HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-0428 PEC
~
THIS ITEM MAY AFFECTYOLiR PROPERTY
PUBLIC NOTICE
NOTIGE IS HEREBY GtVEN that the Planning and
F
Environmen9al Commission oi the Town of Vall wiY1
hold a pv6lic heating in accordanco with Section
123-6 03 the Vafl Tawrt Cade on Apr11 28, 2003, at
200 P.M. in the Town of Vail Municipal Builtling..
In consitieraHan of:
PROOF OF PUBLICATION A request For a variance frorn Section 12-78-15,
Sii Coverage, Vail Town Code. to allow fnr a
couered uedestrian enirance, focated at the Vista
STATE QF CDLORADQ eahn Buiiding, 333 Nansun Rancn RaadfLot
C. Bloek 2, Wa4! ViI9age 1 s+. Filing.
, . Applicant: Remonov & Gompany, lric„ ropfB-
sS, ssnted Fry Knight Plannii}g Servqces, inc.
Planner: Warrert Gampbell
i COUNTY OF EQIC7LE A requesF far a recommendation to Ihe Yail Town
~ CounciP ot a major amerrdment to SpecVal Dsvalvp-
, ment Oistrict No. S. Vail Villaga an, pursuanl lo
Seeikon 12-yR-70, Vail Town Cor.le, lo allow 1or a
change in use, fo incr2ase the GRFA and to irr
crease the number of dwelling units, located at the
Vaif Vltlage Inn, 100 E. Meadesw l7riWelLot f?, 61ock
5D, Vail Village isi Filing.
1. Steve Pape, do solemnly swearthat I arn the Publisher of ThE Vail Daiky, that the same ciaiiy newspa- ARpi;ca„t: Ed„a & Claus Frick&. represenied By
per printed, in whole or in part anci published in the County of Eagle, Siate of Calorado, and has a FrinienPiereenrcnaeds
general circulation therein: that said newspaper has been published continuously and uninterruptedly Plsnner, Matt Gennett
in said County of Eagle far a period oi more than fifty-twa consecutdve weeks next prior to the first A request for a recornrnendation to ihe Vall Tawn
Gouncii, to allow ktr text amendments to Tilie
publication of the annexed legal notice or aclvertisement; 4hat said newspaper has been admitted to the 21. Sfgrt Reguiaborrs, Vail Town Code, and setting
Uniled States maifs as a periodicai under the provisions of the Act of March 3, 1879, or any amend- forthdetaiis i" resara trtereto,
ments thereof, and tha# said newspaper fs a daily new5paper duly qualified fpr publishing I@gal notices Applucant Town oruaii
and adveRisements within ihe mean'sng of the laws of the State of Colorado. PLatiner: ManGennen
A request for a recommenda.fron !o the Vail Town
Cauncil of 5ropos9d 187t4 amendmenis to Ti[le
That the annexed Regal nofrce or advertisemenE was publis~ed in the regular and entire issue of every 12, Zflning Regulations, Va;l Town Cads. to amarxl
ihe Grass Residentiel Floor Area (GRFA)
~numt~er of said daily newspaper for the period of resuiauoy the Hiliside Fiesidential ~HFJ, Sin-
C~insecutiv insertions; and thaE the first gle-FamiE Resiaentiai (SFR},Twa-Farnii
• . Rss,denteal (R), Two-Famiiy PrimarylSecnndary
Residen~ial (PS), ResidenNal Cluster (RC). Low
publication of said notice was in the issue of said newspaper dated . .1........... oensiry nnu9tiae-Famiiy (LarnF), Meaium oen5iry
~ MWtiAle-Family (MDIJIF), High Oensiry MuMiple-
A.D. G.(~...,~..... and #hat the last publication of said n4tice was in the issue of said newspaper Family (HDMF}, and Mousing(H) districl5. end set-
~ fing ficih details in regarcl Shersto.
. .
dated ...../1...... A.D. .........w.:. ~f1,I.....:.~~....~ f Applicant: Vieki Pearson, et.al.
~ Plannar: 67! Gfbsun
In witraess whereaf I have hereunko set my hand this day of A request for a canoitional use ~rmn, io auow tar
an outdoor dinmg dedc. in accordanco wiTh
&eclion 12-764B. Canditi4nal UseS, Veil TOwn
Code. located aicne Vista Bahn Bu9ldir~g, 333
Hansort Ranch FoatLLot G, Block 2, Vaif Vil4age
i si 'Filing.
. ppRBcani: Rernonou & Gompany. Inc., repr'e-
Publisher sen2ed by Knigh~ Planning Services, inc.
Planrser: B'dl Gibson
~ - ~ An aAPeal, pursuam taSeetion 11-2-1B (Adminis-
Subscribed and swom to befor a notary public in and for the County of Eagle, State of Colorado, cracipn;nPoe~). of an admiriskrarivE
~ ~ determinaiion khat a husmess identification sign
~ does not meet tne tecYinical requirarnen4s of
thl5 . daV Df
Saction 11-46-12135 fProjecting and Hanging
SlgnsN, Vail Trnrn Code, located at the Vista Bahn
Buiiding. 393 Hansan Ranch RoadlLOt C, Block 2.
Vaid Vi44age 1 st Filing.
pppiicant: Remonov 8cornp&nY, Inc.. repre-
, Pianne~ KniWarreee Camphall ces~ 1nc.
A rBquest ior a reCQmmentfAfian lo ihe Vail Town
. .
Counc9l for the esiahlishment 01 Special
9eveloPmenl Dis4rict No. 37. pursuaN. [a Seetion
fVotary Public~ 12-9R-6. oevelopmern Pkan, vaii rowrl Code, sO
dlSOw tor the redevekoprnent afi the Tiuo4i Lodge, 10-
5 .R~T.r../.:.... cated at 368 Hanscm Ranch Ruad/Lot E, Biock 2.
My GOR]I71lSSfDR BXf)1B -u Vafl Village 5th Fiifng.
J+Pplieant; Rabert & biane Lazier
plannes George Ruthec
7he gpp{lca;ions antl informaton aYrout these Pro'
ppsafs 9re availabde 4r puGi'tc ittspection during
regular husiness hoctrs al the Town oi Vail Cam-
muniy 0evelosri De,partment office, 75 Sautt+
Frontaga Road. The public is invi[ec9 to attar~d Iha
~
pro;ecC Qrienkaiion held inthe ~ofti~ ~nd IFi9
mt~niTy Oevefopment Depa~mesite visits thdf precatle the gublic he&ring.
please call (979) 478-2138 ior dddiYiwnal iribrtees-
tion.
Sign fanguage in[erpretaSeon is aWaiiade upon ro"
qusst wim 24-hour norit+caGan. Please caN (9:0)
474-2356. TelePhorte fos the liearing 4rnpefFad, 001
additional irAomiation.
This rtotice PuWishetl in d+6V&kl OsFly afa Wi 17.
?i3[13.
THIS iTEM MAY AFFECT YQUR PR4PERTY
PUBLIC NOTiCE
N071CE IS HEREBY GIUEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of%z
~ Vail will hoEd a public hearing in accordance wi#h 5ection 12-3-6 of the Vail Town Code on April
28, 2043, at 2;00 P.M. in the Town of Vail Municipa! Building. In consideration of;
A request for avariance from Sectipn 12-78-15, Site Coverage, Vail Town Ccrde, to allow for a
covered pedestrian entrance, located at the Vista Bahn Building, 333 Hanson Ranch RoadlLot
C, Blocic 2, Vail Viilage 1 St Fi[ing.
Applicant: Remonov & Corr3pany, Inc., represented by Knight Planning Services, Inc.
PEanner: Warren Campbell
A request for a recvmmendation to the Vail Town Cauncil of a major amendment to Special
Develapment District No. C, Vail Viflage Inn, pursuan# ta Section 12-9A-10, Vail Tawn Gode, to
allow for a change in use, to increase the GRFA and to increase the number of dwelling units,
located at the UaEI Village Inn, 140 E. Meadvw DrivelLot O, Block 5D, Vail Village 1s1 Filing.
Applicant: Edna & Claus Fricke, representerf by Fritzfen Pierce Architects
Planner: Matt Gennett
A request far a recommendatian to the Vail Town Council, to allcrw for te>ct amendments to Title
11, 5ign Regulations, Vail Town Cade, and setting forth details in regard thereto.
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner; {Vlatt Gennett
~ A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of praposed text arnendmen#s ta Title
12, Zoning Regulaiions, Vail Town Code, ta amend the Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA)
regulations in the Hillside Residential (HR), Single-Farnily Residential (SFR), TwQ-Family
Residential (R), Two-Farnily Primary/Secondary Residential (PS), Residential Cluster (RC), Low
aensity Multiple-Family (LDMF), MEdium Density Multiple-FamiEy (MDMF), High I}ensity
Multiple-
Famsly (HDMF), and Housing (H) districts, and sefting forth details in regard thereto.
Applicant: Vicki Pearson, et.al.
Planner: Bill Gibsan
A request for a canditional use permit, to alfaw for an outdaor dining deck, in accordance with
Section 12-76-46, Gonditianal Uses, Vail Town Code, Iocated at the Vista Bahn Building, 333
Hanson Ranch Raad/Lof C, Block 2, Vail Village 1St Filing.
Applicant: Remonov & Company, Inc., represented by 14night Planning ServACes, Inc.
Planner: Bill Gibsan
An appeal, perrsuant to Section 11-2-1 B(Administration; Appea!), vf an administrative
deterrninat;on t'hat a business identification sign dcaes not meet the technical requirements af
Section 11-48-1265 (Projecting and Hanging Signs), Vail Ti own Code, located at the Vista Bahn
Bui6ding, 333 Hanson Ranch RoadlLot C, Block 2, Vail Village 150 Filing.
Applicant: Remonov & Company, Inc., represented by Knight Planning Services, Inc.
~ Planner: Warren Campbefl *VAIL
TO~4`N Oi
A request far a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for the estabfisnment of Special
Development District Na. 37, pursuant to SectiQn 12-9A-6, DEVeloprnent Plan, Vail Town Code, to ~
allow far the redevelopment of the TiVOIi L,odge, located at 386 Hanson Ranch RaadlLot E, Block 2,
Vail Viilage 5 `h Fiiing.
Applicant: Robert & Qiane Lazier
Planner: Gearge Ru#her
The applications ancf informatic,n abaut these proposals are available for pubiic inspection during
regular business hours at the Town af Vail Gommunity Development Department office, 75 South
Frantage Road. The public is invited ta aftsnd the project orientation held on the Town of Vail
Corr}munity Developrnen# Department office and the site visits that precede the pubfic hearing.
