge North along Gore Creek Drive, therefore staff does not believe there will be any change in use or change in intensity of use associated with this proposal. Staff believes that the proposed entry will aesthetically benefit the neighborhood; and that there are no other significant changes from the current conditions in relationship to the existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. Therefore, Staff does not believe that there will be any additional negative impacts associated with this proposal in comparison to current conditions to the other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without a grant of special privilege. Staff believes the applicant has requested the minimum amount of relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of the setback regulations necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity among sites in the vicinity of Riva Ridge North and within the High Density Multiple Family Zone District. Staff believes the proposed encroachment into the required setback is warranted and will not result in a special privilege as Riva Ridge North was constructed prior to the adoption of zoning regulations within the Town of Vail. Since the existing Riva Ridge North building has been constructed within less than 2 feet from the east property boundary and the east building entrance door is located within less than 10 feet of the east property boundary, any construction of an east entry feature will require approval of a variance from the required 20 foot setback. Staff believes this to be an extraordinary circumstance and exceptional condition. Therefore, Staff does not believe this proposal will constitute a grant of special privilege. I� 2 • 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. Even though this proposed entry feature is a total of 4 feet 6 inches wider than the existing entry feature, the proposed entry will be located 10 inches further away from the edge of asphalt of Gore Creek Drive. Staff believes that the scope of the proposed changes to the Riva Ridge North entry is minor; and Staff believes that the proposed new entry feature at Riva Ridge North will not have any additional significant affects on light and air, population distribution, pedestrian and vehicular traffic, snow removal, drainage, public facilities and utilities, public safety, etc. along Gore Creek Drive in comparison to the existing conditions. B. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting anting a variance: That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. C. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. 5 peel /langenwalter architects, I.I.c. david nark peel, a.i.a. kathy iangenwalter, a.i.a. 2588 arosa drive p.o. box 1202 Vail, co 81658 970- 476 -4506 970 -476 -4572 fax Application_. for a Variance Riga Ridge North Condominiums 133 Willow Place, Vail, Colorado Lot 6, Block 6, Vail Village 1 st Filing Variance Description The current proposal is to replace the existing east entry stair and roof canopy structure of Riva Ridge North Condominiums. The new stairway, columns and roof structure will create a more appealing entrance to the building in scale with the exterior elevation, The construction of the new entry will take place at the same time as a proposed exterior remodel of the entire building. The existing entry stairs and roof structure currently encroach into the required 20' front setback along Gore Creek Circle and also into the roadway right -of -way. Varying the footprint of the existing entry slightly will require a setback variance and possibly a revised encroachment agreement. The current proposal reduces the encroachment of the columns toward the street by approximately 10 ". The total width of the piers increases approximately 4' -0 ". The roof structure encroachment toward the street remains the same as the existing roof. The total width of the new roof increases proportionately by approximately 4' -6 ". Since the existing entrance structure and, in fact, the building itself, already encroach into the setback, a strict or literal interpretation of the required front setback would impose a physical hardship on the project. In a practical sense, access to the building's front entry door from Gore Creek Circle could not be achieved, The exterior remodel of the building, including the revised entry, received conceptual approval from the Design Review Board on January 1.6, 2002. At that time, the DRB expressed their encouragement to proceed with the new entry proposal and the required PEC variance process. peel /langenwalter architects, I.I.c. david mark peel, a.i.a. kathy langenwaiter, a1a. 2588 arosa drive p.o. box 1202 wail, co 81658 970- 476 -4506 970 -476 -4572 fax AwAication for a Variance Riva Rid a North Condominiums 133 Willow Road, Vail, Colorado Lot 6, Block 6, Vail Village 1 st Filing Consideration of Factors A. The proposed, revised entry will have no new major impact on existing or potential uses or structures in the vicinity. In essence, it replaces an existing, non - conforming condition with a more attractive solution with better proportions. The encroachment of the support columns toward the street is actually reduced (approximately 16 "), while the gable end roof overhang encroachment remains the same. The width (footprint) of the columns and the width of the roof overhang do increase in the side -to -side dimension. The pier width increases approximately 4' -6" and the total roof eave overhang dimension increases approximately 4' -6 ". However, these increases are parallel to Gore Creek Circle and the property line, minimizing conflict with the existing street conditions. B. The proposal is a new design solution to an existing condition. Relief from the strict or literal interpretation of the front setback requirement is necessary to achieve compatibility with the original building entry location. Due to similar, non - conforming situations in nearby properties, we do not feel that this variance will be a grant of special privilege. Again, since the current entry, along with similar encroachments in the vicinity, is an existing condition, uniformity of treatment is maintained. C. Since the proposed new entry replaces an existing condition and does not encroach any further into the right -of -way, the variance will have no significant additional impact on light and air, distribution of population, transportation, traffic facilities, utilities and public safety. • There was some thought that the two existing handicapped parking spaces north of the entry and the two regular spaces to the south may have to be revised. However, since the spaces currently are located to the east side of the existing piers, and the new piers are moved closer to the building, no significant revisions should be necessary. D. We believe that the proposal is compatible with Vail's planning policies, design standards and development objectives. The new main entry, along with the total exterior remodel of the building, will enhance the aesthetic experience of Gore Creek Circle and the west end of Gore Creek Drive. The Vail Village Master Plan states, "There is a need to continually maintain and upgrade the quality of existing buildings, as well as streets, walks and utility services." Goal #1, the encouragement of high quality redevelopment while preserving the unique architectural scale of the village, has as one of it's objectives to "encourage the upgrading and redevelopment of residential and commercial facilities." Goal #2, the fostering of a stronger tourist industry, encourages "the continued upgrading, renovation and maintenance of existing lodging and commercial facilities to better serve our guests_" Goal #3 has the enhancement of the walking experience throughout the village as a top priority. Again, we believe the new entry and building remodel is in keeping with the above objectives and will help preserve and strengthen the Tyrolian and Alpine character of Vail Village. i • 0 a qw 40.0 ,0 4r x�3Q W � Y H. � b O 0 OMIU 1SHU 3JYIIVI WA '9 XW113 '9 10I u3f�NLk40N 3301t! YA1N ••• SrilVMY10ONO7 FUUON 3001N VAINro 31Yh--. 13D NC7II.YOO -1 JN�AOlWM c+ r i 1 V � N < 1 7 •^ i 7 � �• r A b! 3 0 w o. 3 a 'o p yea P� �(�w pi % M t} t 0 P fy 0 my UN 0 V Q � 0 dl 3 ? Z O N Z r• y J H U W J V -5.2 co E PAL C6 p In c a YV N 0 CO 0 [R1 (d �Y � r`? F'') ro c i o E—. In A iii n �G PI 6�w c 11 li ED eaE.do II II It o m '2 G d 001 i x � w V c Y i_..:w E . c Y �cpn>. Y acted r a-•a�, nu �� a E~ d OI O i fr u m a2 P of S ° rr }O :Es °Y co `u .i m � l>< a tim f l � I l �s• ,per • ` � 2 n 4 e� b l � b! 3 0 w o. axJO�� a 'o p yea P� �(�w pi % M t} U p Y w w P fy uarc�Q my c a V Q h.r° c N yr ` i1I U E Y r y J H U O V -5.2 % Y E PAL �o c a YV Gd di ro c i o E—. �G PI 6�w ��+ vj Co ED eaE.do Qr i '2 G d no w V c Y i_..:w E . c Y �cpn>. Y acted r a-•a�, nu �� a E~ d - P G� •9 S ° Y � G :Es °Y `u .i ce ,per pE —Y ucef. a U [3 ®s Y M dl� Lr :�03p W J Z M m .7� C.i Q O 11f - 'C '• J m ,� f9► X30 It U-) (N CV IV 0 SRI f 1 ` ai Cv 0 W) fr rr Q? 4fo A w a 'o p yea P� �(�w CD '� cd i SW fy uarc�Q my nin apto o }ao0t zK) h.r° c N yr ` i1I U E Y r y J H U O V -5.2 o z ox uwyrr �� y �OU¢Y FFY ¢¢d - yw9a wcw Gd di ro c i o E—. Qt}b op W W G c ca a s V Q 4 9 Q C w6 Y tn CQ a 'o p yea P� �(�w 4-l- L US S.- oOe fy uarc�Q ti�4� a 4 c o,o`•° c a $�S [AC u•��+�E4 C'� p�� E Y r p� C U � c s� • W C Q d N o Z 9 9 d d v 0103d cn I I o NI � o as Cfl N a) o • c a` 5UEgJOnd Ioo, MaN deb ado9S ds:) adolS C 0 luawgoeoloua aseq auoIs MGN cn luawgotoloua jellid � oiaq 6ui;six�j U a� to CL rnE � Cs .� CO C m �r �-+ cm L L ca c 'x Q a •LI w Q `o w `cu •L O 0 CIS O.R LL —co 4 `. lu > U s� • W C Q d N o Z 9 9 d d v 0103d cn I I o NI � o as Cfl N a) o • c a` 5UEgJOnd Ioo, MaN deb ado9S ds:) adolS C 0 luawgoeoloua aseq auoIs MGN cn luawgotoloua jellid � oiaq 6ui;six�j U Qa V Q: rQ V t I I a L CL- 0 co to CL rnE � Cs .� E u- �-+ En L L L Y- O W � U W `cu O O.R - 4 `. lu > U cu V ul of co 4) ; co w Qa V Q: rQ V t I I a L CL- 0 E rnE � Cs .� E u- �-+ L L L Y- O W > U m C) W `cu C G O.R - 4 `. lu > U cu V ® Q (D E Qa V Q: rQ V t I I a L CL- 0 E cn � C E u- �-+ L L 'g Y- O W O m C) `cu Z � lu > U cu V ® Q cz 4) ; •EJ� o co Qa V Q: rQ V t I I a L CL- 0 N +r U co (n [43 Cl L) . M CM E C = C U Q) C Q O CL n .0 C Q q- U Z7 C (m p � Co E U Ci C W Q U A c} 0 ' `a '7 Q 0, p � m X � x C O cm d7 a _-E cs �c E O ca - co ca Zn � O U U co z _� n ._j V- a M L C I�� C] Cl. s +. (n [43 �] 'a E C = C U 2C � C r CL C 0' © q- U 4� C CL � Co E U O W Q U A c} 0 ' `a '7 Q 0, p � m X � x C O cm d7 a _-E cs �c E E • E ro - co ca Zn C%4 co co Uji U C 3 w� c O U) Q 4-1 m (n C RS O N CL �] 'a E C = C i CL 2C IZ 0 C `— E = O CL � Co O W Q U ' CO > ? a CD �- U �oQ � co > �. m z _� n ._j V- a Q 4-1 m C RS O N CL �] 'a q� Q �rr o ( C = C i CL cu IZ 0 r Q 4-1 m p W N7 0. O E 0 (1) o � CL O J m C 0 0 0) c r L Z > U c > U .E cu > �. m cV 'x x W co p W 0 V) 0. O — 'cc 0 (1) o � CL O a a) c .> 0 0 0) c r L Z > U c > U — O C? cu > �. m c° U) .� a w (1) H co U _ Q ti rr -E _� m -C cn O LLI 0 0 0) r- L Z > U O U — O C? cu > �. m J r Q ti rr •- cn r- •- • • r- O " dt T a q _ cv f m @a. �c �° a 21 M.x 0 Q1 °a _:t o c � � N W C O 0 0 o CO o a 7 m U p A Zd a) 3 v a 01 z U tO N . m -0 CL o df U • • r- O " dt T a q _ cv m @a. �c �° a 21 M.x 0 Q1 E d) E O N (A Lo cl p N W C O © . 0 CO o O r co C d1 y •N d "' � CI D N 0 X 4).o E Q vl L) v°�-"• aim a�sE Z c z z'y L L IC E_ U� � C- LU 3t a c v� al �o O .ro m E Cn E c .� m � •� d m n �_ cn an � c°3. m c� U i7 .Co ul ? Vl 7 d7 j R �zU3: t � C71 � x d! jt U � lq _ CL 0 R] CL' m 0 Loa 0 foul �'1 tnt CL M r so ay S] U C N W C I' C !f. CUi7 U C G5. -0 CL o df U fh 3" c N Q 3E z z, 0 MEMORANDUM • TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: June 10, 2002 SUBJECT: A request for a minor subdivision to revise the building envelope, located at 1094 R'rva Glen /Lot 4, Spraddle Creek Estates. Applicant: Spraddle Creek L.L.C., represented by Michael English Planner: George Ruther DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant, Spraddle Creek L.L.C., represented by Michael English is requesting a minor subdivision to revise the previously platted building envelope on Lot 4, Spraddle Creek Estates Subdivision. The existing envelope is 15,202 sq ft. The proposal would expand the northwest portion of the building envelope by about 1,200 sq ft (or about 8%); and reduce the southwest portion of the building envelope by an equal amount; resuiting in no net change in the size of the building envelope; see attached plan. The proposal is intended to facilitate the siting of a new residence and is consistent with a previous minor subdivision approval granted by the Planning & Environrnental Commission for the lot that has since lapsed and become null and void. II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends approval of the applicant's request for a minor subdivision to amend the platted building envelope on Lot 4, Spraddle Creek Estates Subdivision. Staff's recommendation for approval is based upon the review of the criteria outlined in this staff memorandum and subject to the following finding: That the request has met the criteria and requirements of Title 13 of the Vail Town Code. Should the Planning & Environmental Commission choose to approve the request for a minor subdivision to Lot 4, Spraddle Creek Estates to amend the previously platted building envelope, the Community Development Department recommends the following condition: That prior to the PEC chairperson signing the amended plat, the applicant shall submit to the Town of Vail Department of Community Development, a letter of approval to amend the building envelope on Lot 4, from the Spraddle Creek Architectural Control Committee. Jod ev/pec/memos/02/spraddl ecree ken velopeam end men t 0610 *IvL TOWN O III. BACKGROUND 0 The Spraddle Creek Estates Subdivision is zoned Hillside Residential (HR), and is generally located northeast of the Main Vail Roundabout. The Planning & Environmental Commission (PEC) approved the final plat for the Spraddle Creek Estates on February 11, 1991. The final plat illustrates the location of site specific building envelopes for the fourteen sites within the subdivision boundaries. On July 28, 1997, the PEC approved a minor subdivision request to revise the building envelope on the subject lot. The proposal was intended to facilitate access to both the subject lot and the neighboring Lot 3, Spraddle Creek Estates to the south. On December 28, 1998, the PEC approved a minor subdivision to revise the previously amended building envelope. This second amendment was requested after changes had occurred to the conceptual site plans for the proposed residence on Lot 4. In approving the amendment, however, the Planning & Environmental Commission placed a condition on the approval requiring that the applicant submit a letter of approval from the Spraddle Creek Architectural Control Committee authorizing the proposed amendment. The approved amendment was never platted by the applicant, and pursuant to the limitations outlined in Chapter 3, Title 12 Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code, on December 28, 2000, the Planning & Environmental Commission approval lapsed. IV. MINOR SUBDIVISION CRITERIA One basic premise of the Town's subdivision regulations is that the minimum standards for the creation of a new lot must be met. Although this building envelope amendment involves a minor replatting of an existing lot, there is no other process for review of such a request other than the minor subdivision process. As a result, this proposal will be reviewed under the same criteria as a minor subdivision, pursuant to Title 13 of the Vail Town Code. The first set of review criteria to be considered by the PEC for a minor subdivision application is as follows: A. Lot Area Section 12 -6A -5, Vail Town Code indicates that the minimum lot or site area for a property located within the Hillside Residential Zone District, shall be 21,780 sq. ft. (112 acre) of buildable area. Section 12 -2 -2 of the VailTown Code defines "buildable area" as any site, lot, parcel or any portion of it, which does not contain designated floodplain, red hazard avalanche, or areas in excess of 40% slope. B. Frontage Section 12 -6A -5, Vail Town Code requires that platted lots in the Hillside Residential Zone District have a minimum frontage of 50'. C. Site Dimensions • :/ cdev/ pec/ rnemos102 /spraddlecreekenveIo pea mend ment 0610 • Section 12 -6A -5, Vail Town Code requires that each platted lot be of a size and a shape capable of enclosing a square area of 80 feet on each side, within its boundaries. STAFF RESPONSE: Lot 4 currently meets the lot area, frontage and site dimensions requirements. The proposal would not affect compliance with these requirements. The second set of review criteria to be considered by the PECwith a minor subdivision request, as outlined in the subdivision regulations, is as follows: "The burden of proof shall rest with the applicant to show that the applicant is in compliance with the intended purpose of this Chapter, the zoning ordinance and other pertinent regulations that the PEC deems applicable. Due consideration shall be given to the recommendations by public agencies, utility companies and other agencies consulted under Section 13 -3 -3C. The PEC 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] effects on the aesthetics of the Town. STAFF RESPONSE: The proposal would not have any significant impact on any of the above. The amendment as proposed is consistent with the original intent of the originally platted building envelope. This proposal will not result in any new development encroaching upon naturally sensitive areas, alter the approved density in any way, affect the ability to obtain necessary utilities to the building envelope or negatively impact the aesthetic qualities of the Town. The third set of criteria to be considered by the PEC with a minor subdivision request, as outlined in Section 13 -1 -2C, Vail Town Code, the subdivision purpose statement are as follows: 1. To inform each subdivider of the standards and criteria by which development and proposals will be evaluated and to provide information as to the type and extent of improvements required. 2. To provide for the subdivision of property in the future without conflict with development on adjacent property. 