Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-0826 PECTHIS ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY PUBLIC NOTIGE 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 Gode of the ~'r- Town of Vail on August 26, 2002, a# 2:~Q0 P.M. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. In ~'~ consideration of: A reques# for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for an amendment to the Town of Vail Streetscape Mas#er Plan, to allow for modifications to the proposed streetscape plan and to propose improvements, Incated at Meadow Drive from Dobson Ice Arena to Willow Bridge Road. Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Otak, Inc. Planner: Bill Gibson A request for a major amendment to an approved development plan, in accordance with Section 12-$D-6 of the Vail Town Code, to allow for improvements to the Golden Peak Ski Base, located at X58 Vail Valley Drive/Tract F,Vail Village 5th Filing and 498 Vail Valley Drive/Tract B, Vail Village 7`" Filing. Applicant: Vail Resorts, Inc. Planner: Bill Gibson A request for a conditional use permi# and an amendment to the approved development plan, to allow for a temporary privyte educa#ional institution, located at the Lionshead RV Lot, 395 S. Frontage RoadlLot 1, Block 2, Vail Lionshead 1St Filing. Applicant: Children's Garden of Learning Planner: Allison Ochs A request for an interpretation of the maximum height and calculation of average maximum height requirements in the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. Applicant: Town of Vail Community Development Department Planner: Allison Ochs A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for a temporary seasonal structure at the Vail Mountain Marriott Resort, located a# 715 West Lionshead CirclelLots 4 & 7, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 3`d Filing and Lots C & D, Morcus Subdivision. Applicant: Vail Marriott Mountain Resort Planner; George Ruttier A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for an amendment to the Town of Vail Land Use Plan and the VaiC Village Master Plan, #o facilitate the construction of "Nail's Front Door" project and associated improvements, located on an unplatted parcel, generally located south of the Lodge Tower and west of the Vista Bahn Ski Yard. Applicant: Vail Resorts Development Gompany Planner: George Rather ~. TOWN 0~ yAIL ~k 1 The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours in the project planner's offrce, located at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Raad. The public is invited to attend project orientation and the site visits that precede the public hearing in the Town of Vail Community Development Department. Please call 479-2138 for information. Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24-hour notification. Please call 479- 2356, Telephone for the Mearing Impaired, for information. Community Development Department Published August 9, 2002 in the Vail Daily, • 2 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION PUBLIC MEETING #~ ~~' , Monday, August 26, 2002 ~~ • .,.~. ~. __ PROJECT QRIENTATIQN / -Community Development Dept. PUBLIC WELCQME 12:00 pm MEMBEwRS PRESENT M1=MBERS ABSENT Site Visits : 1:00 pm 1. Middle Creek - 160 N. Frontage Rd. 2. Golden Peak - 458 Vail Valley Drive 3. Front Door -south of the Lodge Tower 4. Marriott - 715 West Lionshead Circle 5. Tour of PA properties Driver: George ~o. NOTE: If the PEC hearing extends until 6:00 p.m., the board may break for dinner from 6:00 - 6:30 Public Hearinq -Town Council Chambers 2:00 pm 1. A request for a f nal review of a final plat for a major subdivision; a request for a final review of a conditional use permit to allow for a private educational insti#ution and development plan approval to construct employee housing; and setting forth details in regards thereto, located at the site known as "Mountain Bell"lan unplatted piece of property, located at 160 N. Frontage RdJto be platted as Middle Creek Subdivision. Applicant: Vail Local Housing Authority, represented by adel1 Architects Planner: Allison Ochs 2. A request for a conditional use permit, to allow far a temporary seasonal structure at the Vail Marriott Mountain Resort, located at 715 West Lionshead CirclelLots 4 & 7, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 3`d Filing and Lots C & D, Morcus Subdivision. Applicant: Vail Marriott Mountain Resort Planner: Warren Campbell 3. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of an amendment to Section 12-7A-7 ~Height7, Vail Town Code, to increase the maximum allowable building height in the Public Accommodation Zone District and setting forth details in regards thereto. Bab Lazier, represented by Jay Peterson George Ruther/Warren Campbell M~~ ~i TD19N OF VAIL ~ Applicant: ~„___ _-- 4. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for an amendment to the Town of Vail Land Use Plan and the Vail Village Master Plan, to facilitate the construction of "Nail's Front Door" project and associated improvements and setting forth details in regards #here#o, located on an unplatted parcel, generally located south of the Lodge Tower and west of the Vista Bahn Ski Yard. Amore complete metes and bounds description is available at the Department of Communi#y Development. Applicant: Vail Resorts Development Company Planner: George Ruther 5. A request far an interpretation of the maximum height and calculation of average maximum height requirements in the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. Applicant: Town of Vail Community Development Department Planner: George Ruther 6. A request for a conditional use permit and an amendment to the approved development plan, to allow for a temporary private educational institution, located at the Lionshead RV Lot„ 395 S. Frontage Road/Lot 1, Block 2, Vail Lionshead 1St Filing. Applicant: Children's Garden of Learning Planner: Allison Ochs TABLED UNTIL SEPTEMBER 9, 2482 7. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for an amendment to the Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan, to allow for modifications to the proposed streetscape plan and to propose improvements, located at Meadow Drive from Dobson Ice Arena to Willow Bridge Road. Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by (3tak, Inc.. Planner: Bill Gibson WITHDRAWN 8. A requesk far a major amendment to an approved development plan, in accordance with Section 12-8D-6 of the Vail Town Code, to allow for improvements to the Golden Peak Ski Base, located a# 458 Vail Valley Drive/Tract F,Vail Village 5t" Filing and 498 Vail Valley Drive/Tract B, Vail Village 7tt' Filing. Applicant: Vai! Resorts, Inc. Planner: Bill Gibson WITHDRAWN 9. Approval of July 22, 2002 and August 12, 2002 minutes ~0. Information Update The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours in the project planner's office located at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. Please call 479-2138 for information. Sign language interpretation available upon requesE with 24 hour notifcation. Please call 47g-2356, Telephone fvr the Flearing Impaired, for information. Community Development Department Published August 23, 2442 in the Vail Daily. PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION PUBLIC MEETING RESULTS Monday, August 26, 2002 PROJECT ORIENTATION ! -Community Development Dept. PUBLIC WELCOME MEMBERS PRESENT John Schofield Erickson Shirley Chas Bernhardt Doug Cahill George Lamb RoClie Kjesba Gary Hartman Site Viisits : 1. Middle Creek - 160 N. Frontage Rd. 2. Golden Peak - 458 Vail Valley Drive 3. Front Door -south ofi the Lodge Tower 4. Marriott - 715 West Lionshead Circle 5. Tour of PA properties driver: George 12':OU pm 'I :00 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 final review of a final plat for a major subdivision; a request for a final review of a conditional use permit to allow for a private educational institution and development plan approval to construct employee hauling; and setting forth details in regards thereto, located at the site known as "Mountain Bell"lan unplatted piece of property, located at 160 N. Frontage Rd./to be platted as Middle Creek Subdivision. Applicant: Vail Loca! Housing Authority, represented by Odell Architects Planner: Allison Ochs MOTION; Erickson Shirley SECOND: Chase Bernhardt VOTE: 7-0 TABLED UN[TL SEPTEMBER 9, 2002 2. A request fiat a conditional use permit, to allow for a temporary seasonal structure at the Vail Marriott Mountain Resort, located at 715 West Lionshead CirclelLots 4 & 7, Black 1, Vail Lionshead 3`d Filing and Lots C & D, Morcus Subdivision. Applicant: Vail Marriott Mountain Resort Planner: Warren Campbell MOTION: Doug Cahill SECOND: Gary Hartman VOTE: 7-0 .~^; `' , Mth 1'Oit'N (1F V;4fL ~ MEMBERS ABSENT APPROVED WITH 4 CONDITIONS: 1. That the applicant shall not erect the tent prior to September 1, 2002 and that the applicant shall remove the tent by no later than September 30, 2002_ 2. That the hours of operation be from 7:00 am to 8:00 pm, seven days a week. 3. That all Town ordinances regarding noise levels be meet. 4. That the applicant receives a Town of Vail building permit prior to erecting the tent.. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of an amendment to Section 12-7A-7 (Height), Vail Town Code, to increase the maximum allowable building height in the Public Accommodation Zane District and setting faith details in regards thereto. Applicant: Bob Lazier, represented by Jay Peterson Planner: George RutherMl'arren Campbell MOTION; Doug Cahill SECOND: George Larng VOTE: 7-0 TABLED UNTIL SEPTEMBER 9, 2D02 4. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for an amendment to the Town of Vail Land Use Plan and the Vai! Village Master Plan, to facilitate the construction of "Nail's Front Door" project and associated improvements and setting forth details in regards thereto, located on an unplatted parcel, generally located south of the Lodge Tower and west of the Vista Bahn Ski Yard. Amore complete metes and bounds description is available at the Department of Community Development. Applicant: Vail Resorts Development Company Planner George Ruttier MOTION:Doug Cahill SECOND: George Lamb VOTE: 7-0 TABLED UNTIL OCTOBER ^!4, 2DD2 5. A request for an interpretation of the maximum height and calculation of average maximum height requirements in the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. Applicant: Town of Vail Community Development Department Planner George Ruttier MOTION: Doug Cahill SECOND: George Lamb VOTE: 7-0 TABLED UNTIL SEPTEMBER 9, 20D2 6. A request for a conditional use permit and an amendment to the approved development plan, to allow for a temporary private educational institution, located at the Lionshead RV Lot, 395 S. Frontage Road/Lot 1, Block 2, Vail Lionshead 1~~ Filing. Applicant: Children's Garden of Learning Planner: Allison Ochs TABLED UNTIL SEPTEMBER 9, 2002 7. A request for a recommendation to the Nail Tawn Council far an amendment to the Town of Nail Streetscape Master Plan, to allow far modifications to the proposed streetscape plan and #o propose improvements, located at Meadow Drive from ^obson Ice Arena to W illaw Bridge Road, Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Otak, Inc. Planner: [3ill Gibson WITHDRAWN 8. A request far a major amendment to an approved development plan, in accordance with Section 12-8D-6 of the Vail Town Code, to allow for improvements to the Golden Peak Ski Base, located at 45$ Vaii Valley DrivelTract F,Vail Village 8th Filing and 498 Vail Valley DrivelTract B, Vail Village 7th Filing. Applicant: Vail Resorts, Inc. Planner: Bill Gibson WITHDRAWN 9. Approval of amended July 22, 2002 minutes MOTION: Erickson Shirley SECOND: Doug Cahill VOTE: 7-0 Approval of amended August 12, 2002 minutes MOTION: Ge©rge Lamb SECOND: Doug Cahill VOTE: ?-0 10. Inf~armatian Update The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular Office hours in the project planner's office located at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. Please call 479-2138 for information. Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479-2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. Community Devekopment Department C] ~1 fLJ M'EMORANt]t!M TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: August 26, 2002 SUBJECT: A request for a final review of a final plat for a major subdivision; a request for a final review of a conditional use permit to allow for a private educational institution and development plan approval to construct employee housing; and setting forth details in regards thereto, located at the site known as `"Mountain Bell'"/an unplatted piece of property, located at 160 N. Frontage Rd.1t© ~be platted as Middle Creek Subdivision. Applicant: nail Local Housing Authority, represented by Qdell Architects Planner. Allison ©chs L SUMMARY The applicant, the Vail Local Housing Authority, represented by 4delf Architects, is requesting a final review of a development plan to allow for the construction of 142 employee housing units; a conditional use permit to allow for the relocation and expansion of the Early Learning Center; and a final review of a final plat for a major subdivision on the site known as Mountain Bell, located at 160 N. Frontage Rd. I to be platted as Middle Creek Subdivision. At this time, the Department of Community Development is recommending that this application be tabled. II. DESCRIPTIQN OF THE REQUESTS The applicant, the Vail Local Housing Authority, represented by C!deli Architects, is requesting approval of three applications;. A. A final review of a final plat for a major subdivision to allow for the platting of Middle Creek Subdivision. The subdivision includes Lot 1 (the proposed housing and Early Learning Center); Lot 2 (the existing Mountain Bell tower site); and Tract A (remaining open space). B. A final review of a conditional use permit to allow for a private educational institution (referred to as the Early Learning Center). C. A final review of a development plan to allow for the construction of 142 employee housing units. III. STAFF RECOMMENDATI4fy The Department of Community Development recommends that the Planning and Environmental Commission table the applicant's requests to its September 9, 2I~02, public hearing. Staff's recommendation to table is based on the Design Review Board's TOWNOFYAtL k' discussion of the prapasal at the August 21, 2002, hearing. Specifically, the Design Review Board stated that, while they are extremely supportive of the concept and the design direction of the praposal, they believe that the massing, scale, and character of the design need additional cansideration. In addition, staff required additional infarmatian regarding the changes to the hazard mitigation, and revisions to the plans to meet cede requirements. To date, the applicant has not. responded to these requests. • 2 • • Evergreen Lodge V A I L August 12, 2Q02 Town of Vail Planning & Environmental Commission Department of Development 75 South Frontage Road. Vail, CD 8165? Dear Commission & Development Staff: Having reviewed plans for Middle Creek I wish to voice both support and concern about. the project. First, Y do favor development of reasonably priced employee housing that is of respectable quality, thus encouraging residents to behave with respect for their surroundings and neighbors. The Mountain Bell/Middle Creek location seems appropriate to this use as it is close to work and hopefully residents would be encouraged to utilize public transportation or walking to work rather than further impacting Vail's limited parking. My concerns are based upon the anticipated price of rents in the units and the size and balance of the structures on the site. Ali our employees are conscious of rents and many struggle to make ends meet although they work two or more jobs. If at all possible, keeping rents per bedroom below $650 per month would be important. Second, the sketches of the proposed buildings appear to be imposing and too much for the small site, Granted, the Mountain Bell tower and the school are not examples of exceptional architecture, however, I feel that what is proposed it out of scale with the natural landscape. Further, when passing through the roundabout, this will be a primary introduction to Vail. An oversize building on this site simply is nor appropriate. As a neighbor across the street (Interstate) and as both a business owner and resident of Vail, I urge you to consider how the views of the building from the east and from the south will be impacted, It may be necessary to scale the development down in order to maintain an attractive balance and not overdevelop the site.. Sincer ly, lL amela Stenmark General Manager General Partner 254 South Frontage Roac! Wes' • Vail, Colorado 81557 970-X76-78 + 0 • Fax 970-47b-4504 • www.evergreenvc~il.com 7~ ~ G x,,1,5 ~" r ~ ~- c ~ ~. #~~~ ~~~~ ~r~~s~"~ c14 ~ 7 ~~~ ~ ~, ,~ ~'~ ~~~-~~ ~ r ~ ~, ~~ } s ~ ~~~ r~ ~- ~~~ a ~ ~~'~ ~ r ~ ~~,~s~~~- ~ ~~~~~~s ~~Q~r~~~~~ -~~ c ~ • • 1 ~! f ~~°~ ~` ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ w~~ ~ ~~ ~ rte' U~ ARTHUR KELTON JR 22~ WALL STREET VAIL, COLORADO 81657' 97Q-476-7990 TO MAYOR LUDY KURZ THE P.E,C. THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD PLEASE COUNT ME AMONG THOSE OPPOSED TO THE OVER DEVELOPEMENT OF THE "MOUNTAIN BELL" SITE NOW DESIGNATED MIDDLE CREEK. THIS SITE WAS ONLY REZONED TO ALLOW FOR 40 EMPLOYER OWNED UNITS, NOT THE ENLARGED DESIGN ON THE TABLE TODAY. THIS !S THE ENTRANCE TO THE TOWN OF VAIL, THE FIRST IMPRESION THAT THE VISITOR IMPRINTS. NPLEAESE RECONSIDER THE DENSITY AT THIS LOCATION AND SPREAD IT TO OTHER AVAILABLE SITES SO AS TO MAINTAIN THE INTEGRITY OF THE RESORT EXPERIENCE. ART SJg2 ~~ ELAINE KELTON 1034 HOMESTAKE CIRCLE WAIL, GOLQRADO 8'1657 97Q-476-54'11 • • DEAR MAYOR KU RZ PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION DESIGN REVIEW BOARD YES,. WE NEED INTEGRATED LONG TERM AD SEASONAL HOUSING. YES, WE NEED. EMPLOYER. OWNED HOUSING. YES, WE NEED A LOT OF IT. BUT WE DO NOT NEED ALL OF IT IN ONE LOCATION, ESPECIALLY ONE WHICH IS SO VERY VISIBLE AT THE "FRONT DOOR TO VAIL". THE ALTERNATIVES ARE AVAILABLE TO SPREAD THE UNITS NEEDED: THE "HUD WIRTH PARCEL" AND THE TIMBER RIDGE SITES COULD PERHAPS ABSORB THE NEEDED UNITS. EACH OF THE ALTERNATE LOCATIONS WOULD ALSO HAVE AVAILABLE PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION, WE NEED TO CONSIDER AS THE IROQUOIS NATIONTHE IMPACT ON TH E "SEVENTH GENERATION" BUILDING THE LARGEST SINGLE PROJECT AT THE ENTRANCE OF THE TOWN -THE 15T THING SEEN AS YOU EXIT 1-70 AND THE VIEW FROM THE MOUNTAIN AS YOU SKI DOWN AT THE END OF EVERY DAY DOESN'T FEEL SYMPATHETIC TO ALL WE ESPOUSE AS A WORLD CLASS RESORT. LASTLY, PLEASE DO NOT FORGET THAT THIS LAND WAS ORIGINALLY DESIGNATED OPEN SPACE AND THE REMOVEABLE OF THIS TRACT WAS DONE TO CREATE A SMALL POCKET OF 40 EMPLOYER HOUSING UNITS: ~~ SINCERELY, ELAINE KELTON G~ O ~ ~z , d~ O ' ~ r ~ .. ,r~ r ~-~ J~-a-~.-- . ~~f ~~~~ ~-f`''"V~ d r ~~, ~ ~ ~ -~ ~ .`~ o . ~~ 3~s ~ ~ • Page I of 1 Pam Brandmeyer - Fw: Mountain Bcll Site -Proposed high-density housing 5~,.,,;.:<....»,.894~YPA ......: ..... ... ::..:...,w .. _'9P:~s.=+i,_fe ...._:....,...,.;.:.;f.r...fat4.a:e..._.--_. ........... ,..,.,..: SS',d«~.:.S.3,SdR~~pF#tt... ,..