HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-0113 PEC
THIS fTEM MAY AFFECT YQUR PROPERTY ~
PUBLIC NOTICE ~
~
op,
NOT'ICE IS HEREB'Y GfVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission af the Town of
~ Vafi will hold a pubiic hearing in aecordance woth Section 12-3-6 of the Municipal Code of the
Town af Vail an Jartuary 13, 2003, at 2:00 P.M. ira the Town of Vail Municipal Building. In
consideration of;
A request for a recommendatian to the Vail Town Council af a praposed text amendment to
Section 12-10-9: Loading Standards, Vapl Town Code, to amend thie size requirement for
laading berths & setting forth details in regard thereto.
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: Allison Ochs
A request for a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 12-6C-3, Vaii Town Code, #o allaw
for a Type If Emplayee Housing Unit and a request for a variance from Section 12-6C-6
(Setbacks), VaiC Town Code, to ailow far additeans in the side setbacks, located at 1193 Gabin
Gircle/Lot 4, Block 2, Vail VaIley 8;h Fiiing. ~
Applicant: David & Renie Garsuch, represented by Resort Design Assvciates, Inc,
Planner Bill Gi#ason
A request for a conditianal use permit, pursuant to Section 12-9C-3B, Vail Town Code, to allow
for a tourisUguest service related faciiity accessary ta a parking struc#ure, and a request for a
variance from Title 11, Vail Town Cade, to allow for proposed signage and settirag forth detaiEs
in regard thereta, located at 181 W. Meadow DrivelLots E&F, Vail Village 2nd filing.
~ Appiicant: Stan Anderson
Planner: Bill Gibson
A request for a recammertdation to the '11aif Town Cauncil #or a maj4r amendment to Special
Development District No. 36, pursuant ta Section 12-9A-10, Vail Town Code, to aIlaw for a
mixed-use hotel; a request for a final review of a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 12-
7A-3, Vail Town +Gode, ta allow for 7ype lia Employee hiousing LDnits and a fraetional fee club;
and a request for a reccammendation to the Vail Town Cauncii for a proposed rezcaning of Lot
I 9A, Vaif Village 2 nd Filing fram Heavy Serviee (HS) District to Public Accornrnodation (PA)
District, located at 28 S. Fron#age Rd. and 13 Vail Road/Lots 9A& 9C, Vail Village 2nd Filing.
AppNicant: McQllet Island C}eveloprnent Company Inc.
Planner: Gearge RutherlAllFSOn Ochs ~
A request far a variance from Section 12-7A-9, (Site Caverage) and a request for a proposed
rninor exterior alteration, pursuan# to Section 12-7A-12, Vail Town Code, to allow for a
residential addition, located at 292 East Meadow Drive/A part o# Tract B, Vail Village F3rst Filing.
Applicant: Mountain Haus Horneawner's Assaciatian, represen#ed by K.H. Webb Architects
Planner_ Bill GibsQn
A request for a final review af a proposed major exterior alteration, pursuant to Section 12-7A-
12, Vail Town Code, to allow far a hotel redevelopment and addition; a request for a final review
of a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 12-7A-3, Vail Town Gode, to allow for a
fractional fee club; a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of a text amendment Section
~
*VAIL
TOWN O1
12-7A-3 (Conditional Uses), Vail Town Gode, to allow for retail uses in a lodge in excess af 10°!0
of the total gross residential floor area of the structure as a canditianal use; a request for a final
review of a variance fram Section 12-7A-10 (Landscappng & Site Development), Vail Town
Gode, tp allow for a deviation from the tatal landscape area requirement, located at 20 Vail ~
Road, 62 E. Meadow Drive, and 82 E. Meadaw Qrive/Lots K& L, Biack 5E, Vail Village 1St
Filing.
Applicant; Sannenalp Praperties, Inc., represented by Braun Associates, Inc.
Planner: Gearge RutherlWarren Campbell
The applications and information abaut the praposals are available for pubiic inspection during
regular office hours in the project planner's office, located at the Town af Vail Corrtimunity
Development Department, 75 South Froratage Road. The public is invited to at#end project orientation
and the site visits that precede the public hearing in #he Town of Vail Community Development
Department. Please call 479-2138 for information.
Sign language interpretation availabfe upon request with 24-hour no#ification. P'lease call 479- ~
2356, Telephone for the Hearing lmpaired, far information. ~
Communi#y Development Departrnent I
Published December 27, 2002 in the Vail Daily. ;
I
~
i
~
I
. ~
~
i
i
I
~
2
~
~
Su~N
- PuSuc naeEruNG
N ° 0+~G,3 MqnaeY, Jan„ary
~ 13, 2003
PRO,lECT pqlENTATI4N I --CommGnity 1:64 C?ava,ioamp-
-enl DepL PtJBLIC WELGG7Rv}@
1
MEMBERSPRESENT MEM13CqS ABSENT
PRDC3F OF PIJBLlCATIOIV SIteVlsna:12:30pm
i. Garsuch resfdence - 1193 ~abr, Circle
2. Tivpii ! odge - 3$6 Ff,rinsan Ranch Rpad
STATE OF COLQRADO a. nnaUntain Faus - zsz E. h,eadflw nri„e
4. Fnur $aascrris Resort - 33 Vail fioad
S. Sonner,alp FfoFel - pp VaiE Road
Hospital Pariiing 5trurfure - 181 W. h6eadoW,,
.~.y' s. IS"ve
Orlusr. Gyprge
~OU'~1TY OF EAGLE ruorE: if lr~ aEC ,~ri„g 9%rftr~ uR:ir s:oo p.m
th2 board n54y t,m=k 9n; ~i~~ner hrrnt 6:00 - 5:30
iubfk Hearing - 7awn Councid Chsmbera 2:11C
PFn
7_ A requast ;or a cn'$flibnaY useper-
mit, pursuartt to 8sction 12-6C-3- Vmi[ Town Code.
to ellow for a Type ll Employee Housin Unil ar•d a
I, Steve Papa. do solemniy swear tf~at I am the Pubfishsr o9 The Uail daily, that lhe same daiiy newspa- reyuast for a variance irom scctton 1e-r,c-6 (ser-
er rinied, in who4e os in art ~snd ublislisd in the Gount of Ea le. State of CaloradQ, ar~d has a ba~)• uail Town code, tfl anow tor ada;cioRs in
P P p ~ ~ ~ !ha s,d6 Sel6acks, localBCY al 7 193 Ga6in CirCI6fL4[
qeneral circuiation therein; that said newspaper has been published conlinuausly and uninterruptediy 4. Bjock 2 uaiiValiev etfi F`ii^e.
in said Gaunty of Eagle for a period of more than fifky-two consecutive weeks next prior to the first +spsriicanr: oaVEd & ReR;e co.sucr,, .epBSentea
publication of the annexed legai notice flr advertisement; that said newspaper has been admstted to fYse ~ A~" ~$'gn as.sociates. inc.
armer. 8idl Gibsan
PJnited 5tates mails as a periadical under the provisians ot the Ac3 af March 3, 1879, or any amend-
2. A vequest for a var:anee Irom Section
menfs thereo#, and that said newspager rss a daily newspaper duly qvalified for publishing legal notices 12aa-9. (s+te couerage) ana a reauesi for a~ro-
and advertssements within #he meanin af 1he lauvs vf the State af Colorado. r~ea ~n;~or e.r:e~of a~tQr~c;or,, pursua~,~ ~o
~ tiar, 72-7A-12, Wail Town Code, [o alkow for a resi-
dential addltion, loeated a4 292 East Meadow
OrtvelA P3et of Traci 8. Vail Viilage First rifing.
40hat the anraexsd legal notice or advertisement was pub9ished in the regular and entire issue of euery Applica,t. Mfl,,,,,ain Ha„s HoR,eow„er5 nssnc;-
/ afion, represersfed by K.H. Webb Architects
numbsr of saici daily newspaper for fhe period of .....1....,.. consecutive insertivns; and thai the #irst P€anroer. Bill Gibson
ubl.~cation of said notice wvas in the issue of said news aper dated Le'. . 3 .a r~u~c for a~na;u~r,a~ use ne~-
~j ~j ' ~ • miL pursuant ro SecYion 12-9C-36. Vaif Town
Gorle, to al!Qw for a taurisugu¢si 50rviee reEatetl fa-
. -..l y and that the last ubfica4ian af said natice vas in the issue o~'said news aer cll"r accessory vo a pa;xi~ry 5$ructure a,d a re-
~1.~. ~ ¢7 P 9ue51 for aitariance frarr TiNe 41. Vatl Tawn Cnde.
to alfow for prcposed
il ignaoe antl setti iarth de•
date ~ A 'd L~J 1 w Me~+
.D . ......,...+t.-'.~?).,'..~........... ` regard iocaed ai rsi
v~.r~
da Of c. iage 2nd filing.
Appaicant: Stan Andersor,
In witr~ess whereof I have hereunto set my hand this ......y PFanner- eiu Giason
4. A requesE 4or a reeommentlakion !o
tMe VeiE Toum Gaunckl 40r a majar amentlmertt to
` SpeCiai Deveiopmem Oisiricf No. 36.. pursuant to
Seciion 12-3A-30, Vail Town Gtrde, to a91ow for a
mixed-us2 hafel a request tpe a iirsal ravie5v ol a
, conditior,al us2 Rermi+., pursuant to Sectian 12-7A-
3, 4ail To+an Code to aliow for TyW III Emplagee
pUblISf'7P.f HQUSmg nit5 dna P. fraclionei teE Club; ard a re-
quest forUa recammer~iatinn iothe Vail Town
G4uncil For a prop65ed reznning oi Lat 8A. Vail Vf1-
Pige 2nd Fi6ing ftarn Heauy 5ervice (H5I pISYKic1 to
Subscribed and sworn ta before e, a nota ublic in and for the Cou~n of Ea Ie, State of Colorado, Puwic ac{ommoc+aiian rPa~ rn5i,ici. iocatad ar za
~ ~ g S. Frontage Rd. and13 Uad loadlLots 9A$ 9C,
~ • Vail Village 2nd Fifing.
this .............1-7 day of Applioant. NicolAal lsiantl Develnpmern Compo-
ny Inc.
Ptanner: Geprgc RutlierlAllisan Qchs
5, A requcsa for a final review af agro-
_ poaed majo-r-exterinr altedtdoa. pu3suanf fo 0c-
1 fion 12-71L-42, Vai! 'fown Cade, to a11ow for i hotel
redeveiopment antl 2adffion a requoaY for 7 final
review af a concNYOna! use permif, pursuinf rr,
58ction 12-7A-3, Vg:l 7awn Cade, to 211oav ior -s
fractianaf tee c1ub, a recnmmenealion to the V3ii
~ Town Council of a text emendmern Secban 12-7A-
" 3(Conditiona! Uses), Vail l'pwn Cocfe, to anow for
i'NOtaYyl PUblIC reiaii uses in a ladge in gxcessof Tfl% of iha tokal
gross residenSial F1aor area ok ihe struclure as a
. . . ' ' cand)tlcna7 u56: z req~~esf Iar a fanaJ ravietv ot a
My Commrssron exprres ` ~.~....<<.+~ 6~ variance Irorr Seclion 12-7A-10 (Landscapiny &
/ 3ita Geueiopment), Vail Tixvn Code, to albw lo, a
deviatlon trom f'ne toW Vandscape area require-
ment. located at 20 Vail Fload. 82 E. Meadow
Drive. and 82 E. Meatlow C7nverLots K& L. 81ock
~ 5E, Vail Viliage 1 st Filing.
Applicen[: $onnenalp Properties, lnc., ,
re resenl-
eby Braun Assceiates, Inc.
Planner George RuthsrlWarren Garrgpbell
6. A requesl tor a recommendatfon lo
the V311 ToNm Cc>Uneil iof the eslai7li5hmBn1 p1
Special peveloprnent Dis[ric4 No. 37, to alPOw Yor
the redeVBlOpmEnt Ud the Tivoli LOdg@. I4Cat6d aC
386 Hanson Ranch Road/I.ol E. Blodc 2, Vail Vl- .
!a[je 5Fh FiEing. ,
App9ieant: Robert 8 Diane Lazdor I
Planner: ~C',eorge Ruther 7. A reqiresf for a recommanda[IOn fa .
the Vail Town Counr,il o' a proposgd tezt amencS- ,
ment co See.tion I2-I0-9. Luacsing Siantlards. Vail
Tawn Cnde, to amenC ihe size reqwreiti6nt lof
loading berths $ setiing torEh3 detaiRS in reyard
thereta.
Applicani: 7awn o4 Vail
Plannec Aflison Ocfis
8. p raquasl for. texl amendmards to Seciicxns 12-71 (Heighr`8, Bulk} & 52-71-11
(HeigM 3 Bulk), Vail Tawn Code and the Lloris-
head Rects:velopmerti Master Plen to aIlow for a
e... icaoon sotfie maxirnum haigh[ atyJ caN:uiation
cf averaqa maotimum heighl requirerrients for build-
ings construc[ed in Ihe Lionshead MixQd Use r
and the Lionshead Mixed W'se 2 zarw dLstricts, and
sekiing Forth details in regard theroto. ~
Applicant: Town oi Vail Comrnunity Develop-
meM Oepartment
Plannar George ftulher
9. A requesl !or a modrfication lo the ~I
lpq-yeer t4ooc7plain, to allow tor grdding in ihe'r,opdplain lo modify the Gore Creek Whitewater I
Park, locatetl ai Ihe Gore Cree& PrpmenadeiTracis I
I R.4, Bloc€c SB, Vail Viflagetst Piling, and seitlr?g
tqhh daiails in regard Ihereto. '
Rpplicant: Town oF Vail, rapreseMetl by Gregg
Barrfe
Plarrner. 8i11 GibBOn W IYHDRAWiY
70. A request !ar a varVance from Section
714C-3 (Building Idenlilicalion Signs), Vail Town
Code. [o allcsw for a sign thai exceeds 11`re allowa-
ble maxlmurrr heigh! ahove grade, IvcaR2tl aS 250
5. Frrantsge RoadlTraet C, Btock 1. Vail Lionshead
2nd FPing.
~ Appiicant; Evergreen Lodge at Vakl. Ltd.
j Alanner. Matt Gennoit
W ITMDRAW N
1t- Appravaf nf Nc+vernber 25 and De-
cember 9, 2002 minutes
12. Informatinn Uptlate
' Atlvise o1 a publfc meeting an 214I03 wiTh the
Town Council, the F'EC and the ORB to discuss a
torrnat lor cnmmunication among the governing
boards
The applicat4ons and InlarmaSion abpul the prapas-
als are availBWB For publiG inspec;eon during regu-
lar office hours in the ptojecl planners ottice loca[-
ecf at the Town ot Vail Communtry Devefopment
Oepartment, 75 Soulh Fcpniage Road. Please cail
479-2738 for Iniormation. '
Sign ianguage irnerprolatian av~61e upon re-
'quest with 24 hour rta30ication. PSeaSe call 479-
2356, 7elephona !or the HearYng Impaire4 tar in-
40rmation.
Gommuniry Development Departmont
Rublished .3anuary 70, 2003 in the YaiY paily.
~
~
i
I
` PLANNING AND ENVIRONIIAENTAL COMMISSI4N
~ PUBL~C MEETING
.
Monday, January 13, 2003
PROJECT QRIENTATION f- Comrrruni#y [7eveloprnent Dept. PUBLIC WELCOIUIE 11:00 am
MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT
Site Visits : 12;30 pm
1. Gorsueh eesidence - 1193 Caban Circle ~
2. Tivoli Ladge - 386 Hanson Ranch Road
3. IUlountain Haus - 292 E. Meadaw Drive i
4. Faur Seasons Resort - 13 Vail Raad !
5. Sonnenalp Hatel - 20 Vail Road
6. Hospital Parking Structure - 181 W. Meadow Drive
Driver; George
NUTE: If the PEC hearing extends until 6:00 p.m., the board may break for dinner frorn 6.00 -6:3Q
Public Hearinq - Town Council Ghambers 2;00 pm
~ 1. A request for a conditaonal use permit, pursuant to Section 12-6C-3, Vail Town Cede, to
a[low for a Type I! Employee Housing Unit and a request for a variance from Sec#ion 12-6G
6(Sefbacks), Vail 7awn Cade, to allow for additians in the side setbacks, located at 1193
Cabin CirclelLot 4, Block 2, Vail Ua91ey 8th Fifing.
Applicant: David & Renie Gorsuch, represented by Resort Design Associates, {nc.
Planner: Bill Gibson
2. A request for a variance from Section 12-7A-9, (Site Coverage) and a request for a
propased minor exteriar afteration, pursuan# ta Section 12-7A-12, Vail Town Code, to allav?r
for a residential addition, located at 292 East Meadaw DrivslA part af Tract B, Vail Village
First Filing.
Applicant: Mounta9n Haus Homeowner's Assaciation, represented by K.H. Webb
Areh itects
Planner_ BiEI Gibson
3. a request for a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 12-9G-3B, Vail Town Code, to
allaw for a touristlguest service related facifty accessory to a parking structure, and a
request for a variance from Title 11, Vai1 Town Code, to allow far proposed signage and
I setting farth details in rEgard thereto, located at 181 W. Meadow Qrive/Lots E&F, Vail
Village 2"d filing.
Applicant: S#an Andersan
~ Planner: Bill Gibson
TOWN OF YAIL ~
r
4. A request for a recomrrrendatican to the Vail 7ov?rn Caunci[ for a majnr amendment to Special
Development District No. 36, pursuant to 5ection 12-9A-14, Vail Tauvn Code, to allaw for a
; mixed-use hotel; a request for a final review of a canditianal use perrnit, pursuan# to Section ~
~ 12-7A-3, Vail Town Gode, to allaw far Type Ilf Emplayee Housing EJnits and a fractional fee
' ciub; and a request for a recommendatiorro to tne Vail Town Cauncii for a proposed rezoning
of Lot 9A, Vail Vil{age 2nd Fiiing from Heavy Service (HS) District to !'ublic Accommodafion
(pA) District, iocated at 28 S. Frantage Rd. and 13 Vail RoadlLots 9A& 9G, Vail Viliage 2"d
Filing,
Applicant: Nicollet Island Development Company Ine.
Planner: George Ruther/Allison Ochs
5. A requesf for a final review of a praposed major exterior alteration, pursuant to Section 12-
7A-1 2, Vail Town Cvde, to allow for a ho#el redevelopment and additian; a request for a final
review of a canditional use permit, pursuant to Section 12-7A-3, Va;il Town Code, to allow
for a fractional fee club; a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of a text amendment
Section 12-7A-3 (Conditaonal Uses), Vail Town Code, to allow for retail uses ira a ladge in
excess of 10% of the total gross residential flnar area of the structure as a condutionai use; a
reques# for a finaE review af avariance fram Section 12-7A-1 Cl (Landseaping & Site
Development), Vail Town Code, to allow for a deviation from the total landscape area
requirerrrent, fcacated at 20 Vail Raad, 62 E. Meadow Drive, and 82 E. Meatfow DrivelLots K
I & L, Baock 5E, Vail Village 15t Filing,
App(icant: Sannenalp Properties, Inc., represen#ed by Braun Associa#es, Inc.
Ptanner. George Ru#herfWarren Campbell
6. p request for a recammendation to the Vail Town Council faE the esfablishment of Special ~
Development District No. 37, xo allow for the redeaeEapment o'f the Tiuoli Lodge, located at
386 Hanson Ranch RaadfLot E, Block 2, Vail Village 5th Filing.
Applican#: Robert & aiane Lazier
Planner: George Ruther
7. A request far arecommendation to the VaiE Town Gouncil af a proposed text amendment ta
Section 12-10-9: Loading Standards, 1Jai1 Town Code, to amend the size requirement for
loading berkhs & setting forth details in regard thereto.
Applican#: Town of Vail
Pfanner: Allison Uchs
A request for text amendments tQ Sectians 12-7H-11 {Height & Bulk} & 12-71-11 (Height &
Sulk), Vail Town Code and the Lionshead Redewelopment Master Plan to allaw for a
clarification to the maximum height and calculation of average maximum height
requirernents for buildings constructed in the Lionshead Mixed Use 1 and the Lionshead
Mixed Use 2 zone districts, anti setting forth details in regard therettr.
Applicant: Town of Vail Community Deve4opment Department
Planner: George Ruther
9. A request fvr a madificatian to the 100-year floadplain, to allaw for grading in the floodplain
to madify the Gore Creek Whitewater Paric, loeated at the Gore Creek PromenadelTracts I
& A, Bloek 56, Vail Village 1St Filing, and setting forth detai9s in regard thereto. ~
Applicant: Town af Vail, represented by Gregg Barrie
Planner: Bill Gibson
WITHDRAWN
2
~
10. A request far a varianee frorri Sectian 'i 1-4C-3 (Buildang Identificatian Signs), Vail 7own
~ Gode, to alfow for a sign that exceeds the allowable maximum height abo+re grade, located
at 250 S. Frantage RoadlTract C, Block Vaii Lionshead 2"d Flllrlg.
Applicant: Euergreen Lodge at Vaii Ltd.
planner. Niatt Gennett
WITHDRAWN
11. Apprauai of Navember 25 and Decemtaer 9, 2002 minutes
12. Enformation lDpdate
The applicatians and information about the propasals are available far public inspection during
regular office hours in the prvject planner's office located at the Tawn of Vail Gommuni#y
Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. Please caEi 479-213$ for infarmation.
Sign language interpretetian available upon request with 24 hour natification. Please call 479-
2356, Telephone far #he Hearing Ir-npaired, for infvrmativn.
Cornmunoty Develapment Department
PubEished January 10, 2003 in the Vail Daily,
~
€
e
i
. .
~
~
3
E
PLANNING AND ENVfRONMENTAL CQMMISSfC?N
~ PUBLIC MEETItVG RESULTS
Manday, January 13, 2003
PROJECT OFilENTATION 1- Carnmunitar Develapment Dept. PUgLIC WELCOME 11:00 arn
MEMBERS PE2ESENT MEMBERS ABSENT
John Schofield Erickson Shirley
Chas BernhaTdt
Doug Cahiil
George Lamb ~
Rallie KjesbQ
Gary Hartman
Site Visits : 12:30 prra
1. Gorsuch residence - 1193 Cabin Circle
2. Tivaii Ladge - 386 Hanson Ranch Road
3. Mountain Haus - 292 E_ Nleadaw Drive
4. Four Seasons Resort - 13 Vail Road
5. Sannenafp Hotal - 20 Vail Road
6, Haspital Parking Structure - 181 W. Meadow Drive
Driver; Gearge
~ NfJTE: ff the PEC hearing extends until 6:00 p.m., #he board may break for dinner from 6:00 - 6:30
Public Hearing - Town Councit Chamhers 2:00 pm
1. A request for a conditEOnal use permit, pursuan# to 5ection 12-8C-3, Vail Town Cocfe, to
allae+u for a Type II Employee Hausing Unit and a request for a variance from Sectian 12-6G
6(5etbaGks), Vail Town Code, to allow for additions 'tn the side setbacks, located ak 1193
Cabin CirclelLot 4, Block 2, Vail Valley 8t'' Filing.
Applicant: David & Renie Gorsuch, represented by Resort Design Associates, Inc.
Planner: Bill Gibson
fV14TION: Doug Gahil! SECf3ND: George Larnb V07E: 6-4
APPR4VED - VARIANCE
MOTION: Doug Gahill SECOND: George Lamb VQTE: 6-0
APPROVED - CC3NDITIONAL IJSE WITH TWO CDNDITIONS:
1. The Planning anci Environmental Cammissian's appraval of this condifiional use
permit is contingent upon the applicant receiving Town af Vail design review
approval for this proposal.
,
I
T044'N 0F YAtL ~
i
;
2. PriQr to the issuance af buildsng permits, the applicant shaEl Execute a Type !I
EHU deed restriction with the Town of 11ai1 Cepartment of Cammunity ~
Development ta permanently restrict the use of the EHU for employee hausing,
2, A request for avariance from Section 12-7A-9, (Site Coverage) and a request for a praposed
rninor exterior alteratian, pursuant ta Sectian 12-7A-12, "Vail Town Gode, to ailow for a
residential addition, located at 292 East Meadaw Drrve/A part of Tract B, Vail Village First Filing.
Appficant: Mauntain Haus Homeowner's Association, represented by K.H. Webb
Arch itects
Planner: Bill Gibsan
WORKSESSION NQ VC1TE
3. A request for a condational use permi#, pursuant to Sectian 12-9C-3B, Vail tawn Code, ta allow
for a touristlguest service relaied faci{ity accessory to a parking struc#ure, and a request for a
variance frorr2 Title 11, VaiE Town Gade, t6 allow for proposed signage and setfiing forth details
in regard thereto, locafed at 181 W. Meadow DriveILots E&F, Vail Village 2"d filing.
Applicant: Stan Andeesan
Planner: Bill Gibson
MOTIQN: Chas Bernhardt SECOfVD: Doug Cahi61 VOTE: 5-1 (Schofield Qpposed)
TABLED CQNDITIdNAL USE PERMIT UNTIL JANUARY 27, 2003
MOTION: RolIEe Kjesbo SECOND: George Lamb VOTE: 6-0
TABLEa SIGN VARIANGE UNTIL JANUARY 27, 2043 ~
4. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for amajor amendment to Specia!
Develppment District No. 36, pursuant to Section 12-9A-10, Vail Town Code, to allow for a
mixed-use hotel; a request for a final review of a conditianal use permit, pursuant to Section 12- 7A-3, Vail Town Code, to allow for Type !II Ernployee Housing Units and a fractional fee club;
and a request for a recornmendation to the Vai! Town Council for a proposed rezoning caf Lot
9A, Vail Village 2"d Fiiing from Heavy Service (HS) pistrict to Public Accommodation (PA)
District, located at 28 S. Frontage Rd. and 13 Vail RoadfLots 9A& 9C, Vail Village 2"d Filing.
Applicant: Nicollet Island Develvpment Gompany Inc.
F{anner: George Ruther/Allison Ochs
MOTION: Chas Berr?hardt SECpNa: Rol'lie Kjesbo VQTE: 6-0
TABLED UNTIL I'UTARCH 10, 2003
5. ,A request for a final review of a prapvsed major exterior alteration, pursuant to Section 12-7A-
12, Vail Town Code, to aPaow for a hatei redevelopment and additian; a request for a final review
of a conditianal use permit, pursuant to Section 12-7A-3, Vail Tawn Code, to allow for a
fractional fee club; a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of a text amendment Section
12-7A-3 (Canditional Uses), Vail Town Code, to allow for retaii uses in a lodge in excess of 10°Jo
af the tatal gross residentiai fioor area ofthe structure as a conditional use; a request for a final
review af a variance from Sectian 12-7A-10 (Landscaping & Site aevelopment), Vail Town
Code, to allow for a deviation from the total landscape area requirement, located at 20 Vail ~
Raad, 62 E. Meadaw Drive, and 82 E. Meadow privelLots K& L, Block 5E, Vail Village 1S°
Filing.
2
i
,
Applicant: Sonnenalp Propertkes, Inc., represented by Braun Assaciates, Inc.
Planner: George RutheNVllarren Campbel!
~ MOTION: Gary Hartman SEGC)ND: Rollie Kjesbo VQTE; 6-0
TAQLED UNTIL FEBRUARY 10, 2003
6. A request for a recomrnendatian to the Vail Tawn Councif for the establishment of Special
Development District No. 37, to al6ow for the redeveloprnent of the Tivoli Lodge, located at 3$6
Hansan Ranch RoadlLo# E, Bdoclc 2, Vail Village 5M Filirrg.
Applicant: Robert 8 Diane Lazier
Planner: George Rufher
MOTION: Gary Hartrnan SECQND: George Lamb VOTE; 6-0
TABLED UNTIL FEBFZUARY 24, 2003
7. A reques# #ar a recommendation ta the Vai1 Town Councol of a proposed text amendment to
Sectian 12-1 0-9: Loading 5tandards, Vail Town Code, to amend #he size requirement for
loading ber#hs & setting forkh details in regard thereta.
Appiicant: Town af \o'ail
PEanner: Allison Ochs
MOTION: Gary Hartman SECOND: Gevrge Lamb VC7TE: 6-0
T/ABLED UNTIL FEBRUARX1(f, 2003
8. A request for text amendmenis to Sections 12-7H-1 1(Height & Bulk) & 12-71-11 (Hekght &
~ Bulk), Vail Town Code and the Lionshead Redeveloprnent Master Plan to allow for a
cbarification to the maximum height and caleulation of average maximum height
requirernents for kauifdings constructed in the Lianshead Mixed Use 1 and the Lionshead
Mixed Use 2 zoroe districts, aTld SeftIIIg fOIth dE:t31IS Ift fEgarCI th@fe4o.
Applacant: Town of Vail Community Developrnent Department
Planner: George Ruther
MOTION: Doug Cahill SECG+Na: Rallse Kjesbo VOTE: 6-0
RECOMMENDATION OF APPRp1/AL TO TOWN COUNGIL
9. A request far a modification to the 100-year floodplain, to allow for grading in the flaodplain
fa modify the Gore Creek 1Nhitewater Par4c, located at the Gore Creek PromenadelTracts I
& A, Block 5B, Vail Village 1S` Filing, and setting forth details in regard thereto.
P,pplicant: Town of Vail, represented by Gregg Barrie
Planner; Bill Gibson
WITHDRAWN
10. A request for a variance from 5ection 11-4C-3 (Building Identification Signs), Vail Town
Cade, to allow for a sign that exceeds the aNouvabie maximum height a'bove grade, focated
at 250 S. Frontage Raadl7ract C, Biock 1, Vail Lionshead 2"d Filing.
Applicant: Evergreen Lodge at Vail Ltd.
~ Planner: Matt Gennett
WITHDRAWN
3
r
11. Approval of December 9, 2002 rnireutes
Nf4TiON: George Lamb SECQND: Rollie Kjesbo VOTE: 6-0 ~
12. Information Update
~
~ Advise of a public meeting an 214103 with the Town Council, the PEC and the DRB tn discuss a
format for communication among the gaverning boards
The applications and information abou# the proposals are available fQr pub6ic inspection during
regular offce hours in the project planner's office located at #Me Town of Vai! Community
C?evelopment Qepartment, 75 South Frantage Raad. Please call 479-2138 #or information.
5ign language interpretation avaifable upon request wi#h 24 hour notification. F'Eease call 479- !
2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. Community Develapment Deparkment
~
I
i
4
,
~
~ MEMORANQUM
TC7: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Cammunity Qevelapment Department
DpTE: January 13, 2003
SUBJECT: A request for a cantiitional use permit, pursuant to Sectian 12-6C-3, Vail
Town Code, to allow for a Type II Empfoyee Hausing fJni:t and a reques#
far a varianee from Section 12-6C-6 (Setbacks), Vail Town Code, to allow
far addi#ions ira the side setbacks, located a# 1193 Cabin Circle/Lot 4,
Block 2, Vail Valley 8;h Filing.
Applicant: David & Renie Garsuch, represented by
Resart Design Associates, Inc.,
Planner: Bill Gibsan
1. SUMMARY
The applicants, David & Renie Gorsuch, are requesting a condi#ianal use permit
as QUtlined in Srctian 12-16-2 (Conditional Use Permit), Vail Town Code, located
~ at 1193 Cabin Circle. The condit9onal use permit is requested to allow the
applicant to construct a Type ll Employee Housing Unit (EHU) in associatian vvith
an existing two-family residence. Based upon Staffs review of the critEria in
Section VIII of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented, the
Gomrr7unity Development Department recommends approval of this request
subject to the findings and conditions noted in Section IX of this memarandum.
The applicants, David & Renie Gorsuch, are also requesting a variance from
Section 12-6C-6 (Setbacks), Vail l°own Code, to allow for an addikion in the side
setbacks, located at 1193 Cabin Circle, "fhe proposed addition in a side setback
consists of an increase in the amaunt of roof structure valurne Iocated in the
north side setback due to a proposed re-roofing of an existing garage. Based
upon Staff's reView of the criteria in Sectian VEII of this memorandum and the
eWidence and testimany presented, fhe Community Development Department
recomrrrends approval of a Variance to allow fhe construction of an additian in the
side setback subjecf to the findirrgs and canditiorrs noteci in Section IX af this
memorandum.
II. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST
The applicants are proposing to renovate an existing twa-family residence
{ocated at 1193 Cabin Circle. This proposal, is currentfy in the Tawn's design
review pracess. As part of this renovation, the appiicanfs are proposing to
~ integrate a new Type II EHU into the existing two-family residence on the
praperky. The proposed EHU will be approximately 509 sq. ft. in size (plus an
additional 274 sq. ft. of garage area). The proposed EHU will be a one bedrodm
1
~
unit with a kitchenette and bathroom. The provisions of Section 12-6C-3, Vail ~
Town Code, identify a Type I] EHLI as a conditEQnal use in the Twa-Famify
Residential (R) district. 7he provisions of Sectian 12-16 (Conditional Use
Perrnit), Vail Town Code, determine #he review criteria anci review procedures for
a conditional use permit.
The proposed additiora in a side setback consists of an increase in the amount of
roof structure Walume loeated in the north sicie setback due ta a proposed re-
raofing of an existing garage (see Attachment D). The provisions of Sectaon 12-
17 (1/ariance), Uail Town Coeie, tletermine the review criteria and review
pracedures for a variance request.
fIl. B,ACKGROUND
an August 12, 1971, the 7own of Vail Board a# Zoning, Appeals, and Examiners
approved a setback variance ta allow fflr the construction of a two-car garage
within five fest (5') of the properky line at the Gorsuch resiefence, located at 1193
Cabin Circfe.
The applicants' current renovation proposal is schedu1ed for review by the Town
of Vail Design Review Board at its January 15, 2002 public hearing.
IV. R(]LES QF REVIEW1NG BODIES ~
Order of Review: Generally, applications will be reviewed firs# by the
Planning and Environmental Conr7missiarr far acceptability of use and then by the
Design Review Board for compliance of praposed buildings and site planning.
Planraing and Environmental Cammission:
Action: The Planning and Environmental Commissiora is responsible for tinal
approval/deniallapproval with conditions of conditional use perrrRits and
variances.
The Planning and Environmental Comrraission is responsible far
ewaluating a proposal for:
1. Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the
Tawn.
2. Effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population,
transportation facilities, utilities, schocals, parks and recrea#iQn facilities,
and okher public facifities and public faciEities needs.
3. Effect upon traffic, with particular referertce to cangestion, automotive
and pedeskrian safety and convenience, #raffic flow and control, access,
maneuverability, and removal of snow from the streets and parking areas.
~
2
~ 4. Effect upon the character af 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.
fi. The environmental impact repprt cflncerning the propased use, if an
eanviranmental impact report is requirad by Ghapter 12 of this Tifle.
Conformance with dEvelopment standards af zone district
Lot area
Setbacks
Building Height
Density
GRFA
Site coverage
Landscape area
Parking and loading
Mitigation of dcvelopmen4 impacts
Design Review Board:
Action: The Design Review Board has NO review authority on a conditional use
~ permit or variance, but must review any accompanying Design FZeview 8aard
application.
Town Council.
A,ctions of Design Review Board or Pkanning and Envirorrmental Commission
may be appealed tQ the Town Council ar by the Town Cauncii. Town Gouncil
evaluates whether or not the Planning and Environmental Cammission or Qesign
REView Board erred with approvaGs or denials and can uphold, uphold with
modifications, ar overturn the baard's decision.
Staff:
The staff is responsible for ensuring tha# all submittal requirements are pravided
and plans conform to the technical requirements of the Zoning Regulations. The
staff also advises the appliGant as to compliance with the design guidelines.
Staff provides a staff memorandum containing background on the property and
pravides a staff eualuation of the project with respect to the rec}uired criteria ancf
findings, and a recommendation on approval, approval with cflndi#ians, or denial.
Staff also facilitates the review pracess.
V. APPL.ICABLE._PLANNING DOGUMENTS
Staff beGeves that the follawing pravisions of the Vail Town Code are relevant ka
the review of this proposal:
~
3
TaTLF 12: ZON1NG REGfJLATIONS ~
Chapter 12-2: Defini#ions
12-2-2: Definitions
Employee Nousiny+ Unit (ENU): A dwelling unit which shalf not ,be leased
or rented for any perr`od less than thirty (30) consecufive days, and shall
be re,nted only t4 tenants who are fufl-time employees of Eagle County.
EHUs shall be allowed in certairi zorre districts as set fdrth in this Trtle
(Section 12-13). DeveIop_ment standards for EH'Us shall be as provi~ed rn
Chapter 13, "Employee Nousing" of this Title. For fhe purposes of this ~
definifron, a"fulf-fime" employee shall mean a person who wcarks a j
minimum of an average of thirty (30) hours per weeJc. There shali bE five
(5) categories of FHUs: Type J, Type fl, Type I11, Type IV, and Type V.
Provisions relatrng to each type of EHU are sef forfh r`rr Chapter 13,
"Employee Housing" af this Trtle.
Chapter 12-6C: Two-Family Residential (R,) District
72-6G-7 : Purpose
The two-family residential drstrict is rntended to provrde sites for low density
single-family or two-famrly residenfial uses, together with such public faciJitias as ~
may be apprapriately loeated in the same district. The fwo-famrly residentral
district is intended fo ensure adequate fight, air, ,privacy arrd open space for each
dwe!ling, corrrrmensurate wvith single-family and fwo-family accupancy, and to
' maintarn fhe desirable residential qualrties of such sifes by establishr'ng
approprrate site development standards.
~
72-6C-3: Conditronal Uses
The following conditronal uses shal! 6e permitted rn the R district, subject to
issuance of a condrfional use permit in accordance wrth the provisioras of chapter
16 ' of this title:
Bed and breakfast as furfherregulai`ed by section 92-14-98 of this title.
Docr kennel.
Home chfld daycare facility as further regulated by section 12-94-72 of this title.
PubJrc buildrngs, grounds arrd facrlrties.
Pub11e or prrvate schaoJs.
Publrc park and recreation facilities_
Pubdic utility aRd public service uses.
Ski lifts and tows. ~ i
Type 1/ emproyee housing units as set forth rn chapter 13 of this tiffe.
4
~
12-6C-6: SETBACKS~
!n the R drstrlct, the minimum front setback shall be twerrfy feet (20'), the
minrmurrr side setback shall be fifteen feet (95), arrd the minimum rear
set.back sha11 be frfteen feet (15').
Chapter 12-13: Emplayee Housing
12-13-1: Purpose
The 7own's economy rs largely tourisf based and the heaJth of this
economy is prerrarsed on exempJary servrce for Vail's guests. Var'I's abrlity
to prQvide such service rs deperrdent u,pon a strong, high qualrty and
consistently ava11a61e work force. To achieve such a work force, the
communrty must work to ,pravide qualrfy living and worklng corrditions.
Avarlability and affordabilfty_of housing plays a critical role in creatrng
qualrty living and workfng conditions for the comrrrunity's work force. The
Town recagnizes a permartent, year-rourrd papulatr'on plays an importarrt
role in sustaining a healthy, viable communify. Further, fhe Town
reeognizes its rnle in conjunction with the privafe sector rn ensuring
housrrrg is available. 7he Town Councrl may pursue additronal irrcentr`ves
adrninistratrwely to encourage the developmenf of employee hvusing
unifs. These inceratives may inelude, buf are not limrted to, cash
~ vouehers, fee warvers, tax abatemerrt and in kirrd services to owners and
creators of empIoyee housing units. The Tawn of 1?ail or the Town's
desagnee may marnfain a registry and create lists of all deed resfricfed
housing units created in the Tawn to assast employers and fhQSe seeking
housing.
12-13-3: General Requrremerr.ts
A. Deed Restriction, Qccupancy Limitations, Reporting Requiremenfs
Type 1I, l11, and V.
No employee hausing unit which is governed by thrs Ghapfer shal! 6e
subdivided or divided into arry farm of tirne shares, interval owrrerships, 4r
fractional fee. AI! Employee f-fousing Units are requirea' to be vccupied
and shall not sit empfy or unoccupied.
2. For EHUs which are required to 6e_feased, they 5ha!l only be Ieased to
and occupl"ed by tenants who are full-tirr?e employEes who work irr Eagfe
Caur,ty, An ENU shall nof be leased far a period fess fhan thrrty (30)
consecufive days. For the purposes of thrs Chapter, a full-timE employee
is one who wor{cs an average of a minrmum of fhirty (30) haurs each week
on a year round basis. The owner of each EHU shall renf fhe unrf at a
monfhly rental ra#e consistenf with or lower than thase markef rates
prevalent for samilar properties in the Tawn. An €HU shall be
contrnuously rented and shall nof remain vacant for a perfod to exceed 5
consecufive months.
~
5
.
3. Far an EHU which can be soJd separately, the ENU must be oceupred 6y ~
the owrrer of the EHU as a permanenf residence, except for Type 11!
Emplayee Housrng Unifs, whrch rnay 6e occupiecl by any ,person meefing
the employment requirements contained herein. For the purpose of this
paragraph, a perrnanenf residence shafl mean the ho,7re or place in which
orre's habifation is fixed and ro which one, tivheneuer he or she is absent,
has a present infention of refurning after a de,oarture ar absence
therefrom, regardless of the durafion of abserrce. In defermining what i,s
a permanent residence, the town staff shall take the fa!lowrng
circumstances relatrng to the owner of the residence rnto accaunt:
business pursuits, errrployrnent, income sources, residence far income or
ather tax purposes, age, marital status, residence of parents, spause and
children rf any, Icacation of ,persvnal and reaI praperty, and motor vehiele
regisfratron. Thirty (30) days ,prior fo the transfer of a deed for an EHU,
the prospective purchaser shall submif an application to the De,partment
ot Communrty Develapment documentfng that the prospectrve purchaser
meets the criferia set forth herein and shall include an affidavir afi`lrmrng
that he or she meets these crrteria. i
I
4. !Vo later rhan Fe6ruary 1 of each year, the owner of each employee
housing urrit within the Tawn which is consfructed folloM+irrg the effective
a!ate di this Chapter shalf submit two (2) co,pies of a sworrr affidavit on a
farm fo be obtained from the Comrraunity,C)evelopment Department, fo the
Communify Qevelopment Departmerat setting forth eviderrce establrshirrg
that the empfayee hausing unit has been rented or owner occupr'ed ~
thrnughout the year, the rentaf rate, the employer, and that each tenant
who resrdes wifhrn the employee housirrg unit !s a full-time employee in
Eagle County.
5. The provrsrarrs set forth in fhis subsectian (,4) sha!l be incorporated rnfo a
wrftten agreement in a form approved by the Town Atfarney whlch shalf
run with the land and sha!l nat be amended or terminated withouf the
written approval of the Town. Sald agreement shall be recorded ar the
County Clerk and Reeorder office prior to the issuance of a bUildrng
permif for the cansfructrorr c+f an EHU.
C. aeveJopment Starrdards
7. No property containrng an EN(J shalf exceed the maximum GRFA
permrtted in Tit1e 12 except as specrfrcalJy provided rn herer'n.
2. All trash faclllties shall be enclosed.
3. All surface parking shall be screened by landscaping or berms as per
Chapter 12-19, Desrgn Revrew. ~
4. Each ENU shafl have ifs awn entrance. There shall be no rnterior access I
from any EHU tv any dwelling unrt it may 6e attached to.
5. Ar, EHU may be Ioeated in, or attached fo, an existing garage (existi,ng on ~
or before April 18, 2000 anaf whether located in a requireri sef6ack or
6
S
~ nat), provfded that no exisfing parking required ,by the Town Municrpal
Code is reduced or eli,minafed. A Type 1 EHU which has 500 sq. ft. ar
less of GRFA may be cansidered for physlcal separatron frorn the prrmary
unif, if it 1s constructed irr conjunctron wrfh a tu+o car garage and is
othErwise corrrpatlbJe wifh the surrouncf'ng properties, does not have an
adverse impact on vegetatiorr, arrd does naf domrnafe the streef. 7he
Desigrr Revrew Board sha11 revfew such requests far separatian.
6. Af1 EHUs musf contaira a kitchen or kitchenette and a bathroorra.
7. Occupancy af an of an employee housirrg un,r sharl be limifed fo the
rnaxrmum of twa persons per beclraom.
12-73-4: EHURequirements,byType.
EHl1 Zoning distncfs Ownership/ Addatiana! Additiona! Garage Credif! F'arkrng Minrmum/ Densrty
perrniffed by rrght Transference GRFA' Srte Siorage Maxrmum
or by conditional Coverage Requirement CiRFA af
use /Rep'uced an ENU
Landscapa
Area
Type Condrtionaf Clse: The EHU The ENU is NIA R1lowed 300 sq. Per Chapfer 300 sq. fl. AllOwed i
r~ Srngfs-Famfly shall not-be entitied to ff. af additiona! 92-90 as a min as 3rd
ResirlenGal, Twrr- solri or an garage area tor dwelfing unit 1,200 sq. ft. unit an
Family transferred additional the EHU. properfy.
Resldential, separafaly 500 sq. ft. max. Does not
~ Prarnaryl5econda fr4m the unit it GRFA count as
ty.
ry 14esidenfiaf, is associated credat. ccrAll unitsnstnucferl not with dEnsi
Agriculture 8 with.
flpen Space a garage shal!
be required a
rniRrmum 75 sq.
ft. of srorage
area in addrtian
to narmal closet
space. Thrs 75
sq. R. sha!! ,be a
credit {or
storage only.
Chapter 12-16: Conditional Use Permits
92-96-1: Purpose; Limltations: !n order to prouide the flexibrYity necessary ta achieve the abjectives af fhrs frtle,
specifPed uses are permiited rn cerfain drstricts sub1ect to the granting of a
conditroraaf use permit. 8ecause Of fheir unusuaJ or specraf characterrstics,
condifronal uses requrre review so that they may be located properfy with respect
fo the purposes Of fI7J5 tifle arrd with respecf to their effects on surrounding
pro,perties. The review process prescribed rn thrs chapter is intencled ta assure
compatibility and harrnanrous a'evelopment ,between conditional uses and
surrounding properties in the Town at large. Uses Iisted as conditional uses in
the various drstricfs rrray be permJtted subject to such conditions and limitatiorrs
as the Town may prescribe to insure that the location and operation of the
~ conditional uses will be in accordance with the developmenf ob1ectives of the
Town and will not be detrimental to other uses or properties. Where conditians
7
I
I
. I
~
cannot be d'evised, to achieve these abjectives, applicatron.5 far conditionaf use ~
permits shall be denied.
12-16-5: Plarrning and Environmenta! Commission Actr'on:
A. Pvssrble Range Of Acfiarr: Withrn thirty (30) days of the application far a
pu.61ic hearing orr a conditional use ,aermit, the planning ana' envrronrne»tal
commissron shafl act an the application. The commissran may approve the
application as submrtted or may ap,prove the application sub1ect to such
modificatlons or corrditlons as it deems neeessary to accomplish the
purposes of this title, or the commission may deny the appNcation. A
canditianal use permif may ,be revQCable, may be granfed for a limited fime
periad, Qr may be granted su,bjecf to such ather conditions a.s the
cpmmrssian may prescribe_ Condifions may include, 6uf shall not be limrted
to, requiring s,peciaJ set,backs, operr spaces, fences or vvalls, landscaping or
screening, and streef dedication and rmprovement; regulation of uehicular
access and parking, signs, rllumination, and hours and methads vf
aperatlan; control af poferrfial nuisances; prescripfion of starrdards for
rrraintenance af burfdings and grounds; and prescription af developmeRt
schedules.
Chapter 12-17: Variances
? 2- i 7-1: Purpose: •
A. Reasans For Seeking Variarrce. In arder to prevent or to lessert such
practical difficulfies and unnecessary physical hardships rnconsistEnt with the
o6jectives af fhis fitle as would resulf fram stricf or literal interprefafion and
enforcement, variances from cerfain reguJations may ,be granted, A practical
diffrcuf[y or unnecessary physical hardshrp may result frorn the size, shape, ar ~
dimensions of a sife or the locatron of existing structures therean; frorn
topagraphic or,ohysical condrtrorts dn the site or in the irnmediate vicrnrty; or from
ofher physical lrmitafions, street Iocatlans or condrtrons in fhe rmmediai`e vicr'nify. ~
Gost or ir?convenience to the applicant of strict or litera] compliance wffh a ~
regulatlon shall not be a reason for grant]ng a variance.
B. Development Standards Excepted: Variances may be granted only with
respecf fo the devefopment standards prescribed for each distrrct, includrng lot
area and site dimensions, setbacks, distances 6efween bur`lafirrgs, height, density
controf, ,buildrrrg bulk control, sife coverage, usable open space, Iandscaping and
site develapment, and parking and laading requir-ements; or with respect tv the
' provrsions of chapter 11 of thrs firle, gover,ning physical developmenf on a site.
12-97-6: Criteria and Findings:
A. Factars Enumerated: Befare acting on a vartance applrcation, the plannrng
and enviranmerrtal commission shall consrder the followrng factors with respecf
to the requested uariance: ~
8
1
~ 1. The relatronshrp of the requested varrance to other existing or ,potential
uses and structures rn the vicinity.
2. 7he degree to whrch relief from the stricf ar literal interpretation and
enforcement af a speeified reguJatran is necessary ta achieve compatrbility
and uniiormrty of treatment amang sites in the vicinity, or to aitarn the
objectives af this trtle without grant of special privifege.
3. The effect Of the requested variance on light and air, distrrbution of
papufatiQn, transportation and traffic facilities, public tacilrtr'es and utifities,
and public safety.
4. Such other facfars arrd criteria as the commission deems appltcable to
the proposed varr'arrce.
8. Necessary Findings: The planning and environmental comrrr?ssion shall
rraake the following findings before grantrng a variance:
1. That the granting of the variaMCe wiJl not constr'fute a granf of special
priuilege rnconsistent with the limftations on otlaer propertres classrfied in
the same drstrrct.
2_ That the grantirrg of the variance wiIJ nat be defrrmenfal to the public
health, safefy, ar welfare, or materr`ally injurious fo propertres or
~ improvements in the vicinity.
3. That the varrarrce is warranted for one or more of the following reasons:
a. The sfrict ar literaf inferpretation and eRforcernent nf the
specified regulatron would result in pracfrGal difficulty or
urrnecessary physrcal hardship inconsistent with the abjectives of
this tirle.
,b. There are exceptional or extraordinary crrcumsfar+ces or
conditians applicable ta the srte of the variance that da nat apply
generally to other properfies in the same zone,
c. The strict or Jiteral interprefatron and errforcemerrf of the
s,vec+fled regulation would deprive the applrcartt of prrvileges
enjoyed by the owners af other prapertres irr the same districf.
TITLE 14: DEVELOPIUIENT STANDARDS
Chapter 14-10: Design Review Standards and Guidelines
14-1 D-C: Archrtectural ProJections, Decks, Baleonies, Steps, Bay
WfI7dl7lNS, etC:
1. ,4rchitectural projections includrng eaves, rQOf averhangs,
is awraings, louvers, and srmilar shading feafures; sills, belt courses,
cornices, arrd similar features; and ffues and chirrrneys may
9
r
~
project not more than four feet (4) inta a required setback area or ~
rnto a required drstance ,befuveerr buiJdings.
VI. SITE ANALYSIS
Zoning: Two-Family Residential {R} district
Land Use Plan Designatian: Low Density Residential
Current Land Use: Residential
DeveCopment Standard AlfowedlRequired Presposed
Lot Area: 18,378 sq. ft. No Change
Se#backs:
Frant: 20' >20'
Sides: 1575' 15'15' ~
Rear. 15, >15'
Building Height: max. 33' (slape)l30' (flat) E33' (slape)
Density 2 units + 1 Type EHU 1 units + 1 Type II EHl7 '
GRFA:
Primary Unit 4,938 sq.ft. 4,871 sq.ft. ~
EHU 500 sq.ft. additional credit 509 sq.ft.
Site Goverage: 3,675 sq.ft, (20%) 3,592 sq.ft. (<20%)
Landscape Area; 11,026 sq.ft. (60%) >11,026 sq.ft. (60%)
Parking:
Primary Unit 3 spaces 3 spaces (1 enclosed)
ENU 2 spaces Zspaces (1 encfosed)
VII. SU'RROUNDtAIG LAND USES AND ZONEMIG
Land Use 2onin
North: Residential Two-family Residential District
South: Residential 7wo-family Residential District
East: Goff Course Outdoor Recrea#ion
West: Residential Two-family Residential Distrect
VIII. CRITERIA ANQ FINDINGS
The review criteria for a request of this nature are established by the Town Cade.
The propased Type II EHU is located within the Two-family Residential (R) ~
distTict. 7herefore, this proposal is subject to the issuance of a conditional use
permft in accorc7ance with the provisians of Ghapter 12-16, Vail Town Code.
10
~
~
A. Cansideration of Factars Reqarding_Conditional Use Permits:
'f . Relationshi;p and impact of the use an the develapment
cabaec#ives of the Tawn.
When the TQwn Council adopted the Town af Vail Affordable hlousing
Study on November 20, 1990, it recognized a need to increase the
suppiy of Ipcals/employee housing units. The Town encaurages
EHUs as a means of praviding quality living conditians and expanding
the supply of employee housing for both year-raund and seasonal
Iocal residenfs_ fihe proposed unit will have apQSi#ive impact on the
Town"s rental housing needs.
2. The effect of the use an light and air, distribution af pdpulation,
transportation facilities, utilities, schflals, paaks and recreation
facilities, and c+ther public facilities needs.
Staff belieues tha# there will be an insignificant impact fram the
proposed Type ll EHU on 9ight, air, populatian, #rarrsportation, utilities,
schoals or parks.
3. Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion,
automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow
~ and ccsntrol, access, maneuverabiixty, and remaval of snow frcam
the sfreet and parking areas.
Two ac6ditional vehicles are anticipated in association with this EHU,
and the applicant is proposEng to accamrnodate this anticipated
parking demarad. Staff believes that this proposal will have an
insignificant irnpact to the above-referenced criteria.
4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the praposed use
is to be located, including the scate and bulk of the proposed use
in relation to surrounding uses.
The proposed EHU will be integratecf inta an existing two-family
residential dwelling. S#aff believes that the Design Review process
will ensure that the proposed EHU will nof significantly irripact the
scafe and buik of this praject in relation to surrounding uses, and that
the proposed EHU will be consistent with the develQpment standards
applicable to this property.
5. The proposed EHU meets the Town's requirements far zoning,
vwnershipItransference, GRFA, garage creditfstorage, and
density.
a. Zoning districts permitted b}~ripht vr by condi#ianal use
~ A Type 11 EHU is a conditionaf use in the Single-Family Residential,
Two Family Residen#ial, PrimarylSecondary Residential, and
11
?
,
Agriculture & Open Space zone districts. The subject property is ~
zoned Twp-Farrrily Residential.
b. Ownership/Transference
A Type 11 EHU shall not be sold or transferred separately fram the unit
it is associated with. The applicant is not propasing to sell or transfer
the EHU separately fram the primary dv,+eiling unit.
e. Addi#ional GRFA
T'he EHU is entitled ta an additional 500 sq.ft. GRFA credit. The
applicant is propasing to utilize the entire GRFA credit and nine
square feet of allowable GRFA.
d. Garape CreditlStoraqe Requirement
An addi#ional 300 sq.ft. of garage arsa credit is allowed finr the EHU.
The applicant [s proposing to pravide 274 sq.ft. of garage area to
accommodate on€: parking space for the EHU.
e. Parkinq
The parking requirements for EHUs are subject to the regulations of
Chapter 12-10, Vail Town Code, This EHU is proposed to be 509
sq.ft. in size, therefare two parking space are required. The applicant
is proposing to pravide ane enclosed and one unenclased parking
space.
f. MinimumlMaximum GRFA of an EHU ~
Type II EHUs are allowed with a minimum Qf 300 sq.ft. of Gross
Residen#ial Floor Area (GRFA) and a maximurn af 1,200 sq.ft. of
GRFA. 7he propased EHU will be 509 sq. ft. in size (plus an
addikiQnal 274 sq.ft. of garage area).
g. Density
The appiicant is proposing to integrafe the proposed Type 11 EHU into
an existing two-famiiy residence. Pursuant to Section 12-13-4, Vail
Town Coc#e, a Type II EHU will not count as density and is al4owed as
a third dwelling unit an a praperty nn the TwQ-Family Residential (R)
dIStCVGt.
B. The Planninq and Environmental Commissian shall make the follflwinq
findinqs before qrantinq a conditianal use perrnit:
1. That the praposed iocation of the use is in accordance with the
purposes of the conditional use permit section of the zonirrg code
and the purpases of the Two-family Residen#iai (R) district.
2. That the proposed location of the use and the condi#ions under
whrch it will be operated or mairatained will nQt be detrimental tca
the public health, safety, ar welfare or materially injurious to ~
properties or improvements in the vicinity.
12
~
.
~ 3. Tfiat the proposed use will comply with each of the applicable
prowisitrns of the Gonditional use permit sectiQn of the zoning
regulations.
C. Consideratian of Factors Reaardin~g the Setback Variances:
1. The relationship a# the requested variance to other existing or
po#ential uses and structures in the vicinity.
This proposed additiQn in the side setback Gs associated with a re-
raofing of an existing garage that vvas previously granted a
variance ta be located within the required setback. StafF believes
that the proposed re-roof is in keeping with the architectural
character of the neighborhood, and staff does not believe that
there wifl be any additional negative impacts associated with this
proposal in comparison to current conditions to the ather exosting
or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. Archi#ectural pRans
have been attached for reference (see Attachrnent D).
2. The degree to which relief from the strict and [iteral
interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is
necessary to aehieve compatibitity and uni#armity af
treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the
~ objectn+es of #his ti#le withou# a grant of special privilege.
Staff belieues the applicant has requested the minimum amount of
relief from fhe strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of
the setback regulations necessary to aehieve compatibility and
uniformity among sites in the vicinity and within the Two-Family
Residential (R) District. Staff belieues #he praposed increase in
rvof structure volurrqe lacated within the setback will not result in a
grant of special privi{ege as the existing garage previousfy
received a variance to be constructed within the required setback.
Staff believes this ta be an extraordinary circumstance and
exceptional condition. There#ore, Staff does nat believe this
proposal will constitute a grant of special privilege.
3. The effec# of the requested variance on light and air,
clistriloution of populatian, franspartatian and traffic facilities,
public facilities and utilifies, and public safety.
Staff does believe that the propased setback encroachment will
not have a significant impact on the publie health, safety or
welfare, publie facifities, utilities, flr light arrd air in cQmparison #o
existing conditions on the site.
4. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems
~ appliGable to the propnsed variance.
13
,
.
D. The_ Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the foldowinq •
findinqs before_granting a variance:R
1_ That the granting of the variance wiil not constitute a grant of
special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other
properties classified in the same district.
2. That the granting of the wariance wifi nat be detrimental to the
public health, safiety or welfare, or material6y injurious to properties
ar improvements in the vicinity.
3. That the variance is warranted fcar one or more of the following
reasons:
a. The strict literal iraterpretation or enforcement of the
specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or
unnecessary physical hardship inconsis#ent with the
objec#irres of this title.
b. There are exceptions or extraardinary circumstances or
conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that
da nat apply generally to other properties in the same
zone. ~
c. The strict interPretation or enforcement of the specified ~
regulataon would deprive the applicant of privileges
enjoyed by the owners of other properfie5 in the same
district. -
IX. STAFF RECOMME[VaATION
The Cammunity DeWelopmerrt Department recommends approval of a
conditianal use permit, to allow far a Type II EHU, located at the 1193 Cabin
Gircle/Lot 4, Sfock 2, Vail Valley 81h Filing. Staff's recommendation is based upon
the review of the criteria in Section VIII of this memarandurri and the evidence
and testimony presented, subject #o the follnwing findFngs:
1. That the proposed location of fhe use is in accardance with the
purposes of the conditional use permit sectuon of the zoning code anc6
fhe purpQSes of the Two-family Residential (R) district.
2. That the proposed Cocation of the use and the conditions under which
it will be operated or maintained wilE not be detrimental to the public
health, safety, or welfare or materially injuricrus to properties or
impravements in the vicinity.
3. That the proposed use will comply with each of the applicable
provisians of the conditional use permit section of the zaning ~
regulations.
14
.
ti
~ Shauld the Planning arrd Enviranmental Commissiorr choose ta approve this
conditianal use perrnat request, the Community Development Department
recommends the follov,ring conditions:
1. 7he Planning and Environmer,tal Comrnissian's approval of this
conditional use permit is contingent upon the applicant receiuing
Tflwn of Vail design review approval #or this proposal.
2. Priar to the issuance of build`eng permits, the applicant shall
execute a Type II EHU deed restriction with the Town of Vail
Qepartment of Community Development ta permanentiy restric#
the use of the EHU far employee housing.
The Comrnunity Deuelopment Qepartment recommends approval of a variance,
to allow for the construction of an addi#ian in a side setbaclc that consists of an
increase in the arnount of roof structure volume located tn the narth side setback,
located at the 1193 Cabin GirclelLot 4, Block 2, Vail Valley 8th Filing. Staff's
recammendation is based upan the review of the criteria in Section VIII of this
rnemorandum and the evidence and testimony presented, subject to the follawing
findings:
1. That dhe granting of the variance will not constitute a granting of special
privilege incansistent with the limitations on other properties classified in
~ the same district_
2. That #he granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the pubfic
health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or
irnprovemenfis in the wicinity.
3. The strict literal interpretation ar enfiorcement of the specified regulation
would result in practical difficulky or unnecessary physical hardship
inconsistent with the objectives of this title.
4. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation wQUld
deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the awners of other
praperties in the same dis#rict.
X. ATTACHMENTS
A_ Vicinity Map
B. Public Hearing Notice
C. Applicant's Statemerat
Q_ Architectural Plans
~
15
Attachment: A ~r ~
~'i,";~^~".a..
e~
ar
~ , ~ " h~w~,~ ar~ ~ • y,~~~•~ ~ i ~ % ~ c ~
7
_ lAkl "~p ~x
_ ~ .~7 .a~`. ~ ~ y~,,u ~'.,.~v~~°~ r'` ~ ~ c~; y ~ . :`-~I
~aA:~~
~
, -
7#
3 3,,
4~
I~
IrM 1 1 ~ 4+''~~~..
~i ~ . ~
t.mx
`n"`~.v '
i4r~
~n
r~,4~R'"'~~~'~
r
t
i
.
,
~ya ?
,
~
s ~ r~
~n
_ -
s. n~
q
~Ya v-~'~ ~
ry"~~ust~ ~ .Y...~-..~ y~~ ~ ~`h I~, Y-~y • y .3 ~"1~+ ~
1F
~
~
" ~ ~ x~'r~ x,y~^y.~>," •,~y.t~.~ ~ ~ ;
i ~
! ~
\ ' „y.'~' ~ ? y ~ ~ ~!f'a~ Y ~ ~ ~ ~i
a ~
{ ,a
~
~vz
4~~
+s pt . ~ ~ ; ~ : ..twtw ~ . W` f ~
.'yi . :
W x ~
~ x S ~ , ' j , ~ ~ _a 3 { ~ 'F ° `wm a~ a~ A-,,,;~`t'r'.c''~.~..~ ^
071
pttachment: B
.
~
AS50CIATES
•
Gorsueh Remadel
1193 Cabin Cirele
Yail, CO
November 25, 2002
Vaariance Request
List of Adjacent Progerty Owners: ;
Kevin and Robin Deaghan
12 Vail Rd. Ste 600
Vail, CO 81657
Paul and Sarah Johnston
356 Hanson. Ranch Rd.
Vail, Cd 81657 ~
Vail Mortgage Trust
12222 Meri# I)rive 1660
Da11as, TX 75251
Alison Hoversten
118 3 Cabin Circle i
Vail, CO $1657
Susan P.Johnson
P.O. Box 3524
5partanburg, SC 29304
i
i
~
~
i
- THIS ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY
- PUk3LIC NOTICE
~ N071CE !S HEREBY GlVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commissaon of the Town of
Vail will hoid a public hearing in accordance with Section 12-3-6 of the Municipaf Gode of the
Town of Vail on January 93, 2003, at 2:00 P.M. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. In
consideration af:
A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Councif of a proposed text arnendment ta
5eetian 12-10-9: Loading Standards, Vail Tovvn Gode, to amend ttie srze fequirement far
loading berths & setting forth detaiEs in regard thereto.
Applicant: Town Qf Vail
Planner_ Allison Qchs
A reguest far a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 12-6C-3, Vail Town Code, to allow
far a Type II Ernplayee Housing Unit and a request for a variance from Section 12-6C-6
(SetbackS), Vail Tawn Code, ta alCow for additions in the side setbacks, located at 1193 Gabin CirclelLot 4, Black 2, Vail Vailey S"' Filing.
)rpplicant: Da+rid & RenFe Gorsuch, represented by Resort Design Associa#es, lnc.
Planner: Bifl Gibsan
A request for a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 12-9C-3B, Vail Tawn Code, to allcrw
for a touristlguest service rela#ed facility accessary ta a parking s#ructure, and a request for a
variance from Tii1e 11, Vail Touvrro Code, to allaw for propased signage anri setting forth detaiEs
in regard thefeto, located at 181 W. Meadow Cleeve/Lots E&F, Vail Vialage 2"° filing.
~ AppliCant; 5tan Anderson
Planner: Bil1 Gibson
A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Councif for a major arnenefinent to Special
Developrr-ten# Distric4 No. 36, pursuant to Section 12-9A-10, Vail Tawn Code, to allow for a
mixed-use hotel; a request far a final review of a conditianal use permit, pursuant to Section 12-
7A-3, Vail Tawn Code, ta al{ow for Type fll Emplayee Housing URits and a fractional fee club;
and a request for a recammenda#ion to the Vail Town Cauncil for a proposed rezoning of Lot
9A, Vail Vikaage 2"d Filing from Heavy Service (HS) District to Public Accommodation (P,4)
District, lacated at 28 S. Fron#age Rd. and 13 Vail RoadlLots 9A& 9C, Vail Village 2nd Fijing.
Applicant: NieaElet Island Developrnent Campany Inc.
Planner: George Ruther/Allisan Ochs
A request far a variance frorn Section 12-7A-9, (5ite Coverage) and a request for a proposed
minor exterior alteration, pursuant to 5ectian 12-7A-12, Vail Tawn Code, to allow far a
residential addition, located at 292 East Meadaw arivePA par# of Tract B, Vail Vil4age First Filing.
Applicant: Mountain Haus Homeowner's Assoeiation, represented by K.H. Webb Arehitects
Planner: BiIC Gibson
A request for a final review of a proposed major exterior alterateon, pursuant to Seetion 12-7A-
12, Vail Town Code, to allow for a hotel redevelopment and add6tian; a request for a final review
of a conditional use permit, pursuant ta Section 12-7A-3„ Vail Town Code, to allflw far a
• fractional fee club; a recammendation ta ihe Vail Tawn Council af a text amendment Section
°"'i
V.~iII4
1 ~Y'
12-7A-3 (Conditoona6 Uses), Vail 7'own Code, to allow for retail uses in a ladge in excess af 10%
af the total grass residential floor area of the structure as a canditional use; a request for a final review of a variance €rom Section 12-7A-10 (Landscaping & Site Development), Vai( Town ~
Code, to allow for a deviation from the tota1 landscape area requirement, located at 20 Vail
Road, 62 E. Meadow Drive, and 82 E. Meadow Drive/Lots K& L, Biock 5E, Uail Village 1"
Filing.
Applicant: Sonnenalp Properties, Inc., represented by Braun Associates, Inc.
P4anner_ George RvtherlVllarren Campbell
The applications and informatian about the propasals are avaiiabfe €or pubiic inspectian during
regular office hours in the project planner's vffice, focated a# the Town of Vail Cornmunity
Develapmen# Department, 75 Sou#h Fron#age Road. The public is invited to attend project arientation
and the site visits that precede the public hearing in khe Town af Vail Cornmunity DevelapmeRt
Department. Please call 479-2138 for inforrnatian.
Sign language interpretatian avai9able upan request with 24-hour natification. Please caH 479-
2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for informa#ion.
Community Developrnent Department
;
Pubfished Decernber 27, 2002 in the Vail Daiiy.
~
~
2
ResarT Design 303-, M 03:29P P.002
- At~~chrnent: C
~ RT.•,SiDR7 DEtiiGN
.M1
~nSsociA7'LS
Q
Gorsuch Rernodcl
1193 Cabin Circlc
. .
`Irail, CO January 13,2003
Va.riance Request
Naturc of the V.triaacc(s) and ReguYatf+ons Tnvnlacd
1) Rc-roaf the exicting Garagc lacAtcd within the side setback arca (a prL-existing
condition).
Thecurru'nt Garage is to be reraodclcd and an Fmnloyee Ilausing Unit (EH[J) added
abavc. We ars; rcquvsting a variance to re roof the cxisi?ng st'uctitre, tkYUS changimg the
voluraetric shapc Uf the roof. A volumetric change in the current #lai root shape is rcquirc:d to
appropriately tie the new xouf xrito the design ofthe new stnicturC. A portian of the roof shapc
change wtiJl 4ccur in the currcnt sctback area, autside of the allowabls: 4'-0" extension. The tvtal
volumclTic change to occur within the sctbaek arr,a and outside of the allawablc 4'-0" is plu% (•F)
~ 137 cubic fect (scc attached diagraKia shovvii3g calculation~). No square foatage is bcing added
witlun the sctback areu, The north area of the site in qucslion iti bounded 6y matiare euiur~,~rccn, to
temain. 5ubscquently the volunrrl,zic change in the xoof will havc liltlc or ro ^visuai affect an
surrounding properties_
~
Resori Design 303-449°3366 01f09t03 03:2$P P.003 '
RISURT riL:S1Gta ~
nssocrATIs
?
Gorsucti Remode#
1193 Ca.bin Ci,relc
Vail, CO
J'aauarv 13, 2003
Variance Rcqxiest
ReSpanses to Submlttal FtCquirCillcAts:
1) lzc-roof thc esisting Garage lacatetl within tlie side Setback area (a prc-cxigting
conditian).
A. This variance request does iiot affect any potezitial uses nFihc hornc ar nea.rby
structures. Tlie rnarth side af the Garage (area in qucstion) is sliielded from
adjaceiit neighbors by 1arge cvergrccns, which wi1l remain. 7'I-tere wili be no
visual affecl !a surrounding propcrties,
B. Thc variance to a11ow re-raofing anci suh5equent volumctric changc in roofshape ~
within the setback area is necassary to appropriatcjy tic the ctesign of the new
fittucture int:o ihe existiizg Garagc.
C. This variancc rcquast c3oes not a,ffeet liglit, air, populativii dislribtition,
transportation, traffie, utilzties nor puhlic safety.
D. Th.e'Vail Coinprelzentiive Plan is not applicabIe.
~
~
- Attachment: D
~
r--, ~
W ~ 6 @ W
~
~ ~
z 4 A
~~wO~~ J~~~1L
[u~
X
44ua~ p? i44~~ ; ~ fl ~Qw
~tj iY3?-~
9~0~y ~-iLl"1+nJ
I zF-Q RO ~QUQ 4Cl~wX4
~w?~ 4LIY ~??>~~i4v~ ~ pzazw3
W ~
~i
\ -
~
1
LU
37
~ - - - . _ . - . . . . _ . . -
~
~
a ~ - - • - - . . . -
U '
~
4 -
~
~
~
Q '
~
~
~ ~
$ ~ .
- - - -
I~~~~~ ~~~qe ~ ~ .
~ ~
~ ¢~q ~ P 1
+p { ~ ~ L SY~ p~ p C ~ ~ ~ ~ YI
~ ~ ~ ~ _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
ro ~n ~ 4 2 s ~ x - I~ ~ ~ e ~ ~ ~ ~ u
! ° ~3 ~ ~ ~ € _ ~ ~ ~ $ ~ ~ ~p~~~ ~g ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~7 '0 ~ 4 ~ o c S ~ ~ i b o o € t ~ ' 9Ql y~f~2' i ~k ' ~ ~ ~ ep~ ~ ~ ~
~0 q a~^ x o U o> -s W $r e~ b. ~ I t'~,~; o€ s~ L~~ ~~7~ ~ ~
'~d~ y ~ it e M w~~ s p~ W w w w m.~e,n ;1 xr~ - ¦ ~`.J xC
3!.~ U ~ O 9 J ~ ~ 4 4 V 0 9 i~ ~GF" F S ~R Y!~ ~y ~a •
~y ~P a a a 6 n ~ ~ e ~p9 ~ ' K ue w w w ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~di ~p~! ~a•y ,~9,~G3 r~ 66
~ I,~j ~ q EL ~ L J W df J L J ; M1 W W ~ ~~i 6~
~l5 q ~ ^t n '4 n ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ',~p ~~~0~ '3~ 2C iY ~J !
Q¢ V. U f] S7 6 0~ a a~ a a 4 V a Q a¢ V , . w K ~ J ? ~
+ T j °i°5s^a
~ " ~$9$"a
3 ~
~
~ ~ 3
G..i ~ 'T : v
~ ~ n- ~ Yn a~;'~~4 l~~ j ~~iF S!Zff I
~ u~ s,.j p 99~~i~ii~if~~i~~~1~ I~if~~'~ ~
~ - ~ i~[iy~~,~it.if.tuk ,.a~. ~ d ~ $ 'X'~ y ~ q
: ; a ~N~ww
~ a > N ~~~~~z~~~gP
~ ~ q
d ~ ~ .2. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1,~ ~ Q ~ o ~ L` I f ~ ~ ~ 3 ~~`~~bai
#
W ~ ~ Q ~ ~i 3¢+~ !{~~g~a~~]ir:~~4~ pls4a;,~ ~ i~q~~~~ ~f ~ t ~ 1~~a~F ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ; ~ O
~~Ex~E~. !t~€.€4li97~~~isr~ay"siiii19~~. f~l[~~~i~ l ~t~~l~~~~4~fSf(} I
i c.l~stiut I~.t.-as.l~a~~ryEri3sc~!]~,~.i W.~1iil~ I et~~~31~#~„1+ ~
I
~ ' ~
~ w ~ E 11tE e ~K { ~a F~ ~ • ~ Q
t ~
i ~ f r r
~ ~ R i4F~y i=~ i°i~ ~F~ E¢ ij S ~4~ i d~~~( ! t!~,;! 1~[ ~ i~
~ ~ s 1 rl~I{w l4 ~ -l~~. r:l+, ' ° ~ ~ ig y ~t ~g ~y
~ o ~~~1i8€~iEEF~~!! la~~a~~~~1,~$~t..~~N~e66~ll1 9~Blii:Ef ff1~:.~yG~Eif t s g y ~ e
~ O ~ l:s2Ffi1[f~1L lY~M78ud~SdFSd.~tb~r~: j1iH9Sd~ ;qi.md~~u:tR: ~ S L a ~ 9 i i.!
~ ~ ; , t I~D~I~~~~B~O . r~,/~
~ j ~fy ~ ~N;; i7 ~F ~fif~ ~~,~y f' ~P ~i{9j~= E! i ~t~~z'~; { ' 1.J
!!l~ftfii~~~~F~1'~1~ii~~i1~{~~Eii~F~i~ ~9iE[~~i~f !~nlR~11fF~l1~~:33~ie~ I ~
tp3~[}i.i~NSIF~E~h~i tief 3~ii~~i:~ 111:t1~i~u Erirtzf!1~lFHePPirlt}hlt ~ ~
~ ~ i~ ! ~
~ ~ ~g ~ F~'p F5Yb ~y~ p h ~ ~ ~ T
a s'~ ! ~ ~ I ~ Yy8~~ ~ ~L
E ~ ~ 3 ~ 3 P ~~l ~ ! ~ E E~ -fl ~ 4d x~ I~ ~
~ g ( €E ! `c~ '~~~~,%9~!E ~ d6S,1fi~~SE ~ i~ ~f p ~4~6 gi ~q' r~~ ~ a
~ q °y ; ~ ~ 35i~~~~~~~ ~~I9~~~~~~fiFH ~~~~tf61t lil 1~~~5~59R~~~iN~ Et~l~~3~ m S4~ ~ ~3 \'~Iz - ~ ~
c,~y a;~ c~ i~i« it~~s ~~s,~~r~ ~~rr!ii HdB~Ee s~s ~ s1.~~3:i~a ~rl3:Aa! ~ a~ e ~ ~
p v ~ U,~ c9 a 13
~ !:~•.,~'i ~ E ~ t ~f ( ;t E ~ ° S6~a ~ E ~6 ~ a z ~ ~ ~
g ~ 6 # o : j ~ Y I ~E ~ ~ St~P~~~ i~~yt 'fl talsr~s ~~i~`t ~ +1iii ~ 9g5 ~~i ~ 8 1 a~ ~ u
~ s" 89~: ' i s~~~~ i ~ t til, p
~ : 6 o ri ` ~ : ~ ~~E}e~~s aeos~G~ilil~tn~t~t~n~~z4§959~1~~1ili~'~~4 ~ ~i~i~~~
a ~ a¦ S lal~[:eal~s I ,arsalfl.~:,.~ra?tr! {~its9!:.+!:raeEfe? ?n I!i+l1~i~ ! ~ E F~( 1 Y
s~ ~E! i! ~~f$~~ ~
° ; ~ f ! a
; =~'sx ° ; i~l 1~ ` 9 ~e
~ 8 ~ ~ ° 4 ~ ~2' t ~iw~ F e~19 j i~1: .9~ 'F ~t !i ti ! ~ ~
p a ~ ~ ~iS~?~~a~~~~?;~I~~~i'i~l~~i~1[~~ S~afsls~~~~~~~1~~~~t~~1~l~I~ ~~4~''ss~ ~
~ _ R i .is~7c[r,~aa~~~~~:~~! I~a[k~It~a krlYl.lt~.uucE~~i~al~3ise n~S~.S~ T'~ ~ ~ (~i
~ ~ ~ : ~ ~Y v' ' ~!q ~
~ x~ f~F ~ c ~a ~ 6 ~ e~ oaa #69 ~
~ ~lek~ a`~ i ~~~~i~~~Y`~~~~~ ~Y~ s ~e ~~#FE ai~l ~ i ~is~ ~t i ~ a E 6 F o 1 ~k~ .
p ~a~ ~~~~~I~1~~~,~~~P ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~~~il~~a~~ 1.6~. ~~~~d:syE ~~~~t33~ ~1~i~»S~dt
~e~ ~~y3i~~aaaaas:.~ ; ~ i ~ i 4:alt~lnllst,,s:~3~:+~1"s Ss~l1 SBShc.ee~~
0
i
:o 6 ~ : 0 e'`1 i~i I~ISIII~, ' ~ ~
4 ~ ~ l ~ F
~ ~~~gn f ' ~ c ~ I ~ ~ I I I111 ~ I ~~a ~~4~o~~~a~m~ • ~
l7 n ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ o ~
o g ~ ~ e ~ 3~~3 ,S s f~~~ a . ~~~~~a
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ m K ^gr~r~"s ~ : ~ a ~ra.~~#
o ~ ~ ~ ~ 4 a~~~~~laea'f~;= g ~~~$~bj 'p~~aai~~li
z ~T ~ o a q ~ ~ " :
u
~ ~ ~`U y~ ~ w~w ~ ,'ri; ~I'~~i~~i~ ~f ~ ~o
1 j ~ . \a~~00 n~o~~f~$. m L v
~ p~a3°y>°tl ~4~y~~ ~'~iy$hY'19~~ ~ ai -!~~i~~~I~II~~6 f~~=
I ne~ I~5$~ 6a~<~'p- a3~r~ 2~~ ~ e
I lS°_'OU 3>'1-u~ ~~L_rt_17WIr^ ~7 4 Q'._._- -
_ V"
~ ':~~la w v A
~ 4 -
.
u.
~u e~~':~y ~~o~n~ a
E , , ~~'I z y = e
i 1 ~4
~ kWQ
i
y +
O ~
3
ILL
~
\ cr J h ~
~i 7M5-3I d i ~V
nN~~
~
~ s
LL ~
~ ,
w
rW
- T.
O ~
7 ~
~
!
6F ~ ~
n
.
l ~
;
,
~ - ,
_ - ~ - -
I~ 1 t a
1 1 ~ us
f ` ~ ~~3m
6. -
01, N I d ~ W[7
~xe ~ ~ i ~ J r
V
i
!qp m ~
f ' 1 ry ~
yal~° ~ Y? ?
1 1 ~
~ ~ ~
lµ~ p•y~ ~ ~
~ I fe
1 L--
p . ~
1 1 ~ rs
!t f
1X1 J a$lql ' ~~~6
nu
~Y k
i
- a - _ . . ~ ~
~ m ~ TKiI
t t;~, ry h
f ~i +r~ \ 1 pi
~ I 3g Z
s ' ~ y
~
- ~
~ ~ ?
~ F~~S
W
l F t
, • ~
i
~
q ' ' ~.______i g~•
~
~ ~ ii ~ '~9~ ? . ! n "
~ i`~ i i ~ 1 i i ~c.a ~
II 1 IY~
45 I 1-.__.__°________~1~ 1f I ~y I
I 1~ I i ! ~ JI aY
II 1 ~ ~ r--~- }q
o~ 1 f ~ I !rl 1
3 i` ~~w 51a ~ r L _.j z; r r ~
r p
4!.u
' ~ ° ~ '1't i i !1 n.•''r $
W
--------yi ~ n
....L r_ Y
~ i 1 I 1 I 1
1 i 1 I 1
~ ~ w d~•••• ~ i I 5 I 1
0
I ~ U iC ~ -I I I I i ~
w . . .
i I
~ C3
i ~
i ~
rr y
ri
~
i~
I I~I !f__'__'".__-•--°I~L= L_~ ~ I
i+ ir-'-----------
* R 1{ 1
I! 11 ~ ~
4~ - - 4 I
_
- ----------------Lr-~-:
~ ~}1
} b. ~
~ ~f Y' 11 5 1 ~
II~I 4~y VW 1 ,~~t 1~ }l ~ 1 ~
IIIM $ m ~ 5 11 ~ 1
Illl 0 ~ l1 ~ 1
IIIF ~ 51 ~ f'l 5
1 1 1 ~ 1 ~
~ p
~
m
M
,40 L b ~
~ M
4 W
~
9
~
~
, , ~ ~6s s
„ „ -
1; s ~l 1~ w ~
lf f! ~ _ ,M ~ ~ 3
~
11 1!
ll !1 ~ ~y ~ Vu~
11 ~1 p 6~t
Y1
`,11 / l+ s d
J
tl 1 1 6 I ! 1 J~ .
II I 1 I ~ I
II I 1 9 I 1 ~F
~I I 1~ I f 1
~ ll I I n{r ~ I I W J
II I 1 1 I'ti_ i I Q
~ II I 0 1 I~ I LL~
--r-----------------
fl
~
! If I 11 1 I L-t' 1 fl
t il I 11 I I I 1
~ I! I I I 1 I I 1 ui
--r----------------- _ _
Q 11 I { 1 I ~ ~
Itl I ~ I 1
II 1 I I
II 1 ; ; ~
41 1
11 1 1 I
I r~~1 ~ 1 11 ~ ~
' II I I I,` l1 I
, !I I v tl 5~
I tl T~~ ~
~ s
Il~ I `ll ~
_'StnJ ~i
! 1' a~ W I 1 ~54~ ~
I~
rr' - n---------- ~1~1 i~ ~
n
n
~
~
~
~
~
~
o ~
o -
~ G
~ ~
- ~ ~
a
•
I ~ , u
I
{ o
~ F c
a a
w
w wa
J h
~ u
i
cFi
-
W
t ~ ij W
1 ~
LU
0
~ W +J
/ ~
,
li. n U
~
J
f T ~ ~
I 1
1 ~ ~J
T ~
~
V
9
qF ~=R
V
A 0
~
LLI o i J~ ~ia3ry
W • 1 - r s ~ ~cs"
W
a~
~
~ M
~
7,
~
~
~ .
O
N
~ Q .
~ h
I ~
w ~
w
~ ~ .
~
F a$o~i~ ~c
IL
~ g
w
~ C
L .a
a~n 5'aa~d xr~5~'B~SQ~u~ I
~aiai~.nra
l7
z
?UJ
~ ~ wza
5 • e
~y~
W
~a
W
FT
\ 4 1 ~
K y~ v 1 ~
w -
a °nLL L ~
) \r~ i' ~ d t-
y l ~
x `
~
~
a ~
a
c
a
_ `I ?
- ,
#
.
/
p iY
_ _ ~
{L
_ J I Y ~ r . _ . . . . . j ~ ~ , ~
3 . 1
i y I Y
u
; , ~ i _ 3„
~
f_...__
~ •3 , ~ . ~ w
[ , J ~ ~ i
IL ..8 ~1 In ~a~nsa~,
¢
58~~~Uiwu~
° l 1t ~~~3g3uuW
~ w~ • -.1.. 2 -6¢C4
9
@ .
W q
rv 6 ~ . i 6~ k~JEL
~ I IL
~ J
IL
W
~
~
• 1~- Og
El-
al 3 - ~
- ^ -
~
~ ~ -
. . ,
- ~
. , . (m_~~_____.._.__ .
~
'
;
~ & ~
_
Q
. - . . : ~ f' . . ..r ~
~ -
~
UJ 0 1
! C
x I
aoea"s "a
v-- i-•-°-- - "o o c~saS_ _'s
ten,r'G
i'.j~
~c" ~arad
F7
I~f
~ ~ ~ .~$'s~ I ~ ; • _ u~ ~ .
1 ~
Nl~
+
E , I - ~ ' ' flC
~i
~s
U-
, -
,
,
~ I
- } a P
~
_
' ;
~ .
~i
C _ ~ ~ I
at ti ~ }
-
~u
~ -
- y ~ f z I ,
jj '
r ^ K
~ j
~
H
r
. j
~
~ ry
- ~ G
$
Lj ~ I
I I~ t I ~
~y a
i I~~ oYC E8 p I J ~ a;~~ ~m
n
ul - a
~ ..S
0 f ? ~ ~ . a !~S
r
) mz
. nxY 33
Ol mnwy~j vw
~3 $ $ m >
' 9 aiaori'~
I ~
I IG
~
q
J
LL ~
0 ~
3 ~
W
• ; ~ 1
i,
EL '
~ ~ q ~ ?.y Y'~ 4 1 EL'
i ~
lu
I ~ •;.a ~ ~ - t ~
~
I^ _
I`s
<
~ ~ .
~
~ ¢ -
0 0
~
~Y n
°
r~
-
~m` .nrtm ~ Y 4z i ~
O J~a ~ a E ~ I
Vi• "
BT
~ ca
ffi~j
a
i r
I
J
'l 1 l ~4-
~ ~ LL
I 1 ~ ~
~ I 1
.a.} .i-.ll{' 1FT]I3!'F33o~d ~f~ .i.lll • 1M713M~1 . ` -
qn 1 \
I \ ~ '
LLI
1 L_ _J I
I ~
I ~
` C I
I ~ I ~ Z
~ I
I
~ i•.LII ' 1M913H 31v1d .c-LII • 1M%19M H!Y"Id ~ ~~r///~~~
~
- i--- ~ _
a'
1 ~
~ I
~ 9 1
~ q-.44 y ~a I,
4a
1 l
~ y ~ 5 1
.
Eo J ^ ~
i ~ ..~4 ~`rr ~•ny' S + m. ~ ~
E v ~
f ~ -
~
r
a
o ~
~ +
r i
"eeacs= _ i
- _I - I
g ~ ~ ~~E 3
nWn~~~
- 1 ~'.ta&k2~aru~3¢.
~ I ~ ~~~O6fl$ti
~ f N
~ b S I ~rca
w S
Ill W
w
~
'I
, a
LU ~a
~ r
z °
ma
t a~ ~ ~J
Ln
_
I ~ 6pl 1'1 I
.
~ I I
,
li ~ *tl
-rl - - - ~ ° x
I - ~ - -
;
~ _ - ~~sax
-
~
~g-
i ~
~ -
9. k! ; i L
F ~
3 3
,
N
~ ~ .
~
~
0
sasas~
I Q ~o;oa. s'
w ss~ssa "B
~ ?
w~
~
~
3 sStS,
_
f ~ 3 ~ a a
~
.
Lu
LIA
~-rui
W
?
~
Y -•J ~
~
? -r - ~
s I
s
a
~
f
A' Y
Ln
~
c
I ~
7-771
a
; €I! ~
~ry ~ ~ ss6~ss r
~ I Wb
I I 1~11 -
~ ~ .
h: N
•ti ~ ~
3 ty~y IY_ ~5
V E >
~ Xw
g
I p I
1Y J
i I
. ~
at
t-
. ~ I
Cl
~
- I
a~ - - ~
~
~ ~ 4 V
.
~ .
~
m I
~
~
_==i~. ~ °s~pgt s~
LU "cSeFa_ _a
W 6
- -
Psuke a~
.
~
.a.i
IEY
7 i-- a-f- - ~ ~
- ,
J
~
- - ~ ~
-
- _ - LLJ
~
L, ~o
- -
.
z g
, ~ mo
_ - • ~7 ~
I
OP -
: i
~
~ ~ V
F ~
{ ~
. • ~ ~
. Lr;
¢
~ ~ -
~ • ~ ~ . ~ _ ~ ~ ~
Z.
i l~~i w ~ a~a
'~i' I ~ ~ S~~ :ti
17
W
W I I~ ~ ? W_
~ ~ 3 I f I t~i Fl 3
h ~
1p 1
I ~ I. ;
'6\ i 6 I - d~ A
~
i i ~ ~ ~ ~g~•~~~
u r
- d
~
II ~
~ i
~
- . - i w tzf]
W
I[
I
----------1------_____ a x ~
w m
~ F
J
I I 'I Q Q ~ ~
_
. • _ o
W
- 1- • ~ J i W ~
- 1 I~ C a W
' W
y i • "i l~_ ~ ~ ~ t •
03
~ ~ ~ - ~ - -
, ,
i
~ -
- ~.I~I~ II' • ~ ~~1 ~ - - I , ~i 1 I
~
u
R
o
~ c
a
~
~ ~
I s p ' •
~
il1
. ,
~ ~ ~ ~ 1 .
~ tAmiw
1 Lr$~'~~,~
~ ~ y 1 ~i.~~`bSlu~
l . ~ , . - 0 m l
W
Y " ~ ° ~ ~ t3
~
~
f
_
W
#
. J w
~
~ ~
C~d
~
~
fl ~
a ~a
~
fl
ti
O~
Z ~
W
~
1
3:
d~
0
V
~
f
~
~
i~
~ z a
K
a' v
t °
~
f A b ~
0+ qp ~ r A
UJ
x ~
O 1 ~
7 ~ •
a ~
t ~ a °u ~o
~ ~ I E
tu
~ I u I b
C1 3
~ j ~ v*~Wgk
' m>uu
~
~
7
w
~
LLI
a
~
0
~
~
- ~ '
a
. ~ I
s -
o K
~
6 ~
MEMORAMDUM
TO: Pfanning and Environmentaf Carnmissian
FR4M: Department 4f Community DevelQprnent
DATE: January 13, 2003
SUBJECT: A request for a variance from Section 12-3A-9, (Site Coverage) and a
request for a proposed minor exterior alterativn, pursuant to Sectian 12-
7A-12, Vaii Torvn Gode, to allow for a residential addition, located at 292
East IVleadflw DrivelA part of Tract B, Vail ViIlage First Filing.
Applicanfi: Mountain Haus Homeowner's AssQCiation, represented by
K.H. Webb Architects
Planner: Bill Gibsan
1. SUMMAaY
The purpose of this meeting is a worksession ta allow the applicant an
opportunity to present the praposed minor exterior alteration and variance
request to the P1anning and Environmental Commission and ta provide the
~ applicant, public, stafif, anci the Commission an opportunity to identify issues for
discuss+on at a future meeting. The Commissian is not being asked tv take any
formal positions an this appiicafion at this time. As such, staff wall not be
praviding a farmal recomrnendation at this tirne. The next step in the review
process of this deWelopment application includes a final review tentativeiy
scheduled for January 27, 2003.
I[. QESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
The applicant, Mountaan Haus Homevwner's Association, represented by K.H.
Webb Archi#ects, has requested a worksession meeting with the Planning and
Environmental Commission to present a proposed minor exterior alteration and
variance request to allow for #he enclasure af an exterior deck on the north side
of the Mountain Haus directiy above the building entrartce located aiong East
Nleadow Drive. A copy of the applicant's statement {see Attachment C} and
accompanying architectural p9ans (see Attaehment D) have been attached for
reference.
Ill. BACKGRUUMD
The Town of Vail Town Council approved an appeal of a Planning artd
Environmenta! Cammission denial of a prQposed major exterior alteration to the
~ north entry feature of the Mauntain Haus at its March 5, 2002, public hearing.
1
The applicant intends to construct the neva north entry feature as approved; ~
however, the applicant is now propasing to also enclose the existing exteraar
deck of the dwelGng unit directly above the appraved errtry feature. This proposal
was conceptually re+riewed by the Town of Vail Design Review Board at its
December 18, 2002, public hearing. Since this +,vas a conceptuaf review, the
Design Review Board took no formal action on the proposai. However, the
Qesign Review Board members did comment an the proposal. The Design
Review Board rrrembers were generally opposed ta the concept of enclosing this
exterior deck at the Mountain Haus.
IV. RDLES OF REVIEWING BOhDfES
Order of Rerriew: GeneraAy, applications wifl be reaiewed first by the
Planning and Enviroramental Commissi4n for accaptability of use and then by the
Design ReWiew Board far campliance of proposed buildings and site planning.
Planning and Environmental Commission: I
Action: The Planning and Enr+ironmental Commission is responsible for final
approvalldenial/approval with cvnditions a# a variance and minor exterior
alteration.
The Planning and Environmentaf Cornmission is resppnsible for
evaluating a proposal far; ~
1. Relationship and impact of the use an development objectives of the
Town.
2. Effect afi the use on light and air, distributian of population,
ttansportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facifities,
and other pubfic facilities and public facilities needs.
3. Effect upon traffic, with particular reference to congestion, autornotive
and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access,
maneuverabiiity, and remaval of snow from the streets and parking areas.
4. EfFect upon the character of the area in which the proposed uae is to
be located, including the scale and bulk caf the propased use in relation to
surrounding uses.
5. Such otMer fac#ors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to
the proposec[ use.
6. The environmental irnpact report conceming the proposed use, if an
environmental impact report is required by Chapter 12 of this Title. ~
~
Conformance with deveEoprnent standards of zone district
Lot area ~
Setbacks
Building Height
2
' e
I
~
QenSlty
GRFA
Site cowerage
Landscape area
Parking and Ioading
INitigation of deWelopmerat impacts
Design Review Board:
Action: The Design Review Board has ND review au#hority ora a variance, but
must review any aceompanying Design Review Board application including a
rninor exterior altera#ian.
7own Councit:
Actians of Design Review Baard or Pianning and Environrnental Gommission
may be appealed ta the Town Council ar by the Town Council. Town Cvuncil
evaluates whether or not the Planning and Environmental Corrzmissian ar Design
Reuiew Board erred with apprawals or denials and can uphold, uphold with
modifications, ar overturn the baard's decision.
Staff:
The staff is responsible far ensuring that all submittal requirements are provided
and pfans conform to the technical requirements of the Zoning Reguiations. The
staff also advises the applicant as to compliance with the design guide4ines.
~ 5taff provides a staff memorandum c4ntaining background on the property and
provwdes a staff evaluation of the project wi#h respect to the required criteria antC
findings, and a reeommendation on approval, approvaE with conditions, or deniaL
Staff also facilitates the review process.
V. APPLIGASLE RLANNING DOCUMENTS
StafF believes that the fallowing provisians of the Vail Tcrwn Code and Town of
Vail Comprehensive Plan are relevant to the review of tnis proposal:
TITLE 12: ZONING REGULATIONS
12-7A-1 : Purpose:
The public accommodatfon dr'strict 1s intended to pravide sites for lodges and
resrdential accommodafions for vrsifors, together with such pubfic arrd semipublic
facilities arad limited professional offices, medrcal facilities, privafe recreation,
commercial/refail and relafed visitor orienfed uses as may appropriately be
located within the same district and corrrpatrble with adjacent fand uses. The
public accommodation drstrict is intended fo ensure adequate light, air, oAerr
space, and Qther amenifies camrraensurate wifh lodge uses, and tQ maintain the ~
desirable resort qualities of the district by estabiishing apprapriate site
development standards. Additional nonresr`dential uses are permitted as
cor,ditional uses which enhance the nature of Vail as a vacatfon community, and
~ where permiffed uses are intended to function compatilaly wifh the hfgh densi#y
IQdging charaeter Qf the distrrct
3
i
I
~
12-7A-6: Setbacks;
In the PA clistrict, the minimum frant setback sha!l be twenfy feet (20'), the
minirrrum side setback shall be twenty feet (20'), and the minimurn rear set,back
shall be twenty feef (20). At fhe discrEtion of the planning and environmenfal
commission and/or the design revrew board, variafiQns to the set6ack sfarrdards
outlined above may be approved during the revr"ew of exteriar alternatimns or
mc+difteatians (sectran 12-7A-92 of this article) subject to the applicartt
demonstrati,ng compliance with fhs fo!lpwing criteria:
A. Proposed building setbacks provide necessary separaflon between
builu'rngs and riparian areas, gealagically sensitive areas and other
environmerrtally sensitive areas.
B. Prnposed builcling setbacks eomply wPth applicabJe elements of the
Vai1 village urban desrgn guide ,plarr arrd desigra cartsideratrons.
C. Proposed burldlng setbacks wi!! ,provide adequate availabrllty of light,
a1r and open space.
D. Proposed building sctbacks wtll prQVrde a compatible relationship wrth
buildiRgs and uses ora adjacent propertres.
E. Proposed building setbacks will result rn creative design solufions or
other public benefits that could not otherwise be achieved by ~
cQnformance with prescribed setback standards.
92-7A-8: Density CantroL•
Up to one hundred fifty (750) square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA)
may be permatted for each one hundred (900) square feet af buildable site area.
Final determinafion af allowable gross residential flaar area shall be made by the
planning and environmenfal commission in accardance vvith secfion 12-7A-12 of
this artrcle. Specifically, in determining allowable grass residenfiaf flaor area the
planning and environrrrental commission shall make a finding that prcaposed
gross residential floor area is in conformance with appficatle elerrlenfs of the 1/aiI
' village ur6an desigrr gurde pEart and design considerafions. Total density sha11 nat
exeeed twenfy five (25) dwelling units per acre of buildable site area. For fhe
purposes af calculatirrg densify, ernployee housing units, accvrrrmadaffon unifs
and fractional fee club urrits shafl not be counted towards densify. Each
accommaclation unit shall be caunted as one-half (112) of a a(wefling unit for
purposes of calcufatrng aNowable unrts ,per acrE.
A dwelling unit in a rnuftiple-famiiy buildrrrg rrlay rnclude one attaehed
accommodation unit no larger than one-third (113) af the tc+tal floor area vf the
dwelling.
92-7A-9: S1te Goverage:
Site coverage shall not exceed sixty fiUe ,pereerat (65f) of the fotal site area, ~
Final defermtnation of allowable site coverage sha11 be made by the planning arad ~
environmentaf corrtmissron and/or the design review bnard rn aecordance with ~
4
~ sectian 12-7A-12 of this article. Specifically, in determinrng allcowa61e site
coverage the planning and environmentaJ commissrorr and/or the design revrew
board shall make a firrding fhat proposea' site cQVerage is in conformance wifh
applicable elements of the Var"l viLlage urban desrgn guide pfan and desigrt
corasicferations.
92-7A-12.° ExteriorAlteratians or Modifications:
A. Revrew Required.° The corastruction of a new building or the alteration of I
an exisfing burlding shaN be revie+wed by the desrgn review board in accordance ~
with chapter 1 T af this title. Havavever, any ,profect whrch adds addifianal dwefling
u,nits, accommodation units, fractional fee club u,nits, any project which adds ,
more than one thausand (9, 0(70) square feet of commercial floor area or common ~
space, or any pra1ect which has substantial ofi site impacts (as determrneaf ,by the ;
adminisfrator) shall be reviewed by the planning arrd environmenfal cornmission ~
as a major exterior alferatian in accordance with this chapter and seGtion 12-3-6
of thrs title. Camplete applicafians for mafor exferior alterations shall be submitfed
in accordance with administratiue schedules devefoped by the departmenf of
cammunfty development far planning and envrronrrrental commissian and design
review ,board review. The foflavaring submiftal items are requirsd.,
1. Application: An application shall be made by the owner of fhe building
ar the building owner"s authorizerl agent or represanfative on a farm
~ prowided by the administrator. Any application for condominiumized
6uildrngs sha11 be authorrzed by the condominium aS,SDC18t1C?f1 in
confarmity with all pertinent requiremenfs af the corrdominium
associatron's declaratians.
2. Applieatian; Cantents: An application fvr an exterior alteration shall
inelude the following:
a. Com,pleted application form, flfing fee, and a Itst of all avwners of ~
properfy located ad,racent to the subJecf parceJ. The owrrers' list
shalJ include the names of all owvners, their mailirrg address, a
legal descripflorr af the property ovvned ,by each, and a general
descrrption of the property (incJuding the name of the property, ff
applicable), and the name and ,marlfng address of the
condominium associatron`s represenfative (rf applicable). Sar'd
names arrd addresses sha!l be obtained from the currenf tax
records of Eagle Counfy as they appeared not more than thirty
(30) days prfor fa fhe applicafian submiifal date.
b. A written statement descri6ing the propasal and how the
prapasal complies with the Vail viifage master plan, tfre Vail vr"llage
urban design guide plan, the Vail village streetscape master plan
anrl any other relevant secfions of the Var`l comprehensive plan.
~ c. Asurvey sfamped by a Iicensed surveyor irrdicating existing
conditions on the praperty including the location of irnpravements,
tapography, and nafuraC features.
5
d. A current tifle repot# to verify 4wnership, easements, and other ~
eneumbrances, including schedules A and 83.
e. Existing and proposed site plan at a minrmum scale of orre ineh
equals twenty feet (1 20"), a vic+nity plan at an approprfate seale
to adequately shaw the profect Iocation in relation to the
surroundrng area, a landseape plan af a minrmurn scale of one
inch equafs 20 feet (1 20'), a roof heighf ,plan and existing and
pro,posed burlding eleuatians at a rrrinimum scale af one-eighth
inch equafs one fvat (118" = 1'). The material Iisfed a6ove sha!l
i
include adjacent buildings arrd impravements as necessary to ~
demorrstrate the praject's com,pliance with the Vail village master ~
plan, the Vail village urban design gulde plan and the Vai1 ~
streetscape master plan.
f. Sun/shade analysis of the existing and proposed buildirag for the
spring/fall equinax (March 21/September 23) and win[er solsfrce
(Qecember 27) at ten o'clack (10:00) A.M. and two a`elock (2:00)
P. M. unless fhe department af comrr?unity developmenf
determines that rhe proposed addarPOn has no impact on the
existing sun/shade paftern.
The followirrg sun angle shall 6e used Nrhen preparing this
arralysis:
Spring/Fap ~
EquinQx Sun Angle
10: Dl? A. M. 40° east af south, 50° declination
2:00 P.M. 42° west of south, 50° declination
Winter
Solstice Sun Angle
10:OO A.M. 30° cast of soufh, 20° declinatr'on
2:00 P.M. 30° west of south, 20° deellrratian
g. Exrsfrng and proposed floar plans af a mtnfmum scale of one-
fourth inch equals one faaf (114" = 1) and a square footage
analysrs af all exisfing and pro,pased uses.
h. An architectural or rnassrng model of the praposed
developrrrent Sard modeJ shall include burldings and majar site
improvemenfs on adjacent properfles as deemed necessary by
fhe admrnistrator. The scale of the model shall be as determirred
by the admin;stratar.
i. Phato overlays and/or other gra,ahlc material to demonstrafe the
specral relatiorrshrp of the proposed developrnent to adjacent
properties, public spaces, and adopted ulews per chapter 22 af
thrs frfile.
J. Any additionaJ informatron or rnaterial as deemed rrecessary by ~
the administrator or fhe town plannrng and env+ronmental
cornrrrrssion (PEC). The admrnisfrafor or the planning and
6
~ enviror+mentaI commr`ssivri may, at ,hr`slher or their discretion,
waive certain submittal requirements if it is determir+ed that the
requrremenfs are not relevant to the ,propQSeof ofeveloprnenf nor
applicable to the Vail village master plan, the Vail village urban
design guide plan, fhe Vail village streetscape masfer plan.
3. Work SessionslGoncepfual Review: Cf requesfed by either the applicanf
or the administrator, submiftals may pmceed fa a work session with the
planning and environmental commission, a conceptual review with the
design review ,board, or a work session with the tawn council.
4. Hearrng: The pubfre hearrng 6efore the planning and environmental
commissian shall be heJd 1n accordance wfth sectron 12-3-6 of this title.
The plannr'ng and enwrronmerrfal commrssron may approve the applicafron
as submitted, a,pprove fhe ap,plication with condrtfarrs or modificafiorrs, or
deny the applicatiorr. The decisrort of the planning and environmer?tal
commission may be ap,pealed to the town councrl in accordance wi#h
sectiarr 12-3-3 of tfrJs title.
5. Lapse C7f Approval.• Appraval of an exferiar alferatr'oR as prescrrbed by
fhis article shall lapse and become void three (3) years foHowrng the date
of approval by the desrgrr review board unless, prior to the expiration, a
building permif rs issued and constructron is commenced arrd diligently
~ pursued ta eompletion. Adminrstrative extensrons shall 6e allowed far
reasanable and unexpected deiays as long as code provisions atfecting
the propasal have not changed.
12-7A-13: Compliance Burden:
It shall 6e the 6urofen of the applicant to prave by a prepanderance of the
evidence before the pla,nning and environmental commission and the design
r'euiew ,board that fhe proposed exterior alteration or new development r`s in
complrance with the purposes of fhe public accommodatron zone drstrict, fhat the
proposaf is cansrsfer+f wrfh applrcable elements of the Vail vr{Iage masfer plan,
the Vail viIlage ur6an design guide plarr arad the Vail streetscape master pfan,
and that the proposal does nof ofherwise have a signr'ficar,t negatiwe effect on the
character of the neighborhaod, and fhat the proposal substantially complres with
other applrcable element.s of the Vail camprehensive plan.
12-7A-1 5: Addifran of gross residentiaJ tloor area to existing PA proper#res:
For any gross residentral floor area added to a,public aecammodafion zaned
property fa!lowing f}ae effectrve date hereof, a rrtinimum of seventy percent (70%)
of the added gross residential floor area shafl be devoted fo accommodafton
urrits, or fracfional fee club unrts su61ect to the issuance of a carrditrarral uSe
perrnit This lirrritafron sha11 not apply to gross resrdentral floor area being added
ira accordance wrfh sections 72-15-4 and 12-15-5 of thrs fitJe.
~
7
-
VI. S1TE ANALYSIS ~
A mare compiete site anaRysis will be pravided for the January 27, 2003, meeting
of the Planning and Environmental Commission. Given the comments pravided
by the Tawn of Vail Design Review Board to date, and any additionaQ feedback
I from the Planning and Enviranmentaf Comrnission, staff antieipates that changes
to the praposa9 wiil be made that may affect the development standards dafa.
Zoning: Public Accommoda#ion
Land Use Plan aesignatian: Vail Village Master Plan Study Area
Current Lar?d Use: Mixed Use
Developrnent Standard AllowedlRequired Existinq Proposed
Lot Size: 21,610 sq.ft. No Change
Setbacks:
Front 20 ft. 0 ft. 0 ft. (infill)
Rear 20 ft. 0 ft. no change
Sides 20 ft.f20 ft. 0 ft.10 ft. na changes
Site Coverage: 14,047 sq.ff. (65%0) 17,909 sq.ft. (83%) 17,925 sq.ft. ($3%)
VII. SURRUUNUING LAND USES AND ZON3NG ~
Land Use ZQninp
hJorth: Parking Structure General Use
South: Gore Creek Uutdoar Recreation
East: Mixed Use SDD #30
West: Slifer Plaza Outdoar Recreation
IX. CRITERIA AND FINDlNGS
The fallowing section of this memarandum is included to provide the applicant,
community, staff, and Cornmission with an advanced understanding a# the
criter'ra and findings that will be used by the re+riewing boards in rraaking a final
decision an the proposed applications.
A. Consicieration of Factors far a Variance:
~I 1. The relationship o# the requested variance to other existing
or potential uses and structures in the vicinity.
2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal
interpretatian and enforcernent of a specified regulation is
necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of
treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the ~
objectives of this title without a grant of speciaf privilege.
8
.
~ 3. The effec# of the requested variance an light and air,
distribution of populatian, transpartation and traffic
facilities, public facilities and utilifies, and public safety.
4. Such cather factors and criteria as the commission deems
applicable to the proposed variance.
B. The F'lanninq and Environmental Commission shall make the
follawinq fndint§ befare granting a variance:
1. Tha# the granting of the variance will nat constitute a grant
of special privilege inconsts#ent with the lirnitations on other
proper#ies ciassified in the same district.
2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental ta
the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious
to properties or improvements in the vicinity,
3. That the variance is warranted for one ar mcare of the
following reasons:
a. The strict li#eral interpretation or enforcemertt af the
specified regulation wauld resu[t in practical difficulty ar unnecessary phy+sical hardship
~ incansistent wfth the objectives of this title.
b. 7here are exceptians or extraordinary
circurnstances or eonditians applicable to the sarne
site of the +rariance that do not apply gerrerally to
other praperties in the same zone.
c. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the
specified regulatian would deprive the applicant of
privileges erejoyed by the owners of other praperties
in the same district.
0. The Planning_and EnWironmental Commission shall make the
follawing finclings before grantinq a minor exterior altera#ion:
1. That the proposal is in compliance with the purpose of the
Public Accommodation District.
2. That the proposal is consistent with the applicable elements of
the Vail Village Master Plan, the Vail Village Urban Design
Guidelines and the VaiC Strsetscape Master Plara.
3. That the proposa{ substantially complies with appCicable
~ elements of the Vail Camprehensive Plan.
9
.
4. That the proposal does no# otherwise have significant negative ~
effect on the charactsr of the neighborhood.
X. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
As this is a worksession, staff will nat be providing a stafF recammendation at this
time_ Staff will Qrovide a staff recomrnendation at the time of a frral re+riew of this
applMCation.
XI. ATTAGHMENTS
A. Vicinity Map
B. Public Hearing Natice
C. Applicant's Statement
D. Architeetural Plans
~
!
i
10
Attachment. YI
,
".z^- a
~r~~; _7~
, ~
~AM~-~;~; X
tt
V1s
~ "~w•~''"'y~~ ~t¢, ^°a. ~ ' ' ~ ~ ,
f,4R
/
9 -
2t
All
~~`sr 3
p~{'' ~ i . . ~ . . T ~ a ~ r : . r
• ~ gy0
_44
,
.
< .
,
~ s.x
~
:
* ~
• ~ r: ~ ' rt~ ~ ~ _ .
.
~
~ _ r, _t"~, ~x, f:
~
~`~s~~~.
~
Rs p+~ a t _ ss ~ ~ ~ C ~TM
' - 1~ ~ r ` .~..~~~..w~~ - ! ! ~ ~a ~4 -
'4~
~f ~ ~T~ FA9~ A•~"'~I
~y
I' ~R' l,~r
} A ~Y"~ai. . ' . +n .4~ .4 4 d . . . 1
eY
~
~S; .q• a.Y~ ~ ~ , . ~q9~ ~ ~ ~ t p ~ ~~.Art " arit ~ew y~°`~' g'~1 ' `
i, •
ji.s g~"~,~
. ir §.F S YE'~- p ~ F.a! a+f , ji ~~"e rA s~ ^w~+ 5~ g~~bw r 4 ) ' .
}a,.'9`+~~y~.c ~ . ~
_ ,
, ~ r,`, • ~ w, x s~ ;~p ~ `+i~
` .
, cv ~
M~'y~ ~
1,
7
~ ~ ~ . 4 ~ r t" p~' l ~t • I ~ ' +~e, r sa~ . ~ - ~s"?~'` t
a . ~ d ~+,~J{Jf j.;~y ~~a- ^t~ ~'t'4"'.,'~~_..«.,~ ._y f ~~:*,^k.
71
.
p f 3 4- ~ ~ 6 LA. ' f1
0 i - ~ :,nt'. - ' x~-. < ~ f ~ • , ~ ' t I
. : ' Y' v f A4 ~ ~
,
. aT
ti'St _
. ~ ~ ~ .
~G' ~ `
~y-
,
Brls~ge Street'= )
.xT ~ ke k ? ''y.0 -~i. ~ ~
~~p'^i
rr ..~~~Xfi,~p. ~ •F` ~ ~e..rt
. - . _ . . . . ~
.
,
~
~ Attachment. B
PEC kppficatian Eor. ~
Mountain Haus
792 East Meadow Drive
Vail, {0 81657
LIST OF ADJRCENT PRQPERTY OWNERS:
, Austria Naus Cortdominium Association
kttn: Laura Warren
242 Easi Meadow Drive
Yail, CO 81657
Yail Mountain Ladge and Spa '
Attn: Pat Mitchell
352 East Meadow Drive
Yail, CO 81657
Town of Yail: ~
~
~ ~ .
~
3 .
~
. ~
u
910.67].2940 ~iU ~rMw.khwrbD.tom
" THIS 17EM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY
PUBUC NOTECE
~ NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmenta! Carr3mission of the Town of
Vail will hold a public hearing in accardance with Section 12-3-6 of the Municipal Code af the
Town af Vail on January 13, 2003, at 2:00 P.M. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. In
consideration of:
A reques# for a recomTnendation ta the Vail Town Council of a proposed text amendment to
Section 12-1 a-9: Loadirag Standards, Vail Touvn Cade, to amend tHe size requirement for
loading berths & setting forth de#aifs in regard thereto.