3. To protect and conserve the value of land throughout the municipality and the value of buildings and improvements on the land. 4. To insure that subdivision of property is in compliance with the Town Zoning Ordinance, to achieve a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land uses, consistent with municipal development objectives. 5. To guide public and private policy and action in order to provide adequate and efficient transportation, water, sewage, schools, parks, playgrounds, recreational J cdev/ pecimemos/ D2 'spraddIe creek envelopea mend ment 0610 and other public requirements and facilities and generally to provide that public facilities will have sufficient capacity to serve the proposed subdivision. 40 6. To provide for accurate legal descriptions of newly subdivided land and to establish reasonable and desirable construction, design standards and procedures. 7. To prevent the pollution of air, streams, and ponds, to assure adequacy of drainage facilities, to safeguard the water table and to encourage the wise use and management of natural resources throughout the municipality in order to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the community and value of the land. STAFF RESPONSE: Staff believes the proposal complies with the above listed criteria. Specifically, the proposal would not result in any conflicts with adjacent properties or public facilities, and the proposal would not result in any greater significant impacts to natural resources. 0 : /cdev /pec/ memos1 02 /spraddIecreekenvelo pea men dment 0610 E Eef 0 fgg ir MR, QZ< pvw-! t6 9 Zz- 10 alvcc m xz.tzoo N rr r �I �1 1 Z r ° w o k� 4 r ry. A. I 1 �A L� 1 X5.2° 1 1 WATER STUB REVISED ENVELOF 15202 S0. F t t PLATTED ENVEL{ ` 15202 SO. Fr. i GO ll�I \: DITCH 0 ,ML �Y )75)70/ © 5 €3 °01'35'° W �n n r p � f I 05/17/2002 FRI 16:22 FAX • all or I lo iL . . . . . . . . . . . 40\ wr ly vp 44)V— Li IM002/004 Q Z.00 w 7- _j ui W U, Ye Q Z.00 w 7- _j ui 05/17A2002 FRI 16:22 FAX 0 I I IN 13 %C) 14003/004 Em • � � it IL ?!fit %C) 14003/004 Em • ' 05/17 2002 FRI 18;22 FAX , \ - ' i * � | | � � i . , � , ! / ` ^ � � � � o� U� :a Z 004/004 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development 'Department DATE: June 10, 2002 SUBJECT: A request for a variance from Section 12 -6D -6 (Setbacks) Vail Town Code, to allow for an addition in the front setback, located at 4887 Juniper Lane /Lot 7B, Block 4, Bighorn 5th Addition. Applicant: Stephen & Jackie Clark Planner: Allison Ochs DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicants, Stephen and Jackie Clark, are requesting a variance from Section 12 -6D -6 (Setbacks) to allow for an addition in the required front setback, located at 4887 Juniper Lane /Lot 7B, Block 4, Bighorn Stn Addition. Information regarding the original construction of the house in unavailable. The subdivision was annexed into the Town of Vail in 1974. According to Eagle County records, the structure was constructed in 1974. It is currently a duplex and the applicants are the owners of the east unit (unit B). The house is non - conforming with regards to setbacks. Specifically, the house is within 5 ft. of the front property line. The lot is zoned Two - Family Primary /Secondary, which requires a front setback of 20 ft. According to the Town of Vail records, the existing GRFA of the duplex is approximately 3,336 sq. ft., and there is approximately 2,504 sq. ft. of site coverage existing on site. The applicants are proposing to add a new entry feature to the house. The proposed addition is approximately 64 sq. ft. of GRFA. Of that, approximately 20 sq. ft. is located within the front setback. The addition is located 15 ft. from the front property line. While the addition does not encroach any further than the existing encroachment into the setback, the addition of GRFA in a required front setback requires a variance from Section 12 -6D -6 (Setbacks). Reductions of the plans have been attached for reference. H. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends alpproval of the setback variance located at 4887 Juniper Lane /Lot 7B, Block 4, Bighorn 5' Addition to allow for an entry- feature addition within the front setback subject to the criteria outlined in Section VI of this memorandum and the following findings: 1. That the granting of the variances does not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the Primary /Secondary TOi'k`N O*VAIL Residential Zone District. 0 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the setback regulations does result in a practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the development objectives of the Town Code or the Primary /Secondary Residential Zone District. 4. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve the variance request, staff recommends the following conditions: That prior to Design Review approval, the applicant submit as -built drawings of the dwelling unit so staff can confirm existing GRFA that is on file with the Town of Vail. Should the addition not comply with the GRFA requirements of the Primary /Secondary zone district, the approval of this variance shall be void. III. REVIEWING BOARD ROLES A. The Planning and Environmental Commission is responsible for evaluating a proposal for: 0 The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity, or to attain the objectives of this Title without grant of special privilege. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. 4. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. B. The DRB has NO review authority on a variance, but must review any accompanying DRB application. The DRB is responsible for evaluating the DRB proposal for: 1. Architectural compatibility with other structures, the land and surroundings 2. Fitting buildings into landscape 3. Configuration of building and grading of a site which respects the topography 4. Removal/Preservation of trees and native vegetation E 0 MR 0 V. �J 5. Adequate provision for snow storage on -site 6. Acceptability of building materials and colors 7. Acceptability of roof elements, eaves, overhangs, and other building forms 8. Provision of landscape and drainage 9. Provision of fencing, walls, and accessory structures 10. Circulation and access to a site including parking, and site distances 11. Location and design of satellite dishes 12. Provision of outdoor lighting ZONING STATISTICS Staff has reviewed the proposal according to the Primary /Secondary Zone District and the survey submitted. The analysis provides the following: Lot Size: 24,611 sq. ft. Zoning: Two - Family Primary /Secondary Hazards: none Standard Allowed Existing GRFA` 5,561 sq. ft. 3,336 sq. 78 (east) 2,559 sq. ft. 1,478 sq. 7A (west) 3,502 sq. ft. 1,858 sq. Site Coverage: 4,922 sq. ft. 2,504 sq. Setbacks: Front: 20 ft. 5 ft. (The addition is 15 ft. from the property line. currently 5 ft. from the property line) Sides: 15 ft. 20ft. 15 ft. 35 ft. Rear: 15 ft. 119 ft. 'includes the "250" additional GRFA CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Proposed ft. 3,400 sq. ft. ft. 1,542 sq. ft. ft. no change ft. 2,529 sq. ft. 5 ft. However, the existing house is A. Consideration of Factors Regarding the Variances: no change no change no change The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The structure is adjacent to other Primary /Secondary lots to the east, west, and across Juniper Lane. Sundial Condominiums is located across Gore Creek. The existing building is non - conforming with regards to the front setback. Staff does not believe that the proposal will have a negative impact on existing structures and uses in the vicinity, nor does staff believe that this variance will be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. As the addition is 15 ft. from the property line and the existing structure is currently 5 ft. from the property line, staff does net believe that the addition will impact adjacent properties. All other setbacks are maintained. 3 2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without a grant of special privilege. Staff believes that the granting of this variance would not constitute a grant of special privilege. The existing building was built in the county and does not currently comply with setback regulations. The proposed addition does not encroach further into the setback than the existing building. Staff believes that this is the minimum deviation necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity. The addition includes only 25 sq. ft. of new site coverage as there is existing building cantilevered above. The applicant is proposing to match the addition of the west unit. The house is currently sided with T1 -11 siding. According to Section 12-11 - 3C: From the effective date of July 21, 1998, there shall be permitted a one -time exclusion from this provision for an expansion to single - family, two- family, and primary /secondary residential dwelling units. This one -time exclusion shall be allowed for a single expansion of five hundred (500) square feet or less of allowable GRFA or garage area credit per dwelling unit. In which case, structures may be expanded without requiring upgrades to entire structures and sites to conform with the design guidelines. The addition itself, however, shall conform with the design guidelines. An expansion which is greater than five hundred (590) square feet, or any subsequent expansion to a structure, regardless of size, shall require full compliance of the dwelling unit with the design guidelines. In ,Tune of 2001, the west unit enclosed their entry and used the one -time exemption for the west unit. As a result, any future additions of GRFA will require that the entire structure be brought into compliance with the Design Guidelines. Specifically, the T1 -11 siding will have to be removed and replaced with an approved exterior material. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. Staff believes that there will be no impact on light and air, distribution of populations, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. The request is to add 64 sq. ft. of GRFA, 20 sq. ft. of which is located in the front setback. This addition will have no impacts of the above - listed criteria. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before grantLing a variance: 0 • 1. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district, 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zorie. c_ The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. • VARIANCE REQUEST Clark Residence 4887 E. Juniper Lane Vail, CO 81657 (970) 476 -3307 May 13, 2002 A variance is being applied for in order to add a 60 square foot entry, approximately 20 square feet of which will be located in the easement. The proposed entry will alleviate the water drainage problem from the upper flat roof The water drainage during the winter months causes a dangerous ice pack on the entry walkway and damages the siding of the house. The entry will be located directly underneath the second floor cantilever and would be similar to the entry on the west half of the duplex that was added in the summer of 2001. According to the most recent survey in May of this year, the home was originally built with parts of the garage, second floor deck, second floor cantilever, southeast corner of the kitchen and southeast corner of the master bedroom located within the easement. In order to correct the drainage problem and resulting ice pack and siding damage and to improve the property, it is essential to locate a portion of the entry in the easement between the southeast corners of the garage and kitchen. • • 0 y � f � � 0 f� rrV Tv��A <!/Y xr`�' p z %' ro r 16w r1. w Q) 'TrA LU LU D �v J �•0.�1 Q 1 � 1 /kk T 1� LU Y i� LZ Q M r� w QY� 4 �dN l F-X t S'T1H Lt+�c O� E7Cl�'`f°L�j F-,x tSYtHC -1 EL-5GT, Merte_v_ T© 'Fe r WaN�vt.�J, �E�.stPE t4 e L- 056(aE 1 W i 1-i Dt�1v� I i I i4Ew err ©r� � jr err G $, L4?-T -7, 'F 1_ Q� 0 L F LAN 0 • 0 XiS'T�hl NEto.I 1> 5GK 1Z.4L I LI N41 t'�vF 66�,,Ff W i1_ ©11 T�TA1LS `fz:l 1A7c H `Wz7eE 'F He rZj)4E'jz LY PILG G F i! P. EEX N 67-TV- = AL-L- P�O�OS�I7 APpC71402N TO GI..,Q.gK RESIDENG'EF 4-ss7 JuNIpEg LqkHE pIG�Ho1�i- 1r,�- ��Dt�lislOf�l� �1'F'�i -� �rL'DI-floN� iO f V.d.1 L 5112/02 NEW At?QyTt,QN 4S ?7 ,.. UH I PE9 LAS . G a.) LQ!T 7, 01A H67P-4 Tep �-kH 0�= VA l L .5/1 o16>:z :7 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: June 10, 2002 SUBJECT: A request fora conditional use permit, to allow fora private/public outdoor recreation facility, located at 600 Lionshead Mall/Tract D, Vail Lionshead 1" Filing. Applicant: Vail Resorts, represented by Britt Stubblefield Planner: George Ruther 1..,- DESCRIPTION OF THE RFQUEST The applicant, Vail Resorts, represented by Britt Stubblefield, is requesting a conditional use permit to allow for the operation of a Salto- trampolino in Lionshead. According to the informational materials submitted by the applicant, a salto- trampoline is an extreme sport jumping trampoline with a bungee cord system that safely propels jumpers up to 24 feet into the air. The specially designed harness and bungee cord system accelerates the users jumping ability and protects jumpers from injuries. Most importantly, it provides hours of fun for kids of all ages. 10 The applicant is proposing to set -up the trampoline on the sodded area directly west of the Eagle Bahn Gondola in the generally vicinity of the previously approved seasonal climbing wall and putt -putt golf course. The operation of the trampoline will be for the summer season only and is intended to compliment the other existing recreational facilities already approved on the site. If approved, the applicant intends to begin operations of the trampoline in mid -June and cease operations in mid - September. The proposed hours of operation would be from 10 :00 am — 6:0{7 pm weekdays and from 10:00 am — 9:00 pm weekends. According to the Official Town of Vail Zoning Map, the proposed trampoline site is located on a property within the Lionshead Mixed Use I zone district.. Pursuant to Section 12 -7H -5, Vail Town Code, Conditional Uses; Generally (On all levels of a building or outside of a building), private or public outdoor recreation facilities are allowed, subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 16 of this Title (Zoning Regulations). 11. BACKGROUND The area under consideration has two other similar private/public outdoor recreation facilities already existing. On June 10, 1991, the Town of Vail Planning & Environmental Commission approved a conditional use permit to allow for the construction of a temporary miniature golf (putt -putt) course in Lionshead in the area directly to the east of the Eagle Bahn Gondola. Upon approving the request, the Commission placed a condition on the approval requiring the applicant to return for an extension to the conditional use permit after one year of operation. On February 24, 1992, as required, the applicant reappeared before the Planning & Environmental Commission for an extension of the miniature golf course conditional use permit. Upon review of the request, the Commission approved the request and extended the conditional use permit for an additional four years to February 24, 1996, A significant outcome of the 1992 approval, in addition to granting a four -year extension of approval, was that the level of permanency of the course was increased to include permanent landscaping, concrete greens, and permanent fairway borders. On April 26, 1993, the Planning & Environmental Commission approved a revised conditional use permit application to allow the miniature golf course operator to install and operate low -level outdoor lighting and to expand the hours of operation of the course until 10:00 pm each evening throughout the summer season. On May 20, 1996, the Planning & Environmental Commission approved an amendment to the conditional use permit to allow for the temporary relocation of the course to accommodate the construction of the new Eagle Bahn Gondola. The approval was valid for one year, On September 23, 1996, the Planning & Environmental Commission approved a. conditional use permit to allow for the reconstruction of the golf course. In approving this conditional use permit the Commission added a condition prohibiting the use of amplified sound. On February 22, 1999, the Planning & Environmental Commission evaluated an application for a conditional use permit to allow for the continued operation of the golf course and the new operation of a mobile climbing wall. The Commission evaluated each of these uses as public/private recreation facilities. Upon review of the requests the Commission voted unanimously to approve the request for a conditional use permit. Ill, STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Community Development Department recommends approval of the request for a conditional use permit to allow for the operation of a public/private recreation facility (salto- trampolino) in Lionshead, located at 600 Lionshead Mall/Tract D, Vail Lionshead 1" Filing. Staff's recommendation is based upon review of the criteria outlined in Section IV of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented. Should the Planning & Environmental Commission choose to approve the request the following findings shall be made as part of the motion: A. 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. B. 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. C. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code. Should the Planning & Environmental Commission choose to approve the applicant's request for a conditional use permit to allow for the operation of a public /private recreation facility in Lionshead, the Community Development Department recommends the following conditions of approval: 2 1. That the applicant shall not be prohibited from using outdoor lighting in the operation of the salto - trampolino, 2. That the applicant submits a revised site plan to the Town of Vail Community Development Department for review and approval of a security fencing plan prior to the construction of the Salto- trampolino. 3. That the applicant shall be prohibited from installing and displaying any form of advertising signage in conjunction with the operation of the salto- trampolino. 4. That the applicant revises the site plan to illustrate the location of the Salto- trampolino on the sodded area directly west of the Eagle Bahn Gondola and that the tramploline be constructed a minimum of 30 feet from the edge of the nearest bicycle and /or pedestrian pathway. 