~,.., -... ~~~~~~... Frbm: "DIANA DUNOVAN" ~dianamdonovanCa,)msn.com> To: "Pam ~randmeyer" <pbrandmeyer~ci.vail,co.us> Datc: 8112102 1 ?; 53 1'M Subject: 1~w: Mountain Bell Site -Proposed high-density housing ----- C~riginai Message ----- From: Ronald Snow T~s: tovancauncil a~ici.vaii,co.us Sent: Sunday, August 11, 2{02 5:12 PM Subject: Mountain Bell Site -Proposed high-density housing Gentietnen, V~'e have just learned ofthe effort to change this dedicated open space to high-density development. Vve understand that this site was donated to the town as a permanent open space and to preserve the entry to Vail as a mountain cortyrnunity and not as a congested urban core. Violation of this trust by public officials should not be considered under any circumstances and should result in forfeiture of the p~•operty if this is your intent.. This site is very steep and cannot be developed in any fashion without considerable compromise to its natural character. Any efforts to design a "hidden" development project, let alone ahigh-density use are impossible and incompatible with this site. The location is not remote from neighbors willing to protect it from irrational development but is central to all ofour daily lives each time we enter the village and each time we traverse its corridors. This is not the impression that our visitors and residents should have of the Vail experience. On behalf of all owners and residents, please do not indulge in planning that is so short sighted. The Lionshead improvements and other Village plans have proceeded with much more deliberation and thoughtful planning. High-density additions on open space must be deliberated and planned even more thoroughly. Sincerely, Ron and Mary Snow 401 Scorpio 135W Meadow Dr, Ron Snow Do You Yahoos? HatJc~bs, a l~'ahoo! service -Search Thousands of New Jobs • f le:l/C:1~vl~indowslTEMP1GW}O[1001.HTM 8112102 Fa.ge 1 at~ 1 Pam Brandmever -Fro: !~9atunt~tin l:cll Affordable Housing; Project i. t'.:.. _.t..~ :~':~Lk.~.-._ ,...w i.:~:'.._ ~ ,,: ~ .w. ~,...... ...,..i...r. w. r ~.If~.u -..w ~ w w,_.u.. Frcrm: '"DIANA DONOVAN'" <dianatndonovan ci~msn.com> "1'a: "Pam Brandmeyer"' <pbrandmeyer(~ticiet=ail.co.us> I?ate: $I12.~(}2 12:SU PM Subject: Fw: Mountain.13e11 Affordable Housing Project ----- Original Message ----- From: <Mjoemchugh~r~aol,com> "1'0: <towneouncil(a~ci.vail.co.us> C'c: ~jflantont~avail.net> Sent: Sunday, August I I, 2602 12:05 PM Subject: Mountain Bell AffiDrdable Housing Project > We are Last Vail property owners and belie~,~e that the proposal for the > development of the Mountain Bell site is not compatible with the desired beauty of t~'ai]'s main entrance and is in direct canflict.witla [he planned > "1'rant Door" pr©ject intended to improve and beautify Vail's main access. > The :;izr: and design of the proposed project are grnssly inconsistent with the %• upscale image Vai] tries to convey. > Additionally, we understand. that the cost of the project will render the necessary rental rates decidedly unaffordable to the overwhelming majority of ? the seasonal employees for whom it is intended, thereby defeating the purpose > of the entire project. > The alternative proposal set forth by Gail Steadman in the August 7th issue > of tl~e Vail Daily makes a lot more sense from many perspectives. > Sincerely, Brenda & Joe McHugh, 4'614 Bighorn Road, Vail • • • iil~:~iC:lWirtdows'~,TEMPIGW ; 000C12.HTM 8/12/Q2 Page 1 of 1 Pam Branclmeyer - Fw: Mountain Bell Site Proposal Frorr~: "DIANA DQNOVAN" <dianamdonovan~amsn.com~ To: "Pam Brandlneyer" <pbrandzneyer~ci.vail.co.us~ Date: 8/121(]2 12:48 PM Subject: rw: Mountain Sell Site Proposal ---- Original Message ----- From: Scorpio404 To: tcrwncouncii car ci.vail.co.us Sent: Sunday, August 11, 2002 11:.19 AM Subject: Mountain Bell Site t'roposai Dear: Mayor and Town Council Planning and Environmental Commission/Design Review Board We, as prapeHy owners, believe that the size of the proposal for the Mountain Bell Site is incompatible with the beauty and world-class scenic image of Vail's main entrance. We urge the Town of Vail to significantly reduce tlxe size of the housing project or move it to a more appropriate venue. While we all recognize the importance of affordable employee housing, we urge the Town to preserve and protect Vail's image as visitors first enter our beautiful Village_ As at all other resorts, employee housing should not be the first visual visitors will encounter. Truly affordable employee housing. should not be attempted where ii is neither appropriate nor affordable. There seems to be much more appropriate land available {i.e. the ruins"} for this purpose. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Debora MoiYis and S.J. Prapuolenis Scorpio #404 • lile:,`/C:IWinda~~rs1TEMP1Crti~V; (?0001 .HTM 8f 12102 Pale I of 1 Pam Brandmeyer - Fek~: Day Care Center From: "DIANA DC)NC7VAN" <dianamdanovan ci~msn.com> To: "Pam Brandmeyer" <pbrandmeyer~ci.vail.co.us> Date: 8/I2/02 12: ] 8 PM Subject: Fw: Day Care Center ----- Original Message ----- From: EMercyjrCa'~aoi.com Td: towncouncil@ci.vail.co.us Sent: Saturday, August 1 Q, 2002 $:2$ AM Subject: Day Care Center Members Of the Vail Town Council: 1 am writing to express our support for twa critical issues which will impact the long term viability of Vail as an outstanding national resort. The day care center should be expanded at its present site. It is an essential employee benefit which is much needed and is a logical use that would be compatible with the site. Affordable housing must be a priority. if Vail is to thrive as a destination resort it must be able to attract service employees in large numbers. V1Jithout housing this simply will not be possible. Sue and Gene Mercy Villa Cortina 330_ • tile:/IC:1WindawslTEMP1GWs (t0(}a2.HTM ~II2I02 Pale 1 of 1 Pam Brandmeyer - ~'w: Mountain Bell Site From: "'Tl1ANA D{~)r'C~VA~1" <dianamd4novan~msn.cQm> `li`o: °'Parn Brandmeyer" ~p~randmeyer(u3ci.vail.cc~.us> Date: X112/02 12:0 PM Subject: Fw: Mountain Bell Site ----- Original Message ---- From: andy wiessner To: tawncouncil~ci.vail.co.us Sent: Friday, August 09, 2002 3:34 PM Subject: Mountain Bell Site Dear Council Members, I am supportive of putting affardable housing at the Mountain Bell site, but hope that in approving any project you will keep the following in mind: 1.the project be of sych a size as to blend into the terrain and forested area in the vicinity. In particular, the taller trees on the site should be preserved and the buildings} landscaped so that visual intrusion is minimized; 2. I think the drawings. I have seen which involve a 5 story structures}, have buildings which are probably too high for that particular location. Can the height be lowered to 2-3 storiesd so that it is similar to the majority of the other developments an the north frontage road? 3. Parking should be underground. 4. VERY IMPORTANTLY IN MY MIND, THERE SHOULD BE SOME SORT OF BRIDGE OR WALKWAY TO VILLAGE SO THAT PEOPLE CAN GET THERE ON FOOT. The current underpass at 4he Vail I-70 exit too narrow icy in winter) is not adequate far people to travel by foot. It either needs to be widened...or some Bart of foot bridge put acrossfunder the Interstate.lf foal access is not provided. there will be a traffic problem at the rotary. If a foot path is too expensive...then, at least, a bus stop should be put at the entrance to the housing project.. Thank you for considering my views. Sincerely. Andy Wiesner te1:970-476-6~ 36 • file;~'I~:1V4~'incit~«rs1TEMP1GV1f' }00001.HTM 8/l 2102 Page 1 of 1 Pam Brandmcyer - Fw: Mountain Scll Site From: "DIANA DONUVAN" <dianamdanovan~msn.com> To: "Pam Brartdmeyer" ~pbrandmeyer~~ci.vail.co.us> Date: 8/12/C?2 I a:54 AM Subject. Fw: Mountain Bell Site ----- Qriginal Message ---- From: SANewsam@cs.cam To: towncouncil@ci.~ail.co.us Sent: Thursday, August fl8, 2(}02 4:20 PM Subject: Mountain Bell Site Dear: Mayor and Tawn Council Planning and Environmental Con~niissian Design Review Board As a property owner, 1 believe that the size of the proposal for the Mountain bell Site is incompatible with the beatrty and world-class scenic image of Veil's main entrance. Please, significantly reduce the size of the housing project or move it to a more appropriate venue. While we all recognize the i~npartanee of affordable employee housing, I urge you to preserve and protect Veil's image as visitors first enter our beautiful Village. As at all ether resorts, employee housing should not be the first visual visitors will encounter. Truly affordable employee housing should not be attennpted where it is neither appropriate nor affordable. Sara A. Newsom • • file:!'C:IVti'inda«rs1T'EMPIGW~ OOOCII.HTM 8112102 Page 1 of 1 Pam Brandme~ier - Fw: Mountain Bell Project 1~ ram: "DIANA DONOVAN" <dianamdonovan(umsn.com> 'I'fl: "Pam Brandmeyer" <pbrandmeyer ci~ci.vail.co.us> Date: 8112?42 14:d] AM Subject: Fw: Mountain Bell Project ----- Original Message ----- From: <IvIWK1851(r~aol.com> To: <towncouncil@ci.vail.co.us> Sent: Thursday, .Aubust 48.2442 9:24 AM Subject: Mountain Bell Project > Dear A~ayor and Town Council, I am President of the Alphorn Condominium .Association at 121 W"est Meadow Drivc, I speak for aJJ of our owners when 1 express concern about the proposed Mountain BeJJ Prnject. The massive size of the employee housing building is totally inappropriate for tl~e entrance to Vail. .Attractiveness to our visitors is a high priority, as well as space to house our employees. We hi,hly oppose the present plan and feel that it must he re-visited in another form. Thankyou for your consideration. 1~largie Kell • • filer/C:\VtirindawslTEMP',GW; Q00() l .I-1TM 81I 2/02 Page 1 of 1 Pane Brandmeyer - Fw: ~!'Iountain Real Site ~e•orr~: "DIANA DONOVAN"' <dianarndonavan(u~msn.com> Ta: '"Pam Brandir~ever" ~pbrandmcycr~ci.vail.cn.us> Date: S/12.02 10:34 AM Subject: Fw: Mountain Bell Site ----- Original Message ----- From: Gretchen Busse To: Vail Town Council Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2002 7:39 PM Subject: Mountain Bell Sits: Mr. Mayor and Town Council, We as property owners, believe that the size of the ;proposal for the Mountain Bell Site is incompatible with the beauty and scenic image of Vail's main entrance. We urge the Town of Vail Eo move it to a more appropriate Iocation..We urge the Town to preserve and protect Vail's image as visitors first enter our beautiful Village. As at all major resorts, employee housing should no# be the first visual visitors encounter. Truly affordable employee pausing should not be attempted where it is neither appreciate nor affordable. Len and Gretchen Busse • tmle:/IC:1W indowslTEMP1GW } OOOU2.HTM 8f 12102 Pam Brandmeyer - Itr twn of vaif vs mountain bel.dat ^I_iDi~F:~DCD^~CiF^~GDPauI J. and Katherine W, Dudzinski 3309 Canadian Park Way Fort Collins, CO 80524 and Skaal Hus I, Unit #4 14'f W. Meadow Drive Vail, CO 81!657 Town of Vail Town Council 75 South Frontage Road, West Vail, C(7 81657 e-mail <towncouncil@ci.vail.co.us3 Fax: 97Q-479-2157 • Page 10 August 7, 2002 Dear: Mayor and Town Council Planning and Environmental Commission Design Review Board We, as property owners, believe that the size of khe proposal for the Mountain Bell Site is incompatible with the beauty and world-class scenic image of Vailbs main entrance. We urge the Town of Vail to significanly reduce the size of the housing project or to move ik to a more appropriate venue. While we all recognize the importance of affordable employee housing, we urge the Town to preserve and protect Vail©s image as visitors first enter our b^~eautiful Village. As at all other resorts, employee housing should not be the first visual visitors will encounter. Truly affordable employee housing should not be attempted where it is neither appropriate nor affordable. We are well aware of the exciting plans that are being oreated for all of Vail, including the Vail Front Door and Lionshead, etc. and are anticipating playing our part in helping ik happen. We would be much less interested in participating if this ill conceived project at the Mountain Sell Site goes through in its current farm. It is not congruent to create a well conceived upgrade to our Village, and to try to use outdated, less than attractive, plans for the actual entrance from the interstate. We hope you will reconsider at this important stage in planning, as the future outcome will be of great importance to Vail as a whole. Sincerely, Paul J. Dudzinski, M.D. Katherine W. Dudzinski Z^yy[V^C^~^C^DSET,^yjr.H^^v^YYY^Yyy^F^~i^~^"^^=p^%4^C^^Lbt7^C^^yy6^jijr"^^ ^°pn'IDSET~^yy.H^^€^Lst~^!'YYr~YYYpF^"^^^^1'/4~l^^°^OGC]^C^yji^^^°0^^OQ^^^^^jiji6C!yji" ~Cin-pC~:'/aDSl1M'^CPaul DudzinskiHD~tICSTYL^~CI~Cyji~D^STYL^Fi^a~l^CF^"GF^~^F^T^F • Cage 1 of 1 Pam Brandmeyer - Fw: ?-,i~4-^.o e~.:._. _:_.:n-~lti'X'~F:sP4sT _ _ ... s.-',:.'y::t~'-ti h.. _. .. ~ .-.:a,..w...~.~r~r....i.w.wv.a.iu.u..ua~uw~~ 1,.._-~_._~u, s.u, ,. .i ",. ~.... .... .:-_.., From: "DIANA DONOVAN" ~diaslanadonovan(cz~,msn.com> Tt-: "Pang 13randrneyer" ~pbrandmeyer(c!ci.vait.co.us~ fate: $II2!(12 1(1:26 AM Subject: Pw: ----- [original Mcssa~e ---_- F'rom: ~13i11_Mortot~~u?jackmorton.com> To: ~towncouncil~?ci.vail.co.us~ Sen#: Wednesday, ,august 07, 20Q2 3:29 Plu3 Dear Mayor and Town Couttcil Planning and 1=nviremmental Comtnission Design ~teview Board: h;ivc reviewed the plans, size and scope of the building for the proposed Mountain I3e11 Site. 1 just wanted to drop you this note to tell yc~u that I believe that it does not fit ~~•itlt the look atad the image of the main ettitrance to Vail. i had spoketa with several of you, and again via this note encourage you to signilicat~dy reduce the size or move it to a snore appropriate ]ocation. A11 of us recognize the importance of aficardable employee kioatsing, but from all that I can assess, I don't believe it"s truly attordable nar appropriate. Sincerely, William Morton • • tile:IlC: ;V'v'itlciovuslTEI~~P1G~~' f 00[}~72.HTM $1 ~ 2/0~ Page 1 of 1 Pam Brandme,,~er - Fw: Mountain Bell Siite opposition ... ~..._ .-.•'.fin.u..:' _~~~~.;.._._.~:°.~i9"i 1:o'laS."~A.d..as...~...~ _... .,.o -....-..w.a.mwi~:axnuma.r--wa..n._u From; "DIAi'~A DC?N[?VAN" <dianamdonovanLalmsn.com> To; "Pain Brandmeyer" ~pbrandmeyer(ruci.vail.co.us> DAIe: fl!`1 ~iQ2 10:21 AM Subject; 1=w: Mountain Bell Site opposition _____ ~,lri4~inal Message ----- From: <Mikhaley~cr;aol.com> To: =to~a'ncaunci](~iici.vail.co.us> Sent: Wednesday, August 07, ?002 1(}:33 AM Subject: Mountain Bcll Site opposition ' > Dear Mayor & Town Council, Planning and Environrnenial Coznrnissian Design > Review Board: > We a5 property ownez-s, belies°e that the size of the proposal affordable > houaitzg project at the Mountain Eiell site is incompatible with beauty and > world-class scenic image of Vail's main entrance. > 'Vdc urge the Tawn of Vail to sigtzificantly reduce the size of the housing > project err mane it to a more appropriate venue. While we all recognize the > importance of affordable employee housing, we urge the town to preserve and > protect Val's image as visitors first enter our beautiful r'iliage. As at all > other resorts, employee housing should not be the first visual visitors will > Encounter. Truly affordable employee housing should not be attempted tivhere it > is neither appropriate nor affordable. > Siflcerely, Mike Haley 1R6U Meadow Dr., #3 > Vail, CO iiie:/IC:1Win~ic~wslTEMP1GW } 00001.f-~TIVI ~~' 12102 Pale l of 1 Pam Brandme~rer - ~'w; 1`Zoun#ain Beli Site Frojcc# From: "DIANA D4NOVAN" ~dianamdanavan ca~rn4n.cam> 'i`o: "Pam Brandnteyer" ~pbrandmeyer(a?ci.vail.co.us> Date: ~/12/02 10:14 AM Sul~jeet: Fe~°: Mauntain Bell Site Project ----- driginal Mc;ssage ----- rrotn: "Ginny Culp" cgculp~vail.net> To: <towncouncil~ci.vail.ca.us> Sent: lv7anday, August O5, ?007 9.~6 PM Subject: Mountain Bell Site Project > Dear Town Councilpersan, > I'm warned that we are awfully close to starting samethirtg that isn't > going to deliver what anybody wants. I'm worried about wlta is in the > driver's ,cat on this A~Iiddle Creek (Mauntain [3e11 site) housing, project. > My concerns include: > I. Vail resident's assets and tax dollars are going to build rental > 9tousing far employees of businesses in the Town of Vail. I don't > believe this is an appropriate use of taxpayer dollars. I think it is > tine if the TOV builds housing for THEIR employees, but I believe > building!providing hauling for private business's employees ought to be > clone by private nectar money. > 2. -There are tltose who think this is costin the TQV nothing. Wrong. > Tl3e value of the land at the entrance to V"ail is worth how muds would • > you think'? Leasing it on a very long-term basis at na cost. is not > helping the taxpayer get any return an a huge asset. Additionally the > council has agent tens of thousands of dollars in the planning phases. > 3. The entrance to Vail will be changed forever. It is like putting > TimberRidge as our first greeting to guests. (Yes, once a town council > thought TimberRidge looked good!) > 4. 1 understand ihat the rents will shake out at a minimum of $650 a > bed. Is that affordable'? Given the site, costs could easily escalate > resultins in even higher rental rates. Additionally I have concerns, riven the currant economy, ihat this > pra,ject may actually he underfunded. Today's dollars are nat. what they > were a month ago. I'm uneasy that there will tie late of earner cuttinb > in the construction. Once it is storied.. if the project isn't completed by the developer, who pays to have it completed' Bonding doesn't cover the full cast of the project, does it? > There will be much redevelopment in Vail Village and Lionshead in the =y next five years. This will provide a perfect opportunity to include > cmplc~yce housing in floe ne~v designs and to have the right people paying > 1'or it..the employers. And they will have more interest in rucking the > units lack good and tit into their location. > I urge you to think more carefully about this important decision. [ > believe there are better ways to sense the employee and the residents of > Fail. > Ginny Culp tile:/1C:IW indo~vslTEM~'1GW ~ 000[} 1.HTM ~i112/U2 Paul J. and Katherine W. Dudzinski 3309 Canadian Park Way Fort Collins, CC3 80524 and Skaal bus I, Unit #4 141 W. Meadaw Drive Vail, GQ 81657 August 7, 2Q02 Town of Vai! Town Council 75 South Frontage Road, West Vail, GQ 81657 e-mail etowncounclCci.vail.co.us~ Fax: 970-479-21 a7 Dear: Mayor and Town Gouncil Planning and Environmental Commission Design Review Board We, as property owners, believe that the size of the proposal for the Mountain Bell Site is incompatible with the beauty and world-class scenic image of Vail's main entrance. We urge the Town of Vail to signficanly reduce the size of the housing project or to moue it to a more appropriate venue. While we all recognize the importance of affordable employee housing, we urge the Town to preserve and protect Vail's image as visitors first enter our beautiful Village. As at all other resorts, employee housing should not be the first visual visitors will encounter. Truly affordable employee housing should not be attempted where it is neither appropriate nor affordable. We are well aware of the exciting plans that are being created for all of Vail, including the Vail Front Door and Lianshead, etc. and are anticipating playing our part in helping it happen. We would be much less interested in participating if this ill conceived project at the Mountain Bell Site goes through in its current form. It is not congruent to create a well conceived upgrade to our Village, and to try to use outdated, less than attractive, plans for the actual entrance from the interstate, We hope you will reconsider at this important stage in planning, as the future outcome will be of great importance to Vail as a whole. Sin erely, Paul J. Du inski, M.D, ~~~~ ~ ~~ Katherine W. Dudzinski f~(AR,LEY G. FifGBfE, )R. 160 Broadway, Suite 1 X00 Denver, CC} (30202 343-861-42 34 Fax 343-8 34- ~ 4b 5 August 12, 2Q~2 The Town of Vail Vail, CC} 81B57 We are very much aware of the need for employee housing. During Vail's very first winter we were forced to bed down employees ire the laundry ra©m of The 'Lodge, causing Jack Tweedy and me to try to initiate an employee h©using project. We failed. As much as we favor the concept, the proposed project at the Bell site is too big and too prominent. !t would be unfortunate for the entrance to Mail to be defined by a housing project. dur image is too important. A smaller building that iswell-hidden, or another focatian, would be our preference. Sincerely, Lorraine and Harle Hi gr i •d ~9~I-^ES-ESE :LI~~dWD~ 1I0 StJI?I~nd~ e5T =TT ~D zT end ~~r~~r~ae2 19:5 • Elna and Bruce $Casson ~aea~~z~33 Thursday, August U$, ZDQ2 KASSON ~0 bear: Mayor and Town Council Planning and Environmental Commission Design. Review Board We, as Vail propert}r owners, have studied the plans far the Mountain Bell Site and are quite disturbed. Too denude this site of its beautiful