Please call (970) 479-2138 for additioraal information. t
Sign language interprefation is available upan request w'rth 24-hour notificaiion. Please call
(970) 479-2356, Telephone far the Hearing Impaired, for additional information.
This natice published in the Vail Daily on April 11, 2403.
~
~
2
~
~
COMMIS510N
PUBLIC MEE°fING
Monday, April28, 2003
- PRQJEC4 ORIEMTATI4M ! • Commuunity E1eve1-
. :j~ opment IIepL ~F+UBLIC SNELC(l.[~lE
. . 12:00 pm
MGti:.a.FRS PRC$FNT MEMBERS 1iB5ENT
Sile VIsRa : 1:OQ pro
PROOF OF PUBLICATION i. Ysta Bahn Bulding -333 Hanson Ranch Road
2. VatlVfllagle Inn - 13 Vail Road
STATE OF COLORADO
Drfver: Geprgc
Mf3TE: if [he PEC heariny exfonds untd 6:00 p.m.,
tRe board may trreak tor dinner irom fi:Op - 6:30
Ss.
puhfic Heerlna - Town Counoll Chare6ars
COUNTY OF EAGLE 200 pm
1. A reques[ for a tinal rocomrnendatipn to Ihe Vail
Town Cauncil of propo5od text amondmen[s to
amerrd Chapter 72-13-4, Raquirernems by Em-
plcryaa Housing Unit (EHU) 7ypas, VafV Fown
Code, to amend [he Type it EHU requiroments and
sekting €Qrth detalls in regard iheretn,
Applicant: AMS Dcsv'olopment Inc.
I, Steve Pope, do solemnly swearthai [ am the PLiblisher of The Vail Daily, that thie sarne daily newspa- Pianner: eni Giason
per printed, in whole csr in part and pubfished en ihe Gounty of Eagle, Skate o# Colorado. and has a 2. a requos[ For arecommendacion to rrie ua;l
eneral circulation therein; that said news a er has I~een ublished continuousl and uninterru tedl Town Counail, to a6aw for £exS amendrnems In Tr
9 P~ p y p y tie 11, Sign RegulaSions, Vail Ti,wn Code, anai seb
in said County af Eagle tor a period of mare than fif3y-tuvo cansecutive weeks nex4 prior to the firs# tinglartfetlelailsinregardthereto.
publicatian of the annexed legal notice or advertisement; that said newspaper has been admitted to the ay,Pe;cam: Towm nrua;F
United States maiPs as a periodical under the pravisions of the Act ot iNarch 3, 1879, or any amend- Pianner: nnan Gennett
ments ther@ot, and that said newspaper is a daily nevvspaper duly qualified for publishing Iegal notices 3. nrequesr tar a recommenaauan to me vau
and advertisements wiChin the meanin ot the laws of ttre State ot Colorada. '~ov+n Cauncii tor e major amendment to spepai
9 pe+aelapment Dtstrict No. 36, pursuant ta Sec[Ean
12-9A-14, Vail Town Code, to albw for a mized-
use holel; a requasf 1ar a linal rewiew oi a candi-
*number That the arsnexed Eegaf rrptice qr a~ivertisement was publ'rshed in the re ular and entire issue of eve tional use parrnit, pursuant to Seclion 12-7A-3, Yail
~ TOwn Code. to albw 6or Type III Emplayee #lous-
ing Unrts and a frachonal fae cCub; and a requsst
of said daily newspaper fvr the per~od of consecutiv ' sertiqr~s; and that the first ksr $ a irom reco Ftmeame~r' Setlatl~orv~tnce (HS) Dislrict fo Fu61ic to rha vaii rown Gou~il nu
' a proposad rezaning of Lof 4A, Yail Vl4lage 2nd Fil-
~ Aa-
publicatiQn of said notice was in the issu@ of said newspaper dated in
. . ~ co„moterae, (Pa} Distnct, iocased ar 28 S. Front-
age Rd. arvcl 13 Vail Raad/LoBS 9A8 90. Vaii Vil-
A.D. and that the last pubfication of sasd notice was in the issue caf said newspaper iase 2na Fitsny.
} ApplicaM: Nicollat Island Dev~lopmant
date . ~~t.r.F.~.~........ A.D.......... , Companylirc .
Planner: Alhsan Ochs
~
. 4. A requos9 iae a cuntlit#onal uae perrnil, to allcwv
In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand this day of .........J1~:...... roz an outdoor dining dodc, in aaenrdance wilh
Section 12-7$-4B, ConditioneY Usns, Vail Town
Code, iocated at IFre Visla Bahn Bufitling, 333 F4sn-
/ sonRanch Road7Lo1 C. BImk 2, Va+l VfElaye 1si
Filing.
% ~t-Applicanr RerrwnovBComPamit Inc.
F~
^
represenced ~ Knight Rlanning Servl,oea, Ina
C PubliShel' Planner: 1N Gibs«i
5. A reque5+4vr a uariance hom Seclkin 12-78•15,
Subscribed and sworn to Illfore m, a notary public ~n and for the Caumy of Eagle, 5tate af Cfllarado, sieQ covBrage, ua+i'rcr.m eoae, to aliaw ror e«w-
. ered pedestrian anhance, bcated et fhe Vista
Bahn Building, 333 MartSqn RpnC11 ROadILd C,
this day of aiock 2, vaa vulayo ist wniny.
Apphcant: Rarsionov 8 ComQany. Inc„ represented Ly Knight planning Serveoes, Inc.
Pianner: Warren Campbeil
6. M appeal, pursuent to Secdon 11-2-78 Admin-
istraNon; Appeal, ot an admVnistrative det6rtrune-
! Fl tion that a business ident;tr-ation sign dnes not
• ~ ~ maet the ieChn{Cel requiremenis oF $eqion 11-46-
~ 1285 RrQjecling and Hanging Signs, Vail Town
~ . Code, located aT the Visia Ba.hn Bulidng. 333 Han-
v - sun iianch RoadlLot C, BPOdc 2, Veil Villaga lst
~lotary PubliC P'l'"9.
. . Applreant: Rernanw 8 Cnmpany, Irc., reprasent-
M]~ GORTf171SSIOff EXfJfIeS . ed by KniyM Planning Servicos, fnc.
Plaaner. Warren Camphaltl
7. A. requesS for a recommendatfan to the Vail
Tovrn Council for the esta6lishmenl af 3peeial
• Devetlaprrrenl Districl Mo. 37, pur€uan[ to Se6tton
I ~ 12-9A-E, 6evelopment Pten, Vall Town Code. to
allow #or the redevelapment ot the Tivoli I_odge, lo-
cated at 386 Hanson Ranah RnacYLot E, Block 2,
Vali VII4aga 5th Filing.
Applicank Foberrt & Diane Lazier
. Planner.: Georga Ruthor
~
8. A requ~eet for a recummAndaEion 1o the Vait
Tawn CAUneW oE a major emenAmeni to Spedai
Devaiopmttnt ~Dielrict Np. S. Vaii Villege Inn, pur-
suani to Sectdnn 12-9A-10. Vail Town Code. [a al-
low for a change in use, to increase the GRFA
and to increase thanum6er o# dwefling units, Ioca1-
ad at 9he Vail Village Inn, 1qD E. Meedow DrivelLoi
O, Block 5D, Vail Villaga tst Ffling.
Applicanl: Etlna & Claus FricMe, repraserrled dp
Fritzlon Pierts Archi[ects Planner. Matt Genn@S[
9. A request tor a wwksession to discuss the fol-
lowiny applicalians: a recvmmendation to the Vail
Town Covncil ol a 9ext amendmenl So Seetfon 12-
78-13, Densiiy Control, Zoning ppgulalians; Q re-
quesi tor a recommendation to the Vai1 7own
Council of a praposed rezaning oi Lo1s P3 & d,
91ock 5A, Vail Village 5tlt FII4ng }rvm Publio kc-
cornrnadafion rane district (PA) lo I'arking zone
district (P); a request for amcnmmendatian to the
Vail Town Councll for Ihe proposed zvning oi an
unplatted parce# uf land cammonly referred to as
the "irade parcaf" and Lo9s 1 S 2, UYill Creek Subdl-
vision to Ski Base Recroation II zcuie disvics; a ra-
tesl Far a minor subdivision, pursuant to Titte 13,
6division Regulativns, Vaif Town Code, to agaw
for ihe relorafiort of the comrnori properTy Ilne fifB-
tvraen Lots P3 & J, Blnck 5A, Vad Village 51h FlI-
irng; a rsquest foe a recommsndEitinn to the Vsil
Town Codo of a proposed maJoT subdivision, pur•
suant to Sac6ort 13-3., Major Sul3division, 4ell
Town Cotle, [o allow t.ar the platling ol the "trade
parcel"; a reques[ for a conditlonal usa permil, pur•
want ta Ghapler 16, Tille 12, ot the Vail Town
Code, to allow tar a"privato oH-slree[ vahfcle RaAc-
ing tacllfty and public park" to be constructed and
aperafed on lols P3& J. Block 5A, Vail Village 5th
Filing: a raquast ror an eanenor alteration or mada•
firahon, pursuanl to Sec[ion 12-713-7. Exterlar Al-
terations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, lo eV-
law for an addition to the Lodge at Vail; a requesl
far a Yari&nce iram. Sectlon 72-21-10. C)evalap-
ment ResUictad, Vail Town Code, pursuartt to
Chapter 77, Variar+oes. Zonung Reguiations. to al-
low tor the aonstreiction of mul[rple-family tlwelting
rtnits ori sFOpes in excess of 40%: and a request fur ~
the astablishmenl at an approved deve.lopment
plan ro tacilitate the cnnsCsuction ot VaiPs Front
baor, and seriing forth detaifs in regard 4hereW. iA
mtrre (mmptete matasand bourtds legal deseNpE'son
is availaWe at the Town of Veil Communiry Devel-
opment Departmant}
AppYaun: Va11 Resods, nlpre5e^ted by
Jey Petesson
, F'wmr. Qeor9e Fiuther
10. A request tor a recornmentiation to 1he Va+l
1'awn Cauncil oi proposed text amendments ro TI-
lle 7.2, Zonirg Regulatfons Yail Town Gode, 10
aereror4 the Gross Residentiel Floor Area
p g~AFamuy Hillside Two~Family RHes?-
dential (f#), Two-Famlly PrirnarylSecondary Rest-
tloritial (PS), Rasidentiaf Cluster {RCy, Low Densiry
Fhultiple-Family (L4MF), Msd'ium Dninsily Multiple-
Family (MDMF,, Hlgh Density Multiplo-Family
HDMF), and Housing (Yi) distncls, and setting
forlh details in ragard ihereto.
Applican[: VicRi Poarsan, el.al.