5. That the applicant operates the salto- trampolino in accordance the hours of operation -and dates outlined in this ;memorandum. Any changes that increase the hours of operation or lengthens the duration of operation shall require approval of an amended conditional use permit in accordance with Chapter 16 of the Town of Vail Zoning Regulations, IV. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS: A. CONSIDERATION OF FACTORS: 1. Relationship and impact of the use on the development objectives of the Town. The proposed trampoline site is located on a property within the Lionshead Mixed Use I zone district. According to the Town of Vail Zoning Regulations, the purpose of the Lionshead Mixed Use I zone district is to, `provide sites for a mixture of multiple - family dwellings, lodges, hotels, fractional fee clubs, time shares, lodge dwelling units, restaurants, offices, skier services, and commercial establishments in a clustered, unified development. Lionshead Mixed Use 1 District, in accordance with the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of buildings and uses and to maintain the desirable qualities of the District by establishing appropriate site development standards. This District is meant to encourage and provide incentives for redevelopment in accordance with the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. This Zone District was specifically developed to provide incentives for properties to redevelop. The ultimate goal of these incentives is to create an economically vibrant lodging, housing, and commercial core area. The incentives in this Zone District include increases in allowable gross residential floor area, building height, and density over the previously established zoning in the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan study area. The primary goal of the incentives is to create economic conditions favorable to 3 inducing private redevelopment consistent with the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. Additionally, the incentives are created to help finance public off -site improvements adjacent to redevelopment projects. With any development/redevelopment proposal taking advantage of the incentives created herein, the following amenities will be evaluated: streetscape improvements, pedestrian /bicycle access, public plaza redevelopment, public art, roadway improvements, and similar improvements. " Staff believes that this proposal will expand the mixture of uses in the Lionshead area, as well as provide an additional recreational facility for visitors and residents of Vail to experience and enjoy. Like the golf course and the climbing wall, the trampoline is a seasonal use during the summer months. It is intended to compliment the many other opportunities already in Town. Staff believes the use will comply with the proposed zone district in Lionshead and the Lionshead Redevelopment 'Master Plan. 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 proposed conditional use permit will not have any negative impacts on the above- referenced services. Over the past years, the golf course facility and climbing wall have proven to be positive recreational opportunities for the public. Staff has reviewed the file and spoken directly with the Code Enforcement Officers to ascertain the types and numbers of complaints received with regard to the operation of the golf course and climbing wall. Staff has determined that neither of these uses have generated complaints, nor have they been in violation of the conditions of their respective approvals. Staff believes that the salto- trampolino operation will be similar in nature to the golf course and climbing wall and will not result in any negative impacts on the neighborhood or community. In fact, staff believes that these uses will have a positive effect upon the recreational facilities located within the Town of Vail as they provide diversity to the many other recreational opportunities that are already provided (rafting, fishing, biking, tours, roller blading, hiking, climbing, golfing, etc.) 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 operation of the golf course has proven to have had no negative impact upon traffic flow in the vicinity of the course. This is largely due to the requirement that a split -rail fence be constructed to delineate the golf course area from the pedestrian pathway. The climbing wall tends to attract a crowd consisting of climbers, parents, friends and on- lookers. The climbing wall has been setback from the adjacent bicycle and pedestrian paths in order to reduce conflicts between users. The 30 -foot setback from other facilities that was required by the Commission is largely responsible for the safe and efficient flow of bicycle 2 and pedestrian traffic through the area. Staff recommends that a similar 33 foot setback be required for the salto - trampolino. To further ensure that traffic flow through the area is not negatively impacted, staff recommends that the trampoline be placed on the sodded area west of the Eagle Bahn Gondola instead of being placed on the concrete brick pavers immediately adjacent to the gondola building. 4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses.. The trampoline is unique in its design in that it is really a combination of four round trampolines grouped together in a square utilizing one center supporting structure. The overall dimension of the salto- trampolino is approximately 33 feet square by 25 feet tall. The height of the trampoline is the results from the five supporting arms that accommodate the bungee cord jumping system. Staff does not believe that scale and bulk of the trampoline will have any negative impacts on the character of the surrounding uses. While not proposed by the applicant, Staff recommends that some form of mutually agreed upon security fencing be instal4ed around the perimeter of the trampoline. Staff believes that the fencing is necessary to prevent unintended use of the trampoline during the off hours. Staff recommends that the Design Review Board Review and approve any required fencing solutions. 0 B. The Planning & Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a conditional use permit: 0 That the proposed location of the use is in accordance with the purposes of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. 2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code. 5 r� 0& � I t, F4�k ail. Narrh America's #1 Resort Town of Vail Planning and Review Commission May 13, 2042 Vail Resorts, Inc. proposes the set -up of a Salto Trampoiino at the base of the Lionshead gondola. It will be set -up just west of the building in the vicinity of the climbing wall and putt -putt golf areas. We will be running the trampoline as an activity during the summer operating season. The dates and times of operation are as follows: Opening on June 14"' through September 22" d from 10:00 AM to 6:00 PM on the weekdays and from 1.0:00 am to 9:00 PM on the weekends. The trampoline is a temporary moveable structure that can be set -up or taken down in approximately two hours. The use of this trampoline will be geared toward all ages that visit the Vail area in the summer tine. Venue tickets will be sold through our existing ticket windows and operated by our summer staff. We assume that the positioning of the trampoline in the base area will attract guest to the Lionshead base area in the same manner as the climbing will and putt -putt golf The size of the trampoline structure is l lm square by 8m tall coinciding with the approximate height of the other structures in the area. .;Thanks Britt Stubblefie Post office Box 7 • Vail, Colorado 81658 • 970- 845 -2500 • www.vaii.com Vain RESORTS" �1 C� • • Salto- Trampolino %4 0 • Page 1 of 2 CONTACT INFORMATION BELOW http:f /v % �,- w.bungeesport.com/salto.htmi 05/14/2002 3 Salto - Trampolino Page 2 of 2 Business Profile - Earnings Potential • Order Blank - Email Us Rebound Unlimited, Inc. 150 West 700 South Smithfield, Utah 84335 'hone: 435 563.1650, Fax: 435 563.0166 The Salto- Trampolino(tm) - Extreme Sport dumping with a Bungee card system that safely propels jumpers up to 24 feet in the air. A multitude of options are open to you, installation is easy and there are a number of appropriate sites available. The Salto Trampolino is adaptable to all situations, at the beach or in the mountains, indoors or outdoors, summer or winter, at skating rinks, waterparks, games parks, festivals, malls, anywhere you can imagine'. All kinds of enterprises and commerce's are great potential clients for their inaugurations, events, presentations of new products, motivational workshops, etc. Trampoline jumping with bungee cords and harness to accelerate jumping and protect jumpers from injuries. Safe, fun and profitable. Great money maker for carnivals, fairs, celebrations or other large gatherings. Easy to move and operate and Iunf4r all ages. http://www.bungeespoh.com/salto.html 05/14/2002 L� l I-] REBOUND UNLIMITED 43BBB31650 04/23/02 11i06am P. 002 MAXI FUN AIR GAMES Conception, fabrication, distribution d'installations de divertissement .EXTERIOR DIMENSIONS . '. . � ice:_ •r...�s� . Air 4arnmf MnJd {un Ibrl 7ku!~'fY+4A1T07p1eN{POIYi@ C°4Kryfip27134'?9 12rr� C.P. 42 CH -3W8 Veyras --5vwitzedand T6,1, ,I ?' ? 9 http: / /www.maxi- fun.com _ �.. — - Page 3 of 19 REBOUND UNLIMITED, INC. 150 West 700 South Smithfield, UT 84335 (435) 563 -1650 Fax (435) 563 -0166 www.bungeesport.com • 0 0 0 REBOUND UNLIMITED, INC. 150 West 700 youth Smithfield, UT 84335 (435) 563 -1650 Fax (435) 563 -0166 www.bungeesport.com • • • C� • REBOUND UNLIMITED, INC. 154 West 700 South Smithfield, UT 84335 (435) 563 -1650 Fax (435) 563 -0166 www,bungeesport.com 9 MEMORANDUM TO: Punning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: June 10, 2002. SUBJECT: A request for an amendment to the approved development plan; a request for conditional use permits to allow for the construction of Type III EHU's, to allow for an expansion of the Vail Mountain School, to allow for a private outdoor recreation facility, to allow for a private school/educational institution and to allow for temporary modular classroom structures; a request to modify the official Rockfall Hazard Map to indicate approved mitigation; a request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a rezoning from Two - Family Residential to General Use (Tract C); a request for a recommendation to the Vail Town. Council to amend the land use designation from Low Density Residential to Public /Semi- Public (Tract C) and a request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a text amendment to Section 12 -8A -8 (Density) Vail Town Code to amend the GRFA requirements in the Ag and Open Space Zone District, located at 3160 Katsos Ranch Road / Lots 11 & 12, Block 2, Vail Village 12th Filing and Tract C, Block 1, Vail Village 12th Filing. Applicant: Vail Mountain School, represented by Braun and Associates Planner: Russ Forrest PURPOSE The purpose of this worksession is to allow the applicant to introduce the Vail Mountain School applications to the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC). The applications propose amending the 2000 approved master plan for the Vail Mountain School (Attachment A). Staff is still evaluating and awaiting additional information to verify the development statistics for the project. The applicant is requesting that the Planning and Environmental Commission identify issues to further address in future meetings and to identify additional information that the PEC may need to make a final decision and /or recommendation. Attached is a description of the proposal (Attachment B) from the applicant and an Environmental Impact Report (Attachment C). • 0 C. Rezoning of Tract C from Two Family Residential to General Use and a Land Use map amendment from Low Density Residential to Public /Semi Public. After further discussions with staff, the applicant will submit an application to rezone Lot 19 from Two Family Residential to the General Use District D. Zoning Text Amendment to allow for 425 sq ft. GRFA credit for home s in Agriculture and Open Space Zone District. The 425 GRFA credit applied to other residential zone districts does not apply to Agriculture Open Space where a single family residential unit is a permitted use E. Hazard Map amendment to remove High Severity Rock Fall Hazard designation from Tract C. This area is protected from the rock fall berm above ifatsos Ranch F. Design Review Board Application for the entire project. Note: The applicant will also propose in the near future a Major Subdivision to move the intersection of Katsos Ranch Rd. and the Frontage Rd. to the east and create a new right of way. 0 Ill. BACKGROUND 2000 Master Plan On June 8` ", 1999, the Wail Town Council discussed the PEC's decision to approve a conditional use permit (CUP) to allow for the addition of a temporary classroom structure at Vail Mountain School. The council agreed the CUP could be extended for an additional year if the applicant presented a master plan to the council within the next year. On April 24 "', 2000 the Vail Mountain School received approval for a development plan (master plan) and a conditional use permit for the expansion of a school facilities including eight Type III employee housing units. Attachment A summarizes the development parameters that were approved for the master plan. The plan involves significant improvements constructed in two separate phases. Phase I (June 2000 -July 2001) improvements include: • Demolition of the rockfall mitigation berm • Removal of the existing temporary classroom structure • Construction of an eight- classroom wing to the north of the existing building • An elevator connection to all floors • Reconfiguration of the existing access and parking area to allow for the addition of a "drop off' lane and additional parking. Phase 11 (long-term) improvements include: 6. 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. The PEC is also responsible for prescribing the development parameters on GU zoned land and ensuring the development parameters conform to approved zoning in other zone districts. The development parameters that must be considered include: - Lot area - Setbacks - Building Height - Density - GRFA - Site coverage - Landscape area - Parking and loading - Mitigation of development impacts Desi n Review Board: The DRB has no review authority on a CUP, but must review any accompanying DRB application. The DRB is responsible for evaluating the DRB proposal for: • Architectural compatibility with other structures, the land and surroundings • Fitting buildings into landscape • Configuration of building and grading of a site which respects the topography • Removal /Preservation of trees and native vegetation • Adequate provision for snow storage on -site • Acceptability of building materials and colors • Acceptability of roof elements, eaves, overhangs, and other building forms • Provision of landscape and drainage • Provision of fencing, walls, and accessory structures • Circulation and access to a site including parking, and site distances • Location and design of satellite dishes • Provision of outdoor lighting 5 7) The extent to which the zone district amendment demonstrates how conditions have changed since the zoning designation of the subject property was adopted and is no longer appropriate. 8) Such other factors and criteria as the Commission and/or Council deem applicable to the proposed rezoning. Necessary Findings: Before recommending and /or granting an approval of an application for a zone district boundary amendment the Planning & Environmental Commission and the Town Council shall make the following findings with respect to the requested amendment: 1) That the amendment is consistent with the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan and compatible with the development objectives of the Town. 2) That the amendment is compatible with and suitable to adjacent uses and appropriate for the surrounding areas. 3) That the amendment promotes the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the Town and promotes the coordinated and harmonious development of the Town in a manner that conserves and enhances its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of the highest quality. Prescribed Regulations Amendment Before acting on an application for an amendment to the regulations prescribed in Title 12, the Planning & Environmental Commission and Town Council shall consider the following factors with respect to the requested text amendment: 1) The extent to which the text amendment furthers the general and specific purposes of the Zoning Regulations. 2) The extent to which the text amendment would better implement and better achieve the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives, and policies outlined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan and is compatible with the development objectives of the Town. 3) The extent to which the text amendment demonstrates how conditions have substantially changed since the adoption of the subject regulation and how the existing regulation is no longer appropriate or is inapplicable. 4) The extent to which the text amendment provides a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land use regulations consistent with municipal development objectives. C 5) Such other factors and criteria the Commission and /or Council deem applicable to the proposed text amendment. 