trees to build such a large (an not very attractive) structure seems out of synch with our desire to have Vail a mare beautiful place in which to live and to visit. tiVe suggest the Town of Vail significantly reduce the size of the housing project or move it to a mere appropriate venue, Affordable employee housing is important. Hut locating it at our main entrance, in its. current configuration, seems tv defeat the purpose of a more attractive Vail. Signed: ~~~~ /~1 Q1 1 ~p ~ 2570 ~y~,a IAO W~'aM ~daf PAGE 01 • rams-horn 416 VAIL VALLEY DRNE PHC)NE (970} 476-5646 VAIL, COLORADO 81657 August 7, 2002 Town of Vail Town Council 75 South Frontage Road, West Vail, COS 1657 Dear Mayor and Town Council FAX (970) 476-0301 • For several months we have been following the discussions regarding the Mountain $eIl Site. The size of the project proposed for this site is not compatible with the world class image of Vail_ This project is the entry to Vail and the first impression for guests and residents alike. We urge the Town of Vail to either signifcantly reduce the size of the housing project or move it to a more appropriate location. Although we understand that affordable employee housing is critical for the Town, we also believe first impressions is a critical issue to Vail as well. We have only one major entry to Vail and this is not the appropriate location for affordable housing. We urge you to evaluate this issue carefully as the effects of this decision are very long term. Sincerely y~', ~~ No pan D. Kurtz, Pres% nt Rams Horn C~~~l~ionainiu Association MEMORANDUM T+C: Planning and Environmental Commission FRAM: Department of Community Development DATE: August 26, 20Q2 SUBJECT: A request far a conditional use permit, to allow for a temporary seasonal structure within Lionshead Mixed Use 1, located at 715 West Lionshead CirclelLots 4 & 7, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 3'~ Filing and Lots C & D, Marcus Subdivision. Applicant: Vail Marriott Mountain Resort; represented by Matt Vinland, Director of Sales and Marketing Planner: Warren Campbell !. SUMMARY The applicant, Vail Marriott Mountain Resort, is requesting a conditional use permit as outlined in Section 12-16-2 (Conditional Use Permit), Vail Town Cade, to be located at 715 West Lionshead Circ]elLots 4 & 7, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 3T~ Filing and Lots C & D, Marcus Subdivision. The conditional use is requested to allow the applicant to erect a 60 font by 95 foot temporary seasonal structure an the tennis court from September 3-25, 2002. Based upon Staft's review of the criteria outlined in Section VIII of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented, the Community Development Department recommends approval of this request subject to the findings and conditions noted in Section IX of this memorandum. II. DESCRIPTION of THE REQUEST The Vail Marriott Mountain Resort is requesting a conditiona6 use permit to allow for a temporary seasonal structure to be erected from September X25, 2002, an the existing tennis court site on the south side of the hotel. The structure is proposed to be a white fi0 foot by 90 foot "Genesis Pavilion'" with a marquis walkway leading from the building to the structure. The structure will have a portable amplified speaking system, lighting, two propane heaters. The propose hours of operation are from 9:00 am to 6:00 pm, seven days a week. The applicant"s letters of request (Attachment G), specifications far the structure {Attachment F), and a reduced site plan have been attached for reference (Attachment D}. The proposed structure is to be used try guest staying at the hotel while the conference rooms are out of service due to construction. No outside visitors will be arriving at the Marriott to utilize the structure. While construction is occurring on Phase I and the ports-cochere of the Marriott traffic and pedestrian circulation in the area will be altered. For several months West Lionshead Circle will become one-way headed east across the Marriott frontage. The temporary entrance for guest of the Marriott will be on the west side of the Phase III building across from the parking structure. Guest would pull into the parking structure were they could unload baggage and give their car to the valet. During construction all guest cars will be valet parked in the structure. There is a hammerhead turn-around provided at the end of the drive between the parking structure and the west end of the hotel. Pedestrians will have access an the south side of the hotel via a temporarily installed flagstone six-foot wide path leading from the tennis courts to the west end of the hotel. A site plan depicting automobile and pedestrian flaw is included in the attachments (Attachment E). III.. BACKGROUNQ On June 2g, 2001 the Planning and Environmental Commission approved a conditional use permit for a one year period for a temporary tent on the tennis courts. IV. REVIEWING BOARD ROLES C?rder of Review: Generally, appGcafions will be reviewed first by the PEC for acceptability of use and then by the DRB for compliance of proposed buildings and site planning. Planning and Environmental Commission: Action: The PEC is responsible far final appra~ral/denial of CUP. The PEC is responsible for evaluating a proposal for: ~ .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 a5 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 Rerr'rew Board: Action: The DRB' has NO review aufhority on a CUP, but must review any accompanying DRB application. Town Council: Actions of DRB or PEC maybe appealed to the Town Council or by the Town Council. Town Council evaluates whether or not the PEC or DRB erred with approvals or denials and can uphold, uphold with modifications, or overturn the board's decision. 2 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 Staff provides a staff memo containing background an 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. V. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS applicant as to compliance with the design guidelines. A. Tflwn of Vail Zoning RQgulations In the past, the tent has been approved in conjunction with a special event under the definition of a "seasonal use or structure." However, this tent is proposed to be in service far less than a month which is much more temporary. The Town Code defines a "seasonal use ar structure" as: . A temporary covering erected over a recreational amenity, such as a swimming pool or tennis court,. far the purpose of expanding their use into the cold weather months. Such seasonal covers may not be in place far more than seven (~) consecutive months of any twelve (i2) month period. For the purposes of this Title, a seasonal use or structure shall not constitute site coverage and shall not be subject to building bulk control standards. Any seasonal use or structure shall require a conditional use permit in accord with Chapter t 6 of this Title and is subject to design review. Far the Planning and Environmental Commission's reference, Section 12-16-1, 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 specie! characteristics, conditional uses require review so that they maybe 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 fa 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 maybe permitted subject to such conditions and limitations as the Town may prescribe to insure fhat the location and operation of the conditiona! uses will 6e in accordance with the development objectives of the Town and will not be detrimenfal to other uses or properties. Where conditions cannot be devised, to achieve these objectives., applications for conditional use permits shall be denied. The Marriott is located within the I_i©nshead Mixed Use I zone district The purpose of LMU1 is : The Lionshead Mixed Use ~ District is intended to provide sites far 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 Lianshead Redevelopment Master Plan. 3 This zone l7'istrict 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 care 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 F?edevelopment Master Plan study area. The primary goal of the incentives is to create economic conditions favorable to inducing private redevelopment consistent with the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. Additionally, the incentives are created to help finance public off-site r'mpr©vements adjacent fo redevelopment projects. With any development/redevelopment proposal faking advanfage 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. B. Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan The Marriott is also governed by the development objectives as stated. in the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. Of the six Policy Objectives outlined in the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, staff has identified the following objectives as applicable to this proposal: 2.3. i Renewal and Redevelopment Lionshead can and should be renewed and redevelopment to become a warmer, more vibrant environment for guests and residents. Lionshead needs an appealing and coherent identity, a sense of place, a personality, a purpose, and an improved aesthetic character. 2.3.2 Vitality and Amenities We must seize the opportunity to enhance guest experience and community interaction through expanded and additional activities and amenities such as performing arts venues, conference facilities, ice rinks, streetscape, parks and other recreational improvements. The Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan specifically identifies the tennis courts as an infill opportunity: There are several tennis courts on the south side of the Marriott. This area presents and opportunity for low-rise infill development that eases the visual and physical transition from the existing structure to the Gare Creek recreation path. G. 'Vail Land Use Plan In addition, staff has identified the following goals and objectives from the Town of Vail Land Ilse Plan, which staff believes apply to this proposal. 2.4 The community should improve summer recreational and cultural opportunities to encourage summer tourism. 3.~ Entertainment oriented business and cultural activities should be encouraged in the core areas to create diversity. More nighttime businesses, on-going events and sanctioned "street happenings"should be encouraged. 4 VI. North. South: East: West: VII. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING Land Use Mixed Use Open Space Mixed Use Mixed Use CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Zoning Lionshead Mixed Use-1 District Natural Area Preservation District Lionshead Mixed Use-~ District Lionshead Mixed Use-1 District The review criteria for a request of this nature are established by the Town Cade. The proposed temporary seasonal structure is located within the Lionshead Mixed Use 1 Zone District. Therefore, this proposal is subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 12-16, Vail Town Code. A. Consideration of Factors Reaardino Conditional Use Permits: 1, Relationship and irnpact of the use on the development objectives of the Town. Staff believes that the proposed seasonal structure is consistent with the purpose of the Lionshead Mixed Use V zone district. The tent provides additional facilities for the hotel, while ensuring adequate light and air. Staff believes that because the use is temporary, there will be no effects an future development potential of the tennis court site. In addition, the tent allows the Marriott to retain the scheduled conference during the month of September while construction on the hotel continues. Therefore,, staff believes that the proposal i5 consistent with the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Flan. Staff believes that because the conditional use permit would allow conference activities to occur at the Marriott during the continuing construction, the propose! is consistent with the Town of Vail Land Use Plan. 2. The effect of the use on light. and air, distribution ofi population, transportation facilities, utilities, Schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities needs, Staff believes that the proposed use will have negligible effects on the above- mentioned criteria. The location of the structure on the tennis courts has no impact on the use of those facilities as they are defunct, and therefore, no recreational uses are being displaced. Because of the temporary+ nature of the structure and the manner in which it is to be operated, staff believes that there is no effect on the use of light and air. 3. Effect upon traffic uvith particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic filow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and parking areas. '~ Staff believes that the proposed structure will have negligible effects on the above-mentioned criteria. Automotive and pedestrian traffic in the area will be affected by the continuing construction on Phase I. While construction is 5 occurring an Phase !and the Porte-cochere of the Marriott traffic and pedestrian circulation in the area will be altered, For several months (Nest • Lionshead Circle will become one-way headed east across the Marriott frontage. The temporary entrance for guests of the Marriott will be on the west side of the Phase ill building across from the parking structure. Guests would pull into the parking structure were they could unload baggage and give their car to the valet. During construction all guest cars will be valet parked in the structure. There is a hammerhead turn-around provided at the end of the drive between the parking structure and the west end of the hotel. Pedestrians will have access an the south side of the hotel via a temporarily installed flagstone six-foot wide path leading from the tennis courts to the west end of the hotel. The Public Works Department has reviewed and approved the automotive circulation proposal. Because the tent will only remain up during the month of September, there is no effect on snow removal from the street 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. As a seasonal structure, the proposed tent is not subject to bulk and mass standards of the Lionshead Mixed Use 1 zone district. Because it is temporary in nature (only the month of September) staff believes that there will be no effect on the character of the neighborhood. There are no exterior lights proposed in conjunction with the tent. 13. The Planning and Environmenta! Commission shall make the followino findings before orantino 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 Lionshead Mixed Use-1 Zone District. 2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it will be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code. Vlll. STAFF RECQMMENDATiC?N The Community Develgpment Department recommends that the Planning and Environmental Commission approve the applicant's request for a conditional use permit to allow for a temporary seasonal structure located at located at 7t 5 West Lionshead. CirclelLots 4 & 7, Black 1, Vail Lionshead 3r~ Filing and Lots C & D, Marcus Subdivision. Staff's recommendation of approval is based upon the review of the criteria described in Section VII of this memo. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve the applicant's request, staff recommends that the following findings be made as part of a motion: 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, ar welfare ar materially injurious to properties ar 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 Gommissean chooses to approve this request, staff recommends the fallowing conditions of approvaL- 1. That the applicant shall not erect the teat prior to September 9, 2002 and that the applicant shall remove the tent by no later than September 30, 2002. 2. That the hours of operation be from 7:00 am to 8:00 pm, seven days a week. 3. That all Town ordinances regarding noise levels be meet. 4. That the applecan# receives a Town of Vail building permit prior to erecting the tent. IX. ATTACHMENTS A. Vicinity Map B. Publication Notice C. Affidavit of Publication Q. Site Plan Showing Structure Location E. Site Plan Showing Automobile and Pedestrian Circulateon F. Tent Specifications and Photograph G. Memorandums from Applicant li. February 12, 2001 Marriott CUP Staff Report I. Minutes J. E3aard Action Forms • 7 .~ .v 5 a U •L ca ~ ~ 1~ ~~ ~, .~ ~ o \' _ • N ~ .Y ~+~+. ~00~!}V}[7I~L Attachment: A ~` \ . ~~ ~ ~ ~ fYflJV1V 1H1PV RE50R7 & SPA 71 S West Lionshead Circle Vaif, Colorado X31657 715 West Liorshead Circle Vaif, Colorado 81 b57 715 West Lionshead Circle Vail, Colorado 81 b57 1 ~A~~~rr~~ot~. MOUfV7A1N RE50RT & 5PA 715 West Lionshead Circle Vail, Colorado $1657 MILLERS LIOI'~1SHEAD LLC ATI'N: HOME OWNERS ASSOCIATION 12770 MERIT DRIVE SUITE 400 DALLAS, TX 75251 ADAM & NANCY SHAPIRO ATTN: HOME OWNERS ASSOCIATION 4975 E PRESERVE GREENWOOD VILLAGE, CO $0124 PARSONS FAMILY LLC ATI'N: HOME OWNERS ASSOCIATIOI*I P.S7. BOX 447 EDWAR.DS, CO $1632 THEA ] RUMFORD LIVING TRUST ATTN: HOME OWNERS ASSOCIATION 675 FOREST ROAD VAIL, CO 81657 Attachment: 8 -~ ~- ~,~,u>~ ~ ivy ~. "v1OU~'VTAIN RESORT & SPA 7i 5 West Lionshead Circe Vail, Colorado 81657 715 West Lianshead Cirole Vail, Colorado 81657 MOUNTAtty RESORT & SPA 775 West Lionshead Circle Vail, Colorado 81657 VAiL SPA CONDQMINIUM ASSOCIATION ATTN; Ht7ME OWNERS ASSOCIATION 7l0 WEST LIONSHEAD CIRCLE VAIL, CQ S1657 ANTLERS CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION ATTN: I-IOME OWNERS ASSOCIATION CSO WEST LIONSHEAD CIRCLE VAIL, CO $I6S7 • L'R'ON.UNIVERSAL CORPORATION ATTN: HOME_OWIrIERS ASSOCIATION CIO ARMSTRONG NOVOSAD & ASSOC P.O. Box s~Io AVON, CO 81620 MOUNTAIN RESORT & SPA 715 West Lionshead Circle Vail, Colorado 8'1(,57 JERARD & JOAN MAHER ATTN: HOME OWNERS ASSOCIATION 25 ] FOWLER ROAD FAR HILLS, NJ 07931 ,~ MOUNTAIN RESORT & SPA 71'5 West Lionshead Circle Vail, Colorado 81657 COLMAR LLC ATTN: HOME OWNERS ASSOCIATION - Z S I FOWLER ROAD -. ~ FAR HILLS, NJ 4793 i 715 Vti~est Lionshead Circle Vail, Colorado 81657 ROGER & SALLY CAROL ATTN: HOME OWNERS ASSOCIATION 9854 PROGRESS CIRCLE GREENWOOD VILLAGE, CO 841 I I 1" MouNTAIN RESORT & SPA 71,5 West Licenshead Circle Vail, Colorado 81657 TEXAS TELEVISION INC ATTN: I-COME OWNERS ASSOCIATION P.O. BOX C 6290 HOUSTON, TX 77222 vH I ~,\[~~ l l!J 1 l~ MOUNTAIN RESORT & SPA 715 West Lionshead Circle Vail, Colorado 81657 MOUNTAIN RES<]RT & SPA 715 West Lianshead Circle Vail, Colorado &1657 LIONSHEAi~ INN LLC A7TN: HOME OWNERS ASSOCIATION 616 N LIONSHEAD CIRCLE SUITE 302 VAIL, CO Si657 VAIL CORPORATION ATTN; HOME OWNERS ASSOCIATION P.O. BOX 7 VAIL, CO $1658 ~.~~ a~.;c~- r1 ~J • MOUNTAIN RE54RT & SPA 715 Wes[ Lianshead Circle Vail, Colorado 81657 1-i1J111r IMII~1 RESORT & SPA 715 West Lionshead Circle Vaii, Calorada 81557 EN~IAN AT VAIL INC ATTN: HOME OWNERS ASSOCIATION 7721 N KOSTNER AVENUE 5KOICIE, IL b0076 30HN ENGLEMAN STEPHEN HATHORN ATTN: H01v11; OWNERS ASSOCIATION 54I ELY ROAD ELY, VT 05045 THIS 17EM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE 1S HEREBY GlV1=N that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail will hold a public hearing in accordance with Section 12-3-6 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail on August 26, 2002, at 2:00 P.M. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. In consideration af: A request for a recommendation to the Vail Tawn Council for an amendment to the Tawn of Vaif Streetscape Master Plan, to allow far modifications to the proposed streetscape plan and to propose improvements, located at Meadow Drive from Dobson Ice Arena to Willow Bridge Road, Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Otak, Inc. Planner: Bill Gibson A request for a major amendment to an approved development plan, in accordance with Section 12-8D-6 of the Vail Town Code, to allow for improvements to the Golden Peak Ski Base, located at 458 Vail Valley DrivefTract F,Vail Village 5~' Filing and 498 Vail Valley DrivelTract B, Vail Village 7`" Filing. Applicant: Vail Resorts, !nc_ Planner: Bill Gibson A request far a conditional use permit and an amendment to the approved development plan, to allow far a temporary private educational institution, located at the Lionshead RV Lot, 395 S. . Frontage RoadlLot 1, Block 2, Vail Lionshead 1gt Filing. Applicant: Children's Garden of Learning Planner: Allison ©chs A request far an interpretation of the maximum height and calculation of average maximum height requirements in the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. Applicant. Town of Vail Community Development Department Planner: Allison Ochs A request for a conditional use permit, to allow far a temporary seasonal structure at the Vaii Mountain Marriott Resort, located at 715 West Lionshead Circle/Lots 4 & ~, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 3`~ Filing and Lots C .