Planner: Bill Qibsort
T'ABLED UNTIL MAY 12, 21363
11. Approval ol March 26, 2003 and April 14, 2003
minutes
12. krrformatiqn Update
The applieations and informatian a6out the propos-
aks are available tor publkc inspoction during regu-
lar affice haurs in the project planner's otlice laca[-
ed at the Tawn o4 Va41 Commundry Devolapment
CSepar4ment, 75 Souih Frontage Road. PleasacaK
479-2138 for in6ormation.
Sign language interpretatfon avgileble upon re-
qtteat witt~ 24 hour natification. Plesse cal6 473,
2356. 7elephone iw the Hearing Impaired, for in-
formaiion.
Ccsmmunityr DeveWpment DePartment
Pvhi"sshed Apnl 25. 2003 in itta Vail Daily.
- ~
7
~F I
` PLANNING AND ENVIRONh?ILNTAL COMMlSSION
~
PUBLIC MEETING ~x'~~~';4p'lh
~ 4a.#~
Nlanday, AprEI 28, 2003
F'ROJECT ORIENTATION 1- Community Development Dept. PUBLIC WELCOME 12:00 pm
MEIVIBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT
Site Visits : 'i :0{1 pm
1. Vista Bahn Building - 333 Hanson Ranch Road ,
2. Vail Viilage inn 13 Vail Road i
Driver: Gearge I
N+DTE: If the PEC hearing extends until 6:00 p.m.„ the board may break for dinner from 6:00 - 6:30
Pubtic Hearing - Town Council Chambers 2:00 pm
1_ A request for a final recommendation tv the Vail Town Council of proposed text
~ amendments to amend Chapter 12-13-4, Requirements by Employee Housing Urrit (EHU)
Types, Vail Town Gode, to arraend the Type If EHU requirements and seiting forth details on
regard thereto.
Applicant: AMS Developrnent Inc.
Planner: Bill Gibson
2. A request for a recornrnendation ta the Vail Town Council, to allow for text amendments to
Title 11, Sign Regulations, Vail Town Code, and set#ing forth details in regard thereto.
Applicant: Town of Vaik
Planner: Matt Gennett
3. A reques# for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council far a major amendment to Special
aevelopment Districf No. 36, pursuant to Sectian 12-9A-1 Q, Vail Town Cnde, to aliow for a
mixed-use hotel; a request for a fiinal review of a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section
i 2-7A-3, Vail Town Code, to allow for Type II I Employee Housing Units and a fractioraal fee
elub; ar,d a request far a recammendatian ta the Vail Town Councif for a proposecE rezaning of
Lat 9A, Vail Village 2"d Filing from Heavy Service (HS) District to Public Accommodation (PA)
District, located at 2$ S. Frontage Rd. and 13 Vail RoadlLots 9A& 9C, Vail Village 2"0 Filing.
Applicant: Nicollet fsland Development Company inc.
Planner: Allison Oehs
.
e
nT0WN 0f YAIL ~
1
t
r
4. A request fQr a contlitianal use permit, to allaw for an outdoar dining deck, in accordance
with Section 12-7B-4B, Conditiana! Uses, Vail Tawn Cade, located at the Vista Bahn ~
Building, 333 Hanson Ranch RoadlLat C, Block 2, Vail Village 1' Filing.
Applicant: Rernonov & Campany, enc., represented by Knight Planning Services, Inc.
Planner: Bill Gibson
5. A request far a variance firom Section 12-78-15, Site Cowerage, Vail TQwn Cade, ta allow
for a covered pedestrian entrance, located at the Vista Bahn Buiiding, 333 Hanson Ranch
RoadlLot C, Block 2, Vail Village 1st Filing.
Applicant: Remonov & Company, Inc,, represented by Knight Planning Services, Inc.
Planner: 1Narren Campbell
i
6. An appeal, pursuant to Sect'ton 19-2-1 B Administration; Appeal, of an administrati+re
de#ecmination that a business identificatian sign does nat meet the technieal requirements
Df Section 111-4B-12B5 Projecting and Hanging Signs, Vail Tovvn Code, Iocated at the Visia
Bahn Building, 333 Hanson Ranch Road/Lot C, Block 2, Uail Village 1" Filing.
Applicant: Remonow & Company, Inc., represented by Knigh# Planning Sarvices, Inc.
Planner: Warren Campbel]
7. A request for a recommendatian to the Vail Town Council for the establishment of Special
Develflpment Distric# No_ 37, pursuant #o Section 12-9,A-6, Develapment Plan, Vail Town Cade,
to a[low for the redevelopmen# of the Tivoli Lodge, loeated at 386 Hanson Ranch Road/Lot E,
Biock 2, Vail Village 5t'' Filing.
Applicant: Robert & Diane Lazier ~
Pianner_ George Ruther
8. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town CaunciF o# a major amendment to Special
Develapment Dis#rict Nv. 6, Vail Village Inn, pursuant to Section 12-9A-10, Vail Town Cade,
to allow for a change in use, to increase the GRFA and to increase the number af dwelling
units, located at the Vail Village Inn, 100 E. Meadow DrivelLot 0, Block 5D, Vail Village 1$`
Filing.
AppEicant: Edna & Claus Fricke, represented by Fritzlen Pierce Architects
Planner: Matt Gennett
9. A request for a worlcsession to discuss the following applications: a recomrnenda#ion tQ the Vail
Town Gouncil of a text arnendrnent #o Section 12-7B-13, Density Confrol, Zoning Regulatians;
a request far a recommendatian to the Vail Town Council of a proposed rezaning of Lots P3 i
J, Block 5A, Vail Village 5t' Filing fram Public Acccammodation zone district (PA) to Parking
zone dis#rict (P); a request for a recomrnendation to the 11ai1 Town Councii for the proposEd
zoning af an unplattEti parcef of land cvmrnonly referrcd to as #he "trade parcel" and Lots 9& 2,
Mill Creek Subdivision ta Ski Base Recreation II zone district; a request for a rrrinor subdivisEOn, ~
pursuant ta Title 13, Subdiwisian Regulatians, Vail Town Code, to allow for the relocation of the
' eomman propeety line between Lots P3 & J, Block 5A, Vail Village 5t" Filing; a request for a
recommendatioro to the Vail Town Cocfe of a proposed major subdivision, pursuant to Section
13-3, Major Svbdivision, Vail Town Code, to allow for the platting of #he "trade parce6"; a
request for a conditianal use permi#, pursvant to Chapter 16, Title 12, of the Vail Town Code, to
allow for a"priUate off-street vehic9e paricing facility and public park" to be constructed and ~
aperated on Lots F'3& J, Block 5A, Vail Village 5`h Filing; a request foe an exterior alteration or
modification, pursuant to Section 12-78-7, Exterior Alterations or Modifications, VaiE Town
Code, to ailow for an addition to the Lodge at Vail; a request for a variance from Section 12-21-
1 0, Developmen# Restricted, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 17, Variances, Zoning
2
.
Regulatians, to allow for the construction of muetiple-fami1y dr+velling unifs on slopes in excess
af 40%; arrd a request for the establishment of an approved development plan to facilitate the
canstruction of Vail's Frant Door, and setting farkh c6etails in regard thereto. (A more complete
~ metes and bounds 9egal descriptian is availab{e at the Town of Vail Community Development
Department}
Applicant: Vail Resorts, represented by Jay Petersan
P6anner: Gearge Ruther
10. A request for a reeammenda#ion to the Vail Town Council af prQposed text amendments to
Titls 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code, to amend the Gross Residential Floor Area
(GRFA)regulations in the HiEiside Residential (HR), Single-Family Residential {SFR}, Two-
Family Residential (R), Two-Family PeimarylSecondary ResidentEal (PS), Ftesidential
Ciuster (RC), Low Density hJlultipae-Family (LDN1F), Mediurn Density Multiple-Family
(MDMF), High Density Mul#ipEe-Family (HDlViF), and Housing (H) cfistricts, and setting forth
details in regard thereto.
Applicant: Vicki Pearscrn, et.al.
Planner: Bill Gibsean
j
TABLED UNTIL MAY 12, 2003
11. Approval of March 24, 2003 and April 14, 2003 minutes ~
12. lnformation Update
The applieations and inforrnation about the proposals are availab[e for public inspectian tiuring
~ eegular office hours in the praject planner°s affiee lacated at the T+awn of Vail Community
Development Department, 75 South Frontage Raad. Please cafl 479-2138 for information.
Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hQur notification. Piease call 479-
2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, fvr information.
Community Development D!epartment
Putalished Aprii 25, 2003 in the Vail Qaily.
~
3
b
- PLANNlNG AND ENVfRONMENTAL COMfUI1SSION
PUBLIC MEETING RESULTS
~ Monttay, Aprif 28, 2003
PROJEGT ORIENTATION 1- Community Develvpment Dept. PUBLIC WELCOME 12:00 pm
MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT
John Schafieid Gary Hartman
Erickson Shirley Chas 8ernhardt
Doug Cahill
George Lamb
Rallie Kjesba
Site Visits : 1:00 pm
1. Vista Bahn Building - 333 Hansan Ranch Road
2. Vail VF11age Inn - 13 Vaif Road
Driver: George
1[(*)3:>NOTE: lf the PEC hearing extends unti! 6:00 p.m., the board may break far dinner frorra 6:00 - 6:30
~ Public Hearinq - Yown Gouncil Ghambers 2:00 pm
1. A request for a finai recommendation to the Vail Tawn CaunciE Qf proposed text
amendments to amend Chapter 12-13-4, Requirements by Employee Hausing Unbt (EHU)
Types, Vail Town Code, to arnend the Type II EHU requirements and setting forth details in
regard thereta.
~ Applicanf: AMS Development Inc.
Planner: Bill Gibson
MOTIQN: Rallie Kjesbo SECQND: Doug Cahili VOTE: 5-0 !
i
TABLED UN71L MAY 12, 2043 i
2. A request for a recammendation to the Vai1 Tawn Councir, to allow far text amendments to
Title 11, Sign Regulations, Vaii Town Code, and setting forkh cietaiEs in regard thereto.
ARRlicant: Town of Vail
Planner: Matt Gennett
MOTION: Ericksan Shirley SECOND: Rollie Kjesbo VQTE: 5-0
RECOIVIMENDATION OF APPROVAL 7Q VAIL TOWN COUNCIL
3. A request far a recammendation #a the Vai1 Town Councif for a major arrtendment to Special
Develtapment District No. 36, pursuant to Sec#ian 12-9A-1 a, Vail Town Code, to allow for a
mixeci-use hotel; a request far ainal revie+rv of a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section
~
~ MA
1 V tTf1 VP Cllll~ ~
1
T,
i
92-7A-3, lfail Town Cade, to aNow for Type II! Employee Housing Units and a fractional fiee
cEub; and a request for a recommendation #o the Vail Town Council for a proposed rezoning of
~ Lot 9A, Vail Village 2"d Filing frQrrx Heavy Service (WS) District to Public Accammadation (PA)
~ District, lacated at 2$ S. Frontage Rd. and 13 Vail Rpad/Lots 9A& 9C, Vai! Village 2"d Feling.