Applicanf: Town of Vail
Planner: Allisan Ochs
A request for a conditianal use permi#, pursuant ta Section 12-6C-3, Vail Tou+rn Code, to allow
Jor a Type 11 Ernployee Housing Unit and a request for a variance from Sectian 12-6C-6
(Setbacks), Vail Town Code, to aIlow for additions in the side setbacks, Cocated at 1193 Cabin
CirclelLot 4, Block 2, Vail Valley 8th Filing.
P,pplicant: David & Renie Gorsuch, represented by Resort Design Associates, lne.
Planner: Bill Gibsan
A request for a conditional use permrt, pursuant to Section 12-9C-3B, Vail Town Code, ta allow
for a touris#lguest service refatad faciiity accessory to a parking structure, and a request for a
variance from Title 11, Vail Town Gode, ta alfow for proposed signage and setting forth details
in regard thereto, located at 181 W. NEeadow DrivelLats E&F, Vail Village 2"d flVirlg.
~ Applicant: Stan Anderson
Planner. Bil1 Gibson
A request far a recammendatian to the Vail Tawn Council for a major amendment ta Special
Qeveloprnent aistrict No. 36, pursuant to Section 12-9A-1 0, Vail Town Cade, ta allaw far a
mixed-use hoteE; a requsst for a final review af a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 12-
7A-3, Vail Tawn; Code, to ailow for Type III Emplayee Housing Units and a fractional fee club;
and a request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Cnuncil for a praposed rezoning of Lot
9A, Vail ViElage 2"d Filing from Heavy Service (H5) District ta Public Accommadafion (PA)
District, located at 28 S. Frontage Rd, and 13 Vail Raadltots 9A& 9C, Vail Village 2"d Filing.
Applicant: Nicollet Island Developmen# Company inc.
Pianner: George RutherlAllison Ochs
a
A request #or a uariance from Section 12-7A-9, (Site Causrage) and a request for a praposed
minor exteriar alteratian, pursuant to Section 12-7A-12, Vail Town Code, to allow fo6 a
,residential additian, kocated at 292 East Meadow !Drive/A part of Tract B, Vail Vi{1age First Filing.
Applicant: Mountain Haus Homeowner's Association, represented by K.H. Webb Architects
Plarrner. Bill Gibson
A request far a final review af a proposed majar exterior alteratian, pursuan# to Seetion 12-7A-
12, Vail Town Code, ta allaw far a hotel redevelopm+ent and addition; a reques# far a fnal review ~
of a canditional use permit, pursuan# to Section 12-7A-3, Vail T'nwn Ccade, to allow for a Q
~ fractional fee club; a recammendation to the Vail Town Council of a text amendment Section rm"
~
,
iA
*WL
~ wrr~
12-7A-3 (Conditiona! Uses), Vail 7own Cade, to al6ow far retail uses in a 1ocEge in excess of 1 0'% -
of #he tatal gross residential floar area af the structure as a conditional use; a request for afinal
review of a variance frorn Section 72-7A-10 (Landscaping & Site Development), Uail Town
Code, to allaw for a de+riatROn from the tata[ landscape area requirernent, located at 20 Vail ~
Raad, 62 E. Meadow Drive, and 82 E. Meadow DrivelLots K& L, Biock 5E, Vail UilEage 151
Fiiing.
Applicant: Sonnenaip Praperties, Inc., represerated by Braun Assaciates, Inc.
Planner- George Ruther/Warren Campbell
Tne applications and informa#ion about the propasals are avaiiable for pubiic irrspection during
regudar offiGe hours in #he project planner"s office, Eocated at the Town of Vail Cornmuni#y
Development Department, 75 Sauth Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend project orientatian
and the site visits that precede the public hearing in the Town of Vail Comrrtunity Deuefopment
Department. PIease eall 479-2138 for infarmation.
Sign language interpretation availabfe upan request with 24-hour notification. Please cafl 479-
2356, Telephane for the Hearing Impaired, fflr informatEon.
Community Development Department
Pubfished December 27, 2002 in the Vai! Daily.
~
~
~
~
2
Attachment: G
DESCRIPTION QF PRQPOSED IJSE
The APPlicanis PresentlY owRs the uniP o6oue the main entry ta the Mountain Haus tondaminiums. In lighr of the currendy to
be canstructed Enfry CaRopy that was preVEausly approved by 1he Assaciation and Tawn of Vail, with Mountain Hous
AsSOCiaiion cansenf,lhe opplicant wishes to enclose and enlarge the existing halcany of their unit. The Association perteived
this as an opportunity to further integrote the approved Entry Conopy in the Design of the existing 6uilding and furfher
enhance ihe visuai sirength of the overall re-designed Main Entq Area.
The aQplication wial require three Town of Vail Appravals.
l. Sethack Variance: The propased halcony sxtension will be ]acaled whally and diredEy n6ave the prapased
and approved Entry Canopy which is located in the sel6nck and upon Tawn of Vail awned Righi o# Way. A
Right of Way Encraachmenf agreement is currently in piace far the Entry Sirucfure.
2, Sile Covefage Variance: The Existing Slructure was carnpleted priar to the current 2oning being put in place
and ha5 exceed Siie Caverage sinte this tsme. Any praposed site caveroge improvemenis to this structure thai
have been preuiously approved hnve required and received o Site Coverage VariaRce.
3. 750 Additian/De5ign Review Approvol: To enclose the Balcanp, p Design Review Board Apprflval of the
enda5ure for design will be required as well as indiuidual owner permission far,use o€ the 250 tsddition. Applicant addresses the matters set farth in 1hie applicalian 4s follows:
~ 1 . R2Iafk'DCISh[P and imPact of fihe use on development objectives af the 3ovun.
The enclasing of this balcany wiiC have na effect an the deveSapment abjectives of the Tawn. As part of
a lorger improuemeni plan, the design is forthcnming in the Tawn's goals af eneavrOging re-develapment
of existing properties.
2. Effecf of the use on light and oir, distTibuiion of populaiion, transportatian facilities, utilities, schools, parks and
recrentian facilities, tind atfier public facilities and public €aciliiies needs.
The Balcany Enclosuie will have no effecf an ony of the items Iisted o6oue.
3. Effect upan lraffic, with part3cu1ar referente fo congestian, automoiive and pedestrion safety ond convenience,
traffic f4ow and control, access, moneu4erabiliry, and remaval of snaw from the streels and parking area.
The Bolcony Endosure wiCl have na effett upan traffic.
4. Effect upan the character afthe area in which the QroQosed use is ta be locaied, including the scale and 6ulk of the
proposed use in relatian ta surraunding uses.
The balcany entlosure shaUld 6e considered a pasitive in eff4ris ta briflg the scaie of the exisling 6uiSding
~ ifl a mare humon scnle and furthet integrating ihe building into the West Mefldow Drive Streeiscape.
AlSO, the enclasuce adjacency obove the fo be canslructed Entry Canapy will hflve liitle ar no offeci an
increasing perceived 6ulk of the existing siructure.
J
~ .
Z
w
2: N ao
w Q
z ~
2 W ~ v
W > O~ ~ ukfF ~ o
~ W
Q ~ ~~y a' ~ !I 3 °
LD U"1 ° 0~°8~=~ ° ~ 'I o e v
Ln
¢ V
1 ol
vs 9 3- z
o
d~ VI~ 9~ N2 ~ •
~ i r
~0~~~$x ~ a
0
2 H ^ ~
~ 3Et°u G Y°i~ksQi
~
I
I
I tZ
I .
• i ~'a o' ~ F~~ i L
1
ir > iw
~ It I 9 U;
1:2 tp
~ ° ~ ~ ~d ~ ~ ~ ~ Y ~ ~R ~ o~ ~
3: a t a5
¢g
~
` 5 ay
i~5
I~
* IY
1E~ sli ~~4 62~~
z ~ aa y
tS`o. 2
~ a L7ag ~a ~a~ ~ ~ .~~i ~4 _ ~ u~ •
N ` -
tl
Cl :IUawy:)eIId
Wmute'oa xa'iuau
LSlli OQYYOlO]'SfY~ ~
dru o)'tnl ou vies mx mm umwi eieaS isi
3uY6 MOd'13N 1Pfi ifit ~I C~
a4 aiirysio
qq~ snvH NitilMA ow ~eni Q
- ~
y+
OQ f 4 jy
~
C
8 ~
e ~
e
~ a o
tr $
.
r.
a
~
e~l
, ~E ~ti . ~ ; ' V,, ~ ?
0
' Q I
°o ¢
~
o°
P ~
C11 a ~
F- W ~
zOf
a
5 S
o • iV]+ ~ ~ ~
' I
o z Lt' ~ i; ! ~
6
~ ry ,y_ a
~ pg
C Yr ; I in
.
- ~3
oa ,A~ • ~ ~ ~ _
~
,
- i
wKf6Cit/1:1 NICIIltl4
mir m m•u Lm uu~ cro~ ini~eu suo[ n~ t5l11 D01NA101 ~f1A ~
3NIQ Md4Y311 lri3 261
C~
,a ~,,.,,s nV H N iV I N n o w = ~
9 9 B M V ~i =me ~ ~
i
r---- - - ~ 4
i
i r
i ~ t~ A I I
; ~ ' . ~ • ; ~ , •I ~ °v il f`s q
' ; _`o ~ I m s !I rS ~ ~ 4
l1 • ~ t i1 I---------- 4 J ul ~ ~~p ~ Z~ r l ~7 ~
3 '
.x..
I
I
~
~ : I ' 1 I
~ . I a
~ .
K t,f,
N a i t ~5
_ E~?
o'o! ~
- 13 o-
ii
1
\ ~5 e
a~ ~ a ; i g 9 :I
? a ;
Ofl1 ~
_ J ~ LLI 9
Ey0 fiC~
~~9
g'
~~I
~
. ~
~
Idmrursu ac[inoe~ ~
is711 YI'91l - 11f ilMm- IIIM a1P1 i71IW11 Y1nof ;rt [SPIB DfIIlYQ1D1 144W
i4p0 N,W1'3:1 ISY3 [6Z ~ ~
N I V ihfflOW
99qI
~ •
~ r
~D
a.
r -
41H
P 'i
2]
v
T Q U o
e V.'~ 'I ~ 1 ~ ~
~ ~ ~p a I u ;
i 3~ C7 a I CL
I
~
31
Ula
`
i u
~
- v
~ -
. f I x~
1 4 ~R
ry
13
C~
• • ~ ~`WI ~3 ~3 :~E3
i
e
A S y oa g I if
II~~ t!i R• P$ i ~ ~'1
h 't I ~ I
- ~3
Q ti p ~
g - ~ a a
f~ ~ f
: e
9~~ a~ C p II'~~
Oy~1 ~
g~a~
• ~ ex~ ~3¢~ ' S
~I :
~
IT
Idsnruraoi dsu~urou
;trir m• im ~ ia iun~ ~ i~u crau ~iru~o~~ xinos zu ii41B P9tlHO1R} 'IIYd = .
3Afi4 MO4Y3N !lY] I6'i
Q
~ d~ r i~ a 1 r y r+ o s n YN N I Y l N!I V W
4 9 a^+ ~ 4~ 1 = 4
~ a
~
i
p -
0
~ ~ -
¢
n
- - -
ff
. o
-
o
-
i
~ ~ - - -
i
~ al I I
- r I
' I
p I
I
~ I
-i---
---_s--__-,-
fl
~
a
0
- ~
0
0
0
~
o }
~
~
?
0
6
fl El- -
C i
I Q ~
~ G
- `
ilKi[1 uwii M~EYOVe~~ -
~tsi~m-tln1 licuNi W.-amIMeoIixtamt5a Li1~f09i1010)'SIYA I ~3AI~0 MOOY311 1Pf3 262 ~6 T"
_ - - CY?
sn~~ N~alNnow
99a M 4 'f -
_ _ ~
~7 7 ~ g ~ a
Kg
v d
\ Y I n
? ~
1e~_ ~
,
y 6 ~ ~
y~¦ a y.
e ry ~ nb ~~§s N
~ ~ ~ ~a~ ~ ~ ~
~
~ -
- --~~F~
- - ~
-
;
a ;
I' w 6 ~~y 3 y 31~ 7~~
~ " ~e.. . . .
~
~ L
~
~ - E
_ o
Y 9
i ~
xa i ~ ~aA ~
~ v
I ~
. . . . . R L
f Ir ~
R
Ili(w'!llYli 11tE'Ii10[1 -
Mn m' m' rit runf ~ n~M omw lm~u~mr xmus tu lf918 ON'Y010] '11WM1
7YIY4 MOdY3111SY7 i8[
!V ~
S H NIv
1NfI0W
I1 ti
~
- :
~ n
i ~
~
~
~
. i .
------n-
~r~l ~r l ~~i f, I
lI,l1 y+ ~
~ i
I I
I
1~1 i~ ~ p M~
~ ~,,5,•
i U
. e5 0
V ~
~ 1l1 3
k E
~
I
i
hRVne~nn ;ee,iuou
n m we s, xox aqA em~ nnnnj eimi ni 259Si OG116}6] lfYd
~u~u asoarau isrs tet - ~I p
ld~ 11 !a1jy1 I o
qa,u~y~~ Sfl~'H Nib1N~l4W
~
~
0
~
?
0
~ - -
0
6
- -
0 -
I
0 1~i f
I r f
~ I
I
fi}- - fi- - -
P
~
U
ET
~
C
O
a ;
i y
i wp
r „
~ - -
-
Li
G ~
~
Q
~
I
Ul,~<a,,1, omi«,ki
rv~~~, rw ni~~w a~mnem.o~ixumt~E [SAIiUQYY070711Yd - o
_ ~
' iY19 ,W1flY7N 1SYi zdi = - ~
i7's~1e1141~a ~ ll Y Il
a M y N I Y lN II 0 W
8
!y a 9 =i ~e~ s~i
\ q
y y
g ~ ~ ~ ~ d 1 ~ Q
n ~o ~g Mr ~ s s ~l ~ e ~
~ p61 ~R~p `~~7 ~8 ~ ye a r- b p ~ b
o~u~ g gy?~ 6 g
~ Y
~
-
- ~ ~
,
~ I Y-- i i 4a~ sa~
_k-.°
v
' 63 ~ rP ~
~ 3 a
~
?`4 c ' - ~ ~r•,~..
~
ro
m
- -
i ~
II m
~ 73 1
F~e , i 1 0
_ i.
i - i ~_e w 3
~ i
~ i
i I F
f I ~
E I
~ tl I ~ e
'
W
S I
"T I Itl ~
f ~
I
~
° ~ x . . ~ ~ - . . ~ Y""-,. :!-,,TM ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ ' ~ 'e ~ .
17
y4 t { I{
t . ~p,"' ~ a - •.i _ ' . _ t ,~yfh " a
{ # •ar~ +
G ~ ~ _ x J
~4W,.
g- a ~
y r ~ q, ~R T ~ i~ 7 jy~~ ~ ~ , r 4 . . . ~ ~.4 ~'r
yp }IA ~ . , ~
7 ~
~ 1 tl
: . R. ' . . .
Jl~~ ~ ~ 1 •ft'~.N- I~
L - • ~j
F ? .~Y $ +r N' ..'a y a t , , ~ ~ ,y,' . . ~ '
. .
l~
k •,e;:. .
dt~,
„
. .
•
r , . : : . ~ . .
w
~ * ~ "F G: ~ ~v *e ~ i , ,~n • T
. ~ {w
d
~ Y '"x x s t
6 ~
. . .e ~
• _ ` { ~ ~ -y-Y i
. P
u .RTf'
: 'C ' d 1+ i . J 'K °9^&~ . ! ~ Y ~'.k~,yfq
i~ S'-n 24 w l1'6~' 2 4~a . ? Lh . F rw "V 1 ~ t 1
~ ry~j Y . 4 V 1 ~ J f t Y r 7
~ 4 a r 4 r. .5
f t ^
~h
~
6c h w e h 6 EXliilHG COHDITIOHS-HURTH fLfYAT1QN
A r c h 1 1 r t a s. g c 12.ld2042
,
.
~ MEnnoRaNounn '
TO: Planntng and Environmental Commission
FROhIi: Corr7munity DevelQpment Department
DATE: January 13, 2003
SUBJECT: Arequest for a eonditional use permit, pursiaant to Section 12-9C-3B, Vail j
Tovwrr Code, to allaw for a tourisUguest service re[ated facility accessory
ta a parking structure, and a reques# far a variance fram Title 11, Vail
Town Gade, to aliow for praposed sigrrage and setting forth details in
regard thereto, located at 181 W. Meac6aw DrivelLots E&F, Vail Vilfage 2d
Filing.
Ap,plicant: S#an Anderson, Uail Valley Medical Center
Represented by Braun and Associafes, Inc.
Planner: Bill Gibson
1. SUMMARY
~ The applicant, Stan Andersan, Vail ValEey Medical Cen#er (WMC), represented
by Bra;un and Assaciates, Inc., is requesting a Gonditional use permit to allow for
a tourist/guest service related facility accessory to a parking structure. Mare
specifically, the WMC is proposing to seil skiee/guest parking in their existing
parking structure ta the generai public an weekenefs during Vail's ski seasan.
Based upon Staffs review of the criteria in Section VIII of this memarandum and
the evidence and testimorry presented, the Communaty Development Department ~
recommends approval of this request subject to the fndirrgs ancE conditions noted
in Section lX af this memorandum.
The applicant is aiso requesting a Wariarace from the provisions of 11-4B-78-2,
Vail Town Code, to allow for the erection of signage for the skier/guest parking
exceeding the allowable sign area limits. Based upon StafFs review of the criteria
in Section VIII af this rriemorandum anci the evidence and testimony presented,
the Comrnunity Development Departmen# recommends approval of thes request
sub}ect #v the findings and contfitians noted in Sectian IX af #his rnemorandum.
II. DESCRtPTION OF REQllES7
The applicant is requesting a conditEanal use permit to allow for a tourist/guest
service rela#ed fiac`rlity accessory ta a parking structure. Niare specificakay, the
V1/MC is proposing to prouicie short-term skierlguest parking to the general
public on weekends during Vail's ski seasan. The applicant is requesting ta sell
~ up to 100 exis#ing parking spaces daily in the WMC parking structure for
skierlguest parking an Saturdays artd Sundays. Sales of these parking spaces
wilf be eonducted at the South Frontage Road entrance to the WMG parking
structure. The applicant has indicated that this en#rance wisl be staffed and
1
4 business #ransactions will be conducted between the hours of 8_00 a.m. and ~
Noon on Saturdays and Sundays.
The applicant has indicated that 30 percent of the WMC campus is composed of
tenant businesses that do not operate on weekends and that surgical procedures
and other treatment units at the WMC have reduced staffing on weekends.
Based upan these decreased staff and patient parking demands, the applicant
has indicated that there is usually a surplus of 107 to 137 par9cing spaces at the
WMC parking structure on weelcends. Therefore, the applicant believes #hat 100
parking spaces can be sold on vveekends to the public fQr skierfguest parking
without any negative impacts to the demand for patient and staff parking for the
WMC. A copy of the applicant's reques# has bEen attached for reference (see
Attachmen# C).
The applicant is also requesting a variance frflm the prpvisions of 11-413-7B-2,
Vail Town Code, to allpw for the erection of signage for the skier/guest parking
exceeding the allowable sign area limits. The 1NI1nC parking s#ructure business
frontage is approximately 65 fee# alang the South Frontage Road. Based upon
this business frantage, the applicant is permitted to erect a maximum of 13
square fee# of signage pursuant to Section 11-4B-7B-2, Vael Town Code. The
applicant is propasing to erect a temporary 20 square foot freestanding sign
mounted within the South Frantage Raad right-of-vvay (see Attachment E). The
applicant will be required to enter into a license agreement vFrith the Town of Vail
for the teorporary use of the right-of-way. ~
The applicant originally proposed to erect a sandwhich board styfe sign;
however, Section 11-5-2G, Vail Town Code, prahibits signs not affixed or
attached to the ground or any structure. Therefore the applECant has agreed to
erect a freestanding sign affixed to the ground anly during the permitted business
transaction hours for the skierlguest parking. All signs associated with this
conditionaE use permit shall be subject to Town of Vail desFgn review.
Ili. BACKGROUNd
On December 22, 1997 the Town of Vail Planning and Environmental
Commissian approved a conditianal use permit to allow skier/guest parking on
weekends and holidays in the Vail Vallsy Medical Genter parking structure. This
candjtional use permit approval has since expired.
The applicant's current signage proposal is scheduled for review by tne Town of
Vail Design Review Board at its January 15, 2002 pukalic hearing.
IV. ROLES {7F REVIEWING BC)DIES
Qrder of Rewiew; Generally, applications will be reviewed first by the
Planning and Enuironmental Cornmissimn for accepfability of use and khen by the ~
aesigrr Review Board for compliance of proposed buildings and site planning.
2
i
,
~ Planning and Envirortmental Gommissian:
Aciian: The Planning and Environrraental Comm'rss'ron is responsible for final
appravalldenialfapprorral with canditions of conditional use permits and
variances.
The Planning and Envirvnmental Commission is responsible for
evaluating a proposal for:
1. Relationship and impact of the use on devefopmen# objectives of the
Town.
2. Effect of the use on light and air, distribution at popufation,
transpcrrtatian facilitEes, utilifies, schaols, parks and recreation facilities,
and other public facilities and public facilities needs.
3. Effect upon tra#fic, with particular reference ta congestion, automati+re ~
and pedestrian safety and convenience, #raffic flaw 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, incfuding the scale and bufk o# #he proposed use in relation to
sUrrounding uses.
~ 5. Such other factors and criteria as the Cammission deems applicable to
the praposed 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 ccaverage
Landscape area
Parking and IoadEng
Mitigation of development impacts
Design Review Board:
Action: The Design Review Board has NO review authority on a conditional use
permit or variance, but rnusf review any accompanying Design Review Board
application.
~
3
Town Gouncii: ~
Actions of Design Review Board ar Planning and Environmental Commission
may be appealed to the Town Council or by the Town Council. Tawn Council
evaluates whether or not the Plannirag and Enviranmental Commissian or Design
Review Board erred with approvafs or denials and can uphold, uphold with
mor#ifications, or overturn the board's ciecision.
Staff.
The staff is responsible for ensuring that all submittal requirernents are provided
and plans conform to the techraical requirements of the Zoning Regulations, The
staff aIso atlVises the applicant as to campliance wiih the design guidelines.
Staff provides a staff inemarandum containing background on the property and
provides a staff evaluation of the praject with respect to the required criteria and
findings, and a recommendation on approval, approval with condi#ions, or denial.
Staff also facilitates the review process. i
I
V. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOGUNfIEN7S
Staff believes tha# the following provisions of the Vail Touvn Code and 7vwn of
Vail Camprehensive Plan are relevant to the review of this praposal:
TITLE 11: SIGNS ~
Article 11-4'8: All Districts Except CC3 and ABD
91-48-1: Scope
This Articfe concerns fhase types of permanenf and temporary signs requirrng a
5Pg17 applicatAOn permit unrier the provisions of this Tit{e. This Article further
includes the purpose of each sign fype, size, heighf, number, location, design
and land'scaping requr'remenfs, and special prouisions for each type of sign. 7he
faRowing provrsions Qf this Articfe are the sign regulations fvr a!I signs except
those signs located in the CC3 and the A8D Zaning Districts.
9 9-4S-7B: Single Business Use: Freestanding sings, single-business Use shall
be regulafed as follows:
8. Singfe-Business Use: Freesfanding signs, sir?gle-busrness use sha!l be
regulafed as follows:
1. F'urpase: Ta idenirfy a business or organizatfon being the sole business
occupanf within a building. The identrficafion sfgn ar srgns far a busrness ar
orgarrization may include the name af the business or organfzation and the
general nature of the busrness conducted wrthrn or u,pon the premrses. !n no
instance, hawever, shall the totaf poriion of the srgn describirrg the general nature
af the busrness exceed forty pereerrt (40%) of the total area of eaeh sign ~
permttted for this purpose. The descrrpfiorr of the generaJ nafure of the busr'ness
shaN ,be incorporated inta the srgn or sign identifying the name of the business
and should not exist as a ssparate sign;
4
~
2. Size: One square foot for each five (5) franf lrneaf feef of building with a
maximum area of twenty (20) square feet, wvifh a horizontal dimension no greater
than ten feet (70'). The size of a multr-paneled sign sha!l be determined by
dividing fhe maximum size allowable by the num6er of panels. Combined
maximum area for more than one sign shalf not exceed fwenty (20) square feet.
3. Herght: NQ part of the srgn shalf extend above erght feet (8') aboue existrng
grade.
4, Number: One sign per vehicular sfreet or major pedestrianway which the
busrness abuts, as defermrned by the Administratar, with a maximum of two (2)
signs, subject fo design reuiew.
5. Locafion: dn the ground's of the burJding and adjacenf fo major ped'estrranway
which the burlding abuts, subJecf ta d'esign review.
6. Desrgn: Subjecf to design review.
7. Lighfirag: lndirect or pan-ehanneled.
8. Landscaping: Landscaping shall be as follows:
~ a. A landscaped area of fwo (2) square feet for eaeh square faoi` of each
side of fhe sign and supporting structure shalf be required at the base of
fhe sign, with a minimum area to be landscaped of twenty four (24)
square feef in accordance with fhe dssign guidelines of fhe Zonr`ng Code.
b, A!1 lanclscaped areas shal! ,be maintained to Town standards as
determrned by the Adminisfrator, subject fo design review.
c. A plan showing the landscaping must be subrnrtfed ,by the applieant at
the fime of the applicatian.
9. ,Specia! Provrsians: Jne walf or projecfing or hanging srgn per street or major
,pedestrianway permifted in place of orte freestanding sr`gn.
Chapter 11-5: Exemp#ed and Prohibited Signs
1 1-5-2: Prohibited Signs
The followrng srgns shall not be permrtted, erecfed ar maintained rn fhe town:
G. Sigrrs nvt permarrently affrxed or attached to the ground or to any structure
excepf for window sigrrs and temparary barriers utilrzed for emergency purposes.
~
5
Chapter 7: Variances ~
11-7-1: Purpose; LimitatiQns:
A. Considerations: In order to prevent or to lessen such practrcal difficulfies and
unnecessary ,physical hardships incorrsrstent wifh the objectives af this Tifle,
variance from the regulafrons may be grarated. A practreal diffrculty or
urrnecessary physieaf hardship rrTay resuJf from the size, shape, or dimensions of
a structure, or the location of the structure, from tapographic or physical
conditrorrs on the site or !n the immediate vicinity, or frorrr other physical
limitatiorrs, street Jocatians, or traffic conditions in fhe immedrafe vicinrfy. Cast ar
inconvenience to the applicant rf strict or literal complrance wifia a regufation
shall not be a reason iargrantrrag a varianee,
B. Scope: A varrance may be granted with respect to any regulatian contained in
this 7 itle.
91-7-5: Crfferra forApproval:
Before the Planning and Environmental Commr"ssion acts on a variance
applicafian from this TitJe, the ap,pdicant musf prQVe physical hardship, and the
Pfannrng and Envrronrnenfa! Commissr"on must find that.
A. Speeial Circumstances Exist: Tiaer@ are special circum5tances or ~
condrtrons applyfrrg to the land, budldings, to,pagraphy, vegetation, sign
structures or ofher matfers on adjacent lots or wifhin the adjacerrt right of
way, vvhich vvould substantially restrict the efiectiveness of the sign in
quesfian: pravided, however, that such special circumstances or
conditrcrns ar'e unique to the particufar busrness or enferprise to which the
applicant desires to draw attention, arrd do not apPlY gerrera!!y to all
businesses ar enterprises.
B. Applrcant Not Resporasible: That such specral circumstances were not
' created by the applicant.
C. Harmony Mainfained: That the granting of the variance will be in
general harmony wrth the purposes af this Tit1e, and will rrat ,be materrafly
detrirnental to the persons residing or workr`ng in the vrcinity, to adjaeent
praperty, to the nerghborhoad, or to the public welfare r`n general.
D. In Line 4h!rth Pravrsrons: The varianee ap,plied far does nat deparf frarn
the pravrsinns af this Tr"tle any more fhan is required to identdfy the
applicant's business or use.
E. Other Facfors: Such ather factflrs and criteria as the Planning and
Envrronmental Gommissron deems applicable to tfre proposed variance.
~
6
TITLE 12: ZOMNG REGULATlONS
Article 12-9C: General Use (GU) District
12-9C-1: I°urpta5e:
The general use district is intended fo provide sites for puEalic antf quasi-
publrc uses which, because of their special characterrstics, cannat be
appropriately regulated by the development standards prescribed for
other zoning distrrcfs, and far which development stand'ards especially
prescribed far each particular development proposal or project are
necessary to achieve the purposes prescrrbed in SeCtfOR 72-1-2 of fhis
tifle and to pravide for the pu6lie weffare. 7he general use disfrict is
intend'ed to ensure fhaf public buildings ar+d grounds and certain fypes of
quasi-public uses permitted in the district are appropriately located and i
desrgned to meet fhe needs af residenfs and visitors to Vail, fa harmonrze
with surrounding uses, and, in the case Qf buildings and ofher sfructures,
tQ erisure adequate lighf, air, opert spaces, and other amenities
appropriate to the ,permiffed types Qf uses.
12-9C-3: COIVDITIOIVAL USES:
B. Proximity To Parking Required. The following conditional uses sFaal! 6e
~ permitted r`n accorcfance wifh fhe issuance Qf a conditional use permit, provided
such use is accessory ta a parking strucfure:
Ofilces. I
Restaurants.
Skr and bike storage facilitles.
Sundrres shops_
Touristlguesf service relafed facilities.
Transit'shuttle services:
Chapter 12-16; Conditional Use Perrnits
12-1 6-1: Purpose; Lrmitafions:
fn order to providc the flexibrlrty necessary to achieue the objectives of this tit1E,
specified uses are permifted rn cerfafn districts subject ta the grantr"ng of a
conditional use permit. Because of their urrusual or special characferrstres,
conditional uses require rEView so that they may be located properly wifh respecf
to the purposes of this title and with respecf to therr effects on surrounding
properties. The review process ,prescribecf ln this cha,pter rs intended to assure
campatibilrty and harmaniQUS developmerat befween conditional uses and
srrrrounding properties in the Town at large. Uses listed as conditional uses in
the various districts may be permitted su6ject to such conditions and limitatians
as the Town may prescribe to insure t,hat the (ocation and operatr"an of fhe
conditional uses wil! 6e in accardance vwrth the development obJectrves of the
~ Town ancf wifl not be defrrmental to Qther uses ar ,propertres. Where conditrons
cannot be devised to aehieve these objecfives, applications far canditional use
perrnits shall be denled.
7
12-76-5: Planning and Envrronmental Commission Acfron: ~
A. Passible Range Uf Aetron: Withrn thrrty (30) days of the application for a
public hearing on a conditrorral use permrt, the planraing and environmental
commission sha!l act an the applicatlon. The commission may apprave the
application as submitted or may approve fhe applrcation subfect to such
modifrcatlons or conditions as rt deerns necessary to accomplish fhe
purpases of thls title, or the commrssicn rnay deny the application. A
conditional use permft may be revocable, may be granfed for a limited tirrre
period, or rrray be granted subjecf to such other conditions as the
commission may prescribe. Conditions may include, buf shall nof 6e Iimited
to, requirrng speer'aI setbacks, apen spaces, fences or walls, Iandscaping or
screening, and street dedication and rrraprovemenf,' regulation of vehicular
access and parking, signs, i!lumination, and hours and methods af
operatron; contreal of potenfial nuisances; ,prescription of stand'arafs for
maintenance of buildirrgs and grounds,• and prescription of development
scherlules.
T01NN OF VAIL LAND IJSE PLAN
Chapter 1!: Land Use Plan Goals?Polic?es:
2.7 The comrnunify should emphasize its role as a destination resar#
whrle accomrnodating day vlsitors. ~
2.3 The ski area owner, the business coRamunify, and the Town
Ieaders shauJd wark together to improve faeifities for day skiers.
2.8 Day skier needs for parking and access should be accammodated
through creative solutions sueh as:
a) lncrease busrng from ouf of town.
b,1 Expanded par"nts of access to the mounfain by
ad'ding additional base parfals.
c) Corrfr"nurng to pro?rrde tem,aorary surface parking
d} Additrorr of siructured parkrng.
6.3 Services should be ad1usted ta keep ,pace wrth the needs of peak
perfocls.
Vl. SITE ANALYSIS
Zoning: General Use (GU) [7istrict
Land Use Plan Designation: Transition Area
Currerrt Land Use: Medical Center
Develapment S#andard AllowedlReau+red Prapased
Parking: 330 spaces 230 spaces on weekends ~
8
~ VII, SURROUNDING LAND USES ANa ZONING
Land Use Zoninq
Nor#h: Ho#el SDD #14
South: Residential Two-Famiiy Residential
East: CommerciallResidential SDD #23/High Density MuItiple Family
West. Open 5pace Natural Area Preservation
VIII. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
The review criteria for a reyuest of this nature are established by the Town Code.
The proposed touris#Iguest SeNIGe rela#ed facility accessory ta a parking
s#ructure is laca#ed within the General Use (GU) District. Therefore, this proposal
is subject to the issuarrce of a conditional use permit in accordance with the
provisions of Chapter 12-16, Vail Town Cade.
A. Gonsideration of Factors Reqarding Conditional use Permits:
i. Retationship and impact of the use on the developmen#
objectives of the Town.
This type of proposed use is permitted as a conditional use in the
~ General Use (GU) Distrtct. Staff believes that #his proposal is
consistent with thE purpose of the Gerreral Use (GU) District and the
goals of the Town of Vai! Land Use Plan referenced in Section V of
this rnemorandum.
2. The effect of fhe use crn light and air, clis#ributian of population,
transportation facilities, utilities, schools, par3cs and recreation
facilities, and other public facilities needs.
Staff believes that this proposaf will have a positive impact an the
above mentioned iterns, since this propasal will reduce demand on
public parking facilities during peak weekend hours. This propasaf
may increase the level of bus ridership at the 1NMC bus stops, but
staff does not believe t'hat this will create negati+re impact on bus
service capacities.
3. Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion,
autamotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic ftow
~ and control, access, rtianeuverability, and removal of snow frorn
the street and parising areas.
Sfaff believes that this praposal will have a positive affect on the
above mentioned items. This proposal will reduce the amount of
averflow skierlguest parking currently accomrriodated along the South
Frontage Road. Reducing overFlow parking on fhe South Frontage
~ Road wi11 reduce traffic congestion and improve automotive and
pedestrian safeky. Staff is reeommerrding that the Planreing and
Environmental Gommission grant the Town of Vail Director of Public
9
Warks the authority to revoke the appraval of this propasal shou9d the ~
Directar of Public Works de#ermine that the aperatian of this praposal
creates any negative impacts or unsafe conditians related to the
above mentioned items.
4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use
is to be located, including the scale and balk of the prapQSed use
in relation #o surrounding uses.
The applicant is not proposing to make any physical changes to the
existing parking structure and the operation of this use will be
temporary in nature and all sigraage shall be subject to Town of Vail
design review. Therefore, staff does not believe that this proposaf will
have any negative affects of the above mentioned items in
cnmparison #o existing conditions on the site.
B. The Pfanning and Enviranmental Cornrnission shall make the follov+rinq
fndings before qranting a conditional_use permit:
1. Tha# the praposed locatian of the use is in accordance with the
purposes of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code
and the purposes of the Genera{ Use (GU) Qistrict.
2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under ~
whieh it wiil be operated or maintained vvill no# be detrimental to
the pubEic health, safety, pr welfare or materiafly injurious to
properties or improverrients in the vicinity.
3. That the proposed use will corrrply with each of the applicable
provisions of the conditional use perrnit section of the zoning
regulations.
C. Consideration of Factors Reqardinq a Siqn Variance:
'I. Special Circumstances_ Exis#; There are special
circumstances or conditions applying to the land, buifdings,
tapography, vegetation, sign structures or vther matters on
adjacent Ivts or within the adjacent right-af-way, which would
substantially restric# #he effec#iweness of the sign in question,
pravided, however, that such special circumstances or
conditions are unique to the particular business or enterprise
ta which the applicant desires to draw attention, and do not
apply generatly to ail bus€nesses or enterprisss.
Sfaff believes that the property line configurations, building
IocatMOns, topography, and uegetation are unique and cQnsidered
special eircumstarrces that significantly restrict the effects of
signage an this site. Staff befieves tnat a 20 square foot sign is ~
appropriate to prbperly identify the location of this temporary
skierlguest parking use given the existing site conditions and
unique nature of the use.
10
~ 2. Applicant Not Respflnsibfe: That such special circumstances
were not created by the applicant or anyone in privy to the
applicant.
Staff does not befieve that these special circumstances on this site
were not created by the applicant or anyone in privy ta the
applicant.
3. Harmany Maintained: That granting of the Variance wilM be in
general harrnony with the purpose of the sign cade, and will
nat be materially detrimental to the persans residing or
working in the vicanity, to adjaeent property, to the
neighborhaod, or to the public weffare in general.
Staff daes not believe the approval of this varianee request would
be materiafly detrimental to the persons residing or +rvorking in the
vicinity, to adjacent property, to the neighborhood, or to the public
welfare in general.
4. In Line With Provisions: The variance applied for daes nat
depart from the provisions of this 7itle any more than is
required to identify the applicant's business or use.
~ Pursuant ta Sectian 11-413-7, Vail Town Code, the maximum
allawable s'sze of a freestanding sign for this business is 13 square
feet. The applicant is proRosing ta erect a freestanding sign 20
square feet in size, which is the rnaximum size perrnitied for any
freestanding sign. Staff believes that #his proposed sign size is
appropriate given the existing conditions of the site and the
temporary nature of the sign.
5. Qther Factors: Such other factors and criteria as fhe Planning
and Enviranmentai Carnmission deems applicable to the
propased variance.
D. The PEannin4 and Environmen#al Corncraission sFtall nnake the following.
findin s befare rantin a si n variance:
1. Special Circumstances Exist: There are special circumstances ar
conditians applying to the land, buildings, topography, vegeta#ion,
sign structures ar ofher matters on atijacent lots or uvithin the
adjacent right of way, which wauld substantially restrict the
effectiveness of the sign in question: provided, however, that such
special circumstances or canditions are unique to the particular
business or enterprise to whECh the applicanf desires ta draw
a#tention, and do nat apply generally to all businesses or
enterprises.
~ 2. Applicant Not Responsikale: That such special cireurrastances were
not created by the applicant.
1!
3. Harmany fVlaintained: That the granting of the variance will be in ~
generaV harmony with the purpases of this Tiife, and will not be
materially detrimental to the persans residing or working in the
Wicinity, to adjacent property, to the neighborhood, mr to the public
welfare in general.
4. In Line With Pravisions: The variance applied for dQes not depart
frorn the provisions of this Title any rnore than is required to
identi#y the applicant's business or use.
5. Other Factors: Such other factars and criteria as the Planning and
Environmental Commission deems applicable ta the proposed
variance.
IX. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The Community Development Department recommends appraval of a
conditionai use permit, allovu far a touristlguest service related facility accessory
to a parking structure, lacated at 181 W. Meadow Drive/La#s E&F, Vail Village 2nd
Filing. Staffs recommendatican is based upon the review of the criteria in Section
VIII of this memarandum and the evidence and testimQny presented, subjec# to
the folfowing findings;
1. That the proposed lacation c+f the use is in accardance wifh the ~
purposes of the conditional use perrrait secfion of the zoning code and
fhe purposes of the General Use (GU) district.
2. That the propvsed Iocat6on of the use and the conditions under which
it will be operated or maintained wilC not be detrimental to the public
health, safety, ar welfare or materially injuriaus ta properties or
improvements in the vicinity.
3. That the proposed use will comply with each of the appficable
provisions of the conditional use permit section of the zoning
regulations.
Should the Planning and Envirflnmental Commission choose to approve this
conditional use permit request, the Community Development Department
recommends the following conditians:
1. The applicant is permitted to provide up to 100 existing parking spaces
in the Vail Val1ey Medical Center parking structure far short-term pubfic
skier/guest paricing on Saturdays and Sundays fram November 1 to
April 30 annually. All business transactions associated with praWiding
this skierlguest parking shaall be fimited in duratian from 8,00 a.m. ta
fVflQn daily on Saturdays and Sundays frorn Navernber 1 to April 30
annually. During the operateon of business transactions far this public
skierlgues# parking, the applicant shail keep the parking structure
entrance gate open and staff the entrance to prevent traffic congestion ~
an the South Frontage Road.
12
I ~
2. The applicant shall operate all business transactions for this public
skierlguest parking at the Vail Valley Medicaf Center parking structure
entrance located on South Frontage Road. The applicant shall not
operate any business transactions for this public skierlguest parkang at
the Vail Valley Medical CEnter entrance on West Meadow Drive.
3. Prior to providing any pubic skierlguest parking, the applicant shall
erect adequate signage internal to the parking structure to direct
pedestrians from the parking areas to the Town of Vail In-Tawn Shuttle
bus staps.
4_ The applicant shall receive Tawn of Vail design re+riew approval priar
to the erection of any signage related to this conditiona{ use permit.
5. The Town of Vaii Qirector of Pubfic Works may revoke this conditional
use permit by written notice should the Director determine that any
activity permitted by this conditional use permat negatively affects traffic
with particular reference fa congestion, automotive and pedestrian
safety and canvenience, traffic flow and contral, access,
maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and parking
areas,
• fi. This conditianal use permit shalf expire orr Apri1 30, 2006,
The Gornmunity Development Department recarnrnends approval of a sign
variance fram Title 11, Vail Town Code, to allow for prapased signage and
setting forth details in regard thereto, located at 181 W. Meadow Drive/Lots E&F,
Vail Viliage 2"d filing. 5taffs recommendatian is based upon the review of the
criteria in Section Vtli of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony
presented, subject to the following fndings:
1. Special Carcumstances Exist: There are special circumstances or
conditions app9ying tQ the land, buildings, topography, vegetation,
_ sign structures or other matters on adjacent lofs ar within the
. adjacent right of way, which would subs#antially restrict the
effectiveness of the sign in question: provided, hawever, that such
special crrcumstanees or conditions are uniquc to the partieular
business ar enterprise to which the applicant desires to draw
attention, and do not appPy generally to a!I busirresses or
enterprises.
2 Applicant Not Responsible: That such special circumstances were
not created by the applican#.
3. Warmony Maintained; That the granting of the variance will be in
general harrnony with the purposes of this Title, and will not be
materially detrimental to the persons residing or working in the
~ vieinity, to adjacent properky, to the neighborhood, or ta the public
welfare in general.
I 13 ~
4. In Line With Provisians: The variartce applied for does not deparf ~
from the provisions af this Title any more than is required to
identify the applicant`s business or use.
5. Other Facte,rs: Such other factars and eriteria as the Planning and
Environmental Commission dee€ns applicable to the propased
variance.
Shouid the Flanning and Environmental Commission chaose to apprflve this sign
wariance request, the Gommunity Development Deparfinent recommends ths
following condifion:
1. The applicant shall receive Tvwn of Vail design review approval prior
to the erection of any signage.
X. ATTr4CHMENTS
A. Vicinity Map
B. Pubfic Hearing Natice
C. Applicant's Statement
D. Parking Structure Plans
E. Signage Plans
~
i
~
14
Attachment: A
- ~j~ j ' ~ `~Yt-
~ ~ J'
! t~° ` ~ M""~ yq . ` . +ocl § ,F~ r ~ ~ ~eg'~.' ~~6 # ,f r ~ a
yr ~ d ~ ~ y" ~ < ~
w;.- J . . i ~ , ~ , y~p~`~•.,.a,,,1
~
,.r ^ " l•"~ , % ~ ~a.yB~ ~ .~`5~ ~ ~ w ~r s
.a.4 i
e~.
a ~ ' ?~~s . ~~,.~r B(~~.e~.~~~~~~~
~ ` 9 n N?' ~ 3'irs9 ~~>g 1J ~i
. •
~m
Y - ' . ^ . . . . . ~
~ ~
~
- • , ~ ~ r'
zl~
, ~ :
~ . ,
~ ~ ~g i~-'' ~ ~~'~s( F ~+°d~ ~ ''4~" ~
. ' . ~ ~ . . :i
,
i.. J
,
. ¦ ~
~a* j . ~ i~'^ . . ~ f. T . ~ a~s - °4°"'
Y.-
~
p I G' _ ~ .~~a .
c Mt+;~- y~ `m'' °,t'~„ . . ; I • ,y ~q,: ~~.`n,b
~",y~2' = ti• t-
~
~4-, ~ ~ b ~T• . ~~c~. ~ r ~st r~ '
~°~.i^r 4--. - ~4 rw..: 3 . q` . ~ ,y , ~ p
~
'd~
e..
~~X
~P ~
~ ~'~`,~~~t Pw,
. . ~a . 3,.. .
' i
. .q~ ~ .
d"~a,~, • p, ~;y . saf„+'~~ . ~ E,y ~ . !FY.- ~ ~ : ~ . .
a~ s~ ~ ~ ' . 'rd" d .~i ~ ' •2~ ,~5 -~,3` '~'S ~ ~~9
~ ^.by.~k' , d -k Y § R :
G
~ ~
4~„
~4i, ~ ~ ~ ~`m ak'uv,
g ' 1 w § ~Te .
P • : , 1~ ~ ^ .e~b 9
' >
~
K+ ®lx
~
~
Y~ti~•vw, * ~ rti Sl L ,~t ii`~q~. ? II
I',; ~.:•."X 5 ~ ~ _ ...3' 'k, ~ , ~ ~ da .
aKt
_ . ' ~ . ^r = y. ~ ~
~ IF ~ _ # ~ } ` k ~3?? ~
•
u'
t~
. v
e
Attachment: B
VIlestStar Bank ~
108 S Frontage Rd W
Vail CO 81657
The Evergreen Ladge
250 S Frontage Rd
Vail CO 81657
Clib B& Mary Ann Hurlt
272 W Meadow Drive
Vail CO 81657
C}tto Weist i
C/O Brandes-Cadmus
2$1 8ridge Street
Vail CO $1657
Ronaid & Krisfiine Erickson
5123 Lake Ridge Rd
Minneapolis MN 55436
Mr, Ross Davis Jr.
108 S Frontage Rd W
#3Q7
Vail CO $1557
Neil G& Barbara S Bluhm
900 S Michigan Avenue
Suite 1900
Chieago IL 60511 James U King ]r.
C/0 KrQSS Petroleum Inc
900 Threadneedfe
Suite 650
Houston TX 77079
Mr. Irving J& Mrs. Carol J Schwayder
5910 HapPy Canyon Dr
Englewood CO 80110
H F Kepner ~
5161 Juniper
Littfeton CO 80123
~ Mr. Benjamin Duke
5550 S Steele Street
Littleton Cn 80121
Morgan & Catherine Douglas
142 1N Meadaw Drive .
Vai[ CO 81657
Ms Joan Norris
Skaalnus Condominium AssQCiation
141 W Meadow Qrive #Z
Vaii Cfl $1657
Mr. Dick Eddy
152 West Meadow arive
Vail Ct7 81657
Clib B& Mary Ann Hurlt
272 W Meadow Dr
Vail C0 81657 .
~
~
TH1S 17EM MAY AFFECT YC7UR PRC?PERTY PUBLIG NOTICE
IVOTIGE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Enviranmenta[ Commissian of the Town of
Vail will hold a public hearing in accardance with Section 12-3-6 of #he Municipal Cocle af the ~
Town of Vail on January 13, 2003, at 2:00 P.M. in the Tawn of Vail Munieipal Building. In i
consideration of:
A request for a recnrnmendation to the Vail Tawn Council of apraposed tex# amendment to
Section 12-10-9: Loading Standards, Vail Town Code, to amend thie size requirement for
laading berths & setting farth details in regard thereto.
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: Allison Qchs
A reques# far a concfitional use permit, pursuant to Section 12-6C-3, Vail Tawn Code, to aClow
.for a Type 11 Ernployee Hausing Unit and a rec{ues# for a variance from Section 12-6C-6
(SetbaCks), Vail Town Code, to allow for add'stions in khe side setbacks, located at 1193 Cabin
CirclelLat A, Block 2, Vail 11a1[ey 8'h Filing.
Applicaft David & Renie Gorsuch, represented by Resort Design Associates, Inc.
Planner: Bill Gibson
A request far a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 12-9C-3B, Vail Town Code, to allow
fdr a tvurist/guest service eelated facility accessory to a parking structure, and a request for a
wariance from Title 11„ Vail 7own Cade, to aflow for proposed signage and settirag forth details
in regard thereto, laeated at 181 W. PVleadow DrivelLots E&F, Vail Village 2n° filing.
Applicant: Stan Anderson ~
P1anner: BiEI Gibson
A request far a recornmendation to the Ifail Town Counci6 for a majar amendment to Specia6
' DeWelopment district No. 36, pursuant to Section 12-9A-10, Vail Town Code, to allaw for a,
mixed-use hotel; a request for a final review of a Conditionat use permit, pursuant to Section 12-
7A-3, Vail Town Code, to allow for Type II[ Emplayee Housing Units and a fractional fee elub;
and a request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council far a praposed rezoning of Lat
9A, Vail Village 2"d Filing from Heavy 5ervice (HS) District to Public Accornmodation (PA)
Distr9ct, located at 28 S. Frontage Rd. and 13 Vail RoadlLots9A& 9C, Vaii Village 2"'d Filing.
AppliGant: Nicollei {sland Development Company Inc.
Planner: George RutherlAllison dchs
A request for a variance from Section 12-7A-9, (Site Gorrerage) and a request for a proposed
minar exterior alteration, pursuant to Sectian 12-7A-12, Vail Town Code, to allow for a
residentiai additian, located at 292 East Meadow Drive/A ,part af Tract B, Vaif Village First Fiiing.
Applicant: Mountain Haus Homeowner's Association, represented kay K.H. Webb Architects
Planner: Bill Gibson
A request for a fnal review af a proposed major exterior altera#ion, pur$uant #o Section 12-7A-
12, Vail Town Code, ta ailow for a hotel redevelopment and addition; a request for a final feview
of a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 12-7A-3, Vail Town Code, to allow for a
fractional fee club; a recommendatian to #he Vail Tawn Council af a text amendrnent Section ~ I.~
~,1~
I
~ I
` Y+
? "14
T{)WN QF VAIL ~
1
- - ~
, 12-7A-3 (Conditional Uses), Vail Town CQde, 4a allQw for retail uses in a locfge in excess of 10°!0 -
of the #otal gross residential flaor area of the strcacture as a coneE'itional use, a request for a final
review of a variance from Section 12-7A-10 (Landscaping & Site Deveiopment), Vail Town
~ Code, to alfow for a deviatian from fhe total landscape area requirement, locatetf at 20 Vail
Raad, 62 E. Meadow Drive, and 82 E. Meadow DriveJLats K& L, Bloek 5E, Vail Village 1"
Filing.
Applicant: Sannenalp Properties, Inc., represented by Braun Associates, Inc..
Planner: George RutherllNarren Campbell
The appEications and infarrnation abaut the propasals are aWailabie far public inspection during
regular office hours in the project planner's office, located at the Tawn af Vail Gornmunity
Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is Envited to attend project orientation
and #he site visits that precede the public hearing in the Town of Vail Cammuni#y Developrr3ent
Department. Please caH 479-213$ for irtformation.
Sign Ianguage interpretation available upon request with 24-hour notification. Please cael 479-
2356, Telephone for the Nearing Impaired, for information.
Community Development Department
Published Dec€:mber 27, 2002 in the Uail Daily.
~
. ~
~
;
~
•
2
Attachment: C
PROPOSED SIGiV USAGE FOR SUPPLEMENTAL FARKING OPERATIONS, VVIWIC. ~
The operations and logistics far the prapased skier parking operatians are the same as the 1947 Conciitiona]
Use Permit.
The Vail valley Medical Center currently has a parking structure that has 219 spaces, most of which are not
used on the weekends. VVMC wauid request that i[ be authorized to sell up ta ] 04 parking spaccs to the
general public qra Saturdays anci Sundays during the ski season. This resource can greatly benefit the Town
of Vail and skier population by reducing the number of cars that park on the South Frontage Raad. Tn
addition, VVIvIC has close proximity ta the'Tvwn af Vail Bus stap located to the South of the parking
structure on West Meadow I7rive.
In order to advertise the availabiiity of parking, VVMC request the use 4f a sign (see attached) that is Iarge
enough to be seen by westbound traffic on the South Frontage Road. We baIieve the praposed sign
dimensians are adequate far this purpose. SIGNAGE CQLORS. VVMC is submitting a sign that has
some bright calors. W e believe these coIors cauld bc changed to any scheme as long as the sagn s's
large encrugh.
TIYe sigii wnuld be a"sandwicli Uoard " style sign that would be located oti the 5out11 end af the parlcing
s[ructure next at the control gate. Tlie hours of opera#ion would be frarn $AM until 1 1 AM. The position
wil] bc manned to operate the contro] gate and at I IAM, the sign wiil be removed. The automatic function
on the gate will allow guesd to exit.
A small pamphiet will be distributed to parking guesi that directs them to the bus stop and will have a
cantact phone number for assistance while parked at VVMG.
The effect of this program utilizes curretrt VVMC entrartce and exit routes and due to the temparary
location of the sign ihere will he no " area character change" for this location. ~
~
~ STATEMENT AND GENERAL USE DESCRIPTION ADDRESSING 1`HE
fiOLLOWING FACTQRS:
A. Describe the precise nature of the proposed use and measures proposed to make the
use cornpatible with other properties in the vicinity.
Vail Valley Medical Cenier is seeking a conditional use permit to sell to the general
public access to VVMC's parking structure. Use af the structure would be on
weekends only, when the hospital has an abundant number of unused parking spaces.
Selling 10{} spaces to the general public will sti11 allow• VVMC to meet patient and
emplayee parking demands. Gurrentiy, th.ere are 330 available parking spaces
camprised af 2(]7 inside the parking structure and 123 in the front parking lot.
Typical usage on weekends shaws approxirnately 40 vehicles parked in the front lot
and 70 inside the parking structure.
B. The relatiorYShip and impact af the use an development ahjectives of the Town.
Allowing the sale af existing parking spaces at Vail ValIey Medical Center is a
positive use of community resaurces tovvard its ongoing garking shortage.
~ C. 'Fhe effect of the use on iight and air, distribution of population; transpartation
facilities, utilities, schaols, parks and recreation facilities, and otlier pubiic facilities
azeeds.
Distribution an the visitor papulatian and reduction of overburden parking facilities
wauld be camplimentary to accessing the Town of Vail.
D. The effect upon traffie, with particular rcference ta congestion, autamotive and
pedestrian safety and cannivance, traff c flaw and control, access, maneuverability,
and removal of snow from the street and parking areas.
A reduction of overflow parking on the Frontage Roads is foreseen. Pedestrian safety
is complimented by use of tlze Town of Vail bus located on Meadow Drive.
E. The effect upon the charaeter of the area in which the proposed use is ta be located,
ijicluding the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding u5es.
By enabling Vail Valley Medical Center to utilize existing parking spaces to meet
public need is a positive use of community resaurces. This prflgram ixill relieve
eangestion on the South Frantage road and make access to recreational fac'rlities
easier for the guest.
~
01I99I2063 04:42 970-926-7576 BRAUN ASSDCIATES PAGE 62
JRN-69-R003 16:18 FRDM: T0t970 92G 7575 P.002
W 9
~
lc=1.tPs
'Chc uaitid parklng structurc for the V'vN,[rC campus at 181 W. Nlcadow DrRVe
contaim 207 parltiag npaces far employm4. Emplayees beiwean Monday and Fxidsy
geueraitly fill thm spaces. Hawever, on weekends, staffing a# #hc hospital dcerease..a
drsmn#icutly for a v$riety a£rcasoaa. About 30'/a of scta.ffiag at thc campus are
comprised of #coant units that :shat doivrt for the weekend. ,t4dditiana[ly, surgical
proecdures and other trcatment units b9ve a. runsidera.bly aocreaaed work3oad.
The botfiQm lane is that out of thQSe 207 spaces, betwc:en 70 anti 3.04 inay be uscd on
Saturdar and Sunciay ieaviag approximatcly 107-137 nriused sp$ecs.
. ~
i
,
W
;
~
'Your Gare Is Our Misslon"
181 West Meadow flr3vo - Sufte 100 ¦ Vail, Gclorado 81657 - 970-476-2461
Page l of 1
~ Bill Gi6sc?n - VVMC
From: "I7ominic Mauriello" <darninic cr braunassociates.conl>
To: °'Bill GiFrsan" <bgibsan@ci.vail.co.us>
Date: 01/0912003 9:25 AM
Subject: VV'MC
Actached is a graphic showing the prvposed sign location on [he aerial.
I will fax ycau a copy of the parkinb lot laxout. S'kier parking wilV occur on level 2 ancJ 3 up ta about space 104. Thas also
shows the lacatipn of the praposec3 sign.
Tile sign will be 20 sq. ft. or less in size but will look identical to the grapliic proposed. We think the sign neecis to show the
price S13 to same as Lionshead otherwise peop9e may pull in and then want ta leave and cause mare congestiaralconfusion.
The sign will be tempvrarily displayed from B:QO am to noon on Sat. and Sunday, a total of 8 hours a week.
I will fax you a ietter frain VVMC later today with the staffing Ievels.
Thanks.
Dominie F. Maurielfo, AICP
Braun Associates, Inc.
PO Box 2658
Edwards, CO 81632
~ Phone:970.92G.7575
Fax: 970.926,7576
Email: dominie cr braunassociates.com
~
@1/68/2003 22:28 970-926-7576 :YATES PAGE 02
Attachment: D
~
Vail Val3ey Medical Center
Parking Structure Level 3
5 4 3 2 1
6
7
8
23 --73 80
9
1a 24 72 59
zs 71 ss
12 26 70 57
~
13 27 69 . 56
_
~ 14 2$ 68 55
15 29 67 54 t
16 30 r 56 53
17 31 85 52
a 8 32 64
5i
19 3.3 63 50
20 3q. 62 49
21
35 61 46
22 47
46
~ LD
36 37 ~ 38 +r 39 ~I QO ~ 41 ~ 42 ~ 42 ~ 44 ~45
t II r
01l6812003 22:28 970-926-7576 BRAUN ASSOCTATES PAGE 03
r .
• `
f ~ !
Vai{ Valley Medicaa Center
Parking Structure Level 2
7'8 77 7s 75 74
79 93
BO 94 141 12$ .
81 95 140 127
82 96 739 125
~ 83 97 13$ 125
84 98 137 124
65 99 136 923
86 100 135 122
87 101 134 121
188 302 133 120
89 103 132 119
90 104 131 11 B
97 105 130 117
92 916
~ 115
1011 1117 ]a8 109 11(} 71a 112 113 11141
WAI
~ _ ~
~
010e8/2603 22;28 970-525-7576 BRAUN ASSOCFRTES PAGE 04
~ , .
• ~
Vail Valley+ Medical Center
~Parlcing Structure Level 1
147 146 145 144 143
I
14$
1 49
t 5[~ 164 207
151 161 206 193
152 162 205 192
153 163 204 191
154 154 243 190 ~
155 165 202 189
o • 165 201 188
167 200 187
199 186
769 198 185
iss 170 197 184
157
171 196 sS3
1S8 172 195 782
159 181
~
~
r
18Q ~
173 174 175 176 177 178 171
VAEL VALLFI .,iEDICAL CEhJ7ER
SEC(JNC3 FLOOR Pl..AtJ
r
Colprada NCouniiMedica! West
PCU 2
~
,
Administration Pharmacy
lnpatient Admissians & - '
Employee Health
Cardiapul
~
Central Rackies
C]B-GYN
~
PCU 1 Steadr!ian Hawkins Goinrado Mountain
Business 4fFices Medical Easf
ICU
~ r~
VAIL VA~.LEY hfaEDIGAL CENTER
-Ad
~ THIRD FLQQR °
Parking Garage
Surgical Suites
.
Steadman-Hawkins
CliniG
~
JAIL VALLEY MED1CAL CENTER -
FIRST FLQOR ~
~
F4mbulance
Garage Parking
Structure
Emergency Department Imaging
a La6 MRI ~ j~-
.
I Eagle Care Clinic
0
Admiss+ons
~
~
Vail Summd Orthopaedics & dbstetrics Special Purchasing
Sports Medicine Procedures
VAIL VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER- ~
BASEMENT PLAN
& LEVEL Cf Steadman-Nawkins
5ports Mediclne pARKING
Foundation ~ARAGE~
4 ' i....-.-...."""--"_'"__'........1
i i
r 1 r.~~'~.°~ i '
' ~-•Tf-•~ •
. ~ ~ l~
-7 ~
Drug Testing.
q ti
t
Food 8 Nvtrition
Services -
~
_--ryy ti................'....
: : ~tlaintenanea ~
~
Attachsnent: E
~
Vair Va1`ey Medical Center
Skier Parking Propasal
Sign Locativn
~
~
~ s slgn e~
Locatfdh
A,
' .;.e . . 1 i~'
En#rance
fO'
w,~ ng.
~ 11 a . . ~
eµ
+R
wQt ' .
~ - .
ate,
4 F. Ff
~
J~
°~aw,"sti+xw•u.. ~..A x ec~~
r . x roam
1~ _ ~;L-w!g~
, .r d
I
9
I
9
~
~ '
. ~ .
~
` -
IMUMRE C4RNER O
~ ^ ES .a ~ ~str~r7t~iN ~
{I'
30 UTILI'TY ' X
~ASEMENT ~ PA'I'MNALT 4
Dsl#a = 12'36'4 ~tp ~
R= 469.30' ~
7= 51.87' y'°a
~ L= 103.31' A
S85S{]'60'E CH= 103.10'
~,~qa`~
CB= 554'05j}~'E
EASEME; PER
. ~ y,~•"a 900K 09 AT
e'y 4` PA 327
b! ~~Q•~~y~s ~ ~ ' HADIED AREA)
~
~ . _ ~ _ • . ti. J ELECTRIC MANHC3LE ;
.4, RIM El.kV. = 8769J° I
Oc.TurvE oF iNsID€
stRucnURE gELOw i
~ ;
• _ . ` - ~ ,e ~
.
L .
3 - -
.
I f 13'1y ' t7T.~f' r
N10'18`47'E
AC PA[3 .
~ ~ to
RAMP - 4.43'
OVMN FOUND PIN & CAF
P.L.S. N0. 16827
2a
E;..ECiRBC MANHQLE
RIM ELEV. = 8155.9'
~ PARKING 4' VENT
~ STRV V 4 VRL
Lo
fR~A/^~~L77M~y/P • :h s'~ rF 82~ ~
'J 9J~N 'ti'ah~ Y •y,.M . `
ry 7 a.a' = Y'' J CO
~arsa.a" {a} PARKING SPACES ~7
SUBJECT TO AGREEMENT
__..r
BOOK 560, PAGE 322
kri
. , $7'~0 5
4 ~ o a.
Dl1TLINE
cv
ry • ~ ~ w
~ a
Ep,45EVMENT PER/+r ppp
70 h r$ ~L#~ ?.'~j, . UOO~1 ~J14, PAe'M1l7L L7457
Y
(h-taTCNED AREA) ~
r y
n U U i N79'41'73'1M - 15.Da' -
a.0" ~ • I
~
~l./'1 [-/~N{rAflrya _
)4 Y ~.:J Ry1M,
Jv 1d ~&~~T~ ~ ~ . :f I
~ ~~V lr'~• 4 /~E
:
J ED iG u Far (1) 110 11 ~1<1. uf,iiuA r~~ P J for Rb1. F ~,,FP, r.iF D 10 u
HIIICED AT Mf
I' AHOLF
IRDIi
f gAfyi[
S K-IER.
kIILI
:
PARKING
:220 l~'
^ r
i
I~ 'sll'd p
~ ~LIJL
¦
$12s00
1T ALU~~~IIIlUly6
~ CHAIII
KKf; fAVEH~R
MiMI
MAKE I1~ Pr'F 5161I iYPICAI f C&GM[ FIII61-1
PFTAIL (IfOi TO 5CALE)
SiGN sPEClfICarIoxs
A MAICE (I~ NOhJ UUMIIVJEa P;F fO1DIP16 A- 1 Iff ALUMII,11JId F~,CF5 WI1H HIIL F11,1I5H
FP~11E 516I] (UIIFA11-I1ED~
A 1' I",PJGIE IF,0I1 FRAME'~~ORK- 5I6I1 C011515T5 A RE[AUld 5CO1CHCAL YIIIYL ORAFHICS
OF TW0 FPJ%lvlE 1+,55EIZlIE5 5OL1EP 10GEIHER
5II?E bY 5IPE I HIIJOEP iOF M-f CHf,dl-,lEP 50TTOId
tr.~ar+rW~~crvxaEa~wre~x~~trrp~wreatt~a~qirr~~~~dntqkrcimymGa rtwa
~,r ~~n~ien~nr~~ t~~,a`~rr~ ~x
$ 0~1 •44 3• 624~l r F A Y 4' 0• a 4 3• b 28 8~' Vf V! Vl .°a ki A Vi S I G I I,COfu1 Qtiu wnh~a~~r~r~sx~ ro Murm~, r~w~a1i.earvq~rt
- xWmM~rrh.Pemam~~tu~mYrryin iW.4Q~
{ : 5rcita6in~ytrarrtrprrculm +.awnairuuropmum,Y~rndipcaire~~mAtN
~ - - qra~r~.m~nwcn«irtt,~~a~f~uqra~ewmrrmrr~m~mqru,lrcuaiaem
• trr~u~ ~a~a ~n ra aruwc o~ni pr~rrr~
. ~ f - - 4a ~rl~irlpK.iratrmuatrloyrep r~m
CIIFl6i: MlNlEY1,IEnICM fEIIfEI' SUlE:++ r'p° ~~ur~
I,7~{~yr I~y,.u~~l~ f aiGnii~a mr~v ~ie nafrl~ Ai arr~r r6~J~n}rrs ~ao rY mR iW w,e~iy d rcdqt~
4V~4~'}~InVIII~~~lTiJf~~i/U~,l~ df/lWfTY4ifl~ttll?ffi ll!~Il~IUIk~iMsl'.I~~~M1IIF.4~,liii4lJLLCln45ll'A1%[1
ra._ rNi hraNA." hi-,,.-ogh :w4:dinAn4Ho1n:tuh?LL~tGtWAakL PN:r:iA~:a
411M5.1`J Iti-7i VCAi?M T R1'7 100 M16fR 5t~F ""I•'"r -
nr~,.•r~~~~~r~,x,,••a I ^ Cll9lo~ue~.?'Yf'A4'r~i; ~~rr
P r,:.~,~t~uiG i~o. o,o c.7c r ~.:rF: ~F ~ n~ FiiF ii l,i.iF; ~ 1, .1 ~.0
~ 61 `5 ~ A~,•
~ a; J t S z~
S+- ~ gsf~ 4
~ ~,l„Z ~~,tl p
x>-
~
LA ~ r?~ Ll- ~ ~
~
LLI
AMW
CIC
~ c~? - _ F,~ _
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~t CJ
R~!
~
-0
U.1
~
W ~
`5
vt
CC_ J 13- ~ ~
+
"U-i
u-
CLS UA ~ ~ rsG ~5"~ I
Q
mom ~ ~ p t53
C4
~
~ i .
~
~
04
~
~
a ~
~
~n ~
a
xi ~
cl W ~ ~tyu~~~y~111
4y~ ~.~OrmmPrfas,aweor71~4
n~l ~"'i . ~G7i~rmlRp~dl~~Rif~aCa~i7fAaQC
,.r a ~ ~ nrr+r+-rtr :rc *aw~trtsr ~~t1~+ 7tsr.~
~ ri .e
GA
ci m
Cr1 ~ ~
U
Cr
>
ca ,b
~
~
0
' ~ r
~;~C~~ a Q °
FF
~ L~
~
~ ~
s°~~O
C? CJ r
~
~
~
~
~
C7 oa ~ 1 ~ne
~ 1 : " ~ ~
l~
~ f
/
~
i
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FRQM: Department af Community Development
DATE: January 13, 2003
SUBJECT: A request for a recommenda#ion to the Vail Town Cauncil for a major
arnendment to 5pecial Development District No. 36, pursuant to Sectian
12-9A-1 D, Vaif Town Code, to a11ow for a mixed-use hotel; a request for a
final review of a conditianal use permit, pursuant ta Section 12-7A-3, Vail
Town Code, to allaw for Type III Emplayee Housing Units and a frac#ianal
fee club; and a request for a recommendatian to the Vail Town Council for
a proposed rezoning of Lat 9A, Vail Village 2"" Fil'rng from Heavy Service
(HS) District to Public Accomrnodatian (PA) District, locatecf at 28 S.
Frontage Rd, and 13 Vail RoadlLots 9A& 9C, Vail Viilage 2"d Filing.
App[icant: Nicollet 6sland Development Company, Inc.
Planner: Allison Ochs
1. SUMMARY
I~ 7he applicant, Nicollet Island DevElopment Company, Inc. is requesting a
worksessian to present the praposal for a m9xed use hote[, located at 2$ S.
Frontage Rd. and 13 Vail Rd. 1 Lots 9A-9C, Vail Viflage 2"d Filing. As this is a
worksession, there is na staff recommendation at this time. The purpase of
today's worksession is to provicfe #he Planning and Environmental Cammission
with an introduction to the project; identrfy potentia] issues; discuss issues
identified by the Town af Vail staff; and provide direction t4 the appficant. At this
time, the applicant is pfoposing to return to the Planning and Environrnentai
Comrnission for a final review in March.
ll. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQIlEST
The applicant, Nicollet Island Development Company, Inc., has submitted an
applicatian to the Town of Vail for a major amendment ta Special Devebpment
District No. 36, to allow for a rraixed use hotel, for conditional use permits to aElow
for the construction of afractional fee club anci 42 Type III Employee Housing
Units; and for a rezoning af 28 S. FronQage Rd. I Lot 9A, Vail Viliage 2"d Fiiing
from Heavy Service to Public Accommodation. The request will facilitate the
construction of a Faur Seasons Resort, whicn includes 140 hotel rooms, tataling
appraximately 76,705 sq. ft., 20 cQndominiurns, totaling approximately 53,445 sq.
ft., 20 fractianal fee uroits, totaling approxima#ely 48,006, 42 emplayee hausing
uni#s, a restaurant and bar, I'rmited retail space, 9,387 square feet of conference
and rneeting space, and a spau`health cluub. The applicant's program analysis has
been attached (Attachment B) for reference.
~ The appficant is proposing is a deviatian from the maximum bui[ding height. The
maximum building laeight in the Public Accornmodation zane district is 48 ft. The ~
{
applicant is propasing a maximum height not to exceed the 2001 appraWal of
73.5 ft. However, the curren# plans indicate heigh#s up to 81 ff., and architectural
projections up to 94 ft. According to the applicant, alf other deuelopment
standards prescribed by the PubBic Accommadation zone district wili be met,
induding density, grass re5ideratial ffoor area, site coverage, landscaping and s'[te
development, and parking and loading.
It is important to note that there are some above-grade encrQachments into the
20 ft. setback, as preseribEd by the Publie Accommodation zane district. In
addition, the applicant is prflposing significant underground encroachments into
the 20 ft. setback. The Public Accommodation zane district requires a 20 ft.
setback from all properky lines. Houvever, Section 12-7A-6: Setbacks, Vail Tawn
Code, allows the Planning and Enaironmental Commission to grant variations to
the setlaack requErements. A reduced set of plans have been attached
(Attachment H) for reference.
I11. BACKGRQUND
The propasal for the Four Seasons Resart includes two deuelopment sites: ihe
existing Chateau at Vai1, located at 13 Vail Road f Lots 9A-9C, Vail Viliage 2 nd
Filfng and the existing Alpine Amoco Service Statian, located at 28 S. Frontage
Rd. / Lat 9A, Vaii Village 2nd Filing. A vicinity map has been attached
(Attachment D) for reference.
The underlying zoning on the Chateau a# Vail development site is Public ~
Accommodation. The Town of VaPI Land Use Plan designates the northern
porEion of the site as "Resort Accommodatioru and Services" and the southern
portion of ihe si#e as "Transition°. The Town of VaE! Land Use Plan defines these
as follows:
Resort Accammodation and Services
This area includes activities aimed at accammodating the ovemight ana'
shart term visifor to the area. Primary uses include hotels, lodges,
service stafions, and parking structures (with densities up to 25 dwefling
units ar 50 accommodatiQn urrits per 6uila'able acre). These areas are
Qrisnted toward vehrcular access from 1-70, with afher support
commercial and ,busrraess services irrcluded. Also aflowed in thr's
category, varould be instftutianal uses and variaus municipal uses.
Transition
The transition designation applies to the area between Lionshead and the Vai!
~ Village. The activities ancl site desi,gn of this area are aimed af encouraging I
pedestrian flow through the area and streragfherring fhe carrnectron between the j
two cammercial cores. Approprrate actrvitles r'nclude hotefs, lodgrng, arrd other ~
faurist arienfed residential units, ancrllary retail and resfaurant uses, museums, I
areas af public art, nature exhibits, gardens, pedestrian pfazas, aRd other types ~
of civlc and culturally orlented uses. T,his des+gnaffon would include the righr-of-
way of Wesf Meadpw Drive and the ad1acent propertres to the narth. ~
2
.
~ • ~ ~ The existing Chateau at Vail contains 120 hotel rooms at 280 square feet each. ~
In 2000, an applicatian was submitted to the Town of Vafl for a demalition of the ~
existing Chateau at Vail, and for the construction of a new mixed-use hotel. The !
appfication included the establishment af a new Special Development District,
and conditionae use permifs to aflaw for a fractianal fee club and Type III
employee housing units.
ardinance No 14, Series of 2001, approved the establishment af Special
Devefopment District No. 36, Vail Pfaza Hotel West, and adapted a develapment ~
plan in accordance with Chapter 12-9A, of the Vail Town Code. Ordinance No.
14 has been attached (Attachment G) for reference.
Lot JA, Vail Village 2Rd Filirrg is the site of the Alpine Amoca Service Station. The
site is currentCy zaned Heavy 5ervicE and has a land use designatton of °Resart
Accommodations and Services" (see above.)
fn October of 2001, the owner of the Alpine Amoco appeared before the Planning
and Environmentai Cornmission in a worksession format to discuss possible
amendments to ths Heavy Service zone distriet which would have aliawed
recCevelapment of #he site with the addition of multip[e family dwelling uni#s atop
the senrice statbon. No forma6 ac#ion was taken on ihe proposal, and all
applications have subsequently been withdrawn.
IV. S1TE ANALYSIS
~ A R1DfB complete site anafysis will be provided for the final review of this
proposal, tentatively scheduled for March. Given the camments to be prvvided
by the Tawn of Vail Design Review Board and the staff, and any additional
feedback from the Planning and Environmental Commission, staff anticipates
that changes to the proposal will be made that will affect the development '
standards data. According to the application infarmation provided by the
applicant, no deviations to the prescribed deuelopment standards are sought with
the exception of a deviatian to the rnaximum building height.
Current Zoning: Pubfic ACCOmmodatinn, Heavy Service
Land Use Plan Designation: Resort Accommodation and Services, Transitian
Current Land Use: Hotel, Service Statian
CJeveloprnent Standard Allawed ;
Lot Area: Niin. of 10,000 sq. fi. of buildable area and a min. of
30 feet of fror+tage.
Setbacks:
Front: 20 feet
SicEes: 20 feet
Rear: 20 feet
"See Sectian 12-7A-6 for discretion granfed to the
Pianning and Environmental Comrnission and the criteria.
~ Building Height: 45 ft. far ffat or mansard raots and 48 ft. for sloping roofs.
Density: Max. of 25 units/acre.
3
~
,
~
CRFA: Up to 350 sq. fit. for each 100 sq. ft. pf buildab4e site area.
Site Coverage: No# to exceed 65°la of the total site area.
Landscape Area: Min. af 30% af the total site.
Parking: Accommadation units: 0.4 spaceslunit, plus 0.1
spaceleach 1(}0 sq. #t. of GRFA with a max. of 1.0
spaceslunit_
Dwelling Unit: !f GRFA is 500 sq. ft. or less: 1.5
spaces/unit. If GRFA is over 500 sq. ft. up to 2,000 square
feet: 2 spaceslunit. Ifi GRFA is 2,000 sq. ft. or
mare/dweliing unit: 2.5 spaces/unit.
Eating and Drinking Establishrnents: 1 space/1 2U sq. ft. of
seating floar area.
Retail Stores, Persanal Services, and Repair Shops: 1
spacefeach 300 sq. ft. of net floor area.
Recreatianal Facilities, Public or PriWate (day spa): Parking
requirements to be determined by the Planning and
Environmental Commission. ~
V. SURROUNDtNG LANQ USES
Land Use Zoninq
North: Municipal General Use
South: Residential Tws-Family Residential
High Density Multiple Family Residential
East: Mixed Use SpeciaE Development District Na. 21
Residential Public Accommodation
West; Residential High Qensity Multiple Family Residential
VI. DISCUSSION ISSUES
The purpose of this worksession rneeting is to allow the applicant an opportunity
to present the propossd plans to the Planning and Environmental Commission
and to prourde the applicant, public, sta#f, and 4he Commission an opportunity to
identify issues for discussion at a future meeting. The Commissian is not being
asked to take any formaf positions on this application at this time. However, staff
has ideratifiied eight issues at this time that we believe should be discussed. The
issues include the following:
A. Camplete Deuelopment Applicatian
The applicant has submitted applications for a major amendment to
Special Development Distric# iVo. 36, two canditianal use permiis for the ~
Fractional Fee Giub and the Type III Employee Housing Units, and a
rezoning for Lot 9A from Heavy Service to Public Accommadatifln. At this
4
~
~ time, staff has identified the follawing issues with regards to the
application:
1. A full site grading and drainage plan, including all existing and
proposed grades, and all retaining walls, must be submit#ed. The
drainage plan must be substantiated by a drainage report prowided by
a Colorado professional engineer.
2. A flaod plain study is required far all wark io be done with Spraddle
Greek.
3. A vicinity plaru, which includes the lirnits far both sides of the North
Frontage Road from INest Star Bank and the Municipal Buildirag
entries to the Roundabout, Vail Road, fram the Frontage Road to
Meadow Drive and V+lest Meadow Drive from Vail Road to the hospital
bus staps.
4. A complete landscape plan prepared in accordance with the
requirements outlined on the Town af Vail development revieuv
application.
5. All parking spaces must lae numbered ar+d labelsd (i.e. fuli-size,
compac#, valet, etc,)
6. AIl units must be labeled with thair praposed use (e.e. EHU, FFU, DU,
AU).
7. A madel rnust be submitted.
8. ACI fEaor plans and eEevations must be su6mitted at a scale of 1l8".
9. Plans are inconsistent.
~ Pursuant to Section 12-7A-12 (A)(2)(j) ot the Vail Town Cade:
Any additfonal informafiorr or material as deemed necessary by
the Administrator or [he Town Plarrning and Environmeratal
Commrssion may be requested.
ls there any adciitional information or materials that the Planning and
Environmental Commission finds is necessary to be submitted for
review and cansideratian priar #a acting upon the requests of the
apq[icant?
B. Compliance with applieable master pEans and the design guidelines
The C4mmunity Development staff has contracted with Jeff Winston, of
Wins#an Associates, to provide an analysis of this project with regards ta
the applicable master plans and design guidelrnes. His analysis is
attached (Attachmen# I) for reference.
C. Location of Uses and Connection to West Meadow Drive
The commercial uses in the builcting are generally located along the
Frontage Road and Vail Road intersect6an. S#aff belueves that it would be
beraeficiai ta the project's des+gn anci the Town of Vail to have act'rvity-
generating uses along West Meadow Drive. In addition, staff krelieves
that it is important to create a pedestrian cannection inta the ViElage and
~ Lionshead via West Meadaw Drive. The Town of Vail Land Use Plan
encourages a better cannectian between Lionshead and Vail Village.
5
t _
This area is designated as "7ransition" in the Vai! Land Use Plan, and the
Land Use Plan describes this designation as fallows: ~
I
The transitiQrr designatron a,pplies to the area between Lionshead
and the Vai! Vrllage. The activities arrd sife design of this area sre
arrned at encouraging pedestrian flow thraugh fhe area and
strengthening the eonnection 6efween the twa commercial cares.
Approprrafe activitres fnclude hofels, lodging, and ather tourist
ariented residenfiaf units, ancillary retail arrd restaurant uses,
museums, areas of public art, r,ature exhibifs, gard'ens, ped'estrian
,pfazas, and other types of civic and cufturally ariented uses. This
cfesrgnation would include the right-af-way of West Meadow Drive
and fhe adjacent properties ta the narth.
Does ihe Planning and Environmental Commission believe that
additianal consideration should be given to the lacation of activity-
generating uses along West Meadow Drive? Does the Planning anci
Environmental CQmmission believe #hat a pedestrian cannectian via
West Meadorrv Drive into the Village and Lionshead is rtecessary?
D. Movement alang Frontage Raad
~
The fagade along Sfluth Frontage Road is approximately 420 ft. long.
Staff has concerns regardang the lack of variatian alang this elevatMon. ~
1Nhile the plan generally maintains a 20 ft. setback along tnis property line
(with the exception af elevatar towers), staff believes that there needs to
be additional variety and movemenf in this fagade. Staff believes that this
can be acYrieved by adding substantial steps in the building or rnodifying
the appearance of the buiiding to create a perception that the building is a
series of buildings, rather than 4ne iarge structure.
aaes the Planning and Environmental CQmmission agree that
additional movement and variation ta the farade alang South
Frontage Raad is necessary? Qoes the Planning and Environmen#al
Gvmmission have any suggestioras for mociifieations to the building
which would create additional rnovement and variation to this
farade?
E. Loading and Delivery
Laading and delivery berth requirements shall be determined for the
praposed development using the Town af Vail Zoning Cade. The
maximum number of bays aliowed on the site shall not exceed 5. All °
bays must work independently of each ather. Ef 3 bays are required, the
mix and AASHTO design wehicle shall be 2 SU-30 and 1 WB-40. If 4
bays are required Qr provided, one 1 WB-50 must be added. If 5 bays are
required or provided, an additional SU-30 must be added. The site must
also accommQdate a WB-60, wh`sch requires no backing onto public travel
ways. In addition the porte-eachere sha11 meet the requirements for an ~
or+er the raad caach with adequa4e parking at all times af the year. 7he
Direc4or of Public Worlcs recommends that all backing operatwons take
6
~ place within an enclased structure to minimize the impacts to adjacent
praperties. Trash callect+on will need to be a separate function on the site
and the maneuverability of this function needs to be shawn.
Does the Planning and EnWironmental Cammission have additianal
cancerns regarding loading and delivery?
F. Proposed Setbacks
In 1999, the Town of Vail approved a teut arrtendment amend4ng tne
prescribed development standards for the Public Accommodation zone
district. In approving the text amendments the Town adopted five setback
criteria that are ta be used by the Pianning and Environmental
Cormmission when considering deviations ta the required minimum 20-
fQQt setback. These criteria are to be used in place of the variar+ce
procedures when considering de+riations to the requireci setbacks. The
Town deterrnined that providing flexibility in the implementation af the 20-
foot setback requirement was desirable and could servE a public purpase
provided that cerEain design and land use considerations were addressed
and the various criteria were met. To aid in reuiewing requests for
deuiations fram the minimum setback requirement the following regulation
was adaptecf:
12-7A-6: SETBACKS:
~ In the PA Distriet, the minimum franf set6ack shafl be twenty feet
(20), the minimum side setback shaN be twenty feet (20), and the
mlrtimu,m rear setback shall be h,venty feet (20). At the discreflan
of the Planning and Environmental Commissrorr and/or the Desigrt
Aevrew Boar'd, variafions to fhe setback standards outlined above
may be appraved during the review of exterior al[ernations or
modiffcatrons (Section 12-7A-12 of this Article) subject to the
appJlcant demonstrating compliance with the fvllowing criterla:
A. Proposed building setbacks provide necessary separatian
between buildings arad riparian areas, geoJogicafly
sensitive areas arad other envrronmentalfy sensrtive areas.
B. Proposed 6uifdrng setbacks cnrnply vvrth applica6le
elemenfs of the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and
Design Considerations.
G. Proposed burlding setbacks wifl prauade adequafe
avallabr'Ir"ty of {rght, air arrd apen space.
D. Proposed 6u11ding setbacks wi!l pravide a campatible
relatronshlp wifh buildings and uses on adjacerrf
properties.
E. Proposed 6uilding setbacks will result in creative design
solufioras or ather public 6enefits that cauld nof o[herwise
be achieved by conformance with prescribed setback
srandards.
~ There are same minimal above-grade encroachments into the 20 ft.
se#back. ReductiQns of the plans have been attached (A#tachment H) for
I 7
e i
reference. The applicanf is propvsing significant underground .
encroachrraents into the 20 ft. setback to accommodate on-site circulation
and underground parking.
Daes #he Planning and Environmental Commission betieve that
above-grade encroachments into the 20 ft. setback meet the cri#eria
outlined by Sectian 12-7A-6: Setbacks, Vail Town Code? Daes the
Planning and Environmen#aI Gommission belieae that the helow-
grade encraachments intD #he 20 ft. setback meet the criteria
outiined by Section 12-7A-6: Setbacfcs, Vail Town Code? Are any
ehanges suggested?
G. Mitigation of E}evelopment Impacts
Pursuant to Section 12-7A-14, Nlitigatian of Development Impacts, Vail
Town Cade,
I Property nwraers/developers shalt also be responsi6le for
rnlrlgatfng direct impacts of their deuefopmerrt on pubfic
infrastructure and in all cases mitigatiort shall bear a reasonable
relation ta the develo,qment lmpacts. lmpacts may be determrned
based on reparts prepared by quafified cansultants. The extent of
mitigation and pu6lic amenify rmprovements shaN be 6alanced
with fhe goals of redevelopment and vvill 6e determined by the ~
Planning and Eravironmental Cvmmission in revaew of
deveiapmenf projects and cQnditlonal use permrts. Substantial vff-
site rmpacts may include, buf are not Irmrted to, the followrng: deed
restricfed employee housing, roadway improvements, pedes[rian
walkway rmprovernerrts, streetscape irn,provemerrfs, stream
tractlbarrk restoration, laadrng/delivery, public art rmprovements,
and similar rmprovements. The irrfenf of fhis Secfron rs to only
require mrtigatron for large-scale redevelapment/developmenf
projects uvhich praduce subsfantial vff-srte impacts.
In addition, Section 12-9A-9: Development 5tancEardsr Vaii Town Code,
states the following:
Development standards including lot area, site dimensians,
setbacks, height, density control, site coverages, Iandscaping and
parking shalf be deferrnined by the rown Gouncr'f as part of the
approved development plan with consrderation of the
recommerrdatrans of fhe Planning and Environmental
Corrrmission. Before the Town Council appraves developmenf
starrdards that deviate from the underlying zone districf, it should
be determrned that such clevaatiQn pravides benefits to the Tawn
rhat outweigh the adverse effects of such devratron. This
determrnation is ta be made based on evaluaPion of the proposed
specral developmen[ district's compliarrce wrth the design criteria ~
rautlrned in Section 12-9A-8 of this Article.
Etesides the obviaus, (i,e., emplnyee housing, streetscape
8
o r
~ improvements, roadway impravements, public art, Ioading/defivery
facilities) are there any other specific mitigating measures that the
applicant should b+e pursuing at this time as part of this
develapment application?
H. Height
According to the applicant, they will nat be requesting any additional
height beyond that granted by the 2001 Special Development District
apprQVal. The maximum building height approved by Qrdinance NQ. 14,
Series of 2001, was 73,5 ft. at its highest ridge, adjacent to South
Frontage Raad. The current proposed plans indicate, however, certain
ridges to be in excess o# 80 ft, As currently proposed, these ridges do not
qualify as architectural projectians. Staff believes that it is appropriate to
concentrate height along the Frontage Road. However, this does lead to
significant impacts with regards to shading of the public rnght-of-way. A
sunlshade analysis has been attached (Attachment H) far reference.
Craes the Planning and Enwironmental Commission belieWe that the
height, as praposed, is acceptable far this site? Daes the Planning
and Enr?ironmental Cammission hatre any recammendations with
regards to building height?
VII. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
~ The foliowing section of this memorandum is includEd to pravide the applicant,
community, staff, and Cam?-nission with an advanced understanding of the
criteria and fincCings that will be used by the reviewing boards in making a final
decision on the proposed applications.
A. Major Amendment to a Special Develapment District
12-9A-8: DESIGN CRITERIA:
The follawing design criteria shall be ussd as the principal criteria in
evafuatang the merits of the proposed special develapment district_ Et shall
be #he burden af the applicant to demonstrate that submittal materiaf and
#he proposed development plan comply with each Qf the foliowing
starndards, ar demonstrate that ene or mare o3 thern is not applicable, or
that a practical solution consistent with the public interest has been
aGhieved:
A. Corrapatibility: Design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate
enviranment, neighborhood and adjacent praperties relative to
architectural design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones,
identity, charac#er, visual integrity and orien#ation.
B. Relationship: Uses, activity and density which pravide a
compatible, efficient and workable relatianship with surroundir?g
~ uses and acti+rity.
C. Parking And Loading: Compliance with parking and loading
9
~ requirements as autlined in Chapter 10 af this Title. ~
D. Gamprehensive Plan: Conformity wiih applieabEe elements of the
Vail Comprehensive Plan, Town palicies and urban design plans.
E. Natural Andf4r Geologic FEazard: Identificatian and mitigaYion of
naturaC and/or geologic hazards that affect the property on which
the special development district is propased.
F. Design Features: Site plan, building clesign and Iocation and opert
space provisians designed to produce a fiunctional development
responsive and sensitive to natural fea#ures, vegetation and
overall aesthetic quality of the community.
G. Traffic: A circulation system designed fflr both vehicles and
pedesfeians addressing on and aff-site traffic c9rculation.
H. Landscaping: Functianal and aesthetic landscaping and apen
space in ordcr to aptimize and preserve natural features,
recreation, views and function.
1. Vllorkable Plan; Phasing plan or subdivision plan tnat will maintain
a workable, functional and efficient relatioraship throughout the
development af the special developrnent district. ~
B. Conditional Use Permi# Cri#eria and Findings
A. Consideration of Factors Reqardinq Conditional Use Perrreits:
1. Relationship and irnpact of the use on the development
objectives af the Town.
2. The effect of the use an light and air, distribution of ,population,
transpartation facilities, utilities, schoois, parks and recreation
facilities, and other pubiic facilities raeeds.
3. Effect upon traffic w'rth particuaar reference ia canges#ion,
automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow
and control, access, maneuverability, and remaval of snow
from the street and parking areas.
4. Effect upan the character o# the area in which the proposed
use is ta be located, including the scale and buIk of the
proposeci use in relatian to surrounding uses.
ThE following additionaR criteria and standards shall be applicable to the
uses listed befow in conshderation of a coneEitional use permit. These
criteria and standards shall be in addition to the cri#eria and finciings ~
required by Section 12-16-6 of this Chapter.
10
~ A. Uses and Criteria:
8. Time-Share Estate, Fractional Fee, Fractianai Fee Club, Or
Time-Share License Propasai: Prior to the approval of a
conditional use permit far a time-share estate, firactional fee,
fractional fee club, or time-share license proposal, the fallowing
shall be cQnsidered:
a. lf the proposal far a fractional fee club is a redevelQpment of an
existing facility, the fractianal fe+e club shall mainiain an
equivalency of accomrnodation units as are presently existing.
Equivalency shalf be rrraintained either by an equal number of
units or by square fQOtage. If the praposal is a new development,
it shall provide at Ieast as much accommodation unit gross
residerrtial flaor area (GRFA) as fractional fee club unit gross
residential floar area (GRFA).
b. Lack-off units and lack-off unit square faotage shall nat be
included in the calculation when determining the equivalency of
existing accommodatian uni#s or equivalency of existing square
faotage.
c. The ability of the praposed project to create and maintain a high
leval of oceupancy.
d. Empfayee housing units may be required as part of any new nr
redevelopment fractional fee club praject requesting density aver
! that allowed by zoning. The number of employee hQUSing units
required wifl be consistent with employee impacts that are
expected as a result of the project.
e. The appficant shall submit to #he Town a fist of all awners of
existing units within the prnject or bUilding; and rivrit#en statements
from one hundred percent (100%) o# the owners of existing units
9ndicating their approval, wifhout candition, of the proposed
fractional fee cEub. No written appraval shall be valid if it was
signed by ihe owner rnore than sixty (60) days priar tQ the date of
filing the application for a conditional use.
B. The PEannina and Environmental Commission shala make the
following findi 9s before qrantinq a condational use permit:
1. That the proposed location of the use is in accardance with
the purposes of the conditionai use permit sectian of the
zoning code anci the purposes of thte Public
Accommodation zone district.
2. That the proposed location of tMe use and the conditions
under which it will be operated or maintained will no# be
detrimentai to the public health, safety, or welfare or
materially injurious to properties or FrriprQverrtents in the
~ VIClnlty.
11
r
3. That the proposed use will comply with each o# #he ~
i applicable provisions of the canditional use permit section
of the zaning code.
C. Zone District Boundary Amendnr+ent
Factors, Enumerated: Before acting on an applica#ion far a zone district
boundary amendment, the P9anning & Envirnnmental Comtnissian and
Town Council shall consider the follawing factors with respect to the
reques#ed zone district boundary amendment;
1. The exten# to which the zone disirict amendment is cQnsistent with all
the applicable elements of the adopted goals, abjectives and poficies
outlined in the Vail Cornprehensive Plan and is campatible with the
development objectives of the Town; and
2. The extent to which the zone district arriendmeni is suitab[e with the
existing and potential land uses on the site and existing and potential
surrounding land uses as set out in the 7awn's adopted planning
documents; and
3. The extent to which the zone district amendment presents a
harrraonious, canvenFent, warkable relationship among land uses
consistent with municipal development objectives, and
4. The extent to which the zone district amendment provides for the ~
growih of an orderly viable comrnunity and daes not constitute spot
zoning as the amendment senres the best interests af the corrzmunity
as a whale; and
5. The extent to which the zone district amendment results in adverse or
beneficial impacts on the natural environrnent, including but not
limited to water quality, air quality, noese, vegetatiQn, riparian
corricfors, hillsides and ather desirable natural features; anc!
6. The extent ta which the zone district amendment is cansistent with the
purpose statement of the prqposed zane district.
7. The exteni to wnich the zone district amendment demonstrates haw
canditions have changed since the zoning designation of the subject
~ properky was adopted and is no langer appropriate.
I
' S. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission andlar Council
deem applicable to the proposed rezoning.
Necessary Findings: Before recammending ancilar granting an apprQval
of an application for a zone district boundary amendment the Planning &
Environmental CommissiQn and the Town Councii shall make the
following findings with respect to the requested amendment: ~
1. That the amendmert is consistent with the adopted goals, objectives
12
. ,
~
and policies outlined in the Vail Gomprehensive Plan and compatible ~
with ihe development objectives of the Town; and ~
2. That the arnendment is cornpatible with and suitable to adjacent uses ~
~ and appropriate far the surrounding areas; and ~
I
i
3. That the amendment promotes the health, safety, marals, and general
welfare of the Tawn and pramates the coardinated and harmonious
develapment of the Town in a manner tha# conservES and enhances
its natural environment and its established character as a resort and
resiciential community af the highest quality.
VIII. ATTACHMENTS
A. Applicant's Statement of the Request
B. Program Analysis
C. Adjacents i
D. Site Map E. Zoning Map ~
F. Land Use Plan Map
G. Qrdinance 14, Series of 2001
H. Reductions nf Plans
I. Report from Winston Associates
~
~
~
I
I
~
13
' Attaehment: A y _
Z E H R E hi ~
AND A550CIATES, fNC. i
I
December 16, 2002
Tawn af Wail
Department of Ccantmunity Develapment
75 South Frantage Road
Vail, Coloradcs 81657
Re: Four Seasons Resort - Vai]
This letter is ta address design criteria A thraugh Ias outlined in section 12-9A-$ of the towrs code_ It is the
applicant's understanding that these nine criteria are to be used in evaluating the merits of the creatian af
the new Four 5easons Resart - Special I7evelopment District,
A. Compatibility: Design campatibility and sensitivih, to the r.'njnrediate eriviranment, neighhorlronrl arrd
udJac.etitpropertfes relative to arcltitectural desigli, sccrle, barlk, building height, buffer zones, idenCity,
charucter, visual integrity arzd orientcrtipn.
The proposed hotel is designed in such a way that is bath compatible and sensitiYe to the immediate
enviranment, neighborhaod, and adjacent properties wliile at the same time giving the project an identity as a ~
commercially viable hotel project withiu both the itrunediate neighborhood and the eommunity at large.
The predominant orientataan af the proposed hotel is toward existing pedestrian areas along the eastern edge of
the site. Public, pedestrian oriented functions inciudirrg the predominant pedestrian entrance to the hatel, spa,
conference facilities, retail azea, and the restaurant have been located along VaiI Road. The areas along VVest
Meadow Drive are intended to buffer the larger scale cjf the prapnsed hote.l against the residentiat nature of some
of the smaller scale buildings ta the southwest. This area has the largest setbacks, greatest amount of
tandscaping, and lawest buijding heights in arder to relate to the exisiing buildings along Fast and West
Meadow I?rive, maintain a camfartable pedcstrian scale, and to provide for a transition to the smaller scale
residential properties to the sauth.
In order ta create this transikion and buffer zone along V4rest Meadow Drive, the greatest density and subsequent ~
height for the hotel have been located a14ng the 5outh Frontage Road along the northern edge af the site. The ~
buiiding hexght in this area, althouQh exceeding the underlying zoning, directly relates to the heights of existing
and proposed struetures east of Wail Raad, The intent is to create a"ga#eway" to the village, as structures woutd
step up to sin-iilar heights on either side of Vail Road.
Other proposed huffev zones are also consistent with or exceed the underlying zoning in that they meet or
exceed the rrunimurn required prnperty line setbacks and coverage requirements.
The mass and bulk of the prop4sed hoiel, as deterniincd primarily by the prescribed setbacks, site cvverage,
landseape coverage, and gross residential floor area j•equirements within the te,wn code, all canform to the
underlying zoning. It is the belief of the applicant that because it is the underlying zoning whicrti deterniines the
builditrg envelope for any given si#e, and hccause ille proposed prqject complies with tliese portiotis of tlie
underlying zoning, it is the intent of the Vail Gomprehensiue Plan that a hotel o#' lhis size, density, mass, 1nd
bulic is intended tiiis site. Furthermore, the site's location, proxrmity, access to main ihorouglifares, and ~
prescribed uses, help to lezid credence to this belief.
ARCHITECTIJR[ • PL4VtiING • In'IERIOkS • LANDSCAPE ARCHITEC7URE
I'.U. Box 1976 • Avon, Cnloracto M62Q • f970i 949-025' `FAX (970) 949-1080 + c-maiL• vailcaftcL'zehrYn.cc3nz • ti"a•"-.zehmia.coi71
, r
~ Vail Plaza Hotel Zehren and Assvciates, Inc.
021471.00 12116/2002
The architectural design, character, and visual integrity of ihe praposed hotel with other structures within the
community is nieant t9 be both coittpatible with tiie immediate neighbars white at the same time relating to some
of t}ie lareer, more recent hotel projccts east of Vail Road. The project has been designed with stepping and
broken ridge 1iizes, variations in building materials, and varied wall and deck planes acting to break down the
overall rriass and bulk of the projeci, add pedestrian scale and interesk, and reIate the hotei to the surrounding
neighbarhood_
B. Relationsliip: Uses, acfivity, and density, whrch pj-ovide cx eornpatible, efficieaat anrl warkable
relationslrip wrth surrouradirrg uses and aetiuiry.
The uses, activities and densities are cansistent with thosc lfsted within the underlying zoning.
C. Parking rrnd Loadrr:g: ComPlianee with the parking and lnading requrrenlents as outlined in Cliapter
10 of tlais 7`fdle, (Zoning).
The propased parking and loading facilities are in camplian.ce with the requuements of the zoning title, adopted
town standards, and staff policyfrequirements.
D. Con:prel:ei:sive Plan. Caiforntity= wiFh lfre applicable elerrzents of the Yail Conzprehensave Plan, 7'own
poTicies arrd Ur6an Desigar Plan.
The graposeci development substantialJy complies writh applieahle goais and policies as expressed in both the
~ Streetscape Master Plan ariri the Land Use Plan.
Tfie Land Use Plan identifies poztions of the site as both "resort accommodation and senice" and as
"transitian". As such, the plan recornmends activr'tics and uses consistent with the underlying zoning aimed at
accommodating the overr?ight and short-term visitor, As sueh, the uses and firnctions are ariented in orcier to
inaintain a eleaa separation between the vehicular orientation of the resort accommocfatiort zone along the South
Frontabe Raad and the pedeskrsan orientation of the transirion zone along West Meadow Drive.
The praposed improvements ta the Svutli Frontage Raad, Vail Road, and West Meadflw Driwe conceptually
comply with rhe applicable elements of the Streetscape Master Plaxt by prnviding imprmvements in the materials,
configurations, and sizes as u?dieated in the plan.
E. Nutural ai:dlor Geolagie Hazurds. Ideritr.frcatiori arrd mitigatr.'on of riatural andlor geologic hazard.s
tj:ul affect the property or1 whacla tlte special developme?it rlistrict is praposerl.
We believe that there are no natural or geolagic hazards that may affect the development of this site.
F. De.sign Features: Site plari, baailding design, urrd lucutian arrd apera space provisioras desigi7ed tv
prraduce a functionul development rESpvnsive and .sensilive ta nutural ferrtures, vegetatton, arzd averall
aest{retic guality of thc commurairy_
Tlie proposed huilding 1ocaEion, site plan, building design, and open space provide for a functional and efficient,
full service, conference hotel t31at is both responsive to the facation and circulatian patterns within the town,
urientation of the site, and aesthetic quality of the immediate neighborhood ancl the community a# large.
~
2
1 I
Vai] Plaza Hotel Zehren and Assaciaces, Inc. ~
021471.00 12/16/2002
Because of thc pragosed hatel's location within the towii and proxinuty to the main 1Jail roundabout, the
prajeet's impacts on exiscing traffic volumes and infrastructure will be minimal. Tlre site plan and building
design further minimize irnpacts by simplify exisring traffic pakterns into one-way, right tum pattems.
Fn addition, khe sike pIan and building design improve upoii the aesthetic quality of the immediate environrnent,
esgecially with regard to the pedestrian orientation along West Meadow Drive and Vail Road, through the
elirrtination of vehicular traffic, the provision for additional open space and landscaping, and provisivns fvx
public iniprovements and infrastructure vicluding public pl:uas and artwork.
G. Traffic: A circulatiora system designed for botli ueftir.les a?rd pedestrians atldressing an atrd off site
dYajftC CIYC'11IRt1On, i
The proposed pedestrian and vchicufar traffic cfrculatian system provirles for minimal impac# on existing
infrastructure through the limitation of znultiple tarning mavements and simplification of traffic pattems, while
at the same tirne praviding a safe and efficient means of circulation through an effective separation of guest and
service vehicles on the South Frontage Road, condominitzm owners on Vail Raad, and pedestrian systems on
West Meadow Drive and Vai] Road.
' H. Lai:dseaping: Functiatlal and aesthelic luxrdscupirag arrd opei: sprrce irr nrder to o}?tiznize and preserve
rlatural features, recreatiarr, views, afacf furaction.
The proposed landscdpc design provides far an effective and aesthetic buffering of Veliicu4ar circulation and
service areas, fvr the privacy and sizading requirements of private residential areas, and for pedeshian scale and ~
inEerest in and along the public areas of the proposed hotel developrment. There currendly exist no significant
naturai features, reczeation, or functians, public views to be preserved or enhanced an, frorn, or nwer these sites.
I. Phasitag Plan: Phusirrg plan ar subdivisiar: plan titat will »aairrtain Q workuble, functional anri
~:ffictent relatronship tltrpughnut the developrrient vf the special developnieird district.
The developinent will be constructed in one phase.
It is also ihe applicant's understanding that in additican to dem4nstrating comrpliance with the nine critena
above, that it is the appPicant's responsibility to demcrostrate that, "any adverse effects of the requested
deviation from the development standards af the underlying znning are outweighed by the pubPic benefits
provided". The foliowing is a list of the praposed tieviations from adopted development standards, adverse
effects, and praposed mitigation measures as proposed by the applicant as well as the perceived public
benefir's derived frorn the project:
Deviations from Develonment Standards - Adverse eftccts/Mitigatian Measures )
• Iiuilding Hei~hts - Impacts from this deviation include itzcreased shading on the South Frontage Road
public right of way and impacts on views to tlie sou[h from that righ# of way. F'ublic and pzivate benefits
deriyed through implementation of this deviation inclucie lower ciensities, mass, btrlk, and building heights
alang West'.wfeadow Drive. Proposed mitigacian measures include snowmelt syster?as, retention and addition
of large trees and landscaping features including herrns within the rieht of way, and entaancement of pri3nary
pQdestrian areas along Wesi Meadow Drive including provisions Cor increased setbacks and landscaping
coverage.
Setback Deviations to be Reviewed in Aceordanee with Cnteria ldentifed in 12-7A-6, (2}
• Belpw Grade Setbacks - Nv adverse impacts occur from this deviation. Pub3ic and private benefits derived ~
froan this deviatioii include increased area of latidscaping coverage, and an increase in the aninunf of £u11
size parking spaces provided.
3
p
~ Vail Plaza Hatel Zehren and Assvciates, Inc.
021471.00 12i16i2002
Public $enefi[s Provided - Creneral (21)
* Implementa4ion of agpticable gaals, objectives, adid policies as outlined in Vail Comprehensive Plans.
• Bconoznic redevelopment of an aging hotel property.
+ Improved residential character in the design of the structure.
• Increase in number of slxvrt-term accarnmodation units.
• Increase in size and quality of short-term accommodation units.
• Inci•ease in size and quality of eonferenee facilities.
• Inczease in si2e and quality of restauraait facilities.
• Inerease in size and quality of retail facilities.
• Increase ui size and quality of spa and health club facilities.
• Eliminatinn of surface parking.
• Elizivnatian of vehicular traffic on West Meadow Drive,
• Elimination of vehicular maneuvering on within the tcrwr?'s nght of way.
• Elinvnation of a surFace Ioading dock within a front setback.
• Improved vehicular safety through decrease in tuming niovements.
• Improved vehieular safety through implementation of one-way traffic patterns.
• Improved pedestrian safety throngh provision of grade separated sidewalks.
• Elitnination of existing sethack encroachmcnis.
+ Elimination of existing landscaping deficiency (deveSapmen#s standards).
• Increase in amoun# and quality of landscaping.
~ • P9tential increase in year round guest occupaney.
+ P'otential increase in hotei, resort, and torvn marketing and resaurees.
Public Benefits ProvicEed - Patential Econornic Benefits (4)
• Potential increase in recurring revenues (pzoperty taxes, Iift taxes, franchise fees, lausiness licenses, etc.).
• Poteniial increase in recurring sales tax revcnues (kown and caunty).
• Increase in iion-recurring building permit reveuues.
• Incxease in non-recurring real estate tax revenues.
Public Benefiks Frovided - Develo ment Standards 9
• Provision of setbacks in excess of development standards.
• Provision of 3andscaping in excess of development standards.
• Prnvision of open space in excess of develnpment standards.
• Prc,vision of on site, deed restricted empIoyee-hausing units in excess of developrnent standards (number of
units),
* Provision of pn site, deed restricted employee-housing uniLs in excess of deve0opment standards (size).
• Provision of densities below grescribed develapznent standards.
• Provision of uses consistent wiith prescribed develapment standards.
• Frovision oCparking in excess o£prescribed develapment standards.
+ Pravisian of loading facili#ies consistent wqth developmen# standards.
Direc! Economic $enefits - Public Infrastruciure (5)
• Construction of public infrastructure with privaCe money on bVest Meadow Driwe including sidewallss,
rnads, medians, plazas, lighting, landscape, hardscape, snowmelt, curb and gutter, and drainage faciIities.
~ • Constniction of public infrastructure with grivate maney on the South Frontage Raad including sideuralks,
roads, medians, 9ighting, landscapc, hardscape, snowmelt, ciwb and gutter, and drainage Facilities.
• Constniction of public infrastru4riue with private maney on Vaal Roaci iricluding sidewalks, roads, medians,
ligliting, lanclscape, hardseape, snowmelt, cLirb and gutter, and drainage facilities.
4
~
,
Vail Plaza Hotel Zehren and Associates, 3nc. ~
021471.00 12116f2002
• F'otential unpravements and provisaon of easements for Spraddle Creek infrastructure.
• Provision af public art in compliance with developinent standards.
Public Benefits Provided - I)irect Benefits to Irleighborin„y Properties {14)
• Elimnnatian of adjacent surface parkino lot, (all neiglibars).
• Zncrease in adjacent landscaped buffering, (aIl neighbors).
• Irnproved residential ckaaracter of the proposed hotel, (all ncighbars),
+ Physical improvements tQ Vail Road parking access easenie3it, (Nine Vaii Road Condominium}.
• Continued aceess to Vai1 Road renewable parking access easement, (Nine Vail Raad Condominium).
• Elimianation of adjacent ]oading dack and traffic confliccs, (Nine Vail Raad Condominium).
• Potential increase in (andscape eoverage at West Meadow I)rive, (Nine Vail Road Condominium).
• Increased setbacks adjacent to property, (Nine Vai1 Road Condoininium).
+ increase in soiar access, (Nine Vai] Road Condonvnitini, Alpharn Condominium).
* irnproved view corridors to south, (Nine Vail Road Condominium, Sc9rpio Candominium).
• Elimination of vehicuiar traffic across easement, (Alpine Slandard).
• Elitriination af two-way hotel traffic a# the Sauth Prc+ntage Raad access point, (Alpine Standazd).
• Elimination of left turn movements at the Snuth Frantage Road access paint, (Alpine Staridard).
• Laca#ian of Vail Road access drive ta north, (Aipine Standard).
Piease do not hesitate to contact me with any questions or concerns regarding the information presented.
Addition.ally, if you need any additianal information, please do not hesitate to contaet me. ~
Sincerely,
~
Tirnothy R. Losa., A.I.A
Senior Assnciate
Zehren and Associates, Inc.
~
5
Zehren and Assacia#es, Inc. Chaieau Vail Site
001348.00 Program Analysis AttaGhmet]f: B
~ LevelSeven (222)
GrQSS Square Footage 17,366.0
Dwellin FractionaE Fee Units Arsa Be rooms Deck Area
Unit 1{Flat} 3.100.0 4 0.0
Unit 2 (Flat) 2,214.0 3 0.0
Unit 3(Flat) 2,295.0 3 0.0
Unit4(FlaC) 2,214.0 a 0.0
Unit5fFlati 3.100.0 4 0.0
Sub-Total DweIEinglFract. Fee Units 12,924.4 17.0 0.4
Other Areas ,a,rea
Corridar (pubiic) 554.0
Stair (e)tiY core} 505.0
Elevator (core) 348.0
Maid 0.0
NischanicaVElectrieal Room 2,220.0 .