& D, Morcus Subdivision. Applicant.: Vail Marriott Mountain Resort Planner: George Ruttier A request for a recommendation to the Vai{ Tawn Council for an amendment to the Town of Vail Land Use 'Plan and' the Vai! Village Master Plan, to facilitate the construction of "Nail's Front Door"' project and associated improvements, located on an unplatted parcel, generally located south of the Lodge Tower and west of the Nista Bahn Siei Yard. Applicant: Vail Resorts Development Company Planner: George Ruttier A~a~ahment: C iy TOWN OF UAIL ~ ~ ~ ~.~ " p n ~~~~rr ~7~/ ~~1 ~' `~ ~~ °% -~ Y ~rMg ri r, ,~ t ~~I ~~Sw i$lY I ~~r~~[o ~g=wi. i.~~~.~a~n~~~E'.i ~i g~'4C /L4 ` ~°- ~ '~ ,: __~,y11y,,,~rCnC to `~ c ~, ~r ~~. 51 tt d 1 _ L G ~ ~ rj i . 5~ ~ ~ ~ ~.\ .i. • °rJG ~ r i=_ ~ s \~ \ ~ I ~}~~i~ ~~ ~ i ~ f`yn ` r ~ rim ~~ _ JTic~~-!„~~~F~z. _~~ I~'~+ ~ , i x ~I~ _ ~k c I ~ ` r, r~ y ~~ ,, ~ y, q f; ti„ I ~ /. J~ ~ {'~ 1 y 511 I ~. J~,L~~,C~ ~ 1,~ Fh .f ~ 1. // ~ ` y _ Y.- ~;~ yl..~f + •\ ,~ .'~ L` •lt~ t ,,fit .~ •~. f~ ~' L C: l iL 1 rC ~`. 1r -:~.~ ~ 1 _ y~, ~ ~ I~f, ~1. i i i ~ - ~ k ~ ~ YS}`}`1 ~' '1 ~ Cl ~~ rF~ Y 5 l s - c '. b ~~ :9 s. 1 'M. A '~ 7I, 1 'i f. ~ . +~ ''~ ~' 4 111 air f s ~~ ` `~ ~~ _ ~ r ~ ~ ,T,1 ~ ,~ 1 ~ \ \~ Ly .Q l ~ +~'. _~ 1 ~J- .~~ 1 " $ 'mil I' 'il iy ~~~_~~ N N 1 I ~ y S Z.N_ + \ ~, C. \\ ~'~ 't.0 a '\ ~ ~l :~~ iF ~~ ~ llrr„iC }1 ` {C i ti '1 7 ~ ~ Gf ~' f ' Yf - ~ I ~ 1~ J . , ~ ~ O ~ til Z ti L l" r - C {~ f ~ o, ~ G lL I~r _ ' p~,Sti .~J~-,~'~'j~ fy I ~y ,r~ t ~.. 5 .. ~ ~ { I P Iv 11 p ' ~~F~ J,•-/ LJ Lin '~ ~ ~ ~~ p~J~ Attachinnent: D ;,,;•-- 'S _ r ~ ~ d ~. 6' ~FENGf N `~~ cy 1 as. z' ;~ rta___. -- ~~ ~` Y ~~ ~,.-.~+ ~__! ~ ~ I f rJ ~~ . w_ z ~ 1 'y-~ ~ o ~ ~ r ~ ~ ~ ~ U Y '~ ~_ p `x 0. is n, ~ ~' "r ~~ o "O ~ FAR YrNF w '~' ~ !~ ~/ '1 1~. ~ a a ~ ~? _GRA TftwG t~ w7. ~+'.a i ~ ~ ~i_~~~ _ 1~+Cr r `Tab O~ I ti a j„~ 'ti ~ ~I ,;,'~zcAp~-mss' 1 ~~ ~ ~ jj~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '~ ~' 1 f ~~ ` ~ ~ ~ f _ ~`~ ~ _ ' C -tip ~- / r ~'~ ~ l 1~' ~ V ~ ~ ~ ~ ^y ~ ~v `5,,,~ ~II ~ ~ ~ ` 1 ll / ~ ~1~ www..777111~ lY ~ ~Fi~.t ?lam! ~ ~,~~ ~ ~ ~C) ~ ~ ~`~, ~ _' f o , n~ ~ ~ ~ riti ~ ~ ~ ~_ ~t , R1 ~ . ~ -__"~~ P ~~~ ti• --.1 ! p ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i~1~ ~1~ 13~ ~ f1~ fir'{A z ~~, ~ 6~ ~~~r"29 i ~' ~ _- ~'~ -_ ~f i /38651°' !r-8~ L~,f A ~, y 60' GENESIS PAVILION GO' { I I I i l 1 1 1 I I I I I SIDE VIEW 60'x60' ~-28' CENTER POLE 24-7' Sf!OE POLES 38 STAKES AND ROPES 60'X120' 3-28' CENTER POLES 3fi-7' SIDE POLES 54 STAKES AND ROPES 60'X180 5-28' CENTER POLES 48-7' SIDE POLES 70 STAKES AND ROPES SCALE fl 10 20 30 60'X4' 2-28' CENTER POLES 30-7' SIDE POLES 46 STAtCES AND RAPES 60"X150' 4-28' CENTER POLES 42-7' SIDE POLES 62 STAKES AND ROPES 60`X210' 6-28' CENTER POLES 5fi-7' SIDE POLES 78 STAKES AND ROPES 30'ENE 30'M1D 120' 30'MID 30'ENE 6'~ 28' 7r J ~'~~ t~,r~c ~~,~ ~ ~er~t R er~tc~l s, .In,~. Attachment: F • T1~PICAL PLAN END PLAN C7 m C.? ~ ~ .:,~; .,, fJ ~~~ } .~ a va~~a~ ~ loft. nnOUNTA=tv RESORT & SPA ~NTERO~'F~CE MEMO Date: August I, 2aa2 To: George Rvther {479-2145) Community Development From: Matt Vinsand Director of Sages & Marketing Subject: Emerbency Tent Needed September 4 - 25, 2aa2 Copies' Dave Pease, General Manager; Jack Hunn, Vail Resorts At our weekly construction meeting on Wednesday, July 31, 2x02, we were informed by Hyder Construction Company that Fhase 1 would not be able to be completed unless we closed the Colorado Ballroom (located with-in Building 1) from August 24 through December 6, 20a2. • This will have the Vail Marriott Mountain Resort & Spa with three options: 1. We would keep the groups, and be unable to complete the Phase ]building 2. Relocate the groups outside of Vail, as the Vai! Hotels are booked vp. 3. Erect a tent (in the same location as we have in previous years) for the dates of September 3 - 27, to keep the Groups in Vail. This effects two large groups in particular: Colorado Parks & Recreation (400pp!} $ laa,Doa Rooms & Catering Revenue Colorado Health & Hospital (4aappl} ~b8,000 Rooms & Catering Revenue Erecting a tent would accomplish the following: 1. Complete the construction on the Phase 1 building. 2. Enable the Marriott to keep it's space commitment to our September Groups. 3, Keep valuable revenues and tax dollars in Vail, instead of them relocating to other cities. 1 would appreciate any help in securing an emergency permit to erect an approximate s,aa0 square foot tent on the south side of the Marriott on the tennis court. {Same location as previous years}. Thanks for your consideration. Matt Vinsand Director of Sales 3z Marketing Vail Marriott Mountain Resort & Spa 97a-479-G44a(phone} 97a-331-3 5a2(mobi le) Attachment: G ~' ~~`~ • ~ .._`'~. ~A~~,,a~r~~tt. M©tJNT,4i{V RESC?RT & .SPA INTEROFFICE MEMO Date: Ausust 1, 2U02 To: Community Development From: Matt Vinsand Director of Marketing Subject; Temporary Tent Structure Copies: A Written Statement addressing the following: a. A b,000 square foot tent to be used from September 3 - 25, 2002. The Tent will hold meetings and banquets. b. Will provide revenue for Hotel, and tax revenue for town, c, No negative effect on any of the listed facilities, d. No effect upon traffic all are guests in the hotel). e. WiII et~ver an unused tennis court Etren. • MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development [?ATE: Februar)r 12, 2001 SU€3JECT: A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for a seasonal structure within Lionshead Mixed Use 1, located at 7i 5 West Lionshead Circle/Lots 4 & 7, Slock 1, Vail Lionshead 3rd Filing and Lots C & D, Marcus Subdivision. Applicant: Vail Marriott Planner: Allison Ochs i. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The Vail Marriott is requesting a conditional use permit to allow for a seasonal structure located on the existing tennis court site. In the past, the tent has been approved in conjunction with a special event, However, maintaining the structure throughout the entire summer, as the Marriott has requested to do, requires a conditional use permit. The Town Code defines a "seasonal use or structure" as A temporary covering erected over a recreational amenity, such as a swimming pool or tertnr's court, for the purpose of expanding their use into the cold weather months. Such seasonal covers may not be r`n place for more than seven (7) consecutive months of any twefve (12) month period. For the purposes of this Title, a seasonal use ar structure shall not constitute site coverage and shall not be subject to building bulk control standards. Any seasonal use or structure shall require a conditional use permit in accord with Chapter 16 of this Title and is subject to design review. Thy applicant's letter of request, specifications for the tent, and a reduced site plan have been attached for reference. il. REVIEWING BOARD ROLES - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Planning and Environrraental Cmmmissian: The Planning anal Environments! Commission is responsible for approval/denial of a Conditional Use Permit. The Planning and Environmental Commission is responsible for evaluating a proposal for: 1. Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town. 2. Effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities and public facilities needs. ~~ ~, ~'OW14 OF YAlL ~~ • • Attachment: H 3. Effect upon traffic, with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, trafific 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 1 ~ of this Title. 7. Conformance with development standards of zone district Design Review Board: The Design Review Board has no review authority an a Conditional Use Permit, but must review any accompanying Design Review Board application. III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends that the Planning and Environmental Commission approve the applicant's request for a conditional use permit to allow for a seasonal structure located at located at 715 West Lionshead Circle/Lots 4 & 7, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 3`~ Filing and Lots C & D, Marcus Subdivision, subject to the criteria as described in Section IV of this memo and 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 ofi 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 condition of approval: 1. IV. REC~UiRED CRITERIA AND FINDINGS - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT A, CONS[DERATI4N OF FACTORS: Relationship and impact of the use on the development objectives of the Town. The Marriott is located within the Lionshead Mixed Use l zone district The purpose of LMU1 is The Lionshead Mixed Use 1 District is intended to provide sites for a mixture of multiple-family dwellings, Lodges, ht~tels, fractional fee 2 clubs, time shares, lodge dwelling units, restaurants, offices, skier '~ services, and commercial establishments in a clustered, unified development. Lionshead Mixed Lase 1 District, in accordance with the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, is infended to ensure adequate fight, 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 life 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 Zane 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 inducing private redevelopment consistent with the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. Additionally, the incentives are created fo help finance public off-site improvements adjacent to redevelopment projects. 1Nith any developmenUredevelopment proposal taking advantage of the incentives created herein, the following amenities wi11 be evaluated: streetscape improvements, pedestrian/bicycle access, public plaza redevelopment, public art, roadway improvements, and similar improvements. staff believes that the proposed season structure is consistent with the purpose of the Lionshead Mixed Use I zone district. The Marriott is also governed by the development objectives as stated in the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Flan. Qf the six Policy ©bjectives outlined in the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, staff has identified the following objectives as applicable to this proposal; 2.3. i Renewal and Redevelopment Lionshead can and shoufd be renewed and redevelopment to become a warmer, more vibrant environment for guests and residents. Lionshead needs an appealing and coherent identity, a sense of place, a personality, a purpose, and an improved aesthetic character. 2.3.2 Vitality and Amenities We must seize the opportunity to enhance guest experience and community interaction through expanded and additional activities and amenities such as performing arts venues, conference facilities, ice rinks, streetscape, parks and other recreational improvements. The Lionshead Redevelopment Master Pfan specifically identifies the tennis courts as an infill opportunity: 3 There are several tennis courts on the south side of the Marriott. This area presents and apportunify far low-rise infill development that eases the visas! and physical transition from the existing structure to fhe Gore Creek recreation path. Staff believes that because the use is seasonal, there will be no effects on future development potential of the tennis court site. Therefore, staff believes that the proposal is consistent with the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. In addition, staff has identified the following goals and objectives from the Town of Vail Land Use Plan, which staff believes apply to this proposal: 2.4 The community should improve summer recreational and culture! opportunities to encourage summer tourism. 3.5 Entertainment oriented business and cultural activities should be encouraged in the core areas to create diversity. More nighttime businesses, on-going events and sanctioned "street happenings" should be encouraged. Staff believes that because the conditional use permit would allow additional activities to occur at the Marriott, including special events and public and private events, the proposal is consistent with the Town of Vail Land Use Plan. 2. The effect of the use an light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities needs. Staff believes that the proposed use wi11 have negligible effects on the above-mentioned criteria. 3. Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control; access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and parking areas. Staff believes that the proposed use will have negligible effects on the above-rentioned criteria. 4. Effect upon fhe 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. As a seasonal structure, the proposed ten# is not subject to bulk and mass standards of the Lionshead Mixed Use t zone district. Because it is temporary in nature (only the summer months} staff believes that there will be no effect an the character of the neighborhood. B. FINQINGS The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a conditional use permit: 4 • 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. ~. 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, ar welfare ar materially injurious to properties ar 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 ~.. , 'one Golden afire with John. Dick leveland agreed ith his fellow Cam issioners and sta d small lots wer 'n character with the ne hborhoad. Dick r quested a canditi that the existing urface parking en oachment be remove from the right-of- y, Chas Bernh rdt stated he sup rted the request. Galen Aasland ated the previous isunderstanding onsfituted a hard ip for the applita ,and that the variance as warranted, Ga n requested addi nal review from t Town Attorney, iven e issue of forecla re on the prvpert Pat auphinais spoke out the parking i ue, Pat stated th parking was no I fist needed since the h e business was longer in operata John Sch field moved to fir t both requests, i accordance with t e staff memo fin gs and condition, 'th the additions th t the Town Attarn approve the plat riot to filing, and at the parking in th fight-of-way be re oved or brought i a code compliant prior to construe n of a new building. 'has Bernhardt se onded the motion.. Th otion carried E- 6. request far a co itionai use pem7i , to allow for the co solidation of 2 un within the CC2 Z e District, locate at 126 Willow Bri e RoadiLot K, BE k 5E, Vail Village S: Filing. Appii nt~ Henry An ony Ittleson, repr ented by K.H. W b Architects. Planne . Allison C?ch liison C3chs briefs the PEC on the lication, the trite ~a and findings fo conditions! use rmit a the staff recam ndation. Kyle ebb spoke an be If of the owners. a stated the units ad never been re ted in the past. There wa no public comme . Dick Clevelan stated he agree ith the staff me Chas Semhardt o agreed. i'3o g Cahill stated h greed with the st ff memo. Jahn hafield had na co menu. Diane Gal en stated the app ' ation brought the rajett closer into ompliance. Galen Aaslan stated he though. 't could be bad for he #own, aug Cahill move to grant approva f the request, in cordance with th staff memo. Ch Bernhardt seta ed. Them ion carried fi-D. 7. A request for a c©nditional use permit, to allow for a seasonal structure within the Lionshead Mixed Use 1 Zone District, located at 7'15 West Lionshead CirclelLots 4 8~ 7, Bl©ck 1, Vail Lionshead 3`~ Filing and Lots C ~ D, Morcus Subdivision. Attachment: .. ...,., Y r ~ ~,. . i Applicant: Vail Marriott Planner; Allison Ochs Allison Ochs gave an overview of the staff memo, including the criteria and findings associated with conditional use permits, Matt Vansant, the Director of Sales and Marketing for the Marriott, made himself available for questions. Dick Cleveland stated that he was in agreement with the staff memorandum. He raised a concern regarding existing site conditions. He stated that the conditional use permit should be renewed annually to ensure that the site is maintained. Chas Bernhardt agreed with the comments made by Dick. Chas mentioned sections of fence to the east of the existing construe#ion site and Hated that there is a safety hazard. Doug CahiA stated that he was concerned with the quality and appearance of the tent and that the quality of the overall product should be improved in the future. Matt Vansant stated that the Marriott has future plans to create a higher quality product Jahn Schofield stated that the site issues would have to be addressed prior to renewal of the conditional use permit. Galen Aasland stated that he was in agreement with the other Commissioners and that a conditional use permit, which would have to be renewed annually, was appropriafe. He suggested that once construction is completed at the Marriott, that the transparency factor associated with other sites in Lonshead be applied to this site. John Schofield made a motion for approval, in accordance with the staff memo, with the condition that equipment be screened at all times, that the cup be valid for one year, and tha# appropriate landscape screening be applied. The motion was seconded by Doug Cahill. Chas E~ernhardt asked if the motion could be amended to include repair of the construction fences. Dick Cleveland asked that the application for a conditional use permit be supplied prior to the tent being erected in the future. Galen Aasland asked if there was any further comment. There was no further comment. The motion carried E5-0. 8. A request a var7ance from S~ the eonstructi of an addition to 1 Lat S, Block 1, ail Village 8'" Fi plicant: Cara ollins, P{ Her: Bill Gib n 8i11 Gibson ga an overview of th denial. 12-6D-9 (Site`+~overage), Vail TovJq Code, to allow for gle-family resid ce, located at 111 Hornsilver Circle Arris 1/11est Archl~ecis. PC memo, statinghat the staff was • • • Planning and Environmental Cvmmissivn ~~~' "x- IQI-CT~vN FARM ;~;.. ~ Department of Community Development ~~] ~~ ~~~~L 75 South Frontage road, Vail, Colorado 81657 te1:97D.479.2134 fax:97i),479.2452 web: www.ei.vail.to,us Project Narne: Marriot CUP PEC Number: PEC010036 Project Description: Participants: Temporary tent OWNER HMC ACQUISITION PROPERTIES I05/14/7001 Phone: MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL ONE MARRIOTT DR DEPT 938.01 WASHINGTON DC 2DD5$ License: APPLICANT HMC ACQUISITION PROPERTIETS I05J14/2001 Phone: 476-4444 °lo MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL ONE MARRIOTT DR DEPT 938,01 WASHINGTON DC 20058 License: Project Address:. Location: Legal Description: Lot: Block: Subdivision: MARK RESORT ~. TENNIS CLU Parcel Number: Z10107212D13 Comments: MUST BE RENEWED YEARLY BOARD jSTAFF ACiZaN Motion By: John Schoffield Second By: Doug Cahill Vote: 6-0 Conditions: Action: APPROVED Date of Approval: 06/25J2001 Cond: $ (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: CONDDD4819 All equipment must be screened Cond: CON00048z0 The CUP is valid for 1 year and must be renewed annuakly Planner: Allison Ochs PEC Fee Paid: $200.00 Attachment: J MEM©RANDUM TO: Planning & Environmental Commission FRC?M: Community Development Department DATE: August t 2, 2002 SUBJECT: A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of a text amendment to Section t2-7A-7 (Height), Vail Town Code, to increase the maximum allowable building height in the Public Accommodation Zone District. Applicant.: Bob Lazier, represented by Jay Petersen Planner: George RutherlWarren Campbell SUMMARY The applicant, Bob Lazier, represented by Jay Peterson, is requesting that the Planning and Environmental Commission makes a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a text amendment to Section 12-7A-7 (Height), Vail Town Code, to increase the maximum allowable building height in the Public Accommodation (PA) Zone District. Currently the PA Zone District allows fiat or mansard roofs to be a maximum of 45 feet in height and sloped roofs to be a maximum of 48 feet in height. This request proposes to increase the maximum height of sloped roofs to 5~6 feet and flat or mansard roofs to 53 feet. Staff is recommending that the Planning and Environmental Commission table the final review of this request to the August 26, 2002, meeting of the Planning and Environmental Commission, and instead, hold a work session discussion on the application at this time. A review of discussion issues has been provided in Section lX of this memorandum. 