Applicant: Nicollet 6sland Develapment Company Inc.
Planner: Allison C}chs
j MOT10N: Erickson Shirley SECC)ND; Doug Cahill VOTE: 4-0 (Hartman recused)
i
~ APPR+QVED C4NDITIt]NAL USE PERMITS FOR FRACTIOhiAL FEE CLUB AND TYPE
[II EMPLQYEE HOUSING UNiTS; ANa RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL TO VAIL
TC)WN COUNGEL OF MAJOR AlUIENDMENT T'O SPECIAL DEVELDPMENT DISTRICT
NO. 36 AND REZONlNG REQUEST TD 11A11. TO11'iJN COUNCIL WITH 28 CDNDITI4NS:
1. That the developer shall praWide deed-restricted housing that complies wifh #he Town of
Vail Employee HQUsing requirements (Chapter 12-13) for a minimum of 68 empfoyees
on the Four Seasons Resort site, and that said deed-restricted employee housing shall
be made available for occupancy, and that the deed res#rictions shall be recarded with
the Eagle County Clerk & Recorder, prior to issuance a# a Temporary Certificate af
4ccupancy far the Four Seasons Resork.
2. That the developer shall meet with the Town staff to prepare a memorandum of
understanding outlining the responsibiiities and requirements af the required ofF site
impravements, prior to second reading of #he ordinance approving the rrrajor
amendment to Special Development Dis#rict No 36. This memorandum of
understanding sha61 incfude, but not be limited to, all streetscaping impravements alortg
South Frontage Road and West Meado?nr Qrive in accoedance with the Town of Vai!
~ Streetscape Master Plan, as amended.
3. That the deveVoper shall record a drainage easernent for Spraddle Creek. The ~
easement shall be prepared by the develflpe6 and submitted for revievw and approvaE by
the Town Attamey. The easement shall be recarded with the Eagle County C4erk &
Recorder's Office prior to the issuance of a Temporary Certificate of accupancy for the
Four Seasarrs Resort.
4. That the developer shal@ submit afinal exterior building materials list, a typical wall
section and complete color renderings for rewiew and apprvval of the Design Revievw
Board, priar tQ submittal af an application for a building permit. ~
I
~ 5. That the deve4oper shall submit a comprehensive sign program propasab far the Faur !
Seasons Resort for review and approval by the Design Review Board, prior ta the '
issuance of a Temporary Gertificate of Occupancy for the FQUr Seasons Resort.
6. That the developer shall submit revised architectural p8ans of the building at the corner
adjacent to the Alpharn far reaiew and approval by the Design Review Board priar to
second reading of the ordinance appraving #he major amendment ta Special
Deve4opment District hlo. 36.
7. That the developer shall subrnit a written agreement to maintain the current nurnber of
parking spaces foe 9 Vail Road condorniniums which is proposed to be relocated in
~ conjunction with the construction of the Four Seasons Resort. Any Tawn af Vail Design
Review appfications andJor Planning and Environmental Camrnission applications
~ which are required to relocate this parking shalf be submitted, reuiewed, and apprQVed
by the appropriate reviewing bady to ensure compliance with all Tawn of Vail
. regulatians prior to second reading af the ordinance amending Special aevelopment
District No. 36.
2
8. That fhe deve9oper shall submit a rooftap mechanical equipment plan for review and
approval by the Design Revieuv Board prior to the issuance of a buciding permit. All
~ rooftop mechanoca( equipmen# shall be incorparated into the averal[ design of the hotel
and enclosed and visually screened from public view.
9. That the deueloper shall post a bond to provide financial security for the 150% of the
total cost of the required off-site public improaements. The bond shall be in place with
the Tawn prior to the issuance of a building permit.
10. That the developer shall comply with all fire deparfinent staging and access
requirements pursuant to Title 14, Development Standards, Vaii Town CQde. This wiil
be demonstrated on a set of revised plans for Town review and approval prior to
building permit submittal.
11. That the requEred Type III deed-restncted employee housing units shall not be eligible
for resale and that the units be owned and operated by the hotel and that said
awnership shall transfer with the cieed #Q the hotel property,
12. That the developer shall caordinate the relacatian of the existing electric transformers
on the praperty with local utilEty praviders. The reuised locatioR of the transformers
shall be part of the final Iandscape pEan to be submitted for review and appravaf by #he
Design Review Board.
13. That the developer shall submit a written letter of approval from those adjacent
properties whose praperty is being encroached upan by certain imRrovements resulting
from the construction of the hotel, prior to the issuance of a buildEng permit.
~ 14. That the developer providas a 6 i#. to 8 ft. heated paver pedestrian walkway from the
Frflntage Road bus stop adjacent to the West Star Bank then cantinving east to Vai4
Road and then sou#h to the 9 Vail Road property line. All work related to praviding
these improvements including lighting, retaining, utility relocation, curb and gutter,
drainage and landscaping shall be included. A plan shall be submitted for review anci
approvaf by the 7own and the Desigra Review Board priar to subrnittal of a building
permit,
15. That the developer shall provide a heated pedestrian walk connection from the
Frontage Road to West Meadaw Drive. The developer shall record a pedestrian
easement for this connection for review and approval by the Town Attorney. ~
I
16. That the developer shall prepare and submit all appEicable raadway and drainage ~
easements for dedication to the Tawn far review and approval by the Town Attorney. All ~
easements shall be recorded with the Eagle Caunty Clerk and F:ecorder's Uffice prior ~
#o issuance of a Temporary Certificate of Occuparrcy.
V
17. Thaf the developer shall be assessed an impacf fee of $5,000 for all net increase in pm
trafFc generation as shawn in the revised Aprif 4, 2003, Traffic Study (Attachment H),
The net increase shall be calcu6ated using the prapased peak generating trips less the
existing Resort Hatel and Auto Care Center trips, respectively being 155-(108+7) = 40
net peak trips @$50(?0 =$204?,p{?[7. This fee wiil be offset by the cost of non-adjacent
amprovernents constructed.
~ 18. That the develaper shall receive appraval far alf required permits (CQOT accass, i
AGOE, dewate6ing, stormwater discharge, etc. ) prior to issuance of a building perrnit. ;
~
3
' 19. Thaf the developer shall submit a full site grading and drainage plan for review and
appraval by the Town and the Design Review Board. The drainage plan wiN need to be
~ substantiated by a drainage reporf provided by a Co1carada professional Engineer,
6nclude all drainage, roof drains, landscape drains etc., and how they wilf connect with
the T4V storm system. The devel+oper shall submit all final civil pians and finai
clrainage repart #a the Tawn for civiE approvaa by the Department of Public Warks, prior
to submittal of a building permit.
20. That the developer shall provide detailed civil plans, prafiles, details, limits of
disturbance and Constructian fence for review and civil approval by the DepaRment af
Public Works, priQr ta subrnittal af a building permit.
21. That the deueloper shall be responsible for all work related ta providing landscaping
and lighting within the proposed Frontage Rd. rnedians. A detailed landscape pCan of
the medians shall be provided for review and appraval by the Design Review Board.
22. That the developer shall provide additional survey information of the sauth side of the
Frontage Road to shQw existing trees ta be remaved and additional survey in front af
the Scorpio building in order ta show accurate grades for the construction of the path
fram the Four Seasons to the bus stop at West Star bank. Final design shall be
reviewed and approvecf by the Town and the Design Review Board.
23. That the developer is responsible for 100°/q ot final design imprawements along West ;
Meadow Drive from the centerline of the road back to the Four Seasons praper#y line ~
from Mayors' park to western most property line of the Faur Seasons, ineluding any ~
drainage and grade tie-ins beyond #he west property line. This includes a[I
improvements, including, drainage, lighting, art, s#reetscapa enhancements, edge
~ treatments, curbs, heateti walks, ete. Final plans shall match and be coordinated with
the proposed Town of Vai! Streetseape plan for West Meadow Drive and shall be
provided for review and approval by the Design EZeview Board.
24. That the develc,per shall incorporate public art into the development, and shall
coardinate all art proposals with the Art in Public Places Board, subject ta review and
approval by the Design Review Board.
25. That the developer shall resolve all of the following design-related issues for finsl
Qesign Review Board review and approval.
a. Proposed hydrant relocaf6on at the NW corner of the praperty shall be graded to be
level with the proposed sidewalk and fandscaping will be located as ta not interfere
with the operation of the hyclrant.
b. The cross-slope on the West 1Vleadaw Drive wafk shall maintain a max. 2.0% cross
slape that is sloped towards the eoad.
c. The boulder wafls and grading at the SE corner af the property shall be modified as
to not impact the existing 2-36" CMP's. j
d. 7he foundation wall at the SE corner of the parking structure shall be modified ta
accorrimadate the existing Spraddle Creek vault.
e. 7he prQposed SpracEdle Creek Vault and eoncrete box culvert shall be modified to
work with the existing phone vault.
f. A!I known existing utilities shall be shown on a plan with the proposed drainage and
utrli#ies in order to clarify potential canflicts.
~ g. The praposed walk that meets the frontage raad walk at the eastern portion of the
property shall be realigned sligh#ly to the west to avoad the existing inlet.
h. Fire staging turn9ng moWements shall be show on plans.
i. Retaining walls wes# of the loading and de9ivery access drive shall be
curuedlangled in order ka "bench" access drive wall.
4
j. Top of wall eleva#ion for the Frontage Rd-West Meadow Drive pa#h reads as
185.5?(TYpo)
ke Railings shall be prowided for paths where necessary
~ 1. Show edge of sxisting pavement for Frontage r4ad on civil pfans and show match
point.
m. Erosian contrfli plan shall be updated.
n. Show grading around proposed eiectric vault.
o. Show driveway grades, spot elevations on cEVi1 plans.
p. Show addi#ional TOW/BOW elevatians on pool walls.
26. That the appravaG of the conditional use permi#s is na# valid unless an ordinance
apprauing the assaciated Speciai Deve6opment District amendment reques# is
approved on secand reading.
27. That the develaper shall begin initial construction of the Faur Seasons Resort within
three years from the time of its final approval at second read9ng of the drdinance
amending Special Developmer+t District No. 3+6, and continue di[igently toward the
completion of the project. I# the developer does not begin and diligently warlc toward the
campletian of the special deveiopment district or any stage of the special devefopmen#
district within the time limits imposed, the approval of said special develapment district
shall kae void. The Planning and Environmental Cammission and Town Counc'tl shall
review the special development district upon subrriittal af an application to reestablish
the special development district following the proeedures outlined in Sec#ion 12-9A-4,
Vail Town Code.