Shaft (mechanical'} 0.0
3ub-Total Qther Areas 3,627.0
Floor Summarv Area -
Sub-Total DwellinglFr,~ct. Fee Units 12,924.0
Sub-Total Other Areas 1627.0
Total Net Area 16,557,0
~ GrossiNet Rativ 0.85
' Estimated
~
Page 1
Zehren and Associates, Inc. Chateau Vail Site Level 232
001348.00 Program Analysis 12l16l2002 '
Leve! Six (212)
~
Gross Square Fnotage 30,103.0
Dwellin IFracfianal Fee Units Area Bedrooms Deck Area
Unit 6(Flat) 2,873.0 4 OA
Unit 7(flat) 2,403.0 3 0.0
Unit 8(Flaf) 2,383.0 3 0.0
Unit 9(Flat) 2,372,0 3 0.0
Unit 10 {Flat} 2,385.0 3 0.0
Unit 11 (Flad) 2,372.0 3 0.0
Unii 12 (Flat) 2,383.0 3 0.4
Unit 13 {Flat} 2,449_0 3 0.0
Unit 14 (Flat) 2,330.4 3 0.0
Unit 15 Flat 2.615.0 4 0.0
Suh-Total DwellinglFraet. Fee Units 24,511.0 32.4 0.0
Other Areas Area
Carrldor (public) 1,910.0
Stair (exit core) 881 .p
Elevator (co€e) 524.0
Maid 0_4
MechanicellElectrical Room 797_0
Shaft (mechanicall 0.0
Suh-Total Other Areas 4,108.4
Flaor Summaev Area ~
5ub-"fotal DwellinglFratt. Fee Units 24,511.0
Sub-Total Other Areas 4108.0
Total Net Area 28,619.0
GrosslNet Ratio 0.95
~
Page 2
, Zehren and Associates, Inc. Chateau Vail 5ite Levea 202
001348.00 Program Analysis 12/1612002
~ Level Five {2p2
Gross 5quare Footage 40,158.0
Dwelling/Fractional Fee Units Area Bedrooms Deck Area
Unit 16 (Flat) 2,895_0 4 0.0
Unit 17 (Flat) 2,465.0 3 0.0
Unit 18 (Flat) 3,069.0 4 0.4
Unii 15 (Flat) 2,417.0 3 0.0
Unit 20 (Flat) 2,372.0 3 0.0
Unit 21 (Flat) 2.365.0 3 0.0
Unit 22 (Flat) 2,372,0 3 0,0
Unit 23 (Flat) 2,417.(} 3 0.0
Unit 24 (Flat) 2,465.0 3 0.0
Unit 25 (Flat) 3,233.0 4 0.4
Unit 26 (Flat) 2,351.0 3 O.f}
Unit 27 (Flat) 2,657.4 d 0.0
Cfnif 28 (Flat) 2,298.0 3 0.0
Unit 40 (Upraer Leval) 526A 1 4.0
Sub-TotaP awellinglFract. Fee Uniks 33,942.0 44.0 0.0
Okher Areas Area
Corridor (public) 1,779_0
Starr (exit core) 929,0
Elevatc3r (core) 493,0
~ Maid 159.0
MechanicaffElectr'reaF Room 0.0
Shaft (mechanical) 0.0
5ub-Total Qther Areas 3,360.0
Floor Summanr Area
Sub-Tptal pwellinglFract. Fee Units 33,902.0
Suti-Totaf Other Areas 3,360.0
Toca1 Net Area 37,262.0
GrasslNet Ratip 0.93
~
Page 3
Zehren and Assflciates, inc. Chateau Vaif Si#e Level 192 -001348.00 Pragram Analysis 12!1612002 ~
Level Four d192]
Gross 5quare Footage 48,415.0
DwrellinqlFractional Fee Units Area Bedrooms Deek Area
Unit 29 (Flat) 2,895.0 4 0.0
Lfnit 30 (Flat) 2,694.4 3 f].(l
Unit 31 (Flat) 2,245.0 3 0.0
Unit 32 (Flat) 2,372.0 3 4.4
Unit 33 (Flat) 2,385.0 3 4.0
Unit 34 (Flat) 2,372.0 3 0.0
Unit 35 (Flat) 2,245.0 3 0.0
Unit 36 (Flat) 2,694.0 3 0.0
Unik 37 (Flat) 2,351.0 3 0.0
Unit 38 (Flat) 2,657.4 4 0.0 "
Unit 39 (Flat) 2,154.0 3 0.0
Unit 40 (Lower Level~ 1,764.0 2 0_4
Suia-7otal bwellinglFract. Fee Units 28,806.0 37.0 0.0
Accommr,da[ion Unils Area Unit Area Kevs C]etk Area
Standard Raama 9,140.0 507.8 i$.D 0.0
One Bedroom Suites 0.{} 0.0 4.0 0.0
Two Bedroom Suites 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Presidential5uites 0.0 0.0 d.(] 0.4
Sub-Total Accommodation Units 9,144.0 0.0 78.0 0.0
~
Other Areas Area
Corridor (public) 3,882.0
alair {exit core} 1,070.0
Elevator (coae) 541.0
Maid 152.0
Mechanical/Electrical Roam 797.0
Shak (mechanical) O~D
Sub-Tota4 Other Areas 6,442.0
F1oar Sumrnarv Area
Sub-Total Dwe61ing1Fract. Fee lJnits 2$,808.0
Sub-Total Aecornmodation Units 9,140_0
Sub-Total Qther Areas 6,442.0
Tatal NetArea 44,390,0
GrossfNet Ratio 0.92
~
Page 4
Zehren and Associates, Inc. Chateau Vail Site Level 182
001348.00 Prvgram Analysis 12116/2002
~ Levef Three 082.0
}
Gross Square Footage 34,626.0
Accommadation Units Arsa IJnit Area Kevs Deck Area
5tandard Roams 97,239,0 522.4 33.0 0.0
One Bedroom Suites 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Two BedTOOm Suites 4,131.0 2,065.5 2.0 0.0
PresidenSial Suites 0,0 0-.0 Q#,.0 4,_Q
Sub-Total Accpmmadation Unlts 21,370.0 610,6 35.0 0.0
Emqlavee Housinq Units Area Unit Area Units Beds
Sub-Total Employee Housing 1,920.0 320.0 6.0 12
dther Areas Area
Gorridor (public) 4,947.0
Stair (exit crore) 662.0
Elevator (core) 348.0
Nlaid 896.0
MecharwcatlElectrical Raam 198.0
Shaft {mechanical) 0.0
Corridor (service) 914.0
Sub-Total DtherAreas 7,051A
Flvor Summarv Area
~ Sub-Total Accommodati4n Units 21,370.0
Sub-Total Em,piayee Hnusing 1,920.0
Sub-Total Other Areas 7.051.0
Tota! Net Area 34,344.0
Grass/Nek Ratio 0.88
~
Page 5
Zehren and Associates, Inc. Chateau Vaif Site Level 172
'
001348-00 Program Analysis 12116/2002
Level Twn (172) ~
Grass Square Footage 55,073.0
Accommodation Units Area Unit Area Eevs Deck Area
Standard Rooms 15,318.0 52$.2 29.0 0.0
One Bedroom Suites D.0 0.0 0,0 0.0
I
Twa 8edrpam Suites 0.0 0.4 0.4 0.0
Presidential5uites 0_0 0_0 4_0 0.0
Sub-Total Accammodation Units 15,31$.0 528.2 29,0 0.0
ErrE lo ee Hous+n Units Ara Uni# Area Units BedS
Sub-Total Employee Housing 3,781.0 315.9 12,0 24,0
Food and Beverape Area
Lobby Launge 1,501
Public Areas Area
Lobby Terrace 1,471
Lobby 6,197.0
p
Enlrv/Promenade 2,750.
Sub-Total Public Areas 10,419.0
Retaii Areas Area
Ski Concierge 3,107_0
Retail 2294.0 ~
I Sub-Total Retail Areas 5,397.4
EIS'IpIOYeelAdminstration Areas Area
Front Office 1,501.0
Other Areas Area
Carritlor (public) 4,030,0
Stair (exit core) 1,246.0
Elevator(care) 541,0
Maid 0.0
MechanicallEleeiricaf Rodrn 99.0
Shaft (rnechanical) 0.0
!
I
Carridor lservicel 0.0
Sub-Total Qther Areas 5,996.0
pa.__~k!n9 S aces
i FuU Size (9x1$' min.) 0.0
Compact (8'x16' min.) 0.0
Valet (8'x16' min.) 6.0
Accessible !B'xi2° min.1 0.0
Sub-Total Parking Spaces 6,0
Loading7Parking Ramp 5,872,0
~
Page 6
Zehren and Assaciates, Inc. Chateau Vail Site Level 172
001348.00 Program Analysis 12196/2002
~ Leve! Two (172)
Floar Summarv Area
Sub-Total Accommodation Units 15,318,17
Sub-Total Employee Hpusing 3,781.0
Sub-Tatal Food and Beverage 1,501.0
Sub-Total Public Areas 10,418.0
Sub-Total Retail Areas 5,337.4
Sub-Total EmpfoyeelAdmin, Areas 1,501.4
5ub-Total Other Areas 5,916.0
Loadinq/Parfeinq Rarnp 5,872.0
Tokal Net Area 49,704.0
GrosslNet Ratiq 0.90
I
!
~
~
Page 7
Zehren and Associates, Inc. Chateau Vail SPte Level 162
001348.00 Program Analysis 12/16f2002 Leyel One f162f ~
Grass 5guare Footage 74,443.0
AcCOmmodation Units Area Unit Area Kevs Deck Area
Standard Roorns 14,239.4 510.7 28.0 0.0
One Bedroom Suites 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Two Bedroom SuiEes 0.4 0.0 0.4 0.0
Presidentiai 5uites 0_0 0_0 0_0 D_0
Sub-Total Accommodakion Units 14,299.0 514.7 28.0 0.0
Emplovee Housin4 LOnits Area Unit Area Units Reds
Sub-Total Emplayee Housing 3,781.4 315.1 12.0 24.0
Food and Beveraae Area
RestauranUBar 4,756-00
ResSaurandBar 1'errace 1.616.00
Sub-Total Food and Beverage 6,372.00
Canferenc:e Facilities Area
6aliroerm 5,015.00
Pre-Convene 2.692.00
Ballro4m Terrace 1.964.00
Sub-Total Conference Areas 9,fi72.pp
Pu61ic Areas p,rea ~
Res#rooms 1,186.00
Sub-Total Public Areas 1,186.00
5ervice Areas Area
Kitchenl8ack of House 13.637.0
Sub-Total Service Areas 13,637,0
LoadinglParking Ramp 14,495.0
Okher Areas qTea ~
Corridw (public) 4.344.0
Stair (exit core) 574.0
Elevator(core) 541.0
Maid 1,105.0
MechanieallE]ectriea9 Room 308.0
Shaft (mechanPcal) 0.0
f;ptridor (service) 1,375.6
Sub-Total Other Areas 6,247.0
~
Floor Summarv Area
Page 8
e
- I
. . i
Zehren and Associates, Inc. Chateau Vail Site Level 162
00134$.00 Program AnaPysis 1211612002
~ Sub-Total Aceommodation lFnits 14,299.0
Sub-Total Ernplayee Housing 3,781.0
Sub-Total Fcsad and Beverage 6,372.4
Sub-Total Cortference Areas 9,672_00
Sub-Totai PubliC Areas 9,186.00
Sub-Total Serviee Areas 13,637.0
Sub-Total Retail Areas 14,495.0
Sub-Total Clther Areas 8,247,p
Tcatal HetArea 71,689.0
GrQSS/Net Ratio 0.96
~
~
Page 9
Zehren and Associates, fnc. Chateau Vail Site Leve1 152 '
001348.00 Program AnaEysis 1211612002
Level Zero {7521 ~
Gross Square Faotage 76,572,0
Accommodation Units Area URit Area Kevs UeCk Area
Starrdard Roams 15.282.0 527A 29.0 0.0
One 8edroom Suites 2,127.0 1,063.5 2.0 0.0
Twv Bedr€aom Suites 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
I Presidential Suikes 0.0 0_0 0_0 0.0
Sub-Total Accommodation Uniks 17,409.0 561.6 31.0 0.0
Em lo ee Housin Units Area Unit Aeea Units Beds
Sub-Total Empfayee Housing 3,781.0 315.1 12.0 24.0
Conferenoe Facilities Area
Conference Breakaut 4,371.0
Pre-ConvenelTunnei 3.191.0
Sub-Total Canference Areas 7,562,0
ServFCe Areas Area
Br@akouUFBB Back of House 10196.0
Sub-Total Service.Areas 70,116.0
I
Ps~ S aces
FuH 5ize (9"xl8' min.) 41.0
Compact (8'x16' min.) 4.0
~
Vaiet (8'x16' mira.) flep
Accessible_[8'x12' min.0.0
Sub-Total Parking Spaces 45,0
Parkin4 ,4reas
I Parking DecklRamp 22,182A
~ Other Areas Area
I
Carridor (puhlic) g=87p,p
Stair (exlt care) 574.0
Elevator(care) 541,0
Maid 1,105.0
Mechanical/Efectrical fioorn 1,763.0
Shaft (meehanica!) 0.4
Corridor {service) 1.375.0 I
Sub-Total Other Areas 9,853.0 I
Flopr Summarv Area
Sub-Total Accornrnodation UnPts 17,409.0
Sub-Total Employee Fiousing 3,781.0
i
, Sub-Tatai CanFerersce Areas 7,562.0
Sub-Total 5ervice Areas 10,116.0
IParking Declu'Ramp 22,182.0
Sub-Total Other Areas 9,8$3.p
Total Net Area 70,903.0 ~
GrosslNet Ratin 0.93
Page 10
-
Zehren and Associates, inc. Chafeau Vail Site Levei 142
' 001348.4(} Program Analysis 12l9612002
~ l,evel Minus,flne (142)
Grass Square Footage 84,535.4
Childrens's Activities Area
Pre-Teen AcUviEies 1,672.0
Teen Activities 1,672.0
Sub-Total Children's Ackivities 3,344.0
SpalHealthclub 23,927.0
Ou#door Pool Area 9,382.0
Parkin Sp3GES
Full Size (9'x18" min.) 56_0
Compact (8'x16' mrn.) 6.0
Valet (B'x96° men.) 0.0
Access6ble S'x12' min. 0.0
Sub-Total Parking Spaces 62,0
Parkinq Area Area
5ud- Total Parking Area 24,261,0
Service Areas Area
SEaff FacilifeslPersonnel 11,532.0
~ Laundrv/Housekeepinq 7,876.4
Sub-Total Service Areas 19,448.4
Other Areas Area
Corridor (pub[ic} 6,095.0
Stair (exit core) 574_0
Elevatar (eore) 541.0
Maid O.CI
NlechanicallElecfical Room 13,043.0
Shaft (mechanical) 0.0
Corridar (service) 1,606.0
Sub-Total Other Areas 21,859.0
Eloor 5ummanr .Area
Sub-Total Children's AcEivities 3,344.0
SpalHealthalub 23,927_0
Sub- Total Parking Area 24,261.0
Sub-Total Service Areas 19,408.0
Sub-Total Other Areas 21,859-0
Tofal Net Area 92,799.0
GeosslNe# Ratao 1.10
~
Page 11
~
Zehren and Associakes, Inc. Chateau Vail Site Level 132
001348.00 Prograrn AnalysFS 12/16/2002
Level Mlinus Two f133} ~
Gross Square Footage 85,871.0
Parkin Saaces
Full Size (9'x18' min.) 131
Compact (8"x1 6' min,) 0 ~
Valet (8'x16' min.) 10
Accessible J8'x12' min.) fi
Sub-Total Parkirtg 5paces 147
Parkinq Area Area
Sub-7otal Parking Area 53,552.0
Emolovee/Adminstration Areas Area
AdministrationlAccounting 8,558.0
Olher Areas Area
Corridor (public) 813.0
Stair (exit core) 574.0
Efevatar (cQre) 506A
Maid 0.0
Mechanica!!Electrical Room 20,275.0
Shaft {mechanipl} (Y,D
Corridor fservice) 0_0 ~
Sub-7otal Other Areas 22,168.0
FIoQr Summarv Area
Sub- Total Parking Area 53,552.0
AdministrationlAccounl[ng $,558.4
Sub-7oEaf OtMer Areas 22,168.0
Total Net Areas 84,278.0
Gross!lWet Area 0.98
~
Page 12
~ Levef Nlinus 7hree (722)
Grass Square Faotage 31,720A
P~~~ S aces
Full Size (9`x1$' min.) 61
Campac4 (8'x18' min.) q
Valet (8'x16' min.) p
Accessi6le (8'x12' mirr.) 0
Su6-Totai Parking Spaces 61
Parkinq Area Area
Sub- Total Parking Area 27,915,0
Oiher Areas qrea
Corridor (public) 561 _p
5tair (exit core) 0.0
Elevator (core) 472,0
Maid 0.0
MechanicallElectriql Room 1,453.0
Shaft (mechanical) 0.0
Corridar (service) 0.0
Sub-Tatal 4ther Areas 2,4$6,0
Floor Surnmarv Area
~ Sub- Tatal Parking Area 27,915.0
Sub-Total Dlher Areas 2,486.0
7ntal Nef Areas 30,401.0
Gross/Net Area p,gg
~
~
Zehren and Associates, lnc. Chateau Vail Site Program Totals
20021471.00 Program Analysis 12f16l2002
Proqram Totals ~
DweflinqlFractional Fee Units Area Bedroams Deek Area OU/FFU
Unit 7(Flat) 3,100.0 4.0 0.0 DU
l3nit 2(Flat) 2,214.4 3.0 0.0 DU
Unit 3 (Flat) 2,296.0 3.(] 0.0 Df1
Unit 4(FIdE) 2,214.0 3.0 0.0 DU
Unit 5{Flat} 3,100.0 4.Q 0_0 aU
UnEt 6(Flat) 2,873,0 4.0 0.0 DU
Unit 7(Flat) 2,409.0 3.0 0.0
Unit $ (Flat) 2,383.0 3.0 0.0
Unit 9(Flat) 2,372.0 3.0 0.0
UniS 10 (Flat) 2,365.0 3.0 0.4
Unit 31 (Flat) 2,372.0 3.4 0.0
Unit 12 (Flat) 2,383.0 3.0 0,0
Unit 13 (Flat) 2,+149.0 3.0 0.0
Unit 14 (Flat) 2,330.0 3_0 4.0
Unit 95 (Flat) 2,615.4 4.4 0.0
Unit 16 (Flat) 2,895.0 4_0 0.0
Unit 17 (Flat) 2,465,0 3.0 0.0
Unit 18 (Flat) 3,069.(} 4.0 0.0
Unit 19 (Flat) 2,417.0 3.0 0.4
Unft 20 (Flat) 2,372.0 3.0 0.0
Unit 24 (Flat) 2,365.0 3.0 C}A
Unit 22 (Flat) 2,372.0 3.0 0.4
Unit 23 (Flat) 2,417,0 3.0 0.0 ~
Unit 24 (Flat) 2,465A 3.0 4.0
unit 25 (Flat) 3,233.0 4.0 4.0
Unit 26 (Flat) 2,351.0 3.0 0.0
Unit 27 (Flat) 2.657.0 4.0 0.0
Unit 28 (Flat) 2,298.0 3.0 t1,0
lJnit29 (Flat) 2,895.0 4_0 0.0
Unit 30 (Flat) 2,694.4 3.0 0.0
Unit 31 (Flat) 2,245,0 3.0 0.0
Unit 32 (Flat) 2,372.0 10 0.0
Unit 33 (Flat) 2,365.0 3.0 0.0
Unit 34 (Flat) 2,372.0 3.0 4.0
Unit 35 (Flat) 2,245.0 3.0 OA
Unit 36 (Flat) 2,694.0 3.0 0_0
Unit 37 {FPat} 2,351.0 3.0 0.0
Unit 38 (Flat) 2,657.0 4.0 0.0
Unit 39 (Flat) 2,154.0 3.6 0.0
Un9140 (Lower Leuel) 2 2gQ.p 3,,0 0_4
Total DwellinglFract. Fee Units 100,145.0 130.0 0.4
To#al Four eedroom Units 10
Total Three Bedroom Llnits 34
~
Page 16
Zehren and Assaciates, lnc. Chateau Vail Site Program Totals
- 20021471.00 Pragram Analysis 12/16/2002
~ Accommodalipn iJnits Area Unit Area Tpta! Kevs Standard 1 Bedrpom 2 Bedraom
Level Four (192) 91740.0 507,8 18.0 0.4 0.0 OA
Level Three (1$2.0) 21,37Q0 614.6 35.0 33.0 0.0 2.0
Level Two {172} 95,318_0 528.2 29.0 29.0 0.0 0.0
Level Qne (162) 14,299.0 510.7 28.0 28.0 0.0 0.0
Level Zero (152~ 17.409.0 561.6 311.0 29.4 2.4 0_4
Total AcGOmmodakion Units 77,536A 549.9 141A 118.0 2.0 2.0
Emplouee Npusina iJnits Area Unit Area Unils 8eds
Level Three (182.0) 1,920.0 320.0 6.0 12.(}
Level Twa (172) 3,781.0 315.1 12.4 24.0
Level One {782} 3,7$1 .0 315.1 12.0 24.0
Leue! Zero 152 3.781.0 315.1 42.0 24,0
Total Emplvyree Housirtg Units 13,263.0 315.8 42.0 84.0
Retail Totals p,{ea
Ski Concierge 3,107.0
Retail 2.290.0
Total Retail Areas 5,397.0
SpalHealthclub 23,927
Food and Beveraoe p,rea
Lobby Lounge 9.501.0
~ Re tas uranUSar 4.756.0
Zota! Faod and 8eveeaga 6,257.0
Conference Facilities Area
Ballroom 5,016.0 Pre-Canvene 2,692.0
Ballroom Terrace 1,964,0
Conference Breakout 4,871.0
Pre-ConvenefTunnel 3191.0
Total Conference Facilities 17,234.0
Children's Activities Area
Pre-Te2n ActivitiQS 1,672
Teen Act+vities 1.672
Tatal Children's Activities 3,344
~
Page 17
Zehren and Associates, Inc. Chateau Vail Sike Zoning Analysis , 00134$•00 Program Anaiysis 92/1612002
Oeuelooment 5landards ~
Publ9c Acc:omcrdation (PA) Zone GRFA Dwellina Unils Retaii Sile Cflveraae Landscapina Hardscape
FormWl25 154% 30% 10% 65% 30%T 20%
Site Area Area /119owv. Gi2FA Allow, Dwellinu Retail GRFA
Chateau Vail Site 101,143 151,714.5 45,514.4 10,114.3
Alpine Standard Site 17.625 26.437.5 7.931.3 1,762.5
Sub-Total Western Sfte 418.76$ 178,152 53,446 11,877
GRFA rea Max AIlow Area
Total DwelfinglFract. Fee llnits 53,446 53,446
'fotal Accamrrtodation Units 77,538 62,353
To[al Fraction Fae Units 48.000 62.353
7otaa GFtFA 178.982 178,152
Total Retail Areas 5,397 19,877 6,480
'
Site Coveraae Area °fa of Site Area Oifference
Above Grade 67,100A 58.5% -8.5°/.
Below Grade 84,535.0 71.2°/q 6.2%
l.andsrape Area Area °la of Site Area Difference
Landscape Area 35,630 30_0°/a 0.0°f.
Hardscape Area 7,126 24.0% U.a•/, ~
Total DwelGng/Fract. Fee Units 100,145.0
Total Acc.ammqdatian llnits 77,536.0
Total GRFA 177,681.0
Allowable GRFA 178,152.0
Difference 471.0
~
~
18 '
. ~
,
' r o 0 0 0 o a c a e o 0 0 0 0 o e e o Q o o ~
O er1 W P} Cl V!~ ih Q 7 h Y1 41 tY R ~S O+G Q
V rf V 4~ 4 N M~D 6 OI 4i VT 4
~ fif1 r1 a0 NV1 N.- M T 9~ li} e7 ~ O~ i'I C6
N 4!~ ~ ' C N r9 q ~
Vf
'0 O O O O C O C] P O ~O
~ N O SV O Y] O p ` C~
m i~ CTy Y < ~ O
~ M N ^ n
J
M ~
~
L
~ .
J S?O O 4 G O O O O G tn
s'1 ~ ~ r M1 ~0 ti66 i'o'1 O
Q d0 ~f1 m 119 u'1 N A ~
f m ~ ~ ti I
3 I
~
v
}
C+ es o 0 0 0 o a q~ o 0 0 0
a~ ~n ovrvbi~
^ ~ vnwo~n~i o ati
d~ N Oj Pj ry IG } r~
~
3
~
O O C 9 O p O O O O C5 p O ~
p~ 'oeP orioui~
~i A IFS r W 4'~ V] F M N ~
m A ~ t~l ~ w O N ~ ~ P F
~
?
m
~ C 4 O G Q O q O O O O C~ q O O ~O
~ Of M ~D I(] N
~ - y Q 1(1 ~ C ufi W ~
1 ~ °ni m ~~P ~ Rl ~l9 cl1 ~r v7 t'i W ~
' ~ ~ PI fO v~ ~ RI { V
M1
C! O O O O Q O O O O O O O Q O O O
CO m~ W IA ^ O<O QO W O O Y ~
ir"i F~F] V a~5 ~ m O N
T~ ~ i7 O 1!'E r N rr r w
1- +
~
}
J ~
8 ~ O' O p O O O O N
C [+i m w C6 G. cR
m ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ rt p
' ~ e pp
N M
Hy
}
J
~ o~ O O O O O O O N
. 4i a0 O [V O r{ N I~ O O m
J q ty~ l"A ~ ~ .
O
31_
N
P
4 O O O O O'J' O O ~
Q~ P! A~ Q~ O O N O
A
LL
~
J
~O O p p p p O O B ~ ~
• `~I o ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ O Cj ~ ~ '
~
~
. . ~ ~ N
J ~
a oooqoaa in
I% QQIi'f ~f1 m O q~y O ~
~ ~iN t'~1 N YNi 0
r N tG
y r
N
}
N
c ~ ~ E
m 'n r~ ~ p e' < LC
p
c ~
E+A ~ E
n _ E $ u 3 ` ~ g v
`e7 ~awiia'M cu 0 ri vaUinc?c~7~°.
~ r
` THlS lTEM IIAAY AFFECT YOUR PRQPERTY Attachment: C
~
RUBLlG NOTIGE
NOTIGE IS MEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Comcraission of the Town ot
Uail will hold a public hearing in acccardance wifh Section 12-3-6 of the Municipal Code af the
Town of Uail on Janvary 13, 2003, at 2:00 P.M. in tha Town of Vaii Municipal Building. In
consideratian af:
A request for a recommendatian ta the Vail Town Ccauncil of a propased text amendment ta
Section 12-10-9: Loading Standards, Vail Town Code, ta amend the size requirement for
IQading ber#hs & setting farth de#ails in regard theretv.
Applicant: Town of Vai!
Planner: A{lison 4chs
A request fcar a eonditional use permit, pursuant to Section 12-6C-3, Vaii Town Code, to al4ow
for a Type II Emplayee Housing Unit and a request for a variance frorn 5ection 12-6C-6
(Setbacks), Vail Town Code, ta allow for additions in the sicEe setbackS, located a# 1193 Cabin
CfrcaelLot 4, Block 2, Vaii Valley 8t'' Fifing.
Applicant: David & Renie Gorsuch, represen#ed by Resort aesign Associates, fnc.
Planner Bil! Gibson
A request for a cranditional use permit, pursuant ta Sectian 12-9C-3B, Vai! Tawn Code, ta alfow
for a touristlguest servECe reiated faci6ity accessory ta a parking structure, and a fequest for a
variance frorn Title 11, Vail Town Code, to aHQw fQr proposed signage and sefting fQrth cietaifs ~
in regard thereto, located at 181 W. Meadow DrivelLots E&F, Vail Vilfage 2nd filing.
Applicant: Sfan Andersrsn
Planner: Bill Gibson
A request for a recammendatian to the Vail Tawn Council fior a major amendment ta Special
Developrnent Districi No. 36, pursuant to Section 12-9A-10, Uail Yown Code, to allow for a
mixed-use hotel; a request for afinal revierrv of a condi#ional use perrnit, pursuant to Section 12-
~ 1,4-3, Vail Town Code, to allow far Type Ifl Emplayee Housing Units and a fractional fee club;
and a request for a recammendatian to the Vail Tavyn Council far a propased rezaning af Lot
~ 9A, Vail VilEage 2"d Filing from Heavy Senrice (HS) District ta PubEic Accammadation (PA)
District, iacated at 28 S. Frontage Rd. and 13 Vail Road/Lots 9a& 9C, Vail Village 2"d Filing.
AppEicant: Nicollet Island DeveEopment Campany lnc.
Planner, George Ruther/Allison C)chs
A request for a variance fram Section 12-7A-9, (Site Coverage) and a request far a proposed
minor exterior alteration, pursUant to Section 12-7A-1 2, Vail Town Code, to aNow far a
residential addition, located at 292 East Meadow Qrive/A part of Tract B, VaiP Village First Filing.
Applicant: Mauntain Haus Homeowner's AssoGiation, represented by K.H. 1Nebb Architects
Planner: BiEI Gibson
A request far a fina[ review of a propased major exterior afteration, pursuant to Section 12-7A-
12, Vail 7awn Cotie, ta aliaw for a hotel redevelopment and adclition; a reques# for a fnaf review ~
of a conditionaC use permit, pursuant to Section 12-7A-3, Vail i'own Code, ta aClaw far a
fractiQnal fee c1ub; a recommendation ta the Vail Tawn Cauncil af a text amendment Section
.
~
ry~!
J to To 49N OF V~IIL ~
1?~'
, Cliff Eldz-ed"ge
Vail Clinic lnc Town of Vail c!o Finance Dept Vail Calorado Municapal Bidg
W Meadow Dr 75 S Frcantabe Rd Authanty
l, CO 81657 Vail, CO 81657 75 S Frontage Rd
Vail, CO 81657
DAB Investment Inc
dfbfa Haliday Inn Chateau Vail Moellenxine L.and Ga LLC Vai1 Fire Frotectian Diskrict
F O Box 11939 461 Fifth Street Vai1, CO 81657
Denver, CO 80211-4939 New York, NY 10017
Zyrnan, Sylvia Rebeca c/o Johnson,
Brown & Spei~el Gary A. Sy~nan -~,zita Raji Family ptta Wiesi clo Brandess-Cadmus
Attn: Brenda Brown Trust 281 Bridge St
500 Bishop St AS 27 Windward Rd Vail, CO 8I557
Atlanta, ~'rA 30318 BeIvedere, CA 94920
Morgan D. & Catherine E. DoubIas D,C. I~.istler, P.H. Stark, M.S. Richarr~ A. Eddy
142 W Meac~ow Dr Garbe, L. & E. Griffiths 1881 Lionsridge LP 28
Vail, C(7 81657 1510 S Clayton St Vail, CO 81b57
Denver, CO 80210
Maud B. Duke Quaiified Personal Irving J. Shwayder Mervin Lapin
Residence Trust 1900 E Girard Pl 1501 232 W Meadow Dr
f0 S Steele St Enblewood, CO 80110 Vail, CO 81657
leton, CO 80121
James U. Kin~, Jr.
Theodore S. Halaby paul R. & Me~-role Steinway and 11931 Wickck~estez Ln
I2 Vista Rd Tlzec~doa-e S. & C nthia Halab
Englewood, CO 80110 Y Suite 401
12 Vista Rd Houston, T X 77043
Englewood, CO 80110
Caleb B. & Maryan F. Hurtt Sonnenalp Praperties inc Varl Corp
272 W Meaelow Dr ?p Vai] Rd P 0 Box 7
Vail, CO 81657 Vail, CO $1657 Vail, CO 81658
Ta]isman Condominiurn Assoc Daymer Gorp NV VaiI 108 Lid clo WeSCar Bank
62 E Meadow Dr 100 E Meadovr Dr Admin Center
Vail, CO 81657 Vail, CO 81657 P 0 Box 1210
Gygsum, CO 81637
Scorpio Condorninium Assoc. Alghorn Condominiurn Assac. Skaal Haus Condominium Assn
P O Box 1767 121 W Meadovu Dr #304 141 W Meadow Dr #2
Auon, CO 81620 Vail, CO 81657 Vazl, CO 81657
0
Hotiday Hc,use Condotxunium Assn Villa Cortina Condominium Assn Meadow Vail Place Candominiurn
P O Box 3842 P O Box 1012 Assn
Vail, CO 81658 Vail, CO 81658 44 W Meadow Dr
Vail, CO 81657
,
Vail Gateway Plaza Condominium Villa'ge Inn Place - Phase III Village Inn Place - Phase IV
Assn Condominium Assn Condominium Assn ~
P C) Box 19157 100 E Ivleadaw Dr 100 E Meadow Dr
Avon, CQ 81620 Vail, CO 81657 Vail, CO 81657
Village Inn Place - phase V Taliszz3an Condominium Assn Vail Village Inn Plaza
Condoni.inium Assn p 0 $ox 832 Candam.iniurn ,Assn
100 E Meadaw Dr Vai1, CO 81658 143 E Meadaws Dr
Vail, CO 81657 Vail, CO $1657
BS Condominium Assn Alejandra Lerdo de Tejada de Creel Allan StezQer
'~g~ Concord Rd
1(7403 W Calfax Ave Bosques de Chihuahua 144 Longmeadaw, MA 01106-2225
Lakewood, GO 80215 Mexict~ DF 11700
"Fhamas H. Atkins & Sharon N. 7ones Judy L. Feinberg
Dephine M. Delsemme Amended & Successor Trustees clo Amer Star Fncl
Restated Trust 7101 Wisconsin Ave 5te I2(11 ~~4I Cambrid~e Mandr Ct
2505~ MeadowwoQd Dr Bethesda~, MD 20814 Patomac, MD ?0854
Taledo, OH 43606
Tames J. Ariola 1997 Deciaration of AJ, M, AI & AJ Hauser, AH Garz,a, Mary Clare & Ronald J. Snaw
rrust MMH Marttnez 2159 S Parfet Ct
243 Lorraine Cir 2100 Gulf Blvd Unit d 1 Denver, CO 80227-1913 ~
Bloamingdale, IL 60108 S Padre Island, TX 78597
~ 4lbcrt J. & Yvon.ne M. Martens Bruce T. & Elizabeth H. Bowling Jack Kent Cadillac Inc
1503 Valle Vista 30 Eastwood Cir c/o Jack C. Kent
Pekin, TL 61554 Jahnson City, NY 13790 4790 S Ogden SC
Englewood, G+0 80110
Vlichelie Ellen Warshofsky William B. 8r. Debarah A. Hardin Henry & Helga Beck
)445 SW 90th St 601 VVe11esIey 3037 E Lake Rd
vliami, FL 33176 Houston, TX 77024 Skaneateles, NY 13152
i. Jose h Pra uoienis, Debora Brian F. & Helen M. Stoick
qomS P P HaIs Und Bein Bruck 7075 Campus Dr 5te 204 5145 Upper Straits Blvd 131 Laurel Ave Coiorado Springs, CC} 80920-3164 Orchard Lake, IVII 4$324
vVilmette, IL 60491 ~
I
-laward J. & Linda M. Awand Isidro c4z F.nna Maria Jauregrai CarYp J. Clayman Trust
:7amil Trust 472 Warren Ln
y Ke Bi~ca FL 33149 Czryn J. Clayman Tzustee
1955 S Durango 126 y yne, P O Box 810186
1as Vegas, iNV 89113 Boea Raton, FT, 33481
~
nversianes Don Raul 7540 C.A. Helen E. & Gary W. Dah]en, Basil Mor~an
7/o Vail Management Gompanv Samuel H. Wood 4324 York Rd 100
43 E~r3eadow Dr 395 4 Escandido Valle Baltimore, IvID 21212
Jail, CO 81657 Manitou 5prings, CO 8[}829=2417
Two Utes LLC Laura S. 3 Maurer Adalo Holdings Ltd
Vail Realty & Rental Ntgznt 1705 WarPath Rd
~ Hanson Ranch Rd West Chester, PA 19382 V1n 1041 Box 025685
. Mlami, FL 33102
Vail, CO 81657
Exxailio F. Espinola Jaznes L. & Paula Gould Luanne M. & Ranald L. Srr~th
Elefante 101-302 715 Baylston 121 VV Meadow Dr 306
Colidel Valle, 03 100 Mexico DF Boston, MA 02116 Vail, CO $1657-5078
William E. & Matthew G. Fuller Tam K. & June P. Brown Bartjamin R. Boutell, Jr.
P O Box 25 121 W Ivieadow Dr 305 121 W Meadow Dr 304
Troy, MI 48099 Vail, CO $1657 Vail, CO 81657
Joan E. Payne Trust
Laura P. Wright, Mary Payne Mary Payne GalIoway Trust No 1- Kenneth Gordon Revocable Trust
Galloway et al 480(} Biltmpre 17r
220 Vine Street 2045 Tabor Dr Cora1 Gables, FL 33146
Denver, CO 80205 Lakewc,acl, CO 80215 Celeste M. Reisinger Lesley S. Craig Alice Fegelman Tnastee
253 Kenforest Dr 215 S Clermont St 251 Poage Farrn Rd
~sburgh, PA 15216 Denver, CO 84246 Cincinnaii, OH 45215
Dr. Lynne C. W~i~ht Tr+~st Herbert E. 7ane B. Wollowick Michael V. & Marbaret W. Ke1I.
1847 Rhode Island Ave 104 Driftwqod Ln 1851 Raynele
McLean, VA 22101 Lar-o, FL 33770 Bizzxiincyharn, MI 48009
Margac W. MeLish Williarn & W. ]udsort Fu11er Nfichelle Dupre, Mininder Kocher
6500 W Mansfield Ave 57 1100 Westwaod 52 Grey Cliff Rd
Denver, CO 80235 Birrningham, MI 43409 Bribhton, MA 02135
Michael J. & Suzette B. Pa'ewman Frank J. Haberl Farnily Trust Alti Corp
700 Cascade Ave
Boulder, CO $0302 14700 '~rabapple Rd 3862 La Jolla Villa~e Dr
Golden, CO ${~401 La Jolla, CA 92037
Lawrence J. Flynn, Jr. Charlcs & Karala Arizmendi
c/'o Flinn Asset Mgmt Marjorie J. Takton Trust eCS 6284, 4400 N'W 73rd Ave
2 Greenwich Plaza 1505 Greenway Terrace Miami, FL 33166
Greenwich, CT 06830 Elnn Grove, 'UG'Y 53122-1617
Or 8c Judith McEnnally
1~3 (~~~s Ave Katherine W. I.~udzinslci Sears, Francine Farkas & Bea~jamin
17ee Why I~ISW 2099 3349 Canadian Pkwy Le~~is, Farkas, Alexander Moss
Australia Ft CoIlins, CO 80524 47 Flying Point Rd
Stoney Creek, CT 06405
Joan M. I`1'azxis Susan H. Schultz Revocable Trust Annette L. Maclcie
141 W Meadow Dr 2 Susan H. Schultz Trustee 100 Lamed Rd ~
Vai1, CO 81657 6495 Ideal Ave N Sununit, NJ 07901
Mahtomedi, MN 55115
Jim Lamont
Vai] Vitlage HQA Dc~rothy H., Gardon & Pat Parrish Allison F. Butts
P O Box "T3 8642 Gregory Wy 4523 Doz~set AVe
Recliff, CQ S 1649 Los AngeIes, CA 90035 Chevy Chase, MD 20$15
Vail Associates Ltd Dean Gosper Family Trust Jacqueline R. Knepshield
5711 Monrae St Ste A, 106 St GeQrges Rd 5201 EImwoad Rd
Sylvania, OH 43560 Toarak Vic, Australia 3142 CnevY Chase, MD 20815
William W. McCuthen, Jr. Richard A. & Gwendalyn G.
12 Sandpiper Rd Vinterra Exempc Corp ScalPeIlo
Westport„ CT 068${} clo Frederick S. Otto F O Box 160
F 0 Box 3149 V:il, CO 81658
Vail, CO 81658
Thomas p. Walsh, Sr. 7ames T. & 7ane R. Watson I
VFP ~Vo. I5 Corp c!o Dakota King Inc
;Jo Daniel Abdunrad 3801] W 53rd St ~~~~is St
i1fl0 San-Feli I93 Littleton, CO 8012{~ ~
Pe Siaux Falls, SD 57106-4223
iouston, "TX 77056
Scott D. Bradshaw
22E6 Inc 4130 La Jolla Village Dr ~~rothy B. McKnight
;/o Esth~er Geifman de Mizrahi Suit~e 107-125 ~~'3 Country Club Dr.
302 Hansan Ranc'h l~d La Jolla, CA 920i7-1599 Stez-ling, C~ 8075I
Jail, CO 81657
)ou~las 8~ 3oanna Palzin
3bS4 E Ellsv~varth A~e GoIden Horizons Inc Vinterra Ex~empt Corp-
~en~~er, CO 8~209 2340 aaC FIills T~r Richard A. Scalpello
Calorado Springs, CO 809I9 P Q Box 160
V ail, CO $165$
Steven G. & Susan J. Marton Petcr M., Kimberly A. & PauI
'aul VVeiner Revocable Trust 6711 VV 128th Fl 204 Mourani
50 Quebec Street 107 6091 S Happy Can on Rd
)enver, CQ 80230 Overland Park, KS 6G~09 Eng1ewood, CO 80111 ~
a
:.G. Jacobs
/[c~untain Caretaker., Inc. Jacqueline R. I~nepshi~ld Guipe~a & Tarnara Oynick, Velia
',000 Spt-in~ Creek Raad ~91~ Aubu~-n Ave 2~4 & G~-los C7ynick
)ypsum, CO $1637 Beth~da, NLD 20814 449 S Creek Dr
Osprey, FL 34229 ~
indres Banas
~huehuetes Narte No 909 Gail M. & Stephen R. Rineberg peaver Road Tnc
lasques de las Lomas ~~~ney Ranch l~d 9~ c/o Vail Realty & Rental Mgmt
4exico DF Mexico Scottsdale, AZ 85258 302 E Gore Creek Dr
Vail, CO 81657
` Luis P. & Huguette D. Bustamante
abert M. Euwer & Barbara D. C7berin- Irrevocable Trust c/o Vai1 Realty & Rental Mgznt
rer Revoeable Ti•ust 525I L7TC Parkway 425 302 Hanson Ranch Rd
528 E Callup St Greenwood Vzllage, CO 84111 Vail, CO 81657
Littleton, CO 80120
'
Maureen T. O Dea William A. c4z. Ronnie N. Potter Margaret T. Fuller
16450 W Sunset Blvd 302 1130 Park Ave 5123 S Perry Cir
Pacific Palisades, CA 9[}272 New York, I'v'Y 10128 Littletan, CO 80123
~
Linda C. Dickinsan Qualified William W. Graham RL Exempt Corp
Persanal Residence Trus[ 11661 San Vincente Blvd 401 c/o Frederick S. ptto
920a Hollyaak Dr LQs Angeies, CA 90049 P Q iBox 3149
Bethesda, MD 20814 Vail, CO 8165$
I David G. & Cathy L. Crane
c/o D.G. Crane Charlene Carusa Revocable Living JAF Industrial Dev
2485 Braaciway Trust P O Box 6688
San Francisco, CA 94115 2428 N 12th Ct Somerset, Nr 08$75-6588
Ft Lauderdale, FL 33304
'I'homas F. Sheridan„ Vincent D. xudith & 1de1 Ba.ker Sewiher Carp
Walsh 20 I7olma Rd c/o Burke Mbmt
foashington, $ Swann St NW Scarsdale, NY 1OS$3 p p$ox 2631
DC 20009 Vail, CO 81658
Ponch Ine - Trio Inc James W. & Ellen V. Pinkard William & Ann F. LQper
c/o Jeffersan P Knoght PA 3440 ~~~~gfield St Ste 351 22 W Meadaw Ih 360
777 Bricknell Ave #1070 Wheat Ridae, CQ 80033 Vail, Cp 81657
Ivliami, FL 33131
Eu~ene, 3'r & Sue B. Mercy pericles Realty Inc Nlichael S. & Iris Smith
1111 Fark Ave 2 Sedwick Dr
New York, NY 10128 c/o Otto Peterson & Post P O Bax 3149 Englewood, CO 80114
Vail, CC] $1658
Riehard T Liebhaber and
Vai144 Corp Spraddle Creek PrQperties Inc. Kirsten E Liebhaber Persona] Res.
44 Meaclow Dr 44 c/o 3ames B. Newman Trust
Vail, GO $1657 150 Government St Ste 2000 P Q Box 8214
Mobile, AL 36602 McLean, VA 22106-8210
Hilda C.), Facrill Avila Meek Familw Trust
Meadow Place Inc Attn: B. Brandon John F. & Jerris P. Ferguson,
c/o Invicta America Attrs: Suzette Ansbacher Hause Jennet 5t Terry C]. Meek
P 0 Box 551600 George Town Grand Cayman 5326 Ciayhill 17r
~auderdalc, FL 33355 Gayman Islands BWI Sprinbfield, MO 65804
Pericles Realty Inc David William Hanna Trustee 575M LLC
44 W Meadow Dr c/o Hanna Capita] Mana~ement, Ine 1$ Spnn",field Ln i
Vail, CO 81657 620 1`dewport Center Dr Ste 504 Sarasota Springs, NY 12865
Newporc Beach, CA 92660
- s = - _ ~ -
Vw'hite River P~.cquisition Corp Vail 5undial LP cJo Manuel Martinez 'VVW Palrnas ~
c/o Russell Standard Consulting Group 2775 ~S `°'w'~
P O Bax 473 905 Bricknell Bay I~r Ste 230 ~o~lder, CO Sa3(}4
Bridgeville, PA 15017 Nliam9, FI. 33131
Whitebay Marketing Ltd
Vaii Gateway LLC clo Georac D. Periman Holland & Timberline Comrnercial Holdings
3 World Financial Center Knight LLC
12th FL 701 Bricknell Avt; S[e 3(}00 12 Vail Rd 600
New York, NY 10285-1200 Miami, F133I31 Vail, CO 81657
Vail PBK LLC GGG LLC Kilrnur LLC
.392 Mill Creek Cir P O Box 5963 P QBQx $963
Vail, CO 8I657 Vail, CO 81658 Vail, CO 81658
James R. & Karen W. Johnscan Vail Gateway Plaza Vai] Village Inn inc
19 Churchill Rd 12 Vail Rd Ste 6(l4 100 E Meado~r Dr 33
Pittsbur~h, PA 15235 Vait, CO 81657 Vail, CO $1657
Diane Gamel Lighthall Meadow Drive Ventures Inc Patricia Ann Gabriel
5293 W Oberlin Dr P0 Bax 2767 P O Box 268
Qenver, CO 80235 Mobile, A1 36552 Paramus, N7 07653-0268 ~
KaFin Wagner Revocabae Inter
Claus W. Fricke Revaeable TrusC Vivas Trust 5taufer Commercial LLC
Edna N. Fricke Revacable Trust Karin Waa
gner Trustee lOfl E NJeadow Dr 31
P C} Box 1557 405 Bontona Ave Vail, CO 81657
Eable, CO 81631-1557 Ft I..auderdale, FL 33301
Sylvan M. & Frances Tobin Dayrn~~ ~orp NV Mai-vin J. & Karole A. Frank
lOZ Cheswold Ln 5-D 2430 I~1 Qrchard
FIaverford, PA 19041 950 Red Sandstone Rd ?G Vail, CC? 81657 Chicago, T.L 60614
Emest III & Lisa Jane Scheller CarQl G Jone$ trustee Guiseppe & Mercedes Cecchi
751 Benner Rd 268 Litchford CT 1700 Moare St Ste 2020
?.llentown, PA 18104 St Louis, MO 63141 Ariznaton, VA 222(}9
W illiam P. & Lynda B. Jahnson Michael P. & Patricia J. Glinsky Vail Village Inn Assaciates
375 Inca Parkway 3200 Cherry Creek S Dr Ste 230 c/o Copperthwaite & Ca
Boulder, C0 84303 Denver, CO 80209 P Q Bax 61349
Denver, CO 80206 ~
Silvia lto c€e ZaragQza Gary J. & Dc~rorhy Farrell Cordes ~,,UI Inc
PO B6x 22{~349 ?B Trentino Rd, Turranurra 2074 cfo Fred fltto - Otto Peterson & Post
~l Pasa, TX 79913 ~SW AustraIia P p Box 3149
Vail, CO $1658
, . ,
-Barbara Weinstein A.J. property Trust MichaeI J. Zaremba
Waiinview, oyce Rd cfa Dreyer Edmonds & Assoc. 6200 Plymouth Ct
NY 11803 35:5 S Grand Ave Ste 4150 Downers Grove, IL, 60516
Los Angeles, CA 90071-3103
Richard T. Liebhaber 4725 Ltcf 41iver M. & Diana L. Keazney
P 0 Box 8210 80 W 7$th St Ste 133 7565 Spanish Bay I]r
McLean, VA 22106-8210 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Las Vegas, NV 89113
Kirk D. Huffard Daymer Corp NV Chris J. & 7ennifer A. Anderson .
8 Maher Ave 103 Anemane Dr
C~reenwich, CT 06834-5617 ia0 E Meadow Dr Vai, CC) $1657 Boulder, CO 84302
Patricia Ann Gabriel Paul A. Penelope N. Leseur John & Rebecca Moore
I E Ridgewood A,ve` Somerset Bridge, Sandys SBBX P 0 Box 728
Paramus, N7 07653 P O Eax SB90 Del Mar, CA 92024-0728
Bermuda
Staufer Comrraercial LLC Town af Vail 3ames E. & Jeanne Gustafson
E Meada4v Dr c/o Finance Dept g QBox 501(~
16, , CO 81657 75 S Fronta~e Rd ~xarwalk, CT (}6856
Vail, CO 81657
Colando CO AlexancPer Family Trust Floyd L. & Elaine E. English
Priv Antonio Chedraui S/N Judy Lynne Alexander Trustee 571 Ivlilibrook Dr
Cal Encinal 911$0 Xalapa Veracrur 2121 N Fronta~e Rd W 5te 254 Do~'ners Grove, IL 60516
Mexico Vail, Ct7 81657
Barbara & Charles Diilman S.C. Geroca Laria Inc
18316 Mainsail Fointe iUD E Meadow Dr 101 c/o Vail Village Inn
Ca~nelzus, NC 28031 Vail, CO $1657 100 E Meadow Dr
Vail, CQ 81657
Red Sands Cozp Vi11age Inn Condominiurt3 Assoc Lublan S.A.
c/o Vail Home Rentals Inc 100 E Meadaw Dr c/o $anco InternatitinaI SA
143 E Meadow Dr Ste 397 Vail, CO 81657 437 Madison Ave 17th Fl
Vai1, CO 81657 New York, NY 10022
Raymond J & Mealnie Rutter
Charles M. Hairmmon, .Tr. - Traditions Family UDT Enchanted Mesa Exempt Corp
LP Raymond J Rutter Trustee c/o Frecierick S. Otto
11380 L,ong Meadow Dr 750 Via Lido Nord P O Box 3149
alm Beach, FL 33414 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Vail, CQ 81658
ede Ltd c/o Bustamante, Luis Pedro A. & Adelaida Petunia D4uaias Deane Hall, Jr.
Pab1o Ramirez, 2000 E 12th Avenue
Priv. San Isadra 44 Cond. Caparra Classic Ph-2 Box 4
Ca3. Refaz-m Social, Del Miguel 105 Ortegon Ave Denver, CQ $0206
11650 Mexico DF Guaynalao PR 00966
, r
v Kanney L. Johnson ~
~,~'IF SQZ 11(~0 Hc~rnsilver Cir Glaser Living Trust
4603 Ar~naw°ay Dr ~~~1 8~~~~ Herbert & Sharon Glaser Trustees
Edina, MI~1 55436 7I9 N Linden Dr
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Marilyn M Fleischer Living Trust Robert D. Hodes Lawrence & Suzanne Weiss
Marilyn MFIeischer Trustee 650 Park Ave 5C 11 Pier.son Dr
62 E Meadaw Dr 205 New York, NY 10021 Greenwich, CT 06831-2523
Vail, CO 81657
Amos & Floy Kaminski Bett}P Lou B. & James Lawrence
S.F.P. LP 315 E 68th St Sheerin
80W 78th St Ste 133 New york, NY 10021 7$01 Broadway Ste 200
Chanhassen, MN 55317 San Antonio, TX 78209
Margaret Eastwoad Trust RCGC-III LP Patricia M. Dalan 1992 Trust
c:/o Kaufman Bemstein Oberman e/o Ronald F. Nobis Patricia M. Dalan Trustee
2049 Ccntury Park E 2500 P 0 Bax 3111 2$0 Meatiowbrook Dr
Los Angeles, CA 90067 Blaomirrg[on, IN 47402 Northfield, lI. 6{}093-1049
H&W Properties Inc Loring H. William Amass Richard J. Genova
5654 Greenwoad Plaza BivcE 16 Polo Field Ln P+D Box 17
Englewaod, CO $0111a2385 Denver, CO 80209 Skytop, PA 18357 ~
Vail LP Staufer Commereial LLC Ecina N. & Glaus W. Fricke
43 Rockledge Dr 100 E Meadow Dr P Q$ox 1557
Pelham, NY 10803 Vaii, CO 81657 Eagle, CC? 81631-1557
Vico Vail Inc ClaggettlRey Gallery LLC Masters Callery At Vail LLC
-l0 5lifer M,mt 100 E Meadow Dr 70 S Potornac St
143 E Meadow Dr Ste 360 Vaii, CQ 81657 Aurora, CO 80012
Vail, C{] 81657
asal:is LLC Hanlort Family Partnership Red Sands Carp
:lo Watsmn & Co Ine 3$5 Gore Creek Dr clo Vail Home Rentals Inc
10670 E Bethany Dr Bldg 4 Uail9 Cp 81657 143 E Meaciow Dr Ste 397
kurora, CO $0(}14 Vail, C4 $1657
ierardo Schroeder Gonzajez - DE
'atricia lnzunza Schroecler A.J. Property Trust Firstbank c,f Vail
}1 Tunapuna Ln c/o I)reyer Edmonds & A.ssQC 17 Vail Rci
~oronada, CA 92118 355 S Grand Ave Ste 4150 Vail, CO 81657
Los Angeles, CA 90071-3103 ~
trger L. Reisher Richard Kent Charles Lipcan
'_400 Cherrw Creek S Dr #405 1873 S Beilairee St Ste 1120 430 N Marshra Dr
aenver, CO $0209-3258 Denver, CO 80222 Key Biscayne, FL 33149
_
1,
5
# : ~ y, ~ ~
I
~ ' ,r - ~ ' , ,t
. ¢
. . . . . . ri~~ .
.
y{+~.~ 1~"v Fh: 4 ~ '
~ _ • ~i, . ~ F~, ~`~°~:L, . ~ ~ ~ .
~ • . ~ ~ ~ . .
.~4,42;u
~ ~ , . s~,;
.
n
r
. _
U 7 ! • . ~ , ~A . .
.
.1 ~ ~ t~ . ~ . ~ _ ~ ~ ~ . iCa . . . ~ ~
F4 i
~
. . ~
. vt.
^
. . . . . . 1~. . .
-
. +~17 . . . ~ ~ .
~
a
. f ~
*AM
.
.
l~- / L
. ~
^,w~ ~•~1 a`- ¦ r ~ .n I~t6+1 f + ' L'' r . . a( F
~i~ ~ f/4 ~e~ I3•'i~ C3~ ~ ' ~ 4""~ R i
~ . ¦ rr M `4: ~ f ~ . t ~ 'f~3^'r~ p wV ~ y 7~'+ti
{A ~
~
x~. ~-'L~ , w~ ~ , ; ~ ~
~
,
,
( • ~~~~yy~~ ; , ~ y~ b ~
YY// , :g • ~
4,kzw
~ ( 6-~ ~p~~ ~•r ~ ~y3'~.: ~Y'~i
) ;r 9.~
LU
~ ff '-.~/1 LL,
~ ~.'J~~ ~ t ,a rt'~r• . . ~.a
, r1I ? 91:._45 . • ~ ` 'a`~3 r
j ~ ~ ~ . ~ +a p ~ r E
• ~~''~~.r Y13~.,~ ~~.~s~s~` ~ i . ~ ~ rp, ¢ 4 ...E a n
¦ w~ ~v ^g'~"`,->,.r "1 ~a A . . . f ~ ~ ~ r
:jua
: ~ . : t. " w. . y ~ S~a... ~ s~.: .a~:..;..~p, ~ ' ' r? _
. - ....t__.
a
~
~ ,
j ,0 ~
c~
z ~ ~
z ~
2 $ § ~ ~ ° -j ~
~ 1
~ Q
N ¢
O cn
Q r
'
)20 oc-0001 a °C,,." OL ,
0 n
EL
ul
~
.
CC7
~ . ~ .
~
n . . , ' . . I.lJ
(D ~ Q Q~ ~llv.ll
r J ~ ~
~ . , •r U)
C~7 J
W J cH , G m q. .
Q f~ 7 ~ ~ g
~I_/ I •~.~7;y•~ ~ Q '
o
N > o
r
RZ ~ v , cN' .f .
~ ~U ~ ~ ~ ~ ; {
~ f ~ , t
j~
k 1
J • ~ 1)'_ ~
~ 1~~'-;-:}•-' r~ ~ 3 :cli t^~ •
~ w : f
tL ~ r ~ ~ . . .
• '.C1?~ , < ~ .,..t C; ~ ` 4 ~ ~ cy ~ _
s^ 7 P] ~ m- CO
An
~ i?
n-
f Tl i.-Y. , t
~ Lu
f/3
r~ i.t!• 'LL9CO Z) Etr ~ _or!
~
U)Z
m-
~cn
cv ~ z
0 • ~ Q `i~~~~€€~~~ ~ ~ _
0 rt. . . ~ ~l<< ~ 3
E
4~ C z C,4 ~N'
~
LU •'r~ - t !3 i ~ E t... ~`~1"a ,~~r° o 7 ~
~ ~ . ~r ~y U~'}
V
0 o,-
~ . ~
Q
%1 b
~ I5
>
I it
t
~ V? ~ ~j=N.._ z a a
ti ~yi,@ ~ j y F_gC ~
j
~ ~
2 J!E~
IV ~O.. a.
3 =~uauaya~~~~' ,
~aLO
_ , , a _ . r;.
`..Q :X.
. x ~ _ , ~
~ 4 ti ~ `4'-., . C!1 ~ ' 'f'y LL(
Y • ` " UJ
~ k `e.,~.~ ~ • . ~ t \ Lu
~ ~ , h `..l ,~4 4 1 ~•j ~ . i~ ry ~
~J
~ ~ ~ \ ~ ~ \ ? ~ ~ k ~
LYj , ~ . Q \
~ ~ a,' m Q M ~ ~ ~ .`,~1``•~c ~ . . .
m 5 m ~ ~ E ~ , .,x ~ 0 . F!y ~ y
U _ ~ ~F a. ~ y ~ J. . ~ ~ ~ ~ ,.i -``r ~ ~ ` ~ •'ti ~ ~
~ ~ ~ 9 ~ ~ , + . \ .
? . ~ ~
20 '-d 00000@8
. • ~ ~ ~
\ ~l~` , , ~ , ~ ' , ''w0. ~ .
4
9'?L1I
k
W -`t~` ~
~Ma =A
~ > Lu < z _J
X Z `t t!~ ~ ~ I ~ G+~ . ~ ? i
6
w- a, a co c ~ m
s <
~ W
J ~ ~W
C14) CL
`Q
1 ~ L-
`H cy ; CC r ~ ~ ~ ' ~
04 >.p
Mi
t r 'H .Ei4
~ , I ~ E.~~- 4 ~ ~
~ ~ 'y / ' ~ I p _
, ~ i
~ y ~ _
V . . O
. • .
'd . • ~ ~
u! ~ .
I
P F
~p1 ¢ ~ , j ~ E f ~ ~ E . .
, ~ ~ ~
~ €
_
A ~
w~
~ i..
U ~ `.W,' 0 , . J~{ a..w...
w
~
I, L ' 5 ~ ~
~ 3
V~ ~ ^-`p E ~Z ~ ~ i, _
(V
~ 0
4 [ ~ . ~
.~4 ~o1
~ 0
W ~ ltl
G ~ ~ . . . ~ . LLJ
~ ~I .~'N
~cl' ~ ` _ ^ 0. $Se -
y I tl { ~r.
i! ~ ..5rt~j+2~~ti ~ ~1 . ~ $
fy;
.
~ ~ C ~ . I• ga~~
E -Q ~e- r
o ,
J LL 0~ ' ~ :luawyae3lV
I,
Ln ' ; _ _ f Of] lry i
; oo cv ~ a r.
° Attachment. G
~ ORDINANCE NO. 14
SERIES (}F 2001
AN ORDtNANCE PRQVIDING FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT UF SPECIAL
[3EVELOPMENT DISTRICT MO, 36, VAIL PLAZA HOTEL WEST, AND ADOPTING AN
APPROV€D DEWELQPMENT PLAN FOR SPEGiAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 36
IN ACCQRDANCE INITH CHAPTER 12-9A, VAIL TOWN CaDE; ,4ND SET7ING FORTH
DETAILS W REGARD THERETO.
WHEREAS, Chapter 12-9A of the Tawn of Vail Zaning Reguaations permits the adQption of
Special Development Districts; and
1NHEREAS, Waldir Prada, d.b.a. the Daymer Carporation, has submitted an application for
the establishrrtent of Special Devebprment Distriet No. 36, Vail Plaza Hotel West; and
WNEREAS, in accordance with the provisions outlined in the Zaning Regulations, the
Planning & EnvironmentaC CommissiQn held public hearings an the applicatian; and
~ INHEREAS, the Planning & Environmental Commiss`ron has reviewed the prescribed
criteria for establishment of special development districts and has submiited its recommendatian of
appraval to the Vail Town CounciC; and
WHEREAS, the Vail Tflwn Gouncil finds thaf the praposed speciaf dewelopment district,
Vail plaza Hotel West, camplies with the nine design eriteria autlined in Sectian 12-9A-8 of the Vaif
Town Code and that the appliGant has demonstrated that any adverse effects of the requested
deviations from the development standards of the unc6eriying zoning are outweighed by the public
benefits provided; and
WHEREAS, the appraval af Special Developrnent district No. 38, Vail Plaza Hatei West,
and the develapment standards in regard thereta shall nat establish precedence or entitlements
elsewhere within the Town of Vai6; and
~ ~
!
WHEREAS, all natices as requirec[ by the Tawn of Vail hllunicipal Code have been sent to ~
the appropriate parties; and
WHEREAS, the Vaii Town Council cansiders it in the best interest of the public health,
safety, and welfare to adopt the proposed Approued Development Plan fiar Special Development
District No. 36, Vail Plaza Hatel West. ,
~
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINE? BY THE TOWN COUNCIL QF THE TOWN C7F
VAIL, CC?LORADO, THAT:
Section 1. Purpose art the Ordinance
7he purpose of drdinance Na. 14, Series of 2001, is ta adapt an Approved Development Plan for
Special Development Qistrict No. 36, Vail Plaza Hotel West„ and to prescribe appropriate
development standards for Special Development DistriCt No. 36, in accordance with the provisions of
Chapter 12-9A, Vai1 Town Code. The "underEying" zone district for Special Development Districf Nfl, ~
36 will remain "I'ublic Accomrnodation."
Section 2. Establishment Procedures Fulfilled, Planninq Commissian Report
The proeedural requirements described in Chapter 12-9A af the Vail Town Code have been fulfilled
~
and the Vail Town Counci] has received the recommendation of approval from the Planning &
Enviranmentaf Cornmission for the establishment of Special Development District No. 36, Vail Plaza
Hatel West, Requests for the establishment of a special development district follow the procedures
outlined in Chapter 12-3A of the Vail Municipal Code.
,
~
, 2
I
~ Seetion 3. Special Development L7istrict Na. 36
The Special ?evelopment District is hereby established to assure camprehensive development and
use o# the area in a manner that would be harmonious with the general character of the Town,
pravide adequate open space and recreation ameraities, and promote the goals, objectives and
policies of the Town af Vait Comprehensive Plan. Special Development District No. 36, Vail Plaza
Hotel West, is regarded as being complementary ta #he Town of Vail by the Vail Town Council and
the Planning & Environmentaf Commission, and has been established because there are significant
aspects of the Special Development aestcict that caronnt be sa#isfied through the impositian of the
standard Public Accommodafion zane district requirerrients.
Section 4. Development Standards - Special Development District No. 36, Vail Plaza
Hotel West Deuelopment Plan--
The Approved Development Plan for Special Deuelopment District No. 36, Vail Plaza Hotel Wes#,
shaU include the followrng plans and materials prepared by Zehren and Associates, Inc., dated June
11, 2001, and stamped approved by the Town of Vai[, dated July 10, 2001:
A. Improvemen#s Plart
B. Existing Circulaticrn
C. Circufatiorr Plan
D. Site Pfan - North
E. Site Plan - South
F. Frontage Road and West Meadow Drive Street Sections
G. East anc! West Elevations
H. hlorth, Southwest and South Elevations
~ 3
I ~
t a •
1. West and East Bu6lding Sections ~
J. South and North Building Sections
K. Building Height Plan 1-Absolute Heights / Interpolated Cantours
L. Building Height Plan 2- Height Above Grade / Interpolated Contours
M. Roof Plan
N. Level 6 (223.0')
0. Level 5 (213.0')
P. Leve! 4 (202.5')
Q. Level 3 (192.5')
R. Level 2 ( i 82.5')
i
S. Level 1(1725)
T. Level 0 (162.5')
U. Leve! -1 (152.5') ~
V. Level -2 (142.5')
W. L.eve! -3 (132.5')
K. MasslBuik Study
Permitted Uses--
The permitted uses in Special Development District No. 36 shall be as set forth in the development
pEans referenced in Section 4 0# this ardinance.
Canditional Uses--
The conditional uses far Special Development District No. 36, Vail Plaza Hotel West, shall be se#
forth in Section 12-7A-3 of the Town of Vail Zoning Regulatians. Ala conditional uses shaPl be
reviewed per the pracedures as outlrned in CF,apter 12-16 of the Tawn of Vail Zoning Regulations.
~
4
~ Densi#y-- Units per Acre - Dwelling Unrts, Acconrrmodaiion Units, Fracfional Fee Club Units
and Employee Housing Units
The number of units permifited in Special Devefopment District No. 36, VaiE Plaza Hatel 1Nest, shall
not exceed the following:
Dwelfing Units -1 5;
Accommoda#ion Units -116;
Fractional Fee Club Units -40;
Type 111 Employee Housing Units - 14 (4,971 square feet af residential floor area; 1,615
square feet of employee storage).
Density-- Floar Area
The gross residential floor area (GRFA), comman area and commercial square footage permi#ted for
Special aevekopment Qistrict No. 36, Vail Plaza Hatel West, shall be as set farth in the Approwed
~ DEVeEapmen# Plan referenced in Section 4 af this ordinance.
Specifically:
GRFA - 151, 696 square feet
Retail -1,128 square feet
RestauranULaunge-1,708 square feet
Conference Facilities - 20,624 square feet
Health Club -10,016 square feet
SpafTreatment - 3,820 square feet
Employee Housing - 4,971 square feet of residential floor area; 1,615 square feet of employee
storage
Setbacks--
~ 5
I
Requirec6 setbacks for Special Development District Na. 36, Vail Plaza Hotel West, shall be as set
farth in the Appraved Development Plan referenced in Section 4 of this ordinance.
Height--
The maximum buiCding height for Special Development District No. 36, Vail Plaza Hotei 1Nest, shall
be as set forth in the Approved Development Plan referenced in Sectian 4of thes ordinance (73.5
feet maximum).
Sit€ Coverage--
The maximum aflowable site coverage for Speeial Development District IVo. 36, Vail P[aza Hotel
West, shall be as set forth in the Approved Development Plan referenced in Section 4 of this ordinance (58, 522 square feet abave grade, 77,219 square feet below grade).
Landscaping—
The minimum landscape area requirement for Special Development District No. 36, Vail Plaza
Hotel West, shall be as set forih in the Approved Development Plan referenced in Sectian 4 of this •
ordinance (30, 874 square fieet).
Parking and Laading--
The required number of ofif-street parking spaces and loading/delivery berths for Special
Development District No. 36, Vail Plaza Hotel West, shall be prtivided as set for#h in the Approved
Development Plan referenced in Section 4 af this ordinance (225 spaces, 3 laading berths). In no
instance shall Vaal Road, West Meadow Drive or the South Frontage Road be used for
loadingldelivery or guest drap-offlpick-up without the preor written approval af the Town of Uail.
The required parking spaces shall nat be indcvidualfy sold, transferred, leased, conveyed, rented ar
restricted to any person other than a tenant, occupant or user of the bu;lding for which the space,
spaces ar area are required to be proufded by the Zoning Regulations or ordinances of the Tawn.
i
6
, e
~ The foregoing language shalf not prohibit the temporary use af the parking spaces for evenfs or
uses outside of the building, subject to the approval af #he Town of Vail.
Section 5. Approval Aqreernents for Special DeWelopment District Na. 36, Vail Plaza
Hotel West
1. That the Develaper suhmits the following plans to the aepartment af Community
Deveiopment for review and approval as a part of the building permit application for
the hotel:
a. An Erosion Con#rol and Sedimentafion Plan;
b. A Construction Staging and Phasing F'lan;
c. A Starrrawater Management Plan;
d. A Site Dewatering Pfan;
e. A Traffic Control Plan;
f. A Spraddle Creek routing and car+tainment plan; and
g. An environmental audit including soiEs and stream condit9ons (during
excavation).
2. That the Developer provides deed-restricted housing that cQmplies with the Town of
Vail Employee Housing requirements (Chapter 12-13) for a minimum o# 28
~ employees 14 (4,971 square feet of residentiaf floor area; 1,615 square feet of
employee storage), and that said deed-restricted housing be made avaiPabie for
occupancy, and that the deed restrictions are recorcied with tne Eagle Caunty Clerk
& Recorcfer prior ta requesting aTemporary Cerkificate of C3ccupancy for the Vail
Plaza Hotel West The required Type lll deed-restricted emplayee housing units
shall not be eligible for resaEe and the units will be dwned and aperated by the ha#el
and said ownership shall transfer with the deed ta the hotel property.
3. That the Developer submits a final cEetailed Eandscape plan to the Community
Development Lepartment for Qesign Rewiew Baard review and approvaf priar to
making an application for a building permit. This plan will involue the removal Qf the
obs4lete delivery bay asphalt for the Ghateau Vail on the Nine Vail Road property
(Loi B, Vail WiIlage Fiiing #2) and the re-vegetation of that portion of the site,
4. That the Develaper submits a complefe set of plans ta the Coiarado Department of
Transportation for review and approval of a revised aCCess permit, prior to ,
appiication for a building permit.
5. Tha# the Developer recorcfs an easement for Spraddle Creek. The easement shall
be prepared by the Develaper and submitted for review and appraval flf the Town
Attorney, The easement shali be recarded with the Eagle County Glerk &
~ 7
. ,
Recorder's Uffice prror to the issuance af a Temporary Certificate of C7ccupancy for ~
the project.
6. Tha# the Develaper submits a final exterior building rnaterials list, a typical wall
section, comprehensive sign program, roaftop mechanical equipment screening
plan and cQrnplete color renderings for reWiew and approval of the Design Review
Board, prior to rnaking an application for a building permit.
7. That ihe Developer pasts a bond to prowide financial security for #he 150%0 of the
tatal cost of the required afif-s;te publuc improvernends. The bond shali be in p[ace
with ihe Town prior to the issuance af a building permit. Pursuant to Sectian 12-7A-
14, Town of Vai6 Code, the applicant shall pay road impact fees in an amount that is
directly propartionate to the an#icipated new road impacts generated by this
develapment ($5000 X 85 new projecfed peak hour trip ends, for a tatal of
$425,000.00). This dollar amount will be put in escrow once a building permit is
issued. Any actual improvernents canstruc#ed tca the frontage road or Vail Raad will
be credited against the total. The escrowed dollars will be held far a period of 10
years froEn time of permit issuance. If and when any sort of funding mechanism is
put in place (such as a special district which this development participates in) any
dollars geraerated from the development wili be offset by the arnount owed. di there
is an excess, it wilf be refuncled. Any shortfall wifl be made up by the escrowed
dollars.
8. That the Developer ei#her receives approval from the neighboring owner's ~
associations to allow far constructian activities arr neighboring properties or submits
a construction staging and [imits of disturbance plan that indicates ael af #hese
activities wifl occur on the applicant's property, prior to application for building
permit.
9. That the DeveYoper agrees to provide ingress (via a legally binding easement
agreement) for Lot B, Vail Village Filing #2 from Vail Road across #he subject
property and egress (via a legally binding easernent agreement) for Lot B, Vail
Village Filing #2 acrass the subject property to South Frontage RQad. These
easements will be submitted to the Touvn for review and appraval prior to the
issuance of a building perrnit for the praject. The easements will be in effect as
long as the surface parking exists on the fJine Vacl Raad property (Lat B, Uail
Village Filing #2).
10. That the Deweloper agrees to provide egress (via a legally binding easement
agreement) fram Lat A, Vail Village Filing #2 across the Developer's prQperty via
the proposed guest access drive, as described on the Appraved Develapment Plan
dated June 11, 2001. This easement will be submitted to the Tawn far review arrd
approval prior to the issuance af a building perrnit for the project.
11. That the Developer submits civif drawings to determine compliance with ail Town af ~
8 0
~ Vail engineering requirements prior to final Design Review Board approval.
This includes all aff-sate improvements, inc[uding the improvements to the Sauth
Frontage Road, Vail Road and West Meadow Drive, as well as the coordinaiion of
the relocation of the existing electric transfiormers an the property with local utility
providers. The revised lacation of the transfarmers will be part of the final
fandscape plan to be submitted far review and appraval by the Uesign Review
Board_
12. That the Town and the Developer enter inta a Developer Bmprovement Agreement
ta outline Qbligatians and responsibilities for off-siie imprawements, hours of
construction activity, traffic management and other related issues in accordance
with the Appraved f}ewelopment Plan dated June 11, 2001 and the Memorandum of
Understanding dated June 14, 2001, prior to the issuance of a building permit for
the Project.
13. That the DeWeloper provides a centralized Ioading/cleGvery facility for the use of all
owners and tenants within Special Develapment District Na. 36. Access ar use of the facflity shall not be unduly restricted for Special Development Distr6ct No. 36.
The IQadingldeliWery facility, including docks, berths, freight elevatars, service
corridors, ete., may be made available for public andlar private IoadFng/delivery
programs, sanc#ioned by the Town of Vail, to mitigate loadingldelivery impacts upon
the Vail Village loadingfdelivery system. The use o# the facility shall only be
~ permitted upon a finding by the Town of Vail and the Developer that excess
capacity exists. The Develnper will be cornpensated by the Town of Vail andlor
others far the common use of the facility. The final determination of the use of the
fiacility shall be mutually agreed upon by fhe Developer and the Town of Vail.
Section 6.
If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held
ta be invalid, such decisian shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance;
and the Town Gouncil hereby declares it would have passed this ordinance, and each part,
section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or
more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid.
~ 9
c ,
5ection 7. ~
The repeal or the repeal and re-enactment of any provisians of the Vail Municipal Code as
provided in this ordinance shall not atfect any right wvhich has accrued, any duty imposed, any
violation that vccurred prior ta the effective date hereof, any prosecution corramenced, nor any
other action or praceeding as commeneed under or by virtue of the provision repealed or repealed
and reenacted. The repeal af any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any ordinance
previously repealed ar superseded unless expressly stated herein.
Section 8.
All byfaws, orders, resolutions and ordinances, or parts thereof, inconsistent herewith are hereby
repealed to the extent only of such inconsistency. The repealer shafl nat be construed to revise
any bylaw, OCd$fy resolution or ordinance, or part thereof, heretofore repea[ed. ~ i
I
INTROdUCED, READ QN FIRST READING„ APPRQVED, AND QRDERED PUBLfSHED
ONCE IN FULL ON FIRST READING #his 19'h day of June, 2001, and a public hearing for sec4nd ~
reading of this Ordinance set for the 10'h day of July, 2001, in the Council Chambers of the Vail
tl
Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado. i
~
Ludwig Kurz, Mayor
ATjEST:
~
10
~ Lorelei Danaldsan, Town Clerk.
READ pND APPROVED ON SECON[] READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED this 10'h
day of Jufy, 2001. .
I
Ludwig Kurz, Mayor
ATTEST:
Larelei Danafdson„ Town Clerk
~
i
I
I
i
~ 11 I
th,~
~ i
~
„ ~ ~ ! _ d • ~ ~ ` r . . + e ~.y.. EL
~ ~ I ~@ ` ~~ic ~ 9 , ~ ~ ~
~ / I ~ ,t ' ~ ~r
a,~ - ~
t~ , , AA
~ .
Pa,; #
1~ 11 ~ ~1 ~ ~ A' ~ r _ ~ ~
~ 1 't ~ 1} a
~
aY
rr ~ I 4 1 ~ ~ ~ t~` _ X
~:v .
'
I ~ n ? o ? ~
+ g U
~
?
00°7i
-
I II ~
~
f ! ~
~
~
~
~j
H :iuaw3e1;
. : b' :~;?N~~g~,
-
. ~ • 'L~ ~ J ~ ~f-~~ `Y ~ ~ d
r
~
! ~ ~,r~•~~" 1 ~
~
~
~
~ f
r ,
~e=, 1
~
r{ ~ I~: o
~ a Q~~, u' f 4.~'
?
i
~ Aq~ ~
. t Sl _ ~,y (
Y y ~ ~ ~ !
~
i ~
p n ia ~ +0 c +n „ ~ ~
,jo It
ai
? C.?
I l
~ ! A
~ I
~
~
~
1 #
a
l ~
~
1
1
~ ~ .
1
1
1 t
1
1
a ~
t ~
i ~
t
1 3
~
1 ~
~ I
1 ~
~QP
l ~ ~ u
~
~
~
~
1
I f ~
t ~
ti
i
~ 1
y
~ ~ .
i ~
~
r ~
~
L ~
~
~ ~a s
t 1
t ~
t ~
~ t
~
I I
_
~ 1
- ~
~
a~
~J c
c A!
b
i ~
i ~
i - ~
I~ .
r
~
~
u=l~~~ ~
~ 'S
x
4 q I ~
ac v'
~
` ca
qr.7
~
C
1 ~ J Gy
i' u { J
~ ! t
U
I ~ .
E i
H
Li
~ ' .
~ f
~
°a EI
K w ` ~
4b• ~ -
~
~
rzNw
~ I
~`as~`1x3~~'~~fk
LU
.
r
~
y
~ f1
~
rv ! '4y ~
t '
~ ~ ~ ~
a , ~ C ~ + y
~
°
~ ~S ~ - ~ S, y{'
-'W TM
~
G
Gir
~ m~m 1
$x ! ~
~
e
G
m~m
I
~
~J J ~J I • }
~
yq ~ ~ - 1
7
1 Z k 'L~ ,
C]' C OF +p ~i ~ n
Ll ' u -
I (
s I 1 ~ ~ 4q
C,4 o
~
(D p
r ~
~ I
- _ d , t ~7 I I
~ - f l
i
I z Y ~ ~y
q ` "
C]
~ s a Ct n- i
wr~-1 } s~ , . o ~ ~
44&~ ~
] 8 ~
i p 4 t~r3
~
~
4 ~
r ~
m ~
1 j ~ f
~
a C ~ ~
.
~
~ t
~
W yi~
~ r~qa b ~y f I
.
l ~
r
~ f
L'p~~~ ~
1 ~ 1 I Ow,
I ~
~I
1 F ` ' h
_ .
f'd ~
~
I
'
.
,
~ ^y ' • ~ ;
t
~ ~ - - ~ ~ ~ ~c: . ~ t (r~ P,S ,,SS~~rw
.q. a. ~ E
op
n'b
24
S ! k ' ~ i
g~, ti ~'x ~m" ~~s d5 ~ r/,.•
-
Ie~ ~ ` ~ 1
~
rI s ~
~
~
~ w o o h s rr.~ ~
F-j
1 t~ ,r. 3 r ' 1~ ? Q Q L ~ I' 1 I' ' I
4
I S j~ Vn`i ~PG3 ~ ~ Cl~ ri
} 0~ . ~ ? '~7' r ~ ~ ~ L
~ ~
T~
~
cg.~a
~ L~ 7 I . • I' ~~f'e~Z7 ~ . 6 ~ ^ e.
~
LL-
00o
4w •
~
~
I - 5
gm \
O '
~
J ~q 1r ~
~ ; a ?
r^ F
d
3 V S p ~ L;j
~
~
1 1
_0
I d ~ a m ~
m
1 ~ a a
~ r + I
1
I
~a
)
G ~
1
t I
' zi~~
~ , ~
~
~ ]~[y
~ ~ I - I
,
,
~
^ i .
~
LL- ~ . .
~
1
~
~ a.
7 `~1
r I =
- - - 0 + ~
r !
r ,
u
1
I
< < ,
i -
i -
r
i
1 ui~~fe ~
i
g g~ ~ .
I ha
0
N
~ f C~J
~J
r
, , w~, ` r F \
~ r t.=ra
u
S.3
~
+ f =
I
l ^CaA ~ .
1
!
n ~ t .
4+~1
iJ
_ -e
_ ~~Do
- ,
~
, ~ -
1 '
+r
~ ~ .
I
_ - - ~
1
I zi
~ ~H~~~d
~ ~ ~ _ - .
1
N
v fj
4
~ 11
V f ,y ~
U
W
J
r ~
~
i
~ ~ .
r
• ~
_ f
~
~ _ =s
i
~
u ~
p~ S
f L" .
-o r
~
,
~ J
~
i ~
J L
~i- -
~
~ ~ ~S,' • ~ ~
~I gl~I P 1
~vg!
,
N
N
`-~-r o
~ o
~t P
4/ II
~ N I
Q} i
~
i ~
i ~
' Pf
~
1
I ~
I
9 ~
C
~ a .
I i va
- ~
I =I ! I
!
I
I~
~ I !
I -
I I _
I 1 ' ,
Zilli
A ~ ~yF}~ F 1 fT . I ~ .
w
II .
.
~
~
~ !y
~ •
3' !
~
~
. \
~ I
F
t N
~
1
m
~
r
1 ~
1
~ r
~ r
,
r ,
,
~
~
~
~ ~ 1 I
~
- t
- -
~ 1~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ •,t~ ~
m
t /
q ~ ~ ~ ] ~ ~ ~ ~;,i' J ~ ~ r
~
1 I ' ~ _ 0 " ' y~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a
r
- • .r~ r^ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r a f ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
!
Y
c^
° r ' Ig
~
~ ~ ' ~ .t~K.~, ~ , , ~1 ? ~
' . I 'A ' St4rt'^ ` 1 ` Cqt- 1 ~ (
f
~
ui
~i
cn
C
O
cti Q
NQ
# w~ ~
'
~
~u
~ ~ -
-
r ~
II~ ,I - ~
~ ~
~
G ~
1~T n
F I
I ~ ''I~ ~ ' ` ~ ~
I~ ~ I
I _ !
. ~
ha''eile ~ .
rA
C
O
~
v~
4
at~°
~ II
V °
~
iLtu
Q-
i
~
l;• ~ . ~ , 1 ` v ~ ~
--ua--- v 0 El-' ~ c
~ ~ ~ ~ _ 3 ~ ~ ~
r=l Z+-,-• -~l M'`l
E:'r
la<v~~~.
-
~
~
~
N~~~i •
. ~
. C
O I
n ~
~
'0 p l
~
,
?S E ,
W
l ~1~14~1lII III~II~III
?I
~ I
I III III~ I - ~ ~
4 -H , Ilr - - - - - -
i~
I ~ -
~ ~
~ .
~~.~s
i
_ i.~. ~i• ~Ei~ t n~
~ 1 ' . ~ ' •
ti ~4~j ~ i
M IEU y HII~'~~ ~ o
~
I I
Ik~ I~ 4
~ r
I, 9
-i-
!
~
ziI;l
~ j
_ :R ~„r ~ ~ ! •
a ~g S!
h1Y~$~ , , ,
a
~ '
~
~
f ~
1 ~ ~ ~ ra
( I 1 ~
I ~
~
1 ~ I r 1 ~ n
4e _
d
~ U
~
5
Y ~
a
Gs.
t E
~
~
I o
1
? - ~
- f
~.~rtTa"ea ~ 1
t
~ I ~ , ~ ~
r
• ~ ~ M°` ~
- 7S o
1 ~y
~ I
~ .
~
,
,
z'--•= F t. K~ w+
q~~ ~ rJ * .1 D
Ld ~
a= •k,.~1~ N:+, ~i~
V14,
.
r f
s c-~'°~ ~ ~s : ~ •rl
iXy f .
y
8 r Vl
~y o
{^4 ~ iLi
4 .4, 1
Mr
w
~ Zr
y"~~r ui
~ ,
12
t f y~/
~ f N I L~ g n~~ ~ S s a~
~A~,.lF..~.
ti
- ~ 4 a
~ r ~
° s .~zc, ~ • ~.1 ,
~R~._~~~`~:~~ ~
r~• _ . ~
`4 4 ~
O
i- • ~~'1~5~:~~~~4~~ ~ ~ ' ~
t
f w ~r
L MF 3~ ,'tt~ 3 r~ 4 ~ + 1 .
~ Id
S r$1' :i 1 ' .
t 4 } k .1k • Y ~ a .
x M~'~• . t f
y ~ F t Y
~wzd;~~~ I , } T
~4~ y~ , •~y
s~r• fy1
1
1
i
o -
CI~ iJ~
' ~t,, , • x ~ : • ~
_ ~+r~~ . ~ i ~y 4 WT y~ c ~p'
~
~awf r.: tit 9 4'i:
f
.L8{.,.~~ .
~
~ ~~r~'~~ ~ •ti k~i~ Y
i
It1
LLJ
E
. • ~ - - -
r
E
z::.r~ ~.w7fi
T' ' is't'.? _';ifr~`~~~,;~{"'R ~ ' ~
* ~ ^C
! r„„_ p ~ .a ' . . ~
t ~ ~ - 1 r ~`'r'`-.• ,y,
i s
i
J~ 4
k y~ ~f~ss 5~ ~ '
~
r~ i~.t~ , n f ~ •1~~yI
~ ~ f ~ ~ ; M~
a` ,s~~,~v~~~
- t_ ~ j ~ G t ~z~, 1
i f
_`om
~,s { F
~
_ ~t~ ~ }i • ~f , ~~r
~.e-.
17
y +.;stS1 t w
.a.~ .~~~.~5fi•'.~ i' r, ' ~e
1 t g
_ ~e' ~ { ,ii' , 1 N.~ ~ •
, ;
. R 1
i
~ ~ rt d
' ~p*"~~~ 4y ~ r' ~
. i._ . t • ~ f .
P; ;~,s~~` :.:;M ~,1 J° _ ?
Q
r•
Aa t~
tt ~ ?
- ~ .
t ~
Ar.
!
LV
P 1~ ~ 1
~ ~nYp ~7°~~
~n'. 'Rr`t ~ I ~
~
y z
. . ~ .t ±L e.'.~ .
J
WF~~~p, .
w
1
~ ¦
6
eo
A
~
bb .
~To
9 F
I 7 ~y i r4
! ' ~''~~.R• bu,1 ~ 5
I ~ . Y~ ~ 'x'~ ~ ~ 1
}
-pt
W` F ~7 I
~~~`y~~1~'f,
"
vF1
- . . _ . . .r_ . . , ~b . . ~ ~
~
~ o
m~
~
1 y ~
3 ~ ~5~,^~._ t T w I ~
• : ry g
t -:3` ~ b ~'m . ] Y
- 1 ~ ~ir [[JS ~g
Gf) N~
~
~ i
6
~
L
bD
e6
A
~ ,I 6?
f yfi ~
L
n ~
0
t„ -.yr 1~ xe,~ . _
,
d r~ psY`~ C F
1 .
V u• ~ i
L.
t ~ -
g ~ i S/ ~x , Y
~ ¢w ~ d
! rT
~ r~ •
T
1
W
~ o
ugrv
o„
~
~
1.0
„
S
I
1~ yI y i
1 ~ I
TKJ
~p,K' 4 L~ sg ~Ki
- ~ , . !
rl _hy
W s a
~ ~ E £
' I
r y+ ; '
~ ~
~
~
n GG
a, ~ ~ S7
# ~ b
7-
u~
~ 4` -$•dy. 'h{ ~{y '.1P 1
y ,tYYN R~^-
Ja
~
k
+ .~°~v ` es ' ~ ~E' 3.~ ~y
s m S V
i ~
e ' d ~~:e.,.• - '~c ~ - ,,f ~
Ofto~
. ~
4.,0
jr _ Qn
VJ
~
~
~ ,y~, i4~q ~ .s+p k . '
T ct
t 5 y'J3'~
P ~i^ dd y ~ •
f ~
i.~.} . f # 1
~.t
` h
*g"Fky-
Rlw , A,~'
V
~ !v ~ r ' r
~
e f
A#taChmef]t: + A 1
NVINSTON AsSOCIATES
VAIL URBAN DESIGN REVIEW
FvUR SFAsoNs REsoitT
] 3 January 2003
Urban Design
¦ Com lies U Partially eom lies Q Non-com. liant ? Not anal zed, inforrnation not available
¦Pedestrianization Public walkway is alnng strcet cdgc and in street. No external retail propased in
buildin .
? 5treet Enclosure Not evaluated. No street sections in drawin set.
0 Street Ecibe Pedestrianizatian not very relevant to SouTh Frantage Road. However, neit9ier daes
building provide any street edge to West Meadaw Drive. Consider adding street
level commercial space to building ends on West Meadaw Drive and either
wirienin sidewalk to the buildin ar extendine street lzvel to sidewalk.
? Buildin Hei ht See TOV staff comuncnts.
¦1'iews Tbis uadrant of intersection is not a re ulatec! view corridor
? 8unlshade In che absence df shade analysSs in drawing set, preliminary assessment i$ that for
mast of building length shade wiIl extend about 30' inEo ttze public ROW (sidevval ~
9us 20' into street.
¦Serrice/deliverv Serviee arkin rovaded below grade under orte-eochere.
Architecturell:andscape Architecture
?Roofs Mansard roofs are ro osed. Not consistent wiFh Villa eGuidelines.
¦Overhan s Good
¦Facades Good
? Cotor Not shown
¦Windows Good
¦Window details Good
¦Daars Good
¦Trini Good
¦Decks/ atias Good
¦Balconies Good
¦Accen# elements Good
¦Landsca e ~',oad
DkSClES510[l:
'I'his is a big biiilding. Even with thc towers and entry porte-cachere, it presents a very long, relatively
uniform farade to the Sauth Frontagc Road. Ets syrnmetry further ceinfarces its singuilr charaeter. In our
opinion, it is imperacive to lae able to accurately visuaiize this building in its surrounding setting (which is
diffieult to do From just the drawing set). Neveirthe]ess, our initial rcactions to the currcnt proposal are as
folkows:
1, The Vail Master Plan desicnates the Fran#age Road as the appropriate location for the taller buildings ~
iu Vail (stepping down to tkae south). In that contcxt this building is appropriate. Hawever, the
buiidine as propa5ed wiil be the largest single building in the Villagc. It will bc unlikc any other
Yail-FOUr Seasons Resorti page j0J]
2299 PEARL STREET, SUITE 100 + BOULNER, CO 80302 303-440-9200 • FAX 303-449-6911 +
jtwinston@winSiOnassoCiBtes.com
. ,
Four Seasons liesart
~ Yail Ur6an Desigrt Rc>view
IVinston A:ssac•iates, Inc.
111012003
strucriire fo date, and will change the first impression of Vail. It may be desiratale to havc such a
statement at the front door to Norih America's prcmier winter resort_ On the other hand, it diiTers
rnarkedly from the collection of smaller buildings that is part of Vail's distinctive character. Tl1at is
worth apublic discussian. In that persPeitive we raise the questian as to whether, as an a9temative,
the building could be expressed as a collection of smaller buildin+s, perhapa simtlar to how the WI
is an asscmbla;e of buildin;s, or (forgive the coinparison) haw somz of the casinos in Black Hawk
have bcen externally Treated as separate buildings.
2. Although the central portion of the building is quite taiL it steps dawn to the east and west. Creates a
relatively low prafile at Vail Road. However, height and claseness seeins to overpower Scorpio and
Alphom.
3. A si(=nificant design cqncern is with the proposed roof. It appears to be a rnansarcf roaf, although it
could be described as a hip/gambrel, since ii has a slopine top. However, the sloping top will not
likcly be visible, so ii wil] appear as a mans<trd. 1Vlansard rnofs are of course desirable because they
capture additional space ia the raof. In this case, trecause the top of the roof is not Visible, and the
way the tower raofs are treaTed, the appearatace niay resenibie that af a very steep gable/hip. Whether
rnaztdsard, or steep gable, neither are particularly ecrnsistend with Vail's tradition. We rccommend that
additiona] study be given to the roof, such as creating a true gable ronf,, in some limited ccanditions
the Tawn has a3{orved (Sonnenalg) a small infemal parapet when not visible frQm a public way.
1TW
~ Drawings Revtiewed: FOLTR SEASONS IiESORT•--WAII,, Zehren and Assaciates, Inc., Oct 28,2002
~
Vail-Fou. Seasons Aesortl pa§e 2
303-440-9200 • FAX 303-449-6911 . INint320@AOL.GflM ' 2299 PEARL STREET, SUITE 100 • BOULQER, CO 80302
~ MEMORANDUM
TC3: Planning and EnWironmental Comrt°iission
FROM: Department of Community Development
DATE: January 13, 2003
SUBJECT: A reques# for a final review of a proposed major exteriar alteration,
pursuant to Section 12-7A- 12, Vai! Town Cade, to allow for a hotel
redevelopment and addition; a request for a final review 4f a conditional
use permit, pursuant to Section 12-7A-3, Vail Town Code, to allow for a
fractional fee elufo; a recommendation to the Vail Tawn Counc€I of a text
amendment Sectian 12-7A-3 (Conditional Uses), Vai6 Town CocEe, to
ailow for retail uses in a lodge in excess of 10°la of the total grass
residential floor area of the structure as a canditional use; a request for a
, final review of a variance from Section 12-7A-1 0(Landscaping & Site
Develapment), Vail Town Code, to allow for adeviation from the total
landscape area requiremen#, facated at 20 Vail Road, 62 E. Meadow
Drive„ and 82 E. Meadow Drive/Lots K& L, Block 5E, Vail Village 15'
Filing.
~"A~pl ca~i 'f: Sonnenalp Properties, lnc., represented by Braun
Associates, Inc.
~ Planner; George Ruther/Warren Campbell
L SUNEMARY
The purpase of this meeting is ta alfow the applFCant an opportunity to present
the praposed revised plans to the P1anning anci Enviranmental Commission and i
to provide the applicant, pubiic, staff, and the Commission an opportunity to identify issues for discussion at a future meeting. The Cornmissiort is not being
as€ced to take any farmal pasitions on this application at this 4fine. As such, staff
will not be praviding a formal recommendation at this time. The next step in the
review process of this development applica#ion includes a final review tentafively
scheduled for February 10, 2001
II, pESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
The applicant, Johannes Faessler, has requested a worksession meeting with
the Planning and Environmental Cflmmission to present a praposed development
application intended to facilitate the redevelopment of the Sonnenalp Hotel and
Swiss Cnalet (attachment A). The key elements of the proposal include: '
• Expansion and upgrading of one of Vail's Public Accommodation zvned
properties,
• Irnproved five-bed taase added to the existing ladging inventary,
~ • Addition of retail square footage along a portian of East Meadow Drive,
~
* Gans#ruction of recommended sireetscape improvements to East ~
Meadow Drive,
• Eiimination of a porkion of existing surface parking and the provisivn of a
new parking structure and Ioading area, and
• f'roWision of employee housing within the Town of Vail.
A more complete description of the applicant's request is outlined in the lefters
dated August 2002, December 2002, and January 2003 and have been attached
for reference (attachment B) arong uuith a reduced copy of the proposed pfans,
datec! Qecember 17, 2002 (attachrnent C).
III. BACKGROUND
On September 4, 2002, the Tawn of Vaii Design Review Baard held a public
hearing far the eonceptual reuiew of the applicant's proposed plans. The purpose
of the meeting was to allow the applweant to present the proposed plans ta the
Design Review Board artd to provide the Board with an opportunity to offer
feedback on the design aspects of the propasal to the applicant. The following is
a summary of the 8nard's initial comments:
• NJ911ow Bridge Road is a majar pedestrian way. Haw will the negative
aesthetic impacts of the doading and delivery taeility be mitigated?
• The proposed new curb cut intended to provide ve~ilitu~aAaec~-6•tt n*-•+-t
Taaisman Condarrainiums will have negative irrEpacts on the pedestrian
chau-acter o# East Nleadow Drive. How will the negative impacts of ~
vehicuFar access be mitigated? How does the applicant propose to
regulate vehicular traffic on East luieadaw Drive?
• The east elevation of the Sonnenalp Hotel addition neecls to be "dressed
up". The current design is npt cansistent with the overall design anti detail
of the rest of the building.
• The East Meadow Drive fiagade of the Sonnenalp Hatel adelition needs ta
be "brolcen up", both horizontaNy arid vertically, to bring in#erest and
ar#iculation #o the builcling.
• The main raof ridge design of the Sonnenalp Hotel addition needs more
variation in height and shfluld not be one or two lang, constant ridge lines.
This redesign will add interest to the building and aflow more sunlight to
reach the pedestrian way aCong East Meadaw Drive.
« The primarily four-story tal9 farade of the nflrth elevation of the Sonnenalp
Hotel addition is too close to East Meadow Drive. The upper stories of
the building should be stepped back from East Meadnw Drive.
• More attentian should be given tQ the landscape design along East
Meadow Drive. Laok far opportunities ta improve the landscaped areas
without negativefy impacting the retail uses praposed on the first level a#
the building.
• Cantilevers of the upper portions of the Sonnenalp Hotel rnay help to
breakc up the vertical fagade of the prppased design.
• More thought to the pedestrian nature of East Meadow Drive is needed fn
the design. It wou4d be undesirable ta lose the pedestrian feeling of East
Meadow Drive by aflowing vehicles to use East Meadow Drive ta access
the Talisman Condaminiums.
2
I
~ A similar roa# design or architectural feature to the ane lacated over the ~
~ parte cochere on the existing hotel should be introduced on the propased
ho#el addi3ion. This approach would bring more similarities to the design
and address the 6bng, contlnunus ridge line that is currently proposed.
• The existing entry #eatures on the Swiss Chalet should be preserved and
reconstructed on the redevelapeci buifding(s). The er+try fea#ures are
beautifully designed and would be a great addition to the new building(s).
• The building masses along East Meadow Driue need to be further "broken ;
up" and articulated. "
• A variety of raof heights is needed in both the Swiss Chalet and the ~
Sonnenalp Hotel additian,
• The exterior of the Swiss Chalet should be designed ta appear as a
series of different buildings. Such an appraach would begin ta address
r4of he'rght and building massing issues.
On September 23, and again on October 14, 2002, the applicant appeared
before the Planning and Environmental Commission with a request for a ~
worksessian meeting to discuss the proposed eievefopment application. a copy '
of the approved P{anning and Enviranrnenta! Commission Meeting minutes da#ed ~
September 23 anc! fJctober 14, 2002 have bEen attachee{ far reference ~
(altachment Q). ;
VI. SITE ANALYSIS
i A more complete site anafysis will be provided far the February 10, 2003,
meeting of the Planning and Environmental CammiSSian. Given the comments
provided by the Town of Vail Design Review Board and the staff ta date, and any
additional feedback from the Planning and Environmental Cammission, staff
anticipates that changes to the proposal will be made that will affect the
development standards data. According to the application information provided
by the applicant, no variances to the prescribed development standards are
sought with the exceptian of a variance to the minimum landscaped area a
requirement ~
Zoning: F'ublic Acccrmmodation
Larad Use Plan Desagnation. Vai! 'UiRlage Mas#er Plan Study Area
Current Land Use: Mixed Use/Residential
Levelapment Standard Allowed
Lat Area: Min, of 10,000 sq. ft. of buildable area and a min. of
30 feet of frontage.
Setbacks:
Front: 20 feet
Sides: 20 feet
Rear: 20 feet
*See SectEan 12-7A-6 for discretion granted to the
Planning ancE Environmental Commission and the criteria.
~ Building Height: 45 ft. for flat or mansard roofs and 48 ft. far sfoping roofs.
3
Density: Max. of 25 units/acre. ~
GRFA: Up to 150 sq. ft. far each 100 sq. ft. of buildable site area. ;
i
Site Coverage: Not to exceed 65°/p of the totaa site area.
Landscape Area: Min. of 30% of the total site. ~
Parking: Accommodation units; 0.4 spaceslunit, plus 0.1
space/each 100 sq. ft. ofi GRFA vuath a max. of 1,0
spaces/unit.
Dwelling Unit: If GRFA is 500 sq. ft. or less: 1.5
spaces/unit. If GRFA is over 500 sq. #t. up to 2,000 square
feet: 2 spaces/unit. If GRF,A is 2,000 sq. f#. or
moreldwe[ling unit: 2.5 spaces/unit.
Eating and Drinking Es#ablishments: 1 spacell20 sg. ft. of
seating flaor area.
Retail Stores, Personal Services, and Repair Shops: I
space/each 300 sq. ft. af net filoor area,
i
Recreational Facilities, Public or F'rivafie (day spa): Parking
requirements to be determined by the Planning and ~
Environmental Comrnission.
~
i
VIl. SURRDUNDING LAfUD USES AND Z4NING i
~
i
Land Use Zoninq i
North: Nlixed Use Public Accommodation
South: Residentiaf High Density Residential
East: Mixed Use CommerciaC Gore II
West: Mixed Use Public AccommodationlGeneraf Use
! VIII. aISCUSSION ISSUES
The purpose of this worksession meeting is to allow the applicant an opparkunity
to present the revised propased plans to the Planning and Environmental
Cammission and tcr provide the applicant, public, staff, and the Cammission an
apportunity to identify issues for discussion at a future meeting. The Comrnission j
is not being asked ta take aray formal positions an this appfication at tnis tirroe.
Hawever, staff has identified fiWe (5) issues at this time fha# we believe should be i
discussed. The issues are:
Comqlete Developrnent Application i
i
The Town of Vail has reWiewed the develapment application submitted by the
applicant's represen#atiue far cornpletian and campliance with the prescribed ~
4
~ submittal requirements. Upon completion af our (Gommunity Development,
Public Works„ and Fire Department) review, it has been determined that
additianal information is required to be submitted and reviewed befare any
final deeisions may be made by the reviewing boards. Many of these issues
have already been communicated to the applicant. C?thers have not. For
reference purpases, the following irofarmatifln is needed:
• A vicinity plan which includes the Vail Village Inn existing
dmprovements located an the north side of East Meadow Drive
• A complete Eandscape plan prepared in accordance with the
requirement5 autlined on the Tawn ofi Vail deve9opment review
applicatian
• A campCeta roof plan with existing and proposed grades shown
undemeath to be used in the deterrnination of building height
• Ilfusfrate the location of the required 20-foot setback line on the site
plans as required in the Public Accommodation zone district
• Address the comments provided by the Town of Vail Public Works
Department in the letter dated December 20, 2002 (attachment E)
• Address the comments provided by Jeff Winston, Winston &
Associates, in the letter dated January 13, 2003 (attachment F)
Pursuant to Section 12-7A-12 (A)(2)(j) of the Vail Town Cade, `Any
additional informatian or maferial as deemed necessary by the
Administrator or the 7own Planning and Envircrnmental Commissron may
* be request2d"
Is there any additional information or materials tha# the Planraing and
EnvironmentaE C4mmrssion finds rs necessary to be submitted for
review and consideration priar to aeting upon the requests of #he
applicant?
Proposed Setbacks
In 1999, the TQwn of Vail approved a text amendment amending the
prescribed deveGopment standa:rds for the Public AccDmmodation zane
distric#. In approving the text amendments the Town adopted five setback
criteria that are to be used by the PCanning and Environmental
Commission when considering deviations to the required minimum 20-
faot setback_ These criteria are to be used in place af the variance
procedures when considering deviations fa the required setbacks. The
Town determirred that providing flexitaility in the impiementation of the 20-
foot setback requirernent was desirable and cauld serve a public ptarpose
provided that certain design and land use consideratians were addressed
and the variaus criteria were met. To aid in reviewing requests for
deviations fram the minirnum setback requirement the following regulatian
was adopted:
12-7A-6: SETBAGKS:
~ In the PA aistrict, the minimurrr front setback shall 6e twenty feet
(20), the minimum side setback shall be fwenty feet (20'), and the
5
i
minimum rear setback shall be twenfy feet (20'). ,4t the discretr`on ~ I
of the Planning and Environmental Commissron and/or fhe Design
Review Board, variafions to the setback sfandar'ds ouflined above ~
may be approved durrng the revrew of exterror alfernations or
modifr'catfons (5ection 12-7A-12 of this Article) su6fect to the
a,aplicant demonstrafirag cornpfrance with the follnwing crrterra:
A. PrQposEd building setbacFcs provide necessary separataan
between buildr`ngs and rrparran areas, gealogically
sensitive areas and other errvironmentafly sensrtive areas.
B. Propased building setbacks comply wifh applrcable
elements af the ti/ail ViJlage Urban fleSign Guide PJan and
Design Gansideratrorrs.
C. Prnpased building setbacks wrll pravide adequate
availabflr`ty of lighf, alr and open space.
D. Prcaposed building setbacks wrll prvvide a compatible
relatlonship wfth burldings and uses on adjacent
propertr'es.
E. Prapased building setbacks wiN resulf 1rr creative desfgn
salutians or orher pub!!c benefifs t,hat could nat ofherwise
be achieved by conforrnance with prescribed setback
s tandards.
i
The Design Review Board and staff have completed a preliminary review ~
af the propased site plan. Based upon staff's review af the proposed ~
pEans, comments provided by the Design Review Board, the approved
Planning and Enviranmenfai Commission Meeting minutes and staff
memas from the t 990/1991 development application to canstruct the
Sannenalp Hotei (attachrraent G), and a review of the above-describeci ~
setback criteria, we believe that changes are needed to the proposed ;
setbacks in order to ensure campliance wfth the prescribed regulations.
For exarnple, the proposed pool deck area an the south side of the Swiss
Chalet eneroaches consic{erably on the south side setback. Given the
landscape design, the buildirrg's praximity to Gore Creek and the
availability of developable space dn the applicant's property, staff
believes that the pool area shauld be designed to respec# the 20-foot
setback requirement. 4ther areas for consideratian include the loadfng
and deliWery facility, the front entrance to the Swiss Ghalet, the retai:l
space Iocated an the west end af the Swiss Ghalet, the spa additeon and
east end of the hQtel addixion, and the entire East Meadow Drive street
frnntage of the Sonnenalp Hotel addition. The ex#ent of any design
changes should take into consideration the prescribed setback criteria,
the revised sun/shade study, adjacent land uses, and the delineation of
the 1 afl-year floodpiain line.
Staff cEaes not beFieve that the revised proposal for redevelopment
complies with the setback criteria. Specifically, there remains concern
with the propo5ed building locations rela#ive to the goals of the Vail
Village Master Plan, ihe design of the building no longer addresses a •
creative design soiution ar otherwise pravides a public benefit, and #he
proposed 52fbaCk5 actjacent to the residential use af the Talisman
6
~ Condominiurns have potentiaf negative impacts an that adjacent use.
Staff believes that design solutions to these issues exist. We recornmend
that the applicant meets with the Town staff and Talisman Condominium
Association and their representatives to explore soluttons. As designed
staff does not support the request for setbaek deviations.
Does the Planning and Environmental CommiSSiOn agree that
changes shoufd be considered #o the proposed se#taackS giuen #Fae
established setback criteria es#ablished for the Public
Accommodatian zvne district, the need for compliance with the
various masier pfan documents, and the physical parameters of the
site? If sv, what changes are suggested?
Sun/Shade.Analysis
The presence of sun and shade contributes significantly ta the quality of
the pedestrian environment. To illustrate this point, simply laok to Pepi's
deck, the autdoor dining area at the Red Lian, or seating benches that
get used by the public an various days. if the sun is shining, the decks
and those benches in the sun are used. The decks and benches lacated
in the shade are often vacant. The imporkance caf sunlshade is well
documented 'an the Vail ViHage Master Pian. In fact, a whole section of the
Vail Village Urban Design Considera#ions is devo#ed to sunlshade.
Accorcting tQ Sectian 6 of the Vail Village Urban design Considerations, in ,
~ part,
"a!1 new or expanded buildfngs should not substantially increase
the spring and fall shadow pattern (IVlarch 21 through September
23) on adjacent properties caf the pubfic rlght of way":
Ta better understand the impacts of the new and expanded buildings
prQpased by the applicant, a sun/shade study has been submitted for
review (attachment H). The results of the study clearly illustrate that a
significant portion af East Meadaw arive and the acfjaeent properCies to
the north will be impacted by the construction of the new hotek and Swiss
Chalet. While staff agrees that the eas#lwest arientatiQn of the site
cantributes to the effects of sun/shade, we believe that mitigating
measures are needed to minimize the negative impacts of the new
canstruction to the extent possible vuhile maxirrFizing the positive e#fects of
sun on the pedestrian way and adjacent praperties. As an example, the
main roof ridge locations of the Sonnenalp hotel addition and the Swiss
Chalet could be mowed to the south to minimize shading an East Meadow
Drive. Additionalfy, the first and second stories of the building eould be
°`set forward° whiie the third and fourth storoes cauld be "stepped back."
This patential des%gn option could address several issues beyond
sunlshade. It rnight also hekp in addressing the issues of setbacks,
building articulation, and pedestrian scale.
~ Girren the criteria established for the r@view of projects and
evaluating their impacts an suNshade, as well as the input provided
by the Town of Vail Design Review Board, are there any steps that
7
you migh4 sugges# at thais time for the applicant ta pursue in ~
responding to concerns of sun/shade?
Mitiqation of Dewelopmenrt Impacts
Pursuant to Section 12-7A-14, Mitigation of Deuelopment Impacts, Vail
Town Code,
"PrQperty owners/developers shall also be responsible for mltigating
direct rmpacts of therr development an public infrasfructure and rn a!l
cases mitigarion sha11 bear a reasonable relatron to the development
lmpacts. lmpacts may be determined based on reports prepared by
qualified consulfants. The extent of mitigatron and public amenity
improvements shall be balarrced wi[h the goals of redevelopment and wi11
be deterrnrRed by the Plannrng artd Environmentaf CommrssiQn in revieuv
of development projects and candrtional use permits. Substantial off-site
impacts may rnclude, but are nat limited to, the fo{lowing: deed restricted
employce housing, rvadway improvemenfs, pedestrian walkway
improvements, s[reetscape improvements, stream tract/bank restoratian,
loading/defivery, pUblic art improvements, and simifar impravemerrts. The
intent of this Sectron rs ro anly require mitrgatian for large-scale
redevelopment/develapment projects which produce substantial off-srte
irrzpacts. „
Besides the obvious, (i.e., employee hausing, streetscape ~
improvements, roadway improvements, public art, loading/delivery
facilities) are there any ather specific mitigating measures that the
applicant shoufd be pursuing at this time as part of this
development appfication?
East Meadow Drive Pedestrian Mall
In 1978, East Meadow Drive, along with a number of other streets and
ways in the Town of Vail were designated as a major pedestrian ways
within the Village core area. The significance of such a designation
placed an importance for pedes#rian-onky traffic on East Meadow Drive
and other streets in Vail Uillage. This designation is well documented in a
number of the Town's various planning-related documents. In fact, the
pedestrian nature of Vail Village is a major attraction #or our guests and
estabPishes the ambiance and character of the resort. It should also be
noted, hawever, that in establishing #he pedestrian mall system within the
fiawn, that agreements for future vehicular access were established by
and between the Tawn and variaus prQperly ouvners. One such
agreement uvas established wi#h Sonnenalp Properties, Inc. and the
Talisman Condominium Assaciation.
The applicant has revised the vehicular point of access and traffic
circulation design of the project. In response to previaus difficulties and
matters of conflict, the applicant is no longer proposing ta prcavide ~
vehicular access or structured parking for the Talisman Condominiums.
8
~ instead, the applicant proposes that the Talisman Condaminiums gain
vehicular access to their si#e and parking are via Eas# Meadow Drive,
pursuant to the Town's existing agreements.
Staff believes that this design solution will have subs4antial negative
impacts on East Meadow drive and the surrounding area. While design
solutions can be deveioped to lessen or minimize thase impacts, staff
continues to believe that, if passible, the appFicant and Talisman
Condominium ovuners should work caQpera#ively together, along with the
Town, to devefop an access salu#ion that removes most if n4t alI #he
vehicular traffic fram East Meadouv Drive. In an effort to facilitate abetter
design, sta#f has drafited a number of design a[ternatives for review and
consideratian. These solutions were drafted with the interests of the
Sonnenalp, Talisman, and Town in mind. Staff waufd welcorne the
opportunity to meet with each of the parties caflectively to discussion the
access issues and any possible solutions. Regardless af a meeting to
discuss shared access, staff is prepared to work with the Tafisman and
Sonnenalp to address vehicular access and circulatian.
What input or direction does the Planning and Environmental
Commission have for the applicant regarding access and East
Meadow Drive?
IX. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
• The following section of this memorandum is included to provide the applicant,
community, stafif, and Comrr?ission with an advanced understanding of the
criteria and findings that will be used by the reviewing bQards in making a final
decision on the proposed applications.
Condi#ional Use Permit Criteria and Firtdings
A. Consideration of Factors Reqarding Conditianal Use Permits:
1. Relationship and impact of the use on the development
objectives of the Town.
2. The efifect af the use on light and air, dastributian af population,
transpQrtat+on facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation
facilities, and other public faciiities needs.
3. Effect upon traffic with particuaar reference to cangestion,
automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic fiow
and control, access, maneuverability, and removal af sraow
fram the s#reet and parking areas.
4. Effect upon the characler of the area in which the propQSed
use is to be loca#ed, includEng the scale and buik of the
~ propased use in relation to surrounding uses.
9
The following additional criteria and standards shall be applicable ta the ~
uses IfSted b21QW in consicEeration of a conditianal use permit. These
critersa and standards shall be iro adtlition to the criteria and findings
required by Sectian 12-16-6 of this Chapter.
A. Uses and Criteria:
8. Time-Share Estate, Fractional Fee, Fractional Fee Club, C3r
Time-Share License PropQSal: Prior ta the approvaf of a
conditional use perrnit for a time-share estate, firactional fee,
fractional fee club, or time-share license proposal, the following
shall be considered:
a. If the proposal for a fractional fee club is a redevelopment of an
existing facility, the fractional fee club shalE maintain an
equivalency of accommadati4n units as are presently existing.
Equivalency shall be maintained either by an equal number of
units ar by square fioatage. If the proposal is a new deVeloprnent,
it shall provide at least as much accommodation unit gross
residential flaor area (GRFA,) as fractional #ee club unit gross
residential floor area (GRFA).
b. Lock-off units and lock-off unit square footage shall not be
included in the calculatian when determining the equivalency of
existing accommadation units or equivalency of existing square
footage_ ~
c. The ability Qf the propo5ed project to create and maintain a high
level of occupancy.
d. Employee hausing units rriay be required as part af any new ar
redevelapment fractional fee club project requesting density over
that allowed by zoning. The number af employee housing units
required will be consistent with empfoyee impacts that are
expected as a result of the project.
e. The appiicant shall submit to the To+rurr a fist of aII owners of
existing units within the praject car buifding; and uvritten statements
from ane hundred percent (100%) of the owners of existing units
indicating their apparo+ral, withaut eondition, of tne proposed
fractional fee club. No uvritten approval shall be valid if it was
signed by the owner more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of
filing the appfication for a conditionae use.
B. The Planning and Enviranmental COmmi5Si4n shall make the
follnwinq findinqs before qrantinq a conditional use permit:
1. That the praposed locatian of the use is in accardance witn
the purposes of the conditional use permit section of the
zoning code and the purposes of the Public
Accommodation zone district.