11. DESCRIPTION t31= THE REQUEST The applicant, Bob Lazier, represented by Jay Peterson, is proposing a text amendment to Section t 2-7A-7 (Height) of the Vail Town Code. The amendment is intended to increase the maximum allowable building height of structures built in the Public Accommodation Zone District. The applicant is proposing to increase the height limitation firom 48 feet to 56 feet for buildings with sloping roofs and from 45 feet to 53 feet for buildings with flat or mansard roofs. No other amendments to the PA Zone District development standards are proposed. This amendment, if approved, would apply to al! properties in the PA Zone District. According to the Official Zoning Map, there are seventeen properties in the Town of Vail zoned Public Accommodation. These properties are generally Cocated around the periphery of the village commercial core area and include the Austria Haus*, Bavaria Haus, Chateau at Vail (Holiday lnn~, Christiania Lodge*, First Bank of Vail, Galatyn Lodge', Lot P-3, Mountain Haus, 9 Vail Road (Holiday House), Ramshorn Condominiums'', Swiss Chalet, Roast Lodge, Talisman, Tsvoli Lodge, Vail Athletic Club', Vail Village Inn*, and Villa Valhalla. Of these seventeen properties, six have received approvals for special development districts and have been identified with an asterisk (`~. III. BACKGRQtJND On August 7, 1973, the Vaif Tawn Council approved Ordinance No. 8, Series of 1973 which, in part, adopted development standards for buildings constructed in the Public Accommodation Zane District. On November 15, 1977, the Vail Town Council approved Ordinance No. 30, Series of 1977 which, in part, reduced the number of allowable dwelling units in all the zone districts which allowed residential units and created a new definition far "accommodation units': On November 18, 1980, the Vaif Town Council approved Ordinance No. 37, Series of 1980, which, in part, amended the maximum allowable building height in the Public Accommodation Zane District and created an amended definition of "heighf': On October 15, 1991, the Vail Tawn Council adopted the DEVELOPMENT CQDE REViSIQN REI~QRT, Phase I. "An Assessment of the Town of Vail Zanina Code arrd Recor~mendat`ions fvrAction" The purpose of this report is to analyze the regulations prescribed in the Tawn of Vail Zoning Regulations and make recommendations far improvements. Upon review of the development standards prescribed far the district, the report recommends amendments to the density control provisions. It makes no reference ar recommendations far amendments to the building height standard. f. On January 21, 1997, the Vail Town Council approved Ordinance Na. 22, Series of 1996, which added fractional fee clubs as a cond'stianaf use in the Public Accommodation.. Zone District and set forth details in regard thereto. On October 5, 1999, the Vail Town Council approved Ordinance Na. 23, Series of 1999, which provided for a comprehensive amendment to each of the development standards prescribed far the Public Accommodation Zane District with the exception of building height. Building height was considered and evaluated during the discussions regarding the amendment, however, it was determined at that time that the maximum building height should not be amended. The approved text amendments included: • increasing allowable GR1=A from $0% to 154% of the buildable area of the site. • Increasing the allowable site coverage from 55% to 65% while maintaining the minimum landscape requirement at 30% of the site area. • Amending the definition of a "lvdge"ta state, in part, "that the gross residential floor area devoted to accommodation units is equal to or greater than 7D 1° of the total grass residential floor area on the site." • Amending the development review process to implement a process similar to the process adapted far Lionshead. This process requires Planning and Environmental Commission consideration of all proposals for projects which add accommodation units, dwelling units, fractional fee units, mare than 1,000 square feet of commercial floor area or common space, ar any project that has substantial off-site impacts, as determined by the administrator. The Design Review Board continues to be responsible for the eeview of all projects, regardless of unit•types, square footage, etc. The process also includes a compliance burden and mitigation of development impacts requirement. • IV. R(]LES ~OF REVII=WING B~QQIES Planning and Environmental Commission: Action: The PEG is advisory to the Town Councr'1. The PEC steal[ review the proposal for and make a rec©mmendation to the Town Council on the compatibility of the proposed text changes for consistency with the Vail Comprehensive Plans and impact on the general welfare of the community.. Design 'Review Board: Action: The DRB has ND review au#hari#y on Cade amendments. Town Council: Action: The Town Couracif is responsible for final approval/denial on code amendmen#s. The Town Council shall review and approve the propose! 'based on the compatibility of the proposed text changes for consistency with the Vail Comprehensive Plans and impact on the general welfare of the community.. Staff: The staff is responsible for ensuring that all submittal requirements are provided,. The staff advises the applicant as to compCiance with the Zoning Regulations. Staff provides analyses and recommendations to the PEC and Town Council an any text proposal. V. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS Town of Vail Zoning Regulations Title ~ 2, Vail Town Code} CHAPTER 7 COIVIIVfERCIAL AND BUSINESS DISTRICTS ARTICLE A. PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION (PA) DISTRICT 12-7A-1:PURPOSE: The Public Accommodation District is intended to provide sites for lodges and residential accommodations far visitors, together with such public and semi-public facilities and limited professional offices, medical facilities, private recreation, commerciallretail and related visitor oriented uses as may appropriately be located within the same district and compatible with adjacent land uses. The Public Accommodation District is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space, and other amenities commensurate with lodge uses, and to maintain the desirable resort qualities of the District by establishing appropriate site development standards. Additional nonresidential uses are permitted as conditional uses which enhance the nature of Vail as a vacation community, and where permitted uses are intended to function compatibly with the high density lodging character of the District. (Ord. 23(1999) ' ~ :Ord. 30(1977} ' 7: Ord. 8(1973) '7.100) 12-7A-7: HEIGHT: For a flat roof or mansard roof, the height of buildings shall not exceed forty five feet {4~'). For a sloping roof, the height of buildings shall not exceed forty eight feet (48'}. (C7rd. 23(1999} ' ~ Ord. 37(1980) ' 2} HEIGHT:. The distance measured vertically from any point on a proposed or existing roof or eaves to the existing or finished grade (whichever is more restrictive} located directly below said point of the roof or eaves. Within any building footprint, height shall be measured vertically from any point on a proposed or existing roof to the existing grade directly below said point on a proposed or existing roof, Vail Village Master Plan A majority of the properties in the PA Zone District are included within the Vaii Village Master Plan Boundary. None of the properties are located within the Commercial Core I area, however several properties are located within the area delineated to be included in the Urban Design Guide Plan. Building Height Plan Generally speaking, it is the goal of this Plan to maintain the concentration of low scale buildings in the core area while positioning larger buildings along the northern periphery (along the Frontage Road}, as depicted in the Building Height Profile Pfan. This pattern has already been established and in some cases these larger structures along the Frontage Road serve to frame views over Vail Village to Vail Mountain. The Building Height Plan also strives, in some areas, to preserve major views from public right-of-ways.. Building heights greatly influence the character of the built environment in the Village. This is particularly true in the Village Core where typical building heights gf three to fours#ories establish a pleasing human scale. The building heights expressed on this Illustrative Pian are intended to provide general guidelines. Additional study should be made during specific project review relative to a building's height impact on the streetscape and relationship to surrounding structures. Specific design consideration on building heights are found in the Sub-Area section of this Plan and in the Vaii Village Urban Design Guide Plan. A copy of the Conceptual Building Height Plan and other relevant sections from the Vail Village Master Plan and Urban Design Considerations has been attached for reference. Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan The Vail Vil{age Urban Design Guide Plan was adopted by the Town of Vaii on June 11, 198D and subsequently revised on January 15, 1993. The Guide Plan represents collective ideas ab-gut functional and aesthe#ic objectives for Vail Village, Diagrammatic in nature, the Guide Plan is intended to suggest the nature of the improvements desired. It is based on a number of urban design criteria which have been determined to be appropriate principles for guiding change in Vail Village. As such, the Guide Plan is a response to current issues and perceived problems, and intended to be a guide current planning in bath the public and private sectors. Guide Pian recommendations of particular importance to this request are: A. Street Enclosure B. 13uiiding Height C. SunlShade D. Views and Focal Points A copy of each of these Design Considerations has been attached for reference. VI. 51TI= ANALYSIS In 1999, Staff prepared a site analysis for each of the properties in the Town of Vail that are lacated in the Public Accommodation Zone District. The location of the properties was derived from the Official Town of Vail Zoning Map. The purpose of the analysis was to provide a comparative analysis of the development constructed on each of the respective sites. A copy of the 1999 Site Analysis has been attached for reference. VII. SURROUNDING I~ANl] USES AND ZQNING According to the Official Town of Vail Zoning Map, properties zoned Public Accommodation are generally located around the periphery of the village commercial care area. Further, the Vail Land Use Plan designates the village commercial core area as "Vail Master Piarr': Pursuant to the Vail Land Use Plan, the Vail Master Plan designation indicates the Village Core Area where development and growth is guided by the goals, objectives and policies as outlined in the Vail Village Master Plan (adopted November 1 &, 1986}. An exception to the general spatial location of the Public Accommodation Zane District around the periphery of the village commercial core area is the Roost Lodge. The Roost Lodge is lacated at 1783 North Frontage Road. According to the Vail Land Use Plan, the Roost Lodge has a land use designation of "Medium L7ensity Resideratia!': VIII. GRITERIA AND FINDINGS A. Consideration of Factors Reaardina the Prooosed Code Amendment Before acting on an application for an amendment to the regulations prescribed in Title i2, the Planning & Environmental Commission and Town Gouncil shall consider the following Factors with respect to the requested text amendment: i . The extent to which the text amendment furthers the general and specific purposes of the Zoning Regulations; and 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.; and 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 Langer appropriate or is inapplicable; and 4. The extent to which the text amendment provides a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land use regulatiions consistent with municipal development objectives; and 5. Such other factors and criteria the Commission andlor Council deem applicable to the proposed text amendment. Before recommending andlor granting an approval of an application for a text amendment the planning & Environmental Commission and the Town Councit shall make the following findings with respect to the requested amendment: 1. That the amendment is consistent with the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined irw the Vail Comprehensive Plan and is compatible with the development objectives €~# the Town; and 2. That the amendment furthers the general and specific purposes of the Zoning Regulations; 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. IX. DISCU5S1©N ISSUES The Community Development Department has identified a number of issues that we believe need to be addressed during the review and consideration of this text amendment proposal. The following is a list of issues: ~. Impacts on building bulk and mass and the effects that may have on the character of the area. 2. fmpacts on the availability of light and air to surrounding uses. 3. Impacts on sun/shade on adjacent properties and public spaces. 4. fmpacts on views from public spaces and established view corridors. 5. Impacts on the enclosure of streets and spaces between buildings, 6. Impacts on the urban design oonsiderations with respeot to the height of eaV~S and DVerhangs. 7. Impacts on the development objectives of the Town of Vail. 6 • X. STAPF RECCIMMENDATICEN The Community i~evelopment Department recommends that the final review of a request for a recommendation to the Vail Tawn Council to allow for a text amendment to Section 1 ~-7A-7 of the Vail Town Cade be tabled to the August 26, 2D02 meeting of the Planning and Environmental Commission. We further recommend that the Planning anti Environmental, the applicant, the public and staff engage in a dialogue with respect to the issues surrounding the proposed text amendment and identify questions that may need further clarification, prior to the Planning and Environmental Commission forwarding its recommendation to the Vail Tawn Cc~unci[. XI. ATTACHMENTS A. Conceptual Building Height Plan (Vail Village Master Plan) B. Building Height Profile (Vail Viflage Master Plan) C. Vail Village Urban Design Guidelines ©. 1999Site Analysis ~. Typical Room Section F. Multiple Photographs of the existing Austria Haus, Vail Mountain Lodge and the Tiv®li Lodge G. Rendering of future Tivoli Lodge H. Sun/Shade PEans 7 - -- -- -,. __ i ~ ~~ _ . I ,~ i F _ ~~ - a ~ `y/ .. t '~ i x~ ~ ~~ ~~ s' ~~ ~° ~~ - a ~ ~~ ° ~o s= s^ e ~a ~~ ~ o@ ~~ E ~~~ at wx~ oo~, ;; Z9~ N r; • • Attachment: A tJ7 r j~ V ..+~ it is not intended to enclose all Village streets with buildings, as in the Core Area. Nor is it desireab7e to leave pedestrian streets in the open • and somewhat undefined condition evident in many other areas of Yail. Rather, it is desired to have a variety of ,open and enclosed Spaces, both built and landscaped which Create a st:~ng framework for ' pedestrian walks as well as visual interest and activity.• D. STREET ENCLOSURE While building facade heights should not be uniform from building to building, they should provide a "comfortable" enclosure for the street. Pedestrian streets are outdoor rooms whose walls are farmed by the buildings. The shape and feel of these "rooms' are created by the variety of heights and massing (three-dimensional vari- ations} which give much of the visual interest and pedestrian scale unique to Vail. Vail Village Urban ©esign Guidelines Very general rules, about the perception of exterior spaces have been developed (empirically} by designers, based on the characteristics of human vision. They suggest that: ` an external enclosure is most ccxnfortable where its walls are approximately ~ as high as the width of the space enclosed; ; if the ratio falls to ~ or less, the space'seems unenc?asrd; and .' s I %~ . r if the height is greater than the width, it comes to resemble a canyon. 1 ' ,, .~ r ~.ftachment: C -• a r i= ~.. ~ ~. 4 Vail Village Urban Qesign Guidelines In actual application, facades are seldom uniform in height on both sides pf the street, nor is this desired. Thus, some latitudQ is appropriate ~: •in the application of this ~ - to - 1 ratio. Using the avera~ facade height _ - of both sides gill generally still be a guide to the "camfortableness" . of the enclvstyre being created. _~ ... ~~ 7n same instances, the ~'canyan' effect is acceptable and even desirable - far example, as a 5hort~ connecting linkage between larger spaces - to give variety to the walking experience. '`for sunshade reasons, it is often - advantageous to orient any longer segments in a north-south direction. Lang canyon streets in an east-west direction should generally_be discouraged. -~ r ~~ ~ y - 1~~; 4 - Then exceptions to the genera] height criteria occur, special design con- sideration should be given to creating ;~ a well -defined ground f1 oar #~edestri an emphasis to overcame the canyon effect. Canopies, awnings, arcade and building extensions can all create a pedestrian focus and di~+ert attention fror~ upper building heights and 'canyon' effect. . For other considerations on building massing see: Building Height ~ ~ '• Sun~/`Shade ~ `~'_ Street Bdge ~~ ~y+r~ ~4' ~p~er f~! rj ' ~ ~~r~K erx~+~ cxfan~an a(Cd ~ '~np~r~~• p ' ~- ~- - T -- - .ti .-~a ~+ r; 5 Vail Village Urban Design Gt~ideiines Plazas, patios, green areas are im- portant fora] points for: gathering. resting, Orienting and should be distributed throughout the Village `with due consideration to: - spacing - sun access - OppOrtunite5 for Views - pede5tridn dctiYl'ty See a15o: _ SunJShade Building ~feight Street Enclosure Views F. BUILDING i~EIGHT Basically,~the ~lil]age Care is perceived as a nix of twO and three story facades,. a7thc~ugh there are also four and five story buildings. The mix of building heights gives va~'iety tD the street--which is desirable.. The heisht criteria are intended to encouraa~ height and T3ssing variety and to discourage unlfDr7lbuilding heights along the street. The definition of heisht shall be as it is in the Vail Municipal Code. Building height restrictions in Co:r^~ereial Core I shall be as follows: 7. Up to bD: of the building (building coverage area) ray be built to a height Df ~~ fce~ D1' 1e55. 2. ho rr.Dre than 4D~ of the building building coverage area) may be higher than 33 feet, but nOt higher than a3 feet. 3. lowers, spins, cupnlas, chir~,neys, flagpoles, and similar architectur'a} features not useable as CarD5s Residential FIDDr Area may extend above . the height limit a distance Of not more than twenty-five percent of the height limit nor more than r"if teen feet. 4. The above heights are based fln an assuned 3 feet in l2 feet Or ~ feet in 12 feet roof pitches. TD accarr~cdate and encourage steeper roof pitches t;up to 5 feet in l2 feet}, s}fight, propDrt~or-ate height increases eOUld be granted 5D long as the height.Df building side Nalls is not increased see diagram fallowing). i ,rJ • 7 • • Vail Village Urban Design Guidelines • ,,/ ~ "~. ~z Ke~ght of . side wa7~ ' does net ~~ ~ ~~' 'increase , 8 • -i 1 1. SUNlSHAD~ _ ~, e Due to Vail's alpine climate, sun is - ~ 6! U~~f jf ' an important comfort factor, , ~1 ~f~~' ~ ~~~ especially in winter, fall and spring. y ' ~} ~ E~Ul1~~ Shade areas have ambient ! temperatures substantially below those of adjacent direct sunlit areas e ~ , , i 87(~f~i)~ . ~ ~ rn a~ ~ On a!l but the warmest of summer ~, ~° ~~ ' days shade can easily tower ~ temperatures below comfortable ~ t. 1 i t levels and thereby negatively impact ,~ + ~ f t ? ~~ I j ~ I I I uses of those areas. ' ~ • ' All new or expanded lavildings - - .... - --.