28. That the Developer shall coordinate wifh the Town ta provide a bus stop at the
pedestrian sidewalk connection to West Meadow Drive. This design shall be submifted
~ ta the Town af Vail for review and approval by the Town and the Design Review Board
prior to submittal af a building permit.
4. A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for an outdoor dining deck, in accardance
WCtII S2Ct10n "I Z-7B-4B, Conditional Uses, Vail Town Code, located at the Vista Bahn
Buiiding, 333 Hanson Ranch RoadlLot C, Block 2, Vail Village 1s, Filing.
Applicant: Remanov & Cnmpany, Inc., represented by Knigh# Planning Services, Inc. I
Planner: Bill Gibson
MOTION: Doug Cahilf SECOND: Ra11ie Kjesbo VOTE: 5-0
TABLED UNTIL MAY 12, 2003
5. A request for a uariance from Section 12-76-15, Site Caverage, VaiE Tcawn Code, #o allow
for a coVered pedestrian entrance, Ic,cated at the Vista Bahn 6uilding, 333 Hanson Ranch
Road/Lat C, Block 2, Vail Village 1S` Filing.
Applicant: Remonov & Gompany, Inc., represented by Knight PEanning Services, Inc.
Pianner: Warren Campbell
MOTION: Doug Cahfll SECOND: Rollie Kjesbo VOTE: 5-0
L3ENIED
6. an appeal, pursuant to Section 11-2-1 B Administra#ion; Appeal„ of an adrnirt'tstrative
~ defermination that a business identification sign does not meet the technical requirements
of Sectian 11-4B-1 265 Projecting and Hanging Signs, Vaii Town Code, located at the Vista
Bahn Building, 333 Hanson Ranch RaadlLo# C, Black 2, Vail Village 1' Filing. ~
5
' Appiicant RemonQV & Company, Inc., represented by Knight Rlanning Services, Inc.
Planner: Warren Campbell
MOTiQN: Doug Cahifl SECOND: Rollie Kjesbo VOTE: 4-1 {Schofield opposed}
~ OVERTURNED STAFF'S INTERPRETATION WITH 1 GONDIT141V: I
1. That fhe sign is located within the Aalta Sports frantage alang Hanson Ranch Raad and
not located within the Hanson Ranch Road frontage.
7. A request far a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for the establishment af 5pecial
Development District No. 37, pursuant to Section 12-9A-6, Development Plan, Vail Tawn Cade, ;
to allow for the redevelopment of the Tivoli Lodge, located at 386 Hansan Ranch RoadlLot E,
Black 2, Vaii Viilage 5t'' Filing.
Applicant: Robert & Diane Lazier
Planner: George Ruther ;
MOTION: Rollie Kjesbo SECOND: DQUg Cahifl VOTE: 4-1 (Lamb opposed)
APPROVED RECOMMENDATIOfiI TO VAIL TOWN COUNCIL WITH 16 GONDITIONS:
1. That the devefoper provides deed-restricted hous'rng that compiies with the Town of Vail
Emplayee Hausing requirement$ (Chapter 12-13) for a minimum of one (1) ernpfoyee on
the TiuoEi Lodge deVelopment site, and that said deed-restricted employee housing shall be
made available for vccupancy, and that the deed restrictians shall be recorded with the
Eagle Coun#y Clerk & Recorder, prior to issuance of a Ternporary Certificate of Occupancy
for #he Tiwoli Lodge. The required Type III deed-restricted ernployee housing units shall not
be eligible far resale and that the units be owned and operated by the hQtel and that said
~ awnership shafl transfer with the deed tothe hotel praperty.
2. That the cteveEoper meets v+reth the Tovan staff and prepares a memorandum of
understanding outiining the respansibolities and requirement5 of the required off-site
improvements, prior to second reading of the ordinance approving ttte estabfishment of
Special Develapment District No 37, Tivoli Lodge. This memorandurn of undersxanding
shall inciucfe, but nat be limited to, all streetscape improvernents along Vail Valley Qrive
and Hanson Ranch Road, in accordance with the Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan.
3. That the develaper submits a final exterior building materials list, typical wall section,
architecfural specifications, and a complete color rendering for review and approval of the
aesign Review Board, prior to submittal of an applicatiora for a bu€Iding perrnit.
4. That the developer submits a cQrnprehensiue sign program proposal for #he Tivoli Lodge for
eeview and approWal by the Design Revieuv Raard, priar to the issuance of a Temporary
Certificate af Dccupancy for the project.
5. That the developer submits a raoftop mechanical equipment plan for reuiew and appraWal
by the Qesign Review Board prior to the issuance of a building permit. All rooftop
mechanical equipment shall be incorporated into the overall design of the hotef and
enclased and visually screened from public viev+r. 6. That the develaper posts a bond to provide financia1 security for the 150°fo of the total cost
of the required off-site public improvements. The bond shall be in place with the Town priar
49 to the issuance of a~g peFi~ temparary certifcate of occupancy.
6
t
7. That the develaper complies with ali fire department staging and access requirernents
pursuant to Title 14, Development Standards, Vail Town Code. This shail be demonstrated
on the Construction Staging Plan for Town review and approval prior to the application for a
~ builciing permit for #his project.
8. That the developer submits a written letter of approval from the utility companies perrx7ittirrg
encraachments inta fhe plai#ed utility easements prior to second reading of the approving
ordinance.
9. That the developer provides a 6 ft. to 8 ft. heated concrete unit paver pedestrian walkway
fram the intersectian af Vail Valley Drive, nor#h the dntersection of Vail Valley Drive and
Hanson Rartch Road, then wes# ta the westernmost property line of Trac# A, Vaif VEllage
Fafth Filing. All work related to provid'rng these improvements including street lights,
retaining walls, utility relocatron, curb and gut#er, drainage and landscaping shall be
included. A pian shall be submitted for review and approval by the Town and the Design
Review Baard priar to suiamittal of a building permit. The applECants shall submit civil
drawings depicting said off-site irrrprovernents ta the Town of Vail Community Developrnent
Clepartment for revievw and approval prior to the issuance of a buiEding permit far this
project.
10. That the devel4per sha11 prepare and submit all applicable roacfway and drainage
easemen#s for dedicafion to the Town for review and approval by the Town Attorney. All
easements shal9 bE recorded with the Eag9e County Clerk and Recorder's Office prior to
issuance of a Temparary Certificate of Occupancy.
11. That the developer shall be assessed an impact fee of $5,000 for the net increase in p.m.
traffic generataon as determined by the Town of Vail Public Works Departrnerrt, as
~ addressed in attachment F of th'rs memarandum.
12. That the developer shall provide detailed civil plans, profles, de#ails, limits of disturbance
and construction fence for review and civil approval by the Department of Public Warks,
prior to submittal of a buelding perrnit_
13. That the developer shall commence initial construction af the 7ivafi Lodge within three
years from #he time of ets final approval at second reading of the ordinance establishing
Special Development District 1Vv. 37, and continue diligentiy toward the completion of the
project. if the devefoper does not begin and diligentiy work toward the comple#ion of the
special dewelopment district or arry stage of the special development distric# within #he time
limits irnposed, the approval of said special develapment distric# shall be void. The
Planning and Environmenta! Cammission and 7own Council shall reuiew the special
development clistrict upon submittal of an application to rees#ablish the special
development district fallowing the procedures outfined in Section 12-9A-4, Vail Tovun Gode.
14. That the developer to revises the propased landscape plan to increase the amaunt af
softscape area on the developrnent site prior tQ submitting the plans ta the aesign Review
BQard fQr #inal review. Ths revised landscape plan shall be reviewed and approved by the
Design review BQarci. In no instance, however, shall the amount of hardscape area
increase beyand 7,510k 25°!a of the total site area.
I
15. That the developer submits a tree protection plan prepared by a Certified Ceansulting
Arborist to #he Design Review Board for review and approval prior to final approval by the
is Board of the proposed praject. Upon accep#ance of the tree protection by the Design
ReWiew Baard, the applicants shall submit a written agreement between the applicants and
their constractor, to the Town af Vail Comrr3unity Develapment, stating that a!1 mitigation
measures recommended by the Cer#ifred Cansulting Arborist wifl be impiemented and
strictly adhered to by the applicants and their cantractors throughout the duration of the
7
canstruction process. The written agreement shall be approved and accepted prior to the
issuance of a building permit far this project.
~ 16. That the developer addresses the written final comments of the Tvwn of Vail Pub9ic'VVorks
Department outlined in the memorandum to George Ruther #rQm the Tortwn of Vail Public
Works Department, dated April 24, 2003, prior to submitting an appVication ta the Town of
Vail Gommunity Department for the issuance of a buifding permit for this project.
8. A request far a recommenda#ian to the Vail Town Council of a major amendment to Special
Develapment Dos#rict No. f, Vail Village Inn, pursuant to Sectian 12-9A-90, Vai] Tawn Code,
ta allaw for achange in use, ta increase the GRFA and to increase the number of dwelfing
units, located at the Vail Village Inn, 104 E. Meadow arivelLo# O, Block 5D, Vail Village 15t
Filing.
AppliCant: Edna & Claus FricM1ce, represented by Fritzlen Pierce Architects
Planner: Matt Gennett
MOTION: Doug Cahill SECOND: RoHie Kjesbo ViDTE: 5-0
TABLED UNTIL IUTAY 12,2003
9. A request for a worksession to discuss the fallowing applications: a recommendation to the Vail
Town Council of a text amendrrtent to Section 12-713-13, Density Control, Zaning Regulations;
a request for a recornmendation to the Vail Town Cauncil of a proposed rezoning of Lats P3 &
J, Block 5A, Vail Village 5"h Filing from Public Accornrnodation zone district (PA) to Parking
zone district (P); a request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for the proposed
zoning of an unplatted parcel of land commonly referred to as the "trade parcel" and Lats 1& 2,
Mill Creek Subdivision to Ski Sase Recreation I( zane distTict; a request for a minor subdivisican,
~ pursuant to Titie 13, Subdivisian Regulatians, Vail Town Code, #o allow for the reloeation of #he
comrnon property line between Lots P3 & J, Block 5A, Veil Vi11age 5`h Filing; a request for a I
recorrrmendation ta the Uaal Town Code of a proposed major subdivisian, pursuant #a Secfion
13-3, Major Subdivisian, Vail Town Cade, tcr allow for the platting of the "trade parcel"; a
request for a ccanditional use permit, purSUant to Chapter 16, Title 12, of the Vail Town Code, to i
alfow far a"private off-street vehicle parking facility and public park" to be constructed and operated an Lots P3& J, BIQCk 5A, Uail Vi!]age 5t" Filing; a cequest for an exterior alteration or
maciification, pursuant to Section 12-78-7, Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vai1 Town
Code, to allow for an addition to the Lodge at Vail; a request far a variance from Section 12-21-
10, Development Restricted, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 17, Variances, Zoning
Regulations, to allow for the construction of multiple-family dwelling uni#s on slopes in excess
of 40°/Q; and a request for the establishment of an approved develapment plan to facilitate the
eanstruction of Vail's Front DQOr, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (A more corripiete
metes and bounds lega3 description is avaiiable at the Town of Vail CommUnity Qevelopment
Department)
AppGcant: Vail Resorts, represented by Jay Peterson
Pfanner: George Ruther
MOTiON: DQUg Cahill SECOND: Ro11ie Kjesba VaTE: 5-0
TABLEa UNTIL MAY 12, 2Q03
10. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Towrr Council of proposed text amendments to
Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Gade, to arraend the Gross Residential FloorArea
(GRFA)regulations in the Hillside ResidEntia! (HR), Single-Famiiy Resadentiai (SFR), 7ruo-
Family Residential (R), 7wo-Farnily Primary/Secondary Residentiaf (PS), Residential
~ Cluster (RC), Low Density Multiple-Farniiy (LDN1F), Medium Densi#y Mu1tipGe-Family
(MDMF), High Density MuItiple-Family (HDMF), and Hausing (H) districts, and setting fflrth
details in r+egard thereto,
8
1
Applicant: Vicki Pearson, et.af.