~
10
~ 2. That the proposed Iocation of the use and the canditions
under which it will be operated or maintained v,rill not be
c@etrimental to the public hea6th, safie#y, or welfare or
materially injurious to properties or improvernents in the
vicinity.
3. That the proposed use wilF comply with each of the
applicable pravisions af ihe conditional use permit section
of the zoning code.
Variance Criieria and Fundings A. Consideration af Factors:
1. The relationship of the requested variarece to aiher existing
or potentkal uses and siructures in the v%cinity.
2. The degree to which relief frorn the strict and IFteral
interpretatian and enforcement af a speci#ied regu[atirn is
necessary to achdeve compatibility and uniformity of
freatrnent among si#es in the vicinity ar ta attain the
objectives af this title without a grant of special privilege.
3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air,
~ distribution of population, transportation and traffic
facilities, public facllities and utiEities, and public safety.
4. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems
applicable to #he praposed variance.
B. The Planninq and Enviranmental Commission shall make the
fflllowing findinqs before qranting a variance:
i. That the granting of the variance will noi canstitu#e a grant
af special privilege inconsistent with the fimitations on other
properties classified in the same district.
2. That the granting of the variance will not be cletrimental ta ;
the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious ~
to properties or improvements in the vicinity. ~
3. That the variance is warranted for one or more af the
fallowing reasons:
a. The stract literal interpretation or enforcement af the
specified regulation would result in practical
cfifficulty ar unnecessary physical hardship
inconsis#ent with the objectives of this title.
~ b. There are exeeptions or extraordFnary
11
circumstances or conditions appficable to the samE ~
site of the variance that da not apply generally to
ather praperties in the same zane.
c. The strict interpretatian or enfiorcement of t'he
specified regulation would deprive the applicant af
privileges enjayed by the owners of other praperties
in the same district.
Text Amendment Criteria and Findings
1. Prescribed Regulations Amendment
a:. Factors, Enumerated: Before acting on an appiication #ar an
amendment to the reguiations prescribed in Ti#le 12, #he Planning &
Environmental Gamission and Town Council shall consider the
#allow'rng factors with respect to the requested text amendmeni:
1. The extent to whkch the text amendment furthers the general and
specifie purpases of the Zaning Regulations; and
2. The extent ta which the text amendment wauid better irnpRement
and better achieve the applicabCe eEements of the acEopted goals,
abjectives, and policies outlined in the Vail CQmprehensive Plan
and is compatiEa{e with the develapmerat objectives of the Town;
and ~
3. Ths extent to which #he text amendment aemanstraies how
conditions have substantially changed since the adaption ofi the
subject regulation and how the existing regulation is na longer
appropriate or ts inapp9icable; and
4. The extent to uvhich the text amendrrtient provides a harmonious,
convenient, workable relatianship among fand use regulations
consistent with municipal development objectives.
5. Such other factors and criteria the Comrnission andlor Council
deem applicable to the proposed text amendment.
b. Necessary Findings: Before recammending andfar granting an
approual af an application far a text amendment the Planrting &
Enaironmental Gomnrrission and the Town Council shall make the
following firrdings wi#h respect to the requested amendment:
1. ' That the amenclment is consistent with the applicable
elements of the adapted goals, objectives and polieies outlined
in the Vail Camprehensive PEan and is
cornpatible with the development objectives of
the Town; and
2. That the amendment furthers the general ana specific ~
purposes of the Zoning Regulations; and
12
I
3, That the amendment promotes the heaith, sa#ety, morals, and
generaf rrvelfare of the Town and promotes the coordinated
and harmaniaus development of ihe Town in a manner that
coraserves and enhances its natural environrraent and its
established character as a resort and residential community of
the highest quality.
12-7A-6: SETBACKS:
I In the PA C7rstrrcf, the minrmum front setback shafl 6e twenty feet (20),.
the minrmum side setbaek shall be twenty feet (20), and the rninimum
rear setback shalf be twenty feet (20). At [he drscrefiorz of the Planning
and Environmental Commission and/or the Design Review Board,
uariatrons to the setback standards outlined above may be appraved
during the r'evrew of exterior alternations or rrtodiffcatians (Sectivn 12-7A-
12 of this Article) subject to the applicant dernonsfrating complianee with
the followrng criteria:
A. Proposed ,buildrng se[6aeks provide necessary separation
betweerr build'ings and ripariarr areas' georog;carly
sensrtive areas and other environmentally sensrtiue areas.
8. Proposed burlding setbacks comply with applicable
elements of the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plarr arrd
flesign C'onsiderations.
~ C. Proposed building setbacks will provide adequafe
avarlabrlrty of lighf, air and open space.
D. Proposed burlding setbacks wrll pravide a compatible
relatronship wrfh burJdings and uses on adjacent
propertres.
E. Proposed 6uilding setbacks will resuft in creatfve design
solu[ions ar vther pubJic berrefits fhat could not othervurse ~
be achieved by conformance wrth prescrrbed setbaek
standards.
I
X. STAFF REC+C3MMENDATION !
As this is a worksession, staff v+rill not be providing a staff recommendation at this
time. Staf# +nrill pravide a staff recommendation at the time of a final review of this
application.
For future reference purposes anRy, pursuant ta Section 12-7A-13, Vail Town
Code, the appiicant shall be required io rnest a co6npliance burden and
demonstrate by apreponderance of the evidence ihat the proposed appffcatian
confDrms to the requirements prescribed for such app9ication. Sectaan 12-7A-13
states,
"C4NIPLIAIVC€ BURDEN.•
~ !t shalE be the burden of the applrcanf to prove by a preponderance of the
evidence before fhe Plannirrg and Envrronmenta! Cammission and the
Design Review Board that the proposed exterror alteration or new
13
development is in compliance with the purpvses of the F'u61ic ~
Accommodation Zone Distrrct, that the proposal is Gonsistent with
applicable elemenis of the Vaif Vrllage Master Plar?, the Vail Village Urbara
Design Guide Plan and the Uarl S[reetscape Master Plan, and that the
proposal does nar otherwise have a significant negafive effect or+ the
character of fhe neighbarhaod, and fhaC the pro,oosal substantially
complies wifh other applieable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan."
XI. ATTACHMENTS
A. llicinity Map
6. Letters from Applicant ?ated August 2002, December 2002, and January
2003
C. Propased Revised Plan
D. Planning and Environmental Commission Meeting Minu#es from Septernber
23 and October 14, 2002
E. Publie Warks Comments Dated December 20, 2002
F. Gomments from Jeff V'Vinston Dated January 13, 2003 ~
G. P[anning and Environmental Gommission Staff Reporks and Minutes from the
1990l1991 Development Application
H. SunlShacle Analysis
1. Letter from Herb Glasser
~
i
~
j
i .
I ;
i
; . i
I ~
i
i
~ I
I
~
~
14
1{" Y 1 ~
' ' 1' ~ T-•~tKf~ ~ ~k' ~ ' ~ r5.
s~ i`
aR` ~ ~~~~~~~3 ? f ~ 7~~, .L~
"?'i' . °e It~ Q~
~ w. ~ t b ^n < ar' w~ ; $ d Fwf k ~.x~'j ' ~ ry
~ y
~ f~ .y, ~ ,~C~ - ~+~r~~ w' ~ "d'.~1 y~„ - ryq:
JJf~~J a
+ 9
~
4 •
~ ,~.,.a~~•- ~'`s'
T . . e "`A. y~ ~
e~;~~
~7
x
o r
..a~ "
t" u n ~ ~s r
~ `a~ c ~ i : ` ~w ~ 1„ • , ^v tt,r~a~c"' a,r.:
"'"~M
• . r 'r~ .1f ~ ~ / f ,s+'~"`~ 0 5[
7 ~
~ ~ ~ # • ; . ' w ~y~ ~ . c~ { . ~ f ~ s'. } . Y ::.~y ~ .
e~ ~y}
1'~p j~S. Y~~ k~ A~w` ~t~ W~ 9' ~•t ~ ~ d . ` ; ~ , 'q~ ~ "~c'~" t i Z .~~u t ro r ,
~ ~ FtiJ`~f . ~Z• r' 3"~ k'~R H~`~ +p~ . . J~,t.~,.~y ~ 4~ ~ ~
~q ~ ' ~ ~ ` _..t'~'..rr > y k"" .7? Y ; ~
~e
~ ,.d
a•
11
~
8 r f A
r~
' a. .W
u. .r
y
`
f
~
. ~
,
~
~ xF'-~. -
~
~ ~ • ~ ~ ' ~ s
~
i~ u i
w~~'
q-
, ¢ + ,y~ a, °e«*`'~ ~~~a,~'• .,wl~^ ~ " x e G7
T. - ~ ~ ~,r ? . ~ } 5 ~
,
.
i~
7 .
0
it s;:= ~e°,~ `y~ r• 4j w y3~~ya..
a
','~i'~,.
.tr
p~
j~.'
~ .
.a-'
~ , . . . . .~C~~ . ~ ;z,~
~ It IN .
' a ~ .t c . . -.y .a~
. - .
~~k'` . ~ d~`~t`,..~~: ~ ~ 3 a~`" `rY~~ . ~t,~ ~.j~~~ 9 :•r $ .G a ~ -
; g ~
~
~
i
fonnenalp Retort
~ vciii
~
~ AppBiCatiON$ ldt
J444of ogxtariof Agfnafi+ah,
OoNdWaMadUso Pwrwif, Das1gn
Rwiaw, amd Vwianca
Awpst 2002
I
Attachment: B
- '
Table o£ Cantents ~
Page
1. Introduction 2
A. Sumtr3ar;; oF Request 2
B. Key Elements oE the Propasal 2
C. Review Pracess 3
II. I)etailed Praject Description and Zotting Analysis 4
A. Project 5ite anc3 Otivnership 4
B. Eacisting Conditi4ns 5
C. Proposed Uses and Detaited I"raject I7escription 6
D. 2aning Analvsis 14
E. Niitigation oFDevelopment Impacts 14
F. Floodplain ivlodification 16
III. Review Factors and Crs#eria 17
IV. Comprehensive Plan Goals and Llirection 21
~
~
5onnenalp Recieve[apment 1
Sraun Associares, Inc.
~ I. Intxoduction
A. Summary af Request
The Soniienalp Resart is proposui9 to redevelop its property located in the Vail Village.
Tl7is ptoject is a cooperative project bet4veen the Talisman Candazni_niurns and the
Sonnenalp and represents one coorc3inated redewelopment effar[.
The praposed project Evill have a significant positive impact on the economy and aesthetics
of the TQwn by upgrading and expanding a waxld-class lodging facility. IVew and upgraded
lodging and spa facilities will be provided in order to attract visitoxs ~om all around the
world. The most significant amenity of the project will be the zemoval of surface parking
along East Meadow Drive and the introducfiion of a tetail carridat on thc south side of the
street. T'he est2bLishment af retasl activity in this area cvill inject new life and vitaliry to an
area vrhose performance has considexable toorn for impxovement.
The project will provide strectscape i.tnprqvements that implement the Town's current
streetscape plan and improvements that provide for an improved and sa£e pedeskrian
experience along East Nieadaw Drive. "The rrzajority of the pa.rking required Eor tlae project
will be l.ocated in a subsurface patlcing garage that extends under the entixe praject.
The specific proposal includes a new hotel tiving along the ftontage o£ East Meadow Drive
~ cantaining 3 stories of hotel rooms (46 rooxn.s) and one stary with reta.il at street level. The
gxound floox also includes a covered pedestrian arcade, which extends 10' frcarn the buileiing;
face to provide pedestrian scale to the building. The hatel additian rurr.s from Vaii Road to
the Talisman property. The existing Swiss Haus building will be demoli.shed. In its lacatian
will be another portion of this hotel facilaty containing three stori,es af Fraetional Tee Club
Units (13 FFUs) and dwelling units (9 DUs) and one story with xetail and lobby atea at street
level.
This project is arguably ane of tlie most significant and desisable itnprovernents in Vail as it
expands and upgrades one o£ the most suecessful resort hatels in the counrry and provides
sigmificant amenities iieeded in this axea of the Vail Village.
B. Key Elements of the Proposal
Key elements of the p3an include:
• Expansion and upgrading of Vail's grezanier hatel and spa prapeity.
+ Improved live beds added to Vail's lodging inventory.
• Injection of new retail life to the Meadow Drive corxidox thus improving
the cannection frorn Vail Village and Lionshead.
• Much needed pedc:skrian and streetscape impxovements along East
11ATeadow Drivc.
I
Sonnenalp Redevelopment 2
Braun Associates, Inc.
• Elimination o£ suzEace parking areas and the proVision of subsurface ~
parking and loat3sng ateas.
• Partnership ereated with neighbors to create a coordinated plan.
• Employee housing prnvided within the Town of Vail.
C. Review Prncess
To achieve the Sonnenalp's goals and implemcnt nnany of the Town's goals and policies we
have submitted the following applications:
+Major Exterior Altexation for the overall redevelopment plan
• Conditional Use Permit for a F'ractional Fec Club
• Variance applicatiQns to cievelopzxient litxaitations (retail area and hardscape) in otdet to
itnplement the Town's goals and policies
• Design Review rlpplication for the ciesign components of the grajeet !
In arder for this pxoject to be constxucted these applicatians must be tevievaed and approved
by the Planning and Envixonmental Commission (PEC). 'fhe PEC is the final review
authority on all of these requests.
The xole of the PEC is to review the Sannenalp Resort project with xespect to the criteria
listed ir4 the Zofzing Regulations for a Conciittonal Use Perrnit, Maj6r Extenot AlteTation, ~
and Vanances.
The Design Review Boaxd will Ue responsible for xeviewing the proposed architecture and
design of the building.
~
Sonnenalp Redevelapment 3
Braun Assaciates, Inc.
~ H. Detailed Praject Descriptivn and Zoning Analysis
A. Ptoject Site and Ownership
As diseussed izx the introduction, this redevelopment ptoject ira:volves three properties: the
Sannenalp Resort, the Swiss Haus; and the Tafisznan Condominiums. tls such aIl of these
properties are being considered as one overall project for the purpose of development
statistics. The ovexall project site eonsists of these sepaxate legal parcels:
• Parcel A (1.643 acres, generally the exi.sting SNviss Haus properry and including
Taiisman Condom.iniums);
• Parcel $(1.553 acres, genexally the existing SannenBlp hotel); and
• Parcel C(0.1[35 acxes, generally the Sonnenalp parking area).
• Tatal pxoJect area = 3.301 acres
The definition o£ lot ax site allaws development site ta be a combinatian of lots of recazci or
portions of lots of tecard.
While irnproyements are being proposed to the Talisman parcel (landssaping, urzdexground
parking, surfaee parking, parttons of the spa area, etc.) no changes are being made to the
existing Talisman strueture {ather than sprinkling as requixed bp the Fixe iaeparttnent}.
~ Upon appraval of the red+evelopment plan, the Sannenatp and the Talisman will apply for
xevised pIat to create coarciiEZated parcels and easements for all of the individuap properties.
? ~ ~iT`..+ ~ : ',...A ~r.--.w~.~.' , . ~ f#+'~,~' t'~? .
1i ~ 4 d ~ y'~ ~
1 w'•'Wwt t s. d - rT. ~ i ~~a ~ ~`~'~k^~'
4
*
My
. ~
~ ' f ?~'T'!'"' . ' a ~ !i" ,y ~ ~ SW1SS H3LlS
Sonnenalp Hotel
(now the Swiss
(formerly the Bavaria Chalet)
Ha.us)
!PA~..~ S 1lyp.~ F A
~ ~ . ~ k ~X ~
Nt,~~:rp.~-t, -;..f°4aA~i. ~ ~
l .4 + r. ~ ~i.~.
+"4,
ig
~
I
Sonnenalp Iiedeweloprnent 4
Braun Assaciares, Inc.
B. Existing Conditians ~
The 5onnenalp portion of th.e site is curxentIy developed with t-wn buildings that are used as
a lodge facility as defined by the: Town Code. All af tl-ic parking on the site is currently
surfaee parking. Aceess to the hotel is primatily frorn Vail Raad with additianal access for
the Swiss Haus £tom Willcaw Bzicige Road and last Meaciow Drive. Below is a table
describing the existuig conditions af the site:
Existing Sonnenalp:
Density: 90 Hotel Rooms
GRF11: 58,074 sg. ft.
5ite Caverage: 34,050 sq, ft.
Landscape Area: 13,750 sq. ft.
Reseaurant Area (net): 3,3$9 sq. ft. (variance granted for an additiana11,G51.4 sq. ft.
on June 24, 1991. Bully Ranch = 1,504 sq. Ft., Ludwig's =
1,560 sq. fr., and King Club Bar = 325 sq. ft.)
Meeting Roain llxea: 4,000 sq. ft.
Spa Area: 7,330 sq. ft.
Parlcing: 108 spaces
Building Height: 48' and 56' (granted by variance)
Existi.ng Swiss HatxS:
Density: 59 Hotel Roams ~
2 Dwelling Uruts
GRFA: 23,44-4 sq. ft.
Site Covetage: 12,950 sq. ft.
Landscape Are;a: 7,5(}0 sq, ft.
Retail Area: 1,580 sq. ft.
Restaurant area: 2,422 sq. ft.
Meeting Room Area: 1,885 sq. ft.
Spa Area: 1,720 sq. £t.
Paxkitig; 14 spaces
Buildiu.g Height: 48'
Existiatzg'I`alisxnan Gondamiruums:
Density: 16 Dwelluig Units
GRFA: 24,239 sq. ft.
Site Coverage:: $,900 sq. ft.
Landscape .llrea: 3,375 sq, ft.
Parking: 20 spaces
~
Sonnenalp TLeclevelopincnt J
Braun Associatcs, Inc.
~ C. Pioposed Uses and Detailed Projcct Descriptian
1. Ptoposed Uses
The pzajcct includes the following uses that are either perrnitted by right or by
conditional use perrnit in the Public r'Lccommodatian zone district:
• Hotel tqoms - use by ri.ght
• Fractional Fee Club Units - conditional use
• L?welling units - use by right ,
• Retail - use by ri,ght
• Spa facilities - use by right
- ~ evised Talisnaan Parking
~ d Lan scaping
New Sonnenalp Wing
New Swiss Chalet
,
-
, - _
~ ~ I /J .w':.~ l.._*. . Y
~ Rr f ~
Y 41''..:
~ : ~ ~ b • ~ , .
~ :~x~ ~ . ~ • - ..i,.~-~a ~w : •
Praposed Site P1an
2. Assembly of Uses anci Lots
As previQUSly stated, the overali project includes three parcels that comptise one
overall development site. The project also includes three separate builclings. `Fhe
Talisman is a multiple Family residential bui].ding and the proposed S'%uiss Chalet and '
Sannenalp tagcther are one lodge facility. The definition of a lodge is "a building or
group of associated bLiildings designed for occupancy primarily as the temparary
~
Sannenalp Recievelapment G
Braun tlssociates, Inc.
lodgifig place o£inciividuais or families eirher in accommodation un'Lts or dwelling ~
un~.ts." The dcfinition of lot states that "a lot or site may consist of a suigle lot of
recoxd, a portion of a lot of rec:ord, a cornbinagon of lots a#` record Qr partions
thereof, or a parcel of land describcd by rnetes anci bounds." The Sonnenalp
redevelopment praposal is consistent with botki of these defulitians.
Additionllly, since the project is a cambination of scparate parcels, internal setbaeks
between the parcels are not recogaitzed by the tawn. Some itnpatovements are being
praposed withisi the lot area of the Talisrnan parcel (q.e., underground parking and a
partion of the hotel facility). lteplatting and rhe establishrr?c:nt of easements will
oceur at a future date to accoarimodate these internal encroachments.
3. Parkiz-?g
Parking provided by Che praposed redevcloprn,ent compLics ~vith Town
requiremcnts. Qf the total of 1$9 parking spaces, 163 will be Iocateci undcrground.
Surface spaces will be lirriited to 8 spaces located at the Talisman and the remaining
1$ spaces will be located within the parte cochere of the Sonnenalp, The Froposed
189 parking spaces provide the requi.ted parlting for the enrire projeet, existing and
proposed. The foHowing is the parking analysis:
~
~
Sonnenalp Redevelopment 7
Braiui Assnciates, Ine.
~ Existiag Uses (SQnnenalp):
Use # or sQ. ft. 1Vlultiplier Parlcing Requirement
AUs 90 .7 C}3
ConFerence 4,000 1/330 12.12
Ludwig's 1,560 I /250 6.24
King Club I3ar 325 1/250 1.3
Bull Ranch 1504 1 25(J 6.02
T o taI 88.68
Changes in Existing Sonnenalp:
Use # oc sa. ft. Multiplier Parking Requirennent
Ludwag's i',dditian 1,600 1/250 6.4
Existing Uses (Talisman):
Use Parking Re uirement
DL1's 20 spaees (grazldfathezed)
Proposed New Development 4 SannenaIp Addition and Swiss Chaiet:
[T e # or s. ft. 14iulti lier Parldn Re uiremcnt
AUs 46 .7 32.2
FFUs 13 .7 9.1
DL1s 9 1.4 12.6
Retail net floor area 10,200 2.3 1 000 23e46
Total 77,36
~ Total parking required: 77.36 new development + 88.65 existing development + 6.4
Ludwig's addition + Talisman = 193 spaces x 2.5% multi-use
ctedic = 189 parking spaces
Total parling proposed: 1$4 spaees
spaces in parte cochere
S spaces at Talisman
llfi striped spaces in sttuctute
47 valet spaees
4. Loading and Deltvery
The pxoposed redevelapment complies fully with the Tawu's loading anci delivery
rcquuements. The Code xequires 2 acic.iiaanal laading spaces and the praposed plan
includes 3 undergzound ioading ateas for use by the entixe project: Sonnenalp, new
Swiss Cha.let, and the Talisman. The exisring Swiss Haus and Talisman currendy
have na forrrial loading facilities.
°l'hese new berths are loeateri under the proposed Swiss Chalet facility. While the
site is being redeveloped and new and improved structures are heing
accomcnodated, the avexall loaeling and delivery clemand r.vill be gready reduced due
to the removal caf the 5wiss Chalet Re.staurant and conference raom space withui the
~ building.
Sonnenalp Recievelopment $
Braan Associatcs, Inc.
i
Below is the analysis of loacling iaert}a zeqLtirements in accordance with the Totivn ~
Gode.
Use sq. ft. Multipliez Reqnirement
Lodge 75,000 1/fust 75,000 sq. ft. 1
+ 46,01[) 1/eaeh additiona125,000 sq. ft. 1-84
{iNrev Sannenalp 59,575 rq. fi. + new Swi.rs 61,195 sg. f't.)
Nlultiple-Family 24,239 1/ 10f},OOQ sq. ft. 1
Total 4
TOV Nlulti-use Reduction -2 i
Total Laading Bay Requirement 2 ;
I
~
5. Tafisman Improvements
T'he Talisman property is currently developed with one structute containing 16
dwelling units and 20 surface parking spaces. The Talisman property will be
modified to allow an underground paxking structure to tra-cFerse under its property.
As part af the a,gxeement with the Sonnenalg, the Talisman will be pxovided with 16
undergtound parking spaces (one foc each unit), which w-ili be aecessed through the
porte cachere at t,he Sonnenalp Eiotel. The Talisman will reduce its surface parking
area to $ parking spaces..
The 8 surface parking spaces will be aecessed £tom East i4leadow Drive pursuant to ~
an existing access easement (proposed tQ be shi£ted tca the east to have less impact
on East Nieadow Dtive), czeated when the Talisman was o-uginally platted in 1970,
and Town Qrdinance (Oxdinance Na. 14, Series of 1978) a]1Qwi.ng continued access
through the pedestrianizeci atea. The TaLisrr?an properky was plattcd vc,ith its only
legal access to East Meadow Drive. Subsequent ta this plat approval, in 1978 the
Tawn of Vail established certain roads in Vail as "Public MaUs" under the Publie
I1•fall A.ct of 1974. Included in the public rnaUs was East Meadaw Drive as wc.ll as
othet stxeets Iike Bridge itreet and Ggre Cteek Drive. C7rdinanee 14 established
that the "awners af the Talistnan Condominium shali have the right, in perpetuity, ~
of ingxess and egress to and frorn thrir parking lot to East Meadow Drive, inclucling ~
access on said Drive." Other pxojects sueh as the Gasthaff Gramshammex located j
on Gore Creek Dtice has been allowed to expand and redevelop and maintain
vehicular access through the pedestrianized arca.
The proposed plan gready reduces the impacts of this access to East Itiieadow Drive
byr reducing the total numbez of surface spaees to eight spaces. The Talisman
Candos will have access to a belvw grade parking space accessed itom the rnain
entrance Vail Road.
~
Soi3nenalp Redevelopment ~
F3ratin Associates, Inc.
i
~ The improvements being rrrade to the Talisman w°ill itnpxave the appezrance of the
parcel, as there will be reduced pavcment, reduced parking, and mote landscape area
than exists today.
6. Retail Areas and r.imitations
The proposed redevelopment plan unplements the Town's gaal of having a vital
retail area along East I4Teadow Drive. The Land Use Plan, the 'E7ail Village Master
Plan, and the Stseetscape I4laster Plan all reference teta.il innprc,vernents along the
south side of East Meadow Drive. The proposed plan inclucies 12,000 sq. ft. of new
street level tetail area (19,650 sq. ft. total existing and proposed retail/restaurant
arca). Retail storefronts are includeci on rhe entire NAeadotv Driye frantage of the
Sonnenalp wing and the Swiss Chalet creatin.g desirable pedestrian flow and
strengthenixig of the connection bet«een the Village care and Lionshead.
The PA zane d,istrict limits the aniount nf retail square footage allowed on a site to
10°/o of the proposed C7RNt1. The P11 zone distriet was amended several years ago
ta pzomote the xedevelopment af Iodging facilities in the Vail Village. The retail
area limitation was debated extensively duti.ng this process and at the time was
proposed to be increased to allow for adequate retail acrivities in the core retail areas
of Town. However, the retail iimitarion was not changed due ta concerns about the
potential fQt atcta.il aciiviry in the more resadential areas of the Village.
~ T'he Sonnenalp property is uniquely sitLiated along a major pedesttaan and retail
carrzdor. Mast of the Sonnenalp's frontage is along East Meadow Drive, If the
proposed plan R=ere to camply with the Town's 10% hnitation, retail eould not be
located along the entixe building frontage therefore compramising the vitality oE khe
retail environment and the canneetion ta the Village coYe. 5trict and literal
interpretation af this zoning standard is in direct conffict with the Tawn's design
goals Eor this area of the villagc.
In order to unplement Vail's guiding land use doeuments and because the Sonnenalp
is uniquely situated, the 5onnenalp is seeking a van'ance from the 10% limitation to
pravide for an e:nhanced retail axea and impraved streerscape improvements.
7. Landscape 1's.rea
The proposed reveloptnent plan cc,mplies with the overall lanelscape: requirement for
the PA zone distrri.ct. '1'he plan includes extensive landscape and stseetscape
improvements that implement Town goals and the T'own's Streetscape Flans.
However, the praject exceeds the allowable hardscape that can be considexed as
"landscape ampxavements."
Within the definirion o£ landscape area regulation there is a provision that allows
~ 20%o of the lanciscape area to be "hardscape" (i.e., siclewalks, patios, etc). The
Sdiinenalp Reclevelopment 10
$ratui Associates, Inc.
proposed redeceloprnent plan exceeds the 20°/o limitation placed on hardscape. The ~
Sonnenalp is uniquely located along three road frontages: Vail Raad, East Meadaw
Drive, and Willaw $ridge Road. This site is also located iza a highly pc:desttianized
area of the cdwn with heavy zetafl activity. Thus the need for sidetivalks and other
lzardscape improvements is necessary tn accornrnodate adequate pedestrian
movememt. The proposed srreetscape mastcr plan, the adapted streetscape master
plan, and the Vail ~''illage Master Plan akl recommend the rype of improvements ;
bcing proposed at the Sonnenalp. These irnptovements, howevet, atc in coatlzct ~
with the genexal hardscape litnitatian estabiished in the PA zone district. '
The applicant is seeking a w ariance from this general resmiccion on hardscape to
allow the Sonnenalp to be redevelopcd consistent with the Town's guiding
documents.
8. Setbacks ~
The proposed revelopment plan cc+nnplies with the Town's planning docurnents that
xeFerenee the creation af comfortable pedestrian envixonments and streetscapes.
The PA zone distrfct sets ageneral setback tequirement af 20' from all property
lines. Howevex, the PA zone district also states that the Planning and
Environrriental Cominission has the discretion to approve variations frorn the
setback requirernents subject to the foIlowing cr~teria:
A. T'roposed building setbaeks provide necessarjr separation between ~
builciings and n'parian areas, geolagicallv sensitive areas and other
eriviranrnentally sensitive axeas.
Thepropo,red setbcacksfor the Sonnenao redevelopment vary greutly acro.r.r the Jite.
Along Ea,rt 1Vleadaw L7rive The sctbaGk is 0' in .rome areas and SO' or motv in the
other areas .ruch a.r• in frnnt of the Tala.rman. The lauildirrgr and sidewalk,s were
localecl and designed to achieue the optimul urbun de.rign und street.rcape quudity ruther
than applying an arbztrag setbuck dfinension. The Vail Vallu~e hlcr.rter I'larr,
Urban Design Guide Plan, and Urban Desrgrt Considerations 7vere used lQ prrrvicle
the ctirectzonfir the building loerstron.r on thir praject. These docurnents rea•ommend
developing apedestrian arcrrde alang Easd hleadow Drzue as aaJell a.rprnviding a
raming" af the street. The proposedpdanfollvuls thi.r directaon. Thepmposed
redevelo,brnent plcrn ul.ro eampdier avith the udopted anclprnpa.red .S'trretfcupe Ma.rler
Plan far this area. The pmpa,red plan pmvide.r the necessary ,reparatian of buildings
and rcpcrrian areas New strmctarres oM the pmpo,red plan comply vith the 50'sdream
' setback No geologacally or envirorrmentally senjitive areas e.%zist on the site.
B. Proposed building setbacks comply with applicable elements of the Vail
Village Urban 17csign Guide Plan and Design Considerations.
~
5onnenalp Aedewelopment 11
Brattn Assaciates, Inc.
~ As stalecl abuve the proposerlplun vompfie.r with lfie Tlail Village UrGnn Deragrt
Guade I'lan and lJesign Con3ideratian.r. Speci, ficudy, the proposed planprovides for
appmprrately lacatertperle_striun .cidezvalk r and arcrrde,r, matcr the apprapriate sen.re of
,ctreet enclosirre nlQnA Eust illeudoav ,Drive, and pravide,r for adeqarate larrrls-cape and
hardsc•ape amenilies, .ruch u.r heatedpaver,r, seatrng arens, and li,&fzxturvs
C. Proposed Uuilding setbacks will provide adequate avaiiability af light, air
aad open space.
~
The pmposed building loeatzoni• urrdlprnvicle adequute uvailafaality of lzght, air and
open ipace con.ristenl urith the Tawn'.cguidang plan.r czrrd documerrts. A.r wePh arry
6atildiMg develaped on an ea.rd us.rt oriented pcrrcel, .rhading ufill be a factor. [.~'hile
.rbading of same area.r af Eu.rt Meudow Drivc smll ocGarr durzng certuin hvurr af the I
dqy during the avznter, the hrrprict of this shacdin, nf F.ast Meadfliv Drive a.r nat
.rignificanty derent a.t rr seCback of 211: A sun/.chade anuly,ri.r ha.r beenprnvided to
demon.rtrAte the ,rhadasv im
pact.r of the pmpased develvpmerrt. T'he arrade and sidez+aalk
heatingpropo.red in this area ur1!l allorv the pede.rtriAn way ZQ 6e clear of snvw and ice
bzrald-up. Other exampdef vf 6uz'ldangs that have laeen constrmcted that caft ashadQw
on public streetr include the Ausi`rica Hazrs, the Ladge Pmmenade, and the Tlilluge
Center Buzlding.
D. Propased building setbacks will provide a compatible relationship with
buildings and uses on adjacent properlies.
~ Theproper4 that is being redeveloped is sunrounded on three side.r by crpublzc street
and one side by Gore Creek, Ilae Talisrnan is a ca-upplicant wfth the .Sannenao and
is in agree.Preenl u.ith ihe setback.r and locutian.r af biralding.r cz.r eurrenl!y sfinwn on the
plun. The propa.red and e.xzsting buzldrngs are ,reparated frorn adjasent 6uildingr by
the Towrr's azght-af-zvuys, whtch are 40'to SO' zn uidth. The L'ail Village Inn
prnject directly acro3s the street has a similar relation.rhip af buildangs to Eaft h2readaav
Drive.
E. Propnsed building setbaeks will result in creative design solutions or
other pubPic benefits that could not other%vise be achieved by
conformance with prescribed secback standards.
ThelSropo.red redeveloj5nrerrtplan pravzdP.r creattue clei-i
gn .ralution,r da enhance the
g Eart Meadnw Drive. If 'theplun confarrned to
pedestrinn and mtail environment ulon
lhe 20' sEtback the Toavn lo.res desaraGle improvemeMt3• thrat implervent the Toavn's
mu.ster plun element.r and soul,r. I bese include streed encla.rure, efttive undprotected
pedes,lraan way.i, and retail vitulaty elose ta thepedeslriani.Zed s-treet. Thepraposed
plan unllprovide srgn#icant benefits ta the publze in the form of .rtreet.rVc
enhuncements, iVmveul trtail and shopping e-%perrences, and auerufl ue.rthetic
improvement that would not atherzvise 6e reali.Zed an striet confarmance ruith tbe 20'
setbaek pnavision.
~
I
Sonnenalp Retiecreloprnent 12
Biami Ass9ciates, Inc.
I
9. Buiiduzg Height ~ I
Buflding height proposed £ot thesc new buildings camplies fully vcitEi the
building height limitatinn of 48'. Further, the proposed plan cornplies with the
direction given in the VailViilage Design Considexations for street euclosure.
This eiocument xecammends a certain ratio exist between builcling faces ftonting
a street to the height of the building5, The tatio reGOmmended by the plan is 1'
of building height for each 2' of building separation. 'The design plan also
recommends an average ratio where building heights vary from side to side.
While thexe are no buildings on the north side af East Meadow Drive that are
dixecdv parallcl to those proposed dn the south side, the plan generallq conforms
to the enclosure guideline. Buildings faces on eitlier side of the raad are
appraxunately 50' - 74' apart and the eve heights are genexally 32'- 34' in hcight.
Wlule the netiu buildings as designed, fully comply with the current height limits,
we do believe that adclittoztal height fai the Swiss Chalet is highty desirable to
meet current market conditions. The height lizn,it of 48 feet significandy
compromises the quality and functianality of the retail space and the residential
un.its. It does nat allaw fox meeting the demands a£ today's maxketplace wirh
regaxd to noise attenuation between the tetail spacts and the residential spaces ~
and does not allow far adequate interior ceiling heights in both the tesidential
and the retail space. The Swiss Chalet could significantly itnprove its quality
image and functianalitv by increasing the overall building height. Shauld the ~
building height Ltmits change prior to construction of the Swiss Chalet, the
applicant would appreciate the oppoztuziity to change the buildimg height ta
comply with the new ]irnits. I
i
~
~
~
Sorutexzaip FtedevelopmeiiL 13
Braun Associates, Inc.
~ D. Zaning Aiaalysis
2oning: 1'ublie Accorntnodation
Lot l~rea: 3,301 acxes or 143,791.56 sq. £t.
Standatd Allowed Proposed
' Density 82.5 DUs (25/acre) 25 DUs (7.5/acre)(16 existing)
GRFA overall project 215,68734 sq. ft. (150%) 130,838 sq. ft. (91%)
(81,140 sq. ft. new GRFA)
New GRF'A 70/30 split 57,170 sq. fr. AU/FFU
24,216 sq. ft. DLJ 23,970 sq. ft. DLT
Retail Area: 13,083.5 sq. ft. (10°lo GRFtk) 19,650 sq. ft. (15%) *Variance
5ite Coverage 93,464 sq. ft. (65%) 84,185 sq. ft. (5$.5%)
I
Landscape ATea 43,464 sq. ft. (30%) 65,978 sq. ft. (46%)
Saftscape 34,771 sq. ft. 29,697 sq. ft. * Variance
Hardscape 8,693 sq. ft. max. 36,281 sq. fc.
Setbacks Subject to AEG Review Refer ta develapment plan
~ Stream Setback 5{}' 50' +
Paxking: 189 spaces 189 spaces
Loadin Berths: 2 berths netv develo ment) 3 bertks (new deveTo ment
t P P )
E. Niitigation of DeveIapment Impacts
The PA zone district reqlaires that the I'lanning and Environmental Cammission constdex
impacts o#' a development on roadways, pedestrian-ways, and the provision oE emplopee
housing. The PEC inay deterniine that rnitigarion is necessary due ta the ixnpacts generated
by the rievelopment at zedevel(--)pment project. Any mitigation required must have a clirect
telationship to the degree af impact ptoposed. "I'he Sonnenalp redevelopmc;nt will have little
impact on the infrastructure of the area, yct will help to unptove the overall ecanomy nf the
ax€:a. Below is a list of improvemeiits proposed ta mitigate any impact of this pxoject on the
community_
1. Streetscape Improvetnents
The Soniyenalp redevelopment is praviding substantial puUlic stteetscape
improvernents along Easr. Meadow Dxive and Willow Bridge Road. The Sonnenalp
plans essentially itnplement the Tocun's pxoposed stteetscape improvement plan as
~
Sonuen.tilp Redeveloprr}ent 14
Braun Associates, Ine.
well as the cencepts contained in the approved Streetscape 1v1aster Plan. This retail ~ i
corridor will be gteatly improved by pxoviding another axea for pcdestrians ta walk
and shop. Thcse improvernents will impxave the transit and vehiculax access ~
funttion af the zaad by pxoviding new heated sidewalks and arCades for pesiestrians.
N7uch of the pedesttian improvernents ate accurring on the Sonuenalp property rhus
expanding the publicly accessible space on to private property. "!'he Sonnenalp is
proposing to cost share the streetscape improvements with the Town, since the
proposed stteetscape iinpravements implement the Town's streetscape plan and
oecur in the Town's nght-of way.
2. Employee Housing
The Sortnenalp is cocnmitted to provicling housing for its employees and has a long
historp of prQVrding such housing opportunities for its employees. kVhi1e chere is na
code requitcment to do so, the Sonnenalp is praposing to provide hausing Eor 14 j
new employees generated by the pxoposed net develapment unpact. The following
is the analqsis of ennployee generation using the Tdwn's uyforxnally
adopted/unofficial ernployee gencratian xatios:
Use Number dt Sq. ft. Multinlig:r Employees
Retail/Seavice Commercial = 12,000 sq. ft. new -1,891 sq_ ft. denrxoLisheci
,(5/1000 sq. ft) = 50.55 employees
Restaurant/Lvunge =-2,422 sq. ft demalished @(5/1000 sq. ft.) _-12 emplayees
Meering rooms =-1,8$5 sq. ft. demeiished ~ia (1/1000 sq. ft.) _-1,89 employces
Lodgirig = 59 units new - 59 s.uiits demolished (~a (.25/unit) = 0 employees
Multi-Pamilp = 9 units - 2 units demolished q)(.4/unit) = 2.8 employces
Spa use* = 6,4170 sq. ft. ncw - 1,720 demolished a7 1.25/1000 sq. Et.= 5.85 employees ~
Total Employees = 45.31 net increqse in employees
(X 030 multiplier) = 14 new emplayees to be pxovided hausing
3. Access and Circulation
T1ze overaII nmgacts of traffic to the site axe xelztively min.or. The Swiss Haus is '
being demolished as part of the rcdeveloprnent ptoposal and mueh o£ the uses are
being rebuilt in new structuxes. Thezefore the ttaffie impacts oE` this project include a
net retail area increase of 7,687 sq. ft,, a meeting room teduction of 1,8$5 sq, ft., and
a net awelling uiu't increase of 7 um-ts. These changes tend to offset one another
~vith anly a negligible Fnerease in traffic to the site.
Circulatian to the properties will be improved. The majarity of the access for stafF
and guests will continue to occur at the Vail Road entrance. An entrance to the
parkistg structure will also be proti-idcd on the east end of the site w-ithin the new
Swiss Chalet building. The parlcing structurc is caruiected underneath the entire
developmcnt project thus allowing a freedom of movernent be:tcveen the bui.ldings.
Since the Talisman will be provided with pasking in the subsurface structure it is
anricipated that the majority of the oecupants of that project wi11 utilixe the main
entrance on Vail Rpad. Eight surface spaces will be locateci on. the Talisman
~
5onnenalp Redevelapment 15
i3raun Associates, Inc,
~ pxoperty and will have access direcrlq td East IVfeadow Drive. We anttcipate that
these spaces will be used infrequendy and thus have a minor effect ot3 the pedestrian
flow along East Meadow Drive. The Talisman owners will require the abili[y to
txavel thtough the Tawn's current gate to Qbtain access to theix property uzAess the
Town implements its xedeveloprnent pflan which eliminates the g<?te all together.
As stated previously, significant pedestrian-way irnptovements are propgsed to
enhance pedestrian circulation adjacent to the site.
F. Flaodplain Modificatian
The Town of Vail has undergone a re-evaluation af the Gore Creek floodplain throughout
the Town. This study and analy sis has been submatted to the Federal F.amexgeney
hSanagernent Agency (FE1'vLA) fqz appcaval. Once this study is approved bv FEI"v1A new
maps wiL4 be produced. LJnttl FEIAA accepts this xevised studF, the maps produced in 19$2
must be utilized.
A poztion of the Sonnenalp praperty is impacted by the floodplain line mapped in 1982.
This 19$2 rnap shows a cornet Uf the existing Swiss Haus as well as retaining walls and
improvernents in the pool area as fofmuig the edge of the f]oodplain.
The propased redevelopment plan includes pool and patio aitea rnadifications and building
~ suppoxt colurruis within the curtent floodplain bdundary-. 'I`he building columns are located
generallyr in the axea of the existing Scviss Haus faotprint, which currently encroaches witElin
the floodplain bounriary. The proposed redevelopment will modifq the flood plaicx but have
no net impact on the velocity af floodwaters, no increase in, the surface elevataons of
floodwaters, and will have no negative prnpacts on neighboring properties. Therefore any
proposed madifieation to the floodplain line can be approved by the TbvsTn oE Vail as a
minar modiEication to the floodplain line as allawed by FEMA regulations.
Thc; Sannenalp is in the process of having a floodplain consultant develop a campxehensive
analysis supporting our redevelopmenc plan. This analysis wiu Ue pYOVided befoxe final
action is taken by the PEC.
,
~
Snnnenalp RedevelUPment 16
$raun Associa[es, Inc.
IZL Review Factors and Criteria ~
Below is an analysis of criteria tequired for the Fractional Fee Club and the Variances being
requested:
1. Conditionad Use Permit far Fraetivnal Fee Club
BefQre acring on a conditionai use pernut application, the Planning and Environmental
Coxritnissinn (P:C:C) shall considex the factors with respect to the proposed use:
a. The efFect o£ the use on light and a,is, distribution of populakion, transpgitation
facilities, utailities, schoQls, parks and recreation facilities, and other pubhG £'acilities
needs.
Our rlnalvsis:
The fractiorru! fee clsrb is bezngprnposed in an area of the Vui! Village that has been indicated by
the Towrr's ,master planna'ng documents as dreu,r approprrate for mixed use lodging, con7merciul, and
re.ridenticrl use.r. The praposed strrrrrcture c•ontaanrn,g the.re fractapnal fee unit,r complies witb the PA
~Zone di.rtrict and 3vith the Tourn's development standcrrdr. The prnposed fiactionczl fee club uild have
dittle, if uny, irnpucts irlatitrg to the abnve li.rt of eritenu.
b. Effect upon traffic witli particular reference to congestion, automQtive and ~
pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability}
and removal of snaw from the street and parking areas.
Oux Analysis:
The ftactponul fee c•lub is beingpraposed an The ea.rt end af the develapment site. 14cces.r to these units
wrll be thrmu,gh eather the eacasting Vail Rr+ad entrance ar to The ncw SWi.r.r Chalet entrance fr•rtm
Villosv Bndge Raad to a rubru~f'r~ce purking ureu. The pmpaseri entrcrnce and larxding and delivery
are located in ast ureu identifaed by tbe 7'awnrplaranin
g documents us appropriate for this vehiLxrlar
activity. I'he trA~ f`rc flom i.r p,roposed to be consixtent uith the Town's strect.rettpe improuement plan
far the area. ,Snorv rernoual mill not be n;q,uired_ frarn pcrrking ureas as parkzng is loGated
undeqround und rrprotected faom Ihc element.r Thepropased fractzonal fee cli.tb carrrplies zvith tdiese
criteria.
~
c. Effect upan rhe charactez af the area in which tkzc; pxoposed use is to be located,
including the seale and bullc of the praposed use in xe]ation to suarrounding uses.
Our Analysis:
The, fractianu! fee club is beingpm,posed on The eaat end of 'the develnpment fite in a building thut
includea' residential randomzniurn.c and cataamercicrl use.r. Thi.c area ~f 'the Vail Village is
tharucteritied by rrrulPi-.rtary rrsiclential, ladging und caxnmerciul builciings developed at cla.re
proximity to the street. The propo.red 5un.rr Chalet Bua`lding as cnn.ristent urith The character af lhe
~
Soiuienalp Redevelopinent 17
Braun Associates, Inc.
~ area rn termf of use, phyjacal.rGade, und 6ulk. Additioncally, the propo.redfractzonal fee clarb zs
cons'i.rtent zvzlh Lhe T'omn's ~Zonzng code, develapment .rtandurd.r, and design guidelincs
r1. Prior to the apptoval 4£ a conc3itional use permit fQr a time-share estate, fractional
fee, fract'sonal fee club, ox t.'tme-share license proposal, the fauowing shall be
considercci:
* If the proposal fflr a fractional fte club is a redevelopment of an existing
facality, the fractional fee club shall maintain an eqLUValency oF
accammodation units as pxesendy existin.g. Equivalencp shall be rrxaintain,ed
either by an equal nuniber of units or by square footage. If the proposal is a
new deaelopment~ it shall provide ax least as much accommodation unit
GRFA as fxactional fee club unit GRFA.
* Lack-off units and lock-off urut square footage shall not be irrcluded in the
calculatian when determining the eqtuvaleney of existing accommodation
I units or equivalency of existung square footage.
• The abiliry of the proposed ptaject to creatc and :maintain a high level of
occupancy.
¦ Employee housiryg may be required as part of any new or redevelopment
~ Eractianal fee club project requesting density aver that allowed by zoning.
The number of em,ployee housing um'ts will be eonsistent with employee
impacts that are expected as a result of the project.
¦ The applicant shall submit to the Town a list of all axvners a£ existing units
within rhe project car building; in written statements from 100% of the
owners of exisr.isig units inriicating rheir approval, without cflndition, of the
pxoposed fractional fee club. No written appraval shall be valid if it is signed
by the awner moze than 60 days prior ta the date of £iling the applicatian for
a conditional use.
Our r'lnal sis:
The propa.red frttctiana! fee club ispcrrl Qf d nesv lodging,{aczlaty. Equavalency as bcing mazntained
un the prvpery 6y crratang 46 neu) hotel roomf zvith 32,6 f S.rg. fl. GRFA a.r a ne3v wingon the
Sannerzrrlp Hotel. Lvckasquure faotuge rvus not u.red zrr the equivaleny analysi.r. '~'he trature af a
fruc•tzrrnul fee,gudrantee.r that Ihe facilio ivill operate auith a biAh degree af oceupuncy sinee unit;r avzll
bc availuble to rent u1hen otvners are not u3•ing the arnit. E.mployee hausing is bezng proposed ta
mzt~gale far the net itrcreASe an employees neecled to opercate thz`s facilz'ty. The Snnrrenal.p owns ald
exz.rtzng dvellin,g units in the Sannenalp pmjeci and therefore no udclitiorraf li.rt of ex-i.rtang atnzl
osvners is necessary.
~
5onnenalp Redcvclopnlent 1$
Braun Associates, Inc.
2. Variance from 10°lo Retail Limitation and 20% Hardscape Linnitation ~
Befcare acting an a variance application, the Plannning and Envitonmental Commission
shaTl consider the: following factors with respect to the requested variance:
a. The xelatianship of the requesteci variance ro other existing ar pptential uses and
structures in the vicinity.
Our tlnalysis:
Retua! Ilmitation:
The PA ~one distriet i.r unique in that zt zs The only :Zane district listed in the `iC'ommereidl and
I3ujine.rs Distracts" that limils the Amaurrt of retail/restdurAnt area. The Sorrnenalp i.r a
uniyue PAproperty in that it z.r located along a pedestnanitied .rtreet rn a retarl and .rho
.P,ting
urru. Both the Varl Village Master Plan and the Vai! Iand U'se Plun recommend e±cten.riQn
af retail activzize.r in this area la "impmue the linka,ge" bez~veen Lion.rhead and the '~ail
Vzllage. Theprnpased redevelopmentplanprortide.r a rnodest amount af'relail and rvstazrrant
.rpace, hoauever, eacceed.r the PA rvPaillimatatiorz.
Anather untque quadity of the Sonnenao'.c focataon z.r thezt is acro.rs tbe .rtreet from three mrrjor
retutl c•enter.r: the Vail Village Inn, the Cmsfrnact"s- Shoppzng Center, and the Villuge C'enter
6uildirtg. TheseprrJfrcrties enjoy The same relative locatian wtlain dhe Town 6sat they are nai
lirniied 2vith re.rsect to retai1 area. The prnposed variance i:r eonsistent unth the Tpwn'.rguiding ~
clocument.r und i:r cansistent lvith other.prnperties in the area.
Hardscupe Lainatatian.•
Theprapo.red Sontsenalp redeveloprrzent excEed.r the land.rcape reguirement that 30°!0 of the site
6e tn tiie fn,7m of landscape area. 6Vrthari the definitifln of land.rcape areu regulutaon there as a
proua~ion that alloiv.r 20% of the landscape urea to be in dbe fr~rm vf -"harcli•cape" (i.e.,
.ridewadks, patios, ete). Whzle the prnpo.red plan exceeds this limitataon orr fiurd~°cape, the plan
im, pdernent.r the Streetseape Master Planr f or dhis arera a.r well as the Vaal Village Master Plan
bypmvrding thepIca-Za anrl streetscape improaernent.i recommended by 6hoSe plans. It i.r the.re
streetsccrpe andpede,rtrian amprovernents thut are cau.ring the need for rr vuriution to the
hardscape limrtation.
I'heproposed variatiorr is nogreaterthan thAtgranterl to the Vail Vidlage Innprr~ject (crpproved
a.r an SDD) which is locaterl diTectly acao:rs East Af eadoau U77've or anYy olher developrnent
lncuted zn the mixed-use atra of the villuge core.
b. The degtee ta which relief from the strict ar literal ititerpzetatton and
enfotcement of a specified regulation is neeessary to ach'teve compatibility and
un:iformity of treatment among sites in the vicuuty, or ta atLiin the objecEves of
this title withaut grant af special privilege.
10
Sannenalp Redevelopment 19
Braun Assnciates, Inc.
~ C7ur r1na1,°
Retrii! Lirngtation:
7 he Sonnenao proper y i.r lvcUted in a hzghly commerciali.Zerd area of ~the Tawn. Ald of the
propertie.r loealed along the Eu,rt Meudaw Drive carrzcloT are mixed u3epr~iects wzth extcnsive
reGuil and corrrmercial use.r. Thepropvsed variance will tt11o2v the Sonnenao to enjoy a minzmal
increa.re zn the retail limitation and allQiv this'propertty to aperate consi.rtent wzth otherpropertieJ-
zn the area. Iheprolbased varranse ztll rrot be dgrant nf sbeczulprivalege dire to the uniqare
location af 'the Sonnena p property urtd due to the direetion given by the Y'uil Village Ma.rter
Plnn to c,nate a lzvely redazl corridar irr Lhis areu.
Harrlscape LzmataEaon:
The degme of relief prapo.red rs the rninimum nece.rsary to attain the o~bjecttve.r af the Vail ~
Village AlasterPlan, Urbarr De.ri~n Guide Plan, rrnd the T/ail Village Uesign
Con3ideration,r. Ve y few sate.r avilbzn the Villuge Coty areu are u6le to comply with thrs
liarlitutinn due to the urban andpedestriani~Zed chcrracler af the area. Wlhila the Sonnena p
propertses exceed the hard.fcu,tepramrion, the redevelament is increasing the amaunt of
fand3eape areafaund on the site overull. There is no grant of spearalprivilege with the pnapa.red
a6plzcatzon.
~ c. Ttze effect of the requested variance an Iight and air, distribution of population,
transportation and trafftc facilities, public facilities and urilities, and public safety.
Our Angysis;
Thepropa.red variance.r unll har.eminimal, ~(any, crduerse ect on tfte above criterlon.
~
~
0
~
5onnen:?lp Rcdeveloprnent 20
Braun Associates, inc.
iV. Comprehensive P1an Goals and Directian ~
The Town's master planning documents have been analyzed with respect to the pxoposed
redevelopment project. 13elow is a list of the Town's guiding docunnents follotved by a Iist of goals
and objectives that are consistent with the pxoposed redeveloprnent plan. Items listed an itcrdics ate of
patticular importa:nce ta the proposed redevelopment plan.
A. Vail L.and CJse Plan
1. Genera3 Growtk/Develogment
1.1 tirail should continue to grow in a controlled environment, maintaining abalance
bctween residentiai, cornmercial and recreational uses to serv, e both the visitor and
the perrnanent resident.
1.2 The quality of the environment ineluciing ait, water ancl athet natutal resources
should be pxotected as the Town grows.
1.3 The gzrality af development .rhoulr! 6e mazntained and upgrurded Whenever possible.
1.4 The origcnal theme of the old Vi!lage Core should be Carried into neuf deuedrpment an the Village
Care thmugh eantin,ued implementation af the Urban De.u'gn Guide Plan.
1.12 Vazl should aecommddate mort of the additidrrulgrorvth in e>artin,g der,eloped ureu.c (infill areuf). ~
1.13 Vail zecognizes its stream tract as being a desirable land featute as well as its potential
for public use.
2. $kier f Tourist Concerris
2.1 The community should emphasize its xole as a destination tesort while
accornmadating day visitors.
3. Cotnmexcial
3.1 7'he hvtel bed bAse .rhould beprererved and msed more efficiently.
3.2 The Village and Lianshcad areas ate the best lneation fan cotcls to serve thc futute
nceds of the desttnation skiers.
3.3 Hotels are important to the continued succcss of the To~.vn of Vail, therefote
conversion ta candominiums should be discouraged.
3.4 Corrrmerciul growth should be cancentrAted in exrsling cornmercial areas to aceommadate both laeal
and visi6or need.r.
~
Sonnenaip Reclevclopinerit 21
Braun Assaciates, Fiic.
i
~ 4. Village Coxe/Lianshead
4.1 Futarre commercial devedapryrent should continrre ta aecurprimarily in eacisting commercrul areu.r.
Firtarre commerciczl development in tbe Cdre areu.r rreeds ta be carefully cantrolled to facalitute access
anrl dediveg.
4.2 Increased densit-y in the Coxe areas is acceptahle so Iong as the existing character pf
each arca is preserved thiough impicmentatioii of the Uxban Design Guide Plan and
the Vxil Village Master Plan.
4.3 The ambiance of the Village is impvrtant to the identity of Vaal and should be
pxeserved. (Scale, alpine ekzazaeter, small. tativn feeling, mounta.ins, natural setting,
intimate size, cosmopoiitan feeling, envirantnental quality).
4,4 'I'he conneerion between the Village Cote and Lionshead should be enhanced
thtough:
a) Installatton of a new type af people movex.
b) Improving the peaestrian system with a czeatively designed connection,
ariented towatd a aature walk, alpine gatden, and/ar sculpt+.tre plaza.
c) New development should be conrrolled to limit commercia:l uses.
5. Residential
~ 5.1 Additional residential gTowth should continue to occur PrimarilY in existing, Platted
areas and as appropriate in new ateas where high hazards do not exist.
5.2 ,(~uality tame-rharv unit.r shoarld be accommodated ta he1p keep occarpancy rutes up.
5.3 Affordable employee housing shauld be made available through ptivate efforts,
assisted by litrjited inceiztives, patov,ided by the Town of Vail, with apprapxiate
restrictians. I
i
5.4 Residential growth shc,uld keep pace with the market place deznands foz a full range I
of kaousing types.
5.5 'I'he existing employee-housing base should be preserved and upgxaded. Additional
employee housing needs should be aecommodated at varied sites diroughout the
coniaiunity.
.
~
Sonmenaip ltedeveiopment 22
$raun Assaciaees, Inc.
B. Vail Villagc Master Plan CVVMP) ~
1. Land Use Plan
The I,auid Use I'lan faund in the VG'141P recommends mixed-use camrnercial/resiclential uses and tnedium./ivgh density residential tises for trie Sonlienalp pxaperties. The ~
proposed plan is consistent with chese designations, ~
2. Clpen Space Plan
The 4pen Space Plans recommends that a plaza space be created at East Meadow Drive
near the Crossraads 5hopping Center. The proposed plan pxoNrides a plaza spaee in this
area.
I
3, Parking and Citculation Plan
The Parkuzg and CirculatiQn Plan zdentiies aan area alomg Willow Br.idge Road adjacent
to the Swiss Haus as the appropriate location for loading and delivery. The loading and
delivery area on the proposed plan is located beneath the new Swiss Chalet bui.lding in
this same location.
4. tlction Plan
Policy 1-3 states that the Sonnenalp pzopetty is an appropziate lacation fo:r in611
commeicial, xesidentiai, and lod,ging uses. The plan teeommends that walkways, arcades,
and plaza spaces be provided to interact with the Vail Viflage Inn property and to
provide peciestrian flow to the east and west. The proposed plarz izn.plem.ents this policy. ~
Policy 1-4 states that the Stviss Haus property is an appropriate location fQr infill
commercial development. This policy recommends a plaza area on the corner of Willow
Bridge ltoad and East Meadaw Drive. The proposed pla.n implements this policy.
Policy 1-5 states that a decorative pedesttian walkway should be developed along the
Swiss Haus frotltage to encourage pedestrian circulation to and from East Meadovv
Drive. fihe proposed red.eveloprnent plan provides a pedestrian walliway consistent with
the proposed Streetscape Plan.
5. CJoa1s
Goals for Vail Village are slu.runari7ed in six major goal statements. The goal Statements a-tc
designed to establish a framewark, or directian, for future development of the Villa,ge. The
goals, along with the established objectives and policies are to be used in evaluating a j
proposal during the develapment review process. The following goals, obJectives and
golicies are consistent with the proposed redeveloptnent ptan:
Goai #3 EncoLLragc high quality redevelopment while preserving the unique
axchitectural scale of the Village in ordcr ta sustain, its sense of eomnunity and identity. '
~
Sonneaalp Redevalopmcnt 23
Braun Assaciatcs, Inc.
~ 1.1.1 PoDevelopment and unprovement prajects appraved in the Vfllage
shall be consistent with the goals, objectives, palicies and design considerations as
outlined in the Vail Vi11age Master Plan and Urban Design Guide I'lan.
1.2 Objective: Encourage tize upgrading and redeveloprnent of residential and
commercial Facilities.
1,2.1 Policv: Additional development tnay be allowed as identified by the action
plan as is cansistent with thc Vail Village Ivlaster Plan and Urban I]csign Guide Plan.
1.3 O}ajective: Enhance nevcr development anci xedevelopment thraugh public
impravements done by private developexs working in eooperation with the Town.
1.3.1_ Policv: Public irnprovements shaU be developed with the participation of the
private sector working with the Town.
Goal #2 To fostex a strang tourist industry and promote year-round economic health
and viability for the 'G'illage and fo t the cornmunity as a whole.
;
2.1 Objective: Recognize khe variety of land uses faunci in the 10 suU-areas
thxaughout the Village and allow fot development tl-?at is compatible szrith these
established land use patterns.
• 2.1.1 Po_hgy: The zo:aing code and development review criteria shall be consistent I
with the overall goals and objectives of the Vail Village Ivlastex Pla.n.
2.3 Objective: Increase the number oF residential units available for short-term,
overnight accQmmodattons.
2.3.1 Pnlicv: Tke development of short-[erm accommodation uEZits is strangly
encauraged. Residential units that are develQped above existing density levels are
required to be designed or rr,anaged in a manner that snakes them available far short-
term o'vernight rental.
2.4 C7bjective: Encourage the development of a variety of new commexcial activity
where eoEnpattble w-ith existing land uses.
2.4.1 I'Qlicv: Cornmercial infffl development eansistent with established
harizontal-zoning regulations shall be encouraged to provide aetivity generators,
accessible gxeen spaces, pubhc plazas, and streetscape impravements to the
pedestrian network throu,ghout the Village.
2.5 C}bjective: Encourage the continued upgrading, renovation and maintenance of j
ex:isting ladging and cammexcial facilities to better serve the needs of our guests.
~
Sannenalp Redevelopzn.ent 24
Braun Associates, Inc.
2.5.1 Palicy: Recreatian arnenities, common areas, meeting facilities and othex ~
amenities shall be preserved and enhanced as a part of any redevelopment of lad,ging
propert'tes.
2.5.2,Pdlic,y; The Town will use Che znaximuin fle:ciUility possible in the
interpretation of buiiding and fire codes in order to £acilitate bui,lciing tenavations
wirhout eompraniising life, health and sa£ery Eonsidetations.
2.6 Objecrive: Encourage the development of affordable housing units thxough the
efforts of the private sector.
2.6.2 Policv: Ernplovee housing shall be develaped urjth appropn'ate restri.ctions so
as to insure their ay-ailabiliq~ and affordability to the local work farce,
Goal #3 'I'cs recognize as a top priozity the enhancement of the ,wa1ki_ng experience
thxaughout the Village.
3.1 Objeerive: Physica]ly improve the existing pedestrian ways Uy landscaping and
other imprbvements.
3.1.1 Policv: Private development projects shall ineorporate stxeetscape.
improvements (such as paver txeamrYents, Tandscaping, lighring and seating aseas),
along ad}acent pedesttian ways. ~
3.1.2 Pnlicy: PubIic art shall be encauraged at apprapriate locations th.xoughout ~
the '1 own.
3.1.3 Policv: Flowers, ttees, water features and other landscaping shall be
encouraged throughout the Town in locations adjacent to, or visible from, publie
axeas.
3.2 Objective: IL~tiiiimize the amaunt of vehicular traffic in the Village to tie greatest
extent possible.
3.2.1 I'c~__ _ licv: Vehicular ttaffic will be eiimi.xzated or zeduced ro absolutely minimal
necessary levels in the pedesttianized areas of the Village.
3.3 C?bic:crive: Encourage a wide variety of activities, evezats and street life along
pedesttian ways and plazas.
3.3.2 Policv: Qutdoor dining is an irnpattant streetscape featuxe a.nd shall be
encQuraged in commercial infill or redevelopment ptojects.
3.4 Orbjective: Develop addit'ronal sidetivalks, pedestrian-only wa]kYVays and
accessible green space areas, uiclusiing packet parks and stxeam access.
~
SonnenZlp Redevelopment 25
Braun Associates, Inc.
~ 3.4.1 Polictir: Phyrsieal impravex~ents to propert~• adjaeent to stream tracts shall not
£urthex restriet public access,
3.4.2 Policv: Private development projects shall be requited to ineorporate new
sidewalks along streets adjacent to the praject as ciesignated in thc. Vail ViU,age iVlaster
I'lan and f or Recreation Trails Master Plan.
Goal #4 To pxeserve existing open space areas and expand green space opportun;tttes.
4.1 Objective: Imptove ezfsting open space ateas and create new plazas with green
space and pocket parks. Recognize the different roles af each type of open space in
form.ing the overa]I fabric of the Village.
4.1.2 Po ~liev: The development of new public plazas, and irrlp=ovements ta existing
plazas (public az-t, streetscapc Eeatures, seating ateas, etc.), shall be strongly
encouraged to reinfotce their rolc;s as atttactive people places.
4.1.4 PoTlicr Open space axnptovernents including the addition of accessible green
space as described or graphically shown in the Vail ViUage Master 1'lan and/ot
Urban Design Guide Plan, will be required ini conjunctian with pxi.vafe iaafill or
tedevelopment grojeets.
~ Goal Increase and unprove the capacity, efficiency and aesthetics of the
transportation and circulation systern thxoughout the Village.
5.1 Objective: Ivieet parking demands with public and private parking facilities.
5,1.1 Policv: For new developrnent tkzat is located outside of the Cammercial Core
2one Distuct, an-site pa:tking shall be provided (xather than paying into the
parking fund) tQ meet any additional paxking demand as required by the Zoning
Code.
5.1.3 PoliW- Seek locations for additional sttuctured pn6lic and pxivate parking
spaces.
5.1.5 PUlicv: Rer3evelopment projects shall be strangly encouataged to provide
underground or visually concealed parking.
5.2 C]hJective: Encoucage the use of public transportation to mini,,,ize the use crf
pxi.vate autUmobi_les throughout Vail.
5.2.2 Policv: The Tawn shall facilitate and encflutage the operation of private
shuttle vans outside of the pedestriaiuzed cote area.
~
Sonnenalp Redevelupment 26
Bzaun Associates, Inc.
Goal #G To insure the continued improvement o£ the tintal aperatianal elements of ~
the Village.
6.1 QlaJect'tvc: Provide service and delivery Facilities for existing and new
develapment.
6.2 Objeccive: Provide fot the sa£e and efficient funetions of £tte, police and publie i
uti]ities within the context of an aesthetically pleasing resort setting.
6.2_1 Po3icv: Development projects and other improvements in Vail Village shall
be revievwed by respeerive Town departtnents to identi.fy both the ixnpaccs oF the
pzoposal and potential mitigating measutes.
~
~
~
Sonnenalp Redevelopment 27
BzaunAssociates, Inc.
~ C. Vail Village Uxban Desxgn: Guide Plan and Design Cansidexations
Below is the list o£ Uxban Design Cansiderations fnund in theVaal Village Deszgn
Considerations. E2ch of these criteria is being irnplernented in some foxm bEr the proposeci
xedevelopment plan.
1. Pedestrianization/Vehicle Penetracion
The Design Considerations tecommend differing levels of pedestrianization within the
Vaii Village. The goat of the plan is to creace pedestrian circulatinn system that is
interconnecteci and pleasant for the pede$trian. The design plan reeagn;Tes that
"vehicular traffic cannat be removed froxn certain streets" and therefoare a"totally
car-£cee pedestrian system is nat achievable throLighout the entite Village." Many
streets witlvn the Vi}lage have car, delivery, and bus traffic. For instance, Gore Creek
Dnve is used for aecess to the Gasthoff Gramshamrner and the Sitzmaxk Lodge by
delivery veh,icles arNd guest vehiclcs and Bridge Street and Ffansan Ranch Road are used
for acress by cielivery vehicles and guest cats to the Bridge Srreet Lodge and other
residential properties.
All of the guest access azad parking and laading a dehvery ta the Sqnnenalp pxQperties is
accessed from Vail Road and Willow Bxidge Raad (via Vi11age Center Drive). The
rnajan'ty of the `I"alisman (a 16unit cvndaminium) traffic will also access through the
Sonnenalp's parking garage (16 parking spaces) fram Vail Road. The remainder of the
Talisman aceess will occur fzom East Meadow Drive (8 total parking spaces) via Village
~ Center Drive. The Talisman's access was originally established from east Meadovv Drive
via an access easenient in the late 1960's. In the 1970's the Town af Vail created "public
rnalls" pursuant to the Puhlic Mall Act of 1974 to litnit the atnount of vehicular traffic on
certain streets. The Talisman was guatanteed access frdm East 14leadovv Drive by
COtdinance 14, 5eries of 1978 for all of its 20 parking spaces.
The proposed redeveloprnent plan reduccs the effect of the Talisman access by reducing
the surEace parking spaees to S spaces and providing arae undexground parki.ng space for
each of the 16 condomuu'ums. The plan proposes a reasonable eonnpromise in otder to
xeduce the im,pa,cts of pzivate cars on East Meadow Drive. The existing bus tcaf£cc an
this street creates more interruption to pedestrian traffic that the few vehicles aceessing
the Talisman will.
2. Streetscape Framework
The Design Plan recatntnends tha.t stteets be framed by uuildings, stoxefro?nts, ancE
landscape/opc;n space improvements. The proposed redevelopment p3an pravides £ot a
stteet fratnework with a m.ilKnixe of arcadcs, pedestrian tvaiks, plazas, and storefronts.
The groposed plan implemc:nts many of the goals a£ the pzcaposed and adopted
Streetscape Master Flan and the Vail Village Master Plan.
3. Stxeet Enclosuxe
The Urban Design Plan recommends that streets iri the Vail Village be ftmcci by
~ buildings to create a comfortable and safe e:cperience for pedesttians and shnppers.
Sonnenalp Redewelogment 28
Bcaun Assaciates, Inc.
Enclosing strcct wit3i builclings, as with Bridge Stgeet, creates visual interest and ~
stimulates thc rctail experience. As discussed earlier, the propased redevelopment plan
impleznents the concepts faund in the Town's Design Plan.
4, Street Edge
The Desigm Plaii recommends that buildings withia the village Form a stxong Uut
irreg,ular edge to the street. The plan encflurages bwldings to be located at or near
property lines in otdez to g:ive strang definiti.oan to the pedestriarz cQrridots. The plan ~
also recammends breaks in buildings along a street to cFeate visual intexest.
'3'he proposed redevelopment plan pravides an area o€ arcade aIong the stceet, apen
areas along the sttcet, plaza areas long the street. The project uses a combination of
tecommended srrategies to create an interesting and fnnctional street edge.
5. Views
No adopted vietv corridors exist in the area on or as3jacent ta the Sonnenalp pxoperty.
6. Senice and Delivery
The I7esign Plan reccaznmends that service and delivery areas be located in areas whexe
rhey havG the least impact on pedestrian ways. The plan also xecommends that these
service areas be located undex graund where feasible. The proposed tedevelopment plan
pravides 1Qac]ing and delivery areas below grade and 'tn the axga .tecotnmended by the
Vail VMage I14aster Plan. The area proposed will have minar isnpacts to the pedestrian
azeas of the village. ~
7. 5un/Shade
A sun/'shade analysis has been provided witi-i the application materials. The parameters
and standards found in the Design Plan are generaRy applicable to the Village Core area
(axeas zoned CC1) and is less applicable to other ateas, such as ateas zoned PA.
The propose sun/shacle analysis shows that during certain periotis oE the day and year
the propasee3 builciungs wifl cast shadows an East Meadow Drive. Whether the bui.lding
is laeated on the praperry line of setback 20' this shaditig will occur. There are
signifieant breaks alang in the building facade along East Meadaw Drive, such as the
hteak whexe the Talisinan property is lacated. Therefoxe there will be significant areas
along the steeet that never receive shade.
The proposed redevelopment will pYOVide heating in sidewalks to pcevent the
accumulation of ice and snow.
~
Sonnenalp ltcdevelopmen# 29
Bxawi Associates, Inc.
~ D. Streeiscape Master Plan j
'T'he adQpted Town af Va.il Streetscape Master Plan recommends the development o£
pedestrian innprovements along the south side af East Meadow Drive. Thcsc
recoinmenclations inclucle pavex sideivalks, stcec;t furnishings, landscaping, and rhe similar
streetscape unpxovements. 7he proposed Strectscape iNfaster Plan prouides for a revised '
plan and incorgorates the concepts presented in the adopted master plan and the
redevelopment impxovements heing proposed by the Sonnenalp.
The proposed 5onnenalp redevelopment plan substantially improces the stceetscape o£ the
East Meadow Dzive coiridor.
~
d
,
~
~
I
~
,
~
Sunnenalp ltee{evelopment 30
Bxaun Associates, Inc.
BAI/1~ RAU[N ,ASSOCIATIES9 I NCa ~
PLF+NNING and COMMUN1TY DEVELOPMENT
~
December 16, 2002
George Ruther, AICP
Chief of Planning
Town of Vail
75 S. Frantage Road
Vazl, CO 81657
Re: Amended Application Submittal - Sonnenalp Redevelopment in Vail, Colorado
Dear George:
Included with this letter are revised plans for the Sonrtenalp redevelopment project in Vail. ~
Since our last appearance with the Planning and Environrtaental Commission several components
of the project have changed. However, the project is essentially the same frocn a bulk and mass
perspective.
The primary change to the application is the Talisman Condominium A.ssociation property is no
longer part of the ovcralj project. We no lon~er have improvements on or beiow the Talisman's
property. The Saruienalp applieation only includes that laFfd owned by the Sonnenalp Resart
(i.e., the Swiss Haus and Sonnenalp Resort properties). The warking reiationship between the
Son,nenalp and the TaIisman remains a cordiai one. It became apparent to us and members af the
Talisman Association over the two and a half years that we hawe been working kogekher that we
rru~ht never realize an approval c~f a project. The decision-making process with the Talisman has
been cornplicated and cumbersnme anci therefore we ciecided the best course of action was to
remave thas unpredictable elernent fram the project. Henee, the application is hereby officially
amended to remove the Talisman praperty.
Other changes to the buiiding forrn and setbacks have been inade in reaction to cornments we
heard from the PEC and DR.S.
Edwards Village Center, 5uite C-209 Ph. - 970.926.7575 ~
0105 Edwards Village Boulevard Fax -970.926J576
Post Office Box 2658 wvrw:braunassociates.com
Edwards, Colorado 81 632
~ Tlze Town has indicated that an urban design consultant will be retained to review the proposed
project. We believe these revised plans should be submitted to the To-vvn's consultant AS AP in ;
arder to keep this projeet mc+ving through the Town's review process. We are also anticipating ~
the project would be reviewed again by the PEC (worksession) on January 13, 2003 anci that the i
Town wauld have a report from its design eansultant prior to that hearinb. ,
~
We continue to believe that the proposed redeveloprnent project will be an asset to the Tawn and ~
address the Town's goals, whieh encourage redevelopment and improvement Ehrotaghaut the Vail ~
VilIage. We think yau will agree that the propased project is a significant improvement to the ;
aesthetics and ecanamy of the Town. ;
~
Also iiicluded with this submittal is the additional title inforialation you requested and a final ~
f1oQd plain report finding the proposed project Eo be located vut of the floodplain.
We appreciate the assistance yau have provided us and hope that we can precede smoothly
through the Town's review process. If Tom or I ca.ti be of assistance do not hesitate to call us at
9z5-7s7s.
Thanks again far yaur help.
Daaninic F. auriella, AICP
~
2
~ BA(/B1RAU1N ASSOC ATIES, IINC, ~
PLF,NNING and CQMMUIVITY DEVELQPE'1ENT
• I
January 6, 2003
George Ruther, AICP
Chiei' of Planning
Town of Vail
75 S. Frontage Road
Vail, CO 51657
Re: Amended Application Submittal - Sonnenaip Redevelapment in Vail, Calorado
Dear Gearge:
Thank you for your nates last week. We appreciate yau placing the Sonnenalp project on the ~
January 13, 2003 PEC agenda as a warksession anci on the February 10, 2003 PEC agenda for a
tinal review and recommendation.
In response ta yaur request for additional information we are providing a"redlined" set of plans
with indications of GRFA throughouf new buildings, a written staternent addressing the criteria
for the proposed text azneridment, and updated tigures addressinb the Town's cleveloprnent
standards.
Ou December 16, 2002 we provided the Tawn with a revisedfamended set af plans for the
Sonnenalp redevelopmennt. Ttie revised set ol'plans included all of the required site plans, flaor
plans, building elevations and sections, sun/shacie plans, and surveys. Additionally we provideci
aclditionGil envelopes for adjacent property owners for the project and the tcxt amendment,
backup for the title report, and a flood plan study.
Our original submittals included the following:
• ApplicatiQn for exteriar alteration and fee
• Application for a variance from the hardseape Iimitation anci fee
• Application for a variance to the 10°ro retail limitation (withdrawn and supplemented with
an application for a text amendment to allow more than 10% retail with a canditional use
permit) ~
Edwards Village Center, Suite C-209 Ph. - 970.926.7575
0105 Edwards Village Bvulevard Fax 970.9267576
Post Office Bax 2658 wwwbraunassociates.com
Edwards, CoEorado 81632
~ • Application far a conditional use perrnit for a fractional fee club, retail area 'rn excess of
the 10% limitation, and fee
* Wrikten statements dcscribing how lhe prOposal camplies with the Vail Village Master
Plan, the Vail Village Urban Design Gizide Plan, the Vail Village Streetscape Master
Plan, and the Vail Land I.Jse Plan
• Survey of the property
• Current title repart
• Existing and praposed site plan (revised 12m15-02)
• Praposed landscape plan (revised 12-16-02)
• P'roposed roof height plan (revised 12-16-02)
• 1'roposed building elewations (z'evised 12-16-02)
;
+ SLin/shacie analysis (revised 12-16-02)
• Proposed floorplans (revised 12-16-02)
• Proposed rnassing model
With this letter and attachments you should hawe al] af the required and requested information.
We understand that the FEC and tne L?RB (later in the process) may request additional
infarnation amd we are haPPY to Pravide adciitional intormation_ ~
~
i
I hope you had a nice vacation and are having a happy new year. i
i
We appreciate the assistance you have provided us and hope that we can precede sanoothly "
~ tEirough the Town's review process. If Tam or I can be of assistance do not hesitate to calt us at
926-7575.
Thanks again for your help.
' ce ly
ornini F. C: Johannes Faessler
Mike Foster
~
Fleview Criteria for Text Amendrnent - 10% Retail Area Provision ~
The following provides an analysis of Tovvn of Vail review crixeria used to evaluate praposed
text amendments to the zoning code.
Before acting on an applicatinn fnr an amendment to the reguiaticros prescribed in this title,
the planning and environiiiental cornmission and Cown council shall consider the following
factors with respect to the requested text amendrnent;
(1) Thc extent to whir;h the text anietidment fizrthers the general and specific purposes of
the zoniiig regulations; and
i
Annly.sis_
The proposed amendrnent to the PA zone district will specically further the goals of the
zoning regulations and af the Town's master plan,s. The amendment provides the
opportarnity to the Planning ctncl Environmentu! Camrnission to evalztate a requestfat-
more retail area for prnjects locrttecl Yn ctrea.s where at makes sense in the context Of
surrozinding developrnent and tivhere it implements other goalti of the Town_ The
proposed ermenclynent will promotc caordtnated and harmoniaus develapmenr within the
Town to canserve and maintain community qicalities and values, ensure safe and efficient
pedestt ian and vehicarlur trcrffic, and prnvide for the sajety and generul ivelfare of ihe
commtrnity_ ~
(2) The extent to which the text amendrnent would hetter implement and better achieve
the applieable elements af the adopted goaCs, abjectives, and policies outlined in the Vail
camprehensive plan and is compatible with the developinent objectives Qf the town; and
Analvsis:
As ,stated a6ove, the proposed text amendment vvill allaw the Planning and
Environmentczl Commissipn (PEC) to cvalzsate an a case-by-basis proposals to add retaal
area above the 10% provislon. 1'his tivill allow 1he I'EC to review goals and policies thcrt
have relevance to the locution bein,gproposec.l and det~.~rmine rvhether ar raot the Tawn's
goals are beang met, thus resicllfng an u hetter implementc7tiort af tlxe Town's gaals. The
pr•opo.sed text arraendment will crlfow the landvtivner.s to betler implement the gouls and
palicies of Ihe Tawn rather than the existirrg crrbitrcxry "one sizefits ul!"pravisron.
~ i
~
. i
~ (3} The extent to which the text amen;dment deznonstrates how conditions have
substarrtially changed since the adoptron of the subjzct regulatian and how the existing
regulation is no langer appropriate ar is inapplicable; and
Anal vs as:
In 1973, when the Znniiig CQde wcts adopted, the Pt1 zane di.ctrict limited the retaiC on
lodgeprojects to 20%. In the late 1970's this provrsion was changed to IQ%. The
problem that occurs with a"6lanket " provisiora which affects all PA zoned properties rs
that it daes nat take into accozant the dijf"erences tlacrt might exi:st from location to
location. For instance the TUtivn's rrzaster planning documents speciecrlly recammend
providing retaal along East 1l!leac{itw Drlve hiif the 10% provision prevents the
implementation of tlie policy. 7'he Town's mcrsterplanning documEnts have changed over
the years but the 10% provision has nvt beetr crmended 1o reflect these plcrns and tlae
polacies promoted within tlze plans. Thet-ef'ore, conditians have changed which render the
10°1v provision inappropriate given the Town's goals.
(4) The extent to which the text amendment provides a harmonious, convenient, woricable
relationship among land use regulations cQnsistent with municipal development
objectives;
~ Analvsis:
The praposed amendrnenl to the PA zone district will speeiically further the goal.s of the
zaning regulaFions and of the Tawn:s rjzaster plans, The amenclment provides the
opportunity to the PlUnning and EnvirUnmental Commission to evaluate a requestfor
rrtore retail urea for projects located in czreas where it mcrkes sense in the context of
surroarnding develapment and tivhere at im,plements other gouls af the Totivn. The
proposed amenclment tivill prornate covrca'inated and harmoniou.s development within the
Totivn ta eonserve and mafntain community qualitic.~,r and values, ensure saf'e and ef~caent
pedestrian and vehiculcrr trcrffic, and provide,f"or fhe safety and genercrl welf'rrre of'the
community.
I
I
i '
,
~
i
~
U dated FaQures Addressing T!)V Develo ment Standards 41
With the removal oPthe 'I`alisman from the development appEication, there are sorne minor
changes to the development statistics far the pro3ect. Below are the updaled development
5tatlSt1C5:
Existin Sonnenal and Swiss Haus Buildin s Sitcs
Sonnenalp:
Density: 90 Hatel Room4
GRI"A: 58,074 sq. ft.
Site Coveragc:: 34,050 sq. ft.
Landscape Area: 13,750 sq, ft.
RcstauXant tlrea (net): 3,389 sq. ft. (variance granted for an addittona11,G51.4 sq, ft.
on June 24, 1991. Bu9ly Ranch = 1,504 sq. ft., Ludxvig's =
1,560 sq. ft., ancl Kuig Club Bar = 325 sq. ft.) (C7ross area =
6,050 sq. Fr.)
Meeting Rootn Area: 4,000 sq. ft.
Spa rlrea: 7,330 sy,. ft.
Parking: 108 spaces
Building Height: 48' and 56' (granted by variance)
Swiss Haus: ~
Density. 59 Hotel Rooms
2 DEVelling Utues
GRFA: 23,444 sq. ft.
Site Coverage: 12,950 sq. ft.
Lantiscape Area: 7,5()0 sq, fc. ~
Recail Area: 1,580 sq, Et. ~
Restaurant area: 2,422 sq. ft,
Meeting Raom A-rea: 1,885 sq. ft,
Spa Atea; 1,720 sq. ft.
Plrking: 14 spaces
Building Height: 48'
~
~ Zoning Statistics
Zonuig: Public AGC;ommociauon
Lot Area: 2_788 acres or 121,445.2$ sq. ft.
Standard ALlowed Praposed
Density 69 DUs (25/acre) 9 DUs (3.2/acre)
GRFA overall project 1$2,167.92 sq, ft. (150°/u) 137,159 sq. ft. (113°/n)
(79,085 sq. ft. new GRFA)
New GRFA 70 f 30 split 55,359.5 sq. ft. 11LJ/FFU
23,725.5 sq, ft. DU 23,660 sq. ft. DU
Retaa11L1rea 15,366.9 sq. ft.' (10% GRFiI) 17,375 sq. ft.2 (12.7%) * Code Arnendment
Site Coverage 7$,939.43 5q. ft. (65"/0) 6$,530 sq. ft. (56.4%)
Landscape Area 36,433.6 sq. ft. (309/6) 52,835 sq, ft. (44°l0)
Softscape 29,146.88 scl. ft. 23,611 sq. ft. * Variance
Hardscape 7,286.72 sq. ft. max. 29,224 sq. ft.
~ Setbacks Subject to I''EC Iteview Refer to develapment plan
Srream Setback 5(}' SQ'
Notes:
~ Retail allowed is 10% of con5tructed GRFA plus 1,651 sq. ft. previausly granted by
variance.
2 Retail prQVided includes 6,050 sq, ft. existing in Sc7nnenalp, 1,600 sq. ft. far King
Ludwig addition, amd 9,725 sq. ft. new retail area.
~
Parking Analysis ~
Existing parkixig found on-site:
Sannenalp: 10$ spaces
SwiSS Haus; _ 14 spaces
Total: 122 spaces
The proposed analysis examines the incrernental change in program and its impact on
parking:
Use Net Change Parking Formula Net Parking
AU's -12 0.7/AU -8.4
DLT's +7 (2 demolished, 9 new) 1.4IDi] +9.8
FFU's +13 0.71FFU +9.1
Retail +8,145 sf(1,580 demo, 9,725 new) 2.3/1,000 sf +18.7
Restaurant -2,422 sf (5wiss) 1/250 sf -9.69
Restaurant +1,6017 sf (Ludwig) 1/250 sf +6.4
Conterence -1,885 sf (Swiss) 1/330 st -5.7
Net Increase in Number of Parkin Saces Re uired +20.21
Total Parking RequQred for Feojec# = 143 spaces ~
Total Parking Provided = 145 (127 underground, 18 in porte cochere
(includes 62 valet spaces)
~
~
a~veoiu~'vn ~~WOr a' + ~ ~ ~ a Y `
I tl a~ 3'~ ~ a~a # i~rnln Iivnu
~ I ~$3 1 SS 3Afpa5`• ;oS_ p ~}~Nassin+,smJM/raowaavi~NSrvra3Ntiqs LO
~
~~1 f~ I`
.1.7aO5321 dlHN3NNOS
a
. ~
q ~ ' o ~ ~ ; 7 e fi ~ °e
s
0 y~ m
FL ,a iL0.a~€i~~ ~ivae'a~~ V ~
n N 2u6PP n >~~r 9>~ss s.] T~9~~5~ e- 4.~ ~
~6b~sSaio f. _
°
oJLLwLL~.~a~wul µ I
o _ '~"''S5 p i~ 3~w~, mb5mwdi~LLLLLLU o~ 9-n+~~@9 ~~=S ~H~9g+ O I
U ~TI WSJ~~u~WLLWluol~u~~lvi - ~ ~v n~n
e ? q an.;..~.,<nv'v a.~4R~i•i~t4VqG Z I
U ~]mQ~y`~l1`d~.~1J~ 1 ~ II
K y rwvrv.uau,~ ~~`~+'1 Q 9a10n4imm~alOM mJf~EY~
~4 W wwww w wWwiuwwwwW ~ U z -J~ 44Q~44Q444n iu~ ~ ~
1 I' I i
E ~ 1~9~ ' 1 I ~E I ! a ~ ~ ~i? } } ~ g g
~ d~ j I ; i~4'1 4~la~i~i~s~~~r~4 1~~~l,i,l;l6~9~!I~I~ illklll; LJ U LJ U U~~J ~ I II I I
~ w v 9
~ ~;~t~ ~ a, ~ ai~x~ ~t f~~t~9?~~~y~~;f~if~~E~~~a,±m, ; I ° i ~g
1dET{`I ~ s ~11 ~ ~l~l F¢ tI .
~IlZSfl~ ~~~~~(~a ~ ~ ..i !t},..~ri~~Zet!{t[ le:t,.rfSs•~~!!n~lSl~fi,.:..o ~ ~ # ~ ! ii ~ " 8 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i II
,
~ ja'3 i ~p~ ' ~ ~ r ~ t~ ~j ~ 9 S'~ 3 ! t I'3a ~ j i;~ ~~1' ' i€I ? V
~afd~l~ ~~iSCP~ I ~ 3l~~iltr~ritrllf~kil.ii[ctai;d41eti9~t~ acai.ns~ . ~ F ~ ~ 9 f ~ _
3!1 ,
ss f 9a 1a1.1ii.ii~ ~err3ill~ltF]l~7~..r~~ec.:l~,iei?3f~7ia i ~ s+
i e9 i~~{ ~fs 4~•~' ~(f 6{1`F1~1~ it ~~p, i~(~r id( ~F~~~ ~ ~1' ~ f I 9
I I ~
iap~~ } , ' j:°--. ~ 1:7.atl4yid! Id1~1if1PvlFrrEF.P~tnYl7.FI~i1 iulleSii~Y ~ I I~
i~+~ Fi7~i. It.~tlll~Ill~na~~~l f1~Yihfi ~~a f1S~f i f ~ d SI si
lii 14E
I;zl!!l•t4nnaE_3}~5.~l+f5f4s~i~R~h~•!!L S1~i11L ~~.I.a.(,r.a.(.? .
a~ RlI~~ ,?s ~itf : I
Q 4~~~' , 93 Ydel1 a33cB~..wss~.s~la~lWs9»iik3E~181~ F~,s~s~~lSa ~ 1 i I I~ J I I[~
~a?a~
3~ 4 1 2 ~ i+ r
skl
~r~ ~~~~y
u _ . .
J I
~ SIl4~'H L'f2pt+rlbti{ cj
IV.-\J~Ifk~~OS
- - LU
ir.._.Y
_ _
• ~ ~ y .a { i ? ' I
, ~ .
~ 1 ' } I Y L' .
r
r ~I~ ~ ~ F ~ CN a s =I
~
,i
z
:-L -
.
+ r' ~
i!
~ - ~ `S 7~ . ,
P ^ \ ~ti ~\~.y, r ' } • : 1
5. n ~
w
r A 1 4
y
d I
'Nq Vi
- . ' .
~ '~~M1 . ` ' t •:f - ~ ~ ~ r I
~
A ~ • ~
n ~
~
e\!`°~ -~{-~-~.riJ•4 ' Y ..i~...i~.. _ ~ ~ i~ ed~J - ,
I 1 v~US31~~ ~
~ f ~ .
. _ ~
upr~u~u;~ '~~e~ ~1uuor 'I I ~ I ;
- Sf1tlH 7ltiVr'l l$ : f 1 I~ ~
OS LU ;l
f " - Z310H dlHhi3NM
~ I•,~ {I IR~
_ `a 'i p ~ ' .
I ~ii I• - ~r i
r ~ e ~ .
_ ~ ' , : T• = Gn 5l ,.~r~- - . ~ - _
~
. ?
•
' , _ , _ - , . . _ .
w
-tj"' ~I ~ ~I o~. .~3r
. ~ °
+
. ~ - ~ -
4 Y.... .1 `4 I LL I
. . ~I . . ~
-
_ ~
_ , • .
. .
~
` r ~ - -
I ~ •9 ~ ~ ~e ~ 'I" : . - ~
.
`k ~.I_+~_... yl~ ~'.L"c. ~:•(A~~-'~ . . l \ I ~ q'
~I' Y c' ' ~ Y" I ~v $ ,i ~ • I k' ~ . -Z1 - ~
~3
~ I r I • ~ ~
--T
? 1 - `~A h_,~ry „V , • N ,~A~ r~ y . ~ , e 4 I I ~ ~ r'~
~I ~ ~i ~r ~ jy; ~ ~~y. r I _ = ti ~
:.S ~ e ~ ~11~ _ '~~I
j
~ i
l. -
I~/ L b
i x ~ ~ ~ ~ ,y ~!I , r; ~ ~ I Y
~ . ~~i_/I ~1~~ .,^il~ _ ~ ~ . . °ti ~ s.'•' ~
y ~i... `j ~x+r.~_i~, . n.• . . 0! . ~~I
t
~ ~'~•r, ' .
~ ~
nPw-Jn) •~p~•n aw-f
" 01A SRVH +dlrlbnba 7Y
Z3.I.(~Fi dlF~':~I3~i1~O5 ~ I
.
i ~
I : . f.,e" ° . ,5 a • - ' ; •__1'- ^ } I~
J,o,
• i~ ` -1__ .
.
. i
~ ~ ~ ~ :;~1. f ~ tr ~ ~y~~`~ - ~ V
_
~
....,...._.E ....................'_._.r......,.. 1 ~ _
~
: ~
~
~ a
a y ~ . ~ w I` ~ k g ~ . ~ ~ ~ • J ~
T.S
_ ~ ~ ~L . ~ • ~ ` ` : ~Mw._. - 1 - . ~ . . _ t ~ . ~ o- ~ j , ~
1 ~ 1~ • ~
. ~ ,jy ~ , ~ ~ iy/~ 7!II 3~ ~ ~ • '~r 4
i _ `h ' ~ - . s. . . `51 *1
r ~
~
~ . /
f- ~
~71
' r , 'r I~~ ~
~
~
V
SIIH alliNild'Fi ~JJC. 6'1 o ~II I E~I . . nl
. . 1 ` ~ • P ~ I • ~ ~
C{1dl~l~s~~a~
~
- - - _ - -
I ~P }J.~. l± J . L ~ ~ ~ C I
I }
L
1 --r ' ~ I' ~
' ti ,P , II y yy,
r
~
~I
!
~
.
J~
k
7 ~J= f d ii
L_f tir~~d
~ l. 4i `j 1 q yt~ "
. ~ - •j~'"~ ~ }-I i. r~~~ ~.h ~ ~~`r -+y a V
'r._ ~ ~ ' I } . t• I~) a t .l~ 1~
k~ni~A Y ~ 4{2'x I I ~ I.
.u /1 ~ - f ' ' y,r- ~ ~ JI ~ . 'n G,~^y ~ ~ ~r ~
I ~ / x~'
li .J rl ~ _C ~ a r•~
~ ~':.lsf.. !
j
z
k y ~
r ~ i~jr r~ 2'• l~y'v (~j~ } •
s . i . ~ _ r
_ i , ..pe~o~u3 •~itir~9 aww~~~r ~ I . ~ ~ .
'i310x dIVN3NMOs w
NT~
~ "s . ` ~ ~ - ~ ~ ` ~ i1 ?q t I
'f ~ ~..f~ l~ d
~I
. ~ n~
j~I •s ~ ~9 r
n
, ' ; , ~ ~ ~ I i 4 , • I ° f
q
•'r~,? - _ '
rD
-T_
; • . ~`J ~ .
~ lr~ 31+ ~ ~ - • _ . a t
-.r. ~ r 3 e , k ~
~}j 'r..
~ 1Y
r r , ~
~-7 1 1=\ ~ k ~ I~ ~ n~
~ ~ rk ,~Y •,F. .il: f l..f _ e ~.J `t
Y~~~.-~'~a~.~~.Y? u- :T .p.~~~ ~-}._~"51~..~K -
~t.
~
-pier~
' . ~ 3114H V1klbrlti8
i- 'I~.L(~I-f d"lHfV3NNflS y~ I; ` ~
. ~
- " Q i • 'i- , o
• ~ , , ~ _`Y~ R ~ .
^ ;
~ 3'a' - . ~~•`~jl .I~ V • ~ ~ ~ I
L, _ ~ ~Ills~ y ;
I \ ~ J
I~'. L
+ , J - .4 ~ r ~ -.t.._. i ~
d ,w ` ~ 'I ~`~~I _ "
.
.~~i , , ~ it~i ~t~ ~ I, ~ y ~G~ '~~i• • ' ~ ~ . ~
~ ' ± ' ~ . - _ F ~ ,I ~ ~ _ . - , „ } _
~ .
.
~ . .
! iF" :ra ~ N ~f~~~ o •
_ { ~ r 1. . _ ~5 ` I I~ ~ ~~tY 4 I~l f~.J
PO!,
y7~ y~
r~ ~,~E ~ ' T r I4 y.
'
~
;
• ` T`~~' ~k s l m i : i' ~
? o
( upe.wro~ ~~~v;e
- Sf1vH VIJt+AVO
3_LOH d"7Hh,EANI~lf3S lll
"
- - • .
, .a.... . rw-.. *~~.a-' •f.~. ~
r} ~ F~\ ~ Y +p r~ 1y F - 3 I .
x
- _ ' . y 1. . ~ ' l i~ . ° 4:., 3 ,gI " a a .
} p
I-.~? 'a. LJ i'~;Wd~ ~ a-.~~`~~ 2-
~~I'_ ~ . V•_._-~k_r ~ . I I $ a
=d` ~ i ~ 4 1 ~ 1}~ }
~ 1 ~ ~;:e y ~ I¢I I I ;~S ~ . ~ ` +I~ I•I - •c I; .
I~' I~ ) ' • _ y
~
~ ~ _ ~YI ~ lil ~i i ~I~ Iy i ~i L~4 ~'~4 . .
4 ~ ir~I I I S.~J~ I I ,p1 S
~ ~ 7T
• ~ f : 4 I ' .."E_ u `M1, i
i ~
I
v .
T,i -
, ~ _ _ _ - - - - ~ „
. a~pe~o~o~ •o~e,~ aNw~.wF Y I.. ~i.l I ~ ~
_ 9r1aH w~tsunV~ ~F~, ~y 5 - ' ,y~:
I
~ " r~ r ~ I
E ' ~[~.L01-[ d'~ItliV~'t~It~1t}4 ;:3 ~I ' ~,.'Llll
- . - ~ I I "1 L , ~
- -
--------W~ - _
~i
~ E ~
. , , - ~ ~ - C
a-.-•''• I
y ~ i
T
, 3:~ , ~ :
` ~
. _ F ~ ~~L . " r 9~ r ~
~ 1 ' S r . .--~i I . ~
1 ' ' I ! f .I.. _ I Ij ~
~ ~ f~~~~~~ ~ ~ 1~ " x ~ ~ ~I ~ ~
~ ~ S i! N :~s_1 ~ ~
7~ ~ ` ~i "li .r ~ ~
~Jvl ~r ii~~ ~ I k ; II :
~ ``,~,~r~`-~ ' ^ ~ --..t1 e ~ ~ 7 ~ ^i I~ ~ .
~ ~ ' ~ y ~ i ~ ~ . ~ ~
~ .7I "i 9~ I Y I-~`r,(j' ~ , _ _ , -
~`}~~i t~~~ _ i~~.F~ ~~.1 C145 4: I r 7~ y~
~ I~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ r~ y I 3 1 ;C ! ilA I'~ ~
I"~` 1~~~; ~ ~ ~ Q ~ I'~~ '
i I. i 3 1 ~ a~ ~ G f I
=a' ~ ° ~ tJ~ ~ o ~ s ~ a ' j` ~ f' ~ I
y' P ' ~ ~ ~ i +~'d; I, . J , i , _ r-_' A ' d • .~.A ,j . '"~l~ ~ i ~ • o i i
~ ~ ~ 1 , I~d ~ Y • f r,. - . , " ; I
_ : { -
, ~ o;~---~ , .r ! Y ~F ! ti+ ^ ~ : r ~ a y ~ f ~~tl. ~ t,~; _I- ~1 I - ~ ~ I
i~ "N i1 ~ ~.~~ni ^~:#u ~ _ : -~1.,. 'a I
I ' '+.i I ~~j x 7 ~ ~}f ~ 1 ~ , ~~r.~ ` d4: e 5 's ~ ~
~ ~a ~ c~ 1 ,~.x i„ z L~. I.r ~IJ' '~a`~ I f~n - ~'J
i ~f' ~J I ~ ~,~i C~ ~ m I , :r~ . Q i°-~ 'sii . ~ ~ : ~ ~i~ + `~,~1! I { Q i I
~ I ~ ,L ei s [ sf~ I
i~ , II I~ C.~ ~ ~~~5 : I ~ t ~n, ~
~I , ~ ' I~ 1~r;' _ a . ~f p ~l : ~ 1: ~ . 1 , " F
"w - ~ i ` `~-,l ~ ~3~ ~
~ ~ll Y Is.~_ rI r P ~ I I I;~ _ J .9I~
W ~ I' ~ sT I!~• t~~~ ~'~~tr'~" G: ' C{-c:~ . s! d° Ll . ~ i I ~,i ' r i ~.a .I~ , w
ti ~ ~ " II ~ . . .
' ~L L~ ~ ~ . ~ I ~ ~ ' 3 I Ij - i~ f I ~ _ ~
e ~a ~ t ~ .
. . . ~ r~` ~ ~ ~ 1 . . . ~ ,
~
a I I vr, .+a,-
. '.itc~'~ " . . ~ . . i{~~ _ 'i,x,: _ f.
, ~ ,i . . - . . f ~.x. ~
r
,
f
. , . I I .y'. i
a . . - - - ' ' ~ ' ;
T ~
~ ~ ~ ~ .+I~.,*1 I
. ~
. ~~..a~3
J
,
f r ~
~
I
~
i
I
~ I
-
_ - -
i _ i I oi~eio~n) •~ie,~ ~h ,,,~f _ _ I I . . - ~I i al .
Sd7Vli RlIHtrRaO ~Eo ~ [ I'. _ - . . 4 iS f ~ t, c~'
.
~ 1310H d'IVN3NN0., LU i
' ~ _ _l . _ . - - _ - _
d .X~ +i - s .R . ~
~
Y
~ b
f I
e'~ f yl: y +I yL
a A ~
I ~
!
~ ,ifT r~ ' ~ ' . F r`cz._" - _ . I _
i ~ ! ~ I~s
r t f ~ y I
~ 3~ i%~ l~ i q p ` ; 3~ ~ g~ a I
~ • ~ ¢ Q . ; 6
r`
w
~ys
~ - r t, • ~
I ~i ^il ~ I • I LL ~ ~
I
. k _ _ ~ ' a ~ ~...~:~Ja!__ I ~ • - • ' ~ ~ ~
I I
;j
i
i
~
~
. .
- - - _ ~
- - - - - l
c=
s _ " . '13101-1 d1rc'f1{3NNC~5 LLI
- ~ .
"l• V~. I I .
. .
~
~
~ a rm,
{
` ~
.-tr-,=-._~-~ . - 7~- .t ~ .I ~I ~ ` -
~
f 11. I ~-k, ~ l~ ~ • J J~ -
9}
~ i r I x~ ~ ~ ' ~ I 3 ~S
T--,
I ~
g ~ " ;s~ , j b
I ` , ~ _ ~ i~ ~ ' 3 „ I
..-C -r ~ ' +
Y
I~
1 ? i; qD
.u _ ? { s ~ - ~ r.~; s v4
( _ 2.
~ J -
I T ~
! L
'
_
7 S
. 1
. W
y
W ; ' ~ - • 'i
.
, .
.
:
~
:
r
1 .~y. ~ _ ~ ! •~`'a~
~
. ,1~.
. ' St1Vli'vlawnvCt . 1d~. i +g
~..~"1 C~'1 ~`W~NNQ~J LLI
t~~
Q ~ ~I' , . 4 I p' I l w ~ ~ ` ~ S fa" ~f l
R ~ ~ ~ f~f (r ~ ~ I
j~~~ 'I . 1 .1~
I~t a f~.• ~~~I ~ ~1 t~
3 y 4 ,
• Cl~e+ " ~ ?
~ i13J I1 W
Lu
F4+Y~If~~~~
c-: -
~ <
'
k~•5
~ I'
I, ~ +p ~fji I
{p` a!
- 1 I'_1 j 1 i N ./t ~ . I ~ ~vTY .
- ~ '~j l ?~4"~~~iR`i u'' ~ I L-L ( OI
~
~A
q,~
y'' : ~ ~ ;F1 w ~ ~ ~c _ p . • a~ z ~ y~
i~ o
,
W
Sf1VH b[2iVAV9
T310H dZF1K3KIV4S
- ,
.
,
.
. _ . ~ i s ~ a ~ N
. _ _ . _ - ~ - . _ ~ - ~ . _ - - -
: ~ ~ , ~ 4 ~ F ? s~; s~ - s~ 3j; - - I
; ~ rr•, ~r~ ,
~1ripp"p
(D4;
C~' 1 L ° ~ i i~ I,I y~,e~ • s~
4
"I ` I IY7.
S--
,
.
~
j.i r.
z ~ ' _ ~ c $ ? w
r t • ~i . ~ ~ ~
i.
ZO)
' .ti
r7
l,
,
, , ~ Y i r i
.
4- ~
,g T ~ I I Lr` ~ ~ ~~f_ i 3
2tfftrP~a y~}s, ~!i!~ _4 [g,
&
~Y~~/ _____._Z
j~~
I ~ ,~L . , 'l~- r" ' ~ ~ J i ; ?
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I A k' ~ ~I I r I I i d~ ~ ' `C i: !g~ ~ e•
~r' ijl~,,f~'f w~=a 4ia ?ia i s V ~PI
R~~ Z
1 ~ ' ~r Ip f'
ryr_ II ~
ytj
~
~ ~ ! F~:~ 0 ~I I ill I
'v
C~--- - - - ~--~x~ ~ ~ ~
_ _ - -
z:
W.7
ri J
} . I SnvH viaVnVa
13J.OH clIHN3i~INOS
i t i~~ ~ 6 • 7,. '
j
~
~ ~ { • iZ i ~ 4
4
-z
4 ~ •L'~~-~ „I f+.~, 'o
{ l
~ w
~
~ k~l . F3 r . ~i, i~~ I } I ~ ~~I~~~i ~ r f~
IL ~ i• ? r f~ k r%~^~`~
0 ~~'~~k v~ ~
<<
` ~ S + ~t~ ~ . _ ~ ~ ~ 5 `f ?
~
X I
' f k
~ ! : ~.__•.V--_ y ' 1."L°1-----' ,r ~
~.I"
N~;i~~~`~: ~I= ~.'9~a ~i: a~j; •t~. u-=~1~
~S r ~ ~p~~< 'n • ~ t i i ~ ~~i
P4 a~
~ t j w' c: ~ t ~ i
~ ri ~Ln I
t - ~-a °'rvYy
Yh i:a~F ~ ' } " `f
,
y I t 5
t.,.... .
~ apainto~ •~ie,n ~uW,~~o~ ~ ' r
- a - SfltrN
- - _ ~3~t.oH
d-ldr~~
.~rv~vos
.
. . - : ~ : ~ • ~ }II~ . ~ . . . ~ , J , . . I I ~ ' f., I , ~
: . , , : ~ ~ : ' r~ ; G . , . ' , • 1: : i ~ 1: • ~ ^ € ~,_:L_T','~,~ ~ ~
~ i . ii z
.
1
W
~ ` IL- L
' ! B ' i ~ " G-t I 'f - - ~',V. ' - T~ r~
T~.. . IL.
5.~.
'
1' El
_ _1 ° . . ' y ~ ti~ ~ I~ ~ ~ ~.r '~4.~~' ~
~ - • ' ;..~i..~ ~ : ~ , : ~``i' ~ ~
_._~tl ';1'i.~•...~ ".s
'r•' ~ -
1f~15{}~ra+~Sy i~14 ~~t`~11~~~,~
flSLifSl9S~
~
i
~
I
- ~
. G~~ - $ $ET '~~py~at 13K17V.llY,e ~ ' ~
? ~ ~ SI' ! j4~~3 ~ ~7~I{~I 171YH755LMShA]N:I:OIIIQOYI3L]!4d'1YNINI305 .tj,u' ~ • ! ? ~ ^ I
iNoM d~VNINN
as
- I - _ _~•y,~~ ` ~ r ~ ' a
1 i ; ~ 9~!f •..~',I~ .1'I r I
P~;;i . ~ z° ~ - . ~ g~„ i , i.
xED
~ = •e~ ~ I'
_ ' •r , ~
~ ~ ~ , ' ~y P~~ ye~ ?
,J ~ , J ~ • e' + a j ~g y~4~ ~Y ` /
1J" \ ~ ~ ,4 . 7 ~ W 7
~ ~ S i~ + ~•L ~u t ~ - ~9'• ~'j ~ ` ~ J. . N:
,
r5 2 1 ~a 11 ~ i _
b g a i~i 1 t~~'•~;;~~~ ~ ~
~ ~ f~ 3 1 ~`k~ $ 1 l '`=-.~i •
~ 5~ a~ ~ ~ ~ . y l . ~ ~ ~ ~ p
y
+ / ~ • ~ g
I oi ~
~ ~ reP \ y ' u R a ~ ~
~3I yI ~ • ~7~' 1 ~~#~`.~kF.~ ` ~
~ ,,S ~ iy • i
ry
~I ~ 5' ~ ~ ~J~t ` ,4'a : e3 ~ ~ ; 1 `.F-. ~ \ •~1
I ~}5~..,~.3.: ~ Y~ ~i 1 ~ I +S~ •'".y~~;~. ~
p ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ a.. 4 \ ~I ~s, ~
• i ~ ~ ( ~ ~ `c
~ - 1~ i ' a ~ ~~a~ r 4~~ ~ ~ ~'~1.', i
~ ' i~ 1 a •g i ` ~
1' ~i ~i a~ Y i w ; .
Lk
' I+ I
! l~•,fF t r~ j, ;a~ j@ ~ J a~~~ 3s Ir
! 's~~ ~ ~ Z ; 4 tl , ~ . ` ; •
P
; I ~ ' ' ~ ~IN~..y.' t 3 - ' • ' ~ ~ : l,~±R~ g.. ~ ~ ~ • +m-+.4~ati. - a~ • ~w ^ ~ "
~s~- • . • . - -
fd'OOflS ]aC?asel dH "Wd OE~LI ~ ZCOZIS1150 '6Mp~ianynslPe~Str{1E21~Reuauua55tr0£Z1Gd1.W
r
}
11;R3~ ~i,~, 1ilea 3
~ c I, s~ _a? f°of' a~rH~m~ns~ralNOWaaviuoHemaa~r~os
~
12f0S3N d`]b`N3NNOS
~ -
. . r.. f~
s f i
i
~
+f ' ~ tY
• _.i, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ! j ~ i x
iLX
J-4
r=_ ' , ,l ~ I !
s r~
y r ,
~ ~ ~ ~
i ^ ~ ~ ~ . ~ f ~+r \ y
/ . ~
u.' ~ q1 q 1` ,i~\
20, ~ til I Y ' `,'~r..a c
`
K:
~G t ~ 1 ' 1
i d
- i
~
~
O~YIfOl07"IYA Aywwwl~ ~ S~~C~SlIr~~ll I y} J B ~ G E I~'iy
3`JM1l1AlIVR
u,v~"O ss~ms iwr+, Nowoav ,UDH a,..N~NHas
1214532J dIdN3NNOS fEt:9~~Lu a
r'
'i, ~I M y ° ~
+ ~ ~ f•' _ _ _ - .~-i, f ~
~ ~ E
3 ~I~f g / i I
~ ~~~~I f r. • ,
~ y~ ~ ~ /1 •
,
C ~ s4
t~' y~ ~ `t'--. ' t: ~ ? ' 1 j ~ / ~
I ~ T ~x
a I ~ i J
1 ' ' i' ~ ~14 d 'I
} e
~
f r f , ~ ~ ` ' ~ ~
~+~11 ~ ~ l~ 1 J i ti ~h t~
~ ' ~a ~ t~ 1 • , ~ f ~ w _ \ y
/
p I Ni
I ` ~ ~J ~ . \ ? .
~
d
4 ~`4k .
~ t•~~ti ' ? 1 ' ~ ~
tii 1 0,~ ~ 3; t
~ e~• 11 . ~
S ~ f ` .G . 5` ° i r ~ q~i?Y±ti .sW~
'
~3~~`
~ ~ ~I~~~ ~ ~
e'aa'
- -
T41+3NNOi II1IiI~ II1~2~
~ ~~a 131Y1fl551+A5M3NIr301L4O6~131CJWdNOS
l I p~,: a; 11~~J
a~, ~ 121C~Slb dlt~N3N
~
~
J •
LD
t~
~
~ ~ \ T
~ r ~l ~ ~ 75 j
~ ~l 4t Q ~ l
1 ~ 1 ~1
1 ~
l ~
x ~
1 L ti
5~ 1
V55 sy
s ti
s ti
L a
SS~ 1 f~ ti .
M 15~ 5 F y' , . _
1
a ~
o~
LU
x
~ ~ ~ -
i
F- ocma~o~tirrn
GY e g~: F i5.r7in nxn Lfl 3~ . .~MosI~ aIdNINNas L~
_ . _ - ~
~
~
LLJ . ~'~r'~', ~ •
~
u I
,D
n,
~
-
!
F ~
`
. -
• # :,"y~ _ ' \
- ~
? ,
a ' ~ ~ ~ T~ rto ~ I
~ 1~ ` ~ ~ • ~ , . ,
LL!
~y 2 W ' .
~ . j4 -b - ¦z f. -
fl ~ ' ~ _ _'~Y`'''
- I
3 yM r{~' ~13 : g 30r7rntrrn I i
w-l~' ~ i Lz
13'fYH755LMShl3N1NOV11C10Yl3LqHd7VN3HH05 iyy
Z
~Nh1C)S ~ i f
"'i
12fOST~I dIb'~l _~k~9
- - - -
8
~
E
~
U
N f
~
~
~
~
- ~ ~
, •
z
r ~
E
~ m
1 ~
r
~
1 .
$ !
'
)
6 ~ = r ~
• a . 'S ~ '~J~ - ir- .y ~ ~~lr
J
kn
- - - ---C~s -
9s
i
~
t s 1 1- ~t ~~vnu vvn J lY J x
2~"p y~ i9~£ y~1' y3~yaOS9M5A53N1NGI1l6~Y131DIdd1VN3NW05 ('~Z II ~i a=+ll~
.
d1Y#~~INNO[~ J yd~lEl~~~ ~~I•i i la '
y~iV
LLL a
- ~
~
LU i
a .
3 ~ I
~ l 4 3
F S
I
P ~
I _
[ • E
!