0 r� • • Zonin Anal sis _Note: All Numbers for the proposed school are approximate and need to be further verified. Lot 12 S and Lot 11 (Assuming Lot 11 is rezoned to General Use Zoning: General Use '`All development standards in the GU zone district are prescribed by the PEC Lot Size: 6.122 acres (Lot 12 S) or 266,674 square feet + .408 acres or 17,772 square feet = 284, 446 square feet (includes 2 bus spaces) Site Coverage: 22,027 sf (8.26 %) (14.1%) Lot 12S &Lot 11 Floor Area: Existing 2000 2002 Proposed Density: n!a nla nla Setbacks: 43 48 48 Front/Katsos: 90' 78' 24' Frontage Rd: 76' 76' 25' Side: Booth Creek 358' 358' 340' Side Katsos 20' Rear: 23' 20' 20' - Height: 27' 36' 42 (approx) Parking: 85 116 84 lot 121115 total (includes 2 bus spaces) Site Coverage: 22,027 sf (8.26 %) (14.1%) 20.9% Floor Area: 20,488 sf 55,390 75,900 Students 261 330 320 Faculty 43 48 48 6 Summary of Entire Project Existing 2000 Approval Proposed Plan Density: n/a 8 EHU's = 4 d.u.'s 8 EHU's = 4 d.u.'s 1 Dwelling Unit (headmaster) Setbacks: Parcel Site Cover Main School Building Residence Boothfalls Parcel (Portion of Lot 12) Front/Katsos: 90' 24' 20' Side /Frontage Rd: 76' 76' 25' Side: 358' 358' 350'+ Rear: 23' 20' 20'— 40' Faculty Housing Front/Katsos: 20' Side: 130' Rear /Frontage Road: 85' Height: Parking Loading: Site Coverage: GRFA: 27' 36' 36' - 42' 85 spaces 116 spaces 115 + 4 for headmaster res + 15 drop -off spaces 0 0 1 loading space 22,027 sf (8.26 %) 37,469 sf (14.1%) n/a 4,800 square feet Total school 31,990 sf 55,390 sf Floor Area: *Site Coverage Detail 65,800 sf (16.7 %)* 5,040 sq. ft. (EHUs) 2,425 sf (headmaster) 75,900 sf Use Parcel Site Cover % of Lot Residence Boothfalls Parcel (Portion of Lot 12) 2,700 sf 4.8% Cabin Lot 11 950 sf 5.3 % School Lot 12 58,500 sf 22 % Faculty Housing and Bus Enclosure Tract C 3,650 sf 6.5% Overall Plan All Parcels 65,800 sf 16.7% • from the 2000 plan of 14.1 %. The floor area is approximately 20,000 square feet more than the 2000 approved plan. Should the applicant look at structured parking or are the proposed berms adequate to screen the proposed surface parking? Should the gym be sunken to further reduce the height of this element of the building? Again it should be noted that the DRB was very pleased with the overall design of the building and felt the articulation of the building reduced the apparent size of the facility. 4. Employee Housing Units Eight Employee Housing Units are proposed and the applicant is willing to consider deed restricting the head masters house on Tract 12 N. If the Head Masters unit was deed restricted that would be 9 EHUs provided by the applicant, Staff does feel that additional storage is needed for the 8 proposed EHUs on tract C and that those EHUs need usable open space. It is important to note that Type III EHUs can be sold or transferred separately. Is the PEC comfortable with that possibility? 5. Rezoning and Vacating Property Lines The appiicant has stated that they are willing to rezone Lot 11 to General Use and vacate the property line. This still leaves the Boothfall lot or 12N zoned Agriculture Open Space with a portion of the soccer field on both GU and AOS zoned land. The school has agreed to keep the Boothfalls lot zoned AOS as part of their negotiations with adjacent property owners. Staff can not yet find a regulatory reason to prevent this action. 6, Text Amendment for AOS Land The applicant is asking that the 425 GRFA credit is applied to AOS zoned lands. The purpose of the Agriculture Open Space Land is to: "preserve agricultural, undeveloped or opens space lands from intensive development while permitting agricultural pursuits and low density residential use consistent with agricultural and opens space objectives. Parks, schools, and certain types of private recreational facilities and institutional also are suitable uses..." Single- family residential dwellings are permitted uses in the AOS zone District. Staff can not yet confirm if the 425 credit was specifically not applied to the AOS zone district for some specific reason. A 425 credit would be a 21% increase in the total floor area for a house in the District. It may have been considered to be inconsistent with the purpose statement for the District. Also since 1990 staff has contemplated proposing to eliminate the AOS district since agriculture is no longer a use in the Town of Vail. The PEC should consider that an amendment to the AOS Zone District will affect all properties that are zoned AOS. Several examples of properties zoned AOS include: 13 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: April 24, 2000 SUBJECT: A request for a conditional use permit to allow for an expansion of the existing facilities including eight Type Ill employee housing units at Vail Mountain School, located at 3160 Katsos Ranch Road /Part of Lot 12, Block 2, Vail Village 12 'h Filing. Applicant: Vail Mountain School, represented by Gwathmey Pratt Schultz Architects Planner. Brent Wilson 1. BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to allow for a phased master plan for long -term development at the Vail Mountain School campus. This conditional use permit would also include an approval for the construction of eight Type Ili employee housing 40 units. On March 13`" of this year, the PEC conceptually reviewed this proposal and requested that the applicant address the following concerns prior to final review of this proposal: Employee Housing Units — The PEC stated the school should be required to provide employee housing at the same rate (30 %) as other private developments in the Town. Based on an increase in capacity from 244 to 300 students, the school would be required to provide a total of two employee housing units (based on the standard of 1 staff member }10 students' 56 add'I students'30 %). Vail Mountain School is proposing eight Type III employee housing units. However, due to mobilization costs and economies of scale, the applicant would like to construct all of the proposed EHU's in conjunction with "Phase Il" improvements. Traffic Circulation — It has been observed by members of the 'PEC and the Vail Town Council that a re- occuring problem during peak traffic flow at the school involves the "stacking" of cars along the frontage road in anticipation of left and right turn movements into Katsos Ranch Road. The result is a congested access to the school and impacts to traffic flow along Katsos Ranch Road and North Frontage Road East. In an effort to address this concern, the applicant has provided a relocated access and revised parking and loading configuration for significant additional drop -off capabilities (10 cars at one time) within the property boundaries. A transportation engineering consultant has reviewed the proposal and forwarded a traffic study to town staff for review. • Landscaping — The PEC stated the existing and proposed parking areas should be upgraded to meet the Town's landscape requirements for parking lots. The applicant has provided a revised landscape plan based on this input. �\VA I Ll DATA4E V ER'Y O N E1 P E C%M E M O S100%V M S2. DOC The PEG 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 this Title. Conformance with development standards of zone district - Lot area - Setbacks - Building Height - Density - GRFA - Site coverage - Landscape area - Parking and loading - Mitigation of development impacts Design Review Board: The DRB has no review authority on a CUP, but must review any accompanying DRB application. The DRB is responsible for evaluating the DRB proposal for: - Architectural compatibility with other structures, the land and surroundings - Fitting buildings into landscape - Configuration of building and grading of a site which respects the topography - Removal/Preservation of trees and native vegetation - Adequate provision for snow storage on -site \\VAIL\ DATA \EVERYONE\PEC\MEMOS\OMVMS2.DOC 3 Is 0 2. The applicant shall provide the Town of Vail with drainage easements in accordance with the proposed grading and drainage plans. These easements will be recorded prior to the issuance of a grading permit for any proposed grading activities on the property. Prior to the issuance of any permits for the "Phase I I" improvements on the property, the applicant shall conduct a revised traffic study for staff review to ensure appropriate mitigation measures (if applicable) are addressed in a manner that is proportional to proposed "build -out" traffic impacts from the project. It is acknowledged that the threshold for identifying traffic impacts from this proposal will also include existing conditions and "Phase I" improvements. 4. All housing units on the property shall be required to be deed - restricted as Type III employee housing units. These units must be constructed in conjunction with approved "Phase 11" improvements. Required Type 111 deed - restrictions will be recorded prior to the issuance of any permits for Phase 11 improvements. The employee housing units will contain full kitchen facilities, as defined in Chapter 12, Vail Town Code. 5. The bicycle path will run with a straight alignment from the parking area to Katsos Ranch Road ( "punched through" the berm while,avoiding vegetation). An easement will be provided to the Town of Vail for the bike path. IV. ZONING AND THE APPROVAL PROCESS Vail Mountain School is located in the General Use Zone District. Pursuant to the Town of Vail Zoning Regulations, the purpose of the General Use Zone District is to: provide sites for public and 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. (Ord. 21(1994) § 10). Sections 12 -9C -2 & 3 outline the permitted and conditional uses allowed in the General Use Zone District. Public and private schools and educational institutions are a conditional use in the General Use Zone District subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit. %WAIL0ATA%EVERY©NEtPEC1MEfv1o5 OMMS2.DOG 1.3 The quality of development should be maintained and upgraded whenever possible. 1.12 Vail should accommodate most of the additional growth in existing developed areas (infill areas). r 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. 5.1 Services should keep pace with increased growth. 2. The effect of the use on li ht and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities. utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities needs. Staff believes this proposal will impact the following facilities: Transportation — please refer to item 3 below. Schools — Planned improvements for the school would increase capacity to approximately 350 students and provide affordable housing for teachers and staff. Staff believes the proposal would have a significant positive impact on educational opportunities in the Vail Valley. Parks and Recreation — Staff believes the proposed auditorium facility could be a great amenity to Vail residents if managed via a publiclprivate partnership. The applicant has expressed a desire to provide opportunities for public events at the auditorium when school - related functions are not planned. 3. Effect upon traffic with particular reference to con estion automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability. and removal of snow from the street and parking areas_. Traffic - The applicant's traffic engineering consultant performed traffic studies at Vail Mountain School on two occasions. Based on both the consultant's findings and traffic projections from the town engineer, construction of Phase 11 improvements (specifically, the auditorium) could trigger the need for dedicated turning lanes. %% VAILZATA %EVERYONE%PECaMEMOS1QO%VM52. DOC • 0 i �i 7 ' j • ova sCSLvy 09tG O lid 19 SE VKNJ "mid -W=! rH 19 4r}LL p }Q F pa etc i j■ Q r i E huml! I Q'e'OZi i- ►�!'d�l 5c�1'd'� C>4�6 = 2 � -]Eli I k 7 t G Pi I k Z ti 3 } 0 �l �l rl $ s � o o Kf I1 �f y�f O k 7 t G Pi I k Z ti 3 } 0 �l �l rl 0 c: ayas N" GOGIYN 091E � a ;'E -ICC�� N1 VINroCk INA EDE] KIN" n n i I i r i 1 4- id � � I! id i I i r i 1 } 4� ;s i } i { 4 a � � I I 2� I I I I } 4� ;s i } i { 4 a • C E w �Ed3� VAIL, CALO AF70 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: June 10, 2002 SUBJECT: A request for a major amendment to Special Development District No. 6 to continue to allow the conversion of accommodation units into employee housing units and a request for a conditional use permit, to allow for Type III employee housing units to be located at the Vail. Village Inn, 100 East Meadow Drive /Lots M, N and O, Block 5D, Vail Village ,Ist Filing. Applicant: Daymer Corporation Planner: Russell Forrest I. BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST Daymer Corporation, is requesting a major amendment to Special Development District No. 6, to allow for the conversion of accommodation units into employee housing units, and a conditional use permit to allow Type III employee housing units at the Vail Village Inn. This is a temporary request to allow the applicant to utilize the property for employee housing until construction can begin on the redevelopment of the property which was approved in 2000. The approval for development plans approved in 2000 becomes null and void on May 1, 2000. The property is zoned Special Development District No. 6, with an underlying zoning of Public Accommodation. According to Chapter 12 -9A, a major amendment to a special development district is defined as: MAJOR AMENDMENT (PEC ANDIOR COUNCIL REVIEW): Any proposal to change uses; increase gross residential floor area; change the number of dwelling or accommodation units, modify, enlarge or expand any approved special development district (other than "minor amendments" as defined in this Section), except as provided under Sections 12 -15 -4, "interior Conversions ", or 12_15.5, "Gross Residential Floor Area (250 Ordinance)" of this Title. The elimination of accommodation units is considered a major amendment by this definition. In addition, Type III employee housing units are a conditional use in the Public Accommodation zone district. The applicant has requested a major amendment to Special Development District No. 6 and a conditional use permit for Type III employee housing units. The applicant is proposing no exterior modifications. Project History The following is a summary of the existing phases and development with the Vail Village Inn Special Development District: Phase I — This phase consists of the buildings located at the southeast corner of the District. Phase I includes one residential dwelling unit approximately 3,927 square feet in size and nine commercial /retail spaces. Phase II — This phase consists of three residential dwelling units totaling approximately 3,492 square feet in size and three commerciallretail spaces. Phase II is generally located in the center of the District. Phase III — This Phase consists of twenty -nine residential dwelling units totaling approximately 44,830 square feet in size and six commercial/retail spaces. Phase III is located at the northeast corner of the District. Phase IV — This is the original and oldest Phase in the District. This Phase consists of one residential dwelling unit approximately 5,000 square feet in size and seventy -two accommodation units comprising approximately 16,585 square feet of floor area. Phase IV ;s generally located in the northwest corner of the District. Phase V - This Phase consists of eleven residential dwelling units and three accommodation units totaling approximately 9,972 square feet of floor area and four commercial /retail spaces. Phase V is located in the southwest corner of the District at the intersection of Vail Road and East Meadow Drive. When originally considering deviations from the underlying zoning in 1976, the Town Council found that such deviations were acceptable, as the community was to realize a substantial increase in the hotel bed base. An increase in short -term accommodations has been a long- standing objective of our resort community. In 2000, a major amendment to Special Development District No. 6 was approved to allow for the redevelopment of the Vail Village Inn. The executive summary of this approval is attached for reference. On September 4th, 2001 a revised development plan was approved for SDD No. 6 (Ordinance No. 21, Series of 2001) which clearly stated that the approval for that development plan becomes null and void on May 1, 2003 if construction does not commence before that date. On December 4th, 2001 an amendment to SDD No. 6 was approved that allowed for the conversion of 56 accomadation units into Type III Employee Housing Units. In addition, a conditional use permit was approved by the Planning and Environmental Commission for the Type III Employee Housing units on November 12, 2001. That conditional use permit to allow for the 56 EHUs and the amendment to SDD 6, i.e Ordinance No. 32, Series of 2001, expired on June 1, 2002. REVIEWING BOARD ROLES A. Major Amendment to a Special Development District Order of Review: Generally, applications will be reviewed first by the PEC for impacts of use /development, then by the DRB for compliance of proposed buildings and site planning, and final approval by the Town Council. K Planning and Environmental Commission: Action: The PEC is advisory to the Town Council. The PEC shall review the proposal for and make a recommendation to the Town Council on the following: • Permitted, accessory, and conditional uses • Recommendation on development standards including, lot area, site dimensions, setbacks, height, density control, site coverages, landscaping and parking • Evaluation of design criteria as follows (as applicable): A. Compatibility: Design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate environment, neighborhood and adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones, identity, character, visual integrity and orientation. B. Relationship: Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. C. Parking And Loading: Compliance with parking and loading requirements as outlined in Chapter 10 of this Title. D. Comprehensive Plan: Conformity with applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, Town policies and urban design plans. E. Natural andlor Geologic Hazard: Identification and mitigation of natural and/or geologic hazards that affect the property on which the special development district is proposed. F. Design Features: Site plan, building design and location and open space provisions designed to produce a functional development responsive and sensitive to natural features, vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the community. G. Traffic: A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and off -site traffic circulation. H. Landscaping: Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and preserve natural features, recreation, views and function. Workable Plan: Phasing_ plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional and efficient relationship throughout the development of the special development district. Design Review Board: Action: The DRB has NO review authority on a CDD proposal, but must review any accompanying DRB application The DRB review of an SDD prior to Town Council approval is purely advisory in nature. 