Planner: Bill Gi}ason
~ TABLED UNTiL MAY 12, 2003
11. Approval of March 24, 2003 and April 14, 2403 minutes
92. {nformation Update
The applications and information about the proppsals are availabEe for public inspection during
regular office hours in the project planner's affice located at the Town of Vail Community
Develmpment Depaatrnent, 75 South Frantage Road. Please calA 479-2138 for inforrnation.
Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour no#ificatican_ Please call 479-
2356, Tefephone far the Hearing Empaired, for informatian.
Community Development Department
i
i
i
~
.
~
~
~
~
9
~ MEMORANaUM
T4: PEanning and Envoronrnental Cammission
FRaM: Department of Comrrtunity Development
DATE: April 28, 2003
SUBJECT: A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of proposed text
amendments to amend SectiQn 12-13-4, Requirerb-ients by Employee Hausing
Unit (EHU) 7ypes, Vail Tawn Code, to amend the Type II EHU requirements and
setting farth details in regard thereto.
Applicant: AMS Development, Inc., repressnted by Greg Amsden
Planner: Bill Gibson
1. 5U!MMARY
7he applicant, AMS Development, lnc., represented by Greg Amsden is requesting a
text amendment to Section 12-13-4, Requirements by Employee Housing Unit (EHU)
Types, lfacl Town Code, to amenti the Type 11 EHU requirements.
~ Based upon staff's review of the criteria irr 5ec#ian VI of thds memorandum, the
Community Development Department recornmends that the Planning and Environrnental
Cammission farward a recommEndation of denial to the Tawn CaunciE of #he requested
text amendments, subject to the findirrgs noted in Section Vii of this rnern4randum.
li. DESCRIP'TIQN I?F THE REQUEST
~
The applicant, AfVIS DeWeloprnent, Inc., is proposing texf amendments #o Sectian 12-13-
4, Requiremen#s by Employee Housing Unit (EHU) Types, Vail Town Code, to amend
the Type II EHU requirements. Based upon discussions fram the Planning and
Environmental Gammission's April 14, 2003, pubfic hearing, the applicant has revised
the proposed text arnendment application (see Attachment A). The appRicant is
proposing threE amendments to the Town's Type 11 EHU reguirements: 1) to allow EHUs
to be said or transferred separately 2) to allow for Up to an additionai 300 sq. ft. of
garage flaor area credits on lats larger than 24,000 sq. ft. in area (see Attachment p),
and to amend the maximum gross «;sidential floor area (GRFA) limit frarre 1,200 sq. ft. to
1,60(} sq. ft. The specifc propased text amendments are as follaws:
(deletions are shown in st*e-##FeugWadditions are shown bald)
s
~
1
- i
~
m
~
Fp
c a P p c
~ ~
O Q 0 ~
~
U-
~ a
C7
~ C>
~ ~w ~ z~ ~
'C X C6 ~ ~ X
4 f`7 ~ E
O
N ~
~
...Q. ~
~ ~ ~
[O Q7
~ ~ ID
Ih R5 S2, V O{3 Q ~ °3 v) fTf r` ~w 2
~ p
C O ~ {tl [Si E (0 r lfy fU 0 Q en
~ a3 ~'3 N Q- ~ y - ~ cp
~ y ^ 6 ~ o cn
W suu) aE O m ~
r -0~ u~i.E ay~D.~ v, ~~-a E p a i~~~ o
~ ~ ~ a o cr
E, awa Q'~ a ~ c ~ ~-c o
m ~ ~ s m rts c~ w
~ C7c}~ EE~ rna~ y~ av~ ~o <t ° c~ c s°n'U) 0 o
~
F ~
zs ro
~ ~
~ co ~ a cv
~
C7 ~ a
z a~~
G) ~ ar ~
D > c
0 QU~ `c
2
W
W Q
~ n~~~
Q ~o ~o~b r*r
Q S-o c(D
CL p w v ° .
~ m
W
Q C) I-- a~ m va t~
~
m
an
(n cu m
E ~ m
Z L 2 Q
W
"Q? uti S'a'
w c~ cn ~0 ~ d° Q.
~
L .L ar m c ~
d i- H 13 t9 7 fR
~
0 i cc
O
Lli L -
-o
°
~
N
~A•a ~ ' o, --F
J
Q ~ U
('7 ~ m
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Q
T ~ -0 M t,:5c:
C~ C 0) VL E r!o- E LL' 'C 4ti
~ O r15 cn O S OJ ip Q? ~ [7n a ~
N Q-o n 0 U1Cr LL LY~ Qo
z
w ~
~
~
~ III. BACKGROUND
In September and December of 1992, the Tawn Gouncil passed Ordinances 9 ant[ 27,
Series of 1992, to create Chapter 13 (Employee Housing) which pravides for the addition
of Emp{oyee Housing Units (EHUs) as permitted ar conditional uses within certain zone
districts. In April of 2000, the Town Council passed Ordinance 6, Series of 2000, to
repeal and resnact this chapter and provide additianal incentives for the creation of
emplayee housing in Vail_
Type II EHUs are allowed as a conditional use on properties with confarming lots sizes
in the Sing4e-Family Residentia1 (SFR), Twa-Family Residential (R), Two-Family
Primary/Secondary Residential (P15), and Agriculture and C7pen Space {A} districts,
which account for appraximately 788 [ots within the Town af Vail. Since 1994 the Town
of Vail has approved more than 20 Type II EHUs on these propertie5.
The Planning and Environmental Commission reviewed and discusseet this proposal a#
its April 14, 2003, public hearang. This proposal was tabled by a vote of 7-0 to the
Planning and Environmental C4mmission's April 28, 2003, pGblic hearing. Excerpts from
the draft April 14, 2003, meeting minutes have been attached far reference (see
Attachrnent B). Based upon discussinns frnrn the Planning and Enviranmental
Commissian's April 14, 2003, public hearing, the applicant has revised the proposed text
amendment applicatinn (see Attachment A).
~ IV. RQLES QF REViE1N1NG BODIES
Planninq and Environmental Commissian:
Actian: The P1anning and Enwironmental Commission is responsible for forwarding a
recommendatian of approva{lapproval with conditionsldenial to the Tawn Cauncil o# a
text amendment.
The Planning & Environmental Commission shall consider the following factflrs with
respect to the rsquesteci text amendmertt:
1. The extent ta which the text amendrnent furthers the general and spECific
purposes of the Zoning Regulations; and
2. The extent to which the text amencfinent would better implement and better
achieve the applicable elements of the adopted goals, abjectives, and policies
outEined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan and is compatible with the development
objectives of the Town; and
3. The extent ta which the text amendment demonstrates how conditians have
substantially changed since the adaption of the subject regulation and how the
existing regulation is no longer appropriate or is inapplicable; anc4
4. The extent to which the text arnendment pravides a harmonious, convenient,
workable relatianship among land use regulatians cansistent with rriunic4pal
development objectives; and
5. Such other factors and criteria the Commission deems applicable to the
propased text amendment.
~ []esiqn Review Board:
Aetion: The Desrgn Review Baard has NU review autharity af a text amendrnent or
conditienal use permit, but must review any accornpanying Design Review appl`rcation.
3
Town Council: ~
Actions of Qesign Review Baard vr Ptanning and Environmental Commission may be
appea6ed to the Tawn Council or by the Torvn Council. Tawn Council evaiuates whether
or nat the Design Review Board or Planning and Enuironmental Cammission erred with
approvals or cienials and can uphold, uphold with modifications, or oWerturn the board's
decision.
The Town Council is responsible for final appravallapproval with conditionsldenial af
a text amendment.
The Town Ctauncil shall consider the following factors with respect to the requested
text amendment:
1. 7he extent to which the text amendment furthers the general and specific
purposes of the Zoning Regulations; and
2. The extent #o which the text amendment would better implement and bet#er
achieve the appficable elements af the aciopted goals, objectives, and paficies
outlined in the Vail CarriprehensiVe Plan and is cornpatible v,rith the development
abjeetives of the Town; and
3. The extent to which the text amendment demonstrates haw canditians have
sufiastantoally changed since the adop#iQn of the subject regulation and how the
exesting regulatian is na longer appropriate or is inapplicable; and
4. The extent to which the #ext arnendment pravides a harmonious, coravenient,
workable reiationship among land use regulatians eonsisfent with municipal
development objectives; and ~
5. Such other factars and criteria the Commission andlor Gouncil deem app(icable
to the proposed text amendment.
Staff:
The staff is responsibie tor ensuring that all submittal requirements are provided and
plans canform ta the technical requirernents af the Zoning Regulations. The staff also
advises the appiicant as to cornpliance with the design guidelines.
StafF provides a staff memorandum containing background on #he property and provides
a stafF evaluation of the project with respect to the required criteria and findings, and a
recommendatian on appravaf, approval with canditions, or denial. Staff also facilitates
the reviEw process.
V. APPLIGABLE pLANNING DOCUMERITS
Type 11 EHUs are allawed as conditianal uses in the Single-Faenily Residentiai, Two-
Family Residen#ial, Two-Family PrirnarylSecandary Residential, and Agriculture and
Open Space Dis#ricts.