. ~
~ J
~ I 4
I ~
i
\
~
. ~ ~
- ~4 I
i I
s
t i - \
4
i -
i a ..A
j
~A
J 4 .
lu
_ - - - - - - - - - - -
~ a' ~ - s3nyw~3 snr,ns,v~3ti i HowQOr s3sCm a~vr«7~o'sos hZZZ . u Cv .
v dlV~t~71~~~{~}C ; IIIE I lll~•F ~ fC ~ ~
i~I [JOA+~
i `
{ ~ =$c' ~i~ , ~3~•p i~,~~ ~ vIv71tiiVlJJ -4~
k
~
I
r-
W
~
, r ~
I ! r~ ~
f ~
I ~
~
- Q
1
I ~f ~ \
~
r +
V ~
a ~
tu / 11`` _ ~ 3 - ~~.=y
_ -
.
Y
0
. . ~7'~i ~~~3£ ~ - oava.7~~•vvn t~~~~ 8 R M~ I-
r 1 ~
~ ]UYTN 11YA
t3TV.ussi~nsm3Nr'+owouvi3LOwamaaHHOS
1210SIN dldN3l~d~lOS ? w~u~c i 3 r e ~
-
~g~ j ~9s ~ 5~ ~ ~ ~ ~0; ~ i -
j! • ~ ~ ~ ~ ~€~E~i i~ E ~ia#~~~~ 4
:
s
~ 3 _ ~ ~ 4 ~ ~ ~j - - -'1 •
R
I n
T 4
-
i-
~
~ I I
~
~
f ~
, V I i 9 ~
t 4
~
~ I I ~ I
I
~ I
Z I ~ ~
I
I
I
J
j T 1
~
-s F ^F t
C
4p
I
~
Odva010?'~~vn
~ a I G~~ $ 15~~ ~1 yf ,7a3! a~vizcnvvn t Z i p
.rr e J9ff ssims~N lra.owaaviaaaA divNinNOS `t
~ ...---.1...~~SRJ d]dNINNQS
- . - --'----r- .
~ ~ i f~: 1~~ j y~~~~. f •,~i
p r 'w
ZI i
f ~,1~ r _ l
~r~'~~~'~~ ~ a' ~ ~~1~•.~ ~3 ~
, ~ _'Y,' i 'i ~ j - ~ 1 ~ `I w
t~
~ " !,~`=y ~ r - ~
EL 4)~
~Ir1l~Y ' ~ a y~ .
~
i , . ~ ~ 1 - Y • ~ .
~
W
3 ~
Q ~
su W
} ~ ~~I s~ y s a q
•
~
y ~
y ~ - , - _T. L 4' ~~.Y
S ' " . Stl3Abd G31V3H ~ F~ ,
~
, :h " -
'
-
.,~3
-
-
vv
oa~voio~71vn W
i7vnUirvn J i a=
~i~{ ~ff-: ~ ~i ~'AL ~j ~rnH.~ssvNS.wN~Mauaavvxor~am~+anr+o5 i~~~, ~ ~ I ~ t r Q
lNOS3N dl`dN3 N R10S
- - -
!j ' i , •ti ~ti ~ ~3
11 \ Itit i Q,
1 L 5'' ~ ~ .
I ,1` 1 y+t ~ ~ f °t~ • ''t~ r ~
t ~ ~ / l k a
o
I I c t
, ~ 1ik q~ A
9911c~
ti •~s w~ '
-l ` ~ - - ;
~ ~
~
i
.z-
n ~ a.-..~...•---.-..a.~..~_,....._ _e.e.',,
~ f - -T-_ - - - ;'Iif'...~
.--*,f r ° • ~ ~
y ~S ~Ti '1
LL
,
, - ~ - ~ ~
i~
; 1 I
~ ~ r,~ ~ _ ~ ~ r
7,Z ~
`J= ~j
i
a°ODv~aiin~'uvnry~
M3
~oss~v~sm~NlNOu,aavluoH~,.,~~r~,os 1liI1 IE~~ ~d FI a k' ~
dIb'N3Nt{{QS ul~,
~j~~
I
~ w r ~ •
~
i't ~ ~ ~ ~1~~- •r , ~ _
~ ,~s~ ~ ,-,l~ a: ~ 1
f
~
a
.,I^ ~It ~ $ ~ l ''l, -•y 1~ ~f/~ ~ ~`•i+
~ i~~
~ i ~ _ ~ ~
• +~V11 ~ ~ ~ - I ~ ~-~..~1'~ ~ I~ V~'~ s,\\~ .
I y
y}, ~,~i1r ` ~ llr;~ 4~ !r r' •';1 ~+3
s
~t~
6-
j,'
w
~i~ _!~~ti ;'1 ~ ~ ? _ .
LLL ~
~ _ ~ , • ? ~ _
I ~
4 1~ L • ~ ~ .
~.".;"a -q' _ ~e.r
t
'z'~
¢ ' j~ ~t a~ p~l~jz ~~t Et oareo,oayvvn aNW,++a~ Q 5~ g~ ~~1
p I 1A2 j~ 3 3~nlin li h ! J 3
C~r.E ja3~q ~F°aA ~mass~M1.sMaNrtiauaov,3l.aw~a-~vw3HHOS ~.y ~j k w ~
~ii~~~i iui~
1240S321 dldN3NNQS ~
.
~
,
; ~ .
~ .
. ~
i ~
d 1
~n ',1I N I } \ ~ 'e `I ~
4
I~ Y
i 4a'1 S.
y ~
4 ~ ?
1 5 1
t ~
,
~ . o
r IIi ~ f ~y
,-p=w
`t
~
4 R ~ b
\ ~ / ~
- _ ~
~.LS' ~
00"0107tivA
~ r F~x jsxn ~j r 3DvnMirvn ! J a
snvwDssuN.sr,UNrr+dWaavrilo++drvr+3Hnos
12JOS32! dlb'N3NNC3S
- ~l~~II'j!HtM
, , -
~ 1 •
i a
4@ ~
~
. .
i
1 - -,1
~ r, ; ~ ~ ~ ~
9
1 Y
e 1
5'- D
} ,'~-r _f :
~~~~~~a i~ ~ Ih I
I-
~
f ~
- - - - - - - - - - ~
~
~ I
, a a. ! a~vro,1n ,rvn
~ I z c~
l~lOS32I ci1`dN3Nh~lOS LO ~
_ ~IS~tt~~ 3t~,3t? I!~~~LL~ 1~ c~ I
I ~ .
~
,
„
f
I
I 1
,
4
l ~-Z I I
4
r~- t v~ ra
~ ~ " ~ - r r-I~ ,
,?~'~aaa ii i
` tf I li I. 3; ~ il
t I r
l4
uW Uda
3y
I
I
~
I
I
I
3~N~~
~dN - ,
! ~~~stl E `
~ ~?j. /l f ~ ~ ~ ~
q!{,
I~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 4 ~ 1!~`- n `^~.ti ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ 4 1 q 1 i
~ ~ ~ o A _ ~ ~ ,''r
~
. "
r-
, 1 1E
~
' ~ ~ ~'13! ~ 33 11 oa+.~o~a~•,r.n w....~,r I~f1a161i ~ q`
ZnnossMsM3MlkawaavsaLaHaTmlHr+Cs
I
12fOSM dl`dN3NNQS
~ ~fr,~f{.ik
~ J 1
I l ~ 'i !
E:' I i
71
'A~~
_ i
~ i
:
' I-
I M
f"
~~It'~'~ ~ ~ III~c- ~ I
~ -r II
,
n '
/f'°'~~
T
~ i " ~ ~r ~ 1 ~ • I ~ :
~II A
4-0
~
---P-
~ ~
~ i
- ~ ~ ~ s
--r-
~
~r~E~~
oaYnoW 11v,,` J~o 5~3 ~3~~ $j~3l3'Jt'i1In1NA f( _g 1 ~y7F1':; 13~dHD w~' SS~ i
I - J ~ ! 4 j r~..!621,_- It;.JN
i ~ y ~ ~7
• ~ ~
~
I
i • + t : \
' I 1
f J yf: r r
S ~ r
. .
~ Y
u
f i
~ „ -h . ~
1 . - yoa ~ / ~
~ i
i
a W
I;OHMs
w,rqi~s..s~u.yw.~r.~~~
131'dHD SS1MS
~ - ~ ~ -
~
4 WILLCXJJ BR'DGE E2OA,~J~ ~ - / f - I ,
~ ~ Q +
~y~"~
I ' ` - ~ ~ ^a G s ` f I
I ~ • a ~ ~ i
er
aqC
Q 4= ~ i
~ fr o - e I
Iz" 2 ` r ao.
J r Z s ~
I q:. r ~J
~ ~ 00
In
4--- ~ ~ IL
f r
\ ~ ~ , r7
,
~ ~l\ 1 I I
I
- - - --------I
'CJ
'Jt!'v
~
m~
ln ,q '•y~
a yr, ~`•,-/',,i~~C;:
4~ -
1 I ~_-n'` f
~ .
i ~ ~ g •
f q a=
~
013veo103 ,nn d---, ~{~~,1(! III56`~~= Q t~1 I
o [~r~ °y f $ g{'' !I ~ 3_]YINAl1VA
YukPltn9a~i"ola3s~iPrtwnfvi~~
~ ~.z! ~~~Y1 ~~3?t
~ ~ ;i ~!3 3 f .1.3~V~"~J SSjf~ 3
~
~ i
~ Y, ` ? ~ I
a~,',s °{,~y~. ~ - r"•~ r ~
•[J'... '
r_ • ~ ? ~ ,~4 .
R.." ~ II ' £ :tJ
T fJ
I 5 y k _ I ~
_'J !
Y
r
~ ~ 1 II
,a~, E lr s. I ~o
I r1 j "
1-
~ y
.
= ~
, i1?,~?#~ ~ ~ ~ j ~ ~ ~
a L111'/W
g~as 4
~wi~ ~~~w°p""~ 1 ~ ~'~9~ wJ ~
~ ~ • I~ ~~5~~ ~~~3~ '1i3a1 ~ r..w,we ..13]V71
S'StMS ~
:
~
,
7 ~ f Yf y LL- ~ (•._f
! =\3
+f /
!
,
~ - /
. ,
~ - /
~ ~
d ' -
9~ ~ 1
~ r
,ti •
I F/ f
r
~
~ 6 oav+~io»avn A~~x i. . I'
23~„IA ,WA
'Y s~ k ~ 1_ f y~~ ~ ~ 9u~~ine «i uo~~xrs w~ ~.,wr~++oaw~ i.sf. ~ j 9 f lL Q ~+~p p+ I ~
[--3~VH~ SSI/~/~S ~wA z,~ i
- - - - - ~
B
V
J ~
~ ~y 6
!
` ~ I Y r~G: \ ` `~1 - af' r ~ ~
i `
i? FE,
~
'
~
~ ; ~I I
c,
~ - I
; ~ ,
- ~
oarao,03 'wn
vn ervn
tA1wg ~xLw~a
IS~A s" ~ iTI a . . ~ II
13~HD SSIMS j ~if
. ~s,~~ Ii.~.~~~ ~ I
b`
- ~
~
a,;
~ f `n C~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~y~F~~<4;~ ~9.
,t .
A
~ r .I.~yi . . . ` ~ -
, .
.
I
, - .~i 1 ~ • •
~ ~
~
~ L_ .a~ ~ /
jo,
rY
I . ~
~ I.''. i
~ ~ ~ ..i ~ _ `4 ly ~I' i
, E
C _a
'-_,----r ~
r ~L T ~
~ i fsa- - sR°.) fi I
ti t
J~ \
r'
I ? - ~ f t~y~4~ ~
`
I O ~ '~'"a I F ~ ~ ~ \ \
~ \ ~ 1
\
~
~ 1- ~ 1 I f ft
~J~ ~i- ~ pf 1~j~t 6avbdia7~evn dwwwr i~~{{~i~l{~~ ~ i~1~;'Q 7
.ra a~~s afs ~ s 3~vn,nzrvh Le ~ ~1~
~~dHD SSr,MS
~ T
~
i~
r
~
' 1~ ~ ,
~~x
~
- i ~ ~ ' 1
~ T ~ I T i qi
~INK- 1 ~
~ti
I iL ~~'~I~F+ei ~ 3
i ? . f . ,
•~~.I._~~ - - ~ 4~: f ~
r- a- -
J -F-
I
f=
~ ~
I 4 ~~~5; iv33, 4 ~ ~,va~,o~•,n~ .~~W~,~r Fm,
i a~
4~IPItn9«l W~
~~~'H
1~ D SS[MS I„
~
;
` I~
7irA!.. " yi ~
R~ ti~{'E I~~~ ` b y
Eg~~
I J
I~ w~ I
~
s
'
i:.M
I
x...........
~ ~ I I r ::k. + • ~ I
%r...--r 7T ~i ~ ~.t~k ~ t"-t`Lx-.~ ~ I
~
~ ~fiT~
t4
~
Y
!J~1-'il'L',~.:~~,--~`~
\ - T
, 42'tP r
1
Approved 1 0114/02
John Sc field asked for a public input, fQll ed by Commissi ers comments.
Geo e Lamb asked AI ' on for some alter atives.
ison Ochs said t re are infill portio of the !ot that ca be utilized inside f the lot ~
ithout encroachi g inta the setbac t the outsid@ bou dary.
Lynn Fritzlen id she would Iike o address the int nal area, as it is s mewhat large. 5
said the HO wanted to prese e the existing cir ation and the se i-public open are _
She said ew blockage and arridors wauld be ffected as welf a as an architect, ' would
be an a antage to encour c-e associatians t adopt guidelines at rnake things e ier.
Roll' Kjesbo saed that hen looking at th site, he agrees t t it seems logical enclose
th e decks, bvt it is at something we ould do on an in vidual basis. He 4ught it was
eat what Calds#r m is doing.
George Lamb id it seems sa pe and frustrating en you have gui fines that have a
1€ne drawn, b that is where it i perhaps having j t tho5e three unit as the adjustrrnen . i
aflug Ca I said the line is awn and you sho d come back wit n applieation tha s
campre ensive for ali the ected units.
Ja Schofie3d sugge ed to Lynn to tabl and come back h an appfication at
a resses the whol ite.
Allison Ochs sai the conditions in e rrmemo suggest at if the PEC ch ses to apprave
that they reca end to the coun that the setback or all of parcel B acEjusted to 15'.
John Scho 'eld said he didn't ink that is what want to do; mak a blanket change o the
whole sit .
Lynn ritzlen clarified h,~oint. She saicf e had nat looked it in terms ~f alt ng the
set ack, but we were oking #o just be le to enclose the ecks. She said w do nat want
t encaurage encro chment inta the s ack. She said s e is haping the c munication
etween the Ha and the planners proves and we auld like to see t guidelines part
;
of the SDD. '
pllison Och said she would n recammend mak` g the design gul wnes a part of th
SDD. Sh said #he setback ' part of the SDQ d there has to be publRC benefit in rder
to amen the setback line.
L.yn ritzlen said, goi back to the sugg stion of tabling, t t she woul'd like t ring
at ntian to our requ t and they are ha y to Ic~ok at it bot ways. She said ' yau want to
ake an amendrn t to an SDl7, it sh Id be universal.
George Lamb r commended #abii this application the next meetin or the purpose of
the applicant oking at the thre affected units an hanging the set ck area sa that t
cantemplat irnprovements n be within the a ndecf setback a canfine the cha es
to those ecific areas.
Roili jesbo seconded e moiion.
T e rnation passed a vote af S-Q. ~
4. A request for a worksession to discuss a proposed magor exter'ror alteration: a canditional
use perrnit to allow for a fractiQnal fee club in the Public Accommodation zone district; a
variance from Section 12-7A-2 (Permitted Uses), Vail Town Code, to allovu far retail uses in
9
Attachment: D
Approued l al14/02
excess of 1 Q°!o of the total grass residential flaor area of the structure; and a variance fram
Sectian 12-7A-1 Q(Landscaping & Site Development), Vail Town Code, to allow for a
deviation from the total Iandscape area requirement, 1acated at 20 Vail Road, 62 E. Meadow
~ Drive, and 82 E. Meadow DrivelLots K& L., Block 5E, Vail Village 1 S1 Filing.
Applicant: Sonnenalp Properties, Ine., represented by Braun Assoeiates, [nc.
PEar+ner: George Ruther/UVarren Campbeil
Warren Campbell introduced the file and gave a descriptian of the request and meniioned
that this is just a wark session and staf# will not be giuing a recommendation. He then rEad
from page 2 of the staff inemo and gave a chronalagy. He read from page 5 from the staff
memo regarding applicable d4cuments and read the goals of the Vail Village Master Plan.
He said the site is lacated within two Iand use designations and cavered access
opportunities, as listed in the staff inemo. He also braught up the TOV 5treetscape Master
Plan and stated there were six issues staff wanted clarification on at this hearing:
1. Complete deveiopment applicateon;
2. lat or site area;
3. praposed setbacks;
4, sunfshade ana[ysis;
5. mitigation of develapment impacts;
6. access requested by the Talisrnan off E. Meadow Drive.
He then said the erfteria are outlined in the staff inerno.
Qominick Mauriello introd+aced the applicants and went through the project and presentatian
and gave the apen space recornmendatians frorrt the WMP. He said the plan recorrrmends
there be a plaza space and open 5pace and ouo' p[an includes these. He said we are
proposing landscaping and open space on the site and that the parking and circu4ation plan
~ calls for very little or no vehicle actiuity in areas reserved for pedestrians. He said there was
Cimited irnpact and ihe Buifding Height Plan, in the VVMP, was used in the past for people
deviatirag from iheir zoning. He said they were proposing samethEng that corriplies wi#h the
zoning. He mentioned the goals and action steps with the first one having ta do with Vaif
Road and the town implementirrg same of that and this propasal reflec#s the same direction.
He said infill retail and ladging are what's called for by the plan in this location and this is
what we're proposing and that pedestrian activity is accommodated by our propasal in
keeping with the P9an. He said parking is accommadated by the parking structure, the Port
Coehere, and at the Talisman. He said they believed there is a balance that needs #o be
achieved with these palicies. He said the next issue is the Swiss Haus. He said praviding
additions to the existing building is what the plan calis for, and they were doing that with a
new building. He said fire issues have been worked through with Mike McGee. He said the
Streetscape Master Plan is reflected in our proposal 9$°/a and that yau wan't see cars; you'll
see buildings. He said with regard to setbacks, that they have wc?rked within the PA zone
district's standards for setbacks_ He said the rear setback is very accurate and that aur
proposed buclding will be in essentialfy the sarne location that it is in now. He said the
Town's plan focuses on sun/shade analysis and the shadows are pretty much contained in
one area. He said the urban design elements are not addressed by staff, but are a big part
of the plan and that there is also a whole provisian about street edge that says buildings can
come up to the property line along the street. He mentianed in aur proposed plan, we do
achieve many of the urban design guidelines. He said dining decks are mentioned in the
rnemo and the plan helps preserve some quality ar2as, such as La Bottega's. He said the
final issue I'd fike to address is with respeCt to access to the 7a6isman and that today, they
have 20 spaces. He stated that the Public Mall Act of 1974 allows communities to define
spaces for public mall access and that the tawn wants ta encourage kess auto and more
~ pedestrian traffic. He saicf the point is that we have worked hard with the Tafisman to
address the access `rssue.
TQm 8raun said a project like this is all about balance and the owner, the neighbors, and the
Town: all have interests at stake. HE said there are many plans and policies that are in
10
Apprcaved 10f14f02
place here and it's likely that no one is gQing to get everything that they want in this deal.
Russ Farrest said there are many pasitive aspects to this project and we just need to
address the issues as soon as passible. ~
Jim Lamant said he has a ringing enc6orsement af this projec#. He said Johannes calfed me
three years ago and asked me what we {HOa} would think of a praject like this and an
arnendment to lhe PA zone district. .Jim said we've got to distinguish between wants and
needs. He said we had an indavidual that questioned the switch to pedestrian from vehicular
access to the town and Johannes was the #ir5t to offer a cure with the loading and delivery
sysiem. He said we are making key steps in aur loading and delivery sysxems in the TOV
and #his proposal is a big part nf this progress.
Gwen Scarpello said uve have nat seen the de#ail but, in general, we are very supportive of
this proposal.
Larry Eskwith said the Talisman has conceptually agresd to this develapment and is in the
process a# working out a development agreerrient with the Sor+nenalp. He said vrre do not
want the PEC to think that all of the issues have been resalved and that aceess is going to
be an issue. He said other than some issues, we think the project is a good one and there
has been goad eommunicatian between the TalFSman and Sonnenalp.
Jerry Orten said he was here on behalf of 7 owners of the Tafisman who have some af the
same cancerns that Larry just outlined. He said the issues rewolve around #he ways in ~
which the redewelopment of the Sonnenalp will effect the Takisman, such as rnass & bulk, ;
the setback issue, realignment o# property lines, and the possib+lity of the Talisman to
redevelopment itself not being hinderecf. 'VVe ask that their signattares be required as a
condition of approval and the Talisman 7 wauld iike to be a part nf the decisian #or this ~
proposal.
John Sehofield said we cannot resoEve these issues between you; you all have to da that
amongst yourselves and as4ced i# Chere was any further public comment? He said this is
str+ctly a work sessian and we vvill not be making a decision taclay. He said speeificaily, we
have item,s that staff would like feedback on and that having been said, I'll #urn to Gary.
Gary Hartman said he is encouraged by what I've seen so far, but there is a big issue of
hcaw do we look at this as a whole? He said he wonders if there is a way to make the
Talisman mare eompliant with the peclestrian quality of the area and to make it much mare
compatibEe. He said the spa [ooks like an afterthought and the retail along both franiages
seems excessive and do we really need that much aver there? He stated that there are
vacant sfores an 6ridge Street naw.
Doug Cahill said the application is being taken care of, I assurne> but the valet parking ~
seems to be an issue. He said the landscaping percentage could be an issue in the long '
run for the whale site, inc6uding the TaCisrnan. He asked if it is ane lot or is it three and that
this will be an issue as vve mc?ve forward unless it is resalved. He said the 20' setbacks can
be addressed by stepping back parts of the buildings and putting the retail aut. He said he
would rather see some mawement there and the bullt and nnass pu9led back a bit. He said
that sunshine during the winter shoued be rnaximized and on-site mitigations through
landscaping is needed and that he was not stuck on the retai] number.
Gearge Lamb said he is in concurrenc€: v+rith everything said sa far and that the Talisman is ~
the reaE issue and he hopes it gets worked ouf and suggested that the Swiss Chalet could
be stepped back a bit.
ll
Appraved 10/14f02
Rollie Kjesba said that obviausly, if you're gning ta have one lot, the Talisman wila have ta be
on the application and he agrees that the 4 stories straight up on ihe property line is not
going to work.
~ John Schofield asked what ihe current setbacks are right now?
Darriinick Mauriello answered on the existing Sflnnena6p along Vail Drive they are in the
neighborhaod of 15 to 20 feet.
John Schofield said that the Talisrnan folks need to be aware of what their lirnitations are
caneerning future developments. He said if you do rao# get that property into one parcel, I
tlnink you're all stuck; the Talisman mare sQ than the Sonnenalp. He said from Staff's
standpaint, if it does not come in as one application, then we have to start looking at
indEViduaE aecess and setbacks #rom internal praperty lines. He said parking definitely
remains an issue and he thinks we need to hear from staff regarding Ioading and delivery
and setbacks remain an issue as well.
DomFnick IV1aurie9lca safd the Talisrnan is out of eonformarrce today and what we're
prQposing will bring them more into compleance in several areas and moving the buildEng
does not do much about reducing the shadaw.
Tom Braun said the setback and sunlshade issues are all interrelated and the ground level
retail rnight be right up to the street, is that correct? Yes, ok.
John Schofield asked a question af Russ regarding the Talisrnan's use af the 250 addition.
Russ Farrest said ihey have it ava6lable but with its Iacation alang the setback on the creek
~ side it would prove difficu[t to make addi#ions to individuaf units. He addecE that staff had a
Ietter from the Talisman saying its ok ta go #hrough the pracess, but that they do not
authorize any plan or portion thereof and asked if it was the boards opinion that the
Talisman needs to sign the application as an applicant?
Jahn SchafieCd stated yes. He added that he would like to see how the traffic circuiatien will
work on '41Jillow Drive.
5. A r ~est for a condi ' nal use permit, 96 allow far a publi utiiity installatio , located at the E t
/Applicant: Water Tank, 5 4 Snowshoe L e/Summer Recr ational Area, V' Meadows Fiiin .
T n of Vail
nner; ill Gibson
Allison Och . Intradueed ihe e.
Julie An rson stated the ublic safety issu is crucial to ma ize radio cover ge for police,
fire and merger~cy serv' es.
Jah chofield asked or comments fr PEG mernber
orge Lamb sai we looked at th site and the S wshoe Lane si is bust and it i my
nderstanding th t the ERWSD di not want that.
~ Qoug Cahill r ommended that ix trees be plan d in front af the wer.
Gary Hard n made a moti n for approval, ith the canditia ihat six evergre n trees be
planted f screening.
1
Approved 10/28102
Rol e Kjesb/sonded approve the a plicat@on as st~b itted, with the fi ings and
c ditions listaff inemora dum
George Lamthe moti The motion a vote 7-0.
3, A request for a worksession to discuss a propased major exterior alteratian; a conditional
use permit to allow far a fractional fee club in the PubliG Accommodation zone district; a text
amendment to Section 12-7A-3 (Conditional Uses) to allow for retail uses in excess of 10°l0
of the total gross residential floor area of the structure as a conditional use; and a varianee
from Section 12-7A-10 (Landscaping & Site Development), Vail Tawn Code, to allaw for a
deviatian from the tatal landscape area requirement, IQCated at 20 Vail Road, 62 E. Meadow
Drive, and 82 E. NPeadow DrivelLots K& L, Block 5E, Vail Village 15` Filing.
Applicant: Sannenalp Properties, fnc., representecE by Braun Associates, lnc. ~
Planner. Gearge Ruther/Warren Gampbell
John Schofield stated that the discussion today would focus on the addition to the
Sonnenalp Hotel only with additional issues being discussed at a later meeting.
George Ruther presented an overview of the staff memorandum.
Qominic Maurie6lo presented an overview af the praject. He stated thai they wanted to
focus the discussion on the hotel additian at the Sonnenalp. He highlighted the changes
that have been made fram the last presentation, specifiically pointing out where the setbaeks
have been increased.
BiEI Amass, president of Talisman Homeowners Association, staxed that they have had ~
concems abaut setbacks from their property. He stated that it appears that it went higher
than 48 ft. and closer than the drawings they originally approved.
John 5chvfield stated that this application is con#ingent upon the Ta6isman's appravai as the
appltcation will come in on behalf of both the 5annenalp and the Talisman.
Mike Fcaster, architect with Resort Design Associates, stated that the builcCing has actually
reduced in height, except for the architectural projection. W4!'ith regards to setbacks, he
stated that a partion of the built6ing did get claser #o the TalESman property, but that the spa
area has actually moved further fram the Talisman.
John Schofield closed the public camment portian of the hearing.
Gary Hartman stated that the massing of the building feels Eaet#er than Iast time and said his
concerns are based on the Sun/Shade impact and how the pedes#rian walkway/arcade will
work and wondered if the arcade could be broken up a little more. He said he would like #o
see some site sections across Meadow Dr. to understand haw the pedestrian experience
feels.
Doug Cahill agreed with Gary a.nd also requested prafiles of how the building steps. He
thought that beyond the first leveE, the building would step back dramaticafly and tne
sunlshade impact would be reducecE. He further stated that the east/west alignment made
sunfshade exiremely important.
Ericksan Shirley agreed wi#h the concerns with the sunl5hade, the mass, and the pedestrian ~
experience. He voicect his coneern that in Beauer Creek, the pedestrian areas are aEways in
the s'hade, which makes far a very cold environment and the pedestrian experience is
impacted_ He also had concerns about views and ihat decks alang the street are popular,
3
Appr4vec! 1 0f28102
and it would be laeneficial to maintain these and statetl that it's a benefit to aCl no# to rnake
the street toa cold.
~ Rallie Kjesba was pleasantly surprised to see the changes and asked if they had any
contact with the VaiC Village Inn P'hase V.
Daminic Mauriello talk.ed about the open houses ihey have had and the Iimited response
fram the Vail Village Inn.
Gearge Lamb reiterated his feflow Commissioners' comments. He encouraged the
applicant ta continue workEng with the Planning and Enviranmental Comrnission.
John Schofield requested #hat the appiicant provrde the exact setbacks on the pGans and in
future presentations. He stated that they will need additional inforrnation regarding the 10°/a
retail requirement and stated that there is a common advantage far both the Sannenafp and
the Talisman to get together and make it work. He requested informatioR abaut thc garage
and beIng impacted by the sewer fine.
Mike Faster clarified the issues with the sewer line ancE said refocating it only picked up
abaut 5 spaces, which wasn't economicaEly feasible.
John Schaf+eld stated that they wvuld only see this praject again once the Urban Design
Consu6tant was an board, and once the issues with the Talisrraan have been resalved.
George Ruther stated that there is no future hearing scheduled at this time.
4. /eq
t for a recornrne dation to the Vai own Council, to Ilmw far a te~ct a endment to
~ 2-88-3 (Cand" onal Uses), Vail ow
n Code, ta all w for "seasona! se or
" as a conditf nal use in the O oor Recreation one district; text endments ta
2-2-2 (Dsf' itior~s), Vail Tow Code, tc~ arnend e defir~itians of " easonal use or
"recrea r~ s4ructurean recreational a nity," and settin arth details in
regars thereto; nci a req~est far conditianal use ermit, to alsaw fo a"seasonal ~ase r
structure," ir~ t C)utdoor Recre on zone dis#rict, cated at 1778 V il Valley Drivela
unplatted tra of fand withir~ S tion 9, Townshi SoutF~, Range West ofi the Si
Prime Meri an generally !ac ed directly north Lot 3, Sunburst `d Filing within t Vail
Colf Cour e. A complete m tes and bounds escription is avai ble at #he Depa ent of
Comrrau ty Development.
App{' ant: Vail Ju ' r Hockey Assoe` tion and the Vai ecreation Distri
PI ner: Bill Gi son
ill Gibson gave presentation per e staff repart.
Rick Pylman r resented the ~l ' Hockey Associ on and VRD. H talked abaut ho he
facility has b en in use the pa two winters and o there was not whole {ot to add '
regards to e vision of tF~e p ject. i~e stated at the increase i hockey and figu ska#ing
participa' n is the reason other ice rink is eeded. He said obsan is under i creased
pressur for use by non-i events. He sai he is requesting n extension to t previous
appro af and again not the need for th acility.
Ri Etogers stated was a full time sident of Vail wi a daughter who Iays on a team
d so he suppart the bubble and id it is a win-win ituativn far every ody. He said it
~ as nice to have o sheets of ice urang tourname play. He said th lacatian an
recreatianal la is great, since f is during a diff ent season of u and the parkin ot
exists current , w[hich is great.
4
12-20-02 ~
1'ubliC WorkS
Sannenalp Resort Comments
1. Pfease prnwide floodplain study analysis. Is this 2002 JF Sato study based on the FEMA 14$1
adapted study?
2. Loading and Delivery. See re-design on rnarked up Shaet A2A regarding grades and 6uilding
e9evations.
a. Prlpst be provided within property
b. Not in front setback
c. AIC turning rnqvements must be accommodated within the pxaperty. (i.e. backup & turn-
around)
d. The minimum bay size is 12x25, for this facility we will require 1-12x50, 1-12x40, 2-
1205, plus trash.
3. PA Zone district requires a traffic mitigation af $50001 each net Pm peak trip. May be offset by
impeovements. Credit for additional loading,
4. Farlcing plan provides too many valet spaces. Any 90 degree space that daes not have a 24' drive
aisle and room to turn around without another vehicle moving is considered a vaGet space.
5. How does the canneccion fram loading get to kitchen storage aceas?
6. Please provide a sun/shade analysis.
7. Encroachment at intersection of Meadaw Drive and Willowv Bridge Road is unacceptable.
Streetscape plan wants to encourage a special event plaza. This plan reduces the area of the pfaza.
Streetscape plan requires 2' conerete pan, 2 1 ' roadway, and another 2' concrete pan with
additional walkway area of 8' minimum alono soutla ItOW line. It is intended that the walkway
extend around carner af Swiss Haus and down Willow Bridge Road without grade separation.
Grade change (steps) from sueet level to Swiss Haus entry must be accomnnodated outside of ~
ROW line. Streetscape plans intend to rnaximize intersectian space for special event venue, See
actached 1"=30' scaie re-design sketch.
8. Show transit stops
9. Show all existing storm sewer.
10. Provide a utility relacatian plan
11. Storm drain under building needs to be relocated and tied to system on Vail Rd. Shading of
raadway will require drainage system to colleet vuater quicker aff the surface and be put into storm.
system.
12. Frovide pedestrian easement along East Meadow Drive.
13. Sight distance at Vail Rd.fMeadow Drive and Meadow I]r.l Willaw Bridge Itd, intersections rnust
be maintained as wefl as a11 access points.
14. Please be consistent will e6evat?ons.
15. Transit stqps should not be in neck dnwns.
16. Developer to incorporate Public Art needs to co4rdinate with AIPP.
17. Developer to incorporate streetscape improvements along entire frontage plus tie in beyond.
Streetscape to match Town of Vail plan, improvements to include all work, drainage
unpravements, planter walls, lighting, street furniture, walls, pavements and heat if required etc,..
18. Provide 30" sign easement.
19. Final site plan to be consistent with and caordinated with the East Meadow Drive Streetscape
desagn.
ZQ. Lighting plan: Number of architectural light fixtures is excessive and inconsistent with tt3e
streetscape plans. Fixtures have exposed light saurce this will cause considerable g9are. Applicac2t
shauld consider having a professional ligltting desigti and washing wa11s wiCh concealed libht
source. Lighting of the street can be accomplished thrvugh the streetscape design.
21. Vail Road Intersection: Modify walking areas t4 better align with crasswalk lacatian. Retain
planting along edge vf neck down area with modifications.
22. Consider placing small planting areas at the base of the colurrrns along Bavaria house. ~
' 23. Shc,w all driveway grades.
At#achment: E
~ 24. All da-iweway and garage ramps rnnst comply with TOV standards for commercial/multiple
dwelling units standards.
25. Please staow all proposed drainage, a ading inciuding Zandscape drains, roof drains etc...
26. Show limits of disturbance line and provide construction fencinb.
27. Pravide parkinb numbers.
28. A PE designed Erosion and setliment contro] plan will be required along with a Storm water
discharge perrnit.
29. Provide a Construction agreement with tkae 'I"a?isman.
30. How wiEi the deep excavations be supported as to not to impact Tow^n or private praperty?
31. Show Fire access and staging areas.
32. At East Meadow Drive and Vail Road incersection plans must maintain an 8' rninimum walkway
along edge vf roadway for coniinuous pedestrian circulation through the "neck drawn" roadway
area.
33. Submitted plans seern to cpntain survey discrepancies wit.FA adjacent peoperCy improvements along
narth side of roadiv'ay. Sheet A2. I contains inconsistencies with existing walllwailc locatian on
Vail Raad. Verify accuracy of survey.
34. Talisman surface parking. ,
a. 24 spaces existirag, 21 spaces propmsed. Is the propQSed number of spaces acceptable or
are all 24 spaces required?
b. Parking lat area = 7637 SF X 30°r'o = 2291 SF required snow storage if unheated
(X 10% = 764 SF heated). Pians do nat indicated heated parking area. Plarys do not
indicate required snow storage areas.
c. Parallel parking spaces shown at 8'X1$", 9'X24' is required. E3aclcing space conflicts
with adjaceni parkin; space at 2 9ocations.
d. F?rive tane width indicated at 29', 24' eequired. Extra space rr9ay be better utilized as
landscapelsnow storage.
e. DeveGopment Standards require interiar landscaping to be not less than 10% of lat area.
~ 10% = 764 SF with onlv 54 SF shown.
35. Talisman access.
a. Access to Talisman surface lot can be prdvided from Swiss Chalec parking garage via a
steep heated rarrip (70' @[6%a or 94' @ i 2°/a) without any lass of parking spaces.
Assumes ail parties can play nice toge4her_
b. If access must be provided frorn East Meadaw Drive m4ve access paint as far east as
possible ta minimize distance that vehicles infringe on pedest?-iari zane. Returns
condition as close as passible to existing asrangement.
C. Additionat modEfications to streetscape plar?s and deveioprnent requirements may be
necessary after the town decides how tQ accommadate unrestrieted vehicufar Eraffic in the
pedestrian zone.
~
~
Sonnenalp Comments `
27 December 2002 ~
Todd Qppenheimer
1, Talisrnan surface parking.
a. 24 spaces existing, 21 spaces proposed. Is the propased number of spaces
acceptable or are alI 24 spaces required?
b. Parking lot area = 7637 SF X 30% = 2291 SF reguired snow storage
if unheated (X10% = 764 SF heated). Plaras da not indicated heated
parking area. Plans do not indicate required snow storage areas.
c. Parallel parking spaces shawn at 8'X18", 9'X24' is required. Backing
space conflicts with adjacent parking space at 2locations.
d. Drave lane width indzeated at 29', 24' required. Extra space rnay be better
utilized as landscapelsnow storage.
e. Developrnent Standards require interior landscaping to be not less than
1 Q%a of lot area. 10% = 764 SF with anly 54 SF shown,
2. Meadow Drive.
a. Streetscape plan requires 2' eancrete pan, 21' roadway, and anothez 2'
concrete pan with additional walkway area of minicnum along south
RQW 1ine. It is intended that the walkway extend araund corner of Swiss
Haus and dovm Willow Bridge Raad without grade separation.
b. Grade change (steps) from street level to Swiss Haus entry m.ust be ~
accommodaied outside of ROW line. Streetscape plans intend ta
maxymize intersection space for special event venue.
c. Submitted plans seern to contain survey discrepancies with adjaeent
property impravements along narth side of raadway. Verify accuracy of
survey.
d. At East Meadow Drive and Vail Road intersection plans must maintain an
8' rninimum waTkway along edge of roadway for continuaus pedestrian
circulation through the "neck down" roadway area.
e. Maintain minimum walkway along edge of roadway through Talisman
Frontage.
3. Talisman access.
a. Access to Talisman surface lot carp be provided from Swiss Haus parking
garage via a steep heated ramp (?Q' @ 16% or 94' @ 12%0) without any
lass of parking spaces. Assurnes all parties can play niee together.
b. Xf access rnust be provided from East Nleadow Drive tnove access paint as
far east as possible to minirn.ize distance that vehicles infringe on
pedestrian zane. Returns condition as close as possible to existing
arrangement.
c. Additional modifications to streetscape plans and development
requirements may be necessary aftcr the town decides haw to
accomznodate unrestricied vehicular traffic in the pedestrian zone.
~
~ AsSOCIATES
VArL UuBa,N DE;s[cN Wvww
SONnENALP HQ'fEL ADDITTON
13 January 2003
Urban Design
¦ Com iies 0 Partiall com lies ? Non-com liant
¦Pedestrianization Arcade warks well with strect shared with buses.
¦5treet Enclosure Street enclosure a ears to have 1 ro riate % to 1 raTio.
C7Strcet Edge Screet cd-e at pedes[rian level fagade is fairly uniform to the edge of the street. It
does nok provide an equivaEene variation to (ar even reflect) that of the VVI
opposite. One possiblc soluEion would be to (a) enlarge the inset in the middle of t
retaiE s ace; b) add additional insets (such as at either end of'tlre retail s aee.
? Buildin g Hei ht See TOV staff cornments.
¦Views Not a ee =ulated vietiv corridar
DSunlshade Based on 5trcet Sec[icros (A 1.5), building will increase equinox shade to 50%0 of th
stireet. A ossibie soiutian is to set the buildin baclc further ta the south.
~ Merviceldeliver}r Not clear haw delivery to retail will be handled. Delivery truc'ks on tlnis sectic,n af
East Meadaw Drive wauld be a problean. No prowision is evident tb provide delirre
~ access from the south side of the new building (through the office space). It appear
that it rnay be possible for delivery truclcs to park ou Vail Road and hand truck
around the kvest end of the new building. Possible solutions: head height aPlow
deliveries from parking garage? Prmvide delivery acccss from port-cochere and
courtyard through office s ace to retail area.
ArchitecturelLantiscape Architecture
¦Roofs Gable roofs are ccrosistenE with uidelines and existirr Sonnenal building.
¦Overhan s Good
¦Facades Gopd
? Color P1ot shown
¦Windows Good
¦Window details Good
¦Doors Good
¦Trim Good
¦Decks/ atias Good
¦Balconics Good
¦Accent elements Good
¦Landscape t'iood
Discussion:
Since East Meadow Drive in this location is a major pedestrian way for the Village, it is imgortant to
achieve a"Vai9" character. Ti he existing eonditidn is not ideal-with parking Iats screened by a bertn.
However, thcrc is a pleasant dappled sunlight tEuough the spruce trees #kat makes tlie current walk a cLice
~ counterpoint to the hard edges in the Village. Neveriheless, the Urbara Design Guide P1an has always
Yail-Sonnenalp Addlllon2 PSge YUfl
2299 PEAR~ STREE3, SU13E 100 • BQIJLMR, CO 80302 303-440-9200 • FAX 303-449-8911 •
jtwinston@winstqnassociates.com
At#achmen#: F
.
~
~
Sonnenalp Rdttftion
Yail L'rharr Desfgrr Review
YYinsrnn : lssociates, Inc. ~
1/9/2003
necammended that the parking lots in #his area be replaccd by a buildir,g that wauid provide "enclosure"
to the street.
Our overall eoncerns with the current proposal are as fo?lows:
1. The building as proposed will greatly increase the shadow on the street. It needs to be sharter, or set
baek further from the street, or both (shorter in some areas, set back en others). As per the Urban
Design Guidelines, it is acceptable, even ciesirable, to have sarne variety of "enclosure". That it, the
building may narrow down the strcet brictly (to cven a l to 1 ratio) and then open up again.
2. The ground Icve1 north fagade clasely 1Snes the strrc[ edge. Gontrast that with the pockets created in
the VVI faqade opposite. Nat ihat the Sonncnalp necds to mirror the V'VI, but a greater stcpping back
ancl forth af the ground 4eve1 faqade would add some relief to an othenvise fairty uniform plane.
1 Although it coulci be argued that the Talisman provides rzlief tQ the street, that is not gnaranteeci into
the future. We have to assume that eventually the Talisman may redevelop and will request the same
conditions as the Sannenalp was granted.
4. Having said that, is there no way ta accommodate the Talisman parking underground and create a .
nice park to replace the parking?
JT W
I
Drawings Reaiewed: S4NNENALP RESORT, Sonnenalp Hotcl Additiory/New 5wiss Chalet, Resort Design
Associates Intemational, 12/16102 Submittal. '
~
~
Vail-Sonnenalp Addi13pn2 ~ pagg 2 I
303-440-9200 • FAX 303-449-6911 9 Win1320@ApL.C0M ~ 2299 PEARL STREET, SUITE 100 • BOULDEFi, CO 80302
i
WINSTON AsSOCIATES'
t a - le
VAiL iJRBA.[v DEs[cN REviEw
NEW SwVttifi iC1-IALET
] 3 Janiiary 2003
Urban Design
¦ Complies 0 Partiall com lies O Non-com liant
¦Pedestrianization
? Street Enclosure Inattequate information to assess. However, given conciitions, assume that building
conforms to %z to 1 ratio.
?Street Edge I4iorth side faqade at pedestrian level is fairly uniform to the edge of the street. It
does not pravide the variatioza suggested in the Ur6an Design Gu9delines. [7ne
ossible solution would be to acid an insct or ste out to break u the flak lane.
? Buildina Hef ht See TOV statf commr:nts.
¦Views Nat a re ulated view corridor
? 5un/shade Sectian tluou h street noc included in drawin set.
? Service/delivery Not c6ean cow deli4•ery to retail will be handled. Delivery trucks an East Meac3ow
Drive tivould be a roblem.
~ ArchitecturelL,andscape Architeeture
¦Roofs Gable roofs are consistent with uidelines and existin Sonnenal buildinC.
¦Overhangs Good
¦Facades Good
? Color I*!ot shov4n
¦ Windows Good
¦Window detaias Gaod
¦Domrs Goad
¦Trim Good
ODecksJ akios Cencem wit}t proxirriiC of ool to Gore Creek and resuitin > T retaining wall.
¦Balconies Good
¦Accent elem,ents Good
¦Landsca e Gaod
Discussion:
Since East Meadow Drive in this location is a major pedestrian 4vay for the Vi13age, it is important to
achieve a"Vait" character. The existing eanditipn is not ideal-with parking iats screened by a berm.
However, there is a pleasant dappled sunlight through the spruce trees that rnakes the eurrent walk a ruee
counterpoint to the hazd edges in the Village. Nevertheicss, tEie LJrban Design Guide P[an has al.vays
reeommended thai the parking lots in this area be replaeed by a tsuilding that would pxovide "enc34sure"
to the street.
Our overall conccrns with the eurrent proposal are as follows:
1. Likc the Sonncnalp, on thc north side this is essentially a Fair3y long (220'), four-story building
~ pushed very close to the street on the north side. I suggESt: '
a. a careiul analysis of the sunlshade impEications; and
VaII-New SwisS Gha1e91 Page IQfi I
2299 PEARL STREET, SUITE 140 • LDIJLWR, l:d $0302 303-440-9200 • FAX 303-449-6911 •
j[winStDn@vwinstonassociaies.com
I
New Ssviss Chulet ~
Vaal Urbart Dc:sign RPView
Y['fnston r4ssoc•iate,s, Inc, ~
1l9/2(]03
b. sorr?e mQdu[ation of the nDrth building mass. Possib3y this could be done by rcducing the height
of the eentrap roof section (there is already sBightly iower roof there between the dormer
windows), and perhaps even stepping the faqade bacic at this point too. This wvuld break up the
buifding mass a Eitde and present a less monolithic brailding to the strcet,
2. Regazdiess of what happens to [he upper portinn af the building, the grotind 1cvGl nUeth fayade is a
fairly skraight continuous plane. Cantrast that with the open pockcts in the fa4zde opposite to the
north. Greater stepping back and farth of the grOund level fagacic wauld acid sozne relief ta an
otherwise fairly unifqrm plane,
3. The plantcrs along the north side appear to create narrow walkways that ln tivuiter will be separated
fram 3he strcet by piles of snow (in the planters). Suggest adjusting the pianters ta allow widening the
narrowest wa1k5.
4. It appears that the pool requires a 7' high retaining wall along the top of creek bank. Pushing the poal
to the north rvill allow a more natural creek barilc condition.
JT W
Drawings Reviewed: SC?NNEIVALP ItESORT, SonnenaEp Hatel Adciition/New 5wiss Chalet, Itesort Design
Associates International, 12/0 fi/U2 Submittal.
i
~
~
~
I
~
~
i
Vail•New Swiss Chaleti Rage 2
303-440-9200 . FAX 343-449-6911 • Win13209AOL.COM ~ 2299 PEARL STFIEE7, SfJITE 100 • BOULDER, CO 80302
I
~
199011991 Sonnenalp Develapment Proposal
December 10, 1990 Planning and Environmental +Gammission Staff
Report and Minutes
Llecember 19,1990 Town Council Minutes
~
June 24, 1991 Planning and Enwzronmental Cacnmission Staff Report
and Minutes
July 8, 1991 Planning and Enviaronmental Comrnission Minutes
~
~
Attachment: G
. '
MEMC3RANDUM
TO: Planning and Enviranmental Commissicar? ~
FROM: Departrnent of Comtnunity Development ~
RE: Sonnenalp Radevelapment
DATE: December 10, 2990 FILE COPY
SECTI4N 1. IN'TRODUCTION
This memorandum summarizes the Planning and
Environmental Commissian's ma'or comments from their
November 26, 1990 public hearing on the Sannenalp
redeve3apment. ListEd below are the PEC's cam;nents,
the applicant's response to those comments, and the
staff's response. Please note that the attached staff
memorandum dated December ld, 1930, is esentially the ,
same as was reviewed by the PEC at their November 26, i
1990 pubJ.ic heax-i.ng. There have been some ;
iriodifications to the deveIopment plan and those
modificatians are addressed anc3 hiqhliahted in bold
type within the bodv af the memor_andum.
- ~
SECTION 11. ANALYSIS ~
~
1. MEADOW DRIVE
A. PEC Concerns - The PEC suggested that mare relief is
needed alang the facade of the proposed building in the
Meadow Drive area. They suggested that additianal
design wark focus on the streetscape xnterface, and the
connectian with the plazas of the Vail village Inn to
the nox°th. Also, addztional public green space should
be included in this area. The concern expressed by the
most Commissianers regarded a need for a break in the
facade.
B. Ap-plicant! s Respanse - T'Addi.txonal relief is indicated
and proposed along East Nieadow Drive as requested.
This was accomplished .in amanner sima.].ar to - '
suggestions by the staff. See Sheets A0,• A8 and A16
for this revision. Aiso, a connectang plaza to the VVT
is being propcsed as suggested: see Sheets A0, At7a and
A8."
C. Staff~Response - zn an attempt to break up the facade ~
~
1 ~ i
. ~
I
yrl,j3 3.~11
~
•
of the building alang East Meadow Drive, the appIicant
has carried the cantilevered portion of the building ~
down to the ground at two locations. Ta accamplish
this, it was required that addztiQnal calumns be placed
approximately 6 feet further narth and closer to Meadaw
Drive. This change was as requested by the Planning
staff, however we feel that the applicant cauld have
gone even further in the redesign to break up this
facade. Mare relief an this elevation could be
achieved by some variation in the use of materials, the
arcade design, and landscaping. Each of these
components are described in detail in the memo.
Additional recoznmendations by the Planning staff
incZuded adding dormers along the flat roof partion of
the structure. The applicant was unwilZing ta include
thzs as a part of the project.
The applicant has praposed a pedestrian connection
between their project and the WI to the north. We do
have some concerns with regard ta the design of the
paver connection between the two properties, hawever,
the apglicant has indicated a wil?ingness to redesign
this area, in conjunction with the on-goinq Village
Streetseape Improvement Project. We support the
concept far the plaza connection.
2. SWISS CHALET PARKING ~
A. PEC Cancerns - The FEC recommended that this surface
parking area be removed and a plan to landscape and
redesign this area inta a pedestrian plaza shau1d be ~
developed. Reference Vail Village Master Plan Sub-area
Concepts. I
B. Anplicant's Response -"As suggested, the surface i
parking in this area has been remaved and a pocket park is being proposed. See Sheets Ao and AaQ far this
canceptual revision."
C. Staff kesnanse - We believe that it is extremely
pasitive that the applicant has agreed to incorporate
the 13 surface parking spaces adjacent to the Swiss
Chalet into the prapased new Sonnenalp Hotel parking
structure. The staff is very supportive a€ the _
agplicant's pocket park design, given that this is a
conceDtual design at this phase of the pralect only. •
Additi4nal work wauld be needed to determine exactly
how this packet park relates ta the intersection of
East Meadow Driva and Willow Bridge Road. This area
will be studaed as a portian of the on-gaing Village
Streetscape Imgrpvement Plan.
~
2
3. VAIL ROAD TRAFFIC STUDY
~ A. FEC Camments - The issues reqarding traffic on Vail
Raad should be finalixed (i.e., turn Zanes, width flf
lanes, sidewalks, and landscaping), with the
recommendation that the area be restudied at peak
periods {Saturdays}. Additional survey inforrnation is
needed fQr bath sides of Vail Road. In addxtian, a
plan to mitigate the constructi,on traffic and park.ing
on Vai,7. Road needs to be presented.
B. Applicant's Response -"As agreed to in our I3ove?nber
29, 1990 meeting with the staff, the Town's ccansulting
engineer will help arrive at a canelusion regardang
this issue. If the complexity of the issue exceeds the
time Arnie CTllevig can spend on it, additional studies
will be provided by the applicant."
C. Staff Response - The traffic study was farwarded to the
Town's consultar?t, Axnie Ullevig, and Ull.eva.gYs report
is included as an attachment to this memo. Generally,
he recammended that a center l.ett turn lane be provided
by the applicant. He firrnly stated that the lanes
should not be substandard. His camments are discussed
in detaa.l in the memo.
As indieated in one of the Sub Area concepts of the
~ Vail VilTage Master Plan, txaffic along Vail Road is to
be discouraged. Beeause the applicant's proposal
raquires additional widening of Vail Road, we feel that
mitigatian of this widening is necessary. The staff
recomrrtends that shoule3 the PEC recammend aggroval of
the Sonnenalp redeve3.opment, that the following
canditian be placed upon said approual:
That the applicant be required to construct twQ
median pl,anters on Vai1 Road. Said planters would
be located adjacent to the vail Gateway Plaza
Building, up near the 4-way stap. The intent of
],ocating the median planters in this area is to
discourage unneeessary uehicular traffic from
entering onto Vail Road. It shauld alsa be
reqtzired of the applicant that an addzti,onal
median planter be located immediately south of
Meadow Drive, on Vail Raad. This planter median
would assist i.n the channeZization of traffic as it enters the left turn lane for the Sonnenalp.
4, FTRE DEPARTMENT CUNCERNS
A. PEC Concerns - A11 concerns of the Fire Department need
to be addressed.
~ 3
S. Applicant's Response -"We feel that the revised plans, ~
Sheets AO and A40, have addresse+3 this issue."
C. Staff Resnonse - The applicant has met with members of
the Fire negartment and as of the date vt this
memorandum the Fire Department has signed of'f an the
conceptual design for the Sonnenalp. Modifications
have been made to the Talisman parki.ng and to the
nesrtheast corner of the Sonnenalp prtiperty which would
facilitate fire truck access. 5. SWINE411VG PC70L
A. PEC Cancerns - The propasec3 swimming pool needs to be
relocated out of the rear setback area.
B. Applicant's Resnonse -"The swimming pool has been
revised; see Sheet AOd. It has been pulled bac7t, but
due to the swim-through location, a very small portion
of the pool still encroaches znto the setback. Alsa,
the whirlpools have heen relocated."
C. 5taff Resronse - We believe that it is positive that
the applicant has puiled a portion of the swimming poal
out af the setback, however, we feel that the entire
poai shauld be camplete3.y out af the rear setback area ~
and that the patio should also be Dulled Qut of the
setback. We feel that there is adequate roam within
the anteriar courtyard/garden area ta accdmmodate the
swimming pool and assaciated patio. The staff feeJ.s
that there is no justifi.cation for allowing any
encraachments into the rear setback far the paal and
patio.
6. I,DADING AND DELIVERY AREA
A. PEC Concerns - This area should be restudied, as it was
determined by the FEC that the propased loading dock
was nat adequate to handle alJ loading for the
facility. Access from this loading dock ta the Meadow
Drive commerczal shops needs to be shawn that it is in
fact feasable.
B. Applicant's Resoanse -"The loading area has been
restudied; see Sheet A2. For deZiveries to the '
commercial spaces, see Sheets A2 and A8, indicating two
loading/deliwery Sp7.Ge5.
C. Staff Response - The applicant's redesigm has included
an additaonal loading berth at the southwest corner of
the building, for a total at two loading berths zn this •
4
~ area. It shauld be pointed aut that the prapased
Iaading berths do not meet the minimum size
requirements as autlined in the Tawn af vaal Municipal
Code. The Town Code requires each loading berth to be
a minimunt size of 12 feet wide, by 25 feet long. The
appZicant's loading berths are apnroximately 8 feet
wide, by 25 feet long.
One additianal Ioading berth has also been added in the
auta c4urt area. The intent of this Zoading berth is
to accommodate UPS-sized vehicles for the retail
cammercial spaces located alang East Meadow Drive.
7. VAIL RaAD/MEADOW DRIVE INTERSECTION ~
i
A. PEC Comments - Additional green space should be I
included on the site. The creation of a possihle
pocket park should also be considered.
B. A Iicartt's Res onse $"Additional green space has been I
proposed as per yaur suggestion; see Sheets A0, A00 and
A8,
C. Staff Respnnse - Some additiona3 landscapi.ng has been
added along Meadflw Drive, specifically in the area of
the Vail Roari and Meadow Drive intsrseetion. While the
~ staff believes that this is a sten in the ri.ght
direction, we feel strongly that additional work is
needed vn the landscape plan. A more detailed
landscape plan is needed ta specifically address the
issues of planting along Vai1 Road and Meadow Drive in
canjunction with the commercial spaca needed far
visibility. Screening of the transformer vent needs to
be resolved.
8. S'TREAMWALK
A. PEC Comments - The Sonnenalp proposal should include a
streaznwalk along Gare Creek for the length of the
property.
B. Apglicant's R,esponse -"This issue, as stated many
times before, will not be a part of or included in this
praposal. Due to the location (i.e., Town property)
this should not be an issue.
~
C. Staff Response - As stated in our original memorandum
on this projeet, the staff firmly believes that a
streamwalk would be in the best interests of the Town.
Because we believe that the streamwaTk could be
constructed sensitive3y to the hatel, the staff
~ strangly feels that the applicant should incorparate
5
the streamwalk inta their proposed site plan. ~
9. EMPLOYEE HQUSING
A. PEC Comments - The applicant should restudy the
employee hausing demand and should propase to meet the
standards as outlined in the recently adopted "Empltiyee
Hausing Report" af the Town Qf Vail.
B. Applicant's ResPonse -"This shall be addrassed by
Sannenalp Properties, xnc."
C. Staff Response - A revised employee count has been
provzded by the applicant, showing that 94 emplayees
work at the Bavaria Hause. Staff has used this number
with the same analysis done for the prevzous hearing.
10. TALTSim-AN ACCESS EASEMENT
A. FEC Comments - The existing access easement fram the
Talisman parkxng lot to East Meadow Drive should be
vacated and an access agreement finalized with the
Sonnenalp/Talisman.
B. Applicant's Response -"This xssue shall be addressed
by Sonnenalp Properties, Inc. and by the Talisman ~
Associatian."
C. Staff Response - To date, no addit3onal information has
been submitted by the applicant with regard to this
zssue. We believe it is in the community's best
interest ot insure that Meadow Drive is preserved as a
pedestrian mail. It appears that bath the Sonnenalp
and TaZisman have a verbal agreement to aalow the
Talisman to access their property through the new
parking structure as well as through an access point
adjacent to the traffic gate on the east end of the
mall. We reCommend that this verbal agreement be
formalized and that it became a part of the praposal.
This apgroach would make it possible to vacate an
access easement far the Talisman that bisects the
Meadow Drive gedestrian mall. This access easement was
granted to the Talasman when the pedestrian mall was
established to insure access to the property if acess
was na langer allowed through the Sonnenalp property.
,
This is an opportunity to insure that Meadaw Drive wi11
remain a pedestrian mall and resolutian of this issue
is necessary.
11. BUILDING HEIGHT
A. PEC Comments - Some af the Commzssioners were cancerned ~
6
~ about the height of the building along vail Road, whale
others were concerned about the height of the building
along East Meadow Drive, thereby creating shade on the
pedestrian area. General height concerns were raised
by most Commissioners,
B. AppIicant"s Response -"The roof height along Vail Road
has been reduced per your suggestion. The exit access
corridar that was in this roof area has been relocated.
Due to this relocation, a lvckoff on the fifth floor
will be eliminated and a unit an the fourth floar wi1l
be relocated to the mezzanine Ievel."
C. Staff ResDQnse - The applicant has been able to reduce
the height of the building by approximately 6 feet far
a partian of the building at the northwest elevation
aZong Vail Road. In addition to this, the appZicant
has raised the height af the tower at the Vail
Road/Meadow Drive intersection by appraximately 2 feet.
By raising the hezght of this tawer and lawering the
portian af the buzlding that connects this tower ta the
mazn building, we believe that the tower now functions
rnore as a foca3 point than as previously submitted.
General3y, the staff continues to have major concerns
with the overall height, mass and bulk of the praposed
structure.
~
SoNCOvrio
.
~ 7 -
DEC 7 '90 15:5I PAGE.002
F f LS B U R G
H 0 L T & 0
U L I. E V I G~
Qecemb#r 7, 1990
Mr. Andy Atiutsen
Town of VaiI
Comtuunity Develapment
75 S vuth Fz'arltage Road
Vail, C(? 81657 ~
RE: VaiZ Tra.nsportation P1an
FHi7 Referc.nce No. 89-091
Dear Mr. Knutsen:
i
This letter is in response to yocir request tc zgview the
sonner.a,lp site redevelopmant. 5pecifically addressed are the
fol.Iawing:
a Review af trip generatiQn and trafPic assignments for
reasonableness.
0 The naed for left turn lanes aloag Vail RQad.
o GeaeraZ deszgn characteristics of Vail Road.
Thsse itp-m,s are discussed an ths subsequant sectians of this
rertriew,
Tri Gansraticsn and Tr-a fiC Assi e'rxt
A traffi,c impact analysis addressing tb-is redevalapnent spe-
czfYCally evaluated the numbar af trigs generatad by the site,
thaix distributicn ontv the roadway netwdrk, aztd thc trziffic
impact on the 4-Way stap intersectian. The analysis was done
assum;nq the site s,rould cvntsin 40 additional hate], ranms
_beyond t`z,at uhich c•,xrrG,ntly exists, and the azialytiaal prOCess
_ that was doc=entcd appears to }ae zeasonab3e.
~
' I
5Peciaitzin9 ~n TramCortokan
and CMl Ertigineertng
5299 DrTC 8aule%o-d + Suite 400
ErnNIlewcxad. Calcra:iv E01 11
~ (303) 721.1440
~
-
DEC 7 190 15s51 PAG~.~03
Deceasber 7, 1_ _ 0
Mx. Andy Knutsen '
Page 2
~
xovrevaz, the Envi,rcnmental Iaspact Re~art for this praject
ind.icates that in addition tQ 44 additionaZ hatel I'AOmS, the i
rsdevelvpment will a].sv contain an additzvnal, 7,155 sruare i
fect of meeting space and approxiinate2g 5,800 sqtiare feet of
~
aew afl=ercia,l sgace. If thase areas are irsdeed expansivns
and are open to gesaeral pubiie use, it would }ae advisabIe ta
include thern in the angiysis,
I,eft Tt3rn Larte Aloncr Vail Roa'
The traffic iurpact study indicates 45 inbflur.d t=ips during tlze
P.M. peak hour 4-n xhich 93 pez•cent (42 trips) wsauld be left
turnTng vehicles from the north. Given the a_maunt of sou'th-
bo=d through traffjc (estimated to be 250 to 300 vehicles ger
hour durfng the F.M. peak) , a left tui'n lane should be provid-
ed. in addition, if the meeting space and commercial spaca
are included the prajected number of left turning vehicles
into the site will he qreater than triat indicated, thus maki.ng
a 1.eEt turn lane even more necessary. Further, the need for a
left turn Zane is not sal.ely determined by absalute vclume.
The grovisian of an exclusive left turm lane, even for small
turriing volumes, is aften beneficial in te_-as of safety and
the e? ininaticsr. of traffic stappages. Suc:z stoppagas couid
create qu,eues whi,ch m,3.ght abstruct cther nearhy access paints
~ and ir.tersectians which may ba critieal to cvez-aIl Tawn circu-
3aticr,. Under eithar condiLion, we -suggest t'`iat an Qxc.Iusive
left tur.x 2ane be impl.Qmented.
General t?asiqrt Character'tstics
Two basic aspects of the design cha.racteristics are discussed
here: the crass-sectzan of vail Road, and the operating char-
acteristics of the center ],eft turn lane. The traff ic study
illust:ated a three lane crosa-section in xhfGh t,he two
thxau5h lanes were each tan and ane-half feet, anc3 the center
lane vms only n;ne feet in wi:dth. These d~ensions are less
than '-..he standard 3ane width of 12-feat. Providing 12 Ieet
for all three lanes wov.ld be des.irab3e, and at a minimuia,
eleve,it feet should be gravided. It is recognized, hvwever,
that these Wz.dths nay be d.ifficult to obtain due to existinq
physical limztations. If these physical Ifmitations are deemed to ?ae critica}., rJe agree with the eonclusion that Vail
Road aperatioras might as we11 remain as a. "ro-lana desfgn
rathe: tnan attempt ta farce 3 substandard lahes into 30 feet.
~
I
i
7 '!J~11 15:52 _
neCember 7r 90
Mr. Andy dCnutsen•
Page 3
~
Several center Iane oporatiaa opt,ions exist wbich include
strig3ng- it as a tsao-taay Ieft turn lane (to also serve the
bank and the chapgl oa the weHt si.dG) eusd stri.ping i.t to be an
exclusive le:ft tuxn lane; far the Scnnenalp. Left turns irito
the ba.n:k and the chape:L wiTl be infreq,3ent relative tn 7.eft
tUrns intc ths Sonnenalp because =ch af theis inboun@ txaffic
'Wa.ll also came fram the nozth. gs such, it wauZd probably boa
desirabla to lay out a striping plztn which utilizes tb.e center
lane fvr left turning vehicles into the Sonnenalp, and have
left turning vehicles into the bank and c.hapel make their
mevcment from the northbaund through Tane. LePt turrz Ianes
would prababZy nQt be naeded at the MeaBow Drive into,rsst:tian.
If ycsu have questions cancezning t3sfs informatian, please
call.
Sincerelyr
FsrrsBtrRG SoLs A ULLZV):G
. •
~
Arnn].d ~T t7Ilev3q fi P. . Ct~istcpher FaschYng • ~
Pr.£nciga Transportaticn Blig,ineer
CFjco
,
~
Kc*
. a?c M PAGE.04
TO: Planni and Environmental CommisE n
FROM; Community Develapment Degartrnent
~ DATE: December lti, 1990
RE: A request for a Sgecial Develapment District for the
Sonnenalp redevelapment, Zocated at 20 Vail Road; A
part of Lot L, Block S-E, Vail Vi11age lst Filing.
Applicant. Sonnenalp Properties, Inc,
1. INTRODUCTION
Changes to the Ncvembex 26, 1990 PEC memo are indicated in
bold print.
Johannes Faessler, of Sonnenalp Praperties, Inc, has filed a
request to apply a Special Development District ta his
property Zacated at 20 Vail Road. The applicant proposes a
mixed use hotel complex. The reason the applicant is
applying for an SaD is that varaations fram the Public
Accommodation (PA) underlying zaning are needed for:
~ a 26 percent density increase,
~ a height varianee allowing SL feet where 48 feet is the
maximum height,
~ setbacks (on all four sides),
~ the proposed loading berths do not meet the Town's
requized minimuzn size of 121 x 261
an increase in the amount of accessory hotel floar
area (234 of the GRFA where lQo ss aliowed), and
" an increase in the amount of common area (854 af the
GRFA where 20% is aZlvwed).
Section III of this memo (Zoning Analysis) has a detailed
comparison of the propvsed SDD to the Publac Accommodation zane
district requirements,
22. DESCRIPTION OF REOUEST
Listed below is a summary outline of the proposed
redevelopment request:
A. Bavaria Haus Hotel (irnmediately east af First Bank)
~ Establish SDD with exzsting, underlying Public
Accommodation zaning far the hotel redevelapment. ,
Y Increase accammodation units from 72 to 125 units.
Eliminate 10 existing dwelling units.
" Maintain aIl units as lodge units.
Install gas burning fireplaces. No aaaitinnal wood-
burning fireplaces are requested. There are currently
faur wood-burning fizepTaces in fihe building, one in
the Zobby and three in hotel roams at the mezzanine
3evel of the existing structure.
,
~ Add 4000 square feet of conference space for a total af
7930 square feet.
- Construct the redevelogment t4 the fallowing heights: ~
West side: 51 81 ft.
North side: 49 - 59 ft.
East side: 52 ft. I
South side: 24 ft.
B. Landscapinq
" Cnnstruct a padestri.an walkway, attached to the east
side of the existing Vail Raad bridge, over Gore Creek.
~ Remove the existinq surface parking and construct a
packet park northeast of the Swiss Chalet and adjacent
ta Wil.Iaw Bridge Raad.
- Construct a sidewalk aZong the east sic3e of Vail Fzoad,
and canstruct improvements such as planters and
sidewalks along E. Meadow Drive.
` Install landscaging al.ong the narth and west
elevations.
C. Parkinct and Loadina
i
" Canstruct a parking garage with 210 spaces ~
regular spaces: 127
compact spaces: 25
valet spacesc 58
- Remove the existing extearior surface parking lot.
" Locate all parking underground. The priinaary access ta
the parkinq structure wi1l he f'rom Vail Road, adjacent
to the First San)t Building.
~ The prim.ary surface Ioading/delivery wi21 reinain at the
southwest corner of the property, however, an
addi.tional laadinq berth is propased to be added in the
auta aourt.
D. Other
- Ccnstruct retail, commercial space of 5,713 square feet.
' Expand the existing restaurant and lounge area faz a
total of 6,657 square feet.
i
~
2
III, SoNNENALP Z_ LNG ANALYSIS_ - The project departures from
the PA zone district standards are highlighted in bold tyge.
~ UNDERLYING ZONING: EXISTING PROFOSED
PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION PRQ3ECT SDD
Site Area: 2.024 acres ar Same Same
88,165 sq. ft.
setbacks: 20 feet a11 sides N=Meadow Dr: 20 ft. N= 14 ft.
W=Vail Road: 13 ft. W= 2 ft.
S=Gore Creek: 4 ft, S= 4 ft.
E=Talisman: 0 ft. E= 5ft.
Height: 45 ft. flat roof 42.0' - ridge 51.0l - ridge
48 ft. sloping roof 23.5' - eave (maximum)
GRFA: 70,532 sq, ft, 30,122 sq. ft. 59,9$9 sq, ft.
Units. 25 units per acre, or 46 units 63 units
50 units far the site. (72 a.u. & 10 d.u.) (125 a.u.)
Site Coverage: 48,491 sq. ft. 17,984 sq. ft. 44,378 sq. ft.
or 55 ~ or 20 % or 50.3 0
Landscaping;30o of site or 29,925 sq. ft. 40,363 sq. ft.
26,450 sq. ft. dr 33.9 a or 45.8 0
lgarking: Per Town of Vail Required: 105 Required: 194*
parking standards Provided: lOZ
Proposed: 127 spaces
25 compact
58 valet
210 Total
Loading: Per Town af Vail Required: 3 berths
loading standards Proposed: 3 berths**
ACC8S5Qry USE3: 100 of the TSo or 23; ar Commercial, canstructed GRFA 5,396 sq. ft. 15,819 sq ft.
Restaurant, or 7,053 sq. ft.
_ Lounge:
' Common Area. 20% of Allowed GRFA 20% or 85a or
or 14,106 sq. ft. 13,852 sq. ft. 59,271 sq. ft.
Gross Floor Area: NjA 49,380 sq. ft. 345,079 sq. ft. '
(dQes nat znclude
structured parking)
*Required parking includes a 5% credit far multigle use garking
facilities per Town of Vail parking cade, Section 18.52.120.
Also allows for non-conforming parking credit (see exhibits for
breakdown).
**Does nat meet the minimum size requirements per the Tawn cade.
3
~
IV. SDD CRI'I'ERIt.
In arder to avoid too much repetition of Staft comments, rae have
tried to 3ist our comments under the mast anpropriate criteria ~
heading. This is not to imply that many af the comments do not
relate to several headings or planning dacuments.
Upon completion of the submittal recrairements, the following
revi.ew criteria wi.ll be used to assess the merits of the
Sonnenalp redevelapment:
A. DesicLn_compatibilitv and sensitivity to the i.mmediate
enviranment, neiqhborhood and adiacent properties relative
to architectural desian, scale, bulk. buzl.ding height,
buffer zones, identity, character, uisual integrity and
orientatzon.
Height:
Staf:E strongly objects to the maximum height of 77 feet for
the Vail Road building elevation and 81 feet for the
elevatar tawer given the Vai3. ValIage context. The heights
of the surrounding buildings are 47.5 far the Vazl Village
Inn (vVI) ridge, 70 for the 'cTVI tower, and 20 for the ridge
of the chapel. Thbugh the WT tQwer is tal.l, it is an
architectural accent to the rest of the bui.lding. Its
slender proportions are such that it is a tower. The
"tower" abave the auta court is designed with propartions
which make it appear quite massive (i.e. "a building") arrd
should not be labeled as a tower. ~
Staff acknowledges that a certai.n number af raoms must be
obtained in order to constx'uct a projec4 of this magnitude.
However, the Vail Village Master Plan calls aut for a range
of heights between 271 and 361, p3us a roof, on the southern
portion of the site. The mass above the auta court and the
elevatgr tower are proposed in thzs same area, at 45 to 50
feet above the limit recommended in the Master Plan.
The applicant did respond to the heiqht zssue by lowesing
the ridge between the Vail Road corner tower and the
buil3ing above the auto court. The ridge was lowered 6t by
removzng a hallway, reconfigurinq the staircases and
relocating 4ne accommodation unit to the mezzanine level.
At the request of the staff, the agplicant also raised the
roaf of the tower at the Vail Road intersection by 21. The
intent of this increase was to accentuate the tawer. Ey
lowerinq the ridge line and raising the tower geak, the
propartions of the building work much better. '
Along East Meadaw Drive, the Village PIan recommends heights
of 18-27 feet plus a roof. Froposed heights in this area
range from 49.5' to 591. The PA zane c?istrict alJ.ows for a
maximum height of 48 ft. for slaping raafs.
5taff beli.eves that the Sonnenalp proposal needs tc, come ~
more into compliance with these recom-mended heights. It is
positive that the heigh't vf the building along Vail Road has
4
been reduce, from the originally propos height of 102.
feet, down to 77 feet. As mentioned in the two previous
work session memos, height shauld terrace down to Vail Road
~ and East Meadow Drive to respect pedestrian areas as well as
views from public areas.
Character
In staff's ana3ysis, a significant deviation from the
character of the Village is the farmal, unbroken facade of
the building along East Meadow Drive. The areade extends
165 feet with 1ittle relief, though there are a variety of
dornter treatments in the narth facing roof. over the past
two weeks, staff has wvrked on the Meadaw Drive problems
with the applicant, tryzng ta break up the linear appearance
of the arcade and roof line. The Town suggested that the
applicant accentuate the existing large darmers ta break ug
the mass of the elevation. The agplicant respcnded by
"groundzng" these dormers; bringfnq the mass all the way to
the ground. As a result, the arcade bends in and out from
the buildinq where the dvrmers have been brought down.
In staff's opiaxion there are several design changes which
the applicant shauZd incltxde in the facade design to further
break up the facade along Meadow Drive. staff requested
that materials, such as rock and stone be used ta emphasize
the changes in the plane of the building. Secandly, it was
recommended that the applicant bring Iandscaping up to the
base of the eiements to accentuate the differences fzom the
~ surrounding arcade and walkway. Thir'dly, it was suggested
that the applicant change the shape of the first finor
archway openings. Instead of the tripl.e radius arches used
alang the entire Yength of the 165 foat arcade, different
openings, similar to the bal.conies above, were suggested.
This wauld have made the element tie in with the forms above
anstead of the arches an either side. AJ.thaugh staff
realized this would add slightly to the mass and bu].k, the
benefit of bzeakinq up the long, syiametrical arcade and
creatinq vitality and interest along Meadow Drive would have
compensated far the increased mass.
The ovezall intent of the staff's recomtnended changes was ta
make some visually interesting breaks in'the arcade.
Plaxas would also help accompiish this. The Village Master
Plan calls foz twa "plazas with green space" alang this
section of Meadow Drive. Tying both sides of the street
tagether will be accomp3ished wi.th a plaza area, which the
applicant has added to the plans over the past two weeks.
The design of this plaza area wil.l be refined during the
Village Streetscape Improvement Plan. The averall
architectural style generally is of high quality. Hawever,
the mass of the building is too ].arge in relation to the
site and surrounding properties; the buildi,ng does not fit
the scale of the Village. Mare relief fram the formal,
~ architectural style is still needed an Meadaw Drive.
5
B. Usest_activ__y and density which pravidL a compatible
efficient and workable,relationship wath surraunding uses
and activitV.
Densitv, GRFA and Uses: ~
The proposal, though all lfldge rooms, will have a densitg
26; greater than the allowable. StafE supports the plan to
have lodge rooms only, but is concerned that the density, in
conjunctian with the height, is too much for the site. The
applicant does comply with the GRFA limitatzan for the site;
hawever, the GRFA calcuZatzon only counts the residentZal
areas. The accessory uses exeeed the allowable by 13% and
the common area exaeeds the allowable by 650. As a result,
the mass of the praject is much larger than what the zoning
code allows. (The specific breakdown af the accessory area
and common area can be Pound in Section III. Briefly, what
PA zanzng allows is 10o of GRFA for accessory and 200 for
comman. What is propased is 23% and SSo, respectively.) It
has been common for the staff to supgort increases in common
area above the alZowable. In this case, the common area, in
canjunctinn with the accessory use increase, is causing the
buildang mass to become excessive. Cancerning uses, the mix
of ladging, commercial and conference space is appropriate
and supports the gaals af tha Vail village Master Plan.
C. Combliance with narking and lpadzna reauirements as outlined
in Cha ter 18.52.
ParkinQ•
All parking will be pravided on site. 58 spaces (28a) wilz
be valet. 25 spaces (12%) wil2 be compact. A positive
aspect of this proposal is that all the existing surface
parking will be placed undergraund. There will he no
surface parking except for five spaces in the auta caurt.
The Town's parking analysis indicates that the redevelflpment
wauld pravide a surplus of 16 parkzng spaces. The staff has
strongly recommended that the 13 existing surface parking
spaces for the Swiss Chalet (adjacent to Aillow Bridge Road)
be incargarated into the new underground parking structure
an$ that the surface spaces be remaved. The applicant has
agzeed to this recommendation and the 13 surface parking
spaces have been inGargorated into the garking structuze. A
paeket pa=k has been designed for this area. As this is a
specific goal of the Vail Village Master Plan, staff
grovides more details an this issue in that section.
.
Loading:
The Zaning Code requires three berths. Staff has ?aeen
concerned that if Zoading spaces within the auto court were
not specifically designated for laading, the deZivery trucks
would try to use Meadow Drive or the area adjacent to the
sauthwest carner of Crossroads for loading.
~
6
The appZical._ has modified the leading _-y area and is naw ,
propaszng a total of three loading berths. Two bezths would
be located at the soutbwest corner of the property and ons
~ berth would be Zocated in the auto aaurt. Hawever, the
proposed loading herths do not meet the minimum size
requirements of the Town's municipal code. The cade
requires a minzmum size of 12' wide by 251 in Zength. The
propased berths are approximately 81 wide by 251 in length.
D. Conformity with.appTicabZe elements of the Vail
Comurehensive Plan Town olieies and Urban Desi n Plans.
Because of the many dafferent goals, paZicies, and
illustxative plans that partain to this proposal, asegarate
section of the memo discusses the compliance of the project i
with the Vai3 Village Master Plan. The intention to
maintain al3 of the units as accommodatian units fits weli
with the Tawn policies. Any conversian of these Iodge roorns
to condominium units in the future shouTd be prohibited.
E. Identification and mitigation of natural and/or qealQQic
hazards that affect the property Qn which the sgec.ial `
development district is propased.
The floodplain is the only hazard which could affect the
site. The applieant is not proposing any canstruction in
the 50 foot Gaxe Creek stream setback ar the floodplain.
~
F. Site plan, buildina desian and locatian and Qren sPace
provisions desiqned to produce a funcLional developmpnt
resnonsive and sensitive to natural features, vegetation and
overall aesthetic crualitY of the community.
Site lo1an/Setbacks
The building wi12 encroach into alZ setbacks. PA zoning
requiras 20 foat setbacks on all sides of the property. The
apgZieant has relocated the building ta meet the setback
line in many cases, which is an improvement over previaus
proposaZs but still has ten areas of eneroachment. The
specifiG points of encroachment in each setback, starting '
with the compactor area on the southwest eorner of the site
are:
West ~
1. The compactor area eneraaches 151-611 into the Vail
Raad setback;
2. The new kitchen expansian and Bully Pub encroach
281-011 inta the Vail Road setback;
3. The rooms above the auto eourt entry encraach 121-
~ 0"' into the Vail Road setback;
4. The tawer on the corner of Meadaw Drive and Vail
Raad encroaches 91-0" into the Vail Road setback
and 81-0" inta the East Meadow Drive setback;
7
North The raaf over the commercial arcade encrcaches
into the Meadow Drive setback 101-0+1;
6. The tower an the east end of the prQject ~
encroaches 13 '-0'" into the east side setlaack;
East
7. The eastern most carner of the new hoteZ winq
encraaches 181-01' into a setback abutting the
Talisman szte;
5 outh
8. The swimmiag pooi/whirlpvcsl encraaches 7' -o11 into
the rear setbaek. The patio arcund the swimining
pool azea encroaches 191-01' into the setback;
9. The King Ludwig deck (above) and the conference
rocam area (below) encroach 41-0" inta the rear
setback; and
10. The 1oading/delivery area encroaches 2010" into
the rear setback, creating a zero rear setback
situation.
The encroachment which corscerns staff the most is the one
req:ired for the kitchen expansion and compactor area on the
southwest corner of the property. Staff has wor}ted with the
applicant in reducing the mass and bulk of the building on
this corner as much as possible, but believes that it still
has the most impact of alI the encraachments.
Another encraachment of major cancern is the swimming
pool/patia area. The Zoning Cade allows recreational
amenities tfl encroach inta the setback if the Design Review ~ I
Boa=d determines that the lacation is nnt de-trimental
environmentally ar aestheticall.y. Staff believes that in
this case, the Gare Creek corridar should be maintained as
natural as possible to preserve its aesthetic appeal. Staff
cioes nat support the poa]./patio in this location and would
recommend that the pbolfpatio be pulled back aut of the
setback.
The two tower encroachments on either end of the bu3lding
along Meadaw Drive are not prQblems in staff's opinion.
Staff believes that undulating the building along Meadow
Drive and allowing the towers to came out closer to the
street gives more definition ta the public space and is a
benefit. The VilZage Master Plan calls far plazas in twa Zacations on either side of the tower locations. Though the
appliant a,s providing a g].aza, there is not enaugh
undulation and variety to the Meadow Drive facade.
. Natural Features
The site is generally flat with Gare Cxeek running a3ong the
south side of the groperty. Significant landscaping also
exists along East Meadow Drive, in the center Qf the parking
area, and adjacent to the Bully III deck. The applicant has
taken advantage of the beauty af Gore Creek and has I.acated ~
the spa and garden a3.ong the creek. 5taff believes that
adding astreamwalk along the creek wou3,d allow more guests
in Vail to enjay this natural feature.
8
C. A circulati. . system designed for both nicles and
pedestrians addressznq on and off-site traffic cizculation.
~ TalismanlSonnenalip Coordination:
~ Coordination between the proposed Sonnenalp SDD and the -
existing Talisman Condominiums is necessary. Staff
encourages the two owners to wark together an access,
landscaping, and parking far the twa projects in a
comprehensive manner. The Town Fire Department has naw
apgroved the design of the Sonnenalp redevelopment, with
specific reference ta emerqency vehicle access ta both the
Sonnenalp and the Talisman properties.
Traffic:
This will be discussed in the section of the memo dealing
with the Environmental Impact Repart.
Pedestrians•
The design of the praject has provided some impravements far
pedestrians. The applicants wzll praviae a sidewalk along
Vail road from the corner of Meadow Drive to Gore Creek. At
that point, they will canstruet a gedestrian bridge over tfie
creek so that pedestrians can continue to walk south of the !
creek. Staff supports the idea cf the pedestrian bridge; i
however, at this time, we do nat have sDecific design i
drawings of the proposal. Along East Meadow Drive, the
~ design couTd be imgroved for pedestrians by pr4viding a
stronger interface between the pedestri-an street and the
store fronts. What is also missing fro-ii the project is the
streamwalk.
~
!
H. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and apen sAace in arder '
ta o timize and reserve natural features recreation views
and functions.
The proposal has provided an optimal garden area in the
center and s4uth side of the site. Though this is good
preservation af open space, it is Zimited to the hatel
guests. The hotel has been designed so that the building is
located close to Vazl Raad and Meadow Drive. By not
providing apen space west or north af the buzlding, the
public does not benefit from the open space on-site.
staft recammends that the applieant create a plazajplanting
area acrass from WI, ta provide same public open space. This has been discussed during the review process since it
is ealled out for in the open space plan of the Vail village
Master Plan. Not anly would it provide some apen space an the site which the pubZic would benefit from, it wauld break
up the hard line of the Meadow Drive facade. It would also
~ a1Zow for a concentratian af landscaping, and wouZd create a
spaGe where the WI, the 54nnenalp, and the pedestrian way
are brought together. The applicant has redesigned this
area and has included a pedestrian connectian/plaza as
9
recommended ~ the staff. Final detazl__of this plaza will
be coordanated with the on-going Village Stzeetscape
Improvement PZan.
~
Y. Phasina glan or subdivision plan that will maintain a
warkable, functional and efficient relationship throuqhut
the devela -ment of the s ecial develonment district.
See discussian under the EIR analysis.
J. Outstandin concerns from other denartments;
i
1. Fire Department:
- The applicant has received cnnceptual apprvval of
the Fire Department, however, same landscaping
will be Iast (at the northeast carner of the site)
due ta the Fire Degartment's required access. The
proposed Iandscape plan must be amended to reflect
this change.
2. Public Warks:
A minimum szdewalk width of 6 feet, on Vail Road,
will be required for the full length af the
` project. ~
Drainage impravements along Vail Road and East
Meadow Drive will be needed.
3, Landscape Architect:
` The streaan walk shou3.d be shown on the site plan.
" The applicant will need to suhmit a revised
landscaping plan if praposed changes to Vail Road
are appraved.
' Maintena.nce af landscaped areas anc3 sidewalks
shall be the owner's respansibzlity.
" The conceptual landscape pTan appears to be
acceptable. A detailed plantzng and irrigation
plan should be submitted for review.
10 ~
V. VAIL VILLAGE MASTER PL,AN
~
In general, the staff believes that the 5onnenalp project should e
be much more responsive to the Vail Village Mastez Plan. The
previous two wark session memos l.isted many areas where the
proj ect could comply more close].y with the Vzllage Plan. Sn most
cases, the previaus staft comments apply to the revised proposal
since the appiicartt has failed tQ address the concepts of" the
plan.
Statf believes that cne of the most important parts of the Master
Plan is the conceptual building height diagram. The portian of
that plan which includes the Sonnenaip project is shown below.
The carner treatmer.t foz Vazl Road and Meadow Drive should be 2-3
stor?es, The rest of the site is cal.led out at 3-4 storaes. The
project severe?y deviates from the Master Plan as it is 4 stories
an the corrter and rises ub ta 6 stories abcve the auto court.
'3'4 sJ-
3~4
r-2-3 _
~C'
= C{7NCEP'fUA1
BUiLDI'NG
HEiGN7 FLAN
~
During the review, it has been mentianed that the master plan is
not apnlicable to a demo/rebuiJ.d sueh as this. The master plan,
by definitxon, cannot address the asaects oz every constructian
project. But the pal,icies and objectives of the plan cio apply to
a31 projects. When the pl.an was developed, the apprapriate seale
for redevelopment was established with cQnszdaratzon af ~
surrounding properties and the overall streetscape. The °
principTe design concepts are relevant and azaglicable even if a
demca-rebuild i,s prnpcsed.
.
The speci.fic goals, csbjectiwes, and sub-area plans which pertain
to this project are iisted below. Tmportant paints of the Master
Plan text are underlined. Staff caznments are belaw the Master
Plan excerpts.
~ ~i
I
A. Sub--Axea 4I-2 - Vail Road TntersectiQn
41-2 Vail Raad Zntersection Possible realignment af
~
intersecLion in conjuncti4n with
,~--~relocation of the SkE Museum.
Focus of reues:gn should bs to
, ..,.e.. establash a sma31 park and
~ pedestrian antry tor the rrest end
of the Village and ta provide a
visual barrier to tliscaurage
vehicular traffic from heading
r-~ '1-2,~ south an Vail Road fram the 4-way
stop. Specific desiqn of Ski
Museszm site to bs inc2uded in West
~eadow Drive pedestzian
impsavemenC project. Tha
pedestrian connection both narth
a,nd south alor.g Vail Road should
a2so be improved. Special
emphasis ort 3.1, 3.4, 4.1, 5.3, !
5.4. .
Sub-Area ur1,-2 s t-ates :
"Possible reali,gnment of intersection in conjunction with I
relocatian of the Ski Museun. Focus of zedesa.gn should be ~
to establish a small park and pedestrian entry for the west
enu of the VilZaga and ta provide a visual barrier tr
discouraae vehicular traffic frcm heading south an Vail Road
from the 4-wav stou. Specific desa.gn af Ski Musaum site to
be includecl in West Meadow Drive pedestrian impravement
prcject. The pedestrian cannecticn both north and sQUth ~
alc,na Vail Rcad shauld alsa be incroved,11
St3ff Response•
The projact daes provade a six foat wide sidewaZk
along the full length of the west side af the
properVy. The sidewalk wz].1 be made Qut of
pavers and wi3.l extend fror:z the northwes L carner
af the site to the pedestrian br;dge that the
applicant will instalZ over Gore Creek. These i
I improve:nents serve to implement this concept. I
' Because the Sannenalp redeve3opment will require
additianal wideni.ng af Vail Road, we belive that
mitigation wi1T be necessary to discourage vehicul.ar
traffic from heading south cn Vail Itaad. T'he staff is
recaamending that three plantecl m,edians be installed ;
along Vail Road. Two medians would be located near the
Vail Road/SQUth Frontage Road intersectian (4-way
stop), and one znedian wou3.8 be Zacated vn Vail Road,
immediately south of Meadow 1]rive. Final designs would '
need to allow far fa.re access aad public works needs
far snnw removal.
12 ~
B. Sub-Area 41-3 - Sannenal lBavaria Hausl Infi11
~ Com3er-1a1 lntill devaiopmwnt vitn
.6cond flaar rasidontial/lodqinq
to •nc.oa• Ma$dov Orivt sad
i.mprou• the quallty oL Che pedes -
~ trisn ex?•rioace. R+siqnat~d,
~ val7cyays rnd pla~as vith
9reenspqee shou,ld inteslnce vfttt
thosa ot Lh• Vdii Vi,llag• Inn. 1?
pedestrian valkvay (Pofaibly ;
araad~} ahould b+ pravided to
encouraq• pedastrian cizculation
1-2 physicslly ramaved from 'Wast .
lteadov Qrive. ?iass oi buildtng
!"U "hfluld oac craat• a shadou paLterri
, . f~•••.:n~^~'.' f' j ort Msadav Drivs. Llwwlapment vil~ .
reqtaire coar3ination snd/a:
invoZvenent vit.h 3'dj3cint propartY
awnen. ExiatiV1tpklFlCJ
dsaand Ca be PrQVid.d OA S 2.3~
spocial ompt~asia on l.2r 3.Y, b.l.
Sub-Area n 1-3 states : 1.4, z.s, 3.1, 3. 4, 4.1.
"Commercial infill devel.opment w'ith secend floor
residentzalfladg=ng to eneZose Meadow Drive and improve the
quality of the pedestrian experience. Designated walkways
and glazas with green space shauld inLeT:ace with those of
the vail Village. Inn. A pedestrian walkway (possibly
arcade) shauld be pravided to encourage pedestrian
circulatian physically remaved from Meadow Drive. Mass of '
build?ng shoulc3 not create a shadow__r-atcern an Meadow Drive.
DeveZogment will require cearda.natian and/or invalvement
with adjacent property owners. Existing and new parking
~ de:r:and ta be provaded an s ite
Staff Res-oonse:
Meadour Drive wzll be completely shaded in the
winter. The ridge along Meadaw Drive will cast a
shadow which will extend 67.3 feet frcm the narth
wal.l af the building at noon on December 21st.
This shadow will completeiy eaver Meadow DrivE. I
Even an the eqtzinox dates (March 21 and September 21), tYie shadow cast w'i1Z be 27.5 feet from the
northern wall of the muilding. Staff understands
that some shaddw will Yae cas ~ by any redeve] opment
that accurs along Meadow Drive; however, the mass
of this prQposal and the way the raaf Iine 9.s
designed makes the shadow impact warse than
alternative designs that were discussed in the
revi.ew process. Yn the EIR, the applacant claims
that the building wi11 shade the street fcar only a
short period ot time wzthout specifying the `
length, Staff believes that this statement is
misleading and more anformation is needed on this
imFact. Staff is also very concerned about the
possible icing af East Meadow Drive, gzven the
location and height of the new buildang. P3ease
~ 13
see comments on ra'ect des; n azkin
P J 9' ~ ~ g,
circuTaticn, and landscaping under SDa criteria. ~
Staff recalculated tha shadow lenths and drew them in
both plan and sectian. These drawings wiTl be
presented at the hearing on neceruber 10. The shadaws
were caZcul.ated frvm several points in the xaof to
determine which ridge caused the worst impact. A31
shadows were calcuZated far ]aoth the equinvx (March
21fSept€mber 21) and the winter soltice (Decem,ber 21).
C. Sub-Area ~Z-5 - Willow. Bridcre Road_ Wal?~aav
$1-5 W1IlOw BI'3.dge Road Wa17[way
A deaarative paver pedestrian `
rralkway, separated froa the street
and accentad by a strong
landscaped area to enGOUrage
pedes"ian circulaCian alang
Meadow Drive. Loss of parlcin5 1
- 1-4 w'Ill need to be relocated on site. ;
Special emphasis cn 3.4, 5,1. I
L
• 1 7'
~
Sub-Area 71-5 states:
".A decorative p,aver vedestrian walk*aav, separated from the
str?et and accented bv a stroncr landscaned area to encauracle
lpedestria-i circulation aloncr Meadow D*_-ive. Lass of loarkinq
will need tc be rel4cated on site."
Staff Resmonse•
The diagrams in the Master Plan shaw the area aiscussed
xn the paragraph above and the area along Wi31aw Bridge
Road blending into one another. The applicant has
expressed an interest in removing the parking that
exists there now and converting the space into a
pedestri.an area. The parking garage that wi11, be built
in this proposal has 16 extra spaces. There are 13
spaces in tront af the Swiss Chalet.
Because the applicant is proDOSing to consolidate the !
frant c:esks for these two buildings, the parking can be ~
located in the garage of the main building. Staff had '
recamanended that the apglicant redesign the space and
aonvert it inta a pedestrian area accordinq ta the
Master Plan. The applicant has n4w redesigned this
14 ~
area and has removed the 13 surface parking spaces. A
~ . pocket park is now propQSed for this sectiQn of the
pzoperty, as previously discussed in Sectiaa IV,H af
this memo. The applicant studied the pedestrian routes
through this area and designed a cozrbinatian of
planters and walkways that accomodates the existing
pedestrian traffic patterns.
D. 5ub-Area mZ-4 - Sonnenalp East {5wiss Chalet) InfilI
Sub-Area #1-4 states:
41-4 Sonnenalp East SWiss Chalet
, InYill
CoixmerciaZ i,nfill of noz-th facing
alcave a: exi5tinq strucrura ta
provide shops and pedestrian
activity. A plaza with 4reensFace
shall be developed in cor,junction
K~ 4~ •1'"~ vith tY:e ad}acent plaaa at trse
.e...,...
ti+\~ VaiZ Vil.Iage Inn. F'ire access and
,
on-site parking are two sssues to
}se addresser3 in the design aTSd
f, •r~° develazaaent ot this praject.
Special emphasis an 2.4, 2.5, 2.6,
~ -12' !
3. 1, 3.2, 4.1, 5, l, 6. 6.2.
~ "Camnercial infill of narth facinc alcove of existang `
strucLure to provicie shaps and pedestrian activity. A plaza
with cxreensbace shall be devela ea in can'unction with the
ad-iacent -o?aza at the Vail Villacre Inn. Fire access and on-
site nark?ng are two issues to be addresseel in the desiqn
and development of this pra_Lct•"
Staff Resoonse:_
Two xssues in this sub-area recom-mendation pertain to
the propasal, one is to develop a plaza for pedestrian
activity autside the Swiss ChaZet. T1'll5 area is
intended to relate to the WI as well as Wa.llow Bridge
Road. This impravement relates directly to the
recoznmendation for tha Willaw Bridge Road walkway,
.whach is discussed in the paragraph above. The second .
issue inval.ves fire access. The Town's Fire Department
has given caaceptual approval of the fire access ta the
SonnenaZp/Ta.lisman. °
~ 15
i
E. Sub-Ar.ea 14.I-9 - Studv Area; Villaqe Streamwalk
Sub-Area 41-9 states 1-9 sruaV Area: Villa e ~
Streamaalk
Stud af a walkin onl
Y 9 Y Fath along
Gore CZ-eek betueen the Covered
3' Bridqe and Vazl Road, Connecting
/ ~~R ~ 1 { • ~ ! 1~ ..~.'r''' ' to existinq stzeamvalk, furthar
~ ~ ' ~ . ' • \ enhancirtg Lhe pedestrian net~aork
r~.~- • D i 3: F2 f.,-~~9 •~~t throughout t,*~e Village and
~ • 1-~•~ ~~LLO ' , . ~ • `~r3T~ prcviding public access to the
J'r~ ereek. 5pecific t}esign and
r„-,r :•+K` Zacation of walkway sha31 be
4~. sensitive trs adjacent uses and ttze
creek environment. (Reference to
~•Vail Recreational xrails Plan for
additionaZ ixsfar.natzan an this
trail). Specia3 emphasis an 3.4,
4.2.
"Study af a wal.kina onlv path along Gcre Greek between the
Covered Bridcre and Vail Raad, ccnnecting ta exis~.inq
stx~~~~wa? k, further enhancincx the -cedestrian natTaork
throuahout tne Villaae and t7T'oSJ1d1TiGf uublic access to the
crepk. Sneca.fi-c design and location of walkway shall be
sensitive to adjacent uses and the creek environment."
Staff Resx=se:
Staff believes that a streamwalk is in the best
interasts flf the Tawn. Expandinc the existinq papular ~
recreatianal amenity a.s worth*ahile, especially since
staff believes it can be designed in a way that is
sensitive to the hQtel praposal. Benching a walJtway
down near the stream appears to be feasible.
Additional landscaping is another way to buffer the
walk from the hotel's garden area. Develabir.g
pedestrian=only walkways and strzam access fulfills
Objective 3.4 of the Mastex' P].an, which reinforces the
goal of this sub-area. Because a streamwalk is an
effecta.ve way to provide a natural experience within
the Vi3lager ar.d because it cauld be built sensitively
to the hatel, staff believes-the applicant shou3d
incorporate it inta the site plan.
F. Emphasized Gaa3s & Folicies
He?aw is a list of the specific abjectives 4t the Master
Plan. With the excep`ions of the objectives dealing with
emtiloyee housing and the streamwalk, the proposal generally f
meets the list beiow. Staff believes that the praject's
primary pQSitive aspects include its provisian of
accammodata.an units, the parking plan, the pedestzian bridge
and the fact that this is a gaod site far a mixed use
redeuelopment.
16 40
~ 1. 2 Ob1ect i_v_e :
Encourage the upgrading and redeve].opment of
. residential and eommercial faei3ities. 1.3 Oblective •
Enhance new development and redevelapment thraugh
pubZic impravements done by private develapers
working in cooperation with the fiawn,
2.3 Objective•
Increase the numbar of residential units available
far shart term overnight accommodations.
2.4 Oblective:
Encaurage the development of a variety of new
cotnmercial activity where compatible with existing
J.and uses.
2.5 Obtective•
Encaurage the continued upgrading, renavation and
znaintenance af existing ladging and commercial
facilities ta better serve the needs of aur
guests.
2.6 Obiective:
Encaurage the develapment of affordable housing
~ units through the effarts af the private sectar.
3.1 Obiectiue:
Physically improve the existing pedestrian ways by
landscaping and dther impravements.
3.4 Oblective:
Develop additional sidewalks, pedestaria:n-only
walkways and accessible green space axeas,
including pocket parks and stream access.
4.1 Oblective:
Improve existing ogen space areas and create new
plazas with green space and pocket parks.
Recognize the different roles of each type of open
space in forming the overall fabrie of the
village. .
5.1 Oblective:
Meet parking demands with public and private `
parking facilities.
6.1 O_b:iective:
Provide service and delivery facilities for
existing and new development.
~
17
H. Tllustrative Plans,
1. Land Usa Plan:
a, North side of Sonnenal site "Mixed Use."
This category includes the "historic" Vil3aqe core
and properties near the pedestrianized streets of
the Village. Lodging, retail and a limited amaunt
of affzce use are found in this category. With
nearly 270,400 square feet of retail space and
approximateiy 320 residential units, the mixed use
character of these areas is a majar factar in the
appeal of Vail Village.
5taff ResDonse: Since the proposal is mixed use, it fits well
with this Master Plan illustratian.
b. Sauth side of Sonnenalp site, "MediumfHigh Density
Residential and Mixed Use."
Medium/Hiah Density
The overwhelming majority of the Village's lodge
rooms and cQndominium units are lacated in this
land use category. APpraxinately 1,100 units have ~
been developed an the 27 acres of private land in
this category. In addition, another 1I0 units are
appraved but unbuilt. It is a goal of this Plan
to maintain these areas as predominantly lodging
oriented with retaiZ development limited to small
amounts of "accessary retail."
- Mixed Use (along Meadaw Drive and Willnw Road)
This category includes the °fhistoric" Village eore
and propertias near the pedestrianized streets of
the VilIage. Lodging, retail and limited amount
of office use are found in thzs category. Wzth
neariy 270,000 square feet of retazl space and
approximately 320 residential units, the mixed use
character of these areas is a majar factor in the
appeal of Vail Village.
.
Staff Res-ponseR The project complies with the types at uses
caJ.led far in the I1lustrative Land iJse Plan.
An all lodge roam redevelcspment, with support
commercial, is a very positive land use type
for this site.
~
18
~ 2. Open Space Plan;
a. "Planted Buffer" is designated an north and west
side of site.
b. "Flaza with azeen space?! is designated on north
side of property connecting to the Vail Village
Inn and on eastern praperty adjacent to Swiss
Chalet and VVI sculpture plaza.
c. "Oben Spaee" is designated along entire stream
corridor.
Staff Res onse; The proposal does not provide a"Plaza
with green space". Though a plaza at
this loeatian would benefit the area by;
~ Tying in with the WI buildings,
r redueing the shadow cast by the
structure, and
' providing some public open space.
At this time, these goals
are not addressed i-n a
camprehensive way,
~ 3. Parking and Circulation PZan:
a. East Meadow Drive is designat-ed as a pedestrian
street with plazas, Zimited or no autos and a bus
raute. The Gore Creek corxidor zs designated as a
study area for a walking path.
Staff Respvnse: East Meadow wi12 continue ta be apedestrian
corridor; hewever, the propasal does not
include a straam walk.
4. Building Height Plan:
a. The area along East Meadow Drive is recommended to
be a maximum af two to thrae stories or l8 ta 27
ft. high. Three to faur stories (27 ft to 35 ft.)
is designated on the southern three quarters of
the property. All heights exclude raof forms. '
Staff Response., As this is one of the most impartant
companents af the Master Plan, staff
discussed this item in the first section of
the memo on page four.
~
19
Vi. EIR ANALYSIS ~
A. Hvdralogic Conditians
The applicant will be altering the existing
drainage along Vail Road significantly. Currently
there is a rock lined ditch that conveys the water
to Gore Creek. Curb and gutter will be installed.
All drainage improvements must meet Town of Vail
standards and will be reviewed for campliance at
time of building permit. Drainage from the
parking structure will be drained to the sanitary
sewer. Details far the parking stxucture drainage
have not been put tflgether at this time. Staff
recommends that the best possible paZlution
eontrol devices, including grease traps and
sediment traps, should be installed in the
drainage system.
' The one area of concern that the Town has
regarding drainage xs how it will be handled
during constructian of the project. Dewatering
any excavation pits intQ Gore Creek could
negativeIy imgact the creek unless the sediment is
removed. The Enviranmental Impact Report
campleted by the applicant commits the applicant
to undertake erosion and dewatering control ~
measures accerding to the best available practices
to ensure that the creek impacts are minimized.
S. Atmosgheric Conditions
The three ways this projecfi wi3l impact air
quality are through fireplaees, dust contro3, and
automobile trips ta the site.
Concerning fixeplaces, all units xn the hotel are
propased to have gas burning fireplaces. The air
emissions from these gas burning appliances will
be negligible. There are four existing woad
burning fireplaces in the hotel which will remain.
Dust is an impact that is generated from the
canstruction process and through the sanding of
the existing parking lat. During construction,
the applicant (in the EIR)'commits to undertake '
effdrts td cantrol the dust. By lacating the
parking underground and eliminating the need for
sanding, air qa.ality will be impr4ved.
The last possible impact is from automobile trigs.
~
With 54 additicnal accommadatian units, less 10
20
~ dweZling units, there will be additional trips to
the site. Staff believes that this is a
reasonable incxease and that further documentation
is not needed. The hotel's mini-van service
combines trips that soma guests might otherwise
make individually in their own cars.
Given the henefit of gas applianee fireplaces, ~
eliminating the sanding in the winter from the ~
parking lot, the negative impact af the additional `
trips is offset.
C. Geoioqic and Biotic Canditions
The proposal does not ehange the impacts relating
ta geolagic and biatic conditions.
D. Visual Conditions
The applicant has used seven photographs taken of
the Vi11agE to show haw the proposal will relate
t4 surraunding structures. The buzlding aut1ine
has been shown in tape.
~ Concerning the view looking east on West Meadpw
Drive (#I), the EIR consultant claims that feEa
people wi11 view the Sonnena3p fram this point
since foot traffic is minimal in the area. Staff
strongly disagrees with this analysis. Since
Meadow Drive is a bus and gedestrian route linking
the Village to Lionshead, staff believes this view
will be highly naticeable. ~
i
Al1 of the views of the building from paints zn ;
the Village show that the ski slopes, the
mauntain, and the sky will be blocked. (3,5,6 and
7) The view east fram the First Bank and chapel
area wi11 be completely blocked. (#5)
The views from the four way stap ('It2 and 4) show
that the building will not exceed the highest
ridge of Vail Mountain, as it will from the
vantage points in the Village. This is because
the elevation of the faur way stop is higher than
the site of the grQject. Staff realizes that some '
view impacts are xnevitable if the project is
redeveloped. However, we believe the building as
proposed has severe view impacts which axe nat
supportable given the scale af the surrQUnding
areas.
~
21
I
E. Land Use Conditians ~
~
The uses proposed are cvmpatible with those around
the site. This issue has been analyzed i.n the SDD
and Vail Village Master Plan sectzons of the mema.
F. CircuZatzon and Tzans artatYOn conditions
The traffic study, done by Leigh, Scott and
C3.eary, Ync., concTuded that the capacity of the
surraunding road network can generally handle the
traffic generated by the project. The only street
impravement recommended was to pravide three lanes
in Vai2 Road's existing alignment. The rsew lane
is for a left turn lane into the praject. The
original study reccammended that the three lanes be
provided with substandard lane widths so that the
street wauld not have to be widened. other
significant findings from the study inc3ude:
' At full occupancy, the proposed project can
be expected to add approximately 175 entering
and 175 exiting weekday vehicle trips to tha
surraunding roadway syster.s. Of these, 14
will enter and 12 will exit during the ~
evening peak-hour.
' The greatest concentration of projeet-
generated traffi.c is expected along Vai.l. Road
; to and fx'om the north. Ninety-three percent
of the additional traffic wi11 pass though
the four way stap.
' The traffic impaet of the proposed projeet on
existing and future peak season traffic will
be minimal.
The first traffic study, dated October 4, 1990,
was campleted based on national averages of trip
generation and staff believes does not accurately
reflect Vail traffic patterns. (See attached
report.) The applicant and the Town did
independent studa.es of the par3cing demand for the
existing hotel which showed that the supply
exceeds the demand. Because of this informati.an •
and the general agreement an this issue between
the staff and the applicant, a revised traffie
study was submitted.
The issue which needed clarification was the
requarement for a center lane to allQw left turns ~
22
~ intQ the auto court. The first study, based an ~
national standards, deterinined that it was needed, I
but that substandard lanes wou1d suffice. Since ~
it is nat reasanable for the Town to accept
substandard lanes Qn one of the busiest roads in
the Town, the second study dated November 15,
1990, based on local standards, was intended to i
cZarify the issue and determine what the new !
project would require.
A majar f3aw of the seeond study is found in the
conclusian. The consultants state that "if
roadway widening is required in oarder to [provide
three Ianes], the resultant expenditures are nat
justified, and we wauld recQmmend that the
operatian of Vail Road remain as atwo-lane
- design." Staff discussed the study with the
engineer who prepared it and faund that he had na
documentation of the cost which "is ncst
justified.r" Staff does not concur that the
cast/benefit anaZysis referred to in the I
conclusion is an appropriate rneans ta determine
what improvements the applicant is responsible
for. This is especial3y true when the cast, at ;
the time the repart was written, was unknown ta ~
~ the cflnsultants. I
More importantZy is the fact that a requarement to
~
build the middle lane must be determined by the
amount of demand generated by the new project. If
the Sonneztalp generates the demand, they must
mitigate the impact. Cost should not be a gactor
in this decision. The applicant has cQmmitted ta
place curb and gutter at the edge of the street
for the full Iength of Vai1. Road. The Tflwn's
traffic engineering cansultant, Aznie Ullevig,
reviewed the traffic studies and concluded that
three lanes is the better alternatiye because of
the high number of left turn mavements at peak
demand (45 turns per hour at 4:00 P.M.) and
the potential for traffic congestion to warsen
without the left turn lane. In his review, he
also said that the left turn lane sh4uld extend
oniy to the auta caurt and that a median sauth of
Meadow Drive would be helpfu4 for traffic fiow.
A related issue ta this is the need for accurate
survey information. Setting the edge of pavement
must be based on aceurate infnrmation. The
architecturaZ dz-awings submitted by the applicant
shaw the propased crarb eight feet from where it
~ should have been, according to Town recards. The
23
app3icant's solutian was to merely shift all of ~
Vail Road approximately eight feet to the west.
This shift must be verified with survey
information showinq bath sides of Vail Road prior
to any improvements being approved so that staff ;
can verify that there are no impacts to the First ~
Bank Building.
G. Pogulation Characteristics
The Sonnenalp currently emplays approximately 270
employees during the winter season. The propased
redevelopment would add appraximately 26 new
employees pex the EIR. Ten of these employees
will be needed for housekeeping, a houseman,
laundry sei^vice, and general hatel staffing. The
cansultants preparing the ETR assumed that 16
employees are enough to staff the additional
commercial area. The applicant is assuming that
no additional employees will be needed for the
4004 square feet of new conference area or far the
4700 square feet af new restaurant azea. The
applicant claims that the conference area requires
the same staffing, regardless of size. Concerning
the restaurant, the applicant has stated that he
wiil use tha existing Sonnenalp Austria Hause ~
restaurant staff to serve the expanded Bavaria
Hause area. (The Austria House is by the Covered
Bxidge, the Bavaria House is the ane under ~
consideration.) The Austria House restaurant will
shut down when the Bavaria House restaurants are
open.
The additianal 26 employees will increase the
total numbex' to 296. O€ the total, the apglicant
states that 94 employees wnr3e at the Bavarza Haus.
The Sonnenalp currently provides houszng for
apprrximately 145 emplayees. 33 units are owned
by the Sannenalp, hausing 67 employees and 20
units are rented by the Sonnenalp, hausing 78
eznployees. This assumes that each bedraom houses
two Sonnenalp employees. ~
No additi.anal employee housing is proposed by the
Sonnenalp for the redevelopment, though statements •
in the EIR acknowledge that the housing goals of
the Sonnenalp are not being met. Hawever, staff
believes that a redeveJ.oprnent af this magnitude
should have some permanent employee housing. The
material in the EIR states that 11hausing is of
potential concern ta both the Sonnenalp and the ~
24
~ Tawn." Staff needs to clarify this paint and
state that significant resources have already been
invested by the Town to address this issue. With
the adoption of the Town of Vazl AffordabZe
Housing Study on November 20, 1990, it is no '
Zonger a potential concern but is an zssue that
must be addressed fomally. At this time, the
report has been adapted and provides guideline for
new development. At a Iater date, the report's
recQmmendatians will be ineorporated into the
Zoning Code. In addition, the Land Use Plan calls
for employee housing by stating:
5.3 - "Affordable employee hausing should be
made available thraugh private efforts,
assisted by limited incantives, provided by
the Town af Vail, with appropriate
restrictions."
It shauld alsa be mentianed tnat most SDD's in the
past have provided some number of employee housing
units within the prapasal.
Usinq the recommendations fram the Affordable
~ Housing Study, staff determined the amaunt of
housing which should be deed restrxcted using two
calculations. Far {'by-right" projects, hausing
for ls% of the employees should be provided. For
those prajects with clensity increases, 15% 30°s
of the employees should have housing provided by
the employer. I
For example., the redevelapment will require an
addi.tional 26 employees. Sinee a density increase
is needed fQr the expansion, the 30% multiplier is
used:
26 empldyees x .30 = 7.8
Assuming that two employees will share a
dwelling unit, the 7.8 is divided by 2,
resulting a requirement for 4 dwelling units.
Or, 26 employees x.16 = 4.16 or 2 dwelling
units. '
Staff believes that it is also appropriate to
revsew the over al], demand an housi,ng that the
projeet will generate: Given that the existing
aperation reqaires 94 empZoyees, and meets
~ density limits, staff believes that housing should
25
be provided for these employees by using the 15o ~
muZtiplier.
94 employees x .15 = 14.1
40.5 aiviaea by 2 equazs 7.05
By cambi.ning the "by-right" demand with that
generated by the density increase, a mini,murn of 7 ;
of the Sannenalp's existincr emplayee units should j
be permanent].y deed restricted and at least four
new employee units shauld be required for the
density and retail abdve the allowabZe. This
xasu].ts in a tatal of 11 ernplayee restricted
units.
Staffrs calculations do not inelude any additional
enpl4yees for the 470(] square feet of new
restaurant area. Because this does not seem
piausib3e, staff needs mare information about
this area before an accurate hausing demand can be
done.