- ..-_ . '. __ _ ... _ . should not substantially increase the spring and fall shadow pattern (March 21 through September 23} on adjacent properties or the public _ • ~,~ ~r R.O.W. ~~ ~d n all buildin construction, shade ~~n a ~~ ~ ~ ar1 shall be considered in massing and l overall height consideration. ~~ `' . Notwithstanding, suNshade j considerations are not intended to .~ restrict building height allowances, ~ °~151`!~~$ ~f ~~' but rather to influence the massing ~ ~ ~ of buildings. Limited height i ~ ~ ` r,~~, exceptions may be granted to meet ~ -; ~ this criteria. . Additions to existing buildings may ~ ~ . be created in several ways to avoid extending shadow patterns. .y i 5wrrr,~.x St~1 rig ,;~~ajj 1 r~~ or ~~ ~ r 5pri 1~~~ (~ SUS S;~n ~~ie -5~ e ~J 1 i ~ ~ r ..! PAGE 11 !, { ~ ~t. ~ir~d 70'8'G2 ~_ '~ 4 4 G. VIEWS AND FOCAt_ 1'C~INTS Vaif's mountainlvaliey setting Is a fundamental part of its identity, Views of the mountains, ski slopes, ' creeks and other natural #eatures are reminders of the mountain environment and, by repeated visibility, are orientation reference points. Certain building features also provide important orientation refierences and visual local points. The most significant view corridors have been adopted as part of Chapter 18.73 of the Vail Municipal Code. The view corridors adopted Should not be considered exhaustive. When evaluating a development proposal, priority should be given to an analysis of the impact of the project on views. Views that should be preserved originate from either major pedestrian areas or public spaces, and include views of the ski mountain, the Gore Range, the Clock Tower, the rucksack Tower and other important man-made and natural elements that contribute to the sense of place associafed with Vail. These views, which have been adopted by ordinance, were chosen due to their significance, not only from an aesthetic standpoint, but also as orientation reference points for pedestrians. Development in Vail Village shall not encroach into any adopted view corridor unless approved under Chapter 18.73. Adopted corridors are listed in Chapter 18.73 of the Vail Municipal Code. Whether affecting adopted view corridors or PAGE 8~l ~, ;~• p. `- - i not, the Impact of proposed development on views from pedestrian ways anti public spaces must tie identifred and considered where appropriate. The Vail Land Use 1 lan, Town Poifcies, the Ur>aan Design Guide Plans, and other adopted master plans, shat! be used to help determine which views may by affected, artd haw they should be addressed. (C}rdinance Na. ~ 8, Series of i X92) r PAGE 9 ...~.a,a.+z i in~i7!'d~+r~~ + ii7h ~1 ~Ei1~i~r~~n~ . h>rxk~ u~ew ~ ref bda~ ur~.~ ' ~orr,~,x ~ G~rr~~' .~~~' ~ ~ . ~~~ ~ i . a a! ... ~ ~° ti f` - ~ ~~ . c----~,~,;~ 1 ' ~ - .~ AR+~H~T~CTUR~/LANDS~AP~ ~ CONSIDERATIONS ~~c~s Where.visibie, roofs are often one of the rr,vst do~rinant architectural elements in ariy built environment. in the Village roof form, color and texture are visibly dor^inant, and generally consistent, which tends to unify the building diversity tQ a great degree. The current expression, and objective, for roofs in the Village is to form a consistently unir'ying backdrop for the architecture and pedestrian streetscape, and to avoid roofs which tend to stand out individua]Ty or distract visually from the overall character. ' Roo f Fa rrns Roofs within the Village are typically gable in form and.of moderate-to-low .pitch. Shed roofs are frequently used for small additions to larger buildings. Free-standing Shed roofs, butterfly roofs and flat roofs, can be found in the Village but they are generally considered to~be taut of character and inapprop- riate. Nip roofs likewise are rare and generally inconsistent with the character of the Core Area. Towers nre exceptions, in both form and pitch, to the general criteria, but do have an established local veinacular style which should be respected, 0 ~ ~ ~N~ 1~ Pitch Roof ,slopes in the 'Vlliage typically range from 3/72 tv 6/12, with slightly steeper pitches in limited applications, Again, fnr visual consistency this general 3/12-6/12 range should be preserved. (see Construction below. Overhangs Generous roof overhangs are also an established architectural feature in the Village - a traditional expression of shelter in alpine environments. Roof overhangs typically range from 3 to 6 feet an all edges. Specific design. consideration should be given to protection of pedestrian ways adjacent to buildings, Tee falls, snow slides, and runoff hazards can be reduced by roof orientation, gutters, arcades, etc. Overhang details are treated with varying degrees of ornamentation. Struttura7 elements such as roaf beams are expressed beneath the overhangs, simply or decoratively carved. The roof fascia is thick and wide, giving a substantial edge to the roof. Cvmgositions She intricate roofscape of the Village as a whole is.the result of many in- dividual simple roof configurations. For any single building a varied but simple composition of roof planes is preferred to either a single or a complex arrangement of many roofs. As individual roofs became mare complex the roof- attracts visual attention away from the streetscape and the total' roofscape tends toward '"busyness" rather than a backdrop composition,. ~ ~ ~~1Z '~o bf z ~~f~ f,- ~ . i, ~. ~ expo r ~;~ L (arm 5i,rjf~ rraf plaNc ~~~ ~~ ~ ~r-~~s .. ~it~'r[e~ Srx~~IC ERA{. fo+x(nwr Fit • • Stepped Roofs ~s buildings are stepped to reflect ,xisting grade changes, resulting roof steps should be made where the height change will be visually significant. Variations which are too subtle appear to be more stylistic than functional, and out of character with the more straight-forward roaf design typical in the Village. Materials Wood-shakes, wood shingles, and bui7t- up tow and gravel are almost exclusively used as roaf materials in the Village. {See Construction below.) For visual .onsistency any other materials should have the appearance of the above. ~` Construction Common roof problems and design con- sideration's in this climate include: - 5nowslides onto pedestrian walks - gutters freezing - roof dams and Mater infiltration - heavy snow loads Careful attention to these functional details is recommended, as well as familiarity with the local building code, proven construction details, and town ordinances. for wilt-up roofs, pitches of 4/12 or steeper do not hold gravel well. far shingle roofs, pitches of 4/12 ar shallower often result in ice dams and backflow leakage under the shingles. 3.4 Cold-roof construction is strongly prefefired, unless warm-roof benefits fora specific application can be demonstrated. laid-roofs are dauble- raofs which insulate and prevent snow melt from internal building heat. By retaining snow an the roof, many vr" the problems listed can be reduced: Periodic snow removal will be required and should be anticipated in the design. Roof gutters tend tta ice-in campl etely and beccxne ineffective in the Vaii climate, especially in shaded north- side locations. Pleating the interior circumference with heat-tape elements or other devices is generally nec- essary to assure adequate runoff contra? in colder months. c ~ r v~r~f '`'-'lrYrUf3~XX~ c3 Wi'~~+~~~~ ~{ bP~ra ~ar~ air ~ac~ ke~~, r~ts~psf~ h2af ~rrxn tKeli-ir~'f-G+E Snau on i~ rm~ • • qtr ice 15 1 \_ ' ~ ~~/ • ~"" Cly W ~ryry L L,IJ F^ .Z W ^ ~ Z W ~ Q W c7i iA ~ ~ Cl. ~~ ~~ ~~ C Q ~ 'V M ~7 ~ d0 '[~ '~ It) m ~ N t~ ~ . ~ .~ ~ ~ O ~ o Q ~ ~ ~'` (~ o~ h h ::~ Chi . ~'" S~CS ~.~. ~~ ~. ' d ` G ;~ ,~ . .~. a ~`'- ~ ~ t'rJ ~ C~ CD r ~ Y" 1 t'~ '~' 1 I ~ _1 _1 1 Q ~ r" ~ Q 0 '~' a 0 0 0 0 0 o N ~ ~ c0 O O O O r 0 m o o CC! fC3 o a CD tC'i C33 T C C N N Cp CD '~' N Cfl l.(1 O .d. ~l ~ ~ n3 N ~ ~ U U U U ~- N cC7 °- ~rj ~-- ~ ~ ~ N C'^J N N ~ d' M _ ~ N fa ~ Ct3 C4 Ci3 fS3 R3 ~ N ~ CC7 O ~ O ~ lj~ ~ lf] CC3 'U"' CCS ~ 1 . ,~ ~ L17 4] ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U ~ cU ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ V Q rty ~ ,~ ,~'~ r ~J~ U/a - c~ + -. cn c6 ~ ~ . 'L~ Ea- 4 m CaCa o~~~ Attachment: D l!3 ~ N G t70 ~ C ~ GO C3 07 ~ _ W ~I r N r _1 r ~ _1 1 _I ~ _1 N C] QD ~ ~ {l~ .~o ~ ` o ~ ~ C~ _ o ~ a . ~#' c*7 ~- cts c 4 ^~ ~ < ~ ~ r~ ~ co C7 O Q ~ ~ '~ ~ ~ a m Q3 d ~C 4 r ` ~ (`53 ~ o f o ~ ` M~ N~ C C C ~ U I ,s 4 d ~' .tea ~ ~ ~ o 'C7 N ~~ ^ ~ I/ ill t (~ . w. ~_ ~ ~ ... ... ..., r.,.. m ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 Lf7 ~ ~c ' ~ f~ ~ Cr1 a ~ - ~ j - - . 4S7 ~ i9 (Q {L5 ~ tTiS (B ~- Lf)C'7' ' CY? CD f35 N r 'r7' ri1 ~ X37 ~ +, (~ ~ ~ C ~ C4S U . ~ ~ ~ _ _ ~ ~ • ~ t ~ SC ~ en ~ iC U ~tl ~ ~~ r. ~ m Vl ~ ~ .~ ~ £C Hu cn~~=~ ~ ~ a i ~', ! - S Z40Z `Z ~Sn~~'d NCJIJ.~3S woos 7d~ldu 96a~Z # 90( D7'IiYA ~~ao~ ~7on11 wo~'u9isadiioxa~•nw~M ~ 99EE'66tr"£D£ ~~~ wa~v81~~~lu! £f4i"`6~'V'ED£ ~lal 53a,Y[J[75'S1' ZUEDB Q] '~~plnO9 oi«~»s N~153~ 2iC712133.N1 '~4r' ~ga~rud54£4l '3NINNVId '~Y aa~p aap~r~r-g '3an.~~ill~~~a - ntatsa[~ i~[~ts3a • • ~ - ry~~ II Attachment: ~ ~ 2 ?b '' ~ . . f 'mil ~% ~ a " Y ~S i~l~ J ,r . ~ 4 '; r 4 ~ ,. ~~4 u~~ 1 + ,~ ~ f{ ~ Y a ~~~ "91„ ~ ~ ,F., ~fl'1 M f~l~t ~ . y=~;j ~,,." - `t`-Y! y~ .~ .x, ~:- a s y ~' ~' ~~ ~7 , S 'A4.ri : 3 4 - //r ~ ~ ~ ltl ~ ~ _ 4 U \~~ a t~iq .~. t I ~i y 4 i ~~~' .:t 's +±-Mh; a ~..~r7 1~ __ ~'s.~;, e. '.?~ r k~ :~ ~:: J'r`i ~ q { f ~ - d,' " 1 rx ~~ i 5 i l ~ ~ Y~ L ` + K - y i ~1 ~ `~. _ ~.~ `~Y P: `r W Z ~~: i t _ 4 w ~ ~qx ~ y M Mh fya ~y C IAl.' 1' e °~ r S S; ~ y `;_ e s a ~.~ Y ~ ~ ~ 3 J 11 - ~ ~ `:! w y ~~,`` _ ~ .. .5D .. ~~ t;• ~ ?. -`.:;~ ~ _ h M1 } ~'~'~ r ~y. fja is i ~, a^ 1. ~_ r ~.. J }g~~~ ~~h ~" ,,:,x :a, ~ '. ~ ~ ~ 3`~ ,p1 4'R(yct ] ",~~ N ~j ~ k ~~ ;_i 3 a' .~ I 1 r .~ Q x F ' „ "~'-- ~~ .~iL y~b* ~.. S ~"3 S-~'~'= -i= - ~ '-r 7 r r, a ~^ '~ ,- ,c T ~~~. - ~ ~~ ~ S ~ n -.~' n > ~ i ,art -~* x 3 _ '4 } i~`, ' ~4~.° b~ ~ - ~s ~ ~ , ~4i ? ~~ ° '` q : s~ ~ 1'i,i} {'i.. :.. i r ~. 'k s . i H~ _ 1 i- C~ C6 L (/~ 4 -4' ~~ ~ L_~ v'^ Yk • ~' ~ ~ ~, ~ ~~ ,~ ~ - ~ ~~, ~, ~~ - ~~~ i ~ , ~ K !~,r, /{// 4. Y ~~f t ~' ~r , ~. ~~~~ • • .Q ~_ •t ~ ~ ~ # • • a~ ~, a 4 J ,~ ~_ '0 {l1 O • • {~ c m E ca .~ Q ~' ~~- a ~ ~~ ~ ~ * ~ 5 ~~ ~. .. ~~ i ~~. .:M. t X-~r'. ~ .~~., S~~ ~a# ,r ` '~ a,. :_ }; , ~'_ _~ -, '. °= ',- s~ `~ a s _~.~ ~c~~. i~' .. `"~' ~`.:=: .~ ~~} ~"' ~ ~t ya,'~ ~~ x ~v~a~ .~ ~~~i% i,:~. "z ~ i ~ ~3 a~x'~ ~, ~ ~ ~ us r C rY ~," tyh ~+~~ h r . k~~ '4 ~~;',~ • • C7 a m ~~ L RS O d' O _? ~-' ~~ y r _: r , ~~ ' ~ ~ .~. a ~ ,.a~'i~ ,~. 2 m S r-~ • ;, ~ ~ << , ~, ~ f J .. _ ~ ~~ ., ~ _7~ ~ Pro .~_ ~~ a 0 m s E co 0 m cQ .Q H • ,~ e i w .. ~ • L K. f .;}4 ~[ ~ ~ , a 3 0 a ~_ 4 3 H ;`y ~~ a Vii; r, • • • t~ ri za ~a s E w c~ a~ ca .© 7 r "~ r~~ ~ ti ..~~7Y ~. - - ~i.. ~: .~:.:. '' ~... -: _: ..~.m:. a ;' , ga , 1 y~ ,~ z, ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~. s3 E~S } 2 ~.1 t -* ~ ^ ~`~ ~ i "- i ~. 4i{ HRH ~ § ,Y~.,. ~~' ~ l k L _. ~ t~ % ~t~+ ~V g h o{ ~,o ~ ~ ., ~ sty ~~ cd ~~ .0. -- ~ 3~~Y'f 4~~w Er~rt# - ~ ~ ~~~ c~~Yd-v ~ ~.:~~'~ i$ ~~,,~ _ ~ ~ ~x x ~ ~ ~~'~ J~~~. { 1 - - - L 4. ~:; ~.. ~ .. -. ~~ r..Y,fi } • • • V `"? 0 N L Q U 04 V ,_ +: .~~` I~ ell-` Y ~ .pfi " 'y p ~ 7 ~ ~ ~ Z ~ ~, a ' „~. ~ l~_ ;: „_ „1 ~ ~ 1 u l - ~ to , °c' `; F ~ ~ ,r..~.._ ~.. ~; ._~.v. :.~._. _.~_ •. 5~i4;{~ F r. ~~w ~ ~ ~1 t fF# :s _. ___..,__.-.._... ... ~a ~~v~~~~`~tr~'r -s~R"~c z *'` ~ ri, 4 FtzT. ~ h L .': t _ ~ i .:.,~.t ,. ~;~,- i~ r ° ,i 9` Y1 It' ~~ e ., _~t f.- ~ zeh'Yt3Y pI' 1 ~.tc ~ 4 ~ 1 ._ yy 1 :.: - .~`~ ~. ~,..~ ~~ w QQ b .B IS3 L (19 U ~f7 .~ 3 ., ;,_. ~~w c _ ~a ~` ~7,`t-, k Y+ ~.~ ~S ~~~~~ - y,, ~~tl~~~F w' - R • • MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Developmentq DATE: August 26, 2002 SUBJECT: A request for an interpretation of the maximum height and calculation of average maximum height requirements in the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: George Ruther I. SUMMARY The Department at Community Development is requesting that the Planning and Environmental Commission review and clarify the height requirements in the Lionshead Mixed Use-1 zone district and as further described in the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. II. DESCRIPfi 14N OF THE REQUEST The Department ofi Community Development is requesting that the Planning and Environmental Commission review an administrative interpretation of the maximum height calculation for structures constructed in the Lionshead Mixed Use -1 zone district. In recent discussions regarding the calculation of the average maximum height, staff has concluded that further clarification is necessary to ensure that the intent of the regulation has been met. This request is being brought to the Planning and Environmental Commission pursuant to Section 12-3-3, Vail Tawn Code. III. BACKGR~UNI] On December 15, 1'99$, the Town of Vail adopted the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. In adopting the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, the Vail Town Council adopted an average maximum height calculation for improvements constructed in the Lionshead Mixed Use-1 zone district, The reason, in part, for adopting an average maximum height calculation was to respond to building height and massing criteria within an already built environment. Unlike development in other areas in town, where maximum building height is calculated based upon existing ar finished grade, which ever is mare restrictive, redevelopment projects in the Lionshead Mixed Use-1 zone district must be responsive to the existing conditions, improvements, and its relationship to existing buildings and infrastructure. Therefore, it was determined that an alternate means of calculating building height in the Lionshead Mixed Use-1 zone district was necessary. IV. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS i A. Town of Vail Zoning Regulations: Staff has reviewed the Town of Vail Zoning *1 - ^,+ ~~ 0~ PAIL Regulations and believes the following sections are relevant to the review of this request: Section 12-2-2. Definitions GRADE, EXISTING: The existing grade shall be the existing or natural topography of a site prior to construction. GRADE, FINISHED: The finished grade shaft be the grade proposed upon campletr`on of a project. HEIGHT.° The distance measured vertically from any point on a proposed ar existing roof ar eaves to the existing or finished grade (whichever is mare restrictive) located directly below said paint of the roof or eaves. Within any building footprint, height shall be measured vertically from any point an a proposed ar existing roof to the existing grade directly below said point on a proposed or existing roof. Section 7 2-3-3. Aooeals A. Administrative Actions: Any decision, determination or interpretation by any Town administrative official with respect to the provisions of this Tiffe and the standards and procedures hereinafter set forth shall become final at the next Planning and Environmental Commission meeting (or in the case of design related decision, the next Design Review Board meeting) following the Administrator"s decision, unless the decision is called up and modified by the Board or Commission. B. Appeal Of Administrative Actions: f. Authority: The Planning and Environmental Commission shall have the authority to hear and decide appeals from any decision, determination or interpretation by any Town administrative official with respect to the provisions of this Title and the standards and procedures hereinafter set forth, except that appeals of any decision, determination or interpretation 6y any Town administrative afficiaf with regard to a design guideline shall be heard by the Design review Board. 2. Initr'atian: An appeal may be initiated 6y an applicant, adjacent property owner, or any aggrieved or adversely affected person Pram any artier, eecision, determination or interpretation by any administrative officio! with respect fo this Title. "Aggrieved or adversely affected person" means any person who will suffer an adverse effect to an interest protected ar furthered by this Title. The alleged adverse interest may be shared in common with other members of the community at large, buf shall exceed in degree the general interest in community good shared by all persons. The Administrator shall determine the standing of an appellant. If the appellant objects to the Administrator's determination of standing, the Planning and Environmental Commission (or the Design Review Board in the case of design guidelines) shall, at a meeting prior to hearing evr`dence on the appeal, make a determination as to the standing of the appellant. if the Planning and Environmental Carnmission (or the Design 2 Review Board in the case of design guidelines) determines that the appellant does not have standing to bring an appeal, the appeal shall not be heard and the orr'ginal action or determination stands. 3. Procedures: A written notice of appeal must be filed with the Administrator or with the department rendering the decision, determination or interpretation within ten (1 d) calendar days of fhe decision becoming final. If the fast day for filing an appeal falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or aTown-observed holiday, the last day for filing an appeal steal! be extended to the next business day. The Administrator's decision shall become final at the next Planning and Environmental Commission meeting (ar in the case of design related decision, the next Design Review Board meeting) following the Administrator's decision, unless the decision is called up and modified by the Board or Commission. Such notice shall be accompanied by the name and addresses (person's mailing and property's physical) of fhe appellant, applicant, property owner, and adjacent property owners (the list of property owners within a condominium project shall be satisfied by fisting the addresses for the managing agent or the board of directors of the condominium association) as well as specific and articulate reasons for fhe appeal on forms provided by the Town. The filing of such notice of appeal will require the administrative official whose decision is appealed, to forward to the Planning and Environmental Commission (ar the Design Review Board in the case of design guidelines) at the next regularly scheduled meeting, a summary of al! records concerning the subject matter of fhe appeal and to send written notice to the appellant, applicant, property owner, and adjacent property owners (notification within a condominium project shall 6e satisfied by notifying the managing agent or the board of directors of the condominium association) at leasf fifteen (15) calendar days prior to the hearing. A hearing shall be scheduled to be heard before the Planning and Environmental Commission (ar the Design Review Board in the case of design guidelines) on the appeal withfi fhirty (30) calendar days of the appeal being filed. The Planning and Environmental Commission (ar the Design Review Board in the case of design guidelines) may grant a continuance to allow the parties additional time to obtain information. The continuance shall 6e allowed far a period not fa exceed an additional thirty (3©) calendar days. Failure to file such appeal shall constitute a waiver of any rights under this Title to appeal any interpretation or determination made by an administrative official. 