Town of Vail Zoninq Requlations (Title 12, Varl Town Code)
Chapter 12-1: Title, Purpose and Applicability (in part)
92-1-2_ PURPC)SE: ~
A_ Generaf: These regufatrons are enacted far the pur,aose of promotrng the
heaJth, safety, morals, and gerrera! ?welfare of the Town, and ta promote fhe
coordinated and harmanious devElopment af fhe Town rn a manner thaf wifl
4
~
i
~ conserve and enhance rts rraturaf environment and its esfablrshed characfer as a
resort and residential communlty of high qualrty.
Arkicle 12-613: Single-Family Residentiai (SFR,) district (in part)
12-68-9: PURPOSF:
The srrrgle-family residential drstrlcf is intended to provrde sites for low density
srngle-family residential uses, fogether with such public facilifies as may be
appropriately located in the same disfrief. The singfe-famrly residenfial drsfrrct is
r`ntended to ensure adequate lfghf, air, privacy arrd open space for each dwelling,
eommensurate vvith single-famify occupancy, and ta maintain fhe desirable
residential qualrties of such sites by establrshing appropriate site develapment
sfandards.
ArtiC1e 12-6G: Twa-Family Residential (R) district (in part)
12-6C-1: f'URP(.?SE:
The two-family residential districr rs infended ta provide sites for law density
single family or two-family residerrtral uses, together wvith such pubfic facilities as
may be appropriatety focated in the same district. The fwo-family residential
district is irrtended to ensure adequate light air, pn'vacy and apen space for each
dwellrng, corrrmensurate with sirrgle-family anri two-famify occupancy, and to
mairrtarn fhe desirable residential qualitres of such sites 6y establishirrg
apprapriate site development sfandard's.
~ Article 12-6D: 7wo-Family PrimarylSecondary Residential (P/S) district (in part)
72-6D-9: PURPOSE~
The two-famlly prlmary/secondary residentral districf is intend'ed to prvvide sites
for srngle-famrly residential uses or twa-family residentlal use,s in whrch orre unrf
rs a larger prfmary residence aRd the secanci unit rs a smaller caretaker
apartment, together wtth such public facilitfes as may approprlately be lacated in ;
the same drstrrct_ The fwo-farrarYy primary/seconrlary residential drstrrct is infer+ded i
ta ensure adequate Ifght, arr, privacy and open space for EaGI'1 dwe!!r"ng,
commensurafe with single-famrly and two-famrly accupancy, and fo marntarn the
desirable residential qualities of such sifes by establishrng approprrate site
development standards.
Article 12-8A: Agriculture and Open Space (A) district (in par#)
12-8A-1: PURPOSE.°
The Agricultural and Open Space Distrret is intended to preserve agrr`cultural,
undevefoped, or open space lands from irrfensive develapment while permitting
agrrcultural pursuifs and faw density residential use consrstent with agrr'cultural
and open spaee ob1ectives. Parks, schools, and certain types of prlvate
recreatrorraJ facilTties and institutrorrs also are suitable uses in the Agricultural and I
QpeR Space Dr`strict, provided that the srtes of fhese uses remain predominantly
open. Srte devefQpment sfandards are intended ta preclude iratensive urban
~ devefopment and to maintain the agrieultural arrd apen space characterrstics of
the District ~
5
~
Chapter 12-13: Employee Housing (in part)
12-13-1: PURPOSE:
7he Town's ecanomy is largely tourist based ancf the health of this ecanomy Js
,premr'sed on exemplary servrce for Vail's guests. Vai!'s abiQy to provide such
senvrce rs dependent upon a strong, hfgh qualrty and corrsrstently avarlable work
force. To achleve such a work force, the comrraunity must work ta ,arovrde quality
livrng and working corrditlons. Avarlability and affordabilrty af housrng plays a
crifical role rn creating quality Irvirrg and vvorking conditrons for the community's
work force. The 7"awrr recagrrizes a,permanerrt, year-round populatian plays an
importanf role in sustainrng a healthy, via6le cammunrty. Further, the Towrr
recognizes its role in conjunction wifh the private sector in ensuring housing is
avai(able. The Town Council may pursue addrtiorral inceniyves administratively fo
encourage the develapment af employee housing units. 7hese incsntives may
ancfude, buf are not fimited to, cash vouchers, fee waivers, tax abatement and in-
kind servrces to ouvners and creafors of employee housing unrts. The 7own ar the
Town's designee may maintafn a registry and create Iisfs of aIl deed r'estricted
hausing units created in the 7own fo assist employers and thcrse seekirag
housing.
Chapter 12-2: Definitions (in part)
EMPLOYEE NC)USIIVG UN'IT (EHU): A dwelling unit which shall not be leased ar
rented for any period less than thirty (30) cansscutrve a'ays, and shall be occupied
by at leasf one person who is an employee. For the purposes of this definrtion ~
"employee" shall mean a persan whv works an average of thrrty (30) hours per
week or more an a year round basis in Eagle County, CoForado.
Vail Land Use Plan
Chapter!! - La,nd Use Plan GoalslPolicfes
1.9 Uail should corttiraue to graw in a controlled environment, mairtfar'ning a
balance be#ween resldentfal, corrrmercial and recreafranal uses to serve both the
vrsr'tor and the ,nermarrent resident.
9.3 The quallfy of development should be maintained and u,ograded whenever
possible.
1.12 Vail should accommodate most of the additional growth in existirtg
o'evefopment areas (infill areas).
5.1 Ad'dltional resrdentral growth shauld cantinue to occur primarily in exrsting,
platted areas and as appropriate in new areas where hrgh hazards do nof exrst.
5.3 Affordable employee frausing should be made available through private
efforts, assisted by lirnrted incenfives, ,provided by the 7own of Vail, with
apPro,priate restrictions.
5.4 Residential growth should kee,p pace with the market place demana's for a full ~
range of housing types-
6
~ 5.5 The exisfing em,ployee housing base shoufd be preserved and upgraded.
,4dditianal emplayee housing needs shoulrl be accommodated at varied sdtes
throughouf fhe cvmmunity.
Chapter VI - Arop4sed Land Use
LDR Law Densify Residentrah. Th1s category includes singJe-family detached
homes and twa family dwvelling unifs. L7ensity of developmerrt wifhirr fhis category
would fypically not exceed 3 structures per buildable acre. Alsd wrthrn this area
would be private recreafion facilities such as tennis courts, swimmrng pools and
clu6 houses far the use of residenfs of the area. Insfifutianal/public uses
permitteaf would incfude churches, fire stations, and parks and opera spaee
related faeilitr`es.
OS Open Space: Passive recreatiorr areas such as greerrbelts, stream corrrdors
anaf drarnageways are the types of areas irr fhis category. Hillslde which were
classified as undeuefopable due to high harards and sfopes over 40% are also ,
included within fhrs area. These hrllside areas would still be allowed fypes of ~
devefopment permiff€d ,by existing zoning, such as nne unit per 36 acres, far
areas in agricultural zonirrg. Also, permifted in this area would be
instrtutiorral/pv6lic uses.
VI. CRITERIA AND FIN[?INGS
~ The review criteria and factors for consideration for a requsst of a text arnendment are
established in accordance with the pravisions of Chapter 12-3, Vaii Town Gode
(Ordinance No. 4, Series 2002).
A. Consideration of Factors Regarding the Text Amendmenf:
1. The extent to which the text amendrr:ent furthers ttte general and specific
purposes of the Zoning RegulatiQns; and,
A Type II EHU is an allowed use within the Single-Family Residential (SFR),
Two-Family Residential (R), Two-Family Primary/Secondary Residential (PIS),
and Agriculture and Open Spaee (A) zone diskricts. The purpose of each of these
zane districts is nated abave in Section V of this memarandum. A purpose of
each of these zone districts is to accommodate °`law density" residential uses
such as single-family andlor two-family residentiaf dwelling units.
Currently the provisiorts of Section 12-13-4, Reqvirements 6y Employee Housing
Unrf (Eh'U) Type, Vail Town Code, specifically alfow a Type II EHUs as a third
dwelling unit on a property and exclude a Type II EHUs frpm counting as density
in these zone districts, since Type II EHUs are currently intended ta function as a
"caretaker" type apartment #hat is subordinate and accessary to a principle
residential dwelling unit. By restricting Type il EHUs as a subordinate rentai unit
that is bath physically and aesthetically integrated into a principle residential
dwelling unit, the purpose and intent of accommcadafing "low density" residential
~ uses in the 5ingle-Family Residential (SFR), Two-Family Residential (R), Two-
Family Primaryl5econdary Residential (P1S), and Agriculture and Open Space
(A) zonE districts is maintained.
7
-
StafF believes that the proposed text amendments will significantfy alter the ~
nature, intent, and character of Type il EHUs. Staff believes #hat these praposed
text amendments will alter the existing subardinate ar accessory nature of Type II
EHUs and eleuate tFtese units to a principle use of a property. By daing so, staff
believes that Type li EHUs will no longer be desired as a unit physically and
aesthetically integrated into another dwelling unit, but will be desired t4 func#ion
and aesthetically appear as an independent househeld_ Staff believes that the
proposed text amendments essentially canvert Type [I EHl.9s eRta a third dwelling
unit and density for zoning purposes; which resu9t in a"medium density" (tri-plex)
residentral deve9aprraent rather than the "Cow density" (siragie-family and dupEex)
residentia6 development intended by the Town's current regulations.
Therefore, stafif does not believe #hat the proposed text amendments are
consistent with the goals or abjectoves of the Single-Farnily Residential (SFR),
Two-Family Residential (R), Two-Family PramaryJSecondary Residential (P/5),
and Agriculkure and Open 5pace (A) zone districts.
2. The extent to which the text amendment wauld better implement and be#ter
achiEVe the applicable elements of the aciopted gc?als, objec#ives, and
policies outlined in the yail Comprehensive Pfan and is cempatible with
the development a6jectives af the Town; and,
Staff believes that the proposed text amendments specifically conform to the
goals 1.1, 1.3, 1.12, 5.1, 5_3, 5.4, and 5.5 of the Vaip Land Use Plan, as nvted in
Section V of this memorandum. ~
However, a Type 1E EHU is an allowed use within the Sirrgle-Family Residential
(SFR), Two-Family Residential (R), and Two-Family PrimarylSecandary
Residential (PIS) zone districts. Properties loca#ed within these zone districts are
typically designated as Low Density Residential (LDR) by the Land Use Plan. A
Type II EHU is also an aIlowed use within the Agriculture and Open Space {A}
zone district, and properties within this district are typically designated as Open
' Space (DS) by the Land Use Plan.