H. Phasinct
The canstruction will ta}ce place in three phases. ~
Phase I includes the paxking structure and
elevator care. Mass excawation and sharing is i
pl.anned to begin May 1, 1991. The parking garage
is planned ta be completed Yay September 13, 3991.
The kitchen addition will be completed Octaber 15,
1991.
Phase xI ac'tivity includes the new hotel tawer and
the north wing with planned occupancy far December I
10, 1992. Phase III work i.ncludes the spa
building, meeting rooms and the remadel to the
existing hatel which will begin May 1, 1992. The
existing east wing of the hotel will be demolished
between May 1, 1992 and June 5, 1992.
At this time, the applicant propases to bui.ld a
paved road around the existing loading dock
(southwest carner of site) for trucks to use
during the dernolition of the existing east wing.
Staff is concerned about the impacts to the creek, "
and helieves that another raute can be found to
haul the debris away from the site.
The secand concern of staff is the parking for the
construction workers. As the Tflwn has seen with
the construction of the parking structure and ~
26
Gateway, major prajects require many employees and
~ vehicles. We would like to see a plan explaining
where the construction workers will park.
The applicant, in the EIR, has said that partiaZ
closures of Vail Road will be needed. The Town
understands that the raad will never be completely
clased. In addition, the Town understands that
all deliveries ta the site wilZ occur from the
Talisman access road ar Vail Road but will not
take place via Meadow Drive.
VII. LAND IISE PLAN
The Land Use Flan xefers ta the Vail Village Master
FYan for reviewing any requests fQr redevelopment in
this area.
VIII. CC}NCLIJSION
Althauqh the project has pasitive aspects such as the
lodge use, underground parking, sidewaIks, and a
pedestrian bridge, staff recomme.nds denial of the
project for many reasons. Using the SDD criteria,
staff finds severe noncompliance wi,th Criteria .A:
~ design campatibility and sensitivity to the immediate
environment. The hexght, at 81 feet, exceeds the 48
foat limit beyand what is compatible with the
surroundinq area. The mass of the bui.Iding, exceeds
the allowed aecessory area and cammon area by 53,932
seruare feet. This squ.axe faotage as indicated }ay the
height, satbacks, minxmal public spaces and shadow
patterns, is too much £ar the site.
Cxiterza D, conforma.ty with applicable elements of the
. Vail Gomprehensive PAan, Town policies and urban design
plans, has not been met. Several plans and
i1lustrations from the Vail Village Master Plan haue
not been addressed. Specifically, the open space plan
with plazas, the building height plan, the shade and
shadow issues, and the streamwalk have nat been
addxessed adequately.
Criteria F, regarding the site pl.an, has not been met
in that the concepts for the site plan results in a .
building layout that ].acks quality public spaces.
Staff does not agree that the resulting site plan, N
reserving most of the open space on the site far hotel
guests, is the best design for the commun3ty,
~ Criteria G, regarding a circulation system designed
27
~
for pedestrians and automobiles, has not been met, ~
either. Additional survey information is needed to
fulZy address and to aceurately locate the propased
impravements.
The twa issues discussed first are the fundamental
grobiems with the project; however, there are numerous
others which must be resolved priar to approval, as
identified in the main boay of the memorandum. The
applicant has been aware of the Town's concerns, in
most cases, sxnce the original PEC work session. Staff
believes that until alZ autstanding issues are
resolved, the groject shauld not be approved.
Staff asks that the applicant address the Town's issues
more thoraughly. We believe the project has merit but
additional design changes are necessary before the
staff could support and recorrcmend appravaZ of the _
project.
~
~
28
,
. P,ROPOSED PARKING . :
Sheet # Redular Spaces' Campact Spaces Valet
31
P31P4
P11P2 S9: 14
Lobby Level ' . . . . 5 ` . . 0: : . 0
Totai 127 25 58.1.
Grand Tataf: 210 (includes 120/n cornpact and 280/o valet)
:REQ'UIRED? PARKING
:AREA : - .:;PARK9NG
USE Sq. Ft.) CALGULATIC7N REQLIIREMENT
Retail ` 5,713 . 57,13/30Q ~ 19:
Aceommodation Urr~ts +69,989 , 0.955xl 2~6 121 '
(555 sq. ft. average room size)
[ onferencelMeeting Area4 7,930 793(~/151812 33
RestauranilLounge ~ 4,163 ~ 4163115I8 35
Total - 208 .
Parking Requ°rred = 208 spaces
Mutiple 1Jse Credit (5°lfl) = (10)
~
Nan-conforming Credit = (4)
Tata! 194
:
` REQUIREDLC3ADlNG
AREA
USE ,(Sq. Ft.) REQUIREMENT
,
Ladge 139,36+6 . :
4 berttis
Retail 5,7~ 3 1 berth
Subtotal . :
ess: Multiple Use Credit ~ 2 berths
tal ~ : : ::3 bert .hs .
Sonnenalp
Exhibit A
.
HEIGHT ANALYSIS ~
. .
' PROPQSED REDEVELOPMENT .
Ridge' Gab{e Eave
~ft} ; {ft) ~ft)
Tower Above Auto Court: . 77: .7Q 60.5
Elevator Tower: _ 81 : NIA 66.5 'Tower at Gorner vf East Meadow
and Vail Road; . 59 ' NlA 42
Ridge along East Meadvw Drive ' 49.5 N1A 26,5 Tower an East End: 52 N!A 30,5 ~
Ridge along Vail Road: _51.5 N/A ` 35
Portion of Existing Building
_ , .
'to Remain. ' 42 :NIA 235
, .
. ; . : . .1/V1 CONIPARISUN
Ridge Gable Eave
(ft) (ft} M} ;
,
Towe r: ; 70 : NIA. ; 50 ;
Ridge Along Meadow: 47.5 NfA
Gorner at Vail Road - . . ,
: . ,
`and Meadow Drive: 3~1 ; N/A, `i 8:~
~
Sonnenalp
Exhibit B
P rIEA BREAKDOINN
- ~
-i
;
, SiTE GUVERAGE ~
~ i
Sheet A2 = Existing hoiel/conference area = 19,611sq. ft. '
Sheet A9 = New hotel = 20,194 5q. !t.
Sheet A00 = Spa building/c4vered walkway - 4,518 sq. ft.
Tatal 44,378 sq. ft.
coMMarv AREa
Sheet A2 = Registratian lobbylloading & defivery ~ 4,244 sq. ft. i
Sheet A3 = Libraryloffices etc. = 3,818 sq. ft.
Sheet A4 = Corridors, stairs -2nd level = 1,074 sq. ft.
Sheet A5 = Corridars, stairs - 3rd level = 1,087 sq. fi.
Sheet A6 = Displayprestroam = 565 sq. ft.
Sheet A6,1 = Conference arealoffices/aaundry, etc. = 31,201 sq. ft.
Sheet A7 =Elevatorllobbylstairs = 366 sq. ft.
5heet A8 = New wing corridor - 2,435 sq. ft.
Sheet A9 = Corridor - 2nd IeVel = 2,654 sq. ft.
Sheet A10 = Corridar - 3rd level = 2,642 sq. ft.
Sheet A71 = Corridor - 4th [evel - 3,230 sq. ft.
Sheet A12 = Corridor - 5th fevel - 1437 5q. ft. Sheet A00 = Spa building/covered walkway = 4,518 sq. ft.
Tot21 55,271 sq. ft.
tRFA
5heet A3 = Mezzanine = 5,834 sq. ft. - 15 RoomS
Sheet A4 = 2nd leve! _ 6,120 sq. ft. - 12 Raoms ,
Sheet A5 = 3rd levei = 8,429 sy, ft. - 12 Ftooms
Sheet A$ _New building 15i leve! = 4,245 Sq. ft. - 7 Aooms
Sheet A9 = Mlew building 2nd level - 16,909 sg. ft. - 28 Raoms
Sheet A10 =[Vew building 3rd level - 16,910 sq. fi. - 28 R4oms
Sheet A11 = New building 4th level = 10,774 sq. ft. - 18 Roams
Sheet A72 = New building 5th leve! = 3,272 sq. ft. - 6 Rooms
Tota! 69,9$9 sq. ft. - 126 Rooms
coMMERCiAL ~
Sheet A8 = 1si Leve! = 5,713 sq. it.
Total 5,713 sq. ft. '
RESTAURANTIKITCHEN{LC7BBY L+DUNGE
Sheet A2 = ResiaurantlKitchenlLobby Lounge - 10,106 sq. ft.
Total 10,10E sq. ft.
fonnenalp
Exhibit C
. _ k.
r~~~ ~ ' .f 1''~ ' - .
. ~
~ Tie %11 Religicxy~
.~s Fvundotion
I
4 DBCeTClbEZ' 1990
Ms. Kristan Pritz
Town of Vail
Department of Community DevelQpment
Vail, Colarado 81657
HAND DELSVERED
RE: Application for Special Devel,opnent Distriet Designation I
of Sannenalp Hote1
Dear Kristan; ~
The Vail Religious Foundatian has requested that I
communicate to the Tc?wn of Vail the concern of the Foundation in
assaciatian with the Vai]. Interfaith Chapel, regarding the rezoning
of the Sonnenalp Hotel. The Vai,I Ftelig'iaus Foundation is stroragly
oppased tQ the rezoning request which is before the Town of Vail
and to the redevelapment plan whi.ch is associated with that
rezaning request. The application has n4 relationship to present
zoning, the Town Master Plan ar the guidelines which affect the
property in question. It is apparent that the owners of the
sonnenalp Hotel gurchased a prvperty which was half trie size they
wanted, but the lack of planning on the part of the property owners
serves as a justificatxon neither for the rezaning which they
request ar for the wholesale waiver of zoning limitations c,rhich is
the crux of the reqxest now hefore the Town of Vail,
The FQUndation begins with the premise that the zoning
which applies to the Sonnenalp Hotel and the surroundi.ng properties
was applied for a reasan. In the apinian of the Foundation, that
reason was to provide some degree of certainty regarding what wouid
be develaped on the land, and, when redevelapment was necessary, a
reasonable degre.e of assurance regarding what would be deveZoped
when existing structures became obsolate ar, for any reasan,
required demoZition and replacement.
Unfortunately, the Special Development Districts
19 Vaff Ft,vad • Valf, Colcxodo 81657
~ permitted under the Municipal Code of the Tow+n of Vail can be used
to frustrate and t? circumvent the purposes and protections created
by good zaning practice. That is exactly what is occurring in the
case of the Sonnenalp application.
The present vwners of the SonnenaZp Hotel knew what they
were receiving when they purchased the progerty. There existed at
the time of their purchase, and there naw exist, limitatiQns on
that property which insure that its use wzll be, to some extent,
consistent with the surrounding propertaes. The purposes of
5pecial Development Districts are clearly listed in Section
18.40.10, and need not be repeated verbatzm in this lettex. It is
sufficient to note that the goals of gromoting the appropriate use
of land, improving the design character and quality of new
development, facilitating the adequate and eeonomical pravision of
streets and utilities, preserving apen sgace azeas, and furthering
the overall goals of the community may all be accomplished within
the framewark of the Public Accommodations Zone District in which
the sonnenalp hotel is presentZy located. What cannat be
accomplished within that zane district are increases in building
height, density, and accessory and camman area GRFA, and the
elimination of setbacks which are being requested by the present
awners of the Sonnenalp Hotel. The recNest might generously be
interpreted as an attempt ta abtain blanket vaxiances where no
basis exists to obtain any variances whatsoever.
~ As to the merits of the application, it is inconceivable
that an eighty-faot residential structure sticJcing up in th.e midc3le
of Vail could do anything to enhance the attractiveness of the Town
of Vail. The Town of VaiI has been able to preserve, to some
extent, the atmnsghere of an alpine village through the zoning
which is fundamental to its Iand use planning. It shouid be the
gaal, if there is such a goal., to rem3nd the visitQr 4f Znterlaken
or Garmi.sh, not Zurich or Munich. TQ permit the intensity of
develapment which is requested by the Sonnenalp wou].d be
incansistent with the goals which the Vail Religious Foundation
believes tq be those of the Town of Vail and the residents of the
Tawn. Thase goal5 may not necessarily be those of develapers who
purchase property governed by reasonable and agpropriate
limitations and then attempt ta create appreciation of their
investment by requesting special rights which violate the
expectations if nrat the rights of the residents and the guests whcr
are impacted by the propased develapment.
With regulari.ty, and particu].arly during the winter ,
seasdn, the Interfaith Chapel is troubled by the use of its limited
garking faciliti,es by the empZayees of the Sonnenalp Hatel and
those individuals using the Sonnenalp restaurant facilities.
Despite zequests made of Sannenalp management and the pasitioning
of the sigrsage required by the Town of Vail to limit unautharized
parking, that use cantinues on a daily basis. If the development
~ proposed by the Sonnenalp were to be permitter3, that unauthorized
use of the Chapel 's parki.ng facilities would be aggravated by that
fact that the Sonnena].p parking which now is reasonably visible
wouZd be less visible and less aCCeSSlble, and a greater number of ~
individuals wha use the Sonnenalp facilities would use the Chapel's
limited parking.
The visual impact of the Sonnenalp project on the
Tnterfaith Chape2 and its envirans would be dramatie and
undesirable. Where the Town of Vail nQw has a foeal paint which,
for many years, has heen identifiable to the Tawn's residents and
visitors, the visibility of the Chapel would be dramatically
decreased. The Foundation suggests that the many postcards of the
Chapel indicate its importance to the image of the Town of Vail.
The Sonnenalp Hotel, currently an attractive facility consistent
with the Town's image, would be no greater asset to the Town's
image were the redevelopment plan approved. In fact, because of
the mass and impact of the grogased redevelopment, it wauld almost
certainly be an edifice to avoid, and a blight on the views of the
Gore Range and VaiT Mountain which peaple identify with the Tawn of
Vail.
Even the existing loading dock aperated by the Sonnenalp
Hate3 creates groblems in the opexation of the Interfaith Chapel.
That facility, across Vail Road from the Chapel, is far frcam an
attractive feature of one of Vaxl's central streets, and the one j
which bears the Town's name. A proposal which doubles the number
of rooms in the facility must bri.ng caith it the reeognition that
the use of the 1.oadi.ng bay(s) wiJ.l incraase dramatically. That use
will further dzsrupt the services and functions conducted at the ~
Chapel and will detract fz'am the appearance, not anly of the
Chapel, but of the street as a whole. Even under present
circumstances, deZivery vehicles must deal with the pedestrian and
vehicular traffic on Vail Raad in a manner which is inconsistent
with safe practice. An aqgravation of this prablem should not be
permitted.
Beyond the deficiencies in the groposed project on its
merits, there are also operational problems with the Gonstruction
of the project. If the set-backs are to be waived, as requested,
or significantly reduced, the work on the prraject must be conducted
in the public right-of-way. This project is not one which woul.d be
accomgTished during a single constructian season. Not only the
Chapel, but the Town as a whole would suffer for several
construction seascsns with tzaffic dzsruption, noise and a scar on
the village. The functions of the Chapel, which oceur on every day
of the week, wouZd be disrupted by the nQise and the eanstruction
activity, including but nat limited to vehicular traffic. ,
The Vail Religious Foundation appreciates the exi.stence
and the quality of serviees offered by the SonnenaTp Hotel. This
letter is written only after considerable discussion regarding the
merits and demerits of the proposed redevelopmerat pl,an. it is,
however, written upan the unanirnous vate and authority of the ten
members of the VaiZ Religious Foundatian who considered the ~ j
question. It is alsa written with the conviction that the appraval q
of the plan would be a serious problem for the Vail. Ynterfaith ~
o those who use the zility, and ta the thousai,ds of
~ have seen, and expect in the future to see, an it in VaiZ which rsflects some regard for the visual and
Lcal eacperience of thase whd seek relief, recreatian and
aring their visits in our community. The deveZapment af
of Vail into islands of cancentrated density and mass j
:he czties from which our visztors escape wiZl do no more :
c visitors than to send them eZsewhere, seeking the ;
y which they formerly identified to be that af Vail. '
~
,
Resgectfull.y, ,
VAIL ICIOUS D 0N
By •
President
~
~
~
. ~
~
~
~
~ ~ .
PLANNTNG AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
December 10, 1990 ~
AGENDA
r'
11.30 Site Visits
2:00 Public Hearimg
SITE VISITS
- 1. Approval of minutes af October 29 and Navember 26.
- 2. Update on Vail Va11,ey Medical Center Parking
Structure completion and request to extend the
interim parking plan on Lats Fr E, 10, Vail
Village 2nd filing, 181 West Meadow Drive.
Applicant: Vail Va],ley Medical Center
- 3. A request far a conditional use permit in order to
establzsh a bed and breakfast opez-ation an Lot P,
VaiZ.'Uillage 2nd Filing, 141 West Meadow arive.
Applicant: ,Toan M. Narxis
3 4. A request for a minor subdivisian in order to
vacate a lot line between Lots 46 and 47, Vail
Vi].Iage west Fi.Iing No. 2.
Applicant: ANJA Corporatian ~
1 5. Arequest far a side yard setback variance in
order to canstruct an addition to a single family
dwelling on Lat 16, Buffehr Creek; 1879 Meadow
Ridge Road.
Applicant: Jerry Farquar
- 6. A request for a major amendment to SDD No. 4,
connmonly refered to as Cascade Village, 5ection
18.46 - Area D, a.n arder to add affice f].aor area
to the Glen Lyon Office Building, 1000 S. FrQntage
F2oad West, Lot 45, Block K, Glen Ly'on Subdavision.
Appl.icant: Glen Lyon Partners
5 7. A request to estab].ish a Special Development
District for the SonnenaZp redevelapment, located
at 20 Vail Road; A part of Lot L, Bloc}c 5-E, Vail
Village 1st Filing,
Appl. icant : Sonnenalp Properties, Inc,
4 8. A request fQr a front setback variance in arder to
construct a garage and a waTl height variance in
order to construct retaining walls at 1448 Vail
V311ey Drive; Lot 18, BZock 3, Vail Valley First
Filing. ~
Applicant: John and Barbara Schafield
t
is now 8 feet from the property line, and the applicant is
requesting an additional°variance of .5 feet..
Kathy moved an.d Chuek seconded to approve the request per the staff
memo dated December 10, 1990. ,
6. A re uest for a ma°or amendment to SL3D I3o. 4 commonl
referred to as Cascade Village, Section 18.46 Area D zn
order to add dffice floor area to the G1en Lyon offi.ce
Builda.n 1000 Sduth Fronta e Raad Lot 45 Black K G_len L on
Subdivision.
Applicant: Glen Lyon Partners
She1.Iy Mello explained that the request was to change an existing
exterior deck on the Glen Uyon C?ffice Building to 400 square feet
of interior office space» The applicant wi.shed like to amend SDD4
whi.ch ancluded the addition of 2800 square feet of affice space to i
the existing Glen Lyon Office Building. A number of conditions of
approval addressing site`improvements were attaehed to the SDD at
the ti.me of approval. The applicant was requesting ta meet only
a portion of the required canditians for the offi.ce expansian.
The applicant agreed ta the undergrounding of the electrical
utilities and to thc addition of more landscaping around the
existing surface parking lot. The staff recommendation was for
appraval pravided the applicant underground the electrica1
utilxties along the narth side of the Glen Lyon property. (The ~
~ applicant had agreed to complete the undergraunding as well as to
improve the site's landscaping.)
Da].ton Williams moved to approve the request per the staff memo,
and Jim Shearer secanded the mota.on. The vote was 5-0 i.n favor.
7. A request ta establish a SpeCial Development Di.strict for the
Sonnenalp red,evelopment,. loeated at 20 Vail Road; a part of
Lat L Block 5-E Vail Villa e 1st Filin . ~
A licant: Sonnenal Pro erties Inc.
Kristan Pritz explained how the presentation would proceed. Mike
Mollica reviewed the changes highlzghted in the memcr. Mike pointed
out that the applicant had aqreed to incorparate the 13 surface
parking spaces near the Swiss Chalet into the parking structure and
prcaposed a pocket park design where the surface parking had been.
Regarding a traffic study for Vail Road, Mike stated that the j
applicant did nat want tb do another traffic study. He added that ~
Arnie Ullevig, Town of Vail Transportation consultant, was in
general agreement with the study, but that additional survey work
was needed. Due to the widening of Vail Raad to acconnmadate the
~ Sannenalp's additional traffic load, the staff was suggesting that
3
sarne mitigation was needed in the faxm af planted medians, two of
~ which wauld be near the Gateway Building to break up the vicw down
Vai.l Road and discourage additional traffic. Mike added that the
Gateway project had pulled their sidewalk back t4 accommodate the
rnedians. According ta the traffic study, the Sonnenalp is required to have
a left turn 1ane, and thus the staff felt a media.n was needed in
this area. A survey zs still needed to see how the rnedians will
tit. Kristan pointed out that the parking at the bank needed to ~
xemain. ~
Regarding Fire i7epartment eoncerns, Mike stated that thE applicant
had met with the Fire Department and the Fire Department had signed
off on the cor,ceptual desigrt. Modifications had been tnade to the 'E
Talisman parking and to the northeast corner af the Sannenalp
property which would facilitat~ fire txucle access.
A portion of the swiznmi.ng poal had been pull.ed back aut of the rear
setback, but the staff felt that the entire poQl shoul.d be
campletely out of the rear setback area and that the deck should
also be pulled out of the setback. Mike then explained that a
third loading space had been provided, but that all the spaces were
4 feet narrower than the re,quired width. The applicant felt that
these spaces were wide enough for the type of trucks used far
Sonnenalp deliveries,
Connie Kna.ght arrived at this poi.nt. ~
~
Andy Knudtsen continued the descriptian of items of staff and PEC
concern, beginning with a deseription ot additional landscaping
being added to the intersectiQn of Meadow Drive and Vail Raad, and
also along Vail Raad, The staff f'elt that mare landscaping was
sti11 needed.
Andy said that the applicant had nat included the streamwalk in I
his proposal, but the staff still felt that the streamwalk shouTd
be incorporated into the praposed plan.
Regarding empioyee hausing, the sta£f felt that a minimum of 7 of
the Sonnenalp's existing employee units,should be permanently deed
restricted and at' leas-t -4 new ernpToyee" `units should be required.
This calculatian did not include additional employees for the 4700 square feet of new restaurant area. (More information was needed
on this area,)
The Talisman access easement issue still had not been finaJ.ized.
Concerning the height of the buiLding, the applicant had reduced
the height of the building by appraximately 6 feet for a portion
of the building at the narthwest elevatzan along Vail Raad. Andy
showed the changes on elevation drawings which ineluded an addition ~
~
~ 4
~I
of 2 feet to the height of the corner tawer and a lawered portion ~
that conneets the tawer to the rest of the building. Aithough the
tower then functioned more as a focal paint, the staff continued
to have major concerns with the averall height, mass and bul.k af
the proposed structure.
Andy then reviewed the Meadow Drive cancerns. The staff still had
4 concerns: 1) a change in material on the large Meadow Drive
darmers, 2) the arcade design, 3) landscaping should be brought to
the front af the stone wali, and 4] more vari.ation in the overal.l
elevation was nee:ded.
Jeff Winston, Town of Vail urban design consultant, reviewed design
issues. He stressed that ance a building has been constructed, it
will be there fox a long time and although the pracess was
frustrating, it was very importarrt to get the building right. He
felt it was a fine line to determine when a building was
appropriate for Vail, when it was tao big, etc. Jeff added that
although the applicant was proposang a building of the highest
quality, and the paxking would be u.nd'erqround, there were still
many cancerns: The number of encroachments into the setbacks, the
pool and patio encroached into the stream setback, loading and
unloading on Vail Road, increase in traffic on Vai1 Raad, employee
housing and using the stream setback for a canstruction road.
Jeff felt that the most important issues were. 1} what the feeling
would be lilce when walking down Meadow Drive, 2) the areas of flat
roof, and 3) public access to Gore Creek. He used a sa.te plan to
show the encraachments. Jeff alsQ showed that the Vail Village
Inn buildings were set at angles and had varied heights, both of
wha.ch helped the walking expera.ence.
Jeff falt that the parking grid under the building could be maved
back from East Meadow Drive and that wauld a1.1.ow the building to
be moved baclc some, which would decrease some of the shadow along
Meadow Drive.
Regarding the fiat roof, Jeff felt that.even thaugh the pedestri.an
may not natice the flat roof from the im:medi.ate area, it would be
setta.ng a precedent. He added that flat raofs were a foreiqn
element in Vail. He suqgested that perhaps dQrmers coul.d be
carried through to uary the roof.
Kristan thert summarized the staff's concerns:
l, Design Compatibility : height, sun/shade and views.
2. Site Plan: In general the farm needs to be reworked so that
it does not exceed the height limits and the setbacks.
3. Vail Village Master PTan: The plan meets 2 of 5 sub-area
concepts, and the staff feels the plan snDUid meet more than
€1~r j 5
~ •
1
thls. ~
4. L a ndscaPing and open space ~
5, Employee housing
6. Design of VaiZ Road
7. Resolution of Talisman access easement
8. The Zocatian of the access road for eanstruetion
I~
Art A7.bplanalp, xepresenting the Vail Reliqious Foundatian, stated j
that there were basicaliy twa types af appl,i.cants: one who follows ;
the rules and therefore won't face apposition, and dne who tries
to do what he wishes. He adcied that the second type of app].icant a
first proposes something sa out af scale that the Town then I
negotiates the project down tQ what the applicant wanted in the ~
first place. Art added that the app].icant purchased the prgperty
knowing the zone district that it was in. He feYt that an SDD was +
being requested to buzld totally out of all proportion. He said ~
that a building 77 feet tall did nat fit a,n that area. Art then
quoted staff concerns in the mema related ta heiqht, shade,
loading, and mass. He appreciated what Jahannes had done to the ~
SannenaZp, but felt the proposed building was not appropriate for
this site. Art mentioned the problem the Chapel had with peaple who were going ~ i
to the Sannenalp and used the Chapel parking area. He then said I
that the Master Plan auf.horized a height of 27 to 35 feet ran Vail
Road, and disaussed the f_act that the 3oading zone was l.ncated
directed across from th~ Chapel and the potential impacts upan the
Chapel from Zoading areas that were undersizecl. Art diseussed the
streamwalk and the fact that the applicant felt that it "shauld not ~.I
be an issue." ~
Art feit that SDD's were not to be used to abtain whoZesale
variances. He quoted from Sectzon VIIT of the staff inemo.
Rick Rosen, repxesenting the owners of condas at First Bank and
~a VilZa Cortina, felt the project should follow the Master Plan. He
mentioned concerns which included the height, the canyors effect
along Meadvw Drive, the lack of open space along the two streets, I
and the fact that 'the applicant had not-tried to design within the
existing zoning.
tiiane Hagen spake about construction on the site interfering with
weddings in the ChapeZ. She asked that canstruction be caartailed ;
on the weekends.
&
PI t. ~I
Jay Petersan, attorney representing the Sonnenalp, said the
contractar was in the audience to answer construction concerns.
He explained that the Faesslers were trying ta bui1d a quality
hotel, and that Vail was rated #11 in ski resorts with regard to
lodging. He felt that many of the encroachments were minor anes.
He added that the Ioading dock was a necessary evil. Three times
a week there would be liquor trucks that were 38 feet long.
Jay stated that the streamwalk was only a study area in the Master
_ Plan, not arequirement, He added that there would be no
fireplaces in the hotel rQOms. Jay explained that the tower height
was needad for hyaraulic elevatars that must go 7 stories. Forty
to 50q af the common'ali~ea was helow' graund--hallways, stairs,
IQbby, and conference faciZities which did not add to the bulk.
He would 1i7ce to solve the parking prablem between the Chapel and
the Sannenalg. The mass did not change near the Bully zII, but was
merely a modification af the laading area.
Regarding emplayee housing, Kathy Warren aslced if the applicant
were willing to restrict the requested units, and Jay stated that
the applicant would comply with what the Tawn makes others comply
with, that they agreed to restrict the lZ existing emplayee units,
but not to 4 new units.
Regardinq the Talisman access easement, i.f a neca easement is
afferecl to the TaZisman, the existing one would not be needed.
Kristan responded that the staff inerely wanted to be sure that
~ Meadow Drive remained a pedestrian area.
Jay compareci the heights of surrounding buildings, stating that
mast 4f them werem not T, ta 2 story buildings . He felt that the
TQwn needed a hotel and ~ulk was inevitable with a hotel.
Gordan Pierce, architect for the project, descxibed the
architectural changes made since the last proposal. He felt that
mnst of Jeff Winston's criticisms were "right on the maney". He
stated that he had net with Mi.ke McGee, the Fzre Marshal, and got
approval af the fire truck access. Regarding the flat roof, he
felt that it caul.d not be seen except from the mountain.
The meeting was adjourned for a 15 minute recess,
Diana Doncavan, Chairpersan, called the meeting back to order. She
asked the board to ask questions and make comments.
Connie stated that even if the building were designed dafferently,
the mountain view would be lost, and she asked Jeff i.f any view
corridor study.had been dane in that area. Jeff respandecl that
there were cancerns with the view along Meadow Drive, and that with
even a two stary bui3.ding, virtualZy alI of the views woul.d be
last. Connie then asked if the views would be ].ost if the building
were constructed within the setbacks, and Jeff stated that part af
~ 7
the uiews would still be last. Connie stated that aestheticall,y,
flat roofs waxe not what the Town wanted in the Village, and Jay
~ responded tha.t the VaiJ. Gateway building had partly flat rdafs, and ~
that the first submittal for the Covered Brzdge Building had a flat
roof.
Connie stated that, overall, she did not see any a.mprovernent over
the proposal from the last meeting. She felt the shading of Meadaw
Drive was dreadful, that the landscaping looked better, but there
still needed to be more landscaping along the Sonnenalp. She hated
to see the pool encraach into the setback. She felt the Sannenalp
would handle their employee housing situation weil on their own.
Connie was upset about the height and. felt that she could not
support the project.
Jim Shearer stated that he would like to see the applzcant do more
study alang Meadow Drive. He suggested a large archway on the
"punch--outs". He liked the parkYng access for the Talisman, the
pocket park, and the 2 loadi.ng areas. Jirn wanted acommitment to
a bridge for pedestrians and wanted the pool and patio maved out
of the setback area. He wanted to see more study regarding the
pedestrian way across to the Vai]. Village Inn. He felt that the
applicant must address traffic incrsases. He wanted the DRB to
look at the arcade area where there is only 3feet Qf clearance.
He also feZt that more landscaping was needed on the northwest
corner.
~ Jim felt that flat roafs were a bad sztuation and required much ~
maintenance. He said that he supported the praject, he felt the
Town neec3ed the au's, that redevelopment should be encouraged,
especially a well run busa.ness,. He felt that the project pravided
additional parking, incxeased the commercial base, and added a
poeket park. Jim felt that more study should be done on the
increase in traffic, on the number af vari.ances being requested,
and public access to the public areas. He felt the DRS should
study the pedestrian ways.
Kathy asked Gordon why the Meadow Drive wing could nat be pulled
to the sauth, and Gardon replied that this would cause some
problems. Kathy wasn°t comfortable with the implication that a
building dane within zoning could not be aesthetically pleasang.
Kathy x-ead from 18.40.090 Development Standards for SDD"s,
"...Before the Tawn Cou.ncil approves development standards that
deviate frnm the underlying zone d%strict, it shauld be determined
that such deviation pravides benefits to the Town that autweigh the
adverse eftects of such deviation,."
Kathy listed the dsviatians the Sonnenalp was requesting, including
additional ranits, excess accessory use square footage, excess
camznon axea, setback encrcaachments, and excess height. She
wondered what ber,efits the Town was receiving that OUtWElg}1ed the
adverse effects of the requested deviat:ions.
~ 8 ~
i
r
~ Kathy reminded tYae applicant that one purpose ot an SDf7 was to
further the goals of the Vail Comprehensive P1an, and she felt this
. project had fallen short.
Chuck Crist felt that the patio shouid be moved back out of the
setback, was concerned about the I.oad;ing docks, the sun/shade
(aside from that caused by the tdwer), and suggested the crosswalk
to the WT be heated. He feZt that if inedians were placed by the
4-way, that one should alsa be pTaced by the bank. He felt that
the applicant had some responsibility to provide public open space.
He did point out that the pocket park was positive, and was nvt
concerneci with the streamwalk. Chuck felt that the Sonnenalp did
provide for their employees wz.th housing, and was not concerned
alaout the increase in height of the corner tower. He was concerned
about the regulation of the construction activity and felt it
shoul.d be limited to weekdays, and that no constructa.on shauld be
allawed an Saturdays, Sundays or holidays. He suppoxted the
proj ect .
Steve Cohen, the probable eontractor for the Sonnenalp, stated that j
he planned 10 hour days, 5 days per weelc, with some work an
Saturdays. He stated that he had much experience canstructing
}auildings under difficu3.t circumstances.
Dalton Williams had no problem with the pool, but felt that the
~ patio should be pulled back. Regarding employee units, he felt
that the request tQ restrict a certain number of units was within
reason, but did not feel additianal emplayee units would have to
be constructed. Dalton pointed out that the First Bank was withirt
6 feet af its property line, and he was concernecl about having the
, left turn larie neax the bank entry.
Daltdn wondered if the Sonnenalp could validate parking ti.ckets fcrr
church parki.ng. Regardirag the building along Meadow Drive, he
liked the idea of bringing out the dormers, and sugqested that
perhaps the retail could also be brought further out tp really
provide ins and outs. He felt that the building would read as 3
stories. He was in favor ot the pocket park. Regarding
construction during peak times, he felt that construction activity
should cease and loak the least obtrusive as possible during
C'hristmas week, Presidents' week, and Easter. Dalton felt no work
should be done on 5unday, and only interior work done on Saturdays.
Ccaneerning the construction raad along the creek, he suggested
putting the utilities in the fal1 and leaving the raad out, then i
putting in the road in the spring. He feit the flat raaf wauld ~
read as a slaped raof. Regarding the height, he felt that the
buiJ.ding cauld be lawered by one story at the auto cQUrt.
~ 9
lrrding Rega~.he accessory and eommon space, I~al~ton felt the
percent~.ge fc~r allowable accessc~ry use and co~nman space used by the
Town shouJ.d bE increased. Dalton was in favor caf the increase in
au's and in favor af the project.
Di.ana stated that she coulcl not support the proj ect because it did
not meet the SDD criteria. Tt was not campatible with the
neighborhaod, the site plan could be imprcaved, and the open space
was a big issue. Diana felt the project needed a"front yard" to
mitigate the height and buJ.k. She felt the traffic study needed
to be done concerning the original cz,rcle proposed ffl rthe
intersection of Vail Raad and Meadow brive. Diana felt the Town
Council should determine who should construct the medians. She
felt the paol setback should meet existing regulations and would
like to see a letter from the Sonnenalp stating that they would nat
use the fact that they wauld nat use the ianpact upon the pool as
an excuse to protest the streamwalk.
Dzana was i.n favor of thc VA parcel bei.ng an informal pocket park.
She feZt that the employee housing absolutely must be restricted,
and that there must be more relief and .interest on the Nleadow Drive
szde of the building. Diana felt that the applicant was asking too
much. She also wished to restrict the au's permanently since this
was an important part of the project.
Diana feZt the cflnstruction activity should be restricted,
especzall.y during July, August and from December thraugh Easter, ~
She felt that the applicant ~was placing impravements on publie
rzght-of-ways, and that the stream access was only for Sonnenalp
guests. The phasing plan must be worltable. She had many problems
wath a cdnstruction road along Gore Creek and felt that all
construction activity must be contained on the site.
Johannes Faessl,er stated that he was surprised to learn of problems
with the Vail Interfaith Chapel. He stated that Don Simonton had
come to a meeting at the Sonnenalg, anel added that he would be
happy to work ou.t problems with the church. He also mentioned that
many church gaers used the Sannenalp parking, and he had no problem
with that.
Craig 5nowdon, representing the Talisman, stated that the Talisman
had no problem with the Sonnenalp progasal.
'I'he boarcl retired to executzve session witY7, Larry Eskwith, Town
At'torney. When they returned, Kathy Warren moved to recommend
denial of the pr9ject, and Connze Knight seconded the motion with
the fallowing findings:
1. The projeGt was not in compliance with Criterza A, regarding
design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate
environment, neighborhood ancl adjacent properties.
~
10
~
ya
.;~~y~ 2. SDD Criteria G, requiring that the proposal meet the loading
standards of the Town, was not met.
3. The praj ect fail.ed to maet 5DD Criteria D re.garding conformity
with the agplicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan,
Urban Desi.gn F1.ans, and specifically the Vail villa.ge Master
Plan. 4. The project did not meet SDD Criteri.a F regarding the site
plan, in that the site plan lacked quality public open space
on the site.
0
5. St]D Criteria H was not met, nat adequate open space on the !
site, ~
~
6. SoD eriteria T was not met regarding the phasing plan, as
there may be a conflict with the constructian of the px'oject
and the weekend activities at the Vail Interfaith Chapel.
In adda.tion, the PEC summarized their specific cbncerns about the
project, which were:
l. The swimming pool should be moved out of the rear (south)
setback. The patia adjacent to the pool should be allowed to
encraach only 10 feet into the rear setback.
~ 2. The,bua.lding is tan high.
3. More relief an Meadow Drive zs needed,
4. IdeaZly, Vail Road should bend at the intersectian of Meadow
Drive and Vail Road. Because the traffic generated by thas
project wi.l1 require widening Vail Road, there should be some
mitigation to reduce the "thoroughfare" appearance of Vail
Road. This bend in the road should be done in conjuncta.an
with mnving the S}ci Museum. Suka-area concept 1-2 of the Vaal
Village Master Pl,an needs ta be addressed.
5. The land VA owns by the Swiss Chalet should be turned into a
pocket park. The imprcrvements to this parcel shQUld be very
infarmal. The natural character of the site should he
maintained,
6. The applicant should perzaanently restrict 11 employee hausing
' units.
7. The noise and construction activity should }ae 1imited so that
it does nQt impact the chapel activities on Saturdays,
Sundays, vr haZiclays.
8. All construction shouZd occuron-site. The construction
aGt1V1'ty should not affect Gore Creek, particularly with
11
..~E ~
i
~
~ erosion-or sediment disturbance beeause of constructa.can.
9. The applicant should construct the proposed pedestrian bridge ~
acrQSs Gare Creek at the existing Vail Raad Bridge, This ;,fork
should be coorrlinated with Public Works.
10. The applicant should ensure that the Talisman access easement I
onta East MEadow Drive is vacated. This gaperwork needs to
be f'inalized.
11. The applicant shouJ.d build a planted median in the eenter of
Vail Road south of Meadow Drive per the traffic study.
12. The accammodatiQn units the applicant wzl.l be building should
a11 he restricted permanentIy as lodge rooms so that no
conversions to condominiurns will be al.lpwed in the future.
13. The loadi.ng bays should be expanded in size to meet the Town' s
minimum size requirement.
14. The applicant should provide public access to Gore Creek
thraugh green space or pocket parks.
15. The required setbacks along Meadaw Drive shauld be met.
The vote w'as 3-3. Diana noted that the comments of concern were
from the entire board, but were weighted differently. They
~ requested that the staff pass a3.ong the individual comments tQ the ~
Town Council.
:
8. A recruest for a frant setback variance in order to con_struct
a garage and a wall he%ght variance i.n order tca construct
retainin walls at 1448 Vail Va11e Drive- Lot 18 B1ack 3
Vail `V'alley F'irst Filinct.
Applicants: John and Barbara Schofield
Andy Knudtsen showed a site plan and explai.ned the request
regarding setbacks and walT heights.
Barbara Schafield stated that her family needed another garage and
described the site. She stated that they taere willinq ta landscape
heavily. John Schofield stated that the height and slope of all
the fini.shed grades would be equal to or less than the existing
grades. (Jne r,,rall was proposed to be 9 feet high and one wall wQUld
be 11 feet high.
Kathy wondered if the garage could be p3.aced closer to the house,
and was told the house would £al1 . down. Kathy suggested
underpi.nning. Jphn replied that the most distance to be gained
would be 3-1/2 feet. Kathy then asked why the garage wasn't
12 ~
~ ,
~
,
I~
MINUTES
~VATL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING
DECEMBEFt 19, 1990
7;30 P.M.
A sgecial meetinq of the Town Council was heid an Wednesday, December 19,
1990, at 7:30 P,M,, in the Cauneil ChambeYS of the Vail Municipal Suilding.
MEMBERS PF2ESENT: Kent Rose, Maycar
Tom S't.ei.nberq, Mayor Pxo-Tem
Lynn Fritzlen
Jim Gibsan
Robert LeVine
Peggy Osterfoss
MEMBERS ABSENm; Merv Lapin
ToW*I t3FFICIALS PRESENT: RQn Phillips, Town Manager
Larry Eskwizh, Town Attorney
Pam Brandmeyer, Tewn Clerk
This was a special meeting to consider tlrciinance 44, Series af 1990, fiYSt
rrading, an ordi,nance requesting a Special Develapment District for the
SQnnenalp redeve3opment, located at 20 Vail Road, a part o£ Lot L, Block 5-
E, Vai7, ViTlage lst Filing. The applacant was 5onnenalp Froperties, Tnc. ,
Kristan Pritz outlined the presentation process, beginning with the staff •
presentation by Mike Mollica and Andy Knudtsen. Mike Mollica reviewed tne staff mema beginning with the 6 variations for
the existing Public Accommodatzon Zone District being requested. They
included variances to height, density, setbacks, size af loading berths,
am6unt of accessory and common area. Mike described the request which
ncluded establishzng an SDD with existing underlying Puhkic Accammodation
~oning, ancreasing the accaiaimodation units from 72 to 126 units and
eliminating 10 existing c3,we11ing units, maintainingr all units as lodge
units, installing gas burning fireplaces in all units, adding agproxitnately
4000 stguare feet of conference space for a tatal of 7930 square feeL, and
constsucting a new building to heights of 51 to 82 feet on the saest side,
49 ta 59 feet an tYse north side, 52 feet on the east and 24 feet on the
south.
5ite improvements inc3uded a pedestrian walkway attached to the east side
af the existing Vail Roacl Bridge, over Gare Creek, removing the existing
surface parkincp, cflnstructinq a pocket park northeast of the Swiss Chalet ;
and adjacent to Willow Bridge Road, constructing a sidewaJ.k alang the east
side of Vail Roa1, constructi,ng itnprovements such as planters and siciewalks
along East MeadQw Drive, and installing landscaping along the north and
west eJ.evatians.
An vnderground parking garage would be constructed, removing the existing
surface parking lot, and a totai of tYsree load3ng berths wou].d be adcled.
Retai.'1 commercial space of 5,713 square feat wauld be included and the ,
restaurant and lounge area would be expandec3 to a total of 6,657 square
feet.
Mike then reviewecl t'he zoning analysis, descrifaing the departures from the
PA Zone District.
Andy Knud'tsen reviewed the nine SDD criCeria, Aegarding Criteria A,
concerrsing design carnpatability sensitivity ta the immediate envirnnment
relative to design, seale, bulk, height, buffer zones, character, etc.,
Andy sta.ted the staff abjected to the tnaximum height of 77 feet for the
Vai2 Road bui2s3irsg elevation and 81 feet for the elevator tawer: Andy
pointed aut that the tower was 4 tames more masaive than 4he Vail Village
nn tower along Meadaw Drive (Phase IV), He showed a sun/shaae sti:dy wha.ch
dicated the amount of shade cast ugon East Meadow Drive 3nd also onto the
4kil Village Inn.
Regarding character, the staff fel*_ that there was a significant deviation
1
i
from the existing character of the Village in the formal, unbroken facade
^f the beiilding along East Meadow Drive. The staff suggested design ~
changes which included material variety to emphasize the change in the ~
glane af the tauz].c3ing, bringing Ianc3scaping ug to the base of the building,
clzanging the shape of the fixst fl.oor archway apenings, and adding pl.axas.
ta tie both, sides af the straet taqether.
Andy then addressed Criteria 6, concezninq density, GRFA and uses. The
staff supported the plan to have lodge rooms only, but was concerned that
the density, in canjunction with the height, was toca much far the site. The
accessory uses exceeded the allowable by 13% and the cornmon area exceecied
the allowable by 650, resulting in an additionaY floor area of 55,400
square feet= The result was amass af the praject that was much larc}er
than what the underlying zoning allawed.
Criteria C, cornpliance with parking and loading, was the next SDD criteria.
Andy explained that a very positive aspect of the propasal was ttsat all
surface parking (except i,n the auto caurt) would be eliminated, and in
place of the 13 5pa.cas next to the Swiss Chalet, tttere wouZd be a packet
park. With regard to laading, the applicant proposed 3 laading berths.
Two af these, on the northwest corner of the project, did not meet the
minimum width of 12 feet, but were propased to be 81-10' feet wide.
Andy then expl.ained that Criteria E, the identification of hazazds, pertained only to floodplain isr thi.s instance, and that no construction was
prcaposed in the I00 year floadp2ain.
Critaria F included the site plan, buil.ding'design and location, and flpen
sgace provisions designed ta be responsi.ve and sensitive to natural
featuras, vegetatian and averall assthetic quality of the cammunity. Andy
stated that the staff was coneerned about the ten areas af setback
encroachrnent. He presente.d site plans which showed the encroachments and
expJ.aineci that the encraachment which cQneezned the staff the most was the
one proposed for the kitchen expansian and compactar area on the southwest ~
cc,rner of the progerty, where the compactor area encroached 151-6" and tlnE
kitchen expansian and Eully Pub encroached 18 feet into the Vail Road
setback.
AnotYaer encroachment of major concern was the swimming poal/patia araa. i
Staff believed that the Gase Creek corridor shouLd be maintained as natural
as possible to preserve its aesthetic appeal.
The staff had no problems with the two tower encroachments alang Meadow
Dra.ve, feeling tha't allowinq the towers ta cotne out closer to the street
gave more defi.nition to the publkc spaces and was a benefit. However, the
s"taff did feel that there was aiot ersough undulation and variety to the
Meadow Drive faeade. With regard to natural features, Anciy stated the
staff felt adding a streamwalk aiang the creek wauld alJ.ow more guests in
Vai.l to enjoy this natural £eature. 31 stsearnwaZk had nat been proposed.
Regarding circulation, Criteria G, the Fire Department gave their
conceptual approval of the Talisman and 5annenalp etnergency vehicle access. r
The applicant would construct apedestrian bridge over Gore Creek arsd a :
sidewalk alonq Vail Road from the corner of Meadow Drive ta Gore Creek.
Staff feJ.t that there should be a stronger interface between the pedestrian
street of East Meadow Drive and the commarcial store frants.
Grlteria H cancerning landscapinc3 was next, and Andy pointed out that the
huilding was designed to be located close to Vail Road and Meadow Drive. ;
By not providing adequate open sQace west or north of the buiZciing, the
public would not benefit fxom the apen space on site. Hawever, the
applicant had affered to build a pedestrian plaza between the wI and the ~
i
Sonnanalp.
Mike malliaa then reviewed the project as it relatecl to the Vail Village ~
Master Plan. He stated that the staff believed that one of the most
impartant parts of the Master PZan was the conceptua'. b,~-'''_"`_
diagram, and felt that the groject severe2y deviated fraxa theMaster Plan
with regard to height. Sub-area #1-2, the Vail Road/Meadow Drive
2
~
~
ntersection, was shawn gn a sf'ke plan. Mike e~laineci that the sub-area
esiouth a11?d for visual b~3triers to discourage vehicular traffic from heading
an Vail Road Prom the 4-wa.y stap, and for the pedestrian connection,
both noYth and south alang Vail road, to be improved. The propasal
includec3 a six foot wide sidewalk along th.e full length of the west side of
the praperty. Because the 8onnenalp redevelopment required the widening of
Vail Raad, the staff was recammendinq mitigation to discouraqe vehicular
traffic, This would include Coztstxuctinq 3 planted medians: 2 near the 4- '
way stop, and one next to the 5onnenalp. The staff fell, that the propasal ,
did not meet the concept of 5ub-area #1_2_ Sub-area #1-3 stated in part, "....Nfass of build5.ng should not create a
shadaw pattern on Meadaw Drive." Tha staff response was that Meadow Dxive
would be comp3etely shaded at times in the winter due to the proposed
stzucture. This sub-area concept was not met.
The applicank did meet the purpose of Sub-area #1-5, the F]illow Bridge Road
walkway, by maving the surface parking spaces into the garage ancl construCting a packet pazk zn this area. Sub-area #1-4 included two iterns: a plaza with gree.nspace near the Swiss ,
Chalet in conjunctidn with tihe adjacent plaaa at the Vail Village Inn, and
fire aceess in the same general area. The fire access was proposed and .
eanceptually approved by the Fzze Department. The proposal did nat include
a plaza, and so thas sub-area concept was not entirely met. : -
Sub-area #1-9 - Study area. Vi3lage Streamwalk states: "Study of a walking-flnJ.y path along Gore Cxeek batween the Covered Bridge and Vail
Road, eonneetirsg to existing streamwalk, furthBr enhaneing the pedestrian
network throughout the Village and providing public access ta the creek."
Objective 3.4 of the Master Plan as to develop "..accessible gzeen space
areas, including pocketi parks and stream access." 'Fhe statf felt strong3y
that a streamwalk was in the best interests of the Town, anci believed that
et could be designed in a way that was sensitive to the needs of the hcatel
roposal. `Phis suh-area coneept was not met.
Mike revi:ewed the I1lustratiVe Plans beginning with the Land Use Plan.
Wath regard to the Open Space Plan, open space along the ez3tire stream
eorridar is callad for. The Parking and Circulation Plan 5tated that "East
Meadow Drive is designated as a gedestrian street with plazas, limited or
na autos and a bus route. The Gore Creek corxidQr is clesignated as a study
area fcar a wal7cing path." The staff response was that East Meadow wi.tl
continue to be a pedestrian corridore however, the propasal daes nat
include a streamwalk.
The Buildi.ng Height Plan reco,nmends that the area alQng East Meadow Drive
be a maxim'um of 2 to 3 stories or 18 to 27 faet high. Three to four
staries (27 feet to 36 £eet) is designatsd on the southern three quarters
of the property. The staff respanse was that this was one of the mast
important camponents of th,e Master Plan a,nd had been previously discussed.
Overall, the staff felt that the applicant's proposal was not in compliance
with the Master Plan.
Rndy then raviewed the EIR Analysis. Mike gave the staff canclusion fream
the memo, s'kating the staff recommended denial of the project for many
reasons. Using the SaD critezia, staff found severe noncompliance with
height, settraeks, shadow, open space p3an witta plaaas, and streamwalk anci
asked that the appli.cant ar3dzess the Town'S issues more tharoughly.
Jeff Winston, Town of vail urban desi.gn car,sultant, stated that sflme aF the
issues were very comp3.ex and pointed out that the Town Council was being
askeci ta make a decision on an issue that was difficult to visualize. He
stxessed that the building, i.f apFroved, would be in place for a long time
and the challenge was to do it right. Jeff stated that lt was 2.mportant to
maintain Vail's character, as that was impartant to Vail's ecnnomic
urvival. It was important to balance the needs of tfle hotel with the
eds of the Town and find the fi,ne line hetween the two. He pointad Qut
he positive aspects which inc],uded the fact that hatel raoms wa~11,4 k+¢
added, surface parking waa being removed, the operataon of the hotel would
he done with quality, parking near the 5t+riss Chalet would be converted to a
3
r .
f ,
pocket park, and the project would add vitality to Vail. i
On the negative sicief Jeff painted dut thatsorne af the setback ~
encroacxaments were acceptable, but Chat the encraachment on the stream side
and Vail Road side had more significant imgacts, and tktat there would be
increased traffic on Vail Road. He was Goncerned wit13 the averall scale of
the propQSed building and its zmpact on East Meadow Qrive as well as Vail ,
Road. The building would cast shadows and block views, and the portion of the roof that was proposed to be flat would establish a psecedent for flat
roofs. Jeff showet3 the areas af errcroachment oM a site plan. He pointed i
aut that the V'VI buildings being turraed at an angle added to the interest .
of the streetscape and took away the unwantecl lineal feeling af the street.
Jeff suggested rotating part of the proposed building on Meadow Drive. He
reminded the Council that the Urban Design Guide Plan suggested connected
pla2as from the Sonnenalp to the WI. ,
Jeff sugqested that perhaps a variety of roQf heights, and modifying the ;
roof where the mechanical areas were proposed, would help. Jeff echoed the .
staff's desire ta have the project succeed with the best possible proposal.
He asked the applicant to take anot3ier look at the specific ideas proposed
which would a.mprove the project.
Kristan Pritz then used charts to show the list of PEC concerns and the issues that staff €elt were important. The PEC concerns incinded the : .
follawing;
i
1. Paol lacation in stream setback
2. 8uilding too high
3. Need tor architectural ralief on Meadow i]rive
4. Need for mi,tigation of the widening of Vail Road ~
5. Need for pocket park by Gore Creek and Wi11ow Bridge ,
6. Need for 11 employee housing units
7. Construction noise limits, on-site cons'truction stagi,ng
8. Pedestrian bridge on Vail Itoad Sridge ~
9. Solution of Talisasan access easernent
10. Reatrict J.adge rooms as lodge rooms germanentZy
11. Loading bays must meet Town standards '
12. Publi.c aceess neer3ed to creek
13. Setbacks on Meadora Drive must be met
KrisCan that the PEC mation ta apprnve the praject was denied by a 3-3
vote. Three members feYt strongly enough abQUt the cancerns to vote to
deny the project, and the ather three felt the cancerns were important, but
that they coul.d be passed along ta the "Pown Council with a vote of •
appraval. The motian ineluded the fallpwinq findings:
1. The project was rsat in comapliance with Criteria A, regarding ' .
design camgatibl].ity and sensitivity to the immediate
enviranment, neighbarhaad and adjacent groperties. ;
2. SDD Criteria C, requiring that tTne proposal meet the loading
standards of the Town, is not me't. ~
3. The project fails to meet SDD Criteria D regarding conformity ~
with the applicable elements af the Vail Comprehensive Plan, ,
Urban Design Plans, and specificaxly tha Vail ViZlage Master
Plan.
4. The project daes not meet SDD Criteria F regarding the site plan, ~
in that the site plan lacks quality public spaces. ~
5, SDd Criteria H is not met, as there is not adequate open space on ~
the site. ~
6. SDD Criteria l is nat met regarding the phasing glan, as there
may be a conflict with the construction of the project and the
weekend activities at the Vail Interfaith Chape3.
Kristan summarized the staff direction and spake to the big picture
issues." They included the fo].lowing:
1. The building was taa high relative td Vail Road and Meadaw Drive and
resulted in acanyon effect as well as shading on Meadow brive. ~
2, The bualding did not have enough articulation-horizontally and
vertically.
3. Lack af public spaces on Meadow Drive.
4
J'
/
Y
' •
Lack of public access to the creek.
The grojeot should cc+r-ily *:rith the Vai3. Village Master Plan sub-areas
1--3 and 1-4 and tne Villags strearnwalk.
6. "Cateh-ail issues" included affordable hausing, final design af Vail
fioat3, the Talisman access easem2nt issue, the locatian of the
construction road, and setback along Vail Road.
Kristan encouraged the Caunci1 ta think back to the wor3tshvp that was recently held on mrsuntazn resort design. Those same design principles
rseeded to be considered rahen revi+ewing this project. The building has the
potentia3 ta have a great impact on the community. The staff's job and
PEC/Counci.l roles are to insure that the impact is positive and a quality
design results for the community. She stated that the praject cvuld comply
with the Vail Vi].lage Master Plan more alosely and that the SDO process was
well suited to this type of project. The Vail Village Master Plan
anticipated davelopment on the site. She encouraged the Council to take
the time to review the project thoroughly as a projec'C, especia7.ly one of
this magnitude, because of the incredible impact it woul.d have an the .
character saf the area. She concluded that a projecC that took inta
eonsideration the staff and PEC direction would result in a fine project
for both the owner and community. Kristan stated that 'Chis was not a
matter of no development vs. development, but rather that the staff
supparted the coneept of the lodge and mixed use deuelopment on the site.
The issue was design and haw the propasal related ta the deszgn documents.
A break was taken at this point. .
Jay Peterson, representinq the apglicant, stated there was much mcre ~
difficulty in building a hotel than a building with candas. iie believed
that the applicant and the staff were not that far apart. Jay shawed a
nassing model o# a building that would canfaitn 140% wiLh the underlying zoninq, and felt that it was nat a good building.
~ardon Pierce, architect af Lkse building, showed slides of di.fferent
r~uildings, including Vail Road and Meadow Drive raith a maciel of the
praposed building in p1aGe. He stated that he had worked with consultants,
engineers, public works Department, etc., and had designed the building in
the best psassible way. Gardon reminded the Council that 9 feet was no
longer used as the hezqht of one flaar, rather 10 feet was used for hatel
~ rooms and 12-13 feet was used far commercial areas.
, With regard to the W I building setbacks, Gozdcan stated they varied from 5
feet ta 25 f'set frons the property line. He added there wouid be more
landscaping on the Sannenalp side of the road than existed an the VVI side.
Gordcsn reviewed the site plan regardinq landscaping, garkir,g, and setbacks.
He pointed out that in some areas, the building was puZZed back. He also
stated that 51% of the back-of-hause facilities were undergzound, and the
loading docks were 10 feet wide. Gardon said that the eave line of the
building was low, which was where pedestrians would read the building. He '
pointed cut that the narrowness of East Gore Creek Driue worked well for
Vail Village and added that the narrow alley next tca the Hi11. Buiiding was
pleasing.
r
Jay then mentioned that in a hatel, common areas were impartant. He
explained that if height is removed fresm Meadow Drive, it wouid have to be
added in another building near the creek whiah w+ould include a mix of condominiums and accommodation units.
Public eomment was invited next. Robert O'Nlalley, Jim Wear, Craag snowdon,
Hans Von Barby, Hod Sl.ifer, Eric Affeldt, Wi11 Ntiller, Larry Litchliter,
Jack Curtin, and John MiYls spake in favor of the project. Rick F2asen,
Paul Rondeau, Edward Mayne and Art Abplanaip spoke against the project.
,7ohannes Faessler, agplicant, thanked the Council for calling a special
meeting. He saici that he cased about V'ail, had wcrkecl to make his building
W positive farce 3.n the community and feit that the current proposal would
e a continuation of that effort. Hs wandered if perhaps his presposal was
7ight Por Vaii, but if this building were not canstructed, somethxng
eise would be constructed on the property. `He felt that Vai3 must continue
impraving--"to stand sti7.1 was to move baclc. " Nat much had happened .zn
5
~ . ;
the past 5 years in the Village. He asked that the Council considex the
message they wauld be sanc3_-ng •-_et i, they did not approve the proj ect as it ~
was praposed.
Jay Peterson asked that the project be tabled to ,Tanuary 8th and that the
Council give their camments. The motion to table was made by Feggy
Osterfoss, with Tom Stein}aerg seconding. The v4te was F-a in favor af
tabli.ng.
Kent Rose began the coznrnents with the statement that he was Ieaning taward
approval of the prvject and that there was a need for a quality hotel in
Vail. The increase in density and common space did not bother him. He was
cancerned about pedestrian access alang Mea[low arive, pedestrian access to
the stream on the south, agreed that the poal shotild nat encraach next to
puYa3.i.c Iand, that sunligh't mast reach Meadow Drive, that the southwest
corner af the building needed ta be pulled back, that there shauld be
mitigatian of the widening of'Vail Road, and felt the need for restricted
employee units. Kent felt the Sonneraalp aecess was positive and that the
pedestrian bridge was not necessary, as the entire bridge would saan be
replaced by the Town.
Jcshannes and Karl Faessler and Jay Petersan had left the room. They were ,
asked to return for the rest bf tkr.e Cauncil's comments. Rob Levine said he echoed Kent°s cancerns. This project would be a pYus
far Vail. He pointed aut, however, tYtat all af the development rras on the edges of the property with the flpen space in the middle for the hatel guests. He wanted the streamwalk and suggested that the building either be
pulled back or lowered a littla to make it laetter for the community. Rob
said that he was clase ta supporting the praject, but felt it neadec3 rnore
woxk. .
Tom Steinberg felt that ovezall this was a beautiful buiiding and that Vail
obviously needed mare hotel rooms. He statetl one cou3.d not ask far a ~
better group of people to Cottst]ruct a hnteI. He felt it shouid be "faded
back in height." Tam wcauld have liked to have seen the total site,
including the Talisman, included in the project and the originai builciing
that contained restaurants and kitchens be torn down and rebuilt. He was
against any road a].ong the stream tract and felt that the streamwalk would,
in the long term, be one af ttZe Sonnenalp's assets. Tom asked that the
height and bulk be reduced and that there be more open space along the
streets. If bt were his project, he would build the streamwalk himse],f so ;
that it would be constructed where ktie wanted it. Tom felt this was a ,
beautiful building but it was tao mucYa, in tao sma1l a space. He felt the
traffic study was superficial and that another study shauld be done during
busy times. Tom felt the restauzant and laadinq daCk needed to be pu11ed -
back and ttee 3 existinq woocEburning fireplaces should be converted to gas. He €elt the meed for 3 lanes aZang Vail Raad with planted medians.
Peggy Osterfoss stated this was not a t;uestion of developrnent or no
development, but that the Council had an oppartunity ta work toward a
positive solution. Advarstage conld be takerr of the f3exibility of the SDD
process af give-and-take which allowed for variations, but shauld not allow `
for increases in all parameters. Sha had concerns wi.th the project"s
complianca with the 5DD criteria. Peggy felt the poal and patio should be
pulled back from the stream tract. Peggy was not eancsrned about the
additional GRFA. She €elt that additfonal restaurant area, for additional
lodging, made sense. With regard to SDD Criteria A, hezght was Feggy`s
greatest concern. Character couZd be improved by height variations as we11
as ins and outs in the building. Criteri.a D, regarding confoz'mity with the
applicable elements of the Vail Camprehensive Plan, the hsight plan was not
met. Sub-area 1-2, t2te Vail Road and Meadow arive interseetion, providing
a visual barrier to discaurage vehicular traffic, could be met with planted
medians. Sub-area Goncept 1°3 regarding shade had not been met. Sukr-azea 1--5 had been met with a pocket park. Sub-area 1-4, a plaza i.n conjunction
with the WI, could be strengthened. Sub-area 1°9, the streamwalk, had not
besn met. Peggy pointed out that the pbjective in the Master Plan was ~
rabii~; au..~ss to the creek. She felt some sort of access was important and
that the pool and patio should be puiled back from the creek. Regarding
the EYR ana2ysis, the atmospheric improvements were gositive. With regard
6
to visual cQnditidns, the height of the building affected the views. Off--
~ite employee un3.ts would be accepta'~1- '-o ^:.ggy• With regarc3 ta . construction access to the project fram the south, Peggy felt this would .
have a negative impact an Gore Creek. Peggy stated that by pulling the
haight and mass back onto the site, the building could kae a good
campromise.
Jim Gibsan stated that i.n isalation, the project was autstanding. The
detailing, the quality, etc., were excellent, but the project was not in ~
isalation in the Town of Vail. He telt that the encroachments dzd a ,
dissezvice to the project and magnified the bu2k and mass. He fe1t the
height variance did not woz3c to enhance the.building. The shadow on Nieadow
Drive and the canyon effect could be mitigated fry lowering the building.
Ha felt that the building would bioclc pedestrian views from bath Vail Road and Meadow Drive. ,7im felt that the proposal cauld confarm t? the Vai7. Viilage Master Plan and most af the groposed project could stil7, remain - -
intact. Jim felt that the 5DD cancept was a pz`oper way to develop certain -
areas in Town, but when allowad to be used without control, the project
could end up like..Lianshead, which waS nat a credit to the Town. YFe felt : thati comprermise was necessary and that the Cauncil wanted what the
applicant wanted and wished to see the project succeed.
Lynn Fritzlen felt tha't she had nothing to add to the previaus comments.
Her feelings toward the kauilding were ambivalent. She felt frustration as .
she watchad increases in density iss major projects. She reminded the board .
and applicant that the Town would be faced with a senand impact of .
rpvements that must be made to the infrastructure with increased growth.
im
P
Johannes then stated that the suggested improvements must be paid by ; s6meone, and he would like to withdraw tihe application.
There being na further business, the meeting was adjourned at 11:50 P.M. ~ Respectful7.y Subtnitted,
J ~ J
Kent R. Rose, Ma r •
ATTEST:
Pamela A. E3randmeyer, Town Clerk Minutes taken by Betsy Rasolaek
V
/
~
/ I
7
1bIEM4RANI7UM
~
TO; PIanning and Enviranmental Camrnissian
FRC?1V1: Community Development Department
DATE; 7une 24, 1991
SUBJECT; A request for height, parking and density variances for the Sonnenalp, part of
Lots K and L, Block 5E, Vail Viilage lst Filing/20 Vail Road.
Applicant: Sonnenalp Properties
Planner: Andy Knudtsen
.w.vn_.}u:n:(avu..{.l:h%.v.[:3h+ty:M::*SH:n.r-xrd'I.BWA}:y.!
. k rt . .
! . - y . . YS ? J } Jf. 1 { . .
1. DESGRIP"I'ION C]F THE VAItiANCES REQUESTEI]
The applicant, SQnnenalp Properties, is planning to undertake a major renovation of the
Bavaria Haus. The remodel and expansion involves three wings. 7'he exis[ing wing which
extends frorn the lobby ta the Talisman will be demolished, except for the foundation and
concrete floQr plate af each level. The e;cterior walls will be expanded and a laft lever above
the 4th floor will be added, as vvell as a new roof. The second major cornpoment of rhe ~
expansion invalves extending a wing nor#h from the existing, lobby, parailel ta Vail Road.
The netiv wing will include the autQ eourt and will be the focal point of the ho[el. It will be
the tallest part o£ the building at 56 feet, and wi11 require a height variance. The existinb
wing, housing the lobby, restaurants and kitchen, is the third component of the praject, and
will be remodeieci, will have a third flaor and a new roaf added to it. All of the parking tQr
the hotel remains in the general Pocation where it is now, and remains surface parkirtg. There
is na commercial prQposed at this time, but there will be an exgansion to the restaurants,
labby, spa area and the conference rooms.
The request involves three variances frorn the zonin~ code. The applicants will t~eed
vu-iances from the height standards, the parking standards and the standards fQr the amaunt Qf
a1lowable commQn area. The table in Section II shows the e:ctent of the reqtsests.
A. Height Var'iance
The building complies with the 48 foot hei~ht limit c~f' the Pubiic Accornmodations
zone districc in aIl areas except above the auto court along Vail Raad. For this pnrrion
of the building, the roaf is 56 feet high. This exceeds the standard by $ feet, ar
16.7%.
~
1
~ B. Common Area Variance
The appIicant is proposing to exceed allowable amounts for comznon and accessQry
areas as shflwn belaw:
- CoAnman area over by 40,015,1 sq. ft., or 56.7% instead of 20%
- Accessory area (eatinb, cirinking) aver by 1,651.4 sq. ft., or 23.4°Io
instead of 10%
Sectian 18.22.090 of the Public Accommodations section of the zaning cade states
that:
"Total density far permitted uses, conditional uses and accessory uses shall not
exceed $0 sq, ft, of GRFA for each 100 sq. ft. of site area."
After eombining the different eategaries of flac+r area:
- The structure is over the cap by 47,067.6 sq. ft. or 66.7%.*
The implicatian of Section 18.22.090 af the zoning code is that the total square
footage for GF,FA, accessory (restaurantJbar), common area, and accessary uses as
defined in Sectinn 18.22.040 shall not exeeed SO sq. ft. of grnss floor area fcar each
~ 100 sq. ft. of 6uzldable site area. Given the combination of floor areas, e:ccess uniised
GRFA can be used to eompensa[e for the overage in accessory/restaurant square
foatage and mee[zng roorris. These calculatians having been made, the project results
in a[atal common uea af 40,015.1 sq. ft., which exceeds the allowable by 25,908.6
sq. ft., or 36.7%.
* The overage in total square footage is made up af the following areas:
GRFA: Approximateiy 60,000**
Accessary
(Restaurant/Bar): Approx. 9,000
Comrnon: Approx. 46,000
Meeting Roams. Approx. 4,000
119,000 I
=7I,000 Allawed ~
Approx. 4$,00(} Overage
Please note the project does not exceed allowablc GRFA
~
2
C. Parking Variances ~
TheTe are two variances needed which iravalve parking. The first is a request to
reduce the supply. The second is a request to ailaw more than 25% af the spaees to
be unenelosed. The applicants aze required to provide a tocal af 13$ spaces. Of this
toca.l, 37 are required for the addition. T'he existing parrking lot has 10I spaces on it,
which was approved in 1985. The applicants are proposing to add 7 new spaces to the
supply, resulting in a total supply of 108 spaces. Of the 10$ total nurnber of spaces
provided, 12 are valet. Providing 10$ spaces will reqttire a 21.7~'o variance to the
parking req«irernent. Cancerning the enclosure requirement, 75°Io of the required
spaces, or 28 spaces, are required to be erzclosed per the code. The applieant proposes
to lacate 16 withzn the auto court, which requires a 57% variance to this reqtzirement.
The code requires 10% of the parking area to be landscaped. The applicant is
proposzng to Iandscape 14~'0.
Tn summary, the variances needed are for height (8 feet), common area (36.7%),
pEirkin~ supply (2I.7%), and enclose~i parking spacts (57%).
TT. ZOI4TING CONSII7ERATI+C7iVS
Lot Area: 2.024 acres ar 88,165.4 sq. ft.
Zoning: Public Accvmmodation
Transfer of
Allowed Proposed Untised GRFA Dif#'erence
AU 100 or 90 (10)
DTJ° 50 (25 du/ac) 0 N/A
GRFA 70,532.4 (80%) 58,7503 (11,782.1)
Accessory 7,053 (ZO%) 8,704.4 -1,631.4
Comman* 14,106.5 (20~'1`0) 45,817.1 -5,$02.0 40,015.1 sq. ft.
(S{.7%); 20%
allowed; 36.7°l0 over
Meeting Roam** 4,328.7 -4,328.7 Q
Parking* 138 108 (30) 21.7% under Site Coverage 4$,49(}.9 36,033 (12,457.9) 25.7%
55% undex the allawable
Height* 48 feet 56 feet 8 over
* Categories needing variances
Meeting raoms braken out to detezmine parking requirement. For floor area
calculations, meeting rooms are considered accessory area.
T'Qtal flaor area within buiIding: 121,590 sq. ft.
~
3
~
~ III. STANDARDS USEL7 TO EVALUATE FRUPQSAL
A. Variance Criteria
As this project involves variance requests for height, parking and Gammon area, each
one is discussed under each vari.ance criteria.
1. The relationshiD of the zequested variance to other existing ar po¢ential
tises and struCttares in the vicinity.
a. Height
One portion of the buildiaig exceeds the 4$ foot height limit. The roof
in this area extends up to 56 feet, which is 8 feet over the allowed
height in the public accommodatian zane disrrict. The applicants have
designed the roof as a madified parapet wail. The interior is flat with
the exterior walls extending up ta 56 feet. The flat area will be at a 48
foot height. MechanicaI equipment will be l4cated on the flat portion
and will be surrounded with the sloping portion of the raaf. This
portion of the raof that surraunds the mechanical wzll be a vaid space
and will contain na GRFA.
~ Staff helieves that the height in reiation to the Village is generally
compatible. The peak of the tower at the `rTail Village Inn (VVI) Phase
V is 70 feet tall, and the eave is 50 feet. 'I'he high part of the proposed
Sonnenalp structure is largcr than the slender tower aE VVI, but it wilf
be 14 feet shorter. The Vail Village Master Plan ealls for stnictures an
this portion of the site to range from 3 to 4 stories. This part of the
building falls into that range with the highest part of the tower liavin; 4
floors,
(]ne of the benefits of locating the mechanzcal an the roof is that the
noise and exhaust drafks caused by the chillers will not irrapact adjacent
properties. By lacating the chillers on the roof, the distance between
the Chillezs and the prapercies reduces the irnpacts an surrounding
development. Other locatzons on the site where chillers could be
located would impact adjacent structures or public areas more tlzrec[ly.
All of the west side of the site is adjacent to Vail Road. T1te north sid.e
is adjaeent to IVfeadorv Drive. The east side is ad}acent to the T'alisman, o
and the sauth side is adjacent to Gare Creek. If the nnechanical
equipment were located on the ground, it would have ta be sceeened.
5taff would be concerneccl that a fence aroLind the ehillers wotlld nat be
easily integrated inta a site pIan, and that the irnpacts from the
mechanical would increase if located on the grnund.
~
4
b. Parking 4D
The amount af parking required for the addition is 36.7 or 37 spaces.
The existing parking lot has 101 spaces in it. As a result, the totai
supgly should be 138 spaces. The applicant is propasing I08 spaees,
including 12 vaiet, which is 21.7% less than the requirement.
Variance to Supplv ReQUi.rement: Staff understands that there are trade- i
offs between providing parking spaces and usin~ area within a parking
Iot for landscapzng. Generally, additional landscaping within the
parking lot improves the relationshig to the surrounding uses and
stnactures. Given that, staff believes the variance request to reduce the
nufnber of spaces required, and provide addicional Iandscaping,
impraves the reIationship ta the surraundin~ area, especially gzven the
staff's parking analysis for this praperty.
Variance to EnclosLire Reqcairement: Beeause 57% of che parking will
remain open, and because the Public Accommadation secfion of the
zoning, code only allaws 25% to remain open, the applicant needs a
varianee. Ideally, the paricing would be located undergrotind,
eoznpletely "screened." Staff has spent time in the paricing lots of the
Talisman and Sonnenalp, and has spent tirne discussing the tandseapinb
issue with the architect. The psopQSed landscapin; plan has been ~
designed around the cQncept to: 1) increase the amount of landscaping
around the perimeter of the parking lot on the berm, 2) provide, to the
extent possible, a band of landscaping running chraugh the central part
of the parking lot, and 3} increase the arnoeant of landscaping at the base
af the buildings. Staff beIiEVes this parking lot design is a good balance
between supplying parking spaces and screening them with Ianctscaping.
In addition t4 the landscaping ta be located in the interior of the parlcing
1Qt, the applicant will be reconstructint- the bus stap area, redeszgning
the area in front of the Swiss Haus entrance, and replacing 6 parking
spaces by zhe Iaadxng dock wich dandscaping. Ciiven these
improvements, which a1l include landscaping, in addition to the fact that
the parrlcing lat landscaping exceeds the code standLird by 4%, staff
~ believes the parkinb lot will be screened sufficiently from stjrz'otinding
uses. Without the landscapin;, staff believes the relationship of the
proposai ta the surrounding uses is unacceptable.
~
5
~ c. Common Area
Staff believes the amaunt of comman area requested by the applzcant ~
affects the sursounding uses and struetures in that it adds sornewhat to '
the mass and bulk of the prQposed structure. Appraxiznately half of the '
comman area wzll be located in the basemen[ levels. In general, staff
believes the size of the structure is reasonable, and this variance request
does not generate negative impacts. The structure has been designed so
that it is 25.7~'a under the ailowable sitc coverage. Given that the site
cvverage has not been maximized, the mass and bulk resulting frorn ttie ~
additionaY cammon aarea is .reasonable. Addztional analysis of the mass
anti bulk of the struc[ure wilI be provided under tne Vail Village IViaster ~
Plan sectian of this memca.
2. The de,Uee to which relief from the_s_trict_and literal interpretation and
enforcement of a.specified reaulation is necescary to achieve
compatibility and tjnifarmity of treatrraent amang sites in the vicinity or
tq aEtain the obiectives of this title withc,ut rrttnt of s]2ecial priVilegc.
a. Height
~ The height varianee As needed because the appIicant is proposing to
extend the roof to screen mechanical equipmenc. Because portions of
most mechanical systems a.re loCated on the roofs of lar4e buiPd'angs,
staff bePieves there is not a grant of special privilege. The mechanical
system far this building has been designed so that mast of it is in the
basement. A flue runs through the building from che basement
mechanical area within the tower to this part of the raof. Because of .
the Iocations of these parts of the mechanical system, locating the
exterior portion of the mechanical system an the rnof of the cower is
logical.
Given the design of the mechanical system, t'he applicants have
attempted to sereen the expased part of the nnechanical by extendinb the
roof. Staff believes this is a mtich more aesthetically pieasing solution
than the typical screen wall foUnd an other buildings. Staff did not
believe that xhis part of the structure coulci be approved without a
variance, however. Though we determined that it had to be considered
as structure and not an architectural projection, we believe it is a gaod
design solution for an issue common to rnany large buildings in tpwn.
~ I
fi
~
The puzpose af the roaf in this location is strictly to screen the ~
mechanical. There i5 no GRFA wzthin the structure that exceeds the 4$
foot height limit. Town staff belieVes the architect kias planned ahead
and incarporated the mechanical into che building. Given the
cornprehensive apgroach Ca the desibn of this project, as weli as the fact
the purpose of the hei;ht variance is strietly to enclose the rnechanical,
staff can support this request.
i
I
b. Parkirtg ~
Variance, to Srapplv Requzrement: The appl'zcant is requesting a 21.7%
va.riance to the parking scandac't[; 7$.3~'0 of the requiremen[ vvill be
provided. In 1989, the planning depariment staff clict a sttidy of parking
lots within the Town. Staff determined the percentabe of parking
spaces utilized in rnany different 1ots during pealc weekends becween
Deeeznber 29 and July 1. The Bavaria Haus parking lot was ane of
those studied. Of the 21 times staff checked this parking lot, only 2
times was it utilized more than 70%. The appPicants are proposing ta ,
supply 7$.3% of the total requirement. The two times wliich did exceed ~
this amflunt were December 30 between 11:00AM and 2:30PM and ~
January 18 between 6:OOPM-7:4flPM. The average tttilization of this
parking lot over the six month periad was 55.2alo. SEaff believes the
proposed 78.3% will pravide a reasonable number of spaces, ;iven chat ~
there were few rimes when more spaces were needed.
Staff is proposing to reduce the lodbe parking reqtiirement for the Town I
slightly, based on this parking analysis. The change will be proposed
through the zoning cade amendment process currently underway. The
departrnent feels comfortable wich the reduction in parking as the
property is a lodge use, and the reducrion does not conflict with aetual
parking nurnbers from the study. Providing spaces according to the
study's conclusion is reasonable in this instance, and maices the general
proposal compatible with actual demand far lodge parking wichin the
Town.
Variance to Enclosure Requirement; Staff believes the applicant has i
included a reasonable nurnber af landscaped islands witEiin the parking
lot, and has iiicreased the amaunt of plantinlg around the perim.eter o#'
the parking so that the goal af sereening it from the pubIic has beeai
reasonably achieved. The fact that no spaces are presently enclosed,
and that same will be enclosed (16 spaces) is an improvement ta the
appeazance of the parking lot. In addition, the spaces alona Vail Road
by the Ioadina dock will be remaved, reducing the public's view of
parking significantly. The fact tha[ the appiieant is exceeding the cade
~
7
~ standard far interiar landscaping witYcin the parkina lot, and that the
applicant is increasing the lartdscapinlc, on the perimeter, justify a
variance to this requirement. Based on the appearance of the parking
lot design, staff 6elieves it will be a compatible treatnienk with other
sites in the vicinity.
c. Cammon Area
Most of the common area of the project is faund in a few large areas.
These include the basement at agproximately 20,000 square feet, the spa
area of approxxmately 10,000 square feet, and the lobby at
apprflximately 5,000 square feet. The partion flf the basement to be
built under the auto caurt wiIl be built on two levePs and will be able to
structurally support automobiles. In the future, the agplicant may
constnact underground parking garages, which will tie inEO these two
levels. The hallways throughout the building make up the remainder of
the common area at approximately I5,000 squaret feet.
The Town of Vail zoning code standard far common area in multi-
family develapment has recently been increased from 24% af total
GRFA ta 35% of allowable GRFA, and has been defined in a new way.
Though this praject was submi[ted prior to the adoption of the new
~ eode, it is important to provide the bac4cground of the code change far
this memo. In the analysis of this code revzsion,, staff took into account
the many differeni kinds of mzilti-famiiy development. 011 one end af
the spectnim are residential condominiurn prajects with very little '
common area, and an the other aa'e lodges that usually have a greater
amount of common a.rea. In order ta balance the two types of
development, staff had recommended 35% for the code standard. The
35%, however, reflects a compromise. Even during tjie zoning code
amendrrient pracess, staff acicnawledged that sarne vzyriances will still be
needed for mulci-use 1otiges, like the S4nnenalp.
3. The effect of the requested variance on Tight and apr, distribiition of
pppulation, transportation and traffic facilities, pLablic tacilities and
utilities, and publie Sa#ety.
a. Height
The one impact which the height of the buildin; cauId haue on the
above-referenced issues involves Iight and air. The shadow this
building will create will be much Pess tha.n what the previous proposal
would have caused. Staff believes the 165 foot setback from Meadow
Drive to the wing para11e1 ta Meadaw Drive is adeqeaate to protect
~
8
.
-Meadaw Drive frQm shade. The tower is closer to Meadow Urive than ~
the rest af the buipding and may shade it for some time. Staff believes
the 56 height, the 100 faat setback, and the relatively narrow tower
width of 40 feet, are such that the shadow impacts will be reasonable.
b. Parking
~
The propased design for the parkzng lot affects transportation and traffic
facilities, speci£ically the circulation within the parking lot and access to
the parking lots. Staff believes that, as a part o€ Khis approval, the
Town should require the Sonnena.l.lp to prbuide an access easement to
the Talisman. Currently, the Talisman residenEs drive throuoh the
Sonnenalp parking lot to reach the Talisman parkiii- Zot. Staff believes
this solution works well and should be made permanent. Tn addition,
the access easement frorn the Talisman parking lot to Meadow Drive
should be abandoned. Staff believes this will insure the quality of the
pedestrian area on Meadow I7rive, insure pubIic szxfe[y, and will
maintain the functions af the existing transportation and traffic facilities
in this part of Town. 5taff does not believe there are any ather impacts
from the variance requests to tEie supply requirement or the enelosure
requirements on the above-referenced cziteria.
c. Cvmman Area I
0
Tlae variance request for additional common area has no impact on the
above-listed assues.
d. Transportatian
The 'I'own's engineer has reviewed the propasal, and has stated that any
fu€ure expansion of the SonnenaIp, which may incluae cornrriercial
facilities, will require a left-hand tuzn lane to be bt3ilt in Meadow Drive.
As the buzlding 7 in the area of the auto court has been designed so that it
does not encroach into the fzon[ setback, there is enaugh room far such
a turn 1ane. However, some landscaping would need to be remaued.
At ttzis time, a Ieft-hand turn lane is nUt needed.
4. Other Factors and Criteria ~
i
, a. Landscaping
There are six czitical areas of the site where staff believes gaod
landscaping tmatment is critical. The first is the corner o£ Vaif Road
~
9
I .
~ and 1'vleadaw Drive. Currently there is an electrieal switching gear
statian on the corner. The applicant has deleted the plan to build a wall
around the switching gear to screen it. Iristead, a softer treacrnent o#'
landscaping wiil be used. The edge of the Iandscaping will be
expanded into the street, where toterns are currently located. The added
Iandscaping will not impact txaffic flow, as pedeskrians ate the only
users of this part of the street.
The second area of concem is the bus stop along Meadow Drive.
Currently tke bus stop is situated between twa railroad rie waiI planters.
The concrete in the area has deteczorated. The applicant will be
replacing the concrete with pavers and rebuilding the planter walls with i
baulders, if necessary. Additionat landscaping will also be provided in tl
the area, whicn will also help ro screen the parking lor.
~
S
A thzrd area of concern ta the staff is the area adjacent to tht Swiss
Haus entrance. Though this area is nat part of t41e Bavaria Halis parcel,
the applicarat is redesigning the fire access paints in tk3is area as a
requirement of this request. Fire trucks will not be able to aecess
thraugh the auto court. In addiEion to relocating t6e planters to provide
the correct angies for the fire tnicks to get into the parkinb areas, the
applicant wi1P add larndscaping and pavers ta the front of the Swiss
~ Haus. A site plan will be presented at the hearing showing details in
this area. In addition, the applicant will extend the benn east along
Meadow Drive to the fire access points.
The fourth area of concern ta staff is located actjacent to Vail Road by
the load,ing dock area. TEZe applicant will be removing six of the seven
parking spaces in this asea antl replacing them with landscaping. In
addition to the landscaping, the applicant wi11 be constsucting a paver
sidewaik from the corrier of Vail Road and Meadow Driwe to the briclge
over Gore Creek. Szaf#' believes these changes will be wery posftive.
AnoEher mQdifcation in this vicinity is an expansion of the BLGlIy and
reductian of the d.ining deck. The deck w-ill be reduced by
approxzrnately 350 sq. ft. Staff believes the deck reduetion is
aeceptable, given the landscape improvements, removal of parking, and
the fact tnat most of the dining deck semains.
Other areas of concern include landscaping an the interior of the
parking iot as well as augmenting the existing landscapin; on the berm
a1ong Meadow I7rive. The berm Ianciscaping, will be planted with
appraximately twice the nurx?ber of existinb bushcs and trees. Sce
discussion above retatin,; to the parking lot interior 1lndscapinb.
~
10
b. Stream Vt'alk ~
Staff has studieti the stx-eam tiract between Willow Bridge Roaci anct Vail
Road. We considered impaccs to adjacent property awners and the
stream environment, and believe that by benching the path in at a iower
grade from surrounding property and screening it with vegekation,
pedestrians would have very little impact on lc?dge guests. Far example,
the areas alang the south side of the strearn by River House and
Edelweiss provide a reasonable alignment since the first flaor of these
structures are parking gara;es. Staff alsa believes that the kitchen,
loading doek amd canference facilities of the Bavaria Haus would nat be
impaeted by a srream walIc. Staff believes that a sensitive alignmerat
would start by the Sannenalp Ioading doek on the north side, continue
east past the conference faciIities, then cross aver to the Edeiweiss and
the Summers Lodge properties.
Staff thinks that it is impartant thai the Sonnenalp's pool anci garden
area be designed to be pleasant for hotel guests as well as to be
compatibie with a stream w1ik. The applicant has designed the
landscape plan identifyin; a nairow path alignment. Staff is concerned
that the alignment is tao narrnw and that the Tawn land shauld not be
planted with vegetation that wQUld be in confliet with ttie constnictiQn
and Iocation of a stream walk. Staff beFieves the alionment of the watk ~
. should be shown on the Zandscapinb plan, and that an adequate buffer,
24 feet, araund the path shouid be identified_ This buffer is neecied so
that construction activities do not require cutring any trees down. Tn
addition, staff believes tlie sod area of the pool area should be entirely
contained on the private property of che Sonnenalp. Tfie Tnwn-owned
stream tract shoutd be preserved nlturally, so that the eventual
cozrsmzction of the stream walk is nat perceived as disrupting aprivate
area. 1%Ve wovld want to see the plth graded inco the site with this
proposal to minimize further disturbance. The applicant has agreed ta
remove the existing iFghts on Town of Vail property which ill«minate
the landscaping, and that no lighis wili be reinstalled withoLit Design
Review Board approwal.
C. Employee Housing
With the adoptian of the Town af Vail Affordable Housing Study on
Noverriber 20, 1990, housing is an issue that must be addressed with
appiications such as these. At this time, the report ha:s been aciopteti
and provides guidelines far new development. The repor['s
recommendations are currently beina ineorparated into the Zoning Code.
The Land Use Plan also calls for employee hnusing by stating:
~
11
i Goal 53 -"Affordable employee housing should be made
~ available throragh private effOrts, assisted by lirnited incen[ives,
provided by the Torvn af Vail, with apprnpriate restrictions."
Although the applicant believes na additional erraplpyees will be
generated as a result of this redevelopmenr, staff believes a
redeveIapment af this magnitude ,should have some permanent employee
hausing located fln site or aff site. The hausing anaTysis equates square
fqotage to number of emplayees, and thaugh concegtual as to
recommendations, suggests a certain number af eenpioyees for different
types of uses. The repart is being prepared by Rosall, Remmen and
Cares. The recommendations are based on surveys of businesses in
Eagle, Routt, Sumrn,ik, Pitken and Blair (Sun VaIley) counties. Based
on the information in the study, the increased floor areas will generate a
need for additiQnal employees, as shown in the tables below:
Existing Praposed
1986 1991 Difference
Spa 403 9,693.1 9,290.I
Common 3,061 4,328.7 1,267.7
Accessory 5,623 8,704.4 3,081.4
Rooms 80 90 10
~ Preliminary
Housinc, Study
Increase iri Emplayer Nurnber af
Floor Area Sq. Ft. Ratia* Aetditional Employees
Spa Area 9,294.1 1l1000 9.3
Conference Facilities 1,267.7 1J100(} 1.3
Restaurant/Bar Area 3,081.4 5/I000 15.4
Rooms IQ .25/room 2.5
28.5 Total Employees
* Employees/sq. ft.
There are twa methods of calculating the number of restricted dwelling
linits to be requested. The first recornrriended in the affordable hotising
study suggests that developers hQuse 15% of the emPloyees required by
expansions. This first method was zntended to be applied to "by right"
projects. The second, which is intended to be used for those projects
~
12
requesting sc{uare footabe above what the code allows, recomrnends the ~
applicant deed restrict enou;h housing uruts to cover 30% 0£ the
additianaT ernplQyees.
Using the first methad, 15% of the 28.5 additianal employees would
result in 4.2 addirional employees requiring housing. Assuming that 2
employees will share a dwellang unit, the 4.2 is divicEeci by 2, restdldng
in 2.1 or 2 dwelling units.
The method which is required to be used for projeets involvin;
varia.nces would be as follows:
28.5 x.30=8.6
8.6 / 2 = 4.2 or 4 dweliing units
Scaff believes that, because the spa u'ea, the conference faeilities, and
the restaurantJbar area Contribute to the variance request„ the applicant
must provide housing for these areas. Because the applicant is nat over
on GRFA or density, staff believes i[ would be reasonabIe nat ta requii•e
employees for that portion oF the expansion. By deleting the GRFA
camponent out of the equations, the first scenario would be as follows:
26.0 employees x .15 = 3.9 ~
3.9 / 2= 1.95 or 2 cfwelling vnits
The seeond method of calculatiQn would be as fallows:
26 x .3 T 7.8
7.8 / 2= 3.9 or 4 dwelling units
The Sonnenalp employs approximately 270 employees during the winter
season. Of these, the Sannenalp currently provides housing for
approxirnately 145 employees. 33 dwelling units are owned by the
SonnenaTp, h4using 67 emFloyees, a.ald 20 units are rented by the
Sonnenalp, housing 7$ employees. This assumes that each bedroam
hot7ses 2 Sonner;aZp emplr,Yees.
Staff aclcnflwiedges that the applicant has voiuntarily adclressed the need
for housing. However, in staff's opinion, it is not appropriate to z-ely on
an employer's past record to solve the housing issue in our commitnity.
W e believe that some of the housing pnvately held should be deed
restricted co insure its perpetual use as employee housing„ or new
housinb units should be canstructed on site. Staff believes that, for this
request, the recommendations frorn the housing study shauld be
~
13
i
~
~ implerr?ented. SpecificaPly, staff recommends that for the areas
requiring a variance, hoUSing shguld be deed restricted for 30°Io of the
employees. In other words, 3.9 (or 4.0) dwelling units shotild be
res tricted.
B. Vail Village Master Plan
The partians of the Vail Village Master Plan which pertain to this project include
three subarea concepts and five illustrative plans.
1. Subarea cancepts.
a. Subarea 1-2 - Vail Road Intersection. Subarea 1-2 states chat:
"Passible realignment af interseetion in coaijunction with
relocation of ski museurn. Focus of redesign shovld be to
establish a small park and pettestzian entry for the west end of
[he Village, and to provide a uisual barrier to discourage
vehicular traffic f'rorri heading south on Vail Roacl from the 4-
way stop. Specific design of ski rnuseum site to be included in
West Meadaw Drive Pedestrian 7mprovement Project. Tht
pedestrian conneciior? both north and south along Vail RQad
~ should be imprQVed."
Staf`f Respanse: Staff believes this sUbarea concept has been
addzessed, as t'he appiicant wili be building a sidewallc fram this
intersection to Gare Creek aIong `Jail Rozd. In ldditian, the
landscaping to be planted in front of the transforsner should
imgrove tlze appearance of this intersection.
b. Subarea 1-3 - Sonnenalp (Bavaria Ha«s) Infiit. Subarea 1-3
states that: "Commercial infill development with second floor
reside ntial/lodging to enclase Meaciow Drive and to improve the
quality of pedestrian experienee. Designated wallcways and
plazas with green space shQuld intcrface with thase flf the Vail
Viilage Inn. A pedestrian walkway (possibly arcade) should be
provided to encourage pedest-ian cisculation physically removed
frorn Meadow Drive. Mass of building should not create a
shadow patcern an Meadow Drive. Deveiopment will require '
eoordinatinn and/or involvement with adjacent property owners. I
Existing and new parlring demand to be provided an site."
~
14
Staff Response: Shading on ivleadow Drive is no ianger an ~
impact With this project. Because the applicant has chosen to
renovate the existing wing of the building, there is now a 165
foat distance between the edge of Meadow Drive and the east
wing of the building.
The adjacent surface parking and rernoval of mast of the
planting island in the center of the existing parking lat rediices
the qualicy of the pedestrian experience along Meadow Drive.
The additianal landscapin; to be planted in the berm along
Meadow J.7rive hePps provide sorne enclosure to Meadow Drive,
and screening of the p,arking. The bus stop improvements also
will comply with this subarea concegt.
c. Subzirea 1-9 - 5tudv Area: Village Strearti Wallc. "Study of a
waiking only path alrang Gore Creek between the Cavered
Bridge and Vail Road, connecting to exz5ting stream walk,
further enhancing the pedestrian network throughout the VilIage
and providing pubiic access to the creek. 5pecific design and
locatian of waikway shal.l be sensitive tn adj2cent tjses and the
ereek environment. "
Staff Response: Staff belteves this element can be reasonably ~
incorparated into the propased design and site plan. We believe
this a.menity is in the best interesis of the community, and can be
added to the site plan without impacting the Sonnenaip Hotei.
Appropriate creek crossings, and grading which provides for the
teail to be benched in at a lower eFevatiQn than the pool, can be
done in a way that is campatible with the courtylyd area of the
hotel, and shoulci be shown an the site plan as discussed above.
2. Illustrative Plans
i
a. Zllustrative Plan - Land Use
1. North side of Sonnenalp site - iYXised use
"This category includes the historic Villaae coa'e ana properties
near the pedestrianized streets of the Village. Lodgrng, retail
and limited amoUnt of office Lise are found in this catebary.
With nearly 270,000 sq. ft. of retail space, and approxi3nately
320 residenzial units, the mixed use character of these areas is a
majar faetQr in the appeal of the Villa;e.,"
~
15
~ Staff Response: The camrnercial rerail has been deleted from
the prevxous proposal. As a result, the hotei facility will not
have as rriany uses as the Land Use Illustration Plan Galls for.
There still will be restaurant and bar use apen to the public.
2. Souch Side of Sonnenalp Site - MediuFnlhigh derasity
residentaal and mixed use.
Medium/high density. "The overwhelrning majority of the
ViIlage is lodbe rooms and condorninium units are lacated in
this land use catecrory. Approxirnately 1,100 units have been
developed an the 27 acres of grivate land in this categQry. In
addition, anothet 110 units are approved bLit unbuilt. It is the
gaal of this plan to maintain these areas as predpminantly
lodging orienteci, with retail develapment limited ta small
amaunts af accessory retail."
Mixed use. "This categary includes the historic Village care and
properties near the pedestrianized streets of the Village, f
Ladging, retaiZ and limited amount af office use are found in this
category. With nearly 270,0(}0 sq. fc. af retail space, anci
approximately 320 residential unxts, the mixed use character of
~ these areas is a rnajor factor in the appeai of the ViFlage."
Staff Response: The praject complies with the designatian of ~
medium/high density, as it is nearly at the maximum alloweci ;
nurnber af accommodation units for the praperty. The fact that
all of the units will 6e accommodatian units is a positive benefit
to the Village.
b. Illustrative Plan - Open Space
The plan calls for:
1. A planted buffer is to be created on the corner of Vail Road and
Meadow Drzve.
2. Plazas with green space are ta be created between the Sanner?alp
and Phase V, as weil as between the Talisman and VVI
sculpture piaza.
3. Open space is designated along the entire stream corridor.
,
~
16
Staff Response: ~
1. Planted Buffer: Staff believes that the additional landscaping on
the carner aF Vail Raad and Meadow Drive fulf'~lls this element.
2. Plazas: With the renavarion of the bus stop and the reworking
af the Swiss Haus entry> the twb areas shawn on the illustratzve
plan for plazas will be improved. Full scale plazas, as shown on
the illustrative plan, as well as the Vail Streetscape Plan are nat i
apgropriate to require from the deveioper at this time, as a future ~
cammercial exgansion may affect the design af these areas. i
Staff beliewes the work that will be done in these twa areas is in ,
comgliance with the cancepts af the iliusrrative plan.
3. Open Space Corridar: See discussion under stream walk above.
~ c. Ialustrative Plan -Parkin;; and Circulation
The plart designates:
1. East Meadow Drive as a bus route and pedestrian street with
plazas; and
2. The Gore Creek corrid,or as a study area for a walking path. ~
Staff Response: East Meadow Drive will continue to function as it does nQw.
We recommend that the aceess easen2ent for the Talisman be vacated as
discussed above, sa that access onto Meadow Drive can be avaidecl, anct the
pedestrian nature of Meadow Drive can be preserved. Staff believes the
proposal should incorparate a stream walk.
d. Illustratiwe P1an - Building Height
The area along East Meadow Drive is recommended tca be a maxirnum of two
Co thzee staries. Three to four scories are designated an the sauthern 3/4 of the
property. Staff is pleased the current proposal corrtplies with the height pZan.
E1 majarity of the facade along Vail R.oad is three stories high, cvith the
buildin- going as high as four stories at two locations. The center of the sike
includes a wing that goes as hig'h as four srories, which camplies with tfle
desibnation of the height glan.
~
17
~ C. Vail Streetscape Master Plan
The Streetscape Plan caJ.ls for two pedestrian plazas along East 1vSeadflw Driwe. St2ff
believes a cantribution to the treatment along Easc Meadow Drive is necessary, and
that the upgrade ta the existing eastbound bus stop, the improvement to the
iandscaping along East Meadow llrive, and the reworking of the area in front of the
Taiisman and Swiss Haus generally futfills the standards of the plsn. Staff believes
the improvements are in genera.l compliance wzth the cancepts of the Streetscape plan.
D. Findings
The Plannzng and EnvirQnmental Commission shall make the following findings before
granting a variance:
1. That the granting of the variance will not eanstztute a grant of special priviiege inconsistent with the limitations on other praperties classified
in the same district. i
2. That the granting af the variance will not be detrimental to the public ~
health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or
improvements in the vicinity.
~
3. That the variance is warranted for one or rrtore of the follawing reasons:
a. The stnct literal interpretatian or enforcement of the specified
regulation wouid result in practical ciiffactilty or unnecessary
physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title,
b. There are exceptians or extraardinary circurnstances or
condirions appFieable to the same site of the variance that da not
apply generally to o[her properties in the same zone.
c. The stricz interpretEition or enforcement of the specified ~
regulatian would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by
the awners of other properties in the same distract.
V. GUNCLUSIaN
5taff recnmmends approval af the three variance requests as the request meets the criteria atid
finclings for a variaLnce. Concerning Finding number one, staFf beiieves that chere is not a
grant of special privilege inconsistent with iirnitations on other properties for height, as
~ nzechanical areas are typically located an rooFs. 5creening the mechanicaI according to khe
t8 '
proposed design is a soZution ihat integrates the screening intQ the building we11. Analysis of ;
parking dernands in the Towan suggests that the code requirements exceed the utilizatiQn
demands, and tha¢ as a rule, 4cadges do not require as much parking as the zoning code
zequires. Lastly, the increase an cdmmon aPea is not an uncamman occurrence. Comrc,+on
areas for fuAl service resort hatels typically exceed the amQUnt alIowed by code, as the code
requirement pertains to several different types vf rnulti-farnily development.
Coneeming the secand finding, staff believes that none of the requested vltiances will be
detrimental to the public healch, sa.fety or welfare.
Ccancerning the third finding, staff believes that strict interpretation of the code regarcling
height worald resutt in a practical dif£'iculty. Locatinb the mechanieaI equipment on the roaf
is a reasonable solution that is commonly done. Locating it elsewhere on the site would not
be as practicll, and wQUld possibly result in greater impact to adjacent properties. Staff
beIieves a strict enforcement of the parking regUlatiOn i5 npt necessary, based on staff
research, anci that enforcement of that regulation would be an unusual and unnecessary
reqUirement of the Sannenalp 1Qdge. Concerning common area, staff believes, again, that a
srrict enforcernent of the common area regulatiQns is not in iine with whzlt many of the atfier
lad~es in town enjoy, and that a stirict enforcement is not ap~rropriate.
Therefore, the Comrnunity Development Departrnent recommends approval of the three
variance requests for [he Sonnenalp renovation, vvich the folIowin~ conditions of approval:
1_ Prior to Design Rewiewv Board appravaI, the applicanc shall subrnit a Site plan showing
IZ) ~
in detail the descripcions of the followinb areas, as referenced on t}ie site plan clated
JLily 8, 1991:
a. The carner of Meadow Drive and Vail Road shall inclutie vertical laneiscaping
to screen the transforrner, anti shall be appraved by tlie Town Engineer.
b. Detailed information as to the qijantity, species and size of landscaping to be
planted at the base af the building sha,11 be provided. This landscapinc shauld
inelude a variety of trees, including aspen and spruce.
c. The bus stop plans shall be drawn in detail to shotiv seating, pavers, boulder
retainage (instead of ties), gedestrian access to the parking lot, as well a.s
landscaping.
d. The berm alon; 1Vleadaw Drive sh~,ll be extend~ed as far east as possible,
appraxiznately tQ the fire access points. The annount of landscaping along the
berm shall be approximately doubled. ~
Ail flandscaped islands within the parking 1ot shall include coniferaus and '
deciduous trees.
~
19
i
~ f. The fire access ta be built between the Talisman and Sonnenalp parking lots
shall be constcucted aut of gavers, and shall be designed to replace the existing
access between the two areas. Any iandscaping that is to be remaved shall be I
replaced within the parking lpis in a different location. '
g. A fise access turn arflund shall be designed in front of the Talisman to meet the
standards of the Tnwn of Vail Fire Depaz-tment. Access onto MeadQw Drive
via the reeorded easement shall not be an option to meet the Fire Department
access requirements. The area in front of the Swiss Haus entrance shall be ,
redesigned to accammodate fire tzuck acccss. A combination of landscapin.g
and pavers shall be planned in this area to create a plaza, according ta the
concepts of the Streetscape plan.
h. The applicant shall carnply with the staff recammendations on the stream waIk
found in Secrion 4b of the Ynemo. The alignment of the walk shaZl be
indicated on the landscape pIan, a 20 faot buffer be provided for construccaon
of the walk, and preliminary grading for the path inclGided in the landscape
plan. (If the PEC does not concur with this candition, sttiff believes all
proposed lanciscaping on the Town of Vail stream tract shzll be rernaved from
the Iandscape plan.) Tovs,rn-owned Iand shalt be zewegetateci after constructi4n
ta a natural state, and shall not be mawed or incorporated into the pool
courtyard area.
~ i. All landscaped lighting on Tov,m of Va.il land shall be removed as part of the
renovati:on. Any new landscape ?ighting to be installed shalI first be agproved
by the Design Review Board.
~
2. Przor ta the issuance of the building permit for the renovarion, the applicant sha11;
a. Frovide detailed engineering drawings o#' the curb and gutter and sidewalk
alflng Vail Road for the review and approval of the Town Engineer.
b, Dedicate an access easernent frorn Vail Road to the Talisman parleing lot.
Additionally, the exxsti.rag access easement frflm Nleadow Drive to the Talisman
parking iot shall be vacated.
~
c. Dedicate 4.0 erriployee units according to Section 1$.13.(}80(I3) of the Town of
Vail Zoninb CQde. ;
c:\pec`sanenalp\vaniansc.708
~
20
PROIECT DATA
A. Total FIoor ,A,reas
Common Area Accessarv Area GRFA Mechanical ~
Basement 15,681.2 4,328.7 - 3,734.6 ~
First Floor 16,794.6 8,704.4 782.0 62.9 ~
Secand Fioor 5,4819 - 23,812.4 111.0
Thzrd Floar 4,813.7 - 24,068.2 180.5
Fourth Floor 3,045.7 - 11,611.7 200.$
Lofts - - 2,476.0 -
Totals: 50,145.8 8,7(}4.4 58,750.3 4,289.9
Grand Tatal: 121,$90.4
B. Site Coverage
AIlowed: 8$,165.4 x.55 = 48,491.0 sq, ft.
Proposed:
Vail Road Win; (Including conference area underneath Lutiwig's Deck): 25,973
Meadow Drive Wing: +10,060.5
Total: 36,033 sq. ft.
C. Parking Requirements i
i
Vail Road Wing Meadow I?rive Wing ~
, AUslParkin,g Spaces AUs arking Snaces
Basernent AUs 0{0 spaces 0/0 spaces
First Floor AUs 211.6 spaces 0f0 !
Secand Ftoor A.Us 25/23 spaces 15114.5 spaces j
Third Floor AUs 23/21.5 spaces 10JI0 spaces ~
Foterth Fioor AUs 6I6 spaces 9/9 spaces
TotaI: $5.6 parking spaces for the Accommodarion Units.
Bar/R.estaurant Area - 6,360.1 / 15 f 8= 53.0
Meetinb F~.oc~m Area - 4,328.7 I15 I S J 2= 18.0
Accommodatian Units - +$5.6
TotaI: 156.6 spaces
Total From Above: 156.6 spaces
Multi-Use Credit - -2.5°l0 = - 3.9 spaces
152.7 spaces
Non-Canfprming Amaunt Approved in 19$6: -15.4 spaces
Total: 137.7 ar 138 spaces
Arnotint Froposed: 108 spaces ~
Deficit: 30 spaces or 21.7''0 '
21
PLANNING AND ENVTRONMENTAL CQMNiTSSIOI'1
~ June 24, 1991
Pzesent Staff
Chuck +Crist Kristan Pritz
17iana Donovan Mike Mallica
Ludwig Kurz 7ill ICammerer
7irn Shearer Shelly Mello
Arnber Blecker
Absent
Connie Knight
Kathy Langenwalter
Gena Whitten
The public haaz7ing was called to arder at 2:15PM by Cha.irpersan Diana Donovan.
i. A request for a worksesszon for height, parking and density (GRFA/comrnon area)
variances far the Sonnenalp, Part of Lots K & L, Block 5-E, Vail Village First FilinLrJ
20 Vail Road.
~ Appiicant: Sonnenalp Properties
Planner: Andy Knudtsen
Kristan Pritz explained the changes in the prnposal frvrn the one submitted severat months
previously. These included asking for variances for coinamon area/aecessory use, height and
parking, instead of proposing a 5pecial Development Distnct. Kristan explained the issues
staff believed were irnportant to discuss, and these included the propased parking,
landscaping, employee housing, and a stream walk.
At the ccanclusion of Kristan's presentatian, Jay Pecerson, the applicant's representative,
further expiained the propQSal, iltegarding the parking, day indicated applicants were workiztg
with the staff Co reach a compromise between the number of spaces provid.ed and interior
Iandscaping. The height variance was being requested in order ta accommodate "chillers," a
form of cooling far the rooms, in an enclosed area of the roof to most effectively screen the
bulk annd naise from the units.
Jay presented applicant's positian that a 35% allowance for cornmQn area in a IOQ% lodge
projeet was not sufficient. A first-class facility would usually have a greater demand for
common area. He indicated that the GRFA for the praject was actually below that which was
permitted for the site.
~
~ 1
_ Regarding staff's streatn walk recammendatzon, Jay pointed out that it was a study area, and ~
not a concept specifically designated in the Land Use Plan. He stated it was valici, hawever,
to ensure that the project was not develaped in such a way as to prohibit future stream walle
develapment, and the propasal did anot prevent such development.
Staff s recommendations had included exploring the provisian of employee housing with this
pz-oposal. Jay pointed out that the expansion was going to only add an additianal 10 sleeping
rocams, and there would be no staff a.dditions necessary to accomrnodate the redevelopment.
ray alsfl observed that the amount of additional parking requiared under the proposaJ was due
to the size of the rooms. Altliough the raams wauld still only accammadace 2 peaple, the
size was increasing the parking space per raom pereentage.
7im Wear, the attorney for the Talfsman Condominiums, stated the Talisman vuas generally in
favor of the proposal, and reicerated that the strearn walk should be looked at only 35 a 5iiidy
item. Kristan askeci if the Talisman and Sonnenalp had salved the access easement question,
and Jim replied they had, and the two generally had a gaod working relationship. Jim feli the
easement eould be resolved.
i
Ludwig Kurz asked if some of the outside d.ining area wouid be lost. Kristan indicated it
would be paaxttzally infilled. Ken a'Brien, the Sonnenalp's architect, stated the additianal
space in the dining portipn on the east side of King Ludrwig's would rraake ug for che loss on
the dining deck. Kristan stated approxirnately 350 sq. ft. of the dining deck would be ~
~
~ removed.
Luclwig believed the amount of common/accessory space was absolutely necessary for the
project, and was important far the crearian of a first class facility. He did not cansider tne
height variance to be much of a problem, as iC was a trade ofF for better concealing the
chillers. He did question i£ the chillers wauld create a sound nuisance. Ken answered they
would nat, as the sound would be directed upward.
Ludwib suggested that with ttie efficiency of parking the Sonnenalp was able to maintain
thrQUgh strict controis, the shortfall was acceptable, especially in iight of staff's study finding
the actual usage of the lot to be less than 100%. He recommended additionai Iandscaping be
subsrituted for same of the paricing.
Ludwig was hQpeful the projeet would not neglect the possibility of a cam,patibIe futcare
strearn wauc. He believed a steeam wallc would enhar?ce the Sonnenalp's guests' experience.
He recommended the deveZo,per continue to eonsider the optian.
Addressing thc overall landscaping of the propQSal, Ludwig believed some areas of the project
couid be improved. He specifically cited that the railroad ties eould be removed in existing
planter areas, particularly at the Meadaw Drive bus stop.
, 2 ~
Chuck Crist stated he had liked the prewious proposal, and liked the current propasal as well.
He stateti he belzeved the roorn size accounted for the amount of parlang addressed by the
l .
variance requesta and the va-iance was reasonable. He faund the amannt of common area
necessary for this project. He did have a coneern, however, with the landscaping plan. His
specific concern was with the parking on the north side of the btiiiciing. He questioned the
removal of several large trees, and encouraged znore landscaping in that general area.
Chuck did nQt wanc to see the futui`e potenrial fflr a stceam walk jeapardized, but he did not
think zt was necessary for the developez to build a portion at this time. Chuck cited the
developer's excellent record far providing housing far his employees, and did not feel an
additional burden should be placed on the developer to provide employee hQusing. Overa.ll,
Chuclc faund the project to 1ae pretty gaod.
Ludwi; added to his comment regarding his con.cern with comrnQn area, stating that since the
site coverage was under the allowable, he did not have a further prablem with the proposal. '
Jirn Shearer eommented he wauld like to see the northwest corner of the lot landscaped if the
Town af Va%1 Public Warks wauld find this option acceptable. He found the plan to include
improvements to landscapin'g, but encouraged even mare landscaping. 7ay Petersan stated
they wouid work with staff, but he asked if it were a question of parldng or landsca.ging,
which would be preferable? Jim believed landscaping vvas more important for this project.
Regarding the streain walk, Jim wanted allowances for a future stream wallc to be made, but
did not want ta require the developer ta build it at this tzme..
Jim faund the heibht not onTy justi~iable for a variance, but an attrac[ive addition to the
project. He stated it was a beautiful plazi. He also found the request for a parking variance
acceptable, giuen the walet and gate cantzols, as well as the larger sized rooms. Jim was
pteased with the mass and buLk of the buiIding, and felt it would be a landmark. Since the
Faesslers had a history of being very cancerned with housing their employees, he found na
reasor? to require addiricanal hcausing as part af this proposal.
Diana Donovan supported Ludwig°s comments, but questioned what t'he chillers' exhaust
would consist nf. Ken f]'Brien stated it was mostly warm air and humidity, but not
"pollutian" per se. Diana approved of the h.ezght request, stating it made sense in this
znstance to address the chillers in this tnanner rather than as an a£ter thought. The applicant ,
proposeci an up front solution.
"I'he parking alsa worked in this case, Diana believed, due to the controls tlie Sonnenalp
imposed oaer parking in their lots. She would, however, like xo see additianal Iandscaping,
especially landscaping near buildings ta soften the impacts. She stated the improvements
proposed for the bus stog area would be positive. The Swiss Haus area by the fre access
shauld aTsa be "spiffed" up. She differed from the applicants' opinion on the stream wa]k,
stating that in her rnind it was an adopted amenity in the Recreatianai Trails PZan, and would
like to see it wflrked into the site piarrning, even if it were just roughed in at this rime.
~ 3
/
Diana stated the cammon area vazia.nce made sense, but she agreed with staff that employee
~ housing should be addressed. While a coupie units rnight nat really fit in with this proposaI, ~
she did not believe it was fair to require other developers to require the housing without
getting guarantees from this progosal.
Gnuck Crist asked haw the site vvould be accessed far construction. Ken O'Brien stated there
would be a crane for a short period of time. The current parking Iot would be used far a
staging area. He mentioned tl3at canerete for the parking was alsa being considered to reduce
the heat from asphalt. He stated the consttuction period would be appraximately S months,
starting April 1, 1992. They hoped to have 100%v occupancy by Christmas, 1993
7ay Feterson thanked the CQmmissioners for their comments, and stated they weruld be back
July S with a f nal proposal.