5. Findings: The Planning and Environmental Commission (or the Design Review Board in the case of design guidelines) shall on all appeals make specific findings of fact based directly on the particular evidence presented to it. These findings of fact must support conclusions that the standards and conditions imposed by fhe requirements of this Title have or have not been met. 12-7H-11: Height and Buf4~: Buildings shall have a maximum average building height of seventy one feet (71') with a maximum height of 82.5 feet, as further defined by the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. A!1 development shall comply with the design 3 guidelines and standards found in the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. Flexibility with the standard, as incorporated in the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, shall be afforded to redevelopment projects which meet the intent of design guidelines, as reviewed and approved by the Design ,Review 8aard. B. Lionshead Redevelopmen# Master Plan: Staff has reviewed the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plans and believes the following sections are relevant to the review of this request: Section 2.1, Purpose of the Master Plan (in part) This master plan, developed aver a period of two year and with extensive involvement by the community, r`s a comprehensive guide far property owners proposing to undertake development or redevelopment of their properties and the municipal officials responsible far planning public improvements. The plan outlines the Town's objectives and gams for the enhancement of Lionshead and proposes recommendations, incentives, and requirements far redevelopment and new development of public and private properties, Chapter 8, Architectural Design Guidelines (in part) The scope of the Design Guidelines includes all criteria related to the architectural design of new and remodel projects within Lionshead, along with site planning criteria which relate directly to architecture. Section 8.4.2.3, Building Height (in part) Maximum Heighfs Maximum height is defined as the distance from existing or finished grade - whichever is more restrictive - to the ridge of the nearest primary roof form to that grade. With this in mind, the Average Maximum Height of any building shall not exceed 71 ft Notwithstanding the notion of Average Maximum Height, the Absolute Maximum Height of any building shall not exceed 82.5 ft. Absolute Maximum Height shall be determined by interpolating existing or finished grade through the building footprint and measuring the vertical distance from the n"dge of the highest primary roof form to imaginary plane created by the interpolated grades. Calculation of Average Maximum Height The intent of implementing an Average Maximum Height for buildings is to create movement and variety in the ridgeFines and roof forms in Lionshead. Toward that end, the Average Maximum Height of a building shall be calculated based upon the linear footage of ridgeline an primary roof forms. Any amount of primary roof farm ridgeline that exceeds 71 ft. must be offset by at least an equal amount of primary roof form ridgeline falling below 7~ ft., with the distance below 77 ft. equivalent to ar greater than the distance exceeding 71 ft, The average calculation steal! be based on the aggregate linear footage of pn`mary roof forms across an entire structure, not separate individual roof farms. 4 Additional Requlremerrts/Exceptions i All buildings, regardless of permitted building heights and massing ! principles, shall conform to all established Publrc View Corridors {see Lianshead Master Plan). Special "landmark" building elements, such as chimneys, towers, or other unique architectural forms, may exceed the Absolute Maximum Height, subject to approval by the reviewing board. This provision is intended to provide for architectural creativity and quality of building farm, and sha11 not be used as a means or circumventing the intent of the building height limitations. In addition, regardless of find! building heighf, buildings shall avoid monotonous, unbroken ridge lines, and shall provide visual interest through the use varied peak heights, roof forms, gables, and other appropriate architectural techniques. V. DISCUSSION USSUES Given the above sections, staff has identified a number of different methods to calculate building height. depending upon the method of calculation, a project may or may not meet the intent of the average maximum building height regulation. Staff has provided two drawings which illustrate the height calculations. First, Figure $-15 has been taken from the Li©nshead Redevelopment Master Plan. VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Listen to a brief staff presentation on the calculation of the average maximum bui{ding height for s#ructures built within the Lianshead Mixed Use-1 zone district. In addition, staff is requesting that the Punning and Environmental Commission provide clarification and interpretation of the maximum height and calculation of average maximum height requirements in the Lionshead Mixed Use-1 zone district. • 5 • ~~ r =~ . i ifs N W a ~ L[1 ~/ , ~ JI! ~ ~ • ~I i w ~? ~, ~~ i i ~~. ~i ~. ~, 1/ and a more "massive, 'consolidated 3 building; structure, all utilizing just 2 acres of the site. Ho 142 apartments, 252 beds, more jarring than tl Spraddle Creek hillside? Why does Middle Cre~ underground? How many locals have such a co proposed facilites are ;.,~~: ~mely convenient to t bus route to West flail shopping. I suggest prot+ convenience take a bus ride and check this for residents agree the free town buses are one of Vail. 4.Place It ElsewherelLet Samecme Else Da It A trade for enough Forest Service land can be as the Second Coming. Vail Resorts is d©ing pr employee housing and has been for some time. individual merchants can supply though many n employees. S,We Don't Need It Surveys show Eagle county has consistently a To look at summer rentals in a post-9111 year is gap in supply is for affordable housing units for good snow year when the huge retail expansior Vail will no longer be even vaguely competitive live Down. Valley will prefer to work Dawn Valle before in local housing discussions, even the f~ room an board for its crew, The most hopeful thing about the uproar over parallel to previous successful, even acclaim one of them was bitterly protested and denou Commons, the Potato Patch units, the West ~ plaints will be similarly forgotten if Middle Cre Presiden# of the ~Ilage Homeowners proposf together to build sensible and affordable hou; design that is "just right° for this site. Anne Esson the highest again a 5-story is the proposed 9700 sq.ft. for :8000 sq. ft. houses dotting the :need so much parking? Why Lenience? After all, the ~ Village, the 'bike path, and the ;tars who doubt this ~emselves. Most fuH-time ~e best municipal amenities in ,ipated about the same time close to its share for need is far greater than !ain housing units for their ~~~ icy rate of less #han i gib, misleading to say the least. The he six winter months. Imagine a below Dowd Jct.. comes on line. n the labor market. Tho a who . To resurrect a metaph r used t~iest cruise ship must 14e is housing proposal is th® locals' housing projects. Every ®d by neighbors, e.g. Veil l ones. I suspect the protesters' becomes a reality. As the "lets stop fighting and get a:' l.,ike Goldilocks lets find a B~~T CQP1 AVA~;~~; C ~''~ 65BG-9Gb-OL6 u~ss~ •~ auub ~6Z=80 ~~ 5~ ~n}~ To: Vail Town Council, PEC, and local Editors .,.~ ~. ~.~ ~~~ {)nce upon a time there was s small town ich thought itself so grand, such aWorld-Class Resort, that it didn't need h mole amenities as modern fire stations, convenient day care facilities, or even n adequate amount of affordable housing for its employees. There are etter uses for our tend, its citizens claimed, place those things elsewhere, est of all Down Valley. Or hide them somewhere, in the forest, behind Safeway, or on someone's private property, tike Vail Resorts, Qf course, this is our, own of Vail. Naw that the town, through the Real Estate Trap er Tax and ether means, has Fought up and tied up more than 3Q% of the Ian within its boundaries while the federal gvvemment owns most of the land outsi a of them, we have run out of alternatives to using some of our precious land r siting some of the above mentioned humble but necessary amenities. Re sanably, I believe, municipal leaders now want to use some for these purpos s. Mountain t3elllMiddle Creek I is the only unencumbered vacant parcel within tJ e town's borders large enough ~ to allow economieat achievment cif these commo n purposes. Have the protests of the powerful and moneyed opponents merit t~ match their political weight? Here's my reading of them. 1,Not at Veil's Front boor l3atchefor Gulch with its Ritz-Carlton and mega- ouses has seasonal a playas housing in Vail Resorts' River Edge and The Ta ns at its front door. Sot are actually reasonably to quite attractive, far mare than the ski area pa ing lot which also graces this front door. In Vail Vitfiage have we forgotten that "a highway runs through it? "Why not rnrell-design community facilities at'the I-70 interchange? 2.Wrong Use The Executive Director of the Village Homeown rs Association, the primary apposition group, has long advocated putting freight distribution facility for Village merchants on this site, is that a better, r ~re attractive use than the proposed one? ()r would opponents prefer mor expensive housing for mostly absentee homeowners, or additional high end r tail for visitors? Could it be that. private developers are salivating over this 22 re parcel? 1 think the proposed uses for the common good are the best long-te , use of this sizable parcel. 3.V11rong Design The Housing Authority's developer initially prod buildings on the parcel. This design was relec much impact on the environment. Parking lots visible only from Vait Mountain were rejected a parking spots to residents than exists at Vail R demanded. The resulting design was two-stori~ 4 ~' sed a cluster of eight 2-5 s#ory lbd as too sprawling, having too ~~dden behind the buildings and IBS unsightly. A higher ratio of sorts' River Edge was' ~s of buried underground parking • ` . ~ cco. _ca,r ~„_ry/.~, ubss3 • ~ auUd ~sZ :80 ~0 5C ~n~ Participants: 6,000 sq. ft. temporary tent OWNER HMC ACQUISITION PROPERTIES I08JO1J2002 Phone: C/O MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL ONE MARRIOTT DR DEPT 938.01 WASFIINGTON DC 20058 License: APPLICANT HMC ACQUISITION PROPERTIES YO8J01J2002 Phone: 479-6990 CJO Matt Vinland, Dir SalesJMarketing 715 W Lionshead Circle Vail, CO Matt.vinsand@marriott.com $1657 License: '"~~ Punning and En~ironrnental Cvrnmissi©n ACTION FORM ~~ ~~`~ ~ ~ Department of Community Development /~T~~, ~- ~'ll YYlVd ~~- ~,~~~~~'~ 75 South Frontage Road, Vail, Colorado 81657 te1:970,479.2139 fax: 970.479,2452 web: www.ci.vaiLeo.us Project Name: Marriott CUP PEC Number: PEC020043 Project Description: • Project Address: 715 W LIONSMEAD CR VAIL Legal Description: Lot: C&D Black: Subdivision: MORCUS SUB. Parcel Number: 210107207441 Comments: See Conditions Location: on top of tennis. courts BOARDJSTAFF ACTION Motion sy: Doug Cahill Action: APPROVED Second By: Gary Hartman Vote: 7-0 Date of Approval: 08J26J2002 Conditions: Cond: 8 (PLAN}: No changes to these plans may be made without the written consent of Town of Vail staff and/or the appropriate review committee{s). Entry: 08J28/2002 By: Warren Action: COND Cond: CON0005527 That the applicant shall not erect the tent prior to September 1, 2002 and that the appkicant shall remove the tent no later than September 30, 2042. Entry: Q8J28J2002 By: Warren Action: COND Cond: CON0005528 That the hours of operation be from 7:00 am to 8:00 pm, seven days a week. Entry: 08/28/2002 By: Warren Action: COND Cond: CON0005529 That all Town ordinances regarding noise levels be met. Entry: 08/Z8J2402 By: Warren Action: COND Cond: CON4445534 That the applicant recieves a Town of Vail building permit prior to errecting the tent. Entry: 0$J28J2442 By: Warren Action: COND I, " r Planner: ~ , ' PEC Fee Paid: $654.00 ~~~~~~~ i • Approued 9f9l02 PLANNING AND EN~I'IRONMENTAL COMMISSION PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES Monday, August 26, 200 PROJECT ORIENTATION ! -Community Development Dept. PUBLIC WELCOME MEMBERS PRESENT John Schofield Erickson Shirley Chas Bernhardt Doug Cahill George Lamb Rollie Kjesbo Gary Hartman Site Visits: 1. Middle Creek - 160 N. Frontage Rd'. 2. Golden Peak - 458 Vail Valley 'Drive 3. Front Door -south of the Lodge Tower 4. Marriott - 715 West Linnshead Circle 5. Tour of PA properties Driver: George 12:00 pm 1:00 pm -3 NOTE: If the PEC hearing extends until 6:00 p.m., the board may break for dinner from 6:00 - 6.30 Public Input: Vickie Pierson brought up the prospect of amending GRFA requirements and calculations and stated that she is representing a large segment of the public. John Schofield encouraged them to make a formal application. Steve Riden said he supports what Vickie said and gave a demonstration of the difficulties of the current GRFA requirements. Erickson Shirley stated that the PEC is conscious of the GRFA problem and seeks to make things easier for the Tnwn. Public Hearing - Tawn Council Chambers 2:fl0 Pm 1. A request. for a final review of a final plat far a major subdivision; a request for a final review of a conditional use permi# to allow for a private educational institution and development plan approval to construct employee housing; and setting forth details in regards thereto, located at the site known as "Mountain Bel!"/an unplatted piece of property, located at 160 N. Frontage Rd, to be platted as Middle Creek Subdivision. ~ ~`~ ,~\ s ~. ii ~'(?Vi'f1' Of PAIL ~ MEMBERS ABSENT Approved 919/d2 Applicant: Vail Local Housing Authority, represented by Odell Architects Planner:. Allison Ochs Jahn Schofield introduced the project. '~ Allison Ochs expanded upon the project and gave an explanation of why staff is recommending tabling to 919102 She then outlined the criteria by which the PEC must make a decision. Russ Forrest cited an article from the Planning Journal discussing density and design and stated that the execution of the concept for an affordable housing plan is the key step. He said Vail is about quality and that decision-makers must be brave, but keep quality in mind. He said that on 919, staff would recommend a joint hearing with PEC and DRB to make cohesive decisions. John Schofield asked for clarification on the 919 hearing and if the DRB is capable of making a decision on that date? Mike Coughlin said he was asking for approval of the plat and plan and that the plan is the product of a year of work with the PEG and DRB. He said for the past 1 ~ years, 70V surveys show that the community feels affordable housing is the most pressing issue in Lawn. He then expanded upon the history and rationale of how far the plan has come and why it's is worthy of approval. He then gave a fist of the public meetings held thus far. He stated that he believes the Middle Creek project is among the best examples of workforce housing in the country, He said Middle Creek has secured the largest grant ever given by the state and he further expanded upon the financing. He said that the time is of the essence, as all of this fiinancing will expire in a couple of weeks. He said he became aware of staff's recommendation just a couple of days ago and said they have not failed to address hazard mitigation and will enumerate during hearing. He explained that the presentation is not different from those given in the past, and then asked, "Mr. Chairman, how should we proceed." John Schofield gave overview of proceedings. Otis Odell clarified the confusion on hazard mitigation saying that a year ago, a report was prepared by R.J. Irish a year ago, and that the rackfall hazard was medium. He said in the Mears report, mitigation was not recommended, report on the 16`" of August. He said the Grishman report acknowledges ELC and location. He said that staff's concern is that the report is only addressing Bldg C and that the consultants assumed that the report covered all the buildings. John Schofield asked if the current report addressed hazard mitigation? Otis Odell said it does and it recommends dislodging anything that looks like it may fall in the next 100 years. He then reviewed their mitigation of debris flows plan for the Board and public. John Schofield asked that all plans be placed out for viewing. Doug Cahill asked about rock fall during construction. Mike Coughlin said if clarification is needed regarding rock fall they are more than happy to provide it. Erickson Shirley asked Allison for her impressions. Allison Ochs overviewed the requires-Hants regarding rock-fall hazards. Mike Coughlin stated that we have two reports, one from Church and one from Mears and that the Church report covers the whole site. Erickson Shirley asked why this was not addressed last time? Mike Coughlin said we did not know about it until today. Approved 919102 Otis C?dell further expanded upon their plans in regard to rock-fall and debris flaw protection for the buildings and showed the new renderings illustrating the design intent. Allison Ochs said that the ©RB, an Wednesday, stated that bulk and mass are still issues, hence the joint meeting suggestion. John Schofiield announced there would be ~ Q minutes for the public to review the plan documents and he then moved to the public input segment and reviewed criteria for decisions. Tom Steinberg said he cannot understand the stone covering on the garbage container and asked about the grade up to the nursery. He asked if there was an example of similar density in town. He asked why the floodplain was not addressed in the reports. He asked with 30°l0 of building being free market, where are these units going to be. He stated there is no mention of noise mitigation for units above I-70. Kevin Deighan said he liked the concept. but density and height are overboard- He suggested increasing landscaping and that the scale and magnitude are over done. Andrew Caraw thanked the PEC and said it looks like the plan meets the criteria and suggests the PEC be courageous & vote for approval. Sheika Gramshammer stated that Vail started with the rich people and second homeowners and it would not be here without us. She said the Lodge Tower is still an eyesore and do we need another eyesore. She said, as a citizen of Vail, that this is not law-income housing and her grand kids will have to live with this and she mentioned that the big businesses have housing for their employees. Flo Steinberg said she has been here since '65 and if she were an employer, steel would make a provision for the employees to walk to the Village. She said roundabouts will be rendered useless. Ron Byrne said this was a very difficult subject for everyone as the size, scope and massing is problematic. He said the reason people are coming forward now is that they did not realize how big it was until now, but it is far less density then what the site calls for. He questioned what the traffic pattern will be. Tom Farnsworth said he was a part-time resident, but full-time taxpayer. He said, as a developer, he is well versed with land use and development. He said this project is ill conceived and there is no green space and so it is not appropriate for the front door. Alan Kosloff noted that the bat#ie between second homeowners and locals is not true. He said there were Pots of full time residents here. He said the criteria for the PEC was not being met. He said people are saying have courage to decide, but that cuts both ways. He said people have done a got of work on this, that is true, but the impact has hit us in the past few weeks. He said it does not matter that a lot of work went into it if it is still wrong for Vail and to have the courage of your convictions. Johannes Faessler said he employed several hundred people. He said. what stuns him about this project is that if this project cannot be tweaked and tuned, it needs to ga back to the drawing board. He said standards must apply to a project so close to the entry, as Vail is about quality and if we build employee housing so close to the center of town, it must be of the highest quality. Joe McHugh said economics are key and the siie is inappropriate far this project. He said this is defeating the purpose, as this is not affordable and it is unsightly. He said he questioned the Housing Authority's logic in recommending approval of this project. He suspects that if thiswas an issue farthe individuals an the authority for