3 Staff: 0 The staff is responsible for ensuring that all submittal requirements are provided and plans conform to the technical requirements of the Zoning Regulations. The staff also advises the applicant as to compliance with the design guidelines. Staff provides a staff memo containing background on the property and provides a staff evaluation of the project with respect to the required criteria and findings, and a recommendation on approval, approval with conditions, or denial. Staff also facilitates the review process. Town Council: Action. The Town Council is responsible for final approval /denial of an SDD. The Town Council shall review the proposal for the following: Permitted, accessory, and conditional uses • Approval of development standards including, lot area, site dimensions, setbacks, height, density control, site coverage, landscaping and parking • Evaluation of design criteria as follows (as applicable): A. Compatibility: Design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate environment, neighborhood and adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones, identity, character, visual integrity and orientation. B. Relationship: Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. C. Parking And Loading: Compliance with parking and loading requirements as outlined in Chapter 10 of this Title. D. Comprehensive Plan: Conformity with applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, Town policies and urban design plans. E. Natural and/or Geologic Hazard: Identification and mitigation of natural and/or geologic hazards that affect the property on which the special development district is proposed. F. Design Features: Site plan, building design and location and open space provisions designed to produce a functional development responsive and sensitive to natural features, vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the community. G. Traffic: A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and off -site traffic circulation. H. Landscaping: Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and preserve natural features, recreation, views and function. 0 4 I. Workable Plan: Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional and efficient relationship throughout the development of the special development district. B. Conditional Use Permit Planning and Environmental Commission: Action: The PEG is responsible for final approval /denial of CUP. The PEC 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 this Title. Conformance with development standards of zone district • Lot area • Setbacks • Building Height • Density • GRFA • Site coverage • Landscape area Parking and loading Mitigation of development impacts Design Review Board: Action: The DRB has NO review authority on a CUP, but must review any is accompanying DRB application, The DRB is responsible for evaluating the DRB proposal for: 5 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. Since no interior or exterior physical changes are proposed as the result of this application, specific development plans, traffic analysis, and an EIR were not required by the Administrator. STAFF RECOMMENDATION A. MAJOR AMENDMENT TO THE SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT A site visit was conducted on the property on May 8th, 2402 with the property manager, Community Development, and the Fire Department. At that time significant life safety issues were found with building # 5 which can not be corrected without significant reconstruction of the building. Specifically, a large cavity in between the units in the building that has numerous fire wall penetrations into units was found. As the result of that site visit, the Fire Department is ordering that this building # 5 be vacated (See attachment B). However, building # 4 was found to only have minor maintenance issues which could easily be remedied to continue to allow occupancy. The Department of Community Development recommends the Planning and Environmental Commission recommends approval of the applicant's request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council regarding a major amendment to Special Development District #E, to allow for the elimination of accommodation units and the addition of Type 1I I employee housing units, subject to the following finding- 0 That the proposed major amendment to Special Development District No. 6, Vail Village Inn, complies with the nine design criteria outlined in Section 12 -9A -8 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code. The applicant, as required, has demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Commission that any adverse effects of the requested deviations from the development standards of the underlying zoning are outweighed by the public benefits provided or has demonstrated that one or more of the development standards is not applicable, or that a practical solution consistent with the public interest has been achieved. Should the Planning & Environmental Commission choose to recommend approval of the requested major amendment, staff would recommend that the approval carry with it the following conditions: 1. That only building # 4 (26 units) be used for conversion to employee housing units. 2. That the approval of this major amendment to Special Development District No. 6 shall not supersede any previous approvals for this special development district. 3. That the Fire Marshal completes an inspection of building 4 prior to second reading of an ordinance amending SDD # 6 to ensure compliance with all applicable fire codes and safety provisions. Specifically annual maintenance is required with the fire suppression and alarm system. B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT The Community Development Department recommends approval of the applicant's request for a conditional use permit to allow for Type III employee housing units located at the Vail Village Inn, 100 E. Meadow Dr. f Lots M, N, and O, Block 5D, 'Jail Village 15' Filing, based on the following findings: 1. That the proposed location of the use is in accordance with the purposes of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. 2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code. If the Planning and Environmental Commission chooses to approve this request, staff recommends the following conditions be placed on the approval: 7 1. That the conditional use permit to allow for Type III employee housing units shall expire on May 1, 2003. 2. That the applicant enters into a written agreement with the Town of Vail in a form approved by the Town Attorney stating that these units shall be used for employee housing until such date that the conditional use permit expires. 3. That only the 26 units in building # 4 be used for employee housing. IV. ZONING I DEVELOPMENT STATISTICS Lot size: 3.45 acres or 150,282 sq. ft. (All Phases) 16' Development Public Accommodation 2000 SDD Major 2001 SDD Major Standard Zoning Amendment Approval Major Amend. Lot Area: 10,000 sq.ft min. 150,282 sq. ft. no change GRFA: up to 150% or 225,423 sq. ft. 121% or 181,719 sq. ft. no change Dwelling sq. footage: 10% of allowable GRFA 25% of GRFA or 45,228 sq. ft. units per acre: 25 du /acre 13.0 du /acre 12.75 du/acre (AU /FFU /EHU unlimited) E=mployee Units unlimited 2 56/26 are habitable Site coverage: 65% or 97,683 sq. ft. 61 % or 92,036 sq. ft. no change Setbacks: front: 20' 16' no change sides: 20' 5', 2', & 0' no change rear: 20' 5' no change Parking: per T.O.V. Code Section 291 parking spaces no change Commercial sq. footage: 10% of allowable GRFA 25% of GRFA or 45,228 sq. ft. no change or 22,542 sq. ft. V. REVIEW CRITERIA FOR A MAJOR AMENDMENT TO SDD NO. 6 Title12, Chapter 9 of the Town Code provides for the establishment of Special Development Districts in the Town of Vail. According to Section 12 -9A -1, the purpose of a Special Development District is: To encourage flexibility and creativity in the development of land, in order to promote its most appropriate use; to improve the design character and quality of the new development within the Town; to facilitate the adequate and economical provision of streets and utilities; to preserve the natural and scenic features of open space areas, and to further the overall goals of the community as stated in the Vail Comprehensive Plan. An approved development plan for a Special Development District, in conjunction with the properties underlying zone district, 1+ shall establish the requirements for guiding development and uses of property included in the Special Development District. The Town Code provides nine design criteria, which shall be used as the principal criteria in evaluating the merits of the proposed Special Development District. It shall be the burden of the applicant to demonstrate that submittal material and the proposed development plan comply with each of the following standards, or demonstrate that one or more of them is not applicable, or that a practical solution consistent with the public interest has been achieved. The elimination of the existing accommodation units at the Vail Village Inn is considered a major amendment to Special Development District No. 6. As such, it is subject to the following review criteria: A. Design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate environment, neighborhood and adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones, identity, character, visual integrity and orientation. There are no exterior changes proposed with this major amendment to Special Development District No_ 6_ 13. Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. The proposed use is to convert existing substandard accommodation units into Type III employee housing units. The underlying zoning of the property is Public Accommodation, Type III employee housing units are a conditional use in this zone district. The applicant is proposing to eliminate 76 accommodation units. 54 of these units will be converted to Type III employee housing units. However, The use has been discussed in Section VI of this memorandum_ C. Compliance with parking and loading requirements as outlined in Title 12, Chapter 10, of the Town Code. Based on a site analysis, there are currently 82 parking spaces for this phase of the building. Chapter 12 -10 of the Town Code requires 75.6 parking spaces for the employee housing units. In addition, Craig's Market requires 3.7 spaces. The total number of parking spaces required is 80 spaces. As proposed, the project meets the parking requirement. D. Conformity with the applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, Town policies and Urban Design Plan. Conformance with the Vail Land Use Plan and Vail Village Master Plan has been discussed in Section VI of this memorandum. Because there are no exterior modifications proposed with this application, the Urban Design Plan is not applicable. E. Identification and mitigation of natural and/or geologic hazards that affect the property on which the special development district is proposed. 01 According to the Town of Vail's Official Hazard Maps, there are no natural or geologic hazards present on the subject property. 9 F. Site plan, building design and location and open space provisions designed to produce a functional development responsive and sensitive to natural features, vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the community. The existing approved site plan for the special development district would not be altered with this request. G. A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and off-site traffic circulation. There is no change proposed to the existing approved circulation system for Special Development District No. 6. H. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and preserve natural features, recreation, views and functions. There is no change proposed to the existing landscape /open space plan for Special Development District No_ 6_ I. Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional and efficient relationship throughout the development of the special development district. This criterion is not applicable to this proposal. VI. REQUIRED CRITERIA AND FINDINGS - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT A. CONSIDERATION OF FACTORS: 1. Relationship and impact of the use on the development objectives of the Town. Vail Land Use Plan The Vail Land Use Plan identifies the subject property as part of the Vail Village Master Plan. However, the Vail Land Use Plan identifies goals and objectives which staff believes to be applicable to this proposal_ Staff believes this proposal would impact the following goals and policies identified in the Vail Land Use Plan: 9.9 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. 1.12 Vail should accommodate most of the additional growth in existing developed areas (infill areas). Staff Response Staff believes the proposed amendment would facilitate the location of employee housing units within the Town of Vail (a high Council priority) at an existing infill 10 location. Staff believes affordable employee housing is essential for the provision of services that both residents and visitors expect. However, staff does not believe that this is an acceptable long -term use for this property. Staff believes that until the following goals of the Vail Land Use Plan outweigh the goals for the provision of employee housing at this location: 3.1 The hotel bed base should be preserved and used more efficiently. 3.2 The Village and Lionshead areas are the best location for hotels to serve the future needs of the destination skiers. 3.3 Hotels are important to the continued success of the Town of Vail, therefore conversion to condominiums should be discouraged. 3.4 Commercial growth should be concentrated in existing commercial areas to accommodate both local and visitor needs. Staff Response Although the conversion of any accommodation unit within Vail's core areas should be highly discouraged, staff believes the subject property may be an appropriate location for employee housing for a temporary and defined time period. The applicant has an approval in place to redevelop the property, However, construction has been temporarily postponed due to a lawsuit which has subsequently been resolved allowing the developer to move forward with the is approved plans. The conversion of these accommodation units to Type III employee housing units will allow the property owner to use the property, to the benefit of the owner and the Town, until construction can commence. 5.9 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 market place 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 Response Staff believes this proposal furthers the above - listed goals by providing additional opportunities for localslemployee housing within the town limits at an existing infill location. 6.1 Services should keep pace with increased growth. 11 Staff Response Staff believes the provision of employee housing is vital if Vail is to provide services consistent with the demand created by residents and visitors. Vail Village Master Plan The Vail Village Master Plan designates this property as "Medium /High Density Residential" and Mixed Use." According to the Vail Village Master Plan: Medium /High Density Residential.- The overwhelming majority of the Village's lodge rooms and condominium units are located in this land use category. It is a goal of this Plan to maintain these areas as predominantly lodging oriented with retail development limited to small amounts of "accessory retail". Mixed Use: This category includes the "historic" Village core and properties near the pedestrianized streets of the Village. lodging, retail, and a limited amount of office use are found in this category. With nearly 270, 000 sq. ft. of retail space and approximately 320 residential units, the mixed use character of these areas is a major factor in the appeal of Vail Village. The Vail Village Master Plan identifies the following goals and objectives which staff believes are app[icab]e to this proposal: Goal: To foster a strong tourist industry and promote year- around economic health and viability for the Village and for the community as a whole. Objective: Increase the number of residential units available for short term overnight accommodations. Policy: The development of short term accommodation units is strongly encouraged. Residential units that are developed above existing density levels are required to be designed or managed in a manner that makes them available for short term overnight rental. Objective: Encourage the continued upgrading, renovation and maintenance of existing lodging and commercial facilities as part of any redevelopment of lodging properties. Staff Response Because this request is temporary in nature, staff believes that this proposal is not contrary to the goals and objectives of the Vail Village Master Plan. These accommodation units are currently substandard units and the staff believes that the use of these as employee housing is acceptable. The approved redevelopment of the Vail Village Inn is consistent with the above goals and objectives. Objective: Encourage the development of affordable housing units through the efforts of the private sector. 12 r� • • Policy: Employee housing units may be required as part of any new of redevelopment project requesting density over that allowed by existing zoning. Policy: Employee housing shall be developed with appropriate restrictions so as to insure their availability and affordability to the local work force. Policy: The Town of Vail may facilitate in the development of affordable housing by providing limited assistance. Staff Response Staff believes that the utilization of the existing accommodation units as Type III employee housing units, even as a temporary use, will further the above - listed objective to encourage the development of affordable housing units. 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. As this request is temporary %n nature, staff does not believe that there will be a permanent effect on the above - listed items. However, the change in use from accommodation units to employee housing units will significantly change the 41 character of the property. 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. Traffic Flew - According to ITE calculations, we should anticipate a 388% decrease in traffic generation based on the proposed uses based on the 2001 approval for employee housing units. With only 26 employee housing units instead of 56 units this impact will be even less. Additionally, staff anticipates a high percentage of pedestrian trips as opposed to vehicular trips. Staff believes this proposal would have a positive impact on traffic flow in the area. Parking — Based on a site analysis, there are currently 82 parking spaces for this phase of the building. Chapter 12 -10 of the Town Code requires 75.6 parking spaces for the employee housing units. In addition, Craig's Market requires 3.7 spaces. The total number of parking spaces required is 80 spaces. As proposed, the project meets the parking requirement. 