2. A reQuest_ for a front setback variance for the Schofield resid.ence, Lot 18, Block 3,
Vail Valley First FilingJ1448 Vail Valley Dri.ve,
Applicant: Iohn Schofielti
Planner. Andy Knudtsen
Shelly Mello presented the request for the front setbacic variance. The variance was requested
in arder to allovr for a gu~age addition to the seeandary unit. In addition, staff asked the
Cammissian to consider the request to place a driveway across the front of the lot to allow
for turnarvund and parkinb. Althoubh no variance was necessary for the driveway request,
~ staff viewed this as an element of the zequest. Additional landscapimg was proposed for this ~
site.
After reviewing the varianee criteria, staff recommended appraval of the varianee far the
garage, citing findinSs 1, 2 and 3(b) in support with t17e condition the owners gain approval of
the duplex property owner to encroach into the cammon area. Staff did not recommend
approval vf the driveway pian as proposed.
7ohn Schofield explained that with the current ciziveway, when cars were in the driveway,
there rrwas no way aut of the garage without rtnoving at Ieast one car. He believed the
progosed driveway vvas a good salutian to backing out onto the raad, and would provide
better access. He mentioned there were other property awners in the area with a similar
driweway design. If Vail Va11ey Drive were to be widened, they, too, would be negatively
affected. He was willing to accept that possibility. NIr. Schafield showed gictures to the
Commission illustrating other owners' solutians. As he viewed his siluation, the anly other
solution he savar was to widen the existfng driveway to allow for a straight shot. Additionally,
he believed the Mugo pines should be remowed for safety reasons. Tom Baccus, an atidience
member, asked where tYte gines were Iocated. Mr. Schofield showed where they were on the
plans.
~
~ 4
; five currents and six mugo pines. Applicant sha11 contribute 1/2 of the cast to screen the
existing dumpster. The dumpster shall be moved to the sauth end af the property as much as
'r possible; Iocation and scxeening must be reviewed and approved by the DRB. A,pplicant shail
pave che entire access easement between Units 2 and 4 on Tract A. If possible, the paving
area should be narrowed. In addition, landscapirig shauld be placed in the area where the
paving has been removed. Jim Shearer seconded the motion. Tt was approved 7-0.
2. A request far a densxty variance far the Bernardo Residence, Unit 4, Tract B Bighorn
Townhouses 4718 Meadc,w Drive #4B.
Applicant: Bill Bernardo
Planner: Mike Mollica
The presentarion was made by Mike Mollica. A matifln was made by Kathy Langenwalter to
apprave ttte request. Findings A, B, C(1, 2 and 3) were cited per the staff memo with the
two cozaditions of approval as stated in the memo, with the following nnodificarions;
Applicant shall contribute 1/2 of the cost to screen the exisring dumpster. The dumpster shall
be moved to the sauth end of the property as much as possible; locatian and screening rnust
be reviewed and approved by the I7RB. Agplzcant shall gave the entire access easement
between Units 2 and 4 on Tract A. If possible, the paving area shauld be narrowed. Tn
additzon, landscapzng should be placed in the area where the paving has been removed.
Chuck Crist seeonded the motian. It was unanimousiy approved, 7-0
~ 3< A re uest for hei ht arkingr and densitv variances for the Sonnenal Fart of I.ots K
and L Biock 5-E Vail Village First Falina 2-0 Vail Road.
Applicant: Sonnenalp Propertie5
Planner: Andv Knnudtsen
Andy Knadtsen presented the staff rnemo and the proposal. Quesrions from the
Cammissianers about parking, landscaping and access points were addressed with a modeI
pravided by the appliea.rtc. Ken O'Brien indicated there would be no need for fire access to
the building, as an intezna.l fire system would be installed. The Fire Departmenc had
approved this plari.
Staff recommended approval of the requests, with the conditions listed in the staff inemo.
After a presentation of slides by Ken O'Brien, Jay Peterson exglained the proposal further.
The Sonnenalp was proposing to add 10 large rooms, though only 2 geople wauld be stayinb
in each room. Most aIl of the other rcaoms would be enlarged, causing an increase in the ,
parking requirernent. Accessory (restaurant) square footage would also be increased, thaugh
only about 20 seats wauld be added. Spa a,rea was also proposed for an increase.
Much of the prflposed expansion to the com,mon areas was to be located undergraund. Jay
2
~ . ~ .
~
I ~
~
said that since the applicatian had been made, the allowable camrnon area had been increased ~
to 35% from 2Q%a. If the application were resubmitted, he believed it would be less non-
conforming than was indicated in the staff's memo.
7ay asked that the parking be evaIuated by need. T'he applicant had added landscapin,g since
the proposal was viewed at the worksession, based on the Commissian and staff ~
recomrnendarions.
4nly a small mechanical space was causing the need for a height variance. Jay felt the bulk
and mass of the building, as welZ as site coverage, had been wisely rased. Much of the space
being expanded was bezng loeated underground. The proposed roof location was the best for
the chilIers, as it would have the least irnpact on adjacent uses. He reminded the Commissian
that there was na GRF'A located in the area for the height variance,
Ken C)'Brien said it vvas very important the Planning Commission realize the Town af Vaii
Master Plan called for the zedevelopment of the site. However, due to the current
configuration of the project, not even ZO sq. ft. of common area cauld be added witltout a
variance request.
Regarding the density on the site, Jay said that even with the addition of 10 additional
accommodation units, the project was under the alFowed density. in additian, there was still
11,000 sq, ft. of GRFA unused on the site.
Turning to the issue af employee housi.zrg, Jay disaa eed with staff's camputation caf the
number of employees generated by the expansion. He stated the redeveloFment might
actually result in a decrea.se in the number of emptoyees necessary, as the curcent
configUratian was extremely inefficient. He also said the Faesslers already supplied a great
amaunt of hausing, and woulr3 continue to tia sa.
Jay asserted the stream walk was a study area, and not an adopted part of the MasKer Plan. ~
He did not thinlc it was fair to require the applicant to canstruct it at this time, since it had
noc yet been engineered. He said nathing in, the current proposai wauld grohibit the future
developrnent af a stream walk by the Town. Kristan Pritz responded that the sta£f
recommended that the la,ndscaping be designed ta allow the eQnstruction with as few impacts
as possibie. Statf was advocatinc, the applicant eomplete rough garading for the path to allow
the wallk to be accommodated in the future without having to cut down rnature vegetation.
An alternative, as explained by staff, was to pull the Sonnenalp-pIanteci landscapang back to
their property line and revegetate the Touvn land ta a natural state.
Kristan alsa responded to ,Tay's comments regarding the number of employees staff believed
could be generated by the redeveloprnent. Although the Rosall, R.emrnen and Cares repart
had nat yet been officially adapted by the Town of Vail, the report had studied similar ski
communities to determine the number of employees necessary for differenc types of
develogment. 5taff simply used the report as a basis fcar evaluation. Kristan said employee
~
~ 3
housang was a serious problein within the Tawn, and thac the housing need should be
, addressed by developers of projects such as this.
Rick Rasen, representzng the Villa Cortina Condorrainium AssociariQn and the First Bank
Condominium Association, said that overall, the Association members believed it was a good
project, and did nat have prabiems with the parking or common area variances. However,
there was concern a'bout the height variance, with some af the Assaciation membership
believinb the z~echanical equipment shnuld conform to the maximum 48' heighr Iimitatian.
Mr. Rosen reminded the Commissioners to consider the findings which were necessary to
grant a variance, stating the applicants had not proven a practical difficulty or physical
hardship if the chillers were to be lacated on the graund. In additian, extraordinary
circurnstances pertaining to chis develapment had nnt been proven, nor would there be a
denial of privileges enjoyed by athers. He said the develapment seemed to be backing znto
almost the SDD which had previously failed. T'here were also cancerns regarding a potencial
Phase II retail development alang Meadow Drive. Mr. Rosen cancluded by requesting a
height varianee not be granted, and the chillers be located on the g-round. -
Jay Peterson disagreed, stating that the enelosure for the chillers was mflre of an architectural
projection, and indicated that rnechanical units ean be placed above the maximum height with
screening. Kz-istan agreed, stating there were many instances in the area where mechanica.l
units had been placed on a roof at a later time, and weare not counted as exceeding the
~ ma:ximum height. Jay illustrated on the rencierings haw much the height would exceed 48
feet. He e:cplai.ned to the Commission that the noise impacts of the Medical Center's chiilers,
were bothersome, even though they were behind a one foat concrete wall, and that elevaung
the chillers to the roaf would be a much better solution.
Jim Wear £rom the Talisman said that the Talisma:n Board of Diarectors had not yet reviewed
the proposal, but had supported the previous plan, and believed this proposal had less impact,
thougla a parking variance mxght prove to have same impact on the Taa,isman. He believed
there were reasonable proposals regarding access to the Talisman. Hawever, until a
germanent access easement was given to the Talisman, they would be reluctartt to vacate the
current easernent frozn Meadaw Drive. Mr. Wear also said it would be unfair to buzden the
Sonnenalp with cansttucting the 5txeam walk.
At approximately 4:05, Gena Whitten left f4r a short period of time.
Jim Shearcr asked haw fire access wauld be provided. 7ay Peterson said that there was no
current fire access to the Talisman. He dgreed to cooperate with the Talisman to devise a
better plan per the Fire Deparnnent reqcairement for a turnaround. 7im Wear reiterated there
was a good working zelationship, and the access issue could probably be worked out.
4
f
Chuck Crist a5ked for cYarificatian on the roof colar. Ken O'Brien said it would be a
t' greenish patina, and would be conscrucced of copper. Chuck said he had no problem with the ~ i
~ height, and as far as the parking was concerneci, he said it looked as though the lot was never
more tharr 70% full. With the increased landscaping, the parking was acceptable tca him, in
appearance. Chuck commented on the common area, and said that the hallways alone would
use np the allawable cnmmnn area, and therefare had no prpblem with thaE variance.
Regarding the streaan vvalk, Chuck did not feel it needed to be constructed by the ovvner.
Kathy Langenwalter asked 7ay if he would be willing to go along with icem H of' the
conditions relating to the stream walk. Jay zeplied they did not want to do any gradin~ for
the path, but would leave an 8' width. Andy said that $ feet may not be wide enough far
construction, but would check wzch Public Works.
Kristan Pritz pflinted out chat part af the condition was to work with the staff on the streazn
walk. Jay respanded they would work with staff, and would space tlne lanciscapin; to ad}ust
for a path.
+Chuck asked Johannes how many additzonal employees he was anticipating. Johannes said he
already has enQUgh employees. Since there would only he 10 additional rooms, and a more
efficzent laun.dry, no additional emplayees would be needed. Hzs staiement was there could
i be a few more or a fevv less employees than he cunently has. Chuck 5aid he understood the
staff's recommendatian for empioyee housing, and he appreciated Sonnenalp's record of
providing employee housing. He added that, perhaps, they could restrict one unit for ~
~ empiayees.
3im Shearer had no problem with the height. He was cancerned with the pa,rking, and asked
7ohannes if the restaurant and bar were going to be increased in size, would the parlcing still
be sufficient. .Tohannes answered that there were some days, such as the Fourth of July, when
he would need mare parking. Oix those days, he would use more benmen and vaiet parking.
i 7im suggestea that, should a future pmject an this site exgand [he cunenc plan, he would like
to not d,iminish the requirements, bu[ have them meet the paricing standards in effect at thaz
time. Regazding landscaping, he lilced the revisians, especially on the corner of Vail Road
and Meadow Drive. He felt there was enough landscaping with the herm at the Swiss Haus.
Regarding the stream walk, 7im did not believe it was necessary ta ask the Sonnenalp to
consrruct it. However, he would like the landscaping pulled back so the strearn walk cQUld
be constructed at a later time. He also would like to see a comr3nitment to not remonszrate
against the stream walk added to the eonditions.
Reaardang employee housing, Jim asked how many employees 4 units couid hold. Andy
repYied staff presumed 2 to a unit, for a catal of Johannes discussed the ernplayee housin;
problem. He said the problem with deea restrictions was that, when property value increases,
he must have the ability to find other employee housing. Jim stated he did not worry about
7Qhannes, but he felt it would be setting a precedent. He said Johannes had been dozng a
~ 5 ~
. ;
1
good job suppZying employee housing, and would continue to do so, but that someane 0Ise
rnight request the same privilege. Johannes sucrgasted that perhaps there was some Qther
answer, rather than deed restriction. He did not feel a deed restriction was the cozxect way to
do it.
~Diana Donovan asked Kzistan if, in the employee housing ordina.nce, employers could move
the empIcryee housulg. Kristan replied there could be some flexibiliry in that regard built into
the vrdinance. Johannes believed 4 units weze too nnany because he would not have 8 new
employees. Jiin repeated that he thoughc a grecedent would be set if Johannes were not
required to have restricted units fgr his employees.
Regarding commQn area, Iim found no problem with the requesz. However, he wranted to
ensure the cornman area was reduced with the next phass. Jay reminded Jim there was no
"next phase" planned at that rime. Jirn also wanted the Sonnenalp to come to an agreement
with the Talxsman regardirag fire access before finalizing the plan.
Connie KFaight felt the design was beautiful, but asked if it wasn't just a first phase, and if the
applicant wnuld came back for the add.itional building along Meadaw Drive. ray Peterson ~
said they rvould not. She had no problem with the applicant's gQSition on common area or ~
the stream walk. Her cancerrz was abaut garking. 5he believed the Town had to Iook past '
what was being used taiay, and did not want the paricing requirement reduced. Regarding the
chillers, Connie requested this be studied to ensure there would be na negative effects.
Connie quesrianed the ratio of guests to employees. Johannes said it was about 1:1, but were
~ currently at 1.5 emplayees for every guest. Connie thought that since they weze adding 20
more restaurant seats, mare parking wauld be necessary. Johannes clarified these were bar
seats. Connie again questioned Johannes' statement he wauld need no more empFoyees. She
felt she could accept a reduced numbee of ernployee units.
Connie aIsa wondered if there should be a sun/shade study. Johannes said the shade wauld ~
be gaing into the courtyard, not into the public ri,ghts-of-way. Ken O'Brien pointed put the ~
Talisman was 48-50 tall, and were locatea claser to the road than this proposal. Connie did ;
not think any apprflval should be given until the 'T`alisman access issues were resolved. ;
Kristan and Andy believed staff, the Fiz-e Degartment, Talisman and the Sonnenalp could I
resolve these issues, and it was listed as a candition of approval prior to any building perrnit
being issued. Jay reiterated that they vvere aying to work out the issue. Jzm Wear stated he
believed the issues could be resolved. Connie asked about fire truck access. Ken O'Brien
sabd afl the fire trucks had to do was get to a siamese connection whieh could be placed
anywhere along Vail Road.
Ludwig Kurz said he was pieased to see the changes in the plan since November. He was
glad rhe Faessiers had decided to stay in Vail, and felt it was a credit to them and the Town. ~
He believed the proposal was a good use of a wariance for the heights. He would, however F
like to see a clarification in the code addressing nnechanical equipment, specifically staced if it
is allowed abave the height limit. Regarding parking, he preferred to see lanclscaping instead
~ 6
af the full number of parlcing spaces, especially considering the contrals the SonnenalP ~
-`:~zz~aintained. Ludwig alsc~ a~,reed r,vith Ehe vazia~r~ce request for comr~.on area, stating 20% was
inadequate.
Ludwig bed'zeved trie deVeloper had an obligadon to develop astream wallc to improve the
overall appeal af the Town. 5ince he viewed the stream walk as a bene~'it to the Sonnenalp
itself, he asked that its future development not be preeluded.
Coneerning erriplayee housing, Ludwi,g saici the Sonnenalp provided more than their share in
the pas[. Jn Iight af their history, he suggc;sted restricting 2 units.
Kathy Langenwal¢er generally supported the project. She was concemed, however, that the
parking wouPd cantinue to be provided for restaurant uses. She also agreed with RicEc Rosen
that the resuIt af the variances was almost an SUD, but she still believed they were
reasonable. She felt strongly rlaat employee units should be providecf, if for no other reasan
than to ensure that if there were a change in ownership, 4 units wauld still be available.
Gena Whitten did not support the removal of the paricing, as she saw a definite need for as
I much parking as possible. She found the z'+Qof structure to be a go' od architectural design.
She a5ked that the possibility for stream walk development be preserved.
i Johana?es Faessler pointed out that his parking demands and the demands in the par4cing '
' structures was a.lmost opposite, with his highest demand in the surnrner, just when the ~
structures were at the lawest demand.
Diana Donavan asked for clarification af the transfer of GRFA. Kristan explained ttiat
permitted, accessory and conditaonal uses could noc exceed 80% of buildable site area. She
pointed out that the project exceeded common area and the lfl% accessory limit for
restaurant, retail and recreation, as weli as exceeded the .SQ iimit. Diana also asked if the
sidewalk along Vail Road started at 1Vleadow Dzive. Ken C]'Brien said Pubiic Works would
determine the specific design. Diana believed it was very important that access be clearly
frorn Meadaw Drive. Ken said it would be cfifficult, but said they waula work with Public
WarkS. Jahannes pointed out it was in his best interest to make the access as visible and
accessibie as possible.
Diana asked for a condition of appzoval that an attendant be required far parking cantrol to
ensure it was available for restaurant use. She said she did not find the height a problem, as
it was a case af planning ahead. She reminded the applicant that it would be acceptable to
the FEC to lower the heibht if all the height were not needed to accommadate the chillers.
She was in favor af definitely deed rescricting employee units, stating the Commissian needed
to be consistezat. She suggested language similar to what was used far rhe VVI. She wanted
a minimuzn of 2 units wirhin the Town.
~
~ 7
Regarding ot,her condidons af approval, she asked that the heighC of the trees a1Qng the berm
be maintained, that any new trees added should match that height, and that a statement be
~ made that the parkinb vau-iaztce madc at ttiis dme would not reduce the overall requireznent in
the future, if an additiQn is buzlt. Overall, she disagreed witn staff's opinion that the zoning '
code parking requiremenc for accomrziodation units be adjusted. E
Addressing the strearn walk, Diana believed it was an advpted plan, and said it vvould be an I
asset to guests and be a nice vvalk to the Village. She suggested roughing-in the wallc, but ~
retaini.ng the natural landscape. In the altemative, she believed the Sonnenalp landscaping
should be pulled back ta their property line and the Town property be revegetated to a natural ~
state. j
A discussion ensued over what would be acceptable for an easement to the Talismari. Kristan
said she would have n4 prcablem with a license agreement, rather than an access easement.
Jim Wear said that without an easezrient, the Talisman wouid not be required or willing to ~
give up their ri.ghts to the existing access easement under the Code. The Sonnenaip proposal ~
was better than what currently exxsted, but not enough to give up theu interest in the easement. The Talisman was concerned that the pedestrian nature of East Meadow Drive be
preserved, but they insisted on legal aceess. Kristan suggested a license agreement which '
would provide aceess, 6ut the access cQuld be moveci. 7im Wear asked for an easement with I'
meets and bounds legal descrzption. 7im 5hearer suggested wording which stated an easement ~
acceptable to the Tcrwn, Talisman and Sonnenalp be worked out. Zay agreed, but said, the 1
Talisman should not be able to dictate the location. He caznmitted to prflviding access, ana !
suegested dedicating an access from either Willaw Bridge or VaiJ Raad with an izrevocable !
liCensing agreement to the Talisman garking lot. Jim Wear agreed, staeing as long as the
Talisman had access, they wauld not request chat their easement along East Meadaw Drive to
be apened.
Regarding the stream wa1k, Jay suggested language which said the Iandscape pl~ would not
preclude the Stream walk from being constructed. The plan would be designed to not
necessitate removal of mature vegetation for the eonstruction. Johannes said he would have
no probIem just landscaping the Sonnenalp land. Diana Donovan agreed with that suggestian.
7ohannes said it just did not make sense to require a rough-in of a plan which had not yet
been designed. The Coramission concluded that no improvements to the stream tracr, wizh
either a rQUghed-in walk or any Sonnenalp landscaping, be allowed.
After a discussivn regairc3ing the specif'ic Ianguage af the conditions, Ludwxg Kurz moved to
appsove the reqtaest for heAght, parking and density variances for ttAe Sonnenalp, part of Lots
K and L, Block SE, Vail Village First Filing,20 Vail Raad per the staff inerno with the
following condirions:
1. Prior to Design Review Board approval, the applicant sha11 submit a site plan shawing
in detail the descriptions of the following areas, as referenced on the site plan da[ed
7uly 1991:
~ 8
~
!
a. The corner af Meadow Drive and Vail Raad shall include vertical landscaging ~
to screen the transfarmer, and shall be approved by the Town Engineer.
b. Detailed information as to the quantity, speeies and size o#' l.andscaping ta be
planted at the base of the building shall be grovided. This landscaping should
xnclude a variety of trees, including aspen and sprruee.
c. The bus stop pians shall be drrawn ira detail ta show seating, pavers, houlder
reta,inage (instead of ties), pedestrian acce5s to tfte parking lot, as well as
landscaping,
d. The berm alang Meadow Drive shail be extended as far east as possible,
approximately to the fue aceess points. 'I'he arnount of landseaping along the
berm shal.l be approximately dc,ubled. The new landscaping shall be of equal
height to the existing trees, and the Design Review Board shall investigate the
possibility of deciduous trees along the berm,
e. All Iandscaped islands within the parking lot shall include conifezous and
daciduous trees.
f. The fire access to be built butween the Talisman and Sonnenalp garking lots
shaIl be constructed out af pavers, and shall be designed to replace the existing
access between the two areas. Any landscaping that is to be remaved shall be ~
~ replaeed within the parking Iots in a different locarion.
g. A~'ire access turn araund shall be designed in frant v£ the Talismari to meet the
stanclards of the Tawn of Vail Fi.re Department. Access onta Meadow Drive
via the reeorded easement shall not be an opcion to meet the Fire I7epartment
access zequirements. 'I'he area in front of the Swiss Haus enbrance shall be
redesigned ta accammodate fire trucJk access. A combination af landscaping
and pavers shall be planned in this axea ta create a plaza, according to the ;
cancepts af the Streetscape plan.
h. Town-owned Iand alang Gore Creek shall be revegetated after construecion ta a
natural state, and sha31 not be mowed or incorporated into the pool courtyard
area. Town of Vail aecess acrass the sou[hwest corner of the SQnnenalp
property for the constructian of a s[ream wallc shall be a1Towed by the owner of
the Sonnenalp,
i. AlI lantiscaped lighring on Tawn of Vail land sha11 be remaved as part of the
renovation. Any new landscape lighting to be installed shall first be approved
by the Design Review Board.
~
~ 9
J. A parking attenc~ant shall be on duity at all times to facilitate use of the parking
lot.
k. The parking supply and design approverl with these variances shall nvt be
viewed as a legal non-cvnforrning sQlution which would otherwise dirzzinish
parking requirements for future expansinns or redevelopment.
2. Priar to the issuance of the buigciing permit for the renovation, the applicarit shall:
a. Prvvide detailed engineering darawings of the curb and guttez- and sidewalk
along Vail Road for the review and appraval af the Tawn Engineer.
b. Dedicate an i.3revacable license agreement praviding access ta the Talisman
fram either Vail Road or Willow Bridge Road1`Meadow I7rive, outside the
restricted pedestrian axea. 'Ihe goal of this requirement is the eliminauon of
rhe Talisman access easement through the Meadow x7zive berm along the
pedestz-ian area.
c. Permanently restrict two dwelling units, totalling 4 beds, for employee housing.
The applicant may transfer the deed restrietion to two other comparable units
within the Town of Vail after securing written approval fram the Town of Vail.
Said employee units shall meet the restricrions as follows: the emplayee
~ housing units shall not be ieased or rented for any period less than 30
consecutive days, and shall be rented oniy to tenants who are full-tirne
erryployees in the Upper Eagle Valley. The Upper Ea-le Vailey shall be
deemed to include the Gore Valley, rvlinturn, Red Cliff, Gilman, Eagle-Vail
and Avon and their surrounding areas. A full-tirne employee is a per5on who
works an average of thirty hours per week. The applicant or his successor in
interest shall file a declaratzan of cnvenants and restrictions of record in the
office of the Eagie County Clerk and Itecorder in a form approved by the
Town Attorney for the benefit of the Town to insure that the restrictians herein
shall run with the land and shall not be amended or terminared rFri[hout the
written approvai af the Town of Vail. This decIaratian shall be submitted to
the Town Attomey for review and aggroval and subsequently executed and
filed with the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder priar ta 'I'own af Vail issuance
of any building permit far the Sonnenalp.
Ludwig Kurz stated that fndings D(1.), D(2), D(3)(a) and D(3)(c) of the sta€f inemo had been
met. Chuck Crist seconded the motion. Ic was unan3mously approved, 7-0.
After a brief recess, the Commissian reeonvened for consideration of t.he following;
. 10
Page 1 of 1
Gevrge Ruther - Sonnenalp-Talisman
~
From: <HgQ27@aoa.corn>
To: <gruther@ci.vail.co.us'
Date: 01/04/2003 10:50 AM
Subject: Sonnenalp-Talisman
Dear Gearge:
Kindly recall that I met with you at yaur affice last week with a small delegation from the Talisman
Association.
I note tha# the Planning and Environmental Carrrmission of the Town of Vail is meeting on January 13
and will consider the Sannenalp's application far a deviation from the Town Code. I will bE back in
Califarnia on that date and cannat attend the meeting but want you to know that as the owners af two (2) !
un€ts in the Talisman Candominiums and a family that has awned our Vail property for 32 years that we
fully support the Sonnenalp appVicatsarr. We have grsat fai#h in the Faessler family's ability to produce a
quality praduct.
The big prob4em wath #he propased develapment is #he problematic vehicular access to the Tafisman. We
will be landlocked absent ingress and egress from our easement to East Meac4ouv Drive. I believe that
access is detrimentai to the Tcawn's plans far East NEeadow Driwe and also presents great safety issues for
the Talisman arvners, Redestrians on East Meadow Driwe and is not in keeping w4th the future
beautification ofi the street. ~
7he only sound solutian is to revert to the proposed cooperative pragram between the Sonnenalp and the
Talisman wherein the Talisman would have some limited surface parking access and the basic parking of
Talisman vehicles would be within the proposed underground parking garage. Any other arrangement will
in the long run anly be a poor substitute measure fa the detriment of the Vail ambiance.
I wi61 be back in Vail an January 24th if you care to talk further abaut this. You can also reach until then
at (a) 310 274 9989 qr (h) 310 271 3893.
Sincerefy,
Herb G4aser
970 475 4028
~
Attachment: I ~
file:/1C:1WindawslTEMP1GW } 00{}0 1.HTM 01/0712003
- - -
~
S~
~ ~ p t ,~r f~~
. ,1 r x,. N
~ U
ky _
4~'+'• ~ ~ , ' ~
i~ I~ •.r--~ ~
~ ` ~ / •
• ~ iI
W
r ~ . f~ • ~Tf ~ . ~ ~ ~~~4
' • ~ ~ ,
~ .
~ ~
~
~ Ul)
p~, .P, ~ ~
J I~
~4 ~n
M ~
Ll
,o
sl] U}
Q~
~I {
I J O 1 I IF ~
\ .e
~ - -C ".1.~L ` 1 ~ ~ ` • ~ f
,
1
~
t~
Ao.
If p'~' '1
~ - . ,
i ~
1~~~'
_ ~ . .
1 . r" .6.
_ iW _ • f . 'l ° -
_ ~ ,
1f-
f
. - -
1 !
, . 1.
~
,
~
c~
m ~
~
~ ~ t7
I ~ !.r
`
~ 4~ Lr ! + +f ~ ~av ~ ~ ~ v
~ j'~~ ~ { +Mi k ~ Ql
, ~ ~ ~ p I f` ~ } Mr~ ~ ~ f•.~
61
_ _ , - s . ~ y` ,~l`, ~
~ i
s o
E
. _ ,
S ~
! F 1' ~y~.
,R
~ d~' ~ •t / V, ~ l ~
1
lr-' ~ _ _ . ~ _v • ^ r i _ _
.
- - 4
I
> +
'j I rl J
1
rr ~.k M
y~
-
?
~ y I
---'11
r~
Y
~ 1"~ M/ 1 J r {y~ ~ ry I 1 +
+ I G
r e~ y l J
~ ~ ~Y JG r ~ i
p f~~
i 1 aNl;,,41 '
r
{ 5 ~ ~
~ 4 k 4 ~~.~~ag•
f + F Y + ' ~ 05
wqv~
. ~ %
4
~
~ _
~ r ~
~ I J
3
f I~F ;
~A f 'r
.l ~ ~ A L • I . , , 1~'
- -L_ A ~ ~ ~ ~
~
i_
~
5
~ ' ! C f~ fl i
i ~
r
a ' •
'S`~ `•y ^a i3 ~ -
•y ~~r ~r y^.
V"
M
~
. . _ . . . _~J
~
~ ~ o ~ s.~~` y.,s~~~,~~,Z~=>'=~~
un
,y ~ ;r~, a~
~
1 '
i +
~
7
~ ~
.L4~ ' i i
-_.r t---~.' , ~i... u~•
~
y..
i
~~-si¢~ u, . ' (
S 5 ~ / "l
`
lI~V~ ~ r C i'l` r? , 1, ~-'~`-y L r.
~ ~ ' ;-:~+~'~i-~,~'• ~ ~ ~
~ .
- - ,
: . ,
~
y~..~ 1~~~~ ~ • '~r~ - ~ 't ' -
_ _ _ _J:-.'_-~-~' ! J ` ~ 1 ~ ~ P I y~t - ~ ~
. .
. ~
~
~ MEMORANDUM
TQ: Planning and Environmen#al Commission
FRflM: Department of Community Develapment
DATE: January 13, 2003
SUBJECT: A request far a recammendation to the Vail Town Cnuncil for the
estabIishment of Special aevelopment District Na. 37, to allow for the
redevelopmenf of the Tivoii Lodge, located at 386 Hanson Ranch
RoadlLot E, Black 2, Vail Village 5Ih Filing.
Applicant: Robert & Diane Lazier
F'lanner. George Ruther
1. Sl1MNIARY
The purpose of this meeting is fo aClaw the applicant an opportunity to present
the proposed redevelopment plans for the Tivoli Lodge ta the Planning and
Enviranmental Cornmission and to provide the applicant, public, staff, and the
Commossian an opporkunity to identify issues for discussion at a future meeting.
~ The C4mmission is not being asked to take any formal pasitiQns an this
application at #his time. As such, staff wfll not be praviding a formal
recommendation at this time. The next step in the review process of this
development application includes afinal review tentatively scheduled for
February 10, 2003.
II. DESGRIPTIQM 4F 7HE REQ_UEST
The applicants, gob and Diane Lazier, have requested a worksession meetMng
with the Pfanning and Environmental Commission to present aproposed
developrnent application and request for the establishment of a new special
development district entended to facilitate the redevelopment of the TiWOIi Lodge,
located at 386 Hanson Ranch RoadlLot E, Block 2, Vail Village 5'h Filing. A
vicinity rnap has been attached for reference (attachmeni A). The key elements
of the proposal include:
• Expansion and upgrading of one af Vail's Public Accommadatian zoned
properties,
• Irnproved live-bed base added to the existing lodging inventory,
• Gonstructian of recommended streetscape improvements ta the eastern ~
partion of Hansen Ranch Road, • A deviatian from the allowable building height (56' proposed)
• Elimirtation of a portion of existing street-side parking and the prcavision of
a new parking structure and loading area, and
~ • Provision of employee hausing within the Town of Vail.
A reduced copy of the floor plans and elevations have been attached for
1
i
~
reference (attachrnent B). ~
III. BACKGROUND ;
~
' The applkcant has meet with the Tawn of Vail Design Review Board on two
previQUS accasions fiar conceptual review discussians. The Baard's review #o
date has focused prirnarily on building mass and the architectural form af the
praposed gambrel roof design. A copy af the UesMgn Review Board's co¢raments
have been attached far re#erence (attachment C).
~ VI. SITE ANALYSIS
A mor2 complete site analysis wifl be provided for the February 10, 2003,
rneeting of the Planning and Environrnental Commissian. Given the eomments
provided by the Tawn of Vail Design Review E3oard and #he staff to date, and arry
additionaE feedbaek frarn the Plartning and Environmental Commission, staff
anticipates that there may be changes to the proposal that wifl affect the ~
devefopment standards data. According to the appficatian information provided j
by the applicant, no devia#ions to the prescribed development standards are !
sought with ihe exception af maximum allowable building height and loading and I
delivery in the front setback. I
Zoning; Public Accommodation I
Land Use Plan Designation; Vail Village Master Plan Study Area ~
Current Land Use: Mixed UsefResidential
Development Stancfard Allowed
Lot Area: Min. of 10,400 sq. ft. o# buildable area and a min. of
30 feet of frontage.
Se#backs:
Front: 20 feet
Sicies: 20 feet
Rear: 20 feet
*See Section 12-7A-6 for discreiion graniec6 to the
Planning and Enviranmerrtal Gommissian and the eriteria.
Building Meight: 45 ft. for flat or mansard raofs and 48 ft. far sloping roofs.
Rensity: Max. af 25 unitslaere.
GRFA: Up to 150 sq. ft. for each 100 sq. ft. of buildable site area.
Site Goverage. Not to exceed 65% af the total site area.
Landscape Area: Min. of 3q°'o of the total si#e.
Parking: Accommodatian units: 0.4 spaces/unit, plus 0.1
space/each 100 sq. ft. af GRFA v+rith a max. of 1.0
spaces/unit.
Dwelling Unit: If GRFA is 500 sq. ft. or less: 1.5
2 '
- ~
V
~ spaceslunit. If GRFA is over 500 sq. ft. up to 2,000 square
feet: 2 spaceslunit. If GRFA is 2,000 sq. ft. ar
moreddweilung unit: 2.5 spaces/unit.
Recreational Facilities, Pubfic ar Private (day spa): Parking
requirements to be determined by the Planning and
Enviranmental Gomcnission,
VII. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING
~
Land Use Zo, ninq
North: Residential Public Accommodation
Sauth: Open Space Agricultural and Open Space
East: Residential Public Accommodation
West: Ftesidential Agricultural and apen Space
VIII. DiSCUSSIQN ISSUES
The purpose af this worksession meeting is to allow the applicant an apportunity
to present the reVised proposed plans to the Planning anei Environrnental
Commission and to provide the applicant, public, staff, and the CommissiQn an
opportunity to identify issues far discussion at a future meeting. The Commission
~ is not being asked to take any formal positicans on this applicatian at this time.
However, staff has identified five (5) issues at this time that we believe should be
discussed. The issues are:
a
,
Camplete Develoqrnent Application a
The Town flf Vail has reviewed the deueloprnent application submitted by the
applicanf's representative for completion and compliance with the prescribed
submittal requiremertts. CJpon cflmple#ign of our (Gommunity Developmen#,
Public Works, and Fire Department) rev`rew, it has been deterrnined that
additional infflrmation is required to be submitted and reviewed before any
final decisians may be made by the reviewing boards. Niany of these issues
have already been communicated to the applicant. 4thers have not. For
reference purposes, the fallawing informatian is needed:
• A vicinity plan which inclucies the Galatyn Lodge, Ramshorn
Condominiums, and the ViEla Valhalla Condominiums.
• A complete landscape plan prepared in accordance with #he ,
requirements outlined on the Town of VaiE developrnent revisw
application
• A complete se# of street section drawings that illustrate the stree#
enclosure of the proposed lodge and surrounding area.
• A c9mplete and accurate roof plan with existing and proposed grades
shown undemeath tQ be used in the defermination of building height.
~ • A survey of Lot P-2 and a parking plan illustrating the parking space
canfiguratian on the lot.
3
Y
• Address the comments provideci by fhe Town of Vail Public Works ~ j
Department in the letter dated Gecember 20, 2002 (attachment D)
• Submit a separate set of eleva#ion drawings depic#ing the proposed
fodge versus the existing lodge.
* AdcEress the comments provided by Jeff Winstan, 1Ninston &
Associates, in #he letter dated January 13, 2003 (attachment E)
• Submit an applicant for a condifional use permit ta allow for a Type III
Employee Housing to be constructed on the development site.
Pursuant to Section 12-7A-12 (A)(2){j) of the Vail Town Code, `°Any
additronal information or maferial as deemed necessary by the
Adminrstrator or the Town Planning and Envrronmenta! Cammissran rnay
be requested':
Is there any addi#ional irrformation or materials that the Planning and
Environmental Comrnission finds is necessary to be submitted for
review and consideration prior ta acting upon the requests of the
applicant?
I'rapased Setbacks
ln 1999, the Town of Vai] appraved a text amendment amending the
prescribed developrnent standards far the Public Accommodation zone
district. in approving the text arnendments the Town adopted five setback
criteria that are to be used by the Planning and Environmental
Commission when considering deviations to the required minimurn 20-
foot setback. These criteria are to be usecf in Place of the variarace
procedures when considering deviations to the required setbaeks. The
Town determined #hat providing flexibili#y in the implementation of the 20-
foat setback requirement was desirable and could serve a public purpose
provided that certain design and land use considerations were addressed
and the various criteria were met. To aid in reviewing requests for
deviations from the minimum setback requirement the follawing regulation
was adapted:
72-7A-6: SETE3ACKS:
In the PA Drstrict, the mrnimum front sefback shalf be twenty feef
(20), the rninr`mum side serback shall be twerafy feef (20'), and the
minimum rear setback shall be twenty feet (20). At the diseretron
of the Planning and Envirorrmental Gammission arrd/or the L?esrgn i
Review Board, variatrons to the setback standards outlined above
rnay be approved during the revfew Qf exterior altemations ar
rnodifrcafiorrs (Sectron 72-7A- i2 af this Artrcle) su6ject ta the
appficanf demanstrating camplrance with the follawrrrg crrterra:
A. Proposed burlding setbacks provide necessary separation
between butldings and riparian areas, geologically
sensrtive areas and other envfronmentally sensifive areas. ~
B. Proposed building setbacks camply with applrcable
elements af the Vail Vr!lage Urban Desrgn Guide Plan and
Design Considerations.
~
4 ,
~ C. Praposed building setbacks wifl provide adequate
avarlability of dight, air and operr spa+ce.
D. PrQposed building setbaeks will provide a compatibfe
relatianship with 6Uildings and uses crn adjacent
properties,
E. Propased building setbaeks will resulf irr creafive design
sczlutrons or other public benefits that could rrot otherwise
be achieved by confQrmance with prescri6ed setback
starrdards.
The Design Fieview Baard and staff have corrrpleted a preliminary revaew
of the proposed site pcan. Based upon sta#f's review of the propased
plans, comments provided by the Design Review Baard, and a review af
the above-described setback criteria, we believe that changes are needed
to the proposed setbacks in order ta ensure campliance with the
prescribed' regulations. For example, the proposed graund level patios on
ihe sou#h and east sides of the TivDli Lodge encroach considerably on the
south and east side setbacks. Given the landscape design, the bui(ding's
proxirnity to Vail Valley Drive and Town of Vail apen space, staff believes
that the patio areas and bauider site wails should be redesigned. Other
areas for consideration inciude the loading and delivery facility and the
garage entrance on the west side af the lodge. The extent af any design
changes shauld take into consideratian the prescribed setback criteria,
~ the revised sunlshade study, and adjacent land uses.
Does the Planning and Environmental Cammissian agree that
changes shauld be considered to the praposed setbacks given the
established setback criteria established for the Public
Accammodatian zone district, the need far cQmpliance with the
variaus master plan d4cuments, and the physical parameters of the
si#e? If so, what changes are suggested?
SunlShade pnalvsis I
The presence of sun and shade contributes sigrai#icantly to the quality of
the pedestrian environment. To iFlustrate this point, simply look to Pepi's
Deck, the outdoar dining area at the Red Lion, Qr seating benches that
get used by the pubEic on various days. lf the sun is shining, the decks
and those benches in the sun are used. The deckS and benches located
in the shade are often vacant. The importance of sun/shade is well
documented in the Vail Village Master P1an. In fact> a whole sectian of the
Vas! Village Urban Design Considera#ions is devoted to sun/shade.
According to Section I of fhe Vail Village Urban design Considerations, in
Y a'
"all new or expanded buildings should not substant!`ally increase
the sprrng and fall shadow pattern (March 21 through September
23) on adjacent properties of the public right of way":
~ To better understand the irnpacts of the new and expanded buifdings
proposed by the applicarwt, a sun/shade study has been submitted for
5
I review (attachmen# F). The results af ihe study c6eariy illustrate that a ~
significant portion of Hansan Ranch Road and xhe adjacent properties to !
the north will be impacted by the construction of the new iodge. Staff
i sees the impacts af sun/shade to be the great adverse impact associated
i with the proposed height af the fodge. Staff would recommend that the
Commission and applicant what rr`itigating measures could be pursued to
address shading of the street.
Given the criter}a established for the rewiew of projects and
evaluating their impacts on sunlshade, as well as the input provided
by the Tawn af Vail Design Review Board, are fhere any steps that
you might suggest at this #ime for the applicant to pursue in
responding to concerns of sunlshade?
Mitigation af aevelaqment Impacts
Pursuant to Section 12-7A-14, Mitigation of Development fmpacts, Vail
Town Code„ "Property ownersfdevelopers shall also be responsibJe for mitrgating
~ drrect impaGts af their development on public infrastructure and in a!1
cases mrtigation sha!l bear a reasonable relation to the developmenf
lrrrpacts. lrrrpacts may be determined based on reports prepared by
qualified consultanfs. The extent of mitrgation and pubfie amenity ~
impraveme,nts shall be balanced with the goa1s of redevelopmenf and will
be deterrnined by the Pfanning and Environmenta! GommissrQn in review
af developmenf pr'ajeefs and conditronal use perrnits. Substantial off-sife
rmpac[s may include, but are raof limited to, the followrng: deed restrrcted
employee housing, raadway imprvvements, pedestrian walkway
rmpravements, streetscape rmprovements, stream tracU6ank resforation,
laadrng/delivery, pubCic art improvements, and similar improvements. The
intent af thls Sectfon is to vrrly requrre mitigation fnr large-scale
redevelopment/development prajects whfch produce substanfial off-siie
impacts. "
I Besides the obviaus, (i.e., employee housing, streetscape
improvements, roadway improvements, public art, foadingldelivery
facilities) are there any other specific mitigating measures that the
applicant shauld be pursuing at this time as part of this
deveiopment appEication?
Fubf ic Benefits
Pursuant to Section 12-9A-1, Purpose, in part, of the Vail Town Code,
~
"The purpose of fhe Speciaf Qeveloprnent Disfrict is to encourage
flexibility ana' creativrty in [he development of land in order to ,promote ifs
' mnst approprr'afe use; to Jmprove the design character and quallty af the ~
new develd,pment with fhe Town; fo facllitate the adequafe and
economical provrsion of streets and utilities; fv preserve t,he natural and
scenlc features of apen space areas; and to further the overafl gaals of
6
~ the cornmunity as sfafsd in the Var! Gomprehenslve P1arr. An approved
developrnerrf plan for a Special Development Distriet, in conjunction with '
the property's underlying aorte dfstrict, shall esfabfish the requirements for
guiding development and uses af property included in the Specia!
Development District. The Specia! Develapment Distrrct does not apply fo
and ls not available in the follQwrng zone disfrrcfs: Hfllside Residenfial,
Single-Famrly, Dupfex, Primary/Secondary. The elements of the
development plan shall be as outlined in Secfion 12-9A-6 of this Artrcle. "
Furthermore, Sections 12-9A-8, Design CriteTia, and 12-9A-9, aevelopment
Standards, of the Vail Town Code, states, in part,
"lf shall be the burderr of the applicant fo demonstrate that submittal
material and the propased develapment plan comply wJth the
dewelopment standards and design criteria, or demonstrate fhat vne or
rnore of them is not applicable, or that a practrcaJ solutfon carrslstent with
the public interest has been achreved. "
And,
"Development starrdards includrng Jof area, srte dimensions, setbacks,
heighf, densr'ty cantral, sife coverage, landscaprng and parking shalJ be
d'etermined by the Town Caurrcil as part af the apprcrved development
plan with corrsfderatian of the recomrrrendations of the Planning and
~ Ertvironmental Commission. Before the Towrt Council approves
development standards fhat devrafe from the underlying zorre disfrict, it
shoUlti be determined that such deviativn provides benefits to the Towrr
that oufweigh the adverse etfecrs of such deviatrora, 7his deterrnination is
fo be rrrade based on evaluation af the proposed special development
distrr'c['s compliarrce with the design criteria outlined in Secfion 72-9A-8 af
fhis Article.'°
The appllcant has proposed deviatians to the maximum allowable building height
limitation of 48 feet and the reguirement that Ioading/deEivery nat be focated in
the required frant setback. The applicant is proposing a sloping gambre!-style
roof wiih a maximum building height af 56 feet and ta place ane 12-faot by 35-
foot loading and de{ivery space in the required frorat setback. Prior ta the request
for deviatuons from the development standards, the Commission and Council
must make a finding that the said deviations provide benefits to the Town that
outweigh the adverse effects of such deviations. Staff would recommend that the
applicant and Commission discuss the magnitude of the requestecP deviafions
and the pubfic benefits that may or may not exist with the reques#. Histarically,
the Town has recognized such benefits as aff-sife streetscape improvements,
heated surfaces, landscaping, employee housing, etc. as possible public
benefits. '
aoes the Commissian believe that the requested deviations are appropria#e
given the prescribed criteria? What additional infarmation may the
Gommission need to respond to the questions af adverse effects versus
I ~ public benefits?
7
i
•
Ix. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
The following section of this memorandurn is inc8uded to provide the applicant,
cQmmunity, staff, artd Commissian with an adWanced understanding af the
criteria and findings that will be used by the reviewirtg boards in making a final
decisian on the proposed applications.
Conditional Use Permit Criteria and Findings
A. Cansideration of Factors Reaardinq Conditional Use Permits:
1. Relationship and impact of the use on the development
objectives of the Town.
2. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution af papulation,
transportatian facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreatian
facilities, and ather public facilities needs.
3. Effect Upon traffic with particular reference to congestion,
automotrve artd pecfestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow
and contraf, access, maneuuerability, and removal of snow
from the street and parking areas, ~
4. Effiect upon the character of the area in which the proposed
use is to be lacated, inciuding the scale and bulk af #he
proposed use in relation to surrounding uses.
B. The Planninq and Environmental Commission shall make #he
following findings before qranting a condetional use permit:
1. That the proposed location of the use is in accordance with
the purposes of the eonditianal use permit sectian of the
zaning code and the purposes of the Public
Accommodation zaree district.
2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions
under which it wi11 be operated ar maEntained will nat be
detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or
materially injurivus to properfies or impravements in the
vicinity.
3. That the proposed use will cornpky with each of the
applicable provisions af the conditional use permit section
of the zoning cade.
12-7A-6: SFTBACKS: ~
In the PA Drstrict, the minimum fronf se[back shall be cwenty feet (20),
the rrrrRrmurn srde setback shall be twenfy feet (20), and the minimum
rear setback shall be twenty feei (20'). At the discretr'orr of the Plarrning
8
~ and EnvirQnmerrfa! Cornmission and/or the Design Revie4v Board,
variations fo fhe setback srandards outlined above may be appraved
durrng the review of exteriar alfematfQns ar modifications (Section 12-7A-
12 af this Article) subject to the applicant demonstrating ctampliance with
the fallovvrng criferra:
A. PrapQSed building setbacks provide necessary separation
between buildir,gs and riparian areas, gealogica!!y
sensltrve areas and other errvironmerrtally sensifive areas.
B. Prapased building setbacks comply wrfh applicable
efements Qf the Vail Village Ur6an Desrgn Gurde Plan and
Design Consideratrons.
C. Propased building setbacks will pravide adequate
availabrlrty of Irght, alr and open space.
D. Proposed building setbacks wi!l provrde a compatr6le
rela[r`anshrp wrth buildings arrd uses vn ad,jacent
propertres.
E. Praposed building setbacks wrll result in creative design
solutJons or afher public benefifs that could not ofherwrse
be achieved by canformance wifh prescrJbed setback
standards.
SpecraJ CJevelopment Districi
~ 12-9A-8: DESIGIU CRITERlA:
The fallawing desrgrr criteria shall be used as the ,qrinci,pal crJteria in
evaluating the merits of the proppsed special deve/opment district. !f shall
be rhe burden of the applicant to demonstrate that su6mrttal material and
the proposed development plan carrrply with each af the following
standards, or demanstrate that one or more Qf them is nof applicable, ar
that a practical solutr'on consistent wifh fhe public rnteresf has beera
achieved:
A. Gornpatibrlify: Desrgn ecrrnpatr6rlity and sensitivity tQ the
rrrrmediafe environment, nerghbarhood and adjacent
pro,pertres relative to archrtectural design, scale, bulk,
building herght, buffer zanes, idenfity, character, visual
integrity and orientafion.
B. ReJatianship: Uses, aetr'vify and derrsity which provide a
compatible, etficierrf arrd workable relationship varifh
surraunding uses and activity.
C. Parking And Loadrng; Complrance wrth parkrng and
loading requirements as outlined in Ghapter 10 of this Title.
D. Comprehensive PJan: Cvnformity with applicable elements
of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, Towrr polrcres and urban
design plans.
E. Natura! And/C7r Geolagtc Hazard: Identrficatron and
mrtigatiorr af natural andlor geoJoglc hazards that affeet the
~ property on whrch fhe specfal development dtstrict is
proposed.
F. Design Feafures: Site plan, building design and lacafion
9
arrd open space pravisians designed to produce a ~
functional derrelopment responsive and sensitive to natural
features, vegetation and overall aesthetic qualfty of the
comrnunity.
G. Traffrc: A circufaflon systern designed for 6oth vehicles and
pedestrians addressing on and aff-site traffic circularion.
N. Landscaping: Functional and aesthetic landscaping and
apen space in order CQ optimize and preserve natural
features, recreatlon, views and function.
I. Worka6Ce Plan: Phasirrg plan or subdivision plan fhat will
malntain a vvorka6le, functianal arrd efficienf relationshrp
througlaout the develapment of the special developmenf
drs[rict.
X. STAFF RECOMMENQATION
As this is a worksessian, staff will nat be providing a staff recammendatian at this
time. 5taff will provide a staff recommenda#ion at the time of a fnaf review af this
applica#ion.
For future reference purposes on{y, pursuant to Sectian 12-7A-13, Vail Town
Code, the applicant shall be required to meet a compliance burden and
demonstrate by aprepanc[erance of the evidence that the praposed application
conforms tb the requirements prescribed for such application. Section 12-7A-13 ~
states,
°COMPLIAIVGE E3URDEIV:
It shalf be the burdera of the applrcarrt fo prave 6y a preponderance of the
evidence before the Planning arrd Enviranmenfa! Corrrmissivn and the
Desrgn Review Board that the proposed exteriar alteration or new
develnpment is in campliance wiCh the purposes of the Pub,4c
AccommQdation Zvne Disfrict, thaf the proposal is cansistent wifh
applieable efements of the Vai1 Vi1Jage Master Plan, the Vai! village Ur,ban
Design Guide Plarr and the Vail Streetscape Masfer Plan, and that the
pra,posal does not atherwise have a significarat negative eftecf on the
character of the nerghbQrhDOd, and thaf the proposal substantially
complies with other applicable efements of the Vail Comprehensive PJan. "
XI. ATTACHMENTS
A. Vicinity Map
B. Proposed Elevations and Floor Plans
C. DesEgn Review Board Comments
D. Public Warks Comments dated December 20, 2002
E. Je#f Winston Camments dated January 13, 2003
F. Sun/Shade Study
G. Adjacent Property C)wraer Mailing List
~
10
jp
~ ~ $ aa~ i,.
~ti ~ - ~ ~ ~ #Y' • ~
~pq* r
`w
c,
~ ~E . ~ i~ ?s~' v~`~.~ ~ ~ A, ~ ~ ~ ~ a
„IT``„
' ~ ,y ~ .
~ F'~~ F,~Sk' ~d:a, ~'~i,~ M 5....
~ ~~~E,y~„k~. ~ ~iw ~ ~R
. .tr .~'a' '"~i.r•. ' # 4~~.: . If .
u
4 ~ ~ ,r`~ ~`.'~~{'~°~"•'a^VGC"u: ~ ~ ~ 4 ~
~w . . +r ~ r . ~ - i .
: . ~a``"--'.""~ r~1~R• , .~,~ss_-. #r
r-At
m ~ 9
'4
K-
j
~ ~Tp % ~ u ~di+~a "g~'~'~~`~' .~~a"~`~,`~"_^- . ~ ~ •p ~ w `'I
7f a : ~ « X • w ~ ~~,~I
40
. .~C'+i~~?4}~ t~ s _ ~ ~ }v~ ~ , .
..,~•~+u t= ~S« . s~ ~
~4 P' . 1 1 `n ~ ~ ~ ,?2:W . l 'Y.n~ P ~'LR . ~ k
~ ~ *a~ ' ~ a
~t•• r+' ts ~
~
I{ f A ' 11
os, T.
y'M
41C!+-~
4tZ>
v~~°'°
.db
V`F
~
. . ~ R ;
- ~ ~ ~ ~ tr
. ~ ~3eb
. ~`-s~"
UGw
- I"
~
Q
t' ~ . OIb~'IIVA
, ONnid µ~i3 '37vi~Ln ~tM
p 1ivn 'z xaaia '3101
GVOM HJnrVb N45rEV1-I 9$f
3JC]C.D1 I}lOA11.
• ~ ~~i
~
r y
~ } Vaa y ~ .
I
oll 111111~111111
0 1S ak,~~d I I I q
~ ~
= r~ ~It~~~f! ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~
~ ~ .
~lb
I ~
_ ~
~ 100OoooQaooo ~aa0
~
~ ANt ~Ili~ ti~l s.t~ M w •.J ~ ' ~i O 4
.
I 4 1
~~=~~(1~Lr"~b~i~i'~ C~t'~,rlll JFr,.r~~l ~~l•~1
Fi.C.`p ~?Fti
~ £ ~'rfilll~ 4;;[J;~r,6l
' dN"Wd ~~•tc-~dl Ll141~l~1~~~~1 _ Tbrl f)
'
-
M
'a;
y~~
~ ~ II
~ 4 C t
~ L S
fr
> 1- E
Y# a .J , U^ 16~
ti g ~ ~ ! ~ ~ cs
W
~~~~E o e i v Y a F 0 1~ J
a ar^3u
~7<46
r~7rw
I
~ : ~ ~ ;a ~ - ?
~A:
, ~ ' • d . r
a a
rJ
. , z
a ~ M1
, t ,.~`t ~ 1 ~ ~ $ 1 G ~
3~
..3'+14R c'~'~~`i l°?~ . ~ ~ 4 ~ +
i 1
1+'i;5 i'~+s ~ } 48 a ~
r`T g ~ - ' `s y ,~~t•~=_. ~
=x~ 11~ ~ - !~~l _ r
I 1~~iw~' -lf !Z'•brl~'~ Y .~{1''~;.4ri~j ~
5 S 5 r f ~
~ .,f' : s' ;,~4..:•F.i e~~' ~,.:,,~h~'.{' ~
I ' i x f f ,n ~ ~
- .s;~' ~ ~ •..Ci'w:i:_;•.`,; z ~ E
i ` ^:-c~,:~,:i ' !•,~},ji : ~ s'~f f . 7
t ~
- .x ~ ~
'~801
rlI1oS 4KaFj,V1 dHITO'dA'-'d(]811 "W'd rtE:02:e.1n EnnZ/gi/Tn 'bm~-)\3nan-I9FnEZ\RPu~-)9FirtFzl;;epr,-I iIrInl ~~~[ad~:W
• ~.a€f
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~g . . . OCIv301001rv,n
t7i+11'19iHJAu '30Y1lIAlIVA'ZND019'3101
4YON H_-A4Y7! NQSNVN'9'BE
30a 01 I,0/ \I-L
s ~
YAIL VALLEY DRIVE
50' R. p, W.
:
r•
4,01 31
~ ~ I r~_^w~' I___'~ ~ I I • ~ ~
z rd '.I~ ~ L.~~~ F . . ~ n• ¦
^'T4 - -•-'t'-' -•J^~"
~ r~,.I
~l~( I 1 • ~ . . ~ i 1 . : . . . . . ~ ~ ~i/
`l.I . '
a~ er ~ I I ~ ~ f
k~ ~ ~ ' I k ~
~ 1 f 11 • I,~4'~ I~j ~ ._J
C -f- • ' -I' .i'~l
1 i ~ ~ ~ ti l• I ~ w , t - i 1 ( j ~
a i ~ ' ~ ~ ~~.1 ~ f ~ i ' I
4~~ ~r `'I. *ti~`t~ ~ I•,~ .i '~I I I .
~
LLt
Z ~ L__ 1 \ \\~\h ~ ' Z 1 _ ~ y ~ I
~ ~I ~ ~ : t I I
X~
a r ~
z vG • ii ` ~~``~~:~~.t~` X' ~ ll
,x~ r~ --~i -:L \i.t m•~'-,
UGI 1 ~ . ~ X
II i ~ 4~ l~\~` ? { 'i jt~_ 1~ ~
~ ° ~ • ~ , , ' . 7, ~i
!r~ I
a 1 ~ • ~ti ' ~ ~ ~ I
!
1 ~ ..1._ _'I'.. y ,_~..,.4 i •y
~ i I i . , 4' ~ ~`e~;, l~ 1 ~
!
4
x I_^ t t ~ ~ i 4~~.~ ' ~~;°,f~ t~~`~`~` • I. ~
~
~.e..
i -------r~~-
fli
L_ _ a ar e s~ ~
1 ~ ~ I
~t I I ~
I I
~
pri~nnn; dH 'Wd Si:fiF.:Zn EnnZ/ZnJ[n '6Mp'n_Za96nEzIGPt:"i9rn~zld6pr,~ ~~nn19F.n2Z d1: W
OOYbol07'lrvn 3 ~B b ~~I
~ DHntiw.iia'3!3v°11Eniivn'zomel ioz
OVOlI WDNV21 NOSNV1-19fl£
3DaO1 F1C)nL1.
YAIL YG.LLE'i' DR1uE
~J~`-~~
~
p g ~ W ~ O
- _ a
I
~ ~ ~
f
I
~ _ ~ ~ - , • ~
=a--- l
~ ~1 ~p I G ~ i I lY' .
1r .
I I ! ~ I
--T~
z ~
I ~ I d~ ~ . I', j
~
I
g ~ ~ ~ ~ _g , , - I
G ~ .I
4 ~
4T~I
a ~
4 - - - - - -
~37ti 6•3 L8 I~qE ~y r
~ § c r~ ,~ll ~ =1 I
g~ ~ d~ f ~I I
~
FDd•nnn~ 4,qj~`•P1 dl- `1nd ^i:ovzfl £nnvzn/Tn'nnnp'j-Zt196n~,Z1PPE=r9fs)~cZ4ZlhRr-~ ojr-nl19Fn~Z d'I:W
zg ye ' OaYat7I071NA 3~ a
"3NIlliFt131i'3oY1lIAllvA'Z5DQ19,3 10i 9 ~
a avoa warrva hosrnN sQt t
CV
3D(3C)1 11C)A11
:
~a •
.b
' m
pp ~
~ ` r~ f _ ~ I I ; ~ I I [
._.-61 :?I ~ I
,~4 11 { ' I I I ~ ~ I + /
~ m k- I I - I I 8
1-- t--
I~-
f./
~ ~ 1 o I'. ~ ` I ~ II I
• ~ I l 1 Fi n
1
~ n l r _ . .c~s - • ~..~L -~.7 I 1 ° i ~
Tj
F4
Q
~ ~ ~~bro EO~t]flx
p ~ ~ _ f ~ ! ! rf
a • f . J r 3 ~l _ . ~ . +ay. - b ~ , , i . ~ r ~
1
~12
~
9e
nrtr~; ~d{l~'el dHI1n3i/1S;2i(12\1'Wd Yr1:Zb:^[1 ~r)i1Z1E()/jrt 'bMR,L'GFj`9E3(}EG\PI3E-A~rnEL\~,fiPrZ ~jr~n119cf1£Z.IU(1\:I
oava01031rvn ~ ~
o K 3 DNlllj HlilA"3DY11IA ~IYA'Z 7C701B 3101
2 9 ~ ~
1e v()n F[3NY1f NOSTIVFI 98E C
a ~ 4 C'
~ V
ADQO-1 1OA11
z
` i
. ~
T ~ W p °e
U y C~3
LE
aou 7~~U~ a ~ a v
e
~ ;
o ~
Q m < 9
o n~ . b
l
, , • ~ g~~ a~j
~ ' ~ F ~ • r
h~
~ ~ ` I F I ~
l ~
h
X , r
~ A
lf • - : - ~ I t V
L,
f
- - -
j ~ I I
t
~
• ~
~ I 1\ J.! I'4.1 . I ~ I O I I I 1 y ~ L
f
- - - - ~am~~
r `i ~~'l~i.. I ~ ? I , + _
x~~l~^~i~
W~ p'• rti i ri ~ i r p
' r 3t
1
n 4 a l ? (
h C7 m h~^ qy~ q,~µ !
~ il '~~e h y ~r~ •,t`^^`,,, f• t, J ~ ~ f ~~tir . ~x" ~ ~ ~ ~
!LLG~l~~
~ 77
, n
W
w
J £od'notls aarJa,el dH 'Wd 9T:Tb:Zn €nnzlir}/To'6nnP'~-~.'d~Jfin~~IpP~`~gF~l~Z1tiGPr~ isnni~ gF,R£Z ~~=W
eg.. OOVt101o5tiIMn 3 ~ ~ ~ a ~
Ovni4 wUii'3~vnv, 1rvn'ZX.7019'3iOl W
Am
VAI1 H7NVM NOSNVH 98F O 3!DQ01 110AI.l C4
~
i ~
B
9
Y z x .w ~'~a_, ~ • ~
~ ~ r' ~ ,4•,I~ 4~ •
l 14! Lr~
F
~
~
V V
4 I
1 1\ I ~
1
\ - -
~ ~ • -
a
. t ~
1
~
T 9~ t
~
pd•nRn; adC~WL-l dH "Wd Z3:TVZn EnnZIZn/Tn `6MP'b-Zd960EZ1PPE-Pt9hn€z\dbpr,-1 Elr.nil 960£Z ~1=W
oav8010D•uvn n i
avoa HDNVa raosNVH 9e1 3DQ01 11C:).All
- ~ ~ ~I
1
VATL VALLEY DR[VE
`u
W i~ 0 50' R,
a w~
~
' ° -~--gr -~~'l~~ a
. s ~exb`o7' e wad _ . ~q
J - ' - - - - ~ Lti_ o
a . . . i \.r $
x I ~ I r ~ \ I g
w
? ~4~~ s~r L ~ J~ I ~
d; p . P 1 • ~ 1 ~r fL
I r . ~ ~
v • 4 f~~~ 4~ 1". z F p yl 't ~ ~ i
4- ~.i F
~L
`
+
ra~
~
~ 4 ' yi • ~ ~ ~ +y _ 7 k . I I ~ ~ ~ii~ ~
~ .~E d a a.-rii
F ~i _ .z d . 1 f ~ ~ .i~ 6 ~33I ~ • Q~
/
d (3L 1 ~ . , 3 I
ce
x0
4Y
Yi.~~'`i ' ~ ? \ i'£- r ~ ~t~".~•`' t - ~ ~'r ~w ~ .f~r e I
I~ '~111Y4~ ~ P5 F:4
V
t . ~ ~~"~C' K'4' t~~~Y'•- xk ~fY ' ~ I 4
~ l I n f
t1 a 1
x o 1
i
pd"Ilclllj 4+Aa:Ct2l dH rWc~ lr':rV[.Il 20() ~fFT11M 'CrMrr d\:
~
P O4V'MO100'IIVA
oNf'lu !-LLdm '3JY[lIA IIVA'L JDOlB 1101
crvOlfIi N45NVH99E
3!D(::]01 11~ALL [V
YAIL vALLEY DRJVE-
IrJm, F21,?u ~ g
~ '
--,•-f= -1----
$h I - t l {r
~
i i -
a ra
J~ii
.m L _.,A ..A
u• ~ _ ~ ~
~J~
4~~:~M
_ 4 i
i ,f.' 6 I ~ ` •i~ ~V
.
. .
7
7 [ r
~
_ ~ ~ _ f ` 1a
~ w• t ~ I ~
Iz~ I
~ 1 II,
~
. ,
FDd•f1Ctn-3 1d1JWi2'1 dH 'Wd SF:Ofi=zn Ennz/'crl/rn 'bMFi'g-'GdJFi11i~LkPPe.-p~~~~~z\FnPnI !JnnLL960~~c'. d\=W
4
Aw u ~ ~=1 oavaoioDs~ s $
ONrnA w~IA '~Ovncn irvn'r ~ole '3 ioi Z i
Qvaa H~va NasNVi-i 9eC L 3~ Q ~1~/~~~
i ~
~II
~ ' . • '
-4
f I I ~
~ ! R
I - I I ~
~
t ~ , ~i ~ • ~
~ r~' ! , ` I i .J
I I I ' ~
~ . . .
-i I
r,~- . ~ ,01
u a
4 L I I i a ~ 5c.,.~a4 ~
* I I _I
c
--I t' - •°J ~3...,~
I V
• - I -I , • l _ J ~
~
~
i
dH 'Wd F!ll17.-/Zn/To 'bMp'tl-Et/9f:.f1fZ'1PPE,~i9Fin<<\N5lx-j !Ir,nI19F,n~~ ~~~W
oovaoio:)`Iivn
ON1114 wUie'30VT1fA llVh'aNDo1e'a aoi
QVdb H3NVM NOSNYH 49E G ul ~ a
3DO01 110ALL
0
f ~
i
T r
Ell
' - -
~ j~ S y
11 . I.
~_tl-.....
1 { I ~ ~
r
~ I I r3 =
k
r`
1 I 1. I I I {~3'
Iy~A`:O ~ . • . . Q' ~
~.s ; ~ l~~ y . ~ • 'J
V r yr I ~q~ I I ~ I \ i} r
: s
U •I
7~ Y I I , 7' g
~ o. .
4
Z
ui
Q~
<n
d)~
• ~ ~ ~~ri-nnr~; -1 ~iu 'Wd lro:,ib:7n f'nnZl7.nfin "6r,nG"I-~tf~iFn~Z1PG~`~ ~4 ~ ~ okcj d1:W
i
oav8010311vn ~9gg q ~ ~ v
oNni3 H.UFi'3DYll1A TIVA'i 7iD018 '3 AC)l
t7Y0?1 H>NYN Nf}SNVH 99£
U ~
3!DCI+C]-I 11CaA11 k c~l
JLL
i g
a
(~3
i
a
r~ - - - - ,
-
r,
i
j
~ ~ ' , :I ~
/ t' r _ •
I r
J
~ I f ~
~
.
; I f I
~
' ~I I
' ' I I I
~
~ r~I a - ---•-~-;QJ
~
,
= 0 ~
~ I
I
I ~
l I I ~
~ I
r~--~--;~ - -~---f-~.~
y , ~.~qkr> ~
_ ' I
~ i
~ I 1 I . ~ F~ I I tl
~ , ~ . . .
__J!J ~ I ~ I 1 I
~ f I
1 I. I I I I I
1 I ~ I ~ I
•r~- ~ .a.-~-~ i - - - ~ ~ L--~------°~ ~
~--~----_--J
~
' €Dd'nnfs; a~,PaSE~ dH 'Wd SZ:Lb:Zn f.nn%/4nfio 'Gmp"c-~'d95r1£"c\Ppu'. a9F~n£'c\rtbpr.-I gnntl 9,n£~ ~~:w
-
OQVMOlOD'IIVA ~ fl gjq a. ~
']MI113HW14'3'JYTlN11V'A'Z)(:)018'3101
(IVOy H:)[V'M M05NYN 99f
cl rD1 rc~n.E~.
-I
~
a
Q
J r--~-----------~
~
~
+
~ -
~ I I ~ 1
---J ~
; I I I
; ~ I I I
~
".1
~ i
~ ' .
i I !
, I I I ~
? '
t ~ ~
~ I
,
4
t `
I
I
' :,•=~~l:.i:, ~ ~ .
I
r_
I • i
,a
I
~
I ~ I I I
~ • ~
_ .
t
• _ ; ~ ~ ; ;
I
~
a@CJ~--Srl dH `wd 9S:1-t,:Zn EnnZ/ZnITn '6mp•E-Ey9FnE'c1PPc--)96nczldbprl l1(-,n1 qhnEZ 1(1\:w
_ aavao-10:)'Iavn
U
zn OranaJ HJ-41i'JOrnvtTrvn'z)ID01e'3101 ~J
z 8.~ avoa r~arrvx nrc>srvvr 99e
~
u
30ao- I-IC3irr1
~
:
a
,
' I
` ~ . .
' I "
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ ~ • . <
~
~
, I
I Y
t ~ .
1
1 I
I I LR
~ I r I . J W~
~
~ I ~ ilYll I
I ' , I
I I . , ` ~ I
I
1 I '
1 I
~ ' . . ~
~ .
' I I I
~
~ ; k I
~ - ~
~
c ~
4 ~
I ~
l I
~ I
I
~~~---~T - - ---~-1~~
i
I ~ •
f
1 I I ~ + ~ 1
I r ; ~I 5 ( j ~
. ~ ~
--f i
~
~ I ~ - ~ E~
- _ `
Y
~
• ~xi~nnn, ~~C~~~~l dH `Wd nn:Cb:Zn £nnZl~n/Tn !lrrAll9rn~Z d1:W.
~ onvaa~~ •,rvn
NI'lld FiJAld '3D'?111A IIVA :1
~zaOl9 '31(Jl
~ 7 QYON FiONMM NC7SNVFf 48f
~ ~ L
$ I liq 3000-1 F,C)/~lJL CA
t t'
~
:
r~ r~ rr
a
a -m~7 ~ i ~R *t~t , a
;I p I
, . ~
.
. ,
I ,
~ 4Y-~------_-- L-_____
I I I
~ I .
I I~
6 af ` I • + ~
~ i-~---- ~ •J
1 I ~
I I~
r~~-•- ..Y..~~J
i
--i '
~
~
~ - , - I--
~-t -1-
~
~
~ ~ ~ , ~ ._.~._.~-.-~~,.._~~a~.~~~_ ~ .~~a.
~I ~ I ~ I I ~ •J
~
- Pd'nnnS 7aCraSul dH 'Wd ff°:Fv~n i:nnz/4n1in '6nnp-;-€:d9finFz1PPc-:i9F:,nEZ1Abpr,I!IC,n,,l 96nE4dI:W
Va ~ o
~ {y Qd'VllQlO]'l7VA ~nq ~ ry ~ ~ , ~
!:)r+niiwiii'3u+mUVVn'rAao7s'3io1 S SE ~ Q n ~ 3
dV031 FEDNYM NOSNYFI 99£
r
TDa0-1 FIC)nLL
aab4
~
a
r
r~-~--~- ~
r I I i I
. . s : .
- - , - - _ - _ T
T
~ ;I I~ I I
l ~
~ II I~ ~ j, I I
~ l I I ~J ~
I I ~ Wp82`~
1 ~ I ~
~ n rd~
. - -
-
~ I ' g ~ ~ ~~~KSo
~ I
1 r C~ l
F~~-~- ---1-s.~
. . *
~ ~ -
~ ~ - , - - .-4aJ
~'fi'"
6 ~
1 a I I
n ~
I 1 _ _ L--J E
• J ~J '•"1 :~J
~
d-I 'Wd Sn:n;=Zn £nnZ/ZnlTn 'bMp'fl-bt/'JFl1£Z'1PPE: 1~?fit1~~.1d6~iro-~ !1nnl19fiC1~i. ~~=~1
r .
00vae0103'Irvn 3°
Ur~nli~id'~DvIianiivn'zXDrne'9w-1 8-
avoa rr~va n+mnrvH vilE
M [J
A!DCI(D-1 11C)AIL
~°w
~
6h
r
a
I A
I r II
~ kl
II
.~c.,-.~.
i Y . ;
~1J
;M ; I
_
I
f ."''1
- r qy
1p ,F'k 1 . l '1,+1 ~ ~ ".i,•
v
. y
I _-I w
~
~t
'I . £-nr1'nnrl; ZafflsEl dH 'i^Jd 'cb:f1S=i.(t £or3z/Zo/Ttl
~ .
I
Sa ~ W ~ R ~
OH3YMo"1Q7'lM1'A
DNiIieHIAiA'a0v'ninirvn•r)OOIa
a ~3~.oi
r~osNV. 9ec
30 ~]07 110A 11
~q -1 1 11 ~
~
0
0
~
Y ?
1 ~ II
I ~ y
i
a
k ~ I` a
~r - - ~
, . ,
1 +
7
C
~
aaCjHsE•1 dk'LJd LT: iS~ZO £Onz/zn/To 'bnnp'T-StI7F~nEZ1pPL~ig6nrc'.1~-,GF)(-'I !IC-Al1 e)
oavaoioD•arvn
ONrIijHjAi~,3m-nLAuvn•zxZ~0113'3101
OV(lbHJNVaI MOSNMN°199E k k F- ~ ~i .
~JQQ~ FI~.~LL LH~f
~ I I I d~
~
! f T
Y
r. ' t
I 3\~~ JuTuJ~s~ i f
I „c
- I f
L~ -
Ii ~V__LWJ A ~F' ~
L ~ ~ F
,
. , . . i
-
- ,
l
f
` i
=t-..
I
I t
[
-
~ '~ry: x f°•' } Jyv I - ~-1/1 Ir
I f 1• I ~
I
Y
~
dH 'Wd LS: TS:ZrI ~~1n t/~~~li~~'nMP'Z;kla(,nU1PpE~af,[_,n_j iInnll 96f1~i. ~1~W
~ a ~ ~ oavao~o~^rrvn o~ ~G ~ ~ry
ONizii ~id'30vminIrtin'z ~~o1s'3xoi 48S ~ 6 ; I 3 J ~ ~
OVQ'd HDNVM NC?SPVVH 49E G. u F ^ ,/'r
ADa0-1 i-IanIi JaA
~
ro
+
9
C
~
. ~
a
f f
i I ~ i I I~ i,+ I
i f i
~
~ '
p~
- -l I
1. I J I
I,, ':"k I I I
I I~ . i 1 • ~ I ~
t
K
~
dH "Wd Z~:FSZn £onZ/-colin 'brvtp•£-ab'9Fjn£Z1PRr?`i9F,of'c\F+Gpr~1 iInni.L qrnE--~
OCV80107`iIYA
orvn+irusi3'30v1tLni(vn'zac7ene'aioi
QVCJ~'1 R')NYil NC7SNVH'9$f ~
ADac)-l i-10lri.L
I I ~
~
,
~
a
0
~
I
! I I i I II~ .
I I I i I I f ~
r'
I
'a
I ~
I ~
r~.._.._._._._._1_
~
~ _.J. .
rf..~._._.~.~- - - I •
Y I
~
~l~nn~n? ~aCldsE~ dN `Wd S():£~:Zn znnZ/z(1/Tn '6nnp,En9iI!i,tqnsn-g1~Jrn£i.IPPt`i9F,nzZ~,~bpra~ i]nnrl j~nEz di
cxJwao°raD '11Vn
OavnIA wJ1A'30rnLn7rvn'zxD01e'l101 18 avob ~rua NosrrvF+ 9ss
30001 110ALL iUl
~
~ - i
~ I I F I T .
r - - ----t~-~ .J ^ ~
i •
' I I
, fl
i I t I ` I I ,
a I I ~ I
# i 1 I I ~
_J
; e I I ;
~ ~ .
' I
i
~
r
~ 0 ~ i
~ i
- - •1
- I ~
~ I I
I I ~ ~
j i
~ I I
I I ~
1 ru~ - - • ~ °1
I I ,
~
I I ~ i 1
~ ' I I
~
~Jf ' I
t~.v.v.ry. :i 9 ~ j
~ I
I
I F I I ~ 4 P I I
~LL~
I I I
I ~ I
y
- ~ ~ • I ~
'~d~I~ I ~ _'I___'•~ _J ~
Ei nn ; dN 'Wd c'.Z:9t}:En FnnZ/Z[~/Tn '6,wp•n-T~196nM _
r h z ¢e~ ' Ol07'IIVn
DNIIIA Fl1lIA '37VOOIM1fIIAIIVA'Zx7tl'19
H p { q Cl
~ '3107
9 QVGbFi7NYM NOSNVH9BE
U Z
3~a~`1 I~C~/^011 ,9~ ~ a~
~
~
:
e
e
~
i
i i
i - ~ - i
~Yf.---•-•----- J 5 I
I I
rwf._._._._.,-.._1.... -
~ I ~
~ - ~
` ~
~ g ~ I
~
~
~f•-•-•-•-•- _ - - ._._I.
I •
•
rf._._._._._._
I
I I ~
I I I ` ~
i I I I I I~ ~
~
oS atlC FPl dH 'Wd 9~:SS:nn i.nni.1~.Z/iT 'nnnP'ZnT~.TiIlujqn`~I-9d9fil1£c\'cO-TT-TT\1Lq4riaiqri-- HM ar, unnnl.IPPL7t9fi['j€Z\a6pnq ijnnil ~j~,(1 \CJ
oav80100'11vn
V ~
",?NIlId Hl.dl~"3`J~/'OiIAIIYfi'L31~O19'3101
H1
OV03/ H7N" NOSNYH 98f
~
30dC+1 t°1C3,/'.[1 r~ ~ 9~
~
; p
~
a
~
~
~
~
~ i i i i iI• !
I I I l I I f ~
I I : . 1
r'.f._._._._.
, I
I I
~ ~
~j--•--~.Y.,.~1~ - - -
~
- } ,
f------
i
4
z I
f
~
p~ ~df ~~l dH `Wd c.Z-95~~,n Znn~l'cZITi 'onnp•Z47iZIT4iul~ln-~-9'~96~EZ1Zr1-TT-ITVr,~3!ti[qri, IEE/1 Jf, rJnnnllPPEr~9fit3~~\aC,pnj ilr,n~t 9~~ \Dd\:w
- ~ ~a~~ ~ ~ oavun~a~ •7FVn ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
DWIIHHUld'3owlIA'IIVA'Z)f:0C718'3101
OVON M7MMI NOSNVFi 99£
o
300~1 ~~O/~~.1. °w
~
~
y
B
~
LLI
~
M
+
E
I l I I I I
f~-._._._._._.
~ i
_1-- - - - - . .
T _ -
~f,_._,-._._ k'~ - - •-•J•
I •
- - - - - - - - - - -
i
~ I
~
rl; adr ~~l dH `Wd c.£=95=2n i.noc./7!7!jiT'amp'zi)iZiTilwr{nsn-9V96ntZlc'n-Tl-iilfc:,:r4luiqr-I jtL:AJn iinnn1lpPL~-i9FnM;i6pn~ ~1("nil 9F.[] \Pd\:Nf
g` oawno1o3^trvn s~ s ~
5~~ ~ ; ~ ON1'II~H.L~I~'33'V'f11hlIVA'iAJOI'&'3tOl f ~ 1
a 3fi$ ~8 =i 4YOb H7NV71 t~fOSN4H 98E ~ ~J
~
AO~/~JI FUDALL
i ~
~
4
~
9
i
F I
I I f 1 I I I I
. . . . . . . I
r.f._._._.-._. - - I
I I
(~.._.-~-•-•-~-j-- - -
• ~
- ~ ~
I
L 1 f I I ~ `
~L a
~~.~....o..~.~.~' _
r1-•---.-.,._.-
I I I I I I• ~
t
~ j
~
~S ~aC 3L1 dH 'W'd iV95:2n 'cnnZiZZIIT `GM.P'Zni'cTT]lu,qnsn-9V4fincc'.OZn-Ti-iillL-44!u,qr ; FA lrr unnnllPPpn9finFZ1FGf.~,-j ilnnll 3fin ~~d~:W
Attacnment: C
~
yi~
TOW'Vl OF Yf~~L
Department af Community Develaprnenl
75 South Frontage Road
Yafl, Colorado 81657
970-479-2138
FAX 970-479-2452
www ci. vail. ca. us
Deccmber 5, 2002
Dcsign R.eview Board Cninments;
i
0
o Simplify the ranf design. As currently designed, there are top many dafferent styles. ~
o The building needs to he setback and stepped back vcrtically to eliminate four-story ti11 wall ~
planes.
• The entry faqade needs to Yae redesigned to place rnore of an ernphasis an the front entry. As
designed, the proportions appear to be off:
o The rail and deck (widow's walk) design conflicts with the tyrolean theme of the res# vf the
building.
o The elevation which can be seen frvm Mill Creek Circle is much too tall. Vertical layers are
needed to break dawn the mass. The vertieal plane of thc building adjacent to the bike/pedesirian
path is too tall and too vertscal.
o The entry feature to the IodQe is rery tall. A vertical break is needed to reduce ihe rnass. ~
o Tiie mansard is not in keeping with the charactcr of the tpwn. A different design is needed.
• The pnmary roof ridge is too long and is unintcrrupted. The roof ridge must be braken up.
o The roof area of the lodge is very large and vcry visihle. Careful attention to roof inaterials is
required.
o The details of the design need to be worked through. For example, the rvindows butt riglit up to
the roo€with no separation pravided.
o The lodge appears as an enormous buildiang. The buildinb is visually overpowering.
o The inass of thc roaf makes the ladge appear top hcavy and thus distracts from the good aspects of
the design.
o The corner tower elements are incansistent with thc clcsign guidelines. They appear tao barn ar
silo-like. The roof design atop the towers should be rcdetiigned to be eoxnplimentary to the lodge
design.
o The assemblage af buildrncy forms is unresolved. The lod~e is too small for multiple building
styles. A buildinb style should be selected and thcn detailed anci that theme.
o The entry fcateue is too tall and creates concerns with the building height and its proximity to the
progerty lines.
o The lodge must be stepped back as the building approachcs the property lines.
o The stone veneer applied to the building must vary in height as in goes araund the buildirtg. As
currcntly designed, the proposal appcars to drp the building in stone,
o Where wi9l the roo#=top rnechanical equipment be located? The location af inechanical equipment
shouHd be planaied for at this time.
o The little roofs azop the in-set windows do not fit together. 5hcd dormers may be a possible
solution to this problem.
o Vertical steps are nceded in the building on both the east and west elevatians.
~
R6CYCLEUPAYF.R
i
A#tachment: D
To: George Ruther
~ I
Frolm: Tom KassmellGreg HaII
Date: 12-[}3-02
~
Tivali Lodge ~
Ynitiai Goranaents
1. Additianal survey will be required. Please provide the edge of asphalt on north side of road,
location of existinb crosswalk.
2. The existing fence must be reiocated alang ar withEn property line.
3. All disturbances, grading; etc.. must be cantained wi#hin property.(exeept that being done
within the Towm of Vail's ROW, which will require a public way permit and a revocab3e right
of wav permit), uniess approval from adjacent praperty awner is acquired. The traets to the
south and east are owned by VA.
4. The two foot drainage pan shall be removed and repiaced with a 4' pan.
5. 5heet A2.2 shows contours on the driveway at a 2% then 6°!0 grade. T}ae driveway must tneet
the standard of 30' at 4°/n as shown on sheet .A,3.0.
6. Proposed shrubs on the northeast side of driveway must he less then 3' in height to provide I
adeGuate sight distance.
7. The spot eleva#ion on the concrete pan in front of the proposed di-iveway is not in the same i
locatian as an the other sheets? Frozn the survey this spot elevation looks to be the flowline I
elewation, please verify.
8. Piease pravide a]oading and delivery plan. All laading and delivery must take place within
the property, V4'ill ariy ioading occur within the parking structure? Jf sa the maximum grade
of the ramp is to be l(lQ/o(heatedlinterior), minimum ramp width is 24', with a minimum
~ centeeline radius of 40', a maximum grade break of 4%, and a minimum vertical clearance of
up ta 14'.
9. As shawn, all parking spaces within the structure aee considered vaflet. (When fuli na car can
be movecE withaut ariother being moved, thus valet.) This a[so defines the hartdicap space as
valet, this will not function properly.
10. 5paces 9&10 cannot be accessed so they do not cnunt as spaces..
~ ] 1. Spaces 1 do nat have adequate turnaround roam and will not be considered spaces,
12. The area desib ated as `loading' does nat provide an adequate loading zane t4 accommadate
traffic at the sarne time.
~ 13. If no large vehicles will enter the structure do to its minimum height clearance of 7', how will
the dumpsters function? They wihl not function weIl if they are to be pushed up the 12% grade
~ nor wi1] the one on a 12% cross slape function well.
14. Flease show adequate drainage far the parking structure.
15. Please show the surface lot P2 and how it will functian, are any improvements seheduled far
the p2 ]ot?
16. Please coardinate with AIPP to incorporate Art.
17. A traffic Impact fee of $5000 per net peak hour trip will be assessed. This will be determined
usina the ITE trip generation rate of 0,9 trips per hote] roam at peak hour.
18. The Maseer Plan calls for a roadway section of the following: (starting from the north edge of
pavernent) A 2.5' curb and eutter, 12' asphalt driving lane, 8' at grade paver walk, and then a
4' concrete pan. Please incorporate this into your design, elirninating any unnecessary walks.
19. The owner will be responsible for constructing all irnprovements from the intersection af
Hanson Ranch Rd. with Vail Valley Drive ta the wes# side of the intersection of Hanson ~
Ranch Rd. with the bike patli and extending out tQ the northern pauer(asptsalt line. This
includes the 4' pan, curb and gutter where necessary, 8' heated paver walk, and Vail village
street lighting alang this corridor as defiined above.
0 20. The car pul] off at the main entrance wFll need to be separated from south Tivoli pedestrian
walk either by grade or by bollards.
f 21. Please show all site drainage, including patio drainage, roof drainage/ gutter daylight, parking
drainage etc...All site drainage shall tie intcr the Town of Vail starm sewer.
Attachmen#: E
~
; ,
O ~?4~A~..
.
.brnm6'~}~~!1F3:t e
n
VAII, URBAN DESIGN REVIEW
TIVOLI LQBGE
13 January 2003
Urban Design
¦ Com lies [3 Partialt com iies ? Non-cam liant
¦Pedestrianization Public walkway is along street cdgc and in street. No external fetail praposed in
building.
7 Street Enelasure Not evaluated. Na streek scctions in drawin set,
¦Strect Ldge Building set on an =]e ta street rovides varie , reinforced b towers.
? Buildizi Hci ht See TC?V staff commcnts.
¦4'iews Not a re ulated view corridoz
OSunlshade Preliminary assessrr?ent is that shade will be cast slightly on public ROW frain
wcstem %a of buildin . Not a si nificant irn act.
¦Servieeldeliver 5ervice arkin availablc in ihe street and in the surroundin area.
Architecture/Landscape Architecture ~
DRoofs A combination of gablc and garribre] roofs are proposed. Gambrel roofs caprilre
additional living space and will bccom;e increasingly papular if al3owed. Roof of a
single buildin shoutd be consistent (Gab3e or hip).
¦Qvcrlian s Good
EF"acades Good
? Color Not shown
01V1r'iizdows Crround floor trans arenc can/should be increased. See discussion beluw.
¦Window details Good
~ ¦lloars Good
' ¦Triin Good
?Decksfpatias 5` floar balcany gable ends do nat appear to be consistent with the overall
architcctural character of the buildin .
¦Balconies Good
¦Accent elements Good
¦Landsca e Good
Diseussion:
Our overall concems with the current prvpvsal are as follaws:
T1re major design issue is the rQOf. As nated above. Gambrel rc,af does not seem particularly out of
place hcre, as a unique building. However, as we seeing with several other applications, because ik
caphires additiona] space in the rpof, i# will be increasingly requested. This is a precedenz-setting
decision that will gradually chinge the cAiaraeter of architecture in the Village, not necessarily for the
warsc, just different. Vde recornmend that same additional study be giveti to the potential visaa]
implications on a broadcr scale (`How will 'at loak to have a nurnber of gambrel roofs interspcrscd ~
within the gabic roof theme of Vail?' What roaf slope distinguishcs a gamtarel roof fram a
14~ansard?). I
Vaok'nV0111 Page I0f2I
2299 PEARL STREET, SUII"E 100 • BQULIEFi, CC] 80302 303-440-9240 • FA7{ 303-449-8911 •
jtwinston@winstanassoeiates.com
Tivoli Lodge
~ Yail Ut'bcrn Dcsign Review
Winston tlssaciute,s, Inc.
111012003
2. The second design issue far the Tivoli is the mixing of hip and gable roofs. There is a pleasant
cansistency to the ail-gambrel-roof Norch elevation, which is lost on the South elevation with the
introduction of a large gable end_ Note that in the West elevatioan the gable end will acteaally extend
out to the south beyond the tower. Also, agable end appears to pop up next to the tower at the west
end of the North elevation. These camments may be tempered by the fact that fronn the drawings it is
not clear how visible these gable ends would actually be fram public view. C7u the other hand, it daes
not seem all that difticult to convert them to a hip roof.
3. Rclated to the maxing of gable and gambrel roafs is the expression of the S"' flaor balcony decks-
they appcar to be a c4nternporary inserticsn in the building. This is particuiarly at the east end Qf the
building. We nucstion whether this balcony can be cc7nstructed as shown (compare the roof plan and i
the East elevation--wan't the vertical plane of the deck be Ionger?). It is not clear hawever, how visible these deeks will be frorn public ways, We suggest additional attentian be given to how to
rnake these at least the visible portion.s of these decks (especially the east one) ta blend with tfie
ovcrall character of the rest of the building (hip roof, trim, window treatment, etc.).
4. Design Guidelines, and character of Village, subgest Qreater transgarezxcy of ground floc+r facades. in
the middlc portion nf the elevation the ground t7oor windows (meeting roam,? restaurant? library?)
replicate the vrindows of the upper floors (lodging units). Ground floor transparency of'the 3*lorth
elevation can be increased by adding additional windows in the zniddle section, perhaps using a
window treatment similar to the window wal] on the South elevation of the labby (adjacent to the
southeast tawcr)_
S. Large ground floor window at east end of North elevation is on a bathroam. 5uggest maving the
window east and iaserting sorne small windows fpr the bathrooms (sirnilar to those above garage
0 entry).
6. On the East elevati4n, the stainveli presents afairly blank wall to the street on the I$` and 2nd levels.
Could windows be added? (even small windows as used Qn North elevation)
7. On the North elevation tEiere is an exit doar that appears in gian but not elevation, just vves# of the
kower.
J"f `N
Drawings Revicwcd: TIVOLI LDDGE, 386 Hansan Ranch Road, Resort Design Assnciates International,
12i20/02 Prvgress set.
~
Vall-Tlvolii
Page 2
303-440-9200 • FAX 303-449-6911 . Win132dC~a At?LCOM ~ 2299 PEARL STREET, SUITE 100 • BOULDER, CO 80302
Attachment: F
~ , , ; •
. ~ , .
~
I ,
~ .
; ~ • ; ~ xy
. . ~
. . ; , ~ . ~ .
- - ' . ~ :'t ~ _
. y
, . ~ . . . . , . . - . . .
. ~ :Y -a 4f a 7-5~
I ~ ~ x^ • ~ ~ _ a S~ ~ .
?
. " - .Li' . .
~.d
Y J,.
~ -~4u~14• C b~~"
s I
~
b!
. • M.. . .
. i. f.. . . - . . _
' . .ti R Y. ".a~~ .
~i
~4
t ~r~4 - 1 ~
~
u -
~~"~a~r„; ~F• ~~:~t~ + f:. i~k~,'~r
.
. , .
, , , .
r . r _
k FJ .
F
.
ST -
_ _ ' .'Yi'. .i<~ . . . . . . '
fY , t e~
~
'
4
. . . . . . . . ~ . .
j~~~ - - ~ ~ ~ ~ . . . . . . . .
~ ~'IVOLI LC)I~GE SI~NlSI~.ADE ANALY, ~I~ ~
- - i
! DECENSBFR 10 AM
: , . . _ .
[tJ=~UfU'DSSIt1NA,._tiSCX,7J1M S
,
~
~
~
~
~
r•
~h
N t
- ...r ~ ;
-
,
< ~r.y;-•
i.:
~ ~ -
t4
. . . . . . . ~
-
~ TIVC)LI LUDGE SUNISHADE ANALYSIS
rr[ARCH IO.AM
Ri::~.)RTDF_titc! h ASSMiA"fE.~
:
~
~
:L -
w.
-
, -
;
~
,
i ;
S ~
- :..~.d. .
77
o .
r' ~ .
t, • ' . . . . f .
~
i
„
:
. ~ i
. , h
.
~
TIVOLI LOT3CiE SUNISI-IADE ,ANALYSIS
r?anRcii ? pM
I
R1;~xaFCT UI~.51Ci h ASSC~C'lf\I'~S
o U: ~ CV '7
. L) Q W 1~ a1
` h- F+ (V O 1- f- 4] m Oi 1- O N tV f['~3 "7 L[3 O r tt ~ N N th N I'~ SL} .
-~~~(V S'y O P G O u7 O Ok37 N O r r cp -T r 'T O O R] - O O O O C7 O O
r4f7 CV iV O? 01 N N O t*J V N N O O f77 Q~
O Q7 46 4D t17 N(D r O N O
p ~ ~~M~~ r~-~oa~ro~t-0~_~rya0 oo0afl0 Attachment: G
, ~ CQ r O r- rk1] fD 00r h ~O O ~ G1 0 fIl r A CV S'V O r c4 07 C[7 u7 MCO r~ CO LO
[0
Q 2 a
~[1) Lf) fA f!) 'CQ f!] dl) C17 Cl? fJ) (f! Vl v~ GI] (I) fJ7 Lp V) 3 d(!J Cl) {.l) SI~ [1) (I) G7 {f} il~ Ch
q.a
m
C-/)0(7>-~-wujoOD>->Cfl >-dO¢>-XVc~ia }r.~ SOz4~0~>-Od~
U U z U Q 0 z~ U z~ U Z UmU z F- Zz 2 Ki U 20U z z tJ U
N
ro
E
a
~ U) U)
sn LL c' c
~ ar c~ cra?
6) ? ~ ~ o ~ x~c m a
o= v~ w x ~ ~ as `o 0 mM rn~ o~ aa m m~~`a+ }o ~ ro m~
> tc B •M "1 mM ` ul ~ rn L> x ci m> . .
E EE~- v~i E~ o 0
N n7 z 0 ^ 00 SC m -0 > Cp Z t4 S~ ~ ff) 0 H1 li- ~ 0] ~ J m
EL
c 0
z: M ~
CL) a ° w m a
LI) °o rn (a y "a o. a)
v o
o
Y ~n o 3 Q o d ~C ~
o
= q Z
o y;,
a~X-L.~ c*, ~ vS ~~n o m m S6 m m`°
m ~ u ~ v ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ m E" a m v c ~ m
c~y c a°Yr a- a~' } ~ v'E c a v, 0 m m
cC 2 ~ cs' ~ m vro 0
~ ~ °7 c~OO j a~ m 0 V
y
Q cu sr~ v~~k ~ o ~ ca n
0 a.c <n d U a p m 07 m ~w~ a o a c ` i o v, rn2 ~ j r.I a~ o ro
°s a > m ~ w m
U ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ p X ~ Cc
W `o o o
a
~ C 1- 'j ~ M M Lf7 0 ~ 4'*1 tls Q .
2 Z ~ ~ C 61 EL > N ~ M d ( D ~ ~ M 1'- ~
f0 t'
O'7 CD wL2] ~ ~ 0 ~ O lf7 0 ~ aD c'7 ~ fo ~ C 16 F~ r] 90 Qs T O 0 Q1 V u1 T" .
f~] fh u? Y M L7 CO L'J. r r V' CL 61 0 ~ iQ ~t ..J j r P] I~ f'7 UY x- ID U'J tM .
~L
E
Z ~ E 0 C C ~ _
~ ~ .
a ~ ° E Sc rn- ~0 a rn C ~ ° w
J -0 ~ Q1 'C ~ ~ 61 Ol CO ~ C ~ ~ ~ .C 3 ~ 1! ~ O m ~ a p (~0 ~ t{I 7 j
[q tJ O 4 U7 ~ D L .
~ e ILd O O U m W
9L [Y (Tl C) UMl.LJ fJY ~ T2 Q_J d fl] :,L fl) Ll = 0J L J F-( ~ 0D ~ tL (1) F- ~
~
f7l ({7
C
CL
N
~ ~ ~ O` ~
E 2 4 m~ U 4 I m c Q"c ~6 m 0
Gj
Z z ~ U ~ ~ (/7 o c ~ ~ ~ ~
~
~ ~ rm ~ o y °tF us +~tS v rn m ~ ar ~ s ~ u x - °
a), o o E ] m a~r L p m Y0 U ~
n 0 2U-(7 ~JDwzm-~¢c7xa[~-~:gO~A g~'3
co w a r ~
vV t~ a~ a
~ m U
c a
m fl c m „n_
, E ~ o
z a ~
a
E ~ o '
a ~ e m
V c:3i A ~ Q d ~
dM 2 LL. 4 F- o
E ES E EE E E~ E E
O > 'C> 'C2 .C2 -2 .C2 .2 ~
'C 'C 'C C G C
@ o p o o.a `p o 0 0 o a
v -orov -o ro v'a~ -o
C C C C C C C C a C C
O O C3 O O Cl O O O O O
< Q, 0 C3 U U C.) U U U U U U m ca m+c ca m R m m m
0 C ` C C N t7S 46 S6 4R {6 Y~ N S4 C6 56
-0
f6 40 fb r6 ti7 dC ~ ~ ~
"~p R5 66 J i 4 O 0 O O O ~ R D Cf ro s.'~ = m~ ns Nc m ma Z S ~ 2 2 T~~ S~+u m ca m ca no cn ~n
~ a - . . . vr vs rn ~,n ua r~n m m va us ~n > i> 7.> > 7 7
~a rv no m
U
in Nw 4 0 0 m rn m EE EE E E E E EE E m m~a m m ~a i2 - -
.C ~ L L L X.C L [V [fl i9. Ill f0 (O t0 [93 N f6 N N
U U U C? U C~ C~ ~CJ [l: R' CK ~ fr 0..' Lr cc LL`
~ cl)
~
cr)
7 ~
~
0 0
E
eF cc
O " Uj
J-' {J
11-
CD
D rJJ
N r
O
LL' p.
~ d
c m
~ N V
~ ''•3 C ~ 7
N ~ p V 0
ui tn
as, W
,n rn~ a c+s
~
~
m qx
a-
~ • G y~
N ~
N 47 '
~ oL4 N
~
~
m
~
m
z
~
c~
~
v
C}
c
b
~
O
N -
N
THIS ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR RROPERTY
° PusLic NOricE
~ NOTfCE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environrrtental CammFSSion of the Tovrn of
Vail will hold a public hearrng in acc4rdarrce with Section 12-3-6 of the Municipaf Gade of the
Tflwn of Vail on aecember 9, 2042, at 2:00 P.M. in the Town af Vail Munieipal Buifding. In
considera#ion of:
A request far avariarrce from Sectian 11-4C-3 (Buriding Identificatian Signs), Vail Tnwn Code,
to aliow for a sign that exceeds the allawable maxirnum height aboWe grade, lacated at 250 S.
Frontage RoadlTract C, Bfock 1, Vail Lionshead 2n° Fiiing.
AppficaRt: Evergreen Lodge at Vail Ltd.
Planner: Matt Gennett .
A request far a recomrnendation to the Vail Town Council for #hte establishment of Speciaf
Development District No_ 37, to allow for the redeveloprnent vf #he Tivoli Lodge, {ocated at 386
Hanson Ranch RoadlLat E, Block 2, Vail Vil(age 5~' Filing.
Applicant: Roberk & Diane Lazier
Planner: George Ru#her
A request for a variance from TitEe 14, Uevefopment Standards Handbaok, to allouv for the
cons#ruction of a new retaining wall exceedang the maxirnurn height limitation, lacated at 265
Forest Road, Lot 21, Block 7, Vail Village First Filing
applicant: FQrest Raad LLC, represented by Michael English
Planner: Bilf Gibson
~ The applications and inforrrriation abaut the proposals are available for public inspection during
regular office hours in the project pPanner's office, lacated at the Town of Vaif Community
Develaprnent Department= 75 Sauth Frontage Raad. The public is invited to at#enci projec# orientatian
and the site visits #hat precede the public hearing in the 7awn af Vail Community Development
Department. Please call 479-2138 for information.
Sign language interpretation available Upan request with 24-hour notifca#ion. Please ca11479-
2356, Telephane fior #he Hearing impaired, for information.
Community Develapment Department
Published hJovernber 22, 2002 in the Vail Daify.
~jL
~
TOWlV OF YA,[L ~
~
~ MEMaRANDUM
TO: Planning and Enviranmental Cammission
FROM: Community Development DepartmEnt
DATE: January 13, 2003
SUBJECT: A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of a propased text
amendrnent ta Section 12-10-9: Lcaading Standards, Vail Town Code, ta amend
the size requirement for loading berths.
Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Greg Hall
Planner: Allison Qchs
1. SUMNiARY
The Town of Vail is requesting a text amendment to Section 12-10-9: Loading 5tandards,
Uail Town Code, to amend the minimum size rec{uirernents for 4oading berths. The
Department of Community Develapment is recammending approval Qf the text arnendment
in aecordance with the fincEings in Sectian VI9 of this memorandum.
~ 1[. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST
The Town of Vail is requesting an amendment to the minimum loading berth size in the
Town of Vail. Tfie current code allows for loading berths to be a minimum af 12 ft. wide by
25 ft. long by 14 ft. high. However, recent studies have indicated that this size is no longer
appropriate, given #he size and number of trucks currently used for delivery. As a result, the
Town of Vai1 is proposing an amendmeni to Sectican 12-10-9: Loading Standards, Vail Town
Code, to require larger loading berths. The amendment is proposed as follows:
,
~vrde, Av°nfi.r fiiia Fncsf 125'1 Innn onrl if or'nalncad andlr'xrenunrnrl' fnun`nnn fnrtf
)
ihe !nf finpc•_
B. Size: Each required loadfng 6erth shall be nof Iess than twelve feet ( 12)
wide, thirty five feet (35) lang, and if enclQSed and/or caver'ed, fourteen feef
(14) high. Larger loading berths are requrred for the foUowing:
1. If I to 2 loading 6erths are required for a use which includes an
eating or drin{cing establishment, a minimum of 1 loadrng ,berth shall
be rrot Iess than twelve feet (12) wide, fifty feet (50) long, ana' if
enclosed and/ar covered, fourteen feet (14) high.
2. If 3laading berths are required, a minimum of I loadrng berth shall be
nat less than twelve feer (12) wide, titty feet (50) long, and if
errclosed and/or covered, fourteerr feet (14) hrgh.
~ 3. !f 4lnadirrg berths are required, a minimum af 2 loadfng berths shall
be not less than twelve feef (12) wrde, fifty feet (5Q'J lorrg, and if
errclosed artd/or covered, fourteen feet (14) hlgh.
~
4. If 51oading berths are requrred, a minimum of 1 loading berth shall be ~
not less than twelve fe@t (12) wrde, fitty feet (50} lorrg, and rf
enclased and/or covered, fvurte2n feet (14) high, and a mrnrmum vf
7 loading berth shall be not less than iwelve feer (12) w?de, fifty five
feet (55) long, and if enclosed and/or covered, faurteen feet (14)
high.
This amendment allaws fior the minimum size loading berth to be 12 ft. by 35 fi, by 14
ft. 1n addition, for more delivery- intensive uses, it requires a minimum o# one loading
berth to be 12 ft. by 50 ft. by 14 ft. This wili accommodate the majority of trucks
which make c4eliveries in the Tawn of Vail.
M. BACKGROUND
Section 12-10-9: Loading Standards, 'Jail Town Code, prescribes the foflowJng size
requirements for all required laading berths:
B. Size: Each requrred loadrng berth shall be not less fhan twelve feet (12~ wide,
twenty frve feet (25) lang, arrd ifenclosed and/or cavered, fourteen feet (14)
high. Adequate turning and maneuvering space shall be provlded wifhtn the
lar lirres.
Staff has provided minimum standards for loading Iaerths as prescribed by other
communities. The Fnfarmation pravides the following (dimensians given are "length by width
by height"): ~
DeKalb, IL - minimum size bertFa of 10 ft. by 65 ft. by 14 ft.
Indian River County, FL- minimum size berth of 14 ft. by 30 ft. with minimum area
of 250 sq. ft. maneuvering area cantiguous to the berth.
V4?est Palm Beach, FL - minimurra size berth of 10 ft. by 25 ft, (least intensive use)
and 10 ft. by 50 ft. (larger, more intensive uses).
Centralia, !L - minimum size berth of 12 ff. by 50 ft. by 14 ft.
Hillsbarflugh County, FL minimum size berth of 12 ft, by 30 ft by 16 ft (local
deliveries up io 2/3 of total berths required) and minimum of 12 ft. by 60 ft. by
16 #t. (semi-trailers).
Fairfax, VA - minimum size berth of 12 ft. by 25 ft., but based on a,pproval by the
Director of Public Works accarding to use.
Salinas, CA - minimum size berth of 10 ft. by 20 it, by 10 ft. (least intensive use
classificatian), 12 ft. by 35 ft. by 16 fiC. (moderately intensive use), 12 ft. by 50
ft. by 16 ft. (most intensive use).
Avon, CO - minimum size berth of 12 ft. by 35 fiE. by 15 ft.
Eagle County, CO - minimum size berth af 10 ft. ay 35 ft. by 14 ft., with a provision
far requiring larger berths ai Baard's discretion.
Bouider, CO - minimum size berth of 500 sq. ft. vwith ne single dimension smaller
than 10 it.
As is presented above, many corrtrnunities have varying size requirements for Iaading berth
spaces. The TQwn ofi Vail's current requirernent of 12 ft. by 25 ft. by 14 ft. is generally Ress
than is requireci by other communities, The Departmen# ofi Public Works has done ~
numerous counts and informal surveys throughout the past few years with regard to delivery
2
~ trucks, These have been attached (Attanchments A through E) far reference. As indicated
by ihese surveys, truck sizes have varied from small 15 ft. vans ta large 53 ft. beer delivery
trucks. Genera:lly, the larger trucks have been making deliveries to eating and drinking
establishments.
To meet the need for larger loading berths, the Town of Vail has been requiring larger
loading berths in the Public Accomrtiadatian and Lionshead MixecC Use 1 zone districts,
using #he prflvision for mitigation of development impacts as the impetus for such
requirements. As the trend towards the use af iarger delivery trucks cantinues, the Tawn of
Vail staff believes that it is necessary to codify this requirement far all zone districts.
Codifying the loading and delivery requirements will result in estabkishing clearer
expectations for applicants, and lessen the need far negotia#ing the standards with
developers.
tV. ROLES OF REVIEWING BODIES
Planninq and Environmen#al Comrnission:
Action: The Planning and Enwironmental Commissian is responsible far farwarding a
recarr:mendatiors of approval/approval wifh conditiansldenial to the 7awn Council of a text
amendment.
The PlannPng & Environmenta! Commission shall consider the following factors with
~ respect to the requested text amendment:
1. The exten# to which the text amendment furthers the general and specific purposes
of the Zoning Regulations; and
2. The exten# ta which the text amendment would better implement and better achieve
the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives, and policies outlined in the
Vail Camprehensive Plan and is compatible with the developrnent objectives of the
lawn; and
3. The extent to which the text amendment demonstrates how conditicrns have
substantially changed since the adopfion af the subjeet regulation and how the
existing regulatuon is nQ longer appropriate or is inapplicable; and
4. The extent ta which the text amendment provides a harmonicrus, conuenient,
workable relationship among Iand use regulations consistent with municipal
deveiopment objectives.
5. Such other factars and criteria the CommESSion cleems applicab{e to the proposed
text amendrnent.
Desiqn Review Baard:
Action: The Qesign Review Soard has no review autharify of a text amendrnent bvt must
re+riew any aecampanying Design Review appCicatian.
7own Councif:
The Town Cauncil is resparesible for final appra+valfapproval with conditionsldenial of a
text arriendment.
~ 7he 7own Cauncil sha41 consader the following factors with respect to the requested text
amendment:
3
~
1. The exten# to which the text amendment furthers the general and specific purposes
of the Zoning Reguiatiorrs; and
2. The extent to which the text amendment would better imp9ement and better achiewe
the applicable eler-nents of the adopted goals, objeciives, and policies outlined in the
Vail ComprehensFve Plan and is compatible with the develapment abjectives of the
Town, and
3. The extent #o which the tex# arnendment demanstrates how conditions have 0
substan#ially changed since the adoptian of the subject regulation and how the
existing regulatian is na langer appropriate or is inapplicable; and .
4. The extent to whieh the text arrrendrrient provides a harmoniaus, converrient, workable relationship among iand use regulations consistent with municipal
deve[opment objectives.
5. Such ather factors and criteria the Gommission and/ar Council deem applicable ta
the propased text amendment.
Staff:
The staff is responsible f4r ensuring that all submittal requirements are praWided and plans
canform to #he technical requirements of the Zaroing RegulatQOns. The staff also advises the
applicant as ta campliance with the c+esign guicfelines.
Staff provides a staff inemo containing backgrouncf on the praperry and provicfes a slaff
evaluation of the project with respect #o the required crateria and findings, and a
recommendation an approwal, appro+ral with conditions, or denial. Sta#f also facilitates the
review process. ~
V. ApPLIGABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS
Tovwn of Vail Zanina Reaulations (Titfe 12, Vaif Town Code)
The general purposes for Title 12 (Zoning Regulations) are described in Sectifln 12-1-
2, Vail Town Code. Applicabie partions af this sectian include the foilowing:
A. GeneraL• These regulafions are enaeted for the purpose af promoting
the health, safety, rraorals, and general welfare of the Tawn, and to
,oromote the coordtrtated and harmantous dewelopment of the Towrr
in a rnanner fhat wt!l conserve and enhance its natural enviranmerrt
and its established character as a resorf and resialential comrnunity of
hrgh quality.
B. Specrfrc: 7hese regulatrons are rnterrded ta achieve the tollowing
rnore spEeific purposes:
1. To provrde for adequate light, air, sanitatron, draiRage, and
public faeilitres.
2. Ta secure safety from fire, panrc, floQd, avafanche,
aceumulaiian of snow, and other dangerous conditions.
3. To promate safe and efficr'ent pedestrian and vehicular fraffrc
clrCUtation and to lessen cQngestion rn the streefs. ~
4. To promote adequate and appropriately located off-street
4 ~
~
~
I
0
~ parking and loadrng facilrties.
5. To conserve and marntain establlshed communify qua11#ies
and economic values.
6. 7o encourage a harmonious, convenierrtr workable
relaiionshrp among land uses, consistent with Municipal
developmenf nbfectives.
7 To prevenr excessrve population densiires and overcrowdirrg
of tiae land wlth structures.
8. Ta safegua,rd and enhance the appearance af the Tpwrt.
9. To corrserve and protecd vviia7ife, streams, tivoods, hillsides>
and other desrrable natural features.
10, To assure adequate open space, recreation oppcrrtunities,
and other amerrities and facllifies corrducive to clesired lr`rring
quarters.
17. To otherwise provide for the growth of an arderly and vrable
camrraunity.
Chapter 12-10: Off Street Parking and Loading, Vail Tawn Gade, pravides the
foliow'tng with regard ta loading and delivery:
12-10-1: PURPOSE:
In order to alleviate progressrvely ar to prevent traffic cangestion and
shortage af on-street parking areas, aff-street parking and loading facilities
~ Shc3(I bE J]fOV1dEt]' lf1C1dE/1ral tQ 1?eW Stl't1CtU1'eS, enlargements af existing
structures or a conversion to a new use which requires additronal parking
und'er this chap[er. The number of parking spaces and loading 6erths
prescribed rn this chapter shail be in proportron to the need for such facilities
created by the partrcular type of use. aff-street parking and loaciing areas are
fo be designed, mafntalrred and operated 1n a manner that will ensure their ~
usefulness, ,orotect the publre safety, and, where ap,aropriate, insulate ~
surrourrding land uses from fherr lmpact. In certain d'istrrcts, a11 or a portion of '
tfre parklng spaces prescribed by thrs chapter are requir'ed to be wlthin the
main burJding in order ta avoid or to rnrnimrze fhe arlverse visual irnpact of
Jarge concentrations or expvsed parking and af separafe garage or earpQrt
structures.
12-70-9: LaADl111G STANDARDS:
Standards far off-street loadirag shall be as follows.•
A. Locatron: All off-streef Ioading berths shall be located on the same 10t
as the use served, but not in the required frant setback. Off-street
laading 6erths shall be provided in additaon to required off-street
,parkirag and shall not be focated within accessways.
8. Srre: Each requrred loading 6erfh shall be not less than twelve
feet (12') wide, twenty five feet (25") bng, and if enclvsed and/or
covered, fourteen feef (14') high. Adequate turning and
maneuverfng space shall be provided v,rithrn the Iot Iines.
C. Access.•Accessways rrof Iess than ten feet (10) armore than twenty
fee[ (20 ) in wrdth sha11 connect a!1 loading berths to a street or alley.
~ Such aGCessways may coincide with accessways to parkirrg facilrfies.
5
,
~
Vail Transportation Master Plan
In July of 2042, Washing#on Infrastructure Services, Enc., completed the "Vail Transportatron
Master Plan Update,° whECh provided an update to the 1990 Transpnrtation Master Plan.
Specifically, the update addressed the following:
• Vail Village Deliveries
a Tawn Bus Sys#em
• Trail System Interface
• Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
• Intersection LeWel of Service Analysis
• Implementation Process
+ Plan Monitaring and Updating.