their quality of life. Mark Gordon said what strikes him about this project is the size, mass, density and to meet those criteria. He said he did an experiment. He went on the Mountain and looked at the site, but came to Approved 9/91D2 the opposite conclusion. He said regarding the in#angibles, that the TDV is at a critical juncture in its development and your decision does heavily way an the future of Town. He urges the PEC to vote for this project. Tom Guthrie said he was a product of affordable housing. He said the center of town is the high quality services and there are plenty of big buildings in town. He said if the cars have to stop for the people, that's cool. He said to trust your heart and do what is right and vote for this project. John Brennan said he strongly supported this project, as we need employee housing and mentioried that there are no traffic problems in West Vail with the roundabout. Tom Higgins said he liked this project and the project is agood-looking building. He said Timber Ridge has not negatively impacted property values and that employees need housing during the ski season, as we are competing with down-valley, He said he did not have the means of VR and Sonnenalp to house employees and his house was like a bed & breakfast last year, it looked like the UN. Guy Getero said the project is a good one and it is needed and should be approved today. He said the opposition has very little to do with the project itself. Mike Arnett said he is also in support of this project. He said to look at adjacent properties; the ABC school and Mountain Bell site are ugly and this meets the criteria. Joel Heath stated that the 15-34 age group is the front line of the community and should be at the front door. We did' not invest over the years and now he would encourage the PEC that it is time to buck up and support this project. Sybil Navas said she whole-heartedly agrees with Don Rogers and supports this project. She stated that Vail depends on down-valley housing and it is time to put employees back in town. She said the employees being in town will result in higher sales and economic vitality during the off season and we can work out the detaiis Julie Esry said she has been here over 2g years and we have to bring back to the forefront fhe issue of cost benefit analysis to the community at large. She said there are many other areas to be built upon that would not have detrimental impacts an Vail. She said the cost is almost immeasurable to the environmental well being of Vail and she said she is against the project. Herman Stauffer said he would like to point out that he respectfully disagrees with his friends. He said we know that over the next 10 years Vail will became #1 again, but why would anyone want to work in Vail, He said it is amazing that people come in at the 11 ~'' hour to speak against this project, as we need this project to become the best community again. He said he knows Jim Lamont will come up and speak against this, but remember, he is a paid lobbyist. He said he embraces the 2"d homeowners, as they are wonderful people. He said the competition does not sleep. Steven Kirshner said he did business up valley and dawn valley and the recurring theme was that there was no acceptable place for affordable housing. He said he was in support of this project, as it is not the albatross that everyone says it is. He said we need younger people in this Valley and you have to want to live here. Ne said his family is in support. Jan worked for VA for years and said housing is a huge need for employees and this is the right pr©ject and the right place. Kaye Ferry said this project is the single mast important project in the last 15 years in town and we need this project today.. She said it is wFll thought out, well designed and has been in the works far over a year. She went over the history of the meetings and the design. She said her personal opinion is to look at what is happening dawn valley, as the competition for employees is getting greater and we cannot let the competition continue to drain our workforce. She said happy employees give gaud 4 ~pprov~d srs~az service and this is the right project, so please approve it today. Ron Riley said the simple fact is we have always needed this housing and Aspen is a good example for us. He said in the last 25 years, Aspen has developed over zOC10 emplayee units and we have not done anything that compares. He said we don't have any choices left and if we looked at this situation in '72 there would have been many more options. He said this project serves a purpose and it has long been ignored, so let's get on with this, vote on it and go forward. Jim Lamont said he was the f rst city planner in Vail and has spent a lifetime working on Vail. He said his comments will be strictly directed to the criteria. He said one side says lets improve it, other says turn a blind eye and just approve it, assuming there will be an appeal. Russ Forrest explained staff's position regarding the joint session. Jim Lamont said a decision would be made an the ninth and he asked about notice and what date would it be after the 9~h. He said the dates are very important to understand the process and asked if there is sufficient time to address everything even if a decision is made today. Russ Forrest went over the dates and time between meetings. Jim Lamont asked for an explanation, so people understand the appeal process. Matt Mire explained the law, as it relates to an appeal of this process. Russ Forrest further explained haw the process might work. Jim Lamont clarified that they may have time to find a middle ground. He said he was alarmed by the hazards and confused why we have two different reports on rock-fall. He said he would be more comfortable if Mr. Mears came to explain the rock-fall and debris flow hazards, as we have all seen floods rush out of these gulleys. He said the key here is that Va'rl's existence has been established based on careful architectural elements and if the green belt along the highway were to disappear, the bulk and mass of development would not be as well presented. He said the number of units is not a given and this building is for local housing and it can be candominiumized, or for out of town employees, etc. We would ask that you are given sufficient time to decide an this project, as it sometimes takes months to decide what a project will look like and became. He said every project we've parkicipated in has been in an adversarial role, but the DRB has the design authority and we ask for time to make the right decision. He said "Vllhen the orgasm of the politics is over, they walk away and we are left with the product.'" He said he is saddened to see the dialogue has not been of the quality of this hearing and we ask that you take the needed time to consider what we've said. Arn Mencani said same people ask far more when the orgasm is aver. He said the cauntyy committed $1.5 million to the effort of affordable housing and he hears quite frequently that i=dwards is the emplayee housing stock for the valley. He said there is a distinction between boards and the people they appoint to implement the plans they vote in favor of and we've heard different views on community need. He said he has lived here for 12 years and have been around people in the service industry. He said the other people in the community who work 1.9 jobs, the Hispanics, the snowboard instructors, are not here because they do not have the time to speak to you ar they do not understand the process. (He then went through statistics on our county and how disproportionate number of in-commuters, etc.} He went an to quote John Kenneth Galbraith and said he'd hate to see the disenfranchisement of renters. Ken Soctland said he has raised families here and he looks at this project, and though it is big, it can be changed far the better. He said he is in support of this type of project, but we need to ensure that it stays rental and does not go to undeserving people. He said to not rush this and IeYs make it as good as we can and do it right. Bob Fritch said it seems to me that there are 2 issues here; do we need employee housing and do we Approved 919102 need it in Vail. He said it should be built in town and we do need it. He said he did have a problem with the size, appearance and height. He said he is concerned that this is becoming a class warfare issue and the media is fueling that and he would urge you not to approve this today Mike Coughlin addressed many of the questions brought up by citizens. He stated that all trash containers are bear proof, road grades to the learning center meet all Town requirements, sound studies were conducted and have met FiUDD requirements and concluded with stating that the applicant is here for a vote. He said there is not enough time between now and September 9th to revise items and that delay of the project will mean death to the project. He said he appreciated all the comments presented here tonight. John Schofield asked Allison if she had any additional comments. Allison Ochs restated that staff recommended tabling for the reasons stated earlier. John Schofield asked Russ to discuss the possibility of a joint l'EC and DRB meeting on September 9. Gary Hartman stated that the zoning and lot sizes were appropriate. He reaffirmed that Mike did a great job preserving open space, but continued by adding that the roof structures don't go far enough tc~ break the mass down and there is a need for a complete hazard report which should be submitted to s#aff. Doug Cahill was glad to hear that many people agreed there was a need for employee housing. He stated that he thought the bulk and mass on the east side needed to be brought to a lesser level. He felt there was a need for a comprehensive hazard report and urged the applicant to table the project, so that it could come to fruition. Chas Bernhardt feels Vail is number one which is why he is on the board. He said he had previously pushed for this site and was against this project, however, today'he is prepared to va#e approval for the project. Rollie Kjesbo reiterated the other Commissioners comments an not forcing a vote. He felt the roof addition on the lower level was unacceptable and hoped there could be a joint meeting to work things out.. George Lamb agreed the Town is at a critical juncture and that is a reason he got on the board. He wishes the public comments could have come earlier in the process and commends the architect and developer, as they have been very receptive to previous board comments, however, he is against the size and density of the project. Erickson Shirley restated that if the debate is over whether or not there should be housing on the site, or that rents are #oo high, or employees could work down valley then you need to go to Council or the Housing Authority. He said the criteria are taken seriously by the board and the board took an oath and are very committed. He felt staff has done a great job and their recommendation of tabling is unbiased and that there is no hidden agenda. He feels the motion should be tabling. John Schofield thanked the pubic for coming out, however he chastises them slightly for coming out so late. He told the applicant that if he pushes for a vote, it won't be the outcome he wants. He said he personally is in favor of a joint meeting on September 9'" with the idea, that a final vote will be rendered at that time. He feels the joint meeting wilt give the applicant one voice. He added that he felt that one final hazard report was necessary. He said that he has said many times that the east elevation is unacceptable and it still is and he has issues with the surface parking. He continued thatthe quality is not where it needs to be and wanted to see reasonable assurance from CDT that landscaping in the RC?W will remain, Erickson Shirley made a motion to table this until September 9, 2C1d2. Approved 9/9102 Chas Bernhardt seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 7-©. The board said they would like to see a joint meeting. 2. A request far a conditional use permit, to allow for a temporary seasonal structure of the Vaii Marriott Mountain Resort, located at 715 West Lionshead CirclelLots 4 & 7, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 3~d Filing and Lots C & D, Morcus Subdivision. Applicant: Vail Marriott Mountain Resort Planner: Warren Campbell Warren Campbell presented an overview of the staff memorandum, including the staff recommendation and conditions. Matt Vinland, representing the Marrio#t, stated that he had nothing to add. There was no public input. Rollie Kjesbo said he has no problem with the application as presented, George Lamb agreed. Erickson Shirley agreed. Gary Hartman concurred. Doug Cahill asked if the dates in the condition were acceptable. Matt Vinland agreed. Doug Cahill made a motion for approval. Gary Hartman seconded the motion, The motion passed by a vote of 7-0. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of an amendment to Section 12-7A-~ (Height), Vail Town Cade, to increase the maximum allowable building height in the Public Accommodation Zane District and setting forth details in regards thereto. Applicant. bob Lazier, represented by Jay Peterson Planner: George RutherfVllarren Campbell Allison Ochs gave a background as George was out of the room. Jay Peterson stated that what he would like to do today is clear up some confusion regarding what the current Tivoli is and the how they came to 56 feet. He said the current Tivoli is nine feet floor to floor with room heights at 7.5 feet and there are four floors with the first floor five feet into the ground with a roof with roams in the roof. He said what the applicant is asking for is four floors with a floor height of 11 feet. The applicant unrolled the plans for the new Tivoli. He said there was parking underground to meet current parking requirements and added that the roof has never been counted as floor in the master plan, He said a full floor of rooms will not fit in a roof and what the town needs to decide is if motels are going to become up to date, it won't happen with 7 foot ceiling heights. He continued that if the Town wants to encourage redevelopment, then height increases 7 Approved 9!9!02 are necessary and it will help to accommodate fire sprinklers and current building code requirements. Ne said the Sonnenalp did four stories in 48 feet with nine foot ceilings, however it cost more and now they are retrofitting air conditioners on the north side because of the buses. He • added that eave lines are also a consideration, as it helps to bring the scale down. He stated that floor plates were increased in Lionshead to eleven feet. Bob ~lrazier added that he has a great hotel, but they need an elevator and larger lobby and need to upgrade the project to the quality of their location and to compete. He said this plan has larger bathrooms and better matched to the guests. There was no public comment. George Rather stated he had nothing to add, Erickson Shirley asked George Rather if the applicant has requested a change to the Master Plan? George Rather stated no, and he stated he would check to see if an amendment was needed. Erickson Shirley asked if amending the Master Plan would affect the entire area? George Ruttier stated nv as only the PA zone height would be increased. Erickson Shirley asked what is the likelihood of other property owners in other zoning districts coming in asking for height increases. He feels as if changing the Master Plan might have some unintended consequences. He continued that he is concerned with the can of worms that may be opened. George Lamb stated that he is concerned with the unintended consequences as well and if they are unsure the SDD should be used. Gary Hartman stated that a change was needed and in his opinion 1 D.5 to 11 feet was necessary along with a steeper roof pitch. Doug Cahill agreed with Gary, but he feels that the entire structure being 58 feet may be inappropriate and so just a portion of the building may be more appropriate. Rollie Kjesbo was confused if eleven feet was ideal, then why were the plans showing 10.2. Jay Peterson added that they would be increasing closer to eleven in order to have a higher lobby ceiling. George Lamb stated that although they voted far sweeping change at the previous meeting he now feels an SDD is appropriate. Erickson Shirley agreed that the SDD is the way to go, but the complexity of changing the entire district is immense. Chas Bernhardt pointed out that the nine foot floor plate in the.Master Plan may be outdated, as Codes have required more and more.. Mr. Mike Arnett, from the public, stated that he was involved with the Lionshead Master Plan and the discussion of eleven foot plate distances. John Schofield stated that eleven feet is where things got to be to accommodate new Code requirements and he wanted staff #a research impacts on light and shade and on the Master Plan. Approved 9/102 Doug Cahill moved to table this item until September 9, 2.002. Second by George Lamb The motion passed with a vote of 7-~. 4. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council far an amendment to the Town of Vail Land Use Plan and the flail Village ~llaster Plan, to facilitate the construction of "Nail's Front Door" project and associated improvements and setting forth details in regards thereto, located on an unplatted parcel, generally located south of the Lodge Tower and west of the Vista Bahn Ski Yard. Amore complete metes and bounds description is available at the Department of Community Development. Applicant: Vail Resorts Development Company Planner George Rather Doug Cahill made a motion to table this until October t4, 2002. George Lamb seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 7-~. 5. A request for an interpretation of the maximum height and calculation of average maximum height requirements in the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. Applicant: Town of Vail Community Development Department Planner: George Ruttier Doug Gahill made a motion to table this until September 9, 2002. George Lamb seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 7-0. 6. A request for a conditional use permit and an amendment to the approved development plan, to allow for a temporary private educational institution, located at the Lionshead RV Lot, 395 S. Frontage RoadlLot 1, Block 2, Vail Lionshead 15t Filing, Applicant: Children's Garden of Learning Planner: Allison Ochs TABLED UNTIL SEPTEMBER 9, 2Ul)2 7. A request far a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for an amendment. to the Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan, to allow for modifications to the proposed streetscape plan and to propose improvements, located at Meadow Driue from Dobson Ice Arena to Willow Bridge Road. Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Otak, lnc. Planner: Bill Gibson WITHDRAWN 8. A request for a major amendment to an approved development plan, in accordance with Section ~2-8D-6 of the Vail Town Code, to allow for improvements to the Golden Peak Ski Base, located at 458 Vail Valley DrivefTract F,Vail Village 51" Filing and 498 Vail Valley L~ Approved 819/02 Dave/Tract B, Vail Village 7t~ Filing. Applicant: Vail Resorts, lnc. Planner Bill Gibson WITHDRAWN 9. Approval of July 22, 2002 and August 12, 2002 minutes The July 22, 2002 minutes were approved unanimously with some changes as recorded by George Bother with the motion made by Erickson Shirley and seconded by Doug Cahill. The August 12, 2002 minutes were approved unanimously with some changes as recorded by George Ruttier with the motion made by George ~.arnb and seconded by Doug Dahill. 10. Information Update The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours in the project planner's office located at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. Please call 479-2138 for information. Sign language interpretation availatafe upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479-2350, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. Community Development Department • • 10