4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. The applicant is not proposing any changes to the bulk, mass or Location of the existing building. The adjacent uses include the existing Vail Village Inn Plaza, including commercial, lodging, and residential uses; 9 Vail Road, multiple- family residential dwellings; and the Vail Gateway, commercial and residential uses. Staff believes that given the mixed -use and residential character of the neighborhood, the proposed use of employee housing is acceptable. However, staff believes that this use should be limited to one year. 13 B. FINDINGS 0 The Planninq and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a conditional use permit. 1. That the proposed location of the use is in accordance with the purposes of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. 2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the prcpcsed use world comply with each of tha applicable provisions of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code. 0 r� u 14 • 0 Attachment 1 Map of Buildings Vail Village Inn 0.03 0 0.03 0.06 Miles 15 Joseph Weimb -nin 78 Joyce Qoad Plainview, New York 11803 f1d4w Gil, QAS Cm UL" e-vvw A C,' VIA �L. V-� t cc Ow tv 4h7A r 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: June 10, 2002 SUBJECT: A request for a conditional use permit and an amendment to a development plan in the General Use Zone District, to allow for an addition to the Town of Vail Public Works Facility, located at 1289 Elkhorn Drive/U n platted. Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Victor Mark Donaldson Architects Planner: Allison Ochs I. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The Town of Vail is requesting to expand the Town of Vail Public Works Facility, located at 1289 Elkhorn Drive. Primarily, this request is driven by the potential elimination of the Old Town Shops, located at 890 S. Frontage Rd. The Old Town Shops are primarily used as storage. As the Public Works facility is zoned General Use, a conditional use permit is required for any additions to the current structure. Specifically, the applicant is requesting to add approximately 6,844 sq. ft. to the existing Town of Vail Public Works Facility. The proposed uses for this addition include additional fleet bays, electrical storage, sign shop and traffic control storage, and an additional stairway to accommodate egress. In addition, the applicant is proposing to reconfigure some existing interior spaces to create additional office space, a locker room, restroom, etc. Reductions of the plans have been attached for reference. A future phase of expansion to the Town of Vail Public Works Facility is also indicated on the plans. As the plans for Phase 2 of the expansion have not been finalized, this is not under consideration today. Phase 2 includes 11,448 sq. ft. of addition floor area, and includes reconfiguring many of the existing uses on the site, substantial regarding of the site, and a possible amendment to the Master Plan. II. BACKGROUND OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY The Town of Vail Public Works and Transportation Department currently operates from several sites within the Town. Most facilities are located at 1289 Elkhorn Dr. Some transportation offices and bus operations are located at the Vail Transportation Center. The Old Town Shops, which formerly housed Public Works operations, is used for storage of electrical supplies, light poles, street signs, fire equipment, trailers, and other 49 equipment and materials. The Public Works facility has been serving the Town of Vail since its construction in 1979. In 1994, the Town approved an expansion of the administration offices through the approval of a conditional use permit. In 1997, the Town approved the construction of 24 employee housing units to be located on site. The employee housing, known as Buzzard Park, includes 21 studio apartments and 3 one- bedroom units_ The employee housing units were approved through the approval of a conditional use permit. As a result, the site now serves multiple purposes, including the following; • Administrative Functions for the Public Works Department • Fleet Maintenance • Street and Roads • Parks and Landscaping Department • Facility Maintenance • Transportation and Bus Storage • Art in Public Spaces • Employee Housing The Town of Vail Public Works Facility is zoned General Use. Public buildings and grounds are listed as a conditional use in this zone district. The purpose of the General Use zone district is as follows: 12 -9C -1: PURPOSE: The general use district is intended to provide sites for public and 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. In the General Use zone district, development standards are prescribed by the Planning and Environmental Commission. Section V of this memorandum outlines the development standards for this proposal. In 1994, the Town Council approved a master plan for the Town of Vail Public Works Facility. The primary purposes of the Master Plan were to provide an analysis of needed space, to determine the current and future needs of the department, and to develop a master plan to meet the identified needs for the next 10 to 20 years. Ili. ROLES OF THE REVIEWING BOARDS Planning and Environmental Commission: The Planning and Environmental Commission is responsible for evaluating this conditional use permit application 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 Vail Town Code. 7. Conformance with development standards of zone district. Design Review Board: The Design Review Board is responsible for evaluating the Design Review application far. 1. Architectural compatibility with other structures, the land and surroundings. 2. Fitting buildings into landscape. 3. Configuration of building and grading of a site which respects the topography. 4. Removal /Preservation of trees and native vegetation. 5. Adequate provision for snow storage on -site. . 6. Acceptability of building materials and colors. 7. Acceptability of roof elements, eaves, overhangs, and other building forms. 8. Provision of landscape and drainage. 9. Provision of fencing, walls, and accessory structures. 10. Circulation and access to a site including parking, and site distances. 11. Location and design of satellite dishes. 12. Provision of outdoor lighting. 13. The design of parks. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends approval of the conditional use permit for the proposed addition to the Town of Vail Public Works Facility, located at 1289 Elkhorn Dr. / unplatted, subject to the following findings: 1. That the proposed location of the use is in accordance with the purposes of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code and the purposes of the General Use Zone District. 2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it will be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of the 101 conditional use permit section of the zoning code. V. VI. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve the conditional use permit for the proposed addition to the Town of Vail Public Works Facility, located at 1289 Elkhorn Dr., staff recommends the following condition: That prior to submittal for a building permit, the applicant submits additional information regarding erosion control for review and approval so that staff car ensure that proper erosion control measures will be taken. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS In the General Use zone district, development standards are prescribed by the Planning and Environmental Commission. Section 12 -9C -5 of the Town Code states: 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. Reviewed By Planning And Environmental Commission: development standards shall be proposed by the applicant as a part of a conditional use permit application. Site specific development standards shall then be determined by the planning and environmental commission during the review of the conditional use request in accordance with the provisions of chapter 16 of this title. Lot Size: 740,520 sq. ft. Zoning: General Use Hazards: Moderate Hazard Debris Flow, High Severity Rockfall Standard Existing Proposed Setbacks Front 82 ft. no change Side (east) 500 ft. no change Side (west) 1,000 ft. no change Rear 90 ft. no change Building height 35 ft. (Buzzard Prk) 20.5' (at addition) Density control NIA NIA Site coverage 54,071 sq. ft. (7.3°1x) 60,981 sq. ft. (8.2 %) Parking 124 spaces no change REVIEW CRITERIA FOR THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT The review criteria for a request of this nature are established by the Town Code. The Town of Vail Public Works Facility is located within the General Use Zone District. Therefore, this proposal is subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit in 4 i t i E • 0 accordance with the provisions of Title 12, Chapter 16, Vail Town Code. For the Planning and Environmental Commission's reference, Section 12 -16 -1, of the Vail Town Code, identifies the purpose for a conditional use permit as follows: In order to provide the flexibility necessary to achieve the objectives of this title, specified uses are permitted in certain districts subject to the granting of a conditional use permit. Because of their unusual or special characteristics, conditional uses require review so that they may be located properly with respect to the purposes of this title and with respect to their effects on surrounding properties. The review process prescribed in this chapter is intended to assure compatibility and harmonious development between conditional uses and surrounding properties in the Town at large. Uses listed as conditional uses in the various districts may be permitted subject to such conditions and limitations as the Town may prescribe to insure that the location and operation of the conditional uses will be in accordance with the development objectives of the Town and will not be detrimental to other uses or properties. Where conditions cannot be devised, to achieve these objectives, applications for conditional use permits shall be denied. A. Consideration of Factors: 1. Relationship and impact of the use on the development objectives of the Town. The Town of Vail Land Use Flan designates the Town of Vail Public Works Facility as Public /Semi- Public (PSP). This land use designation is described by the Town of Vail Land Use Plan as follows: The public and semipublic category includes schools, post office, water and sewer service and storage facilities, cemeteries, municipal facilities, and other public institutions, which are located throughout the community to serve the needs of residents. In addition, the Town of Vail Land Use Plan includes the following goals statements which staff believes are applicable to this proposal: 1.0 General GrowthlOevelopment i.l 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. 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. ' Specifically, the Town of Vail Land Use Plan refers to this site as "Tract 11 — Bus Barn, Pubiic Works" and states the following: The Town of Vail bus barn and public works shops are located on a 17.3 acre parcel site north of 1 -70 in the vicinity of the golf course. There is no change anticipated in this area and there appears to be sufficient room for expansion of the facility. This site is a potential candidate for the location of a limited use, special event oriented heliport. In addition to the Town of Vail Land Use Plan, a Master Plan for the Town of Vail Public Works Facility was completed in 1994. The purpose of this master plan was to determine the current and future needs of the department, and develop a master plan io rneet the identified needs for the next 10 to 20 years. The master plan states the following: This study focuses on the expansion and improvement of the main facility. While the Transportation Center will continue to be used as a satellite facility for bus operations, it is anticipated that the Old Town Shop site will be needed for future expansion of the Vail Wastewater Department and will not be available for use by Public Works on a long term basis. The proposed program and master plan consolidates the activities from the Old Town Shop to the main Public Works Complex. Staff believes that this proposal meets the development objectives of the Town as outlined in the various master plans. 2. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities needs. The proposed addition to the Town of Vail Public Works Facility will have minimal impact on light and air, distribution of population, schools, or parks and recreation. Staff believes that the proposed addition will be beneficial as it meets public facilities needs created by the potential elimination of the Old Town Shops. The proposed expansion will not increase the number of employees at the Town of Vail Public Works Facility. However, staff believes that it is important to discuss employee housing with any proposed addition in the General Use zone district. There is no requirement for employee housing in the General Use zone district. The 1991 study entitled Employment Generation Rates: A Background Analysis Based on Survey Research, includes employee generation rates for various uses. Specifically, local government has a suggested employee generation range of 5 to 8 employees /1000 sq. ft. According to this calculation, the proposed addition would generate 34 to 54 new employees. Staff believes that this range is extremely high, considering the uses proposed with this addition. The land use designation identified by the study for this proposal is "Local Government," which includes all uses associated with government. Because the proposed addition is primarily storage area and fleet vehicle bays, staff believes that the actual employee generation is much lower than suggested. Greg Hall, Director of Public Works, and Pam Brandmeyer, Assistant Town Manager, have both stated that this addition will not generate the need for additional employees, nor will any additional employees be budgeted in the near future. For reference, the Town of Vail has recently purchased multiple units for use by Town of Vail employees. Specifically, in May of 2000, the Town of Vail purchased 12 units at Creekside, located at 2334 S. Frontage Rd. These are 1- bedroom units for seasonal employees of the Town of Vail. In addition, the Town finished construction on Buzzard Park in 1998, which is located on the subject property. Buzzard Park includes 21 studio units allocated to seasonal employees and 3 one - bedroom units allocated to critical employees. In addition, there is a deed - restricted one - bedroom unit at Vail Heights which is allocated to critical employees; a deed - restricted three- bedroom unit at Vail das Schone; and a deed restricted two - bedroom unit at Innsbruck Condos. Since the primary purpose of the proposed addition is to replace the loss of space at the Old Town Shops, staff believes that the proposed addition will not generate the need for additional employee housing beyond the current supply. The proposed addition impacts the existing impound lot. The lot will not be relocated, but will be smaller than currently exists. The existing impound lot is approximately 7,824 sq. ft. The reduced impound lot will be approximately 6,393 sq. ft. The impound lot will be in generally the same location. The Town has recently begun proceedings to allow The Vail Police Department to contract out some of the towing, storage, and sale of abandoned vehicles. 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. Since there will be no change in the use of this property, staff does not believe that the proposed addition to the Town of Vail Public Works Facility will have any negative impacts on the above- referenced criteria. The applicant has provided adequate snow storage, and as the addition is on the rear of the building, staff does not believe that there will be any negative impacts on pedestrian safety and convenience. In addition, there are more than 124 parking spaces on site. Staff believes that there is more than adequate parking for the uses on the site. A hazard report, completed by Art Mears on April 3, 2002, has been attached for reference. According to the Hazard Report, no hazard mitigation is required for this proposed addition to the Town of Vail Public Works Facility. 4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. The proposed addition is compatible with the existing uses on the site. The properties adjacent to this site include the White River National Forest and the Interstate 70 right -of -way, thus isolating the site from other commercial and residential uses. The proposed addition is located on the rear of the existing building and is at the same roof height as the existing building. The addition is significantly separated from the residential units on the site. Generally, the addition will not be visible from other properties, nor will it have any impact on the residential or administrative uses on the site. B. Findings The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a conditlorial use permit: That the proposed location of the use is in accord with the purposes of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. 2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code. 17-� Addition to the Town of Vail Maintenance Shops 1309 Elkhorn Drive Vail, Colorado 81657 PEC Submittal: April 1S, 2002 Zoning Analysis The Subject Property is currently zoned and operates within the GENERAL USE (GU) DISTRICT, as set forth in Title 12, Chapter 9, Article C. The development standards requirements for all existing uses have been met and are properly maintained, to the best of our knowledge. This Application addresses Paragraph 12 -9C -3: CONDITIONAL USES. The Use being expanded at the Subject Site is Storage. The Uses previously approved for this Site allow for all the existing Town Shop functions, including Sign Shop, Welding & Steel Fabrication Operations, Associated Offices, Vehicle Repair and Maintenance, Landscape Storage, Electrical Storage and Employee Housing. The approval and implementation of this Application will not require any further employees, additional parking or redevelopment requirements, other than those proposed herein, in our opinion. Inasmuch as the expanded Use is Storage, we believe that the customary impacts of expanded development do not exist. Additionally, the expansion is in the rear of the existing development with all roof forms much lower than the plain roof ridge, and concealed by existing construction and landscape. • Addition to the Town of Vail Maintenance Shops 1309 Elkhorn Drive Vail, Colorado 81657 PEC Submittal: April 15, 2002 Parking Needs Assessment Based on the input provided by the Public Works Department Staff and our analysis of ongoing and future operations that would include the proposed expanded facility, we believe that no additional parking should be required. Specifically, please review the following: I. The road widths and existing required parking spaces are being, maintained. 