The update provided the following long-term recammendation with regards to loading and
deiivery:
7. Change currenf zoning code concerning required defivery space. The
current zaning code requires delivery spaces to be 10 ft. by 25 ft., which is
not adequate. Bars, restaurants, and hotels which require delivery af food
and beverages should have one f4 tvvo or mare spaces, 12 ft. wfde and 35 h.
ta 50 ft. long. This vvould accornmodate mosi delivery vehrcfes. The code
shauld allow for required loadirr,g bays ta 6e lacated in a nearby dispersed ~
delivery [unnel.
VI. CRI°TERIA AND FINDINGS
The review criteria and factors for cansideration for a request of a text amendment are
established in accordance with the provisions af Chapter 12-3, Vaif Town Cade (0rdinance
No. 4, Series 2002).
A. Consideration of Factors Reqarding the Text Amendment:
1. The extent to which the #ex# amendrnent furthers the general and speciflc
purposes of the Zvning Reguiati+ans; and
The general purposes for Title 12 (Zoning Regulations) are described m Section 12-1-
2, Vail 7own Cade. Applicable portians of this sectian include the foClowing:
A. General: 7hese regulatians are enacted for the purpase ofpramoiing the
health, safety, morals, and general welfare of Ihe Town, and to promofe
the coordrnated and harmaninus development of the Tawrr in a manner
that will canserve and enhance its natural environment and its
esta6lished charaeter as a resart and resr'dential camrnunity of high
qualrty-
B. Specific: , hese regulativrrs are interrded to achieve the follpwirrg mare ~
specific purpases:
1. To pravrde for adequate lrght, arr, sanrtafiorr, drainage, and
6
i pu,6lic facilrties.
2. To secure safety from fire, panic, flood, avaJanche,
accumulafron of snoknr, and other dangeraus conditians.
3. To promote sate ancl efficient pedestrian and vehicular traffic
circulation and tv Iessen congestinn in the streels.
4. To pramote adequate and appropriately Cocated off-street
parking and loadrrag facilities..
5. To conserve and mairatarn establrshed commun?[y qualities
and economie uaJues.
6. To encourage a harmonrous, corrvenient, worhable
relationshi,p among land uses, cansistent with Municipal
development objectives.
7. To prevent excessfve,populatton densities and overcrowding
af the land vvith structures.
8. To safeguaral and enhanee the appearance of rhe Tpwn.
9, To conserve and protect wildlite, streams, woods, hilJsidesl
and ather desirable natural features.
10. To asscare adeqUate open space, recreatron op,partunrties,
and other amerrtties and facilities canducive to desired living
quarters.
11. To othervvise provide for rhe growth of ara orderly and viable
corramuniiy.
Staff believes that the proposed text amendment furthsrs these genera9 and specific
~ purposes of the Town of Vail Zaning Regulations.
2. The extent to which the text arnendment would better implement and better
achieve the applieable elements of the adapted goals, objectives, and policies
ou#lined in the Vail Camprehensive Ptan and is cvmpatible with the
develapment objectives of the Town; and
Laaddng and delivery has been identified as a major concern and issue in the Town
of Vail. The Transportation Master Plan and recent updates to the plan indicate that
it is necessary to amend the minimum loading berth size ta aceommodate the mix of
delivery vehicles in the Town of Vail. Staff believes that this amendment is
campatibie with #he development objectives of the Tawn.
3. The extent to which the text amendment demons#rates how conditions have
substantially changed since the adaption of the subject regufation and haw
the existing regulation is no longer appropriate or is inapplicable; and
As indicated in the attached delivery vehicle counts, the size a# delivery trucks in the
Town of VaFI is generally exceeding the required loading ber#h capabilities. This
leads to increased enforcernent efforts, the need for greater coordination, traffic
congestian, and inconvenienee for guests and residents of the Town. Staff believes
that the exrsting laading berth size is no longer appropriate or applicable and that this
proposed text arnendment v^vill dmprove the Ioading and de{ivery capabilities af the
Town of Vail.
~ 4. The extent to wh ich the text amendment provides a harmonious, canvenient,
7
workable reiatianship amang land use regulations consistent with municipal ~
development objectives.
The Town of Vail has already been requiring larger loading berths as part 4f the
mitigatian of development impacts in the Public Accommodation and Lionshead
Mixed Use 1 zone districts. In addition, larger Ioading berths haue been required in
many special development districts. However, staff believes that to provide a
harmanious, conuenient, workable relationship amang Eand use regulatians, the size
of loading berths should be increased in all zone districts.
5. Such ather factors and criteria the Commission and/Qr Council deem
applicable to the propased text amendment.
B. The Planninq and Environmental Cpmmissian shall rnake the followinq findinys
befare forwardin a recommendation of a roval for of a text amendment: .
1. That the amendment is eonsistent with the applicable elements of the aclopted
goals, objectives and poficies outfined in the Vail CQmprehensive Plan and is
compatible with the development objeciives af the 7own; and
2. That the arnendment furthers the general and specific Rurposes of the Zoning
Regulations; and
3. That the amendmerrt promotes the health, safety, maraEs, and general welfare of ~
the Town and prorncates the coordinated and harmcandaus development of the
Town in a manner that cflnserves and enhances its natural environment and its
established character as a resork and residential community of the highest
' quality.
VII. STAFF RECUMGhlIEhJDATION
The Community Develapment Department recammends that the Planning and
Environmental Commission forward a recommertdatian of approvaE to ihe Town Council
for the praposed texi amendment to Seetion 12-1 Q-9: Loading Standards, Vaif Tmwn Gode,
ta amend the size requirement for Eoading berths. Staf('s recommertdation is based upon
the review of the crcteria in Sectian VI of this memorancEum and 4he evidenee and testimany
presented, subject to the following findings:
1. That the amendment is consistent vwith the applicable elements of the adapied
goals, objectives and poiicies outlined in the Vail Comprehensiue Plan and is
compatible with the development objectives of the Tawn; and
2. Tha# the amendment furYhers the general and specific purposes af the Zoning
Regulations; and
3. That the amendment promotes the health, safety, morals, and general welfare af
the Town and promates the coordinated and harrnaniaus development of the
Town in a manner that conserves and enhances its natural environment and its
established character as a resorf and resident'ral cQmmunity af the highes# ~
quaiity.
8
~
VIII. ATTACHMENTS
A. Count of Vehicles at P3&J
B. Count at Main Lodge and Checkpaint Chariie
C. Vail Uillage Vehicle Mix
D. Town of Vail Delivery Vehicle Survey and Results
E. Delivery Vehicle County - Vail Village and Lionshead
~
~
i
i
~
~
~
~
~
~
;
~
;
•
9
A#tachment; A •
Vehicles Entering at P3&J
Vehacle Type Time ln Time Qut Exit Locatian Length (ft)
Budwetser Minivan 8:17 8:32 Gore 1$
Valley Haney Wagon garbage 8:24 8;24 Gore 35
Christy 5pcrr#s 9:25 9:31 Gore 30
Miller Lite 9:32 11:22 Gore ' 30
Budweiser 9;32 11:32 Gore ' 30
Meadow Gold 9:40 9:54 Gore 30
UPS 9;42 9:54 Gore 30
5ummit Lauradry 9:57 10_05 Gore 18
Olive O1 (Calabria) 1 f?:p5 10:37 Gore 30
Jim's Forma1 Wear 10;07 10:07 Gore 18
Spartan 14:27 10:40 P3&J 40
Dana W hite Truck 1 Q:43 11:46 Gore * 30
Green Van 10:52 11:02 Gore ' 18
American Linen 11:51 12:23 Gore 18
Yeflow Truck 11,58 1:22 Gore 30
Michael Shea's 12:40 12:02 Gore 30
9utback Builders 1:23 1:58 Gore 18
White Pick-Up 2:25 3:03 Gore 18
Christy SpQrts 2:49 2_56 Gore 34
Qwest 3:12 3.31 Gore 1$ ~
Breeze Ski Rental Van 3:17 3:42 Gore 18
Red Bu{I Energy Drink 3.31 3:42 Gore 18
White Truck 3:53 3:53 Gore 30
Sumrnit Commerciai Laundry 4:54 4:56 Gore 18
l1SPS 'i p:54 12:38 Gore 18
" indicates srnvalldeparture Quring peak period
Count Summa Staiistics
Average Truck Length Overal! 25
Average Truc4c Length During Peak 30
Number of 18 ft Trucks 12
Number of 30 ft Trucks 11
Number af 35 ft Trucks 1
Number o# 40 ft Trucks 1
I
. i
~
. Attachment: B
~
Vehicles Entering Main Lodge and Checkpoint Charlie
Vehicle 2ype 7ime In Entef Ltar.asian Tirne Out Exit Location Servire Lodge7 Lenglh (feet)
5hamrock Foods 6;44 Gheckpoint Chariie 8:30 6ore no 40
Whi9e Van 7:08 Lodge (Main) 7;15 l.odge (Main) m3in errtr3xe 48
Itaico Foods 725 Checkpoint Charlie 8:20 Gone no 30
BF1 Gartiage 7.32 Checkpvirrt Cnarlie 9:07 Gore no ' 25
Vail Hpney Wagon 7.40 Checkpoiri Chariie 8:16 Gore no 25
Sirn4ns Dairy $;07 Checkpoint Ghari+e 8:26 Gore no 30
Coors7ruck 8:09 LadgelMain) 9,35 Ladge(Main) rnamerRrance ' 30
Gaors Truck 9:35 Checkpoini Chaaiie 10:38 Gors ro 30
Budweiser Van 8:70 G'heckpoirn GhaAie 9:32 Gore nd ' 18
Wirae 7rutk S:iS to0ge (Main) 8:35 Lotlge (Main) main errtrance ' 30
Wiaae 3ruck 8:35 Checkpoirt Char9ie 3:72 Gore r,n 30
6F1 GarCage 6:20 CheckpoirTt ChaAie 8~47 Hansen no 25
White Delivery TrtiGk 8.20 Checkpoint Chartie 8:35 Willow Brfdge R68d na 30
Sesktle Fish Ca, 643 Ladge (Maln) 8:58 Ladge (M1hain) main eMrance ` 30Seattle Fish Co. 8'58 Checkpoint Chariie 4:15 Gare na 30
Meadow Gcrld 5:45 Lodge {Main} 9.10 Lodge (N4ein) rnain entrarsce ' 30
Meadow GoIG 9:10 Checkpoint Charlie 9:35 WiS1ow 9ndge Road ro 30
Sno-Wnite LinenlUniform 8~46 Checkpoint Gharlie 9:30 Gvre Greek Frontage stopped along Gore Sn fmrd of Ipdge ' 18
Sno-White LineNUnifarm 9:30 Gore Creek Frontage 9:57 Gore no aB i
Nakianal Velvet Dry Cleaners 8:47 Lodge {Main) 8,.53 Lodge (Main) rnain er+irance ' 18 !
NaYibnal Velwet Dry Cleaners 8:53 Checkpoirrt Charlie 9-00 C;ore no 16 I
MiPler Li9e 8:47 Checkpoint Chariie 9:07 Gore Creek Fronlatge stoppetl alang Gore in frord ai Ivdge ' 30
Miller Lite 8:07 Gore Creek Frarrtage 9:31 Gore ho 30
Stalco Faads 9: 14 Gpdge {Main} 8:24 Lodge (Main) main entrance 30
Blank White Van 9:29 Checkpoint Charlie 9:58 Gore na 30
Three Leaf Claves 7ruck 9.42 Lodge (Main) 9:55 Lodge (Main) main errtrance 30
Gorsuch L7D Whi[e 7'n.iGk 9~45 Checkpvirn Charlie 11,11 Gore no 30
Three Leaf Clover Truck 9:55 Checkpoint Charlie 9:57 Gafe 1`10 30
Amer,can Linen 8:55 Lodge {MainJ 1 t:27 Gore main sntranee 18
Westem Slope Laundry 4:57 CheCkppint Gh2Aie 10:07 Lodge (Main) Stopped along Csa2 in Erorrt af lodge 18
Blank White Tiuck (1636022) 10709 Checkpoint Chasiie 10:19 Gore no 31
NoAheast Wh;teTrvck 10:09 Lodge (Main) 11:0-5 Willow Bridge Road rnoinentrance 34
~ S[nttyn's Oairy 10:10 CheckpoiM Ghariie 1 Q:d7 Gore siopped along Gore in frOM 41 lotlge 30
IiPS 10:50 CheckaointChariie 2:01 Gore na 30
54ifer Designs 16:55 Gheekpoirtt Chariie 17:07 Cyore no Ig
GtNC Savanna Wfiite Van 14:57 CheckpuiM Chariie 11.10 Gore stopped a3orrg Gore infrpnt pf lodge 18
1Nhite Nan 11:09 Checkpvirn Charlie 11,20 WiilOw Bridc]e Faoed no 19
UPS 11:11 Gheckpoirn Charlie 11:20 Wi11ow 8ndge Rdad no 30
Sirnon'5 Dairy 11:14 Checkpoint Gharlme 1330 Willow BriCge Raad n4 30
Vail Honey 1Nagon 11;20 Checkpbirrt Chaelie 11:31 Gore no 25
White Truck (Penske), 11:29 Checkpoint Charlie 12:27 Gore na 30
Willow River Naturel Cheese t i:a7 Checkpoint Charlie 12:00 Willow Bridge Road no 30
RAC Transport 1219 LpdgO (Main) 12:15 Ladge (Main) main entrance 30 I
Beer?ruck 12:17 Lodge (Main) 12:22 lNillow Bridge Road main entrance 30
Uphale3rry 12:22 Checkpoint Charlie 12:32 Willpw Bridge Road no 18 I
Retriever Air FreigM 12:35 Checkpoint Gharlie 12:44 WiNow Bridge Road rro 34
American Gnen 12:54 Checkpoint Chariie 1:15 W'iilow Bridge Fiaad no 18
7roy Ory Cleaners 1:19 Checkpoirn Chartie 1:25 W illaw Bridge Road no 18
Flprrst 2;05 Chmkpflini Ghartie 2:22 Checkpoint m z$
UPS 2:72 Checkpoint Ch3rlie 2:40 Willrnv Bndge Road no 30
UPS 2:18 Ladge (Main) 2:34 Willow Bndge Road main errtrdnce 30
Ftora! Designs 2:42 Checkpoint Gharlie 2:44 Checkpoint no 18
Plain White Pick-Up 3:03 Cl4eckpoint Gharkie 3:07 Willow Bndge Road no 18
Breeze Ski Rental Van 3:13 Ctreckpoirit Charfie 3:20 Willow Bridge RDad ra 18
Red &ull Energy Drink 3;45 Checkpoint Cr+arfie 4~00 Willow Bridge Rcrad raa 18 ~
pe7ivery Truck 4:25 CF+eckpoirrt Ghar#ie 4,35 Checkpoint no 30
pelivery V2n 4:25 Checkpoirt Chariie 4:30 Ghetkpoirri no 18
UPS 5:00 Lod e(Main) 5:09 Gore main errtrarsce 30
' mditales amvBYdeRarturt Aurvig pegk pencW .
Count Summarv Statistics
Average Tnrck Length Dverall 30
Average Truck Length Qurinp Peak 30
Numbcr oi 18 ft 7ruek5 20
Number of 25 R Tnrcks 4
Number o( 34 ft Trocks 33
Nvmber pf 35 ft Trucks D
Number of 40 ft Trucks 1
~
Attachment: C '
Figure 12 - Vaif Village Vehicle Mix ~
1/c3li MilCge PedE35fflat'1 Ar6Q VAhiCl6 Mt?C
n~d ~ c~a~ a~ ca++a ot,ro.ooa +renr~. h,ees ~a ,eae
/
D/
30!Q
~ ~ l~n 3%
vW ~ 4 % -
y~-
~ 1
~ 2 % ~ -
I1La/4 - t•~11~0 %b-'e~' ^,'„s"¢ ah
•
~ dar~ 5,8 ~ 7 Deive~y 7rtrls ~ ~ h""a' ; 17%
/
7°/4
r
~ En* 1 °/a -
~ C,dmr lr,er~ege t'run'.+ ~ei,xrraou, t~rw ma~...et ` -.24%.
Defiveries to Vai1 ViI[age vary by seasmn and day o# the week as well as by #ype of vehicles.
Tab6e 3, presents the Vail Village delivery activity by day of the week.
Table 3- Daiiy Deiivery Activity ~ ~;'~;F~ ~c,~ ~u~V~.V?t~,,~- 1']
Tatal tri s into the ZQ°la Tea ~S~
Da of the week All 1/ehicles Deliue irucks
Sunda 599 9% 29 2%
Manda 815 - 12°10 176 12%
Tuesda 10% 178 12%
Wednesda ;:.:`_1'C70 _-17% 306 21°0
Thursda 1176 t7°do 288 20%
Frida .1279 i 9°fa 308 22%
Saturda :°1223 18% 151 1 1%
TOdEiI 6858 1 QO% 1430 100%
Total tri'ps #o the Village tend to be heaviest dUring Friday and Saturday, and lightest on I
Sunday. However, delivery trips are light on Saturday and heaviest during V1lednesday,
7hursday, and Friday. These numbers indicate that limiting deliveries on Sa#urday and/or
Sunday might be possible. Each trip is an in or out event at an entry of exit paint in the
Viilage.
~
21
kAtfttachment: D
02/27/2f~o2 7'f~WTQwri of Vail - Vail Village Delivery Vehicle Survey
Please Complete and Return to the Town of Vail Public V4'orks Departanent at 1309 Elkhom Drive Vaii,
Colorado 81657 or Fax 970-479-2166 - Attention Leonard Sandoval
Date-
Driver Name -
Company Name -
Size of Vehicle -(Circie one) Overall i.ength
Tractor-Trailer 1 S-whee[er
Tractor Trailer 14 wheeler
Tractor Trailer 10 wheeler
Tandem Truck
Single Axle Dual wheel 7ruek
`Jan
Other:
Enter The Village Location -(Circle ane)
Check Point Charlie
Hanson Ranch Rd.
Cross Roads Aeea
~ Gore Creek Drive From East End ( I'v4ill Creek Chute)
Approx_ Time EnteriArrive in Villa-e-
Appro:c. Time ExisdCompiete Delivery in Villabe-
How many times per week do yau rnake a deliveryPer week winter. Per week summer
5taging areas -(Number in order of route frarn start to f'inish)
If you perfer, use map on backside of page to shaw raute and staging areas.
Loading Zone on Gore Creek Drive in Front of Lodge of Vail.
Willow Bridge Rd North of Check Point Charlie
Children's Fountain Area
Intersection of Gore Creek I7rive and Bridge Strest Area
Lower Bridge Street
Bridge Street
Hanson Ranch Rd. East of 5ifbert Circle (Top of Bridge 5treet)
Hansan Ranch Rd. in front ofThe Christina Lodge
Laading Zone Area near the Mill Greek Court Building
Crossraads Area
Cvminents-
~ '1'he Tcsw,n of Vail is loaking at ways to improve vehiciefpedestrians access vrithia the Village core areas,
Thank you,
If yvu have any question, please catl Leonard Sandaval at 970-479-2I }8
I ~
~
3 a~
~ Y- r. ti ~ cD ~ m c~ cv c%j t~
~
4
CC r I~ P'~ r fD lzr C7 CV CN N I~
Q < < Q < Q EC 0. tt <t <t < < <
~ o 0 0 0 0 0 0° ca o 0 0 0 Ln o
cl c*) c*7 e7 r? r+> ra ca o 0 cYa r7 0
N r r 90 C7 GO [7D QD Ci:t O ~ 40 CO 00
~ r r- r r r
. 0
E < < Q< d 4 4< d Q Q < Q Q <
- C7 C7 d t7 O Q 00 C) O O t? 0 O 0
~ ~ p p frJ p p C1 C M Q O O Q 4 C7
,~+1 I`- C.4 OD m f` h+- 00 O 1~ I~ O
W
~ O ~ 0 ~ ~ W ~ ~
Q ~ ~ D ~ ~ w
. ` •L ~ ~ •L
u t~ L > L S L 8
~ Q U U ~ U U Q ~ U ~ V ~ VC33 G fII C ~ ~ Y G U7 C C C C ~ C
a. ~ ci n 0- ~ ° c~° ri a° a_
~ Y 43 Y U 1J.9 ,C Y U -k 0 X X .K Y Y Y
~ ~ C (1) ~ ~ Q) (1) a) a) p a) C? a) (D 4) G3
c 4{q L L O G C L L L j= L S
l1_9 L.} T (,7 i,7 LJLJ C~ U 'tD V U 0 U 0 U
~ a
c m
~
;t ;r ;t ic io ca oo cv oo ;t
> V' c+7 m C7 c'7 c"') M m CV CV fV N iV
V q?. U U C? U U G3 U U U C.
~ m
a = - E E E E Q ~
~ Q) 0 47 4I N (7 ~r d a) N al 47 Q} ~
a V "DC C C C ~ m ~ C ~ ~ C ~ (SS
f0 (U m i13 L9 ~ m ~ m fa m RSS ~ 7
F- h- l^ F"` L~ ? C- F- F- U) 0
~
Q, c
m
~ J
-o
~ 2 ~ o a
0
Z cn
~
>1 O ~ ~
~ m C O U) `
CL ~
~ E ~ ~ ~
p ~ LL tL LL 0- O LL LL Ll LL
~
U 0 cn m m m m D z m m m 00
~
r r N M' I~r LO r
~I?
N cn 1~ fr? LO r
Q~ f1 < < Q Il..
M c0 ~'1 tY p c'C)7 O
C.;) N 1"- C`J r r (4j r
r r r r^ r-
~ Q Q Q Q < Q. < CL
C7 O 9 cY] C] 9 L~ 9
~ tO m i0 6l CV N
c- r e-
G~
N fp dt LV f13 cu W 43 i1S
(II C[1 m L - w
C- s ~ m
U U CJ U ~0 U U U
C C C C C~~ C C C ~
O O
d (IL d. EL. LL Q~~ 0
c C) CL 0- fL
Y x -16 ~ ~c D ac x ~
~ .C _G C .G L R7 0 C .G L
~J C? U U U s 0 U U C.)
~
~
c.
M N N N C~Mt N
4} q (U 4) ~l Q) G7 ~ a) ~ IIl ~
dr 4s ~°3 m'ro m ar
a) ~ a) ~ ar ~ a+
~r, 3
~ ~ - v~ -
Z E
~ d) ci 07 0 u) O tr) °v C!3
uT
~
C T~ ~
O d d
0- ~
~ ~ U)
a~
CA ~Q
e ~
~ 0 t° `o a 3 d
C7 ~ ¢ z C7 C~ ~ ~
LilVERY ~ V VEHlGLE GOUNT - VA[L V[LLAGE I LIONSHEAD ~
1212012000
Attachment; E
VAIL VILLAGE 8:15 - 8:45 AM
VEHICLES DESCRIPTiON LENG7H TYPE T4TAL LENGTH
VAIL HONEYWAGQN 34' Tandem
24' 6" Single Axle 9 Ton
1T 8' Van
SYSCO 29' B" 7andem
ALLIANT 33' 3" Tandem
BUbWEISER 19', 35 2", 2' 9" Tractor 7raiier 1 Single Ax[e 56' 19"
VANf BAKERY 19' Van
NATIONAL UISTRIBUTING CO. 252" Single Axle 9 TQn
MEA,QaW MTN PLUMBING 23' Single }xle 1 Ton
LICINSHEAQ 8:35 - 8:45 AM
NQNE iN MALL AREA.
~
1212112000
VAIL VILLAGE 10:45 - 11:00 AM
WESTERN 39' 6", 15' 6" Tractor Trailer -'i0 Wheeler 55'
19' S" Van
AMERICAN LlNEN 26' 3" Van
AMERlCAN L]NEN 23' Van
AMERICAN'L1NEN 15' Van
SITON'S 29' 6" Single AxEe
BUDWEESER 53' T'ractor 7railer - 10 Whesier
SYSCQ 29' 7" Dual Axle Tandem
BUaGET 23' 6" Single Axle
RAC TRANSPORT 21" 3", 22' 3" 1'ractor Trailer -14 Wheeler 43' 64"
PENSKEI UPS 34' S" Single Axie
RYDER 33' 6" Single Axle:
RYDER 33` 6" Single Axle
ALL{ANT 33' 2" Dual Axle Tandem
GOFiSUCH 20' 1 0" Single Axle
US POS"fAL 16' 3" Van
RENTX 30' Single Axle
~
MEM4RANDUM
~
TO: Planning and Environmentaf Commission
FROM: Community Develapment DEpartment
DATE: ,January 13, 2003
'SUBJECT: A request for a text amendment to Seciions 12-7H-11 & 12-71-11, Vail Town
Code ancE the Lionshead Redevelapment Mas#er Plan ta allow for a clarification
to th€ maximurn height and calculation of average maximum height requirerrients
for building constructed in the Lionshead Mixed Use 1 and the Lionshead Mixed
Use 2 zane districts, and setting forth details in regard thersto.
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: George Ruther
1. SUMMARY
The Department of Gommunity Development os requesting that the Planning and
Environmental Commissian review the proposed text amendment intended ta clarify the
height requirements in the Lionshead MExed llse zane distcicts, as further described in
the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. The praposed language has bEen preparsd
~ in response to the input staff received frarn Rhe Planning and Enviranmenta[ Commission
and the public. In summary, the staff is proposing to utilize a similar method of building
height calculatton as anticipated in the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. The
proposal maintains the concept of both maximum building height and average height ~
calculations. The difference proposed is #hat thoe regulation is further clarified and more ~
easily understood. Sta(f believes ihat the proposed language effectively achieves i
variety and movement in ridgelines as intended in the Master Plan.
II. L?ESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
The Department of Community DeveEopment has requested that the Planning and
Environmental Commission review an administrative interpreta#ifln of the maximum
height calcuCatian for structures constructed in the Lionshead Mixeci Use zane districts.
Staff's request is in response ta recent di5cussions regarding the calcufatian of the
average maximUm height from which staff has concluded that further clarification is
necessary to ensure #hat the intent of the regulation has been met. Specifically, staff
recagnized that there are multiple methads of ineasuring auerage maximum height and
numerous questions about haw to implement the height calculation. Sect4on V of this
rnemarandum outlines the preferred method of calculation in greater detail. Section VI
autfines a possible text amendment to the Lianshead Redevelopmerrt Master Plan with
regard to maximum aIlowable bui4ding height. This request is brought to the Planning
and Environmentaf Comrnission for review and Gansideration pursuant to Section 12-3-3,
Uail Town Cdde.
~
h~t
TOWNOFYAIL ~
A
.
gAeKGROUrva
On December 15, 1998, the Town of Vail adopted the Lionshead Redeveiopment Master
Plan. Pn adoptirrg the Lionshead Redewelopment Mas#er Plan, the Vail Town Gauncil
aciopted an average maximum height calculation for improvernents constructed in the
Lionshead Mixed lJse 9 and Lionshead Mixed Use II zone districts. The reason, in part,
for adapting an average maximum height calculation was to respand to building height
and massing criteria within an already built environment. Unlike development in other
areas in town, where maximum bui8ding height is ealculated based upon exisding or
f9nishecE grade, which ever is more restrictive, redeveloprreent prajects in the Lionshead
Mixed Use I and Lionshead Mixed Use II zone districts must be responsive to the
existing conditions, improverxjents, and the prQject's rela#ionship to existing buiEdings and
infrastructure. TQ address tnese concerns, it was determined that an alternate means of
calculating building height in the Lionshead Mixed Use I and Lionsheaci Mixed Use II
zone districts was necessary.
On September 9, 2002, the Town of Vail Planning and Environmentaf Commission held
a wQrksession meeting to discuss the average maximum iheight calculation issue for
de#ermining building height in the Lianshead Mixed Use I and LiQrrshead Mixed Use 11
zone districts. Upon discussion af the issue, there was a clear consensus among the
Commissianers that further clarification was needed #a described and determine the
allowable height of buildings in the Lionshead Mixed Use I and Lionshead Mixed Use II
zane districts. What was not cempletely clear, hovueWer„ was the methodd6ogy #hat
should be adopted. ln response to the discussiQn, the Commission asked staff to reQurn
to a future worksession meeiing with propased language that cCarified the intent of the
regulation, which upon impGementation, resuqted in bu'rldings that did nat exceed 82.5 ~
feet maximum in height with an average maximum building height of 71 feed. A
complete capy of #he September 9, 2002, appraved Planning and Environmental
Commission meeting minutes have been attaehed for reference (Attaehment A)
On Octaber 14, 2002, the Town of Vail 1 lanning and Environmental Commission held a
second uvorfcsession meeting to discuss the average maximurrr height calculation issue
fior determining buclding height in the Lionshead Mixed Use I and Lionshead Mixed Use II ~
zone districts. Follawing a lengthy discussian of the issue and consideratian of a I
praposed methodology, the Commission directed staff to prepare draft Iegislation for e
determining building height for future consideration. Specifically, given seueral inherent
conflicts with the methodology proposed and the intent of the regulation, the
Commission asked the staff to look into the feasibility of utifizing a building height
cafculation similar to that used for calculating height in Vail Village (Cammercial Core I
zone cfistrFCt). This alternate rneans of calcu9ating building height uses a percentage
basis or ratio for af3awable maximum building neight. A complete copy of the October 14,
2002, approved Planning and Environmental Commission meeting minutes have been
attached far reference (Attachment B).
On November 25, 2002, the Town of Vail Planning and Environrnen#al Commission held
a third meeting on this request. In response to matters expressed during the public
eomment portion of the meeting, the Commission heeded the input provided and granted
the requestsd tabiing of a final recornmendatian until ,January 13, 2003.
~
2
IV. APPLIGABL.E RLANNING DOCUMENTS
~ A. Tawn of Vail Zaning Reguiations
Staff has reviewed the Town af Vail Zoning Regulatiflns and believes ths following
sectiQns are relevant to #he review af this request:
Sectian 12-2-2. Definitions
GRADE, EXJSTINC: The existing grade shall be the existirrg or natural
topography caf a site prror to canstructron.
GPADE, FINISNED: The finished grade shall be the grade proposeci upon
cnm,oletion of a project.
HEIGHT• The distance rneasured vertically from any point on a praposed or
exr'sting roof or eaves ta fihe existing ar ifnished grade (whichever is mare
restrictiue) locafed a'frectly below said point of the roof or eaves. Wrthin any
building faotprint, height sha116e measured rrertically from arry poirrt an a
proposed or exisfing roef ta the existrng grade direcfly below said pQint on a
praposed or exrsting roQf.
Sectian 12-3-3 A eaPs
A. Admrnrstrative Actrons: Any decision, deterrraination or inferpretatr`ort by
~ any Town adminisfrative affrcial with respect to the provrsions of this Title
arrd the standards and procedures hereinafter set forth shall become final
at fhe next Planning arrd Enviranmenfal Commission meetirrg (or in the
case of design related decrsion, the next Design Review Board meeting)
tollovving the Administrator"s decisran, unless the decPSion is called up and
modifred by the Board or Comir7rssion.
B. Ap,peal of Adminisrratlve Actlans:
1. Aufhority: The Planning and Environmental Commission sha1J have the
authorrty to hear and decicle appeals from arry decision, determrnation or
interpretation by any Town adrrrinistrative officr'al with respect to the ~
provisians of fhis Titfe and the standards and procedures hereinaffer set forth, except that appeals of any decision, determinatron or lnterpretation
by any 7own adminisfrative official wvith regard fo a desrgn guideline shall
be heard 6y fhe Desrgrr Review Boara'.
2. Initiafion.• An appeal may be initrated by an appErcant, adjacent property
awner, or arry aggrieved ar adversely affected person from any order,
decrsion, determinatian or interpreiation by any administrative Official wrth
respect fo fhis Title. 'Aaarieved or adversely affected person" means any
persvn who wilf sutfer an adverse effect to an interest protected or
furthered 6y this Trtle. The alleged adverse inferest may be shared in
common with other members of the cornmunity af large, but shall exceed
~ in degree the general rnteresf rn community gopci shared by all persons.
The Adrninistrafor shall determrne the standing of an appeflant. !f the
appe!lant objecis fo fhe Admrnrstrator's deferrniraation of standing, the
3
Planning and Envr`ronmenta! Cammission (or the flesign Review Board in ~
the case of design guidelines) shalf, at a meeting prior to hearing
evrdence aR the appeal, make a determination as fa the standirrg of the
appellant. !f the Planning arrd Envlrorarraenta! Camrrrission (or the Design
Review Board in the case af design guidelrnes) determines that the
appellant dQes nat have standing to bring an appeal, the appeal shall not
be heard and the original action or deferminatron stands.
3. Procedures: A written nnfice of appeal musr be filed with the
Admrnisfrator ar wifh the department renderrng the decisian,
de[erminatfon or irrterpretation wifhrn ten (10) calendar days of the
deeision beeamirrg firral. !f the Iast day for filing an appeal falls crn a
Saturday, Sunday, crr a Town-observed holiday, the last day far filirrg an
appeaC shall be extendecl to the next busirress day. The Admrnistrator's
decision shafl become final at the next Planning and Environmental
Gommission meeting (or in the case of design related decision, the next
Desrgrr Revrew Bvard meeting) fallowing the Administrator's deelslon,
unless the decrsion is called up and modrfied by the Board or
Carnmissinn. Such notice shall be accamparrred by the name and
addresses (person's mailrng and praperfy's physrcal) of the appellant,
applrcanf, praperfy awner, and adjacertt property awners (the list of
property owners within a cvndominiurn projecf shall be satrsfiea' by listing
the addresses ior the managirrg agerrt ar the board of drrecfors of the
condominium associafion) as we11 as specific and artrculate reasons for
the appeal on forms provided by the Town. The filrng of such notice of
appeal will require the administrative officiaf whose decisian is appealed, i
to forward to the Planning and Envfroramental Commission (or the Design
Review eaard in the case of design gurdefines) at the next regularly
scheduled meeting, a summary af a!I records cvncerning the subject
matter vf the appeal and to ser+d written natice to the appellant, appIfcanf,
property owrier, arrd adjacent praperty owners (notiticatrorr wrthin a
condomrnium project sha!l be satisfled by notifyrng the managing agerat ar
the board af directors of the condominium association) af least fitteen (15)
calendar days prior to the hearing. A hearrng shalf ,be scheduled to ,be
heard before the Planning and Envrronmental Comrnission (ar the Design
Reviey+v Board r`n the case c?f p'esign guideJirtes) an the appeaf wffhin thirfy
(30) calendar days of the appeal being filed. The Planning and
ErrvironmentaJ Commrssion (Qr the Desrgn Review Board rn the case af
desrgn gurdelines) may grant a cnntinuance to aNow the parties additronal
time to obfarn fnformafion The carafinuance shaJJ be allawed for a period
not to exceed an additional thirty (30) calendar days. Failure to frle such
appeal shall constirute a waiver of any righfs under this Trtle to appeaJ
arry interprefafion ar determinatron made by an adrnrnistrative vfficial.
5. Findings: 7he PJanning and Environmental Commissron (or the Design
Review Baard in the case of design gura"elrnes) shall on alf appeals make
specifrc findirrgs af fact based directly on the particular evidence
presented to it. These frrrdings of fact musf support conclusions that the
sfandards and condixions imposed by the requirements of this Title have
or have not been met. ~
4
12-71-1-11: Height and Bulk:
~ Buildrrrgs shall have a maxrmurrr average burfdrng height of seventy orte feet (71)
wrth a maxirrrurrt height of 82.5 feet, as further defrned by the Lronshead
Redevelopmerrt Master Plan. A!l develapmerrt shall comply with the desrgn
guidelrnes and standards found in the Lionshead Redevelapment Master Plarr.
Flexibrlity wrth the standard, as incorporated in the Lianshead Redevelaprnent
Master P1an, shafl be afiorded to redevelopment projects which meet the intent af
desrgn guidelines, as reviewed and appraved by the Desrgn Review Board.
B. Lionshead Redevelnpment Master Plan
Staff has reviewed the Lionshead Redevelopment Nlaster Pians and beGeves the
follawing sectians are relevant to the review of fhis request:
Sectian 2.1, Purpose of the Master Pfan (in part)
This master plarr, developed over a period of fwo year and with extensive
invQlvernent by the community, is a comprehensive guide frr property
owners praposing to undertake developmerrt dr redevelapment of fheir
praperties and the muRicipal offrcials responsible for plannrng public
imprQVe,ments. The plan ouflines the Tovvra's objecfives and goals for the
enhancement of L.ionshead and prapases recommendations, irreentives,
and requirements far redevefopment and new development of public and
private properties.
~ Section 2.8 Adoptian and Amendment of the Master Plan,
The Lfonshead Master Plan was adopted by Resdlufldn 14, Serfes of
1998, on December 15, 1998, by the Vai! Towrr Councr'l foflowing a
recommendatioR to approve by the Planning and Environmerrtal
Co,mmissian. Future amendments to this master pJan must be approved
by resolutlcan or moffon by the Vai! Touvn Councrl followrng a formal
recammendation by the PJannrng and Enviror+rnen[al Commission.
Implemenfation acfivities and ardlnances w11l be approved in accordance
with the Vail Town Gode.
Ghapter 8, Architectural Qesign Guidelines (in part)
The scope of the Design GuideJines includes alf crrteria relafed to the
architectural design of new and remadeJ projecfs within Lionshead, along
wifh site planning criteria which refate directly ta architeeture..
5ection 8.4.2.3, Building Height (in parf)
Maximum Neights
Maxr.mum height is defined as the distarace from existing or finished grade
- whichever is mare restrictive - to the rrdge of the nearest primary roof
farm to that grade. With fhis in mind, the Average Maximurn Heighf of
~ any burlding shall nat exceed 71 ft. Notwithstanding the notion of
Average Maximum Height, the Absalute Maximum Neighf of any building
shall not exceed 82.5 ff, Absolufe Maximurr! Height shall be determined
5
by inferpolating existing or finrshed grade fhrough the burlding foofprint ~
and rraeasuring the !verticaf disfance frorra the ridge of the highesf primary
roaf form to irnagrnary plane created 6y the r'rrfer,polafed grades.
Calculation of Average N1axlrnum Height
The interrt of impfementing an Average Maximum Height far buildirrgs is
to create movemenf and variety r`n the ridgelines and roof forms in
Lionshead. Taward that end, the Average Maxrmum Height of a building
slaall be calculated based uporr the linear foatage of ridgeline on primary
raof forms. Any amc+unt of prrmary raof form ridgeline thaf exceeds 71 ft.
must be ptfse[ by at Jeasf an equal amount of primary roof form rrdgeline
falling below 71 ft., with the distance below 71 ft. equrvalent to ar greater
than the distance exceedfng 71 ft. The average ealculation sha11 be
based on fhe aggregate linear fovtage of primary roof forms across an
entlrs structure, not separate rndiuidual roof forms.
Addlticanal Requiremenfs/Exceptrons
A!1 buildrngs, regardless of perrnitted building herghts and massing
principles; sha!l conform to a1l established Public View Corridors (see
Lianshead Master Pfan). Specia! "Yandmark" burJding elements, such as
chimrreys, towers, or other unique archr'tectural forms, may exceed the
Absolute Maximum Helght, subfect to approval by the revrewing board.
This provrsion 1s intended to prQVr'de for archrtectural creativity and quality
of building farm, and shall rrof be used as a means ar crrcumverrting the
intent of the buildfng helght limitatrons. !n addition, regardless of final
6uilding he+ght, buildings shalf avoid manatonaus, urrbrQken ridge lrnes, ~
and shall provide visual interest through the use varied peak herghts, roof
forms, gables, and other appropriate archifectural techniques.
V. PROPOSED LIONSHEAQ REDEVELOPMENT MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT
The existing regulations for the calculation of maximum allowable building height and
average maxirnum hsight in the Lionshead Mixed Use I and 19 zone ciistricts are
confusing ancC unclear. The prescribed rnethods of calculation do nat result in the
intended consequences of the regulatian and cofltains nurnerous loophales and
ambiguities. Over the course of the reWiew and consideration of the building height
calculation, staff has concluded that much of the canfusion and arntaiguity stems from
the notiorr of an average maxirnum building height.
Staff believes, and the Commission has affirmed, that the notian or intent of the average
maxirnum building heEght limitation is to promote and create "movement and variety in
the ridgelines and r4of forms r'n Lionshead, thus avordrng lang continuaus, uninterrupted
ridgelrnes." Over the course of the review of this arrriendment, staff has proposad
severai alternaie means of bui1ding height calculation. Et was determined that each
method, hawever, resulted in unintended consequences or did not further the expressecE
intent of the reguiatian. Furthermore, staff prepared an alternate bui6ding height
calculation rnethodology similar to that used for calculating the height of buildings in the
Commercial Core i zone cfistrict (Vail Village) as requested by the Cornmission. Upon
testing the methodology and exploring numerous scenarias, staff determined tha# such a ~
methQd, like the others, wauld nof ineet the intent of the building height regulation for
6
Lionshead ar resulted in unintended consequences. 7herefore, sfaff is proposing the
~ following changes to the building heigh# calculation:
1) Implement a method af height calculation far the Lianshead Mixed Use zone
districts that utilizes existing, finished and interpolated grades as the basis for
determining building height.
2) Utilize the identifcatian of "primary" roof ridge lines and "assumed" primary roof
ridge lines that result in the creation of a series of cantinuous lines that are used
in a mathematical formula esta#alishecf ta determine the absolute maximum+
building height and auerage maximum he'[ght of a buRlding
3) Create new definitions and graphic illustrations to aid in the understanding of the
building height calculation.
Staff is proposing the following amendment to Section 8,4.2.3 (Building Height) of the
Lionsheaci Redevelopment Master Plan:
Absolufe Maximum Heights
Absolute MaximUm Height is deflrred as the vertlcal distance from exrsting, finished or
interpalated grade - uvhichever is more restrrctive - to the rldge of fhe nearest primary
roof forrn to that grade. Wifh fhis irr mrrrd, the Average Nlaximum Height of any butlding
shall nor exceed 71 ft. IVotwirhstandr'ng the notrvn of Average Maximum Neight, the
Absvlute Maximum Height ot any burlding shall not exceed 82.5 ft. Wifhin any building
foofprint, heighf shall be measured vertically from fhe ridgelrne of the prrmary roof form
an a propvsed Qr exlsting raof fo fhe lnterpolated or exrstirag grade directly below said
point on a pro,posed or exisfing roof fo #he imagrnary plane created by the rnterpolated
~ grades (see figure
Calculation af Average Maximum Height
The ir,tent of implernenting an Average Maximum Height for ,buildings r`s to create
mavement and varrety in the ridgelines and roof forrns 1n Lionshead. Taward [haf errd,
the Average Maxrmum Height of a buildrng shall be calculated based upon the linear
footage of rrdgeline along prrmary raaf forms. Any amaunt af prr`mary roof form rio'geline
that exceeds 71 fr. must be offset by at least an equal arnaurrt af primary roof form
ridge!!ne taflfng below 71 tt., wifh the clistance befow 71 ft. equivalent to or greater than
the distance exceedirrg 71 ft. 7he average calculation sfrafl be 6ased on ihe aggregate
linear foatage of primary roof forms across an entrre sfructure, nvt separafe individual
roof forms (see figure
Average Maximum Height CalcufatiQn
Average
Maxrmum
Height = (Primary Ridge Lengfn (A) X Average Height of Ridge (A)] +[Prrmary
Rrdge Lerrgth (B) X Average Height af Ridge (B)] +jPrimary Ridge Length
(C) X Average Height of Ridge (C)J +f. ,.J
- -
(Primary Ridge Length (A) + Primary Rrdge Length ('B) + Prrmary Rrdge
Length (C) +
~
~ Additrorra! RequrrementsJExce,ptiorrs
Afl bulldings, regardfess of permitted burldr'ng helghts and massing prineiples, shall
conform to a!f establrshed Public View Corridors (see Lionshead Master Plan). Special
7
"7andrnark" building elements, such as chimneys, towers, or other unrque archrtectural
farms, may exceed the Absolute Maximum h'eight, subject to appraval by the reviewing ~
6oard. This provrsion is intended to provr`de for archrtecturaf creativify ana' qualrty of
building form, and shali not be used as a means or eircumventing the intent of the
building heighi Pimitarions. !n addition, regardless of fcnaf building height, burldr`ngs shal1
avoid rraonotdnous, unbroken ridge lrrres, and shall provide visuaJ interest througfr the
crse varied peak herghts, raof forms, gables, and ather appropriafe architectural
technrques
To aid in the understanding of the proposed height regulatians, the Community
Development Department believes that several new definitions shourd be added to the
Town of Vail Zoning Regulatians. The following definitions shall be added ta SectiQn 1 2-
2-2 of the Vail Town Code, Definitions, are provided to clarify the building height
calculatian methcadology:
Prirnary Roof Ridgeline, pssurned
The estabfished centerline portian of a flat or mansard roaf and/ar the sloping ends of a
gambrel or h9p roof used in the determination af building height in the Lionshead A/lixed
• Use 1 and 2 zone districts and as determined by the administratar. See figure
Prirnary Roof Ridgeline
Generaily the highest or most dominarrt roof ridgeline atop a building rrmass or sertes o#
building masses used in the determination of building height in the Lionshead Mixed Use
1 and 2 zone districts. The ridgeline of a primary roof.
Frimary Roafs ~
Roofs which eover rr-aore 4han 500 square feet of building area. Primary roo#s shall not
include required secondar}r roof forms, darmers, archifectural projections, covered
entryways, shop front colonnades, awnings, louvers, parte cocheres, covered decks,
and other similar roof farms. This definition is used in the determinatiqn of building
height in the Lionshead Maxed Used 1 and 2 zane districts. See fagure
Darmer .
An architectural structure projecting out fram a slopcng roaf of a building designed to
pravide Iight, air, access, or interior volume to a space and usually containing a vertical
window or ventilating Iouver, having a gable or shed roof, in which the total cumulative
length of the dormer(s) does not exceed fifty percent (50°fb) of the lertgth of the slaping
roof, per roof plane, from which the darrner(s) projects.
Grade, Enterpolated
The reaestablished topographie conditians of a cievelapment site expressed in two-foot
contour interwals and deterrnined by conn@cting surveyed spot elevations lacated at 1 D-
foot intervals araund the perimeter of a praperty boundary and used in the determinatian
of maximum alrowable building height.
VI. STAFF REC4MMENDATION
The Community meveCopment Department recammends tha# the Town nf Vail P1araning
and Enuironmental Commissian forwards a rECOmmendation of approval o# the proposed ~
amendment to ihe Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan and Section 12-2-2
Definitions of the Vail Town Code to the l/aia town Councif. Shauld the Cammission
8
choase to recommend approval af the proposed amendments, staffi suggests that the
~ fallawing finding be made as part of the motion:
"The Town of V'ail Planning and Environmental Commrssion frnds that the exrsting
language regardrng buifding heighf calculatiorr and average maximum height, as outlined
in the Lianshead Redevelapmenf Nlaster Plan, is 6ath confusing and ambr`guoUS and
a'oes not meet the intent of fhe height regulations as prescrrbed. Therefrare, the
Commission has reviewed fhree alferrratives fo the height calculation methodology and
believes that the praposed buildrng height rnethod of calculatian in the Lionshead Mixed
Use 1 and 2 zane districts, results in a building height regulation that 1s mare easily
understood and effectively creates a 71 foat maximum average building height in the
best case scenario. "
' VIL ATTACHMENTS
A. Sep#ember 9, 2042 Planning and Environmental Cflmmission Minutes
B. October 14, 2002 Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes
C. Figure 1
D. Figure 2
~
. 9
I
{
I
i
!
~
~
9
Approved 9123l02
FLANNlNG AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSIC3N
PUBLiC MEETING MINUTES ~ PUBLIC VIIELCOME
Monday, September 9, 2002
PROJECT pR1ENTATION 1- NO LUNCH Community Development Dept, 1:30 pm
MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT
John Schofieid Gary Hartman
Eriekson Shirley George Lamb
Chas Bernhardt
Doug Cahill ,
Rollie Kjesbo
r*J1
NC}7E: If the PEC hearing extends until 6:40 p.m., the boarc6 may break for dinner from 6:00 - 6:30
Public Hearin_q - Tawn Council Chambers 2:00 pm
1. A request for an irrterpretation af the rnaximurn height and calculation of average maximum
height requirernents in the Lionshead Rsdeveloprnent Master Pfan.
Appkicant: Town of Vail Cornmunity Dsvelopment Department ~
Planraer: George Ruther
George ftuther gave a presentationr per the staff repQrt and stated that staff is looking for clarification
and nat an amendment to the adopted master plan regarding the caicuEatian of average maximum
height.
Ericksan Shirley stated that Et would be helpful far him if staff cou[d break dawn the request in#o specific
questions #he board shouRd answer.
George Ruther stated that the overall question was, "How da yau measure average maxirnum building ~
height in the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan?" ~
Erickson Shirley asked what were the specific questiQns which would answer that overall question.
John Schofield suggested a question such as the definition af grade and heignt which were defined
already in the Code.
Doug Cahill stafed that he read the Master Plan to say as using a plane created by the more restric#ive
grade and a plum bob be moved arouncS within the foatprint of the building.
Erickson Shirley believed it was clear that height is defined in the Master Plan as be6ng the dis#ance ~
from the root ridge and existing or finished grade, which ever is rnore restrictive and secandly, "The '
auerage calculation shall be based on the aggregate linear footage of prirnary roaf forms across an
erttire structure, not separate indi+ridual roof forms." ~
41L
Tt){FN 1
i
Approved 9123142
- George Ruther stated that he believed it was not that clear. He said he could come up with several
ways to interpret the document which would ala give different results.
~ Rallie and John agreed that one of the probfems was that the drawing is 6ased on a flat site, nat on the
topography which exists in Lionshead.
John Schofiield brought up that at the time the IlJlaster Plan was being done, he believed that a survey
was done through aut the Lionshead area, ?nrhich included multiple spot elevatians. He befierred if the
informatron was still availalale it may be beneficial to help substantiate the board's determination.
George Ruther stated that he would check to see if it still existed.
Chas Bernhardt presented a mathematical equation, which took the difference in height fram fwo
points fln a roofi ridge and c6ivided by an interval to be determined_
John Schofieid suggested that grade shvuld be interpolated under the building to create a plane ta
measure frorc-i,
Doug Cahili asked if George Ruther would write that up.
Erickson Shirley asked that a drawing accompany it.
George Ruther restated the request, in order to clarify what he heard.
Chas Bemhardt clarified his variabies included in the mathematical equation. He said points along the
ridge would be measured over a determined distance step and that difiFerence would be divided by that
distance.
~ Doug Gahill asked if the staff could add that no more than 50 percent of the buifding height could be at
82.5 feet-
John Schofield stated fhat he felt the DRB would never approve seme of the buildings as proposed in
the staff report, even if they met the ietter of the Master Pian.
George Ruther stated that he didn't understand, under Ghas's propasal, how each segment was
handled aWer the length of the entire roof line. He said each segment would have an average height
and then those segments wauld be averaged together ta make sure tha4 the overall ridge height is at
an auerage of 71 feet.
The Commission agreed that height should be measured from the mast restriGtive grade either existing,
ar finished.
John Schofield stated that he felt that prfmary ridgeline needed to be defined.
Doug Cahill stated that dormers were not a primary rcaof form, but #hey shauld be measured for overall
heigh#.
George Ru#her stated that the Master Rlan ca[led out dormers as secondary or special architectural
features to be cansidered a primary roaf form.
John Schofield asked if George Ruther had enough feedback to write sornething far the nex# meeting.
~ George Ruther stated that in sorrae cases such as vn a steep site, the height of a building cauid be
higher if ineasured from the eave.
Chas Bernhardt made a motion to table fhis to September 23, 2002_
2
Rpproved 9J23142
Rollie Kjesbo secanded the motion. "
The motion passed by a vote of 5-0. ~
I
2. A request for a recorramendation ta the Vail Town Counci] of an amendment to Seetion 12-7A-7 I
(Height), Vai{ Town Code, to increase #he maximum allowable building height in the PubBic
Accommodation zone district and setting farth detaiEs in regards there#o.
Applicant: Bob Lazier, represented by Jay Petersan
Planner: George RutherNlJarren Campbell
MC3TION: Chas Bemharclt SECC}Nd: Rollie Kjesbo VOTE; 5-0
TABLED UNTIL SEPTEMBER 23,2002
3. A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for a public utility ins#aliation, located at the
East Vail Water Tank, 5004 Snowshoe Lane/Summer RecreatiQnal Area, Vail Meadows
Filing 1.
Applicant: Town af Vail Planner: Bill Gibson
MC3TION: Chas Bernhardt SECONO: RoIlie Kjesba VC7TE: 5w0
TAECLED UN71L SEPTEMBER 23, 2002
4. A request for a final review of a final plat for a majar subdivision; a request for a final review of a ;
conditional use permit to allow for a prirrate educa#ional institutian and develapment plan
approval to construct employee housing; and setting forth details in regards thereto, located at ~
the sitE known as "Mountain Belinlan unplatted piece of property, 6ocated at 160 N. Frontage
Rd.lto be platted as Middle Creek Subdivisian.
Applicant: Vail Local Housing Autharity, represented by C}dell Architects
Planner: Allison Ochs
MOTION: Chas Bernhardt SECUfi+1Q: Rollie Kjesbo VOTE: 5-0 ~
TABLED UNTIL SEPTEMBER 23, 2002
5. A request for a conditional use permit and an amendment to the apprvved deve{opment
plan, to allaw for a temporary private educatronal institutian, lacated at the Lionshead RV
Lot, 355 S. Frontage RoadfLot 1, Blocic 2, Vail Lionshead 15t Filing.
Appficant: Chifdren's Garden af Learning
Planner: Allison Ochs
VIIITHDRAWN
6. A request for a rr7inor arnendment to an approved development plan, in accordance with
Section 12-8D-6 af the Vail Town Code, to a11ow for irnprovements to the Goiden Peak Ski
Base, located at 458 Vail Valley Drive/Tract F,Vail Village 5th Filing and 498 Vail Valley
Drive/Tract B, Vail Village 7th Filing.
Applicant: Vail Resorts, inc.
P[anner: Bili Gibson ~
STAF
F APPROVEQ
Affirmed
3
Appraved 9123102
7. Appraval o# August 26, 2002 minutes
MOTiON: Doug Gahill SECdND: Rollie Kjesbo VOTE: 5-0
~ APPFtO'11'ED AS READ
8. Information Update
The applications and informataon abQU# the propcasals are available for public inspeetion during
regu{ar office hours in the project planner's vffice Iocated at the Town of Vapl Community
DeveFopment pepartment, 75 South Frontage Road. Please call 479-2138 for information.
Sign fanguage interpretation available upon request with 24 hour natification. Please call 479-
2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for in#ormation.
Community Deuelopment Department
~
!
I
,
~ 4
Approved 10128/02
PLANNING AND EN'IAIRONMEMT,FIL COMMIS510N "
PUBE.IC MEEI"ING MINUTES ~
Manday, October 14, 2002
PROJECT QRIENTATION 1- Cnmmernity Development Dept. PUBLIG WELCOME 11:00 am
MEMBERS PRESENT MEIVIBERS ABSENT
Site Visits 12:30 pm
1. Zuckerman residence - 2943 Bellflower arive
2. Ice Rink at the Vail Galf Course - 1778 Vapl Valley Qrive
3. Public Utility at the Vaii Golf Course -1778 Vail Valley Drive
4. f3utdoor Recreation zoned properties
5. Sonnenalp Hotel Addition/Swiss Chalet Redevelopment -2Q Vail Road
Driuer: George
NOTE: !f the PEC hearing extends until 6:00 p.m,, the board may break far dinner from 6;00 - 6:30
Publie Hearinq -Tnwn CQUncil Chambers 2:00 pm
1. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Gouneil of a proposed majQr amendment
to Special Developrnent District Na. 4, Cascade Village, pevelaprnent Area B, to amend the
setback requirements as Rndicated on #he approrrsd development plan, located at
Coldstream Condamin9ums, Unit # 25, 1476 Westhaven Drive /Lot 53, Glen Lyon ~
Subtiivision.
Appficant: James and Jane Kaufman, representerl by Fritzlen Pierce Architects
Planner: Allisan Ochs
Allison gave a presentation of the staff memorandum dated 10114/02
Bill Pierce represented the applicant, Jim Kaufman and was avai6able to answer any
questions #he Comrr?ission may have of the application. He stated his concerns with the
amendment pracedurE and asked that this appiieation be reviewed as a minor amendmenf.
John Schofield asked #or public comment. There was none and the public comment was
closed.
Gary Hartman expressed his cancern v+rith the application as submitted and felt that this
request was difficult to support.
Doug Cahill asked Allison to cite section 12-9A-2 for the Commission. {AAinor Amendment}
Chas 8ernhardt stated that setbacks are designed, in part, to protecf adjacent praperties.
He felt that the application was supportable, as there would be na negative impacts to the
adjacent properties.
' Rollie Kjesba questions fhe procedural requirements of a mirror amendment vs. a major ~
arnendment. He stated that E~e was in support mf the application as submitted.
George Lamb concurred with both Rallie and Chas and felt that the prcrposal was in
compliance with the review criferia.
1
Approved 10J28102
John Sehofield fel# thaf there was no reason ta support the applica#ian. He stated that as an
SDQ that the application had #o be reviewed based upon the SDD review criteria. We asked
~ the Commissioners for any addifional coi-riments.
Doug Cahila asked far further clarifcatian pf the amendment prcrcedural.
Chas Bernhardt made a motion to recommendation approval af #he applicant's request as
submitted.
George Lamb seconded the rnotivn.
Chas Bernhardt arnended the motion, find'tng that fhe application was a minor arnendrnent
pursuant to Sectian 12-9A-2 of the VaFI Town Code.
George Lamb seconded the motian.
The vate passed by 6-1, with EricksQn Shirley appased.
Chas Bernhardt rnoved to approve the setback amendment request as submitted and in
accardance to the findings outlined in the staff memorandum,
George Lamb seconded the motion.
The wote passed by a vate af 4-3, with Gary Hartman, Erickson Shirley and John Schofield
oppased.
~ 2. A request #or a final review of a variance from Section 12-6Q-6 (Setbacks), Vail Town Gocie,
to allow for an atldition within the required se#back, loca#ed at 2943 Bellflower Drive/ Lot 4,
Block 6, VaiE Intermauntairr.
Applicant: Alan Budd Zucicerman Planner: Warren Campbell
Warren Carnpbefi made a preaentation tfl the Cornmission, pursuant to the staif
memarandum.
Bud Zuckerman intraduced himself and stated that he was availabie to answer any
questions.
Rollie Kjesbo was in agreement with the staff memorandum. He added that it had already
the numeraus examples found in the rnemorandum provicied evidence that this would no# be
' a granting of special privilege.
George Lamb concurred_
Gary Hartman had no comment.
Doug Cahiil had no comment
Chas Bernhardt had no comment
~ John Schofield added that over the course of numerous variance requesfs along Bellflawer
Drive it had been determined that there was a hardship as the homes were built under
unincorporated Eagie Gounty requirements prior to annexatian into the Tawn.
2
Appraued 10128102
RofEie KJesba moued to approve the applicat9on as submitted, wi#h the fndings and
conditions iisted in the staff memorandum
George Lamb seconded the motian ~
The motion passed by a vote of 7-0. i
I
3. A request for a warksession to discuss a proposed majar exterior afteration; a conditional
use permit ta allow for a fractional fee club in the Public Accommodation zone district; a text
amendment to Sec#ion 12-7A-3 (Conditional Uses) to allow for retail uses in excess of 10°fo
of the total gross residential floor area of the structure as a conditional use; and a variance
from Sec#ion 12-7A-10 (Landscaping & Sife Development)„ Vail Town Code, to allow foT a
deviation from the total landscape area requirement, located at 20 Vail Road, 62 E. Meadow
Drive, and 82 E. Meadow DrivelLots K& L, Black 5E, Vai! Village 1$j Filing.
Applicant: Sortnenalp Properties, Inc., represented by BraUn Associates, Inc.
Planner: George RutherlWarren Campbell
John Schofield stated that the discussion today wauld focus on fhe addi#ian to the
' Sannenalp Hotel only with additional issues being discussed at a later rneeting.
George Ruther presented an o+rervEew of the staff mernarandum.
Dominic Mauriello presented an ovenriew of the prcaject. He stated that they wanted to
focus the ciiscussion an the hotel addition at the Sonnenafp. He highligh#ed the changes
that have been rnade from the Iast presentation, speci€ically poin#ing aut where the setbacks
have been increased.
Bill Amass, president of Tafisman Homeowners Association, sfated that they haue had ~
concerns about setbacks from their property. He stated that it appears that it wen# higher
than 48 ft. and closer than the drawings they originalfy approved.
John Schofield stated that this application is contingent upon the Talisman's approval as the
application will come in on behalfi af both the Sonnenalp and the Talisman.
Mike Faster, architect with Resort Design Associates, stated that the building has actually
rec6uced in height, except for the arehitectural projection. With regards to setbacks, he
stated that a portion af the building did get closer to the 7alisman property, but that the spa
area has actually moued further from the Tafisman.
John Schofield closed the public comment portion af the hearing.
Gary Hartman statecf that the massing of the building feels better than last time and said his
concems are based on the SunlShade impau# and how the pedestrian walkv,raylarcade will
work anci wondered if the arcade cauld be broken up a tiftle more. He said he would like to
see some site sections acrcass Meadow Dr. ta understand how the pedestrian experience
feels.
Doug Cahill agreed with Gary and also requested profiles of haw the building steps. He
thought that beyand the first level, the building would step back dramaticalfy and the
sunfshade irnpact would be reduced. He further stated that the east/west alignment made
sun/shade extremeiy important. ~
Ericksort Shirley agreed with the concerns with the sunlshade, the mass, and the pedestrian
experience. He voiGed his cvncern that in Beaver Ceeek, the peciestrian areas are always Fn
the shade, which malces for a very evld environment and the pedestrian experience is
impacted. He aIso had concems about views and that decks along the street are popuAar,
3
Appraved 10128i02
- and it woulc4 be beneficial to maintain these and stated that Ft's a benefit to all not to make
#he stree# toa cold.
~ Rollie Kjesba was pleasantly surprised to see #he changes and asked if they had any
cnntact with the Vail Village Inn Phase V,
Dominic Mauriello talked abvu# the open houses they have had and the limited response
frorn the Vail Village Inn.
GEOrge Lamb reiterated his fellow Cammissioners' comments. He encouraged the
app{icant to continue working with the Pfanning and EnVironmental Cornmission.
John Schofield requested that the applicant pravide the exact setbacks on the plans and in
future presentations. He stated that they will need additioRal information regarding the 10°!0
retail requirement ar+d stated that there is a corninon advantage for both #he Sonnenalp and
the Talisman #o get tQgether and make it work, He requested information about the garage
and being impacted by the sewer line.
Mike Foster clarified the issues with the sewer line and said refocating it only picked up ~
about 5 spaces, which wasn't economically feasible.
John Schofield stated that they would only see this project again once the Urban Design
Consultant was an board, and ance the issues with the Talisman have been resolved,
George Ruther stated that there is no future hearing scheduled at this #ome.
4. A, request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council, to allouv for a text amendment to
~ Section 12-88-3 (Conditiortal Uses), Vail Town Cade, to allow for "seasonal use or
structure„ as a conditional use in the ()utdoor Recreatian zone district; text amendrrien#s to
Section 12-2-2 (Definitions), Vail' Town Code, to amend the defini#ions of 46seasQna! use ar
structure," "recreatian structure," and "recreational arnenity," and setting forth details in
regards thereta; and a request for a conditional use perrnit, to allow for a"seasanal use or
structure," in the C7utdoor Reereatian zone dis#rict, located at 1778 Vail Valley Drive/an
unplatted tract of land wi#hin Section 9, Tawnship 5 South, Range 80 West of the Sixth
Prirne Meridian generaily 6ocated directly north af Lat 3, Sunburst 3rd Filing within the Vail
Golf Course, A eomp6ete metes and bounds de5cription is available at the Department ofi
Gommunity Qevelopment.
Applicant: Vail Junior Hockey Association and the Vail Recreation Distn+ct
Planner: Bif1 Gibson
Bill Gibson gave a presentatian per the staff repart.
Rick Pylrnan represented the Vail lHockey Association anci VRD. He talked about how the
facility has been in use the past #vuo winters and sa there was raot a whole lot to add in
regards to #he visian of the project. He stated that the increase in hockey and figure skating
participation is the reaaon another ice rink is needed. He said Qabson is under increased
pressure far use by non-ice events, He said he is requesting an extensian to the previous
approval and again noted tne need for the faciliiy.
Rick Rvgers stated he was a fulR time resident af Vail with a daughter who plays on a team
and so he supports the bubble and said it is a win-win situation for everybody. He said it
~ was nice to have two sheets of ice during #ournament play. He said the locatian on
recreatianal land is great, since golf is during a difFerent season of use and the parking lot
exists currently, which is great.
4
I
Approved 10126I02
Heather Cunningharra spoke as captain of a womerr's hockey team saying that her team cannot get ice time at Dobson, as established teams occupy all the time.
Jeff Burell representing the Vail Golf Gaurse Townhomes owners near the praposed site, ~
said he would like ta see a time frame placed on the conditQOnal use permit and se# hours
fQr usage by the public, as the public use gat bumped quite often for hockey.
Mike Spriggs, also with Phase lll of the Vail Golf Gaurse Tawnhomes, added #o Jeff Burell's
comments. He thinks the additiean of this use as a canditional use in all Outdc+car recreation
districts should be more specifc in what can be down. He said the tinne frame af the use
needs to be limited in when it can be put up and that it must be down by a particular date
and he said there needs to be a change to the addition of the conditionaf use in Outdoor
recreation Dis#rict.
aebbie Webster, the founder of the Vail sicating dub and a supparter of skating, lives on
Sunburst and has one of the bes# views of the bubble from her hame. 5he said she does
not understand how the bubble could be visUally mitigated. She wants to have a time limit
pfaeed an the bubble_ She said she thinks that groups wanting or needing more ice time
need to get #ogether and develap a plan far a permanent Ivcation. She said the noise af
construction and destruction is worse than all her previous cancerns afi years past.
Gretchen Busey lives on Sunburst Drive and represents 17 ather homeowners. She said
they all rely on zoning to pratect property values. She braught up covenants on the propsrty
and verbiage regarding outdoor recreation and acided that snow remmval occurs late at night
and is very noisy. She does not believe the proposed site is appropriate and she also
brought up that many homeowners did not receiue notice. She asked why the prvposal is
being made and what it includes.
Laurie from the Vail Hockey Assaciation, would like to see the Board approWe the proposal ~
as is with regards to it coming back euery two years.
Willvw Murphy is a business owner in the area and plays on a hockey team with several
members wha are full time Vail residents and supports the ring and the need for ice which is
definite eWery year.
Mr. Brunnel representing Vail Golf Course Townhomes and stated that in general they are in
support of this, but not in perpetuity. He said they share in #he spiri# of publiG coaperation.
Piet Peters with the Vai! Recreation District said that it has been CounciPs goal to bring
recreation back to Vail from down valley and it is great ta have support from the townhomes,
Tam Suffield wanted ta piggy baek on Piet Peters comments and added that the Town
made a big camrnitment in purchasing the bubble.
Ross Davis Jr. stated #hat concrete and utifity hookups exist in the current Iacation and there
is no way the bubble lacation will be moving due to the high expsnse of the infrastructure
alreaciy in place.
Ericksorp Shiriey asked Bill Gibson about items which were stricken in a definetion included
in the staff report.
Bill Gibson stated that all proposals wauld s#il6 came befare the PEC for approuaf and ~
conformance with existing planning dacuments. He aisa added that all Dutdoor Recreatian
zoned properties are owned by the Town, so all applications must be accompanied by Tawn
authoriza#ion.
5
Apprvved 1 D/28102
Raflie Kjesbo asked Piet Peters about trash and that there neecls to be separation of
recreatianal skiers from hackey skiers. He also asked Larry Pardee about when snow
~ remaval accurs.
Piet Peters stated that tFae facility is used by srrowshcaers, cross cauntry skiers and hackey.
He said he has people on staff that clean up trash,
Larry ParcEee stated that snow remoual praposed a chailenge for him, especially with the
budget cuts made this year.
George Lamb was glad ta see the public input and feels this has been very constructive.
He saicf he was na# on the REC two years aga, but he felt this was a temporary solution and
feeEs like psaple are laoking at this as a permanent soAution. He said in the work session he
talked about placing a time Gmit on the operatian, such as five or three years. He thEnks
groups need to start looking for apermanerat focation. -
Gary Hartman sfated tha# this is an amenity the Town needs, but thinks there needs to be a
time fimit pEaced on the use. He also added that the zarnbonie strueture either become
permanent ar be removed.
Daug Cahill was concemed abou# construction noise and trash and asked Piet Peters at
what time daes he need the structure to be up.
Piet Peters stated that Qctober 15th af each year would wark.
Doug Cahi11 asked Bili Gibson about the sticking to af building standards.
~ Bil! Gibson stated that because the structure has been revieti+ved previ4usly, it does not need
a review; hawrever, bui[ding and fire will need to inspect the struc#ure for egress and safety
compliance.
Ericksan Shirley stated that he snowshaes there often anci he saw no abuse in his visits to
the si#e. He feels the conditions do a good job addressing any problems. He stated that a
time frame during this econamic climate is #augh, as there are many projects the commurrity
could benefit fram and said he suppnrts a ionger tirne frame of approval.
John Schafield stated that he visits the site almost daiiy and the anly #raffic he encountered
+rvas created by the dog show. He said he has mixed feslings regarding a time frame being
placed an this, as there has been an autdoar hockey ring there for ten #0 15 years. He said
regarding property values, he has lived in the neighbvrhvod for 15 years and he has nat
seen property valves ga down. He daes agree on placing atime frame restrictpon with
regards to usage during #he year. He then asked Larry Pardee uvhat sort of time frame is
reasonable, in regards to snow removal.
Larry Pardee stated that it is difficult tQ make a commen# regarding tirrae frame of snow
removal, as the amaunt and times of snow fall are unpredictable. HE daes understand the
need and goal of #he Cammissian.
John Schofield added that he felt that the Vail Recreation District shoufd be in charge of
scheduling the bubble with regards to times and usage.
Doug Cahill made a mfltion to forward a recommendation of appraval to the Town Council
~ for the proposed #ext amendments based upon the criteria and find'angs in the staff
rnemorandurn,
Gary Hartman seconded the mQtian.
6
Approved i 4/28/02
The motion passed by a vote of 6-0. -
Doug Cahili rno+red to approve a seasanal use structure on the golf course, with the criteria ~
and findings in the staff report and with additianal changes to conditions that a site plan be
used to deseribe the locatiQn, that snow be remoued fram the parking lot in a timeiy manner
with 75 percent of #he Iot baing awailable far weekend use, with an overall time frame of na
more than 3 years and that a memorandum of understanding be in place regarding
scheduling and that the zamboni structure become permanent, ar be removed aIvng with
the bubble each year.
Gary Hartman seconded the motion.
The motion passed by a vate of 6-0.
5. A request for reccacnmendation ta the Vai{ Town Council, to allow far a#e3ct amendment to
Section 12-8B-3 (Conditional Uses), Vail TQwn Code, to allow for "public utility and public
serviee uses" as a conditianal use in the Ou#door Recreatian zone distric# and setting forth
detai9s in regards thereto; and a canditional use permit, ta aflow for a"public Gtility and
public service use" in the Qutdaor Recreation zone clistrict, Eacated at an unplatted parcel
w'rthin the Sou#hwest Quarter af Section 3, Township 5 South, Range 80 West of the Sixth
Prirne Meridian, generaliy Iocated south of the 1-70 right-of-way, narth of Gore Creek, and
west of 2450 Frontage Road East (Vllater Treatment Plant) within the Vail Ga1f Gourse. A
complete metes and bounds description is available at the Department af Community
Develapmen#.
Applicant: Pubfic Service Company of Colorado
Planner: Bill Gibson
Biil Gibson rewiewed #he request and the staff memorandum. ~
Ai Morganfeld, from Excel Eraergy, reviewed the need #or mnre gas in the neighborhood.
Daug Cahill asked abaut whether the structure woufd be safe from car impact with its close
proximity to the Frontage Rd. AI Morganfield replied that #heir engineers did not cansider
this a high risk location. ~
!
Jahn Schafaekd asked about si#e caverage in the OR Zane District.
Bill Gibson reviewed the zoning code definitions and how pubfic utilities do not count
towa«is site coverage.
Rollie Kjesbo recammended appresval o# the text amendment, with the findings listed in the
staff memorandum,
George Larnb seconcied the motion.
The motion passed by a vate of 6-0.
Rollie Kjesbo recommended approvai of a conditional use permit with the findings and the
canditions in the staff memorandum.
George Lamla seconded the motivn. ~
The motion passed by a vate of 6-0.
7
Approved 10I28102
6. A request for a worksession ta amend CFtapter 12-15 (Gross Residentia! Floar Area), Vail
To+run Code, to discuss rnodifications andlor elimination a'f the Gross ResidentiaE F[oar Area
regulations in all zone districts and setting forth detaiks in regards #hereto.
~ Applicant: Vicki Pearsan, et,af.
Planner: Russell Forrest
,
Russ Forrest presented an overview of the staff memarandum and saici that some af the
items far diseussiorr includ+ed the impacts on eliminating GRFA as EHU's incentives and 'rf
GRFA should be amended in all zone districts.
Ericksan Shirley asked for clarifica#ion on the scope of the amendments as applied ta
differerrt types of residences, versus different zone districts.
Kyle Webb presented the applicant's prcrposal.
Erickson Shirley asked if single family residences an multiple districts can be subject to
differing controls af GRFA. He also noted concerns about equity.
Kyle Webb nated how the specifcs of the changes and specific circumstances will need to
be examined.
Larry Eskwith noted that there are other methods to contral bulk and mass. He also noted
that GRFA regulations are the most violated section af the zoning ordinance. He said the
regulativns have been modified arad they still do nat work.
Dorothy Branning noted that nurrmerous individuals have paid the application fee for GRFA
~ and people have complied to it over the years.
Kyle Webb no#ed #hat there are currently 75 signatures an a petition to eliminate GRFA.
Dave Hilb cammented an how GRFA amendrnents could simplify the revieriv process.
Greg Cummings nated the purpose statement an GRFA, as a control of bulk and mass and
stated that this is not an efFective tool. He also nated the desire for many peaple to upgrade
their hames.
John Schofiefd commented that he is a proponent of eliminating GRFA. He proposed that
with the apprapriate parameters, GRFA should be eliminated. He fel# that eliminating GRFA
cou9d simplify the process (not necessarily incfeasing the size af homes). He recommertded
that the housing authority comment on possible incentives for EHU's. He noted that any
benefits of GRFA are far outweighed by live safety issues that are currently being
compromised. He said site caverage will need the grea#est focus in terms of limiting
building bulk and mass and noted that input from the DRB will be needed as this propasal is
reviewed. He said landscape area requirements may aiso need to be adjusted. He said he
wauld prefer ta eliminate all GRFA, but thinks that first changing the three residential
districts would be appropriate. He recommended the outcome be similar in impact to
current horrae sizes and recommended a joint session with the Te?wn Cauncil,
Erickson Shirley sfated that he can't understand why we neetf GRFA, as long as safety
issues are addressed. He asked if the concern was thaf na GRFA wi91 create the building of
a box.
~ Russ Forest replied to Erickson that that was an initial concem, but design review guidelenes
prevent the building of a box.
Gary Hartman questioned if lat size arad home sizes have been compared.
8
Approved 10/28/{}2
Russ FoTrest noted the information provide in the staff mEmorandum,
Erickson Shiriey asked how homes in Edwards are controlled.
i
Russ Forrest repfied thaf floor area is restricted, but in a much sirnpler manner. ~
I
Gary Hartman noted that he feels GRFA is unfair in that some individua6s can not afford
archi#ects who can auert the regulativns, or construct false walls and roams.
John Schofield asked if the PEC was apposed ta larger homes.
Erickson Shirley replied #hat larger homes are alright if they fit the size of the lat, and pe4ple
shouldn't anly get caught up in square foatage.
Doug Cahill believes tha# GRFA has served a purpose in controliing bulk and mass, but nouv
is the appropriate time to take ano#her look at GRFA. He is concerned about impacts on
redevelopment. He also notec4 that DR,B controls need to be ccansidered and incentives for
EHU's will also need to be reviewed.
Gary Hartman is in favor of eiiminating GRFA in all zaning. He disputed some of the
"negatives'° of eliminating GRFA, as noted in the staff memorandum.
George Lamb rroted that he is in favor of eliminating GRFA.
Rollie Kjesbo nated he is in favor af elirninating GRFA samehow. He feels it will create safer
building constructed in a 9ogical manner and he noted that larger 6ots should be aIlowed to
build Earger homes. ~
John Schofield recapped that the PEC is unanimously in support of a change, and most
support the elimination of GRFA. He said theee is a need to examine site coverage, how ta
encourage EHU's, how ta regulate parking requirements, haw to strengthen DRB
requirements, we need to examine homes in located in other zane districts, how to address
Iantiscaping requirements, and suggested a work session with the Tawn Councif. He asked
staff to update the infarmation on how a#her cvmmunities deal with bulk and rnass and
explore requiring architects to serve an the DRB.
7. A request fiar a recomrnendatian ta the Vail Town Council, to allow for #ext amendments to
Title 11, Sign Regulatians, Vail Town Code, and setting forkh details in regards thereto.
Applicant: Town of Vail .
Planner: Russell Forrest
Doug Cahill rnade a motion to table this untFl actober 28, 2002.
Gary Hartman seconded the motion.
7he motion passed by a vote af 6-0.
A request for a text amendment to Sections 12-7H-11 & 12-71-11, Vail Tawn Code and the
Liorrshead Reefeveloprnent Nlaster P[an to aEiovw for a clarification to the maximum height
and cafculation flf average maximum height requirements for building construeted in the
Lianshead Mixed Use 1 and the Lionshead Mixed Use 2 zone district, and se#ting forth ~
details in regard thereto.
Applicant: Town of Vail Comr-nunity Development Department
Planner: George Ruther
9
Appraved 10f28102
George Ruther presented an ouerview of the staff rriemorancfum and requested that today's
discussion be a worksessiQn. He said that staff uvill further exarnine the prapased options in
~ greater detaiE anti present them to the PEC at a 4ater date. Ne said staff was comfortable with
the proposed measurement me#hodalagies, but weicomecf further input and that staff wilf
~ further cfefine primary raof ridges, interpolated grades, and other terrrms.
Daminic II!lauriello noted that #hey are working on several applications and understand the need to clarify the height regulatians. They liked the idea ot examining the heights of raof areas. He i
recommended examining how dormers are reviewed in the interior conversion regulations.
Erickson Shirley recommencEed fixing as much as passibie, but having afail safe to resolve
issues that can't be resolved by ihe letter of the law.
George Lamb tabled this until fVoverriber 11, 2002.
Doug Cahill seconded the motiart.
The motion passed by a vate of 6-0. !
9. A request far a work$ession to discuss a recammenda#ion ta the Vail Town Cauncil for an.
amendment #a the Town of Vail Land Use Plan and #he Vail Village Nlaster Plan, to faciEitate
the construction of "Vail's Front Door" project and associated impravements and setting
forth details in regards thereto, located on an unplatted parcel, generally lacated south of
, the Lodge Tower and west of the Vista Bahn Ski Yard. A more complete metes and bounds
' description is available at the Department of Community Development.
~ Applicant: Vaif Resorts Development Company
Rkanner: George Ruther
TABLED UNTIL C)CTQBER 28, 2002
Doug Cahitl made a motion ta tabfe this until October 28, 2002.
Gary Hartman secandad the motion.
The motion passed by a vote of 6-0.
i
10. A request for a modificatiorr to the 100-year f{oodpiain, ta alfow for grading in the floodplain
to modify the Gore Creek Whitewater Park, lacated at the Gare Creek Rramenade/7racts I
& A, Block 5B, Vail Village l5' Filing, and setting farth detaiEs in regards thereto.
Appiicant: Town af Vail, represented by Gregg Barrie ~
Planner: Sil[ Gibson '
TABLED UNTIL NUVEMBER 11, 2002
Doug Cahilf made a motion ta table #his until Narremfoer 11, 2002.
Gary Hartman secondecf the matian.
The motion passed by a vate of 6-0.
I ~
11. A request for a recommendatian to the 1lail Town Council of an amendment to Seetian 12-7A-7 ~
(Height), Vail Town Code, ta increase the maximurn allorvable building height in the Pubfic
Accammodafion zone district and settong forth details in regards thereto.
10
Approved 19128102
Applicant: Bob Lazier, represented by Jay Peterson
Planner: George RutherNVarren Campbell ~
WITMDRAWN
12. Appro+rai af September 23, 2002 minutes
13. Information Update
Daug Cahill made a motion to adjourn.
Rollie Kjesbo seconded the mation.
The motron passed by a vote of 6-0.
The appficatibns and information about the proposals are available for public inspeetion during
regular office hoUrs in the project planner"s affice located at the Town flf Vail Cnmmunity
Dewelopment Department, 75 Sauth Frantage Road. Please call 479-2138 for information
Sign language interpretation arrailable upon request with 24 hour natifcation. Please call 479-
2356, 7elephone for the Hearing Impaired, for informafiian.
Community Derrelopment Department
i
I
~
11
~ 8: 4 5 F!~ . .
. ~
. , ~ ~
~ ~ • ~ ~
' ~ .
.
. . ~ .
~ ~ • .
. 1
. •
. ~ ~ -
~''e~
. ~ .
' ` ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
. ~ P ~
~ r
. ~ ~
~ _ ` 1
.~+1°
~ ' ,E~ ,~,t ~
r
~
, + a ? ,,,t .
~ ' " • .
v9 - • .
45 ~t~ 212 A81 ;3.1
, • . . ~
. ~ .
• ~ .
. . . '
, t
~
.
. ~ ~ .
. • ~t `I TL
~ -
. ~ z
. ~S ~ .
~C. . ~
,
. ~ ~ .
~ ~yylS'-%,6
~ J
. ~ ~ •
' jj , ~ •
~4w' w
~
. • .
' . .
' ' Y~ ~ 4 .
r ~
SI ~ • ' i..t
. . 'fA ~ • _ .
~
. ~ ~ ° • .
r ~
r
. ,y
~ . ~~t~~3tt ~s7~~t4'd
212 481 a' ~ . ~
~ yj} .
~
~ ~ ~1- • .
. ~
, ~ .
, 4a ~
. 2
• a ee~, , ~ ~.y , r
'1--
1t1
+41~
w -
. ~
. , ~ .
W
. ID .
, • u1
. £
7
. ~
~
'd.
~C-7 E'r'11
. ~ '
. • • ~
c~
. f~
~
~
_ Approved 1127/(}3
. PLANNING ANI] ENVIRONMENTAL GOMMISSION
PUBLIG MEETING MINUTES
~ Monciay, January 13, 2003
PRO.JECT ORIENTATIQN 1- Community Development Dept. RLlBLIC WELCOME 1' 1:00 arrr
MEI'VIBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT
John Schofield Erickson Shirley
Chas Bernhardt
Doug CaFril!
George Lamb
Rollie Kjesba
Gary Hartman
Site Visits : 12;30 pm
1. Gorsuch residence -1193 Cabirr Circle
2_ Tivofi Lcadge - 386 Hanson Ranch Road
3. Mountain Haus - 292 E. Meadow Drive
4. Four Seasons Resort - 13 Vail Road
5. Sonnenafp Hotel - 20 Vail Road 8
6_ Haspital Parking Structure - 181 W. Meadow Drive 0
Driver. George
~
NOTE. ff the PEC hearing ex#ends un#iI 6:00 p.m., the board may break for dinner fram &OQ -&30
Public_Hearing - Tawn Council Chambers 2:00 pm
1. A request for a conditinnal use permit, pursuant to Sectian 12-6C-3, Vail Town Code, to
alfow for a Type II Ernployee Housing Unit and a request for a variance from Sectivn 12-6C- i
6(Setbacks), Vail Tawn Code, ta allow far additions in the side setbacks, laeatecf a# 1193 0
Cabin Circie/Lot 4, Block 2, Vail VaIley 8'h Filing, ~
Applicant: David & Renie Gcarsuch, represented by Resort Design Assaciates, Inc.
Planner: Bill Gibson
Bill Gibsan gave a report per the staf# rnemo.
Dave Gorsuch asked the board to consider allowing the plan to reduce the parking fram the required ;
five to four, aflowing them to presenre two trees on the site o
There was no public inpu#.
George Lamb had nathing specific and said the neighbors have had a chance to review the plans and
~ he wauld Gke to see the trees preserved if possible,
Ra[!ie Kjesbo and Gary Hartman had no atlditianal comments.
d
1
Agproved 1/27103-
Doug Cahill asked staff several questions regaeding the need for five spaces and asked if the space
could go within the setback.
Bil! Gibson referred the Board to drawing A2.0 and stated that parking could go in the setback. ~
Chas BeTnhardt had na additional cornments.
John SchofieEd referred to aprevious uariance, as he stated that this was a minar increase in bulk and
mass in the setback. He said he supported the EHU and also favared saving the trees and added that
this neighborhaod has several variances.
Doug Cahill motion to approve the Wariance with the findings on page 19.
George Lamb seconded the ra7otion.
The motion passed by a vote of 6-0.
Doug Cahipl motion ta approve the EHU, in accordance with the staff memorandum and findings on
pages 14 and 15 and with the two conditiaros on 14 0# the mema_
George Lamb seconded the rrtotion.
I
The motion passed by a vote of 6-0.
2. A request for a variance fram Secfion 12-7A-9, (Site Coverags) and a request far a prapersec! ~
minor exterior alteration, pursuant to Sec#ian 12-7A-12, Vail Town Code, to ailQw for a
residential addition, located at 292 East Meadow DrivelA part of Tract B, Vail Village First Filing.
A,pplicant: Mountain Haus Homeowner's Associetian, represented by K.H. Webb ~
Architects
Planner: Bill Gibson
Bill Gibsor, gave a report per the staff inemorandum.
I Kyke Webb gave a presentation and stated that there was currently ane porch enclosed.
Rollie Kjesba asked ef that enclasure was appraved?
Kyle Webb stated that the Rabertson's unit on the 7'h ar 8t' floor was enclosed in the early 90's. i
Gary Hartman asked if the enclosed space was #o beeame a part of the unit.
Kyle Webb s#ated that currently it is not proposed to be heated and the sliding daor would remain.
Doug Cahill asked what was the reason behind the reques# for enclosure.
Steve Hawkins, #he applicant, s#ated tha# it was a method to try and mitigate the negative impacts caf
the new canopy.
There was no public comment.
Gary Hartman sta#ed thet he felt the noise wauEd be rnitigated by the new canopy, howeuer, he was not
in favor of setting a precedent on fhe building.
DoUg Cahill asked about the number of enc6osed parches. ~
2
_ I
~
;
i
. Approved 1127103
e
Chas Bemhardt stated that a 250 addition was not a ragh# and he v+,as nat in favor of the setting of this
precedEnce.
• George Lamb wanted the applicarat #o try and incorporate the balcony into the new canopy.
Rollie Kjesbo agreed with Doug Gahill and Chas Bernhardt and feVt it was too rnuch of a precedent.
John Schafeld stated that the building was overbualt on the site, according to current zoning
requirements. He felt the hardship was self imposed and variances are not granted for self imposed
hardships. He added that currentiy obtaining the 250`s on the site would be practically diffrcult to
achieae as the site, is so over-built and that possibly a comprehensiue plan would receive a better
receptian.
Kyle Webb asked if the Board would be receptive to Gearge Lamb's camments regarding a redraw of
the canopy incorporating the deck.
Rollie Kjesba said he would laok at it, however the deck should blend in and disappear.
The recnaining members stafed they would give a comprelhensive plan a loak.
3. A request far a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 12-9C-3B, Vail Town Gode, to allow
for a touristlguest service relatec6 facility accessory to a parking structure, and a request for a
variance from Title 11, Vail Town Code, to allow for proposed signage and setting farth details
in regard thereta, laca#ed at 181 W. Meadaw QrivefLots E&F, Vail Village 2"d filing.
Applicant: Stara Andersnn
Planner: Bifl Gibson
~ Bill Gibson gave a presentation per the staff report.
7om Braun, representing the applicant, gave a presentatian and stated tFrat this was more of a public
service and not a maney maker by the hospital.
There was no public input.
George Lamb stated that, a4 first loak, the proposal is very beneficial and added tha# he was nat close
tv the operation of the parking structure Qf the hQSpital, but he was familiar with the Weststar bank next
door. Me stated #hat traffic flova can be confusing and since traffic flow rraay be a problem, maybe 50
cars is a better place to start.
Rollie Kjesbo thinks it's a great idea, but is cancerned about traffic entering the structure and the
po#ential far stacking out on the Frontage Road.
Gary Hartman asked Tom to explain how the traffic situation, as it was taugh to pBay out.
Tom Braun said there would be an attendant in the garage and if things got bad an emplayee could
stand in the street to get the cars off the Frontage Road,
Gary Hartman s#ated that he was cancerned about the traffic movementwhen ali the spaces were filled
and there were cars sti11 in line and questioned how the would they get out. ,
i
Doug Cahill stated tha# maybe the top level shouid only be used in the structure.
~ a
Chas Bemhard# would like #o see haw the turning mawements work and also questioned how fhe shifts
worked. He said he beiieved there was overlap and asked if this wou9d leave enough parking for #his
use.
John Schofie{d asked Tom if he was orr board during the hospital phasing p1an.
3
~ _ -
I
Approved 1127103 • I
~
~
Tom Braun s#a#ed that he v+ras. ~
i
~ ,lohn Schofieid continued that during the phasing that thefe were concerns regarding enough parking.
I He continued by discussing the fact that employees were no longer given free bus passes, that surgery
;
occurs on weekends, and finally that spaces #hat were not previously occupied by the hospi#al, were ~
now being used by offices. He saicl he ditfn't haWe a problern with #he cantent of the sigrr, but was j
concerned with tfie location, since traffic would be past the sign befare they cQUld read it. He stated
that he too was concerned abaut traffic mavements.
Chas Bernhardt made a motion to table the application untiN a further study is completed.
Doug CahiU seconded the motion. ,
The motian passed by a vote of 5-1, with John SchofieMd opposing it.
Rollie Kjesbv made a mation #o table the sign varianee request.
George Lamb seconded the motion. I
The motivn was unanimously approved.
4. A request for a recommendation to the Vai! Tawn Gouncil for a majar amendment to Special
Deuelopment District No. 36, pursuant to Section 12-9A-10, Vail Tawn Code, to aflow for a
mixed-use hotef; a request for a final review ot a conditianal use permit, pursuant#o Section 12- i
7A-3, Vael Town Code, to allow for Type lal Emplayee Housing Units and a fractionaB fee club; ~
and a request for a recdmmenclation to the Vail Tawn Council far a proposed rezoning of Lot
9A, Vail Village 2od Fi!'ing from Heavy Service (HS) District to Public Accomrnodation (PA) ~
Dtstrict, located at 28 S. Frontage Rd. and 13 Vail RQad/Lots 9A& 9C, Vail Village 2nd Filing.
,4pp[icant: Nicollet Island Deveiapmer+t Gompany Inc.
PIaRner: George Ruther/Allison Uchs
Allisan C)chs gave a report per the staff memorandum.
Tim Losa started his presentation by discussion traffic flow an the site; both pedestrian and vehicular
as it currentfy is. He continued by showing a proposed plan for traffic circufation and stated that
vehicular traffic would remain constan#, as a gas statian typically generates a great deal of traffic and
its elimination would balance ou# with the elements of this proposal. He cantinued by talkSng about the
public space along Meadow Qrive and whether or not retail belangs along this portion af Meadovv
Qrive. He then moved onto the flaor plans and described the flow into the bui{ding frorn #he pvr#
cvchere. He explained the uses on each fioor in #erms of hotel rooms, EHU's, and stairwells and
stated that fhe 25,000 square tavt spa is similar in size to that of the new Riiz Carlton in Bachelor
Gulch. He said currently the prograrn for the number and IocatFOn of the tiifferent types of units is
being ciecided by the operator and the fractional fee units will be reached by private elevators. He then
movEd on to the height of different elcments af the proposal and presented a diagram shawing the
previous approval and the current proposal. He stated that they would look into reducing the height.
He then showed the elevatians ana cross-sections and concluded his presentation by show`ng some
3-D studies which digitally placed the proposal in the streetscape.
Jeff Winstan began by stating his first reaction was that this was big building and referred to his
ComrnEnts, which were included in the packet. He referred to the Vail Master Plan which discusses
putting taller buildings against the Frontage Road and stepping down tawards the mountain and added ~
that this building brings a new scale which does not exist currently in Vail. He said the WI is a large
building but it is broken up into several srrzafler pieces. He feels cane item vvhich makes Vail "Vail" is the
intimate scale and feels this is a rnansard roof, because you cannot see the top of the roaf from grade_
He said the rvof needs to be addressed, as it 9s not cansistent with the rest of Vail and said he does !
4
. Approved 1127103
like the way the building steps dawn on the ends.
Jahn Schofie{d asked the applicant to distribute the drawings around the room for uievwirag.
~ Dr. Paul Schuftz, from the SkaaC House, stated that they were an support of the pfan and raised
questions to whether or nat retail belongs along Meadaw Drive as there is currently a surplus in Tovvn.
Gwen Scalpello voiced saveral concerns on parking and circulation, as it wauld impact 9 Vail Piace,
She said the heigh# wauld affect noise from the patios.
R. G. Jacobs expressed cencerns abQUt proximity ta the two properties he manages and has concerns
abaut the #oundatian closeness to the property line.
Jae Staufer, representing Phase 4 and 5, said the proposaf is large, but ane must considered where it
is focated. He said that at two association meetings, the proposal received favorable comments. He
said it is a positive o ge# rid of the gas s#ation anci get a Four Season hc,tel in Vail.
Jim Lamont, representing the Lionshead hom@awners association, sta#ed that this design os better
than the previous. He said the height could be an issue discussed at future meetings. He discussed
the PA Zaning and the benefits of an SDD and suggesfed there may be an opportunity to mave the ~
building more to the center of the site. Fie brought up the perennial Vail Land Use Plan of 1986, that ,
staff brings up as a"red herring." He said he does not feel thaf street #rant retail belongs aEong ;
Meadaw Drive in thes stretch. He said access is critical, in terms di the pedestrian and vehicular. He '
said he is curious how trucks uvill iurn int4 the sate. He said future prajects in the works down Vail Road
will potentially increase traffic along it, therefore creating mare canflict between wehicles and
pedestrians. He said the largest change is that theTe should be a stunning draw along Meadaw Drive
and the Frontage Road alang the raundabaut. e
~
Tim Lasa and John Koehfer rehashed the public comments and Jeff Winstons comment's_ fihey stated
• ~
that 9 Vaii Road would still have their access as it exists tdday and they will look at breaking down the
mass and providing better pedestrian access from Meadow Drive.
Gary Hartman recused himself.
aaug Cahill said it loaks like a grea# project. He is focused on massing, stepping down, and traffic
circulatian, and said height is na# a problem, as it is in the right places. He said he would IEke to see
better pedestrian access on Meadaw Drive and doesn'# see a need for the retail aspect orr the Meadow
Drive fr4ntage. He said he would like to see the fagade along the Frontage Road broken up and
moved around #o better match the character af Vail.
Chas Bernhard# thinks this is a grand hotel and asked if Jeff WinstQn's camments could be
incorporated, with regards ta breaicing the form up. He agrees that retail does no# belong an Meadow
Drive.
George Lamb agreecE with the previous camments, especially massing and pedestrian connectiQn_ He
suggested sorne public art.
Rollie Kjesbo mentioned the fong linear raofs a6ong the Frontage raad. He suggesteci to possibly
tweak the peak which encroaches on the Alphorn avuay fram #he building. He then asked how the
trucks are going to access the site_
John Schofield thinks the remaval of the gas station is great and it makes sense ta incor,pora#e it into
~ the site, but that aecess for pedestrians on Meadow Drive is mandatory and would like to see the bus
stop incorparated alang Meadow Drive. He said the Frontage Road traffic is of concern and that Public
1Norks wiil need to examine it and he added that maybe truck traffie should go down to the VIlest Vail
exit and come east on the Frantage Road. He said the Meadow Drive streetscape project needs to be
incorporated inta the clesign and there was a need for an employee storage facility. He said height
5
~
Approved 1l27103 . j
i
I
should be tnreaked fa address the guaranteed right of 48 feet and adjacent rreighbors. He sugges#ed !
maybe going higher in the middle and lpwer an the ends to mitigate the height effects. He said the
rnore employee housing the better. He said if the underground encroaches, then take i# to the property
line and make it woric. He said hs does not see a need for retail on Meadow DriWe and he personally ~ i
thinks a grand buifding would make a grand statement at the entrance vf a grand ski resort. ,
i
The Baard, as a whole, in generaE supported going up a flaar in #he middle and bringing if dawn an the ,
ends,
Chas Bernhardt made a motion to table this until Mareh 10, 2403.
Rollie Kjesbo seconded the rnatian.
The motion passed by a uote of 6-0.
5_ fi request for a fiinal review vf a proposed major ejcterior alteration, pursuant to Section 12-7A-
12, Vaii Tcawn Code, to ailow for a hotel redevelopment and addition; a request for a final review
of a conditional use permi#, pursuant to Section 12-7A-3, Vail Town Code, to aCiow for a
fractional fee club; a recammendatian to the Vail Town Councii of a text amendment Section
12-7A-3 (Condi#ianal Uses), Vail Town Code, to allow for retail uses in a lodge in excess crf 10%
of the total gross residential floor ar€a of the structure as a conditional use; a request for a fanal
review of a wariance from 5ection 12-7A-10 {Landscaping & Site Devefapment}, VaiP Towra
Gode, to allow for a devia#ion frvm the tvtal landscape area eequirement, located at 20 Vaii
Road, 62 E. Meadow Qrive, and 82 E. Meadow QriveJLots K & L, B1ock 5E, Vail Vilfage 1't
Filing.
~
Applicant: Sonnena1p Praperties, inc., represented by Braun Associates, Inc.
Planner: George Ruther/Warren Garnpbell ~
George Ruther gaue a presenta#ion per the staff report.
Tar-r+ Braun and Mike Foster gave a presentation. We stated that George Ruther gave a good synopsis ~
of the proposal and then summarized the changes to the projecf since the last meeting. i
Jeff Winstan presented his mernorandum regarding the propasal and stated ihat the building is a nice
looking building. He stated that it is too bad that we can'# dQ something to link the 3 buildings. He saitf
the key to VaiE's success is the pedestrian experience of Vail and it's rrot a city of monuments; it's a city
of cantirauous experience. The question of what is #he rule with sunlshade is answered by the fact that
it shall no# substantiaEly increase. He said the current experience, even with the parking lots, is a very
pleasant experience with the berms, landscaprng, sun, etc. Jeff states that this praposal wila
substantially increase the shading an the street and on the pedestrian experience. ln addition to
shading, the proposal does nat create the same sense af ins and outs at the 1JVl. The buildings at the
WI are turnerf on a 45 degree angle, which is very successful to adding variety and interes# to the
streetscape. He stated that there may be some areas where the building could get shorker to add to
varie#y and this would add vitality to the Village, creating sun pockets_ He said there was m4re
movement in the fagade of the building by moving it further from the street, so that it doesn't entirely
shade the street. He said stepping the upper building back fram the arcade, popping indentatians into ~
the fagade, and varying the stepbacks are the majc+r issues identified. Jeff stated that the proposal i
tlaes meet the street width recommendatians of #he master plans.
Marilyn Fleischer sfated she has 1ived here since 1962 and is nat oppased to growth in the Town of
VaiB, but it needs to be in asafe, econamical, and sensitive way. 5he stated #hat the proposal is nat in
keeping with the zaning, with respects to site coverage and setbacks. She said she doesn't want to
come and ga within a Talisman eave_ She requests that the Sannenaip abide by the ZO ft. setbacks, ~
and provide safe and efficient access to the TaGisman,
6
. Approved 1127l03
Fred Haynes, frarn the Talisman, stated that it was interesting to hear the comments vuith regards to
the Four Seasons. He said the T'alisman opened in 1970 and they haue owners that have been there
since it opened, so this ns not a project which has #urnover. He said they consider this a second home
~ and that this is a resit}ential property and that this shouid be taken under consideration when reviewing
the proposal. He s#ated that the gQafs #or the Sonnenalp are for profit only, however, the Talisman's
interes#s are residential interests. All he is asking the PEG, is that they take into consideration their
needs and tha# it is very irnpartant that they maintain the residential character of their building. He said
#hey spent $118,000 on 3 different consulting groups to work out an agreement with the Sonnenalp
and they laakecf at changing property lines, easements, etc. He said the Sonnenalp said that it was
too difficult ta con#inue working with the Talisman. He asked that #he PEC to consNder ihese 3 things:
1. That character is enhanced wEth a pedestrian-ariented dewelopment and if there are
cars on Nleadow Dr., it is nat successful;
2. That the height of the building should consider the sun/shade impact; and
3. That the 20 ft. setback needs to be addressed, even If it means maving property
fines.
He said the PEC must now resolWe these issuES. He hopes that they su,pporE the Tafisman as much as
they support the Sonnenalp.
Bill Amos, an owner within the Talisman, stated tha# he was the person who began warking with the
Sonnenalp, and he has realized how difficul4 it is ta get 13 peopfe to agree and that they have been
thrown into a lifeboat an the sea ofi pragress. He stated that there are overlapping issues, and that they
are all in the same boat and need to work tagether. He stated that the Talisrnan must have access to
their building and failure is not an option„ so they have to wcark together. He believes ihat there i5 a
solutiorr arrd that he is willing to sit dawn and work on a salution.
Larry Eskwith, Tepresenting the Taiisman Condn Association, stated tha# he is giving the official Board
positinn on the Sc?nnenalp praposal. He stated that there is no se#back on the interiar property [ines.
He stated that the PEC cannat grant a deviatian from the 20 ft. setback, but he sta;ted that he dmes not
believe that the Sonnenalp can meet the criteria. He stated that staff did a very goad job of identifying
~ the issues with regards ta the design and that the TaGsrnan would like ta see Meadow Qr. remain
pedestrian, however, they do not have the ability #v enforce this, as it would be through the Sonnenalp
pr4perty. He said he is worried abaut the safety aspect of pufting cars on Meadow Qr. and is aiso
concemed about #he shading on the decks of the restaurants acrass the street.
Jim Larnont, Vail Village Hameowners Association, stated #hat this business of exactions is difficult. He
would hate to see an attitude develop #hat heating #he streets is a requirement af #he developer and is
heating of the streets an essential part of making the econamic engine wark better? Yes, if it would
make business better, the ladging business would be better. He said he's an advocate for laading and
delivery, but some public functions shauld be paid for by developers, some by the public, and some by
sales tax.
Jahn 5chofield said he wonders why this has to be ajoint development of this Swiss Haus and stated
that the Sonnenalp provides the best praduct in the valley_ He said he was disappoirated tha# the two
parties can not work together, as it creates a lost opportunity and that acaoperative effort affords the
Commission more fiexibility in reviewing the appiication_
George Larnb stated that he too is mos# disappointed that the two property owners can nat uvark
together. He said the most significant issue in his mind is the sun/shade and it must be acfdressed ~
creativesy. He addressed Jeff's comments and suggested stepping back the upper floars and to explore the land trade. He said the comers and angles af the prcaperty lines negatively impact the ~
cievelopment af the sites.
Rollie Kjesbo said the property lines are a solution #o your pfob6em and he will be hard pressed to
approve a deviatian to the setback lines.
4D Gary Hartman stated tha# the sine of communication between the two parties needs to be open and if
#hey came in vvith a united frant, it wi31 malce a better project for all involved. He said in lanking at
Meadaw Dr., what is #he urban context of this projec#? He said the pedestrian experience at the Swiss
Haus is good, but #he theme neecls to cantinue at the Sonnenalp v+reng. He said regarding the street
7
Apprtaved 1127103 .
context, that the elevafions articulate the building, but mora needs to be done an the push and pull of '
the environment, breaking it dawn into smaller pieees. He said the Swiss Haus side has rnore what he
Es looking fof, but the Saranenalp side needs to do more #o pUll bacEc different elements. He asked what
is going on with the shop fronts to make people stay in the arcade? He said if it is looked at as 2 ~
separate prajects, the setbacks are a huge issue (at the Talisman) and that no one wi11 be happy wFth
the decisions if they eorne in as 2 projects. He said, with regards to sun/shade, to bring an analysis of
where the outdoor dining deeks are, and hovv they can be pro#ected.
aoug CahiEl stated that previous projects af the Sonnenalp are grea# and asked where do we stand
now an site coverage and landscape area without the Talisrrran included in the project and do you
need the Talisman far this project to work? He said the setbacks, with 2 separate prnjects, will be
lavked at and a 20 ft setback will be the minimum. Ne said there was tao much of a straight fagade an
the Sonnena6p and the encroachment into the 20 ft. setback afong Meadow Drive is oraly on fhe first
level. The other lewels will respect fhe 20 ft. setback.
Chas Bernhardt stated that they need to work together to make this project successful. He stated tha#
he didn't beiieve that the Sonnenalp is purely profit driven and that they have a lot of pride in their !
~ product. Ffe stated that the street enclosure and street width forrnulas are a good guideline, but that on ~
north-south oriented buildings, they are better, He said the sun on the decks and streets is an
important element for why people come here.
Jahn Schofield sfated that he would encourage everyone to read thraugh the 1990 minutes that are in
the memo. He stated that he would like to re-visit the stream walk discussion and feels that it is an
impvrtant aspect of this propasal. He statecE that they will have to address access far the Taf isman and
if the prcaject stays as is, setbacks will be an issue. He 5aid the setkaacks at Meadow Dri+re will be an
issue and he wants a sun shade analysis for a building se#back 20 ft, at 48 ft. in heigh#. He stated that
if no agreemen# can be made, then look at a fand swap, as it will be beneficial #o both of you. He said,
with regartfs to the flood plain, the Town has to loak at the adopted FEMA study and to pester your
serrators. He said to spend money ora mediators; raat on planners and lawyers. ~
Gary Hartman made a motion to table this until February 10, 2003.
Rollie Kjesbo seconded the ma#ion. ~
The motiarw passed by a vate of 6-0.
6. A reques# far a recommenda#ion to the Vail Town Council for the estabtishment af Special
aevelopment District No. 37, to silow for tMe redevelopment of the Tivoli Lodge, located at 386 i
Hanson Ranch RoadlLot E, Block 2, Vail Village 5t' Filing.
Appficant: Rabert & Diane Lazier
Planner; George Ruther
George Ruther presen#ed an avenriew of the staff memarandum.
.Jay Peterson, representing the applicant, presented an auerview of the praject.
Jeff Winston presented an avenriew of h9s memo, with regards to this project. FGe stated thar the roof ,
structure is very similar to the discussion with tha Four Seasons and said that you can't mix the gable '
and gambrel raof.
Diane Milligan, manager of the Ramshorn, stated that they welcome a new view, however, they have
cancerns abau# heigh# and they want the density and heigh# to be according to the guidelines nf the
Town. She said they have concems regarding the traffic impacts, especially on Vail Valley Drive. She
asked abaut the impacts of lighting.
Jim Lamont, Vail Vipage Homeowners, stateci that #hey would like to revisit the notice proWisians. He ~
said the issue of traffic an Vail Valley Drive remains an issue and tha# the Town needs to revisit what
the skier drop-off at Golden Peak.
8
• Approved 1127103
• There was no rnQCe public comment.
Gary Hartman stated that he believed that it is time to look at height. Ne believes that the height is
~ apprapriate and that the roof works reaRiy well in this situation. He stated that the south side, however,
seems to be a litfife dyslexic in what it is trying to accomplish. Vlfith regards to setkracks, he sees no
impacts an the east, west, or south side and likes the addition of #he turret elemen# orr the north side
and believes that it works weli. He asked the applicant, with regards to the laacfing area, ta please
provide informativn regarding #he aoading schedule and to please address the trash issue.
Doug Cahiii thanked Jim far his comments and likes the roof form. He said he would like ta see 48 ft
achieved adjacent ta other properties. He said the height and mass wQr3cs with good areiaitecture. He
questioned 4parking spaces, which aren't accessible. He said Jay Paterson stated that they will meet
their psrking requiremen#. He said setbacks are raot an issue on the south sicte, and the bumpou# on
the narth side really is a nice feature.
Ghas Bernhardt stated that he thinks it is a great looking building. He stated that because it is a
compact building, the gambrel roQf really works. He beiieves that 56 ft. height is acceptable here.
George Lamb stated that naw they really seem to be on the r7ght track and all fhat's 6eft is DRB.
Rollie Kjesbo stated that he believes that the 56 ft. in height uvorks.
John ScFrofeld stated that the 3 parking spaces in front should be treated as ternporary parking. He
requestect a plan of the parking on p3 and J and he had no problems with the sunlshade. He said he°s
totally fine with the height, bUt would suggest pushing the building as far as p4ssible to the south. He
said the roof concerns are generally QRB and also stated that his sofutian to trash is an ele+rator to the
planter above.
Gary Hartrnan made a motion to table this until February 24, 2003.
~ Gearge Lamb seconded the motion.
The motign passed by a vote of 6-0.
7. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of a propflsed text arnendment to
Section 12-1 0-9: Loading Standards, Vail Tawn Gode, ta amend the size requirement for
loading berths & setting forth detaiEs in regard thereto.
Applicant: Tovvn af Vail
Planner: Allisan Ochs
Aflison Ochs made a presentatian, per the staff memorandum.
Jim Lamortt spoke on behalf of a 6qaciing and delivery p9an and propasetf centralized loading and
delivery.
George Lamb said he liked the proposed amendments.
Rollie Kjesbo wanted to know if we cauld iimit the size of delivery trucks in Vail?
Greg Hall indicated that the size af trucks has increased over time,
Gary Hartman stated tha# he thought larger trucks v,rould become the norm in the future and we
should take this into consideration. He befieved thaf staff recommendation was a mcave in the right
~ direCtion.
Doug Cahill agreed that this amendment was a move in the right direction. He recommended that
some flexibili#y would be useful in the future.
9 '
Approved 1127l03 •
Chas Bernhardt had no new commends.
John Sehofield recornmended that we loak to determine how the loading ancf delivery standard is ~
determined. He stated that 25 feet is na langer acceptable and he urged staff to look at loading
and delivery in the front setback.
Gary Hartman macie a motion to table this until February 14, 2003.
i
Gearge Lamb seconded the mation.
The motion passed by a vote of 6-0.
8. A request for text amentiments to Sections 12-7H-1 1(Height &Bufk) & 12-71-11 (Height &
Bulk), l/ail Town Code and the Lionshead Redeveloprnent Master Plan to allow far a
clarificativn to the maximum height and caiculatian af average maxirnum height
requirements for buildings constructed in the Lianshead Mixed Use 1 and the Lianshead
Mixed Use 2 mne districfs, and setting forth details in regard thereto.
Applicant: Town of Vail Community Development Departmenk ;
Planner: George Ruther ~
~
Gearge Ruther presented an overview af the staff memorandum.
Tom Braun asked abaut the calculation af average maximurn heighf sentence,
George Ruther stated that they would reccrmmend that that senterace would be taken out.
Torn Braun asked about another sentence, with regards to a primary radf ridge. ~
George Lamb had no camment_
Rollie Kjesbo had no cornment.
Gary Hartman said that it was a goad start.
Daug Cahill had no cornment.
Chas Bernhardt had na commen#,
Jahn Schofeld stated that he feeis #hat it is always necessary to look back at the intent. He
suggested sending ut out ta the architects and see what happens and if there are issues, bring it
back to the PEC.
Doug Cahill made a motion ta forward a recornmendatian of approwal to the Town Council.
Rollie Kjesbo secanded the rnotion.
Doug Cahilf asked, with the maximum height, are +nre setting how much can be at 82.5 ft.?
Gearge Ruther stated fhat #here is not a maximum length of 82.5 ft,
The motion passed by a WQte Qf 8-0, ~
9. A request for a rncadifieation ta the 100-year floodplain, to aliow far grading in the flaodplain
to modi#y the Gore Creeic 1Jllhitewater Park, located at the Gore Creek Prornenade/Tracts I
& A, Black 5B, Vail Village 15t Filing, and setting forth details in regard thereto.
10
~
•
, Appraved 1/27103
Applicant: Town af Vaif, represen;ted by Gregg Barrie
Planner. Bifl Gibson
~ WITHDRAV"WN
10. A request for a variance frorn Section 11-4C-3 (Bui9ding ldentifica#ion Signs), Vail Town
Code, to allow for a sign that exceeds the alBowable mraximum height above grade, located
at 250 S. Frontage Roacilfiract C, Block 1, Vai9 Lionshead 2"d FAling.
AppEicant: Evergreen Lodge at Vail Ltd.
Planner: fVlatt Gennett
WfTHDRAWN
11. Approval af December 9, 2042 m9nutes
George Lamb made a motion to approwe the December 9, 2043 minutes
RolEie Kjesbo seconded the motion. ,
The motion passed by a uote of 6-4.
12. Inforrnation Update
*,hcivise af a public meetFng on 214f03 with the Town Couneil, the PEC and the aR6 to discuss a
format for communocation among the governing boards
~ The: applications and infarmation about the propasals are available foT public inspection during
reguiar office hours irr the project planner's office loca#ed at the Towrs af Vail Gommunity
Derrelopment Departrnent, 75 South Fron#age Road. F'lease capl 479-2138 for inforrrnation.
Sign language interpretation available upan request with 24 hour notifieation. Please cali 479-
2356, fielephone fior the Hearing Impaired, for information.
Comrnunify Development Uepartment
~
Il