2. There will be now new employees (part -time or FTE) caused by this expansion. 3. There is nothing about the addition of the storage space that appears to have any impact on the existing development, except to make the current operations even more efficient. is � 1 • 0 • Addition to the Town of Vail Maintenance Shops 1309 Elkhorn Drive Vail, Colorado 81657 PEC Submittal: April 15, 2042 Landscape Plan The Landscape Plan for this entire Master Planned Development has been attached as a reference. It is the opinion of the Design Team that this Facility Expansion should require no new Landscaping as the Town of Vail designed and installed extensive landscaping along the South side of the property including the a continuous berm and plantings in 1996, ostensibly for the build -out of the Master Plan. • • NOLLVIHOdSNMHUSNkfOM onand 301N3VUHVd30 lilill w W 2 Q 4 Z wi yyyggq y U Y�1: PQ six $$ i u ?Cg Y s bt 2��j Vii !!'Y i.is J I H 5•r pap i sari fill —� E $$ $ •§ -S 6� o °�� t$ 1�. .' S ° °Jea■ �Yp 9 11 y ° iQ �x�� i s ! IS�Y s4r ' a pAz ♦ i hz I'M e4 �? y— 7f iil xiY� �a z g ! a1s INib° s11aQ .x Y J• I r f Imo° •~ ',. .. �� 1� y t 1 p � t E t y 1 1 It "� y �6 I l 1 t ° + t t i� I 1 llll `�1 4 4 t 1 . + Ey dY i t 1 t � d y 6� ■G n — s s� n 7 f5 �� A $ j i i •i `1 1 c �,� 9• s 1 1 iI 1 r s spryy Ru� - a V Eli . n 7 f5 �� A $ j i i •i `1 1 c �,� 9• s 1 1 iI 1 r s 0(3VUO-IOO'uNnoo 3lE)V3 'flag :10 NMOi NOIllada S31'111IOVJ 3ONaN31NIVN S)*IOM onand - € m = _ F- Ned JMOVIdJ GNa 311S kbVNfGVn3bd .. asuk Ui •I t t ! 1 1 _ r [F, 1 _ ♦ � � 6 � 1 � W ly 1 L y y�4 �f i \ t 3 " l ill` N'y I _ _ •. ii J - 1 I __1 00 gulf 1. I r 1 In CL 0. 2 VI CL ty- t•''1 �r •`tS:�••tt�:l•3 V, 'i {.. _ f 1 1Z ,5 +� , i�• yl yl?� f So i I j • 11 'I1 J 1. 00"0- 100IIdn u Q mn sN86M oriand =iO 'ld�fl Q SdQNS 3ONVN31NIVW } ,c " ��I111E�i�1lll�l IIVA =10 NMOl 3Hl Ol NOI310aV _ w i 2 0 W 1� 0 III � I I i A I I I I 1 I I I I I i 1 11 1 'F7 �I 7 �i tr _. i f9 Z d } w_ W H w . 7 0 • t=7-70 =17= ce) (M .-04.am I a NoSalyMa xtVA SMIA—l"d BESVID ZQ-10—unr • AbOrr]OPJ TO THE T6WN OF VAJI. I�IIIII'Ir�lll�l MAINTENANCE SHOPS DEPT. OF PUBLIC WORKS WAIL COLORADO .-04.am I a NoSalyMa xtVA SMIA—l"d BESVID ZQ-10—unr • r: 0 • U' - - - � - i 1 i I 1 i 1 I � --------- - - - - -- M C> a u x H Z� - - - -- - - - -- - - _- �w �toaid ADLIIT ION TO THE TOWN OF VAIL MAINTENANCE SHOPS DEPT, OF PUBLIC WORKS VAIL COLORADO Ii�,,l�Il�lk��il yR y �illknuullli� e = e !p� v�x Z Cr H Z C X W W r z 0 7 W x z ed oab�J©Ioa 11dn I I I S>iboM C]nand =10 'ld3C] SdOHS 30NVN31N IVW INA mlO NMOl 9Hl Ol N0I11OOH _ ti ARTHUR I. MEAR.S, P.E., INC. Natural Hazards Consultants 555 County Road 16 Gunnison, Colorado 81230 Tel/Fax: 970-641-3236 artmears@rmii.com April 3, 2002 Ms. Susie Hervert Town of Vail Dept. of Public Works[Transportation 1309 Elkhorn Drive Vail, CO 81657 RE: Avalanche, debris flow and rockfall hazard analysis -- maintenance building addition Dear Susie: As you requested, I completed a terrain inspection of the site above the new addition to evaluate the above - referenced hazards and to recommend mitigation, if necessary. My conclusions are based on a site inspection and measurements taken yesterday, on review of previous work and on my experience within the Vail area during the past 30 years. Snow ava €anches — The terrain approximately 400 -600 feet above the site is sufficiently steep for snow avalanche release (300 to 380) and a relatively deep snowcover will occasionally accumulate on this south - facing slope. Therefore, small avalanches will be possible during exceptional years. However, even these rare avalanche events will stop at the base of the slope and will not affect the proposed addition. Mitigation from avalanches will not be required. 40 Debris flows — Debris flows discharge from the small, unnamed drainage basin north of the maintenance facility. The primary energy and deposition from such flows will be concentrated at the east end of the facility near the office building and have been discussed in previous reports. Mitigation was recommended and subsequently installed. This mitigation was not inspected during this visit as this area is beyond the scope of the current work. The proposed addition will be located approximately 500 feet west of the previously studied debris -flow area and will not be impacted from debris discharging from the small basin. Mitigation from debris flows will not be required at the new addition. Rockfall — Rockfall is an ongoing process on the slope directly north of the proposed addition and begins within sandstone, conglomerate and limestone beds of the Mintum formation. Rockfall source areas crop out at several locations on the south facing slope approximately 200 to 600 feet above the proposed addition. Rocks up to approximately 2 feet in diameter have been deposited by rockfa4 on the slope above the maintenance site within the past few decades. However, construction for the existing maintenance facility, roads, and parking lots has removed any possible evidence of previous rockfall. Furthermore, inspection of 1939 and 1950 aerial photographs (which predate construction of the site) does not indicate any major rockfall events. Smaller rocks, however, may be too small to appear on the old photos or may have been removed during agricultural, grazing, or other activities prior to 1950. Based on my experience with rockfall in the Vail area and within mountainous terrain elsewhere in the United States and Europe, I conclude the following about the rockfall hazard at the proposed addition: 1. Rockfall could reach the facility but this would be a rare event (on the order of a 1 % annual probability). The flat parking area directly north of the building will probably be reached more often (approximately a 5% annual probability) but this parking /storage area will catch most rocks before the building is reached. Mass Wasting • Avalanches • Avalanche ConoW Engineering 2. Rockfall energy and bounce heights have not been quantified at this point, however a rock rolling into the building could produce some minor damage to exterior siding. 3. The rockfall hazard is "low" rather than "severe" as indicated on Town of Vail hazard maps. I define this as meaning that the probability of the building being hit is small (a 1 % annual probability), and the probability for significant structure damage is negligible_ It should be noted, however that the probability is not zero. 4. Risk to persons using the area is very low because of the intermittent exposure of persons in the area. Mitigation to protect the new facility from rockfall is not, in my opinion, necessary because of the low hazard and low risk to facilities and persons. The proposed building will not increase the risk to any adjacent public or private property and is therefore fully compliant with Section 18.69.052 of the Vail hazard regulations. If, however, mitigation is required by the Town of Vail to protect from the low hazard defined above, it should consist of (a) a rockfall protection fence built uphill of the facility or on the northern end of the parking area, (b) a rockfall- catching berm built on the northern edge of the parking area, or (c) direct protection of the lower building walls. Design criteria for these structural mitigation options have not been developed because they are beyond the scope of the current work. Please contact me if you have any questions. cSincerely, ,� tv�t `- sA,� j � v u '�''_ e X14 Arthur 1. Mears, P.E. • TOR A OVA Planning and Environmental Commission ACTION FORM Department of Community Development 75 South Frontage Road, Vail, Colorado 81657 tel :970.479.2139 fax: 970.479.2452 web: www.ci.vail,co.us Project Name: Exemption Plat Project Description: Revised building envelope Participants: OWNER Spraddle Creek LLC 392 Mill Creek Circle Vail, CO 81657 License: APPLICANT Michael English POB 2395 Edwards, CO 81632 License: PEC Number: PECO20026 05/13/2002 Phone: 476 -8900 05/13/2002 Phone: 471 -0303 0 Project Address: 1094 RIVA GLEN VAIL Location: Legal Description: Lot: 4 Block: Subdivision: SPRADDLE CREEK ESTATES Parcel Number: 210105301004 Comments: See staff memo dated 6/10/02 BOARD /STAFF ACTION Motion By: Doug Cahill Action: APPROVED Second By: George Lamb Vote: 6 -0 Date of Approval: 06/10/2002 Conditions: Cond: 8 (PLAN): No changes to these plans may be made without the written consent of Town of Vail staff and /or the appropriate review committee(s). Cond:CON0005323 That the applicant submit a letter of approval for the revised building envelope amendment to the Town of Vail Community development Department prior to final approval and signature by the PEC chairman 0 Planner, George Ruther PEC Fee Paid: $650.00 Planning and Environmental Commission ACTION FORM Department of Community Development TOWN OFOVAlf1' 75 South Frontage Road, Vail, Colorado 81657 tel: 970.479.2139 fax: 970.479.2452 web: www.ci.vail.co.us Project Name: Conditional Use Permit PEC Number: PECO20027 Project Description: Trampolino for summer use Participants: OWNER VAIL CORP 05/15/2002 Phone: PO BOX 7 VAIL CO 81658 License: APPLICANT VAIL CORP 05/15/2002 Phone: 479 -4395 Britt Stubblefield POB 7 Vail, CO BstubblefieldCavailresorts.com 81658 License: 0 Project Address: West of gondola next to golf/climb wall r Location: Legal Description: Lot: Block: Subdivision: VAIL LIONSHEAD FIL 1 Parcel Number: 210107207009 Comments: See memo dated 6/10/02 BOARD /STAFF ACTION Motion By: Doug Cahill Action: APPROVED Second By: Chas Bernhardt Vote: 6 -0 Date of Approval: 06/10/2002 Conditions: Cond: 8 (PLAN): No changes to these plans may be made without the written consent of Town of Vail staff and/or the appropriate review committees). Cond: CON0005324 See Conditions in Staff memorandum dated 06/10/2002 with the additional condition that the conditional use permit is vaild until May 31, 2003. In future use will require a new conditional use permit approval Planner: George Ruther PEC Fee Paid: $650.00 • • • PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES Monday, June 10, 2002 PROJECT ORIENTATION I - Community Development Dept. PUBLIC WELCOME MEMBERS PRESENT Gary Hartman Doug Cahill Chas Bernhardt Erickson Shirley Rollie Kjesbo George Lamb Site Visits MEMBERS ABSENT John Schofield 1. Clark residence — 4887 Juniper Lane 2. Vail Mountain School -- 3160 Katsos Ranch Road 3. Town of Vail Public Works Shops — 1289 Elkhorn Drive 4. Lot 4, Spraddle Creek Estates — 1094 Riva Glen 5. Vail Resorts Trampolino — 600 Lionshead Mall 6. Riva Ridge North — 133 Willow Place 7. Baggage Cheque — 141 E. Meadow Drive 8. Vail Village Inn — 100 E. Meadow Drive Driver: George Approved 718102 11:30 am 12:30 pm �o 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 variance from Section 11- 4B -12B (4) Vail Town Code, to allow for a banner, located at 141 East Meadow Drive /Lot P, Block 5D, Vail Village 1" Filing. Applicant: The Baggage Cheque Planner: George Ruther George Ruther presented an overview of the staff memorandum, Colleen McCarthey made a presentation of her request. Colleen McCarthey mentioned that she had not heard about the ideas that staff had proposed. She also mentioned that she had worked on additional signage in the planters for directory signs. She mentioned she had put up temporary signs before and Community Development never said anything about it before. She stated that economics do need to be part of the decision making process, in that the Town depends on sales tax for paying for service. She expressed her challenge in having her lease terminated at the Baggage Cheque's previous location and how she only had 30 days to find a new location. She further stated that her location is at a significant distance from the East Meadow Drive and this creates a hardship. TO�`+4MIL Approved 718102 Doug Cahill asked whether Colleen wanted to put up a "for sale" sign or a business identification sign. Colleen McCarthy stated that it was a "for sale" sign she was looking for. The Chairman closed input and invited comments by the Commissioners. George Lamb stated he was sensitive to her economic hardship, but this particular application was not the best approach and that she should pursue other alternatives. Rollie Kjesbo reiterated George Lamb's sympathy for the economic challenges that Colleen is facing, but the signage is not in harmony with the code. Gary Hartman agreed with George Lamb's comments. Gary encouraged the business owners at Crossroads to develop a new signage program and that he could not support the application with the criteria for this application. Doug Cahill agreed that there was a hardship for a business identification sign, but not for a "for sale" sign. Chas Bernhardt stated that it was the responsibility of the Town to help business owners. He agreed that more could be done with business ID signs or directory signs. Chas believed that the directory signs could be enhanced and that the individual placards on the directory signs could be enlarged and still meet the sign code. George Ruther reviewed the current signage program and what was approved for the property. Doug Cahill made a motion to table the request to allow the applicant to develop an idea that would comply with the request. Rollie Kjesbo seconded the motion. The Board unanimously approved the motion to table it to June 24, 2002. 2. A request to rezone the Lodge at Lionshead including Tracts I & J, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 1 st Filing from Agriculture Open Space (AOS) to Lionshead Mixed Use -1 (LMU -1) and a request to rezone 380 E. Lionshead Circle /Lot 7, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 1 st Filing and 360 East Lionshead Circle /Lot 6, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 2nd Filing from High Density Multiple Family (HDMF) and Medium 'Density Multiple Family (MDMF) to Lionshead Mixed Use -1 (LMU -1). Applicant: Lodge at Lionshead, represented by Jeff Bailey. Planner: Russ Forrest Russ Forrest presented an overview of the staff memorandum. Jeff Bailey, representing the Lodge at Lionshead, stated that he had nothing to add. Doug Cahill asked why they did not originally rezone with the majority of Lionshead. Jeff Bailey responded that they did not have adequate notice to schedule the appropriate meetings with the various homeowner associations. Rollie Kjesbo asked if the view corridor was a dedicated view corridor. 0 Russ Forrest responded that the Master Plan identified this as a view corridor for future designation and that this application would have no effect on view corridors. Chas Bernhardt asked about future applications for development. Approved 7/8102 Jeff Bailey responded that they have no plans for development. Gary Hartman stated that he believed that this was an improvement to Lionshead. Doug Cahill stated that he believed this application presented significant benefits to the Town; the public, and the applicant. Chas Bernhardt had no further comment. Rollie Kjesbo had no further comment. George Lamb had no further comment. Erickson Shirley asked if there was any concern with the View Corridors. Russ Forrest outlined the view corridor adoption process. Chas Bernhardt made a motion to recommend approval to the Town Council based upon the findings in the memo and that the ordinance considers View corridor No. 3. Gary Hartman seconded the motion. The motion was approved by a vote of 6 -0. 3. A request for a variance from Section 12 -6H -6 (Setbacks), Vail Town Code, to allow for the construction of a new front entry feature in the front setback at Riva Ridge North, located at 133 Willow Place /Lot 6, Block 6, Vail Village 1" Filing. Applicant: Riva Ridge North Chalets Condo Assoc., represented by Peel /Langenwalter Architects, L.L.C. Planner: Bill Gibson Bill Gibson presented an overview of the staff memorandum. Dave Peel, of Peel /Langenwalter Architects, presented the proposal to the Commission. Mr. Peel stated that this proposal is the first of a larger overall exterior remodel Rollie Kjesbo noted that his company is one of the several companies who will be bidding on this project if it is constructed; however, he did not feel that this will influence his vote since his company is only one of several bidders and that the bidding process has not been finalized. George Lamb expressed support for the application, stating that a physical hardship or extraordinary circumstance exists. Rollie Kjesbo agreed with his fellow Commissioners. Gary Hartman, Doug Cahill, Chas Bernhardt, and Erickson Shirley had no additional comment. Chas Bernhardt moved to approve the request, based upon the criteria and findings in the staff memorandum and per the conditions listed on page 2 of the staff memorandum. George Lamb seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 6 -0. 4. A request for an exemption plat to amend a platted building envelope, located at 1094 Riva Approved 7/8/02 Glen /Lot 4, Spraddle Creek Estates. Applicant: Spraddle Creek. LLC Planner: George Ruther George Ruther presented an overview of the staff memorandum Michael English, representing Spraddle Creek LLC, stated that he had nothing to add beyond staffs presentation. Gary Hartman stated that the site is difficult to work with and he believed that this application should be approved. Doug Cahill stated that he believed this application met the minimum requirements for an exemption plat, George Lamb stated that he was on the DRB when Spraddle Creek came through and he believes that the approval from the Spraddle Creek DRB is very important for the approval of a home on this site. Erickson Shirley and Rollie Kjesbo had no further comment. Doug Cahill made a motion to approve the application with the conditions and findings in the staff memorandum. Chas Bernhardt seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 6 -0. 5. A request for a variance from Section 12 -6D -6 (Setbacks) Vail Town Code, to allow for an addition in the front setback, located at 4887 Juniper Lane /Lot 7B, Block 4, Bighorn 5"' Addition. Applicant: Stephen & Jackie Clark Planner: Allison Ochs Allison Ochs presented an overview of the staff memorandum. Stephen Clark, as the owner, presented his proposal to the Commission. Rollie Kjesbo stated that the applicant had contacted him regarding this application, but believed he had no conflict_ George Lamb stated that he believed special circumstance existed, given the non - conforming status of the residence. The remainder of the Commissioners had no comments Chas Bernhardt moved to approve the request, per the staff memorandum and conditions Rollie Kjesbo seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 6 -0. 0 6. A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for a private outdoor recreation facility, located at 600 Lionshead Mall/Tract D, Vail Lionshead 1" Filing. 4 Approved 718/02 Applicant: Vail Resorts Planner: George Ruther George Ruther presented an overview of the staff memorandum. Erickson Shirley asked about the Town's liability with this approval. George Ruther clarified the Town's role with regards to private property liability. He stated "I'm no attorney." Doug Cahill stated that he works for Design Resource, but he sees no conflict of interest. Eric Stein, attorney for Vail Resorts, stated that they are in accordance with the conditions in the staff memorandum. There was no public comment. Gary Hartman asked about security. Eric Stein stated that he wasn't sure of what they would propose, but that they would work with the Town and the operator to ensure that the area was secure. Doug Cahill asked about safety lighting and that he would recommend some low level lighting. He asked about a 30 ft. setback from the bike path. George Ruther stated that it would be on the sodded portion to the west of the bike path. • Eric Stein stated that their security offices are located in the area and could keep an eye on the property. Chas Bernhardt had no further comment. Rollie Kjesbo asked about notice. George Ruther indicated that notice had gone out according to the Town Code. George Lamb recognized the efforts that the operator has taken to add recreation facility. Erickson Shirley asked about the revocation of a CUP, George Ruther clarified the regulations regarding the time frame of a CUP. He stated that given the history of the other uses on the site, staff believed that given the conditions and the ability of the PEC to recall a CUP, a time frame was not necessary. Erickson Shirley asked about the need for exterior lighting. George Ruther spoke about the existing lighting around the area. He did not feel that there was a need for exterior lights. Erickson Shirley believed that a time frame for the CUP is necessary, and running until dusk seems more appropriate, but that the operator could deal with that. 0 George Ruther suggested an expiration date of May 31, 2003, Rollie Kjesbo made a motion for approval with 5 conditions + a 6th condition of an expiration on May 31, 2003. Approved 718102 George Lamb seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 6 -0. 7. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council, of a text amendment to Title 12, Section 2 -2, to amend the definition of "Fraction 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 Chas Bernhardt made a motion to table this until June 24, 2002. Doug Cahill seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 5 -0 -1 (George Lamb recused) 8. A request for. an amendment to the approved development plan; a request for conditional use permits to allow for the construction of Type III EHU's, to allow for an expansion of the Vail Mountain School, to allow for a private outdoor recreation facility, to allow for a private school /educational institution and to allow for temporary modular classroom structures; a request to modify the official Rockfall Hazard Map to indicate approved mitigation; a request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a rezoning from Two - Family Residential to General Use (Tract C), a request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council to amend the land use designation from Low Density Residential to Public /Semi - Public (Tract C) and a request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a text amendment to Section 12 -8A -8 (Density) Vail Town Code to amend the GRFA requirements in the Agricultural and Open Space Zone District, located at 3160 Katsos Ranch Road / Lots 11 & 12, Block 2, Vail Village 12th Filing and Tract C, Block 1, Vail Village 121h Filing. Applicant: Vail Mountain School, represented by Braun Associates, Inc_ Planner: Russ Forrest Russ Forrest presented an overview of the staff memorandum. Russ reiterated that this was a worksession with the purpose of identifying issues and presenting the proposal. Dominic Mauriello, representing the Vail Mountain School, made a presentation outlining the history of the project. Erickson Shirley asked about what the applicant could do instead of amending the Ag /OS zone district. Russ Forrest stated that the other option would be to rezone to a residential zone district. Greg, Architect for the Vail Mountain School, presented an overview of the proposed facilities. Russ Forrest reviewed the staff memorandum with regards to development potential and development statistics. Erickson Shirley asked if it was common in other communities to have a zone district for this type of use. Russ Forest responded that it is very common for communities to have a zone district similar to the is Town's General Use zone district. Co Approved 718102 Dominic Mauriello talked about the 425 sq. ft. credit and the Ag1OS zone district. He then talked more about the project. Kate Scott. adjacent property owner to the Mountain School, stated that she believed previously that the school would only be built on its existing footprint. She believed that the building was crammed into a small parcel of land. She also believed that the theatre was extremely large, considering the number of students. She also stated a concern for her views. the additional traffic, and the lighting. Brandi McLaughlin, adjacent property owner, stated that she has lived in the neighborhood for 20 years. She reiterated Mrs. Scott's concerns, and further discussed the traffic, lighting, etc. She then stated a concern for the employee housing units. Chas Bernhardt asked about the general feelings of the neighborhood. Brandi McLaughlin stated that the majority of the neighborhood was generally not wild about the proposal, but felt that it was inevitable, Erickson Shirley asked if she had any concerns regarding the proposed plan. Brandi McLaughlin stated that tihe beiieved the architecture was pretty yuud. Alan Danson, adjacent property owner, stated that originally he felt that they had been given an ultimatum rather than a plan that they could comment on. He believed that the school has now really entered into a dialog with the neighbors. He stated that they have had 3 meetings with the neighborhood. Alan Scott, adjacent property owner, discussed the view from their house. He wanted the board to be A& aware of the effects of the school on their view to the west. He stated that the gym would close in their property. Nancy , adjacent property owner to Tract C, stated that allowing Tract C to be developed will have the effect of entering though the campus, instead of a neighborhood entrance. She stated her great concern for Tract C. Chas Bernhardt asked if it would be possible to do any computer modeling of the views. Cindy Steimle, adjacent property owner to Tract C, stated her disapproval of the employee housing units. She then asked about the enrollment numbers over the past few years. Dominic Mauriello stated that current enrollment is about 280. He stated that the enrollment would increase to approximately 320 students. He stated that the school is currently lacking adequate space for current educational needs. Erickson Shirley asked about the employee housing units.. Dominic Mauriello stated that the EHU's would be specifically for their faculty needs. Erickson Shirley asked about the parking for the housing. Alan Danson asked if the faculty would be taking the same vacation as the students. He stated that the parking would often be empty. Dominic Mauriello stated that they have been working with the Scotts with a view simulation. He then stated that while they are not done with the design process, they recognize that. The dialog with the neighbors will be on- going. Approved 7/$102 Erickson Shirley asked about the parking for the site. Dominic Mauriello clarified the parking and traffic situation. is George Lamb stated that he is an owner in the neighborhood and has had children attend the school. He stated that he believed that there has been a sincere effort to work with the neighborhood to come up with a plan that works for everyone. Rollie Kjesbo asked about Tract C and that it is currently zoned Two - Family Residential. He asked about the development potential under existing zoning and stated that he had concerns regarding the parking proposed on Tract C. He then asked about the height requirements. Gary Hartman commended the applicant on the presentation. He asked about the expansion and the amount of uses on one site. He asked about future expansions for the site and if they have taken that into consideration. Dominic Mauriello stated that that is the reason they are here today They took a look at the 2000 plan and realized that they had not taken future expansions into consideration. He said that they began as a small crhonl, then it "grmnierl ". He stated that the. school has a definite need for athletic fields Gary Hartman asked about realigning Katsos further to the east. He supported the mass and bulk of the building. He asked if the number of EHU's could be increased and stated that he believed that all of the school uses should be on one parcel, zoned GU and that Tract C should be zoned residential. He said the headmaster house should be zoned and subdivided out, so that the property could be zoned separately. Doug Cahill commended the efforts of the school and then asked about the use of the cabin. Dominic Mauriello stated that they really haven't talked about the exact use. Doug Cahill asked if they had thought about putting the house on the cabin site. Dominic Mauriello stated that it doesn't really work and that this was due in part to the neighborhood input. Doug Cahill asked about the grade changes between the field and the house and then asked about roof top mechanical. Greg, Architect, stated that they would be putting mechanical equipment beneath the building. Doug Cahill stated that the size of the auditorium is a concern, as well as Tract C site disturbance, parking on Tract C, garages, etc. He suggested lowering the gym to lower the bulk and mass, site coverage and the heights of the buildings. He said regarding the EHU's, that they were substantially building less than was allowed and that regarding the text amendment, that maybe the 425 credit should go to lots over 1 acre. Chas Bernhardt stated that regarding circulation and parking (esp. Tract C) that it should be more residential. He said an auditorium with 115 parking spaces for a 400 seat auditorium, doesn't seem I like enough. He said regarding site coverage, that the gymnasium should be more underground and that the EHU's are great. He said that that rezoning and vacating property lines was an important request, but that he should have all of neighbors' opinions. He said the text amendment makes sense. and was not a problem. He stated that, regarding the portable classrooms, that a long term plan was required by PEC, and that this was evidence that the school is working with community. Erickson Shirley took a poignant pause and asked why there were no garages for the EHU's. Dominic Mauriello stated that garages are not required and that they were being sensitive to neighbors. 8 Approved 718/02 Erickson Shirley asked how parking on the west end improved congestion? Dominic Mauriello responded. Erickson Shirley asked about the bike path. Russ Forrest responded that they could do something with bonding. Erickson Shirley stated that they had done a lot to add gym space, performing arts space,, etc. He said the community is short on that and so he sees it as beneficial. He stated that putting all these facilities in is great, but burdening this neighborhood with additional traffic is a concern to him and as an alternative. busing people from other lots is more acceptable than more parking. He said the faculty housing parking should be condensed and parking lot should be reduced and he wants an eviction requirement for faculty housing. He said he doesn't believe that we followed notice procedures for the Ag /Os and believes we should notice the whole town. Dominic Mauriello clarified that the parking requirements for the auditorium would be approx. 50 parking spaces_ He stated that they need a 400 -seat auditorium for all - school meetings. Doug Cahill asked about the overflow parking and stated that they need to look at a parking overflow plan. Kate Scott stated that they already have a parking problem. Dominic Mauriello stated that it is an on -going issue, Chas Bernhardt made a motion to table this to July 8, 2002. Doug Cahill seconded the motion_ The motion passed by a vote of 6 -0. 9. A request for a major amendment to Special Development District No. 6, Vail Village Inn, to allow for the continued conversion of accommodation units into employee housing units and a request for a conditional use permit, to allow for Type III employee housing units located at the Vail Village Inn, 100 East Meadow Drive /Lots M,N and O, Block 5D, Vail Village 151 Filing. Applicant: Daymer Corporation Planner: Russ Forrest Russ Forrest presented an overview of the staff memorandum. Connie Dorsey, representing the applicant, presented the proposal to the Commission. Doug Cahill asked how the current operations are functioning? Connie Dorsey said good!! George Lamb stated he had no comments. He thinks 1 year is good! Rollie Kjesbo said no comments Gary Hartmann expressed no comments Doug Cahill shared no comments 9 Approved 7/8142 Chas Bernhardt indicated no comments Erickson Shirley exclaimed that he knows people. He heard the neighbors think this is good! Doug Cahill moved to recommend approval of the request as submitted because it is good and that Building Five is good, if the Fire Department says it is good. Rollie Kjesbo seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 6 -0. Doug Cahill moved to approve the CUP. George Lamb seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 6 -0. 10. A request for a conditional use permit and an amendment to a development plan in the ..General Use 7nnQ nistrict„ to allow fnr an additjnn to the Town of Vail Public Works Shops, located at 1289 Elkhorn Drive /Unplatted. Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Victor Mark Donaldson Architects Planner: Allison Ochs Allison Ochs presented an overview of the staff memorandum. Greg Hall, representing the applicant, presented the proposal. George Lamb questioned the installation of new outdoor lighting and expressed a need to minimize , the negative impacts of outdoor lights. Doug Cahill questioned the impacts of the proposal on the impound lot. Greg Hall stated that there would be a reduction in size. The Commissioners had no comments as they had seen this application on a previous occasion. Doug Cahill moved to approve this, per the staff memorandum_ Gary Hartman seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 6 -0. 11. 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 l Lot 2, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 2 "" 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 10 Approved 718102 WITHDRAWN 12. A request for a variance from Section 11- 4B -12B (4) Vail Town Code, to allow for a second Business projecting sign, located at 100 East Meadow Drive /Lot O. Block 5D, Vail Village 1St Filing.. Applicant: Master Gallery Planner: Bill Gibson WITHDRAWN 13. Approval of April 22, 2002 and May 13, 2002 minutes 14. Information Update Staff Approvals 1099 Gore Creek Property Trust PECO2 -0021. George Condominium Plat Review. 303 Gore Creek Drive, Vail Rowhouse /Lot 13, Block 5, Vail Village 1St t=iling. Applicant: 1599 Gore Creek Property Trust, represented by Jay K. Peterson 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 • TOWN OFUAIf, Planning and Environmental Commission ACTION FORM Department of Community Development 75 South Frontage Road, Vail, Colorado 81657 tel: 970.479.2139 fax: 970.479.2452 web: www.ci.vail.co.us Project Name: Major Amendment to VVI SDD Project Description: Major amendment to an SDD Participants: OWNER DAYMER CORP NV 100 E MEADOW DR VAI L CO 81657 License: APPLICANT Waldir Prado Connie Dorsey 100 E Meadow Dr Vail, CO 81657 License: Project Address; 100 E MEADOW DR VAIL PEC Number: PECO20016 04/03/2002 Phone: 04/03/2002 Phone: 476 -5622 Location: Legal Description: Lot: M -0 Block: 5D Subdivision: VILLAGE INN PLAZA Parcel Number: 210108203003 Comments: See: Ordinance 14, Series of 2002. Motion By: Doug Cahill Second By: Rollie Kjesbo Vote: 6 -0 Conditions: BOARD /STAFF ACTION Action: APPROVED Date of Approval: 06/02/2002 Cond: 8 (PLAN): No changes to these plans may be made without the written consent of Town of Vail staff and /or the appropriate review committee(s). Planner: PEC Fee Paid: $1,000.00 TOWN OF FAIL Planning and Environmental Commission ACTION FORM Department of Community Development 75 South Frontage Road, Vail, Colorado 81657 te1:970,479,2139 fax: 970.479.2452 web: www.ci.vail.co.us Project Name: Lodge at Lionshead Rezoning Project Description: Change zoning from HDMF to LMU -1 Participants: OWNER LODGE AT LIONSHEAD ASS. 380 W. LIONSHEAD CR VAIL CO 81657 License: APPLICANT LODGE AT LIONSHEAD ASS. 380 W. LIONSHEAD CR VAIL CO Jeff Bailey Bailey@vail.net 81657 License: 0 Project Address: 380 W LIONSHEAD CR VAIL Legal Description: Lot: Block: Subdivision: Parcel Number: 210106406000 Comments: PEC Number: PECO20006 02/07/2002 Phone: 476 -2700 02/07/2002 Phone: 476 -2700 Location: BOARD/STAFF ACTION Lotion By: Chas Bernhardt Action: APPLIED Second By: Doug Cahill Vote: 6 -0 Date of Approval: Conditions: Planner. 0 Cond: 8 (PLAN): No changes to these plans may be made without the written consent of Town of Vail staff and /or the appropriate review committee(s). PEC Fee Paid: $1,300.00