Staff believes that the praposed text amendments will significantly alter the
nature, intent, and character of Type II EHUs. Staff believes that these proposed
text amendments will alter the existing subordinafe or accessory nature of Type 11
EHUs arad elevate these units to a principle use af a property. E3y doing so, staff
believes that Type II EHUs will no longer be desired as a unit physica4ly and
aesthetically infegrated into another dwe{ling unit, but will be desored to function
ancE aesthetically appear as an independent household. StafF believes that the
propflsed text amendments essentially canvert 7ype li EHUs into a third dwelling
unit and density for zoning purpases; which result in a"medium density" (tri-p1ex)
residential develapment rather fhan the "low density" (single-family and duplex)
residential development intended by the Town's cufrent regulations_
The Vail Land Use Plan describes the °Low Qensity Residential" fand use
designation as residentia[ develaprnent "typfcally not to exceed 3 structures per
burJdable aere" and the C)pen Space ciesignation as recreatian areas, agricultural ~
uses, and limited residentiaf development "such as one unit per 35 acres.°
8
i
~ Curren#ly a lot within the Single-Family (SFR) Residential zone distriet meeting
the minimurn required lot size of 12,500 sq. tt. is permitted a residential density of
approximately 3.5 units per acre. The addition Qf a Type II EHfJ functioning as a
principle dwelling unit on the lot will increase the residential density of this praperty to apprflximately 7 units per acre. Similarly a lot within the Two-Famiiy
Residential (R) or Twa-Family PrimarylSecondary Residentiaf (PIS) zone districts
meeting the minimum required lot size of 15,000 sq. ft. is permrtted a residential
density of approximately 5.8 units per acre, and the adciitian of a Type 11 EHU
functioning as aprinciple dwelling unit an the lot will increase the residential
densi#y of this property to approximately 8.7 units per acre. Staff does not
believe that these increased residential densities are in canforrnance with the
objectives of the "Low Qensity Residential" and "Open Space" land use
designations.
Therefore, staff does not believe that the proposed text amendments be#ter
implement nor better achieve the adoptecf goals, objectives, and palicies autlined
in the Vail Camprehensive Plan; nor does staff believe the proposed text
amendments are compatible with the deWelvprraent objectives of the Town.
3. The extent to which the text amendrnent demonstra4es how conditions
have substantially changed since the adoption of the subject regulation
and how the existing regulation is no longer apprapriate or is iraapplicable;
and,
~ Staff does not believe that conditions have changed substantially since the
adoption of Sectian 12-13-4, Vail Tawn Code; that Section 12-13-4, Vail Tawn
Cade, is no longer appropriate; nor that 5ection 12-13-4, Vail Town Code, is
inapplicable.
4. The extent to which the text amendment provides aharmonious,
convenient, workabte relationshap among land use reguEations consistent
with municipal develop[ment objectives; and,
Staff believes that the proposed text amendments will alter the nature, intent, and
character of Type II EHUs in such a manner that does not provide a harmaniaus,
convenient, workable relationship arnong Eand use reguiations that are consistent ~
with the fiown of Vai1 master plans and development objectives.
5. Such other factors and criteria #he Commission andlor Council deem
applicable tts the proposed text amendment.
Nina Timm, Tawn of Vail Housing Coordinator, on behalf of the Vail Local
Housing Authority, is suppartive af these proposed text amendments.
B. The Planninq and Environmenta9 Commissian shall maice the followin findin s
before forwarding_a_recommendation af approval far of a text amendmen#_
1. That the amendrnent is consistent with the applicable elements of the adop#ed
~ goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail Cornprehensive Plan and is
compatible with the deusEopment objectives of the Town; and
2. That the amendment furthers the general and specific purposes af the Zoning
Regulations; and
9
i
3. That the amendment promotes the hea{th, safety, morals, and general welfare of ~
the Town and promotes the coordinated artd harmanMaus deve6opment of the
Town in a manner that conserves and enhances its natural environment and its
established character as a resort and residential cQmmunity of the highest
quaiity.
Vll. STAFF RECOMMENDATIQN
The Comrazunity Development Department recommends that the Planning and
Enviranmental Cammission fcarward a recomanendation of denial to the Vail Town
Councii for the proposed text arnendments to Section 12-1 3-4, Requirements by
Emplcayee Housing U'nit (EHU) Types, Vai! Tawn Code, to amend the Type II EHU
requirements ancE setting forth de#ails in regard thereta.
Staff's recommendatian is based upon the review of the criteria in Section VI of this
mernorandurra and the evidenGe and testimony presented, subjec# ta the fallowing
findings:
'l. That the amentiments are nat consistent with the applicable elements of the
adopted goals, objectives and poiicies autlined in the Vail Comprehensive
Flan and are not campatible with the develapment Qbjectives ot the Town;
and
2. That the amendments do not further the general and specific purposes of the •
Zoning Regulatians, and
3. That the arnendments promote the health, safety, morais, and general
welfare of the Town, but do not promate the eoordinated and harmonious
develapment of the Town in a manner that do not consenre and enhance its
natural environmenf and its established character as a resort and residentiaE
cammunity of the highest quality.
VIII. ATTACHMENTS
A. Vicinity map of prDperties eligible to construct a Type II ENiJ
B. Applicant°s revised Letter of Request
C. Draft April 14, 2003, PEC mEeting rninutes
D_ Vicinity map af properties larger than 24,000 sq. #t. in area eligible to
construct a Type ll EHU
~
10
P ~ r5
Y
i6 0. ~lF~~~ ~r
li' .,,:}\t^~
. j
x4jJ ci,n ~
X~
~
4~ +
y °s R
it
u-
~
h
~ ~ ~t . "'1iS r.."r I'~ . 'WI a
`tr - - Tr~ti ' ~1 ta
C+
. ~
~ ~ '
t., a u:.' ~ r ~
wo
N uf Q fl' to
r
yr
J a
Y ' ~
r N cc ,`~p
t~ h t? ~ - . ~ ~
~
d t3 ; : '
O '~3 GL a1 ~
I 0 at
aPR-23-2003 14:06 FROM:AMSDE7•I DRUIS &FOWLER 9704768637 T0:970479245 Attachment: B
AMS Dc;velopmerit, Inc.
, 500 S. FronL-*c: Raaci E2s~ Ste. 112 ~
Vai1, CU. 81657
Apri122, 2003
Tawm of Vai1
Dept. of Community Developrnent
75 South k'rvntabe Road
Vail, CO. 81657
RE; Agplication fvr Text Amendment to Chaptcr 12-13-4
Requizemen.t5 by Employee Ilousing iLlnit '1'yPc
RGQUESfiED ANIEIVDMENT
Type II EHL7
1, OwnersbiplTransference Amend languagc to rcflcct f.he same requirement as Typc 1EHtJ.
"Tfre L'1YU may bc sold r7r trcxn.cferred u,s rr separate unit nn the
prUperty
~
Putposc Eneouragc and promate develapment pfemgloyee housing units hy the private sector.
This would pravidc apmfii incentive to developers to constnict aciditiona] FHU's within
lhe Towm oFVaii. XTnder current zani.r.g code, thcrc is littie or no incent.ive to crcatc the
additioual EHU can lots exceWing 14,000 square feet. 2, GaragelStarage Requirement Add the followissg Danguage;
„Allcrwed 300 sq,ft. ofgarrrge areu per erudosed vehtcl~,~ spa,ce rs1 u
maximum of 2 pcrrlang apaces (600 s9~)J"or Iryts in exces,s of
24, pfllJ sq: ft-
1'urpasc F.xieourage and promote proper storage and parking conditiows for a typieal twa-perA)n
hoiisehnld in Vail. Two-car gaTages pmmote hou.sing vc+'ith 3ong-term occupancy, rather
t5an :urterim housing. Local residents help improve the vi[tality of the loc:al ecanomy.
3_ MaYimum GRFA 11dodify the maximum CTRFA req•uirementfor Type II EHU's to I,600sq,i'7.,
buL Pn TtU CirGumStCinCe to CXl'eed 25po of [he .cum of the total allowable CRFA.
and credils u11owedfor dhe site.
Pwrpose i7iversify thc occupasit type in `J`ail's employec housing tya.se, Larger unit sizc 14nd.ti
rtself to .snore permanent occupancy. There is no curretyt lQCal's howwing th,at addresses
rniddle-incame profession.als (sa1espeoplc, attorney;, town, pla.nners, young docitfrs, etc.).
"T'his occupant ty°pe is important lo improving the lack]uster lc3cal economy. Ma.ny local
prv.fessivnals desire to live in the Town afVail, but much of the &cc-markeL housing is
ver'y dated (age and Flocar glans), thus #hey migrate down vaIley loolung #or beiler
selection. 7.be 1,6(}0 sq.ft. rnaximum would allow for a 3-bedroam Flour, plan
RPR-23-2003 14:06 FROM:AMSDEN DAUTS &FOWLER 9704768637 TD:9704792452 P.3/3
~*mnk yuu for ypur time and considcratio,n.
Sinc ely,
AM evelo mt, lnc.
ry . Amsclen, Presicient
~
1
,
~
~
~
I~
Attachment: C
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL CC7M1v11SSbON ~
DR,a1FT PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES
Monday, April 14, 2003
7. A request for a recomrnendation to the Vail Tawn Counci{ of proposed text
amendmen#s to arr3end Ghapter 12-9 3-4, Requirements by EmplQyee Housing
Unit (EHU) Types, Vaia Town Gode, to amend the Type li EHU requirements and
setting farth details in regard thereto.
Applicant: AMS Development Inc. -
Planner: Bill Gibson
Bill Gibson macEe a presenta#ion per the staff memorandurr-i
Greg Arnsden pfesented the proposed text amendments and said the existing
regulatians create agap Cn the market, in terms of the type flf employees #hat wiil nccupy
EHUs. He said this amendmen# creates a new incentive to construct EHUs and fill a
niche in the marfcet need and that this text amendment creates a private-sectar funding
source to build EHLls. He said this amended use will likely occur in West VaiE and
Mattencorn areas and it is unfikefy to aecur in "high dollar" neighbc+rhoods. He said this
type of unit wilE pravide housing opportunities far lacal middle-incame professionals and
diversify the housing base. Greg then explained how, in his opinion, this amendment
complies with the fext amendment criteria.
There was no public comment. ~
Rollie Kjesbo stated he thought that this amentlment wauld be rriaking a dup[ex lot a
triplex lot.
George Lamb stated that he agreed with Greg that there is a need for this type of unit,
but that this type of regulation is hard fio crea#e. He said this is the right direction, but it
would be hard ta regulate and that DRB may be ianadequate to address the unintended
consequences. He questioned how to do this?
Er-ickson Shirley asked who would be eligible to live in these units. He said he is in favor
of broadening the opportunities af housing #ypes and shares some of Rollie's concerns
regarding DRB issues.
Gary Hartman aPplauded Greg's efforts and he stated that it is impartant ta dictate a size
cap on the EHUs.
Doug Cahill thought this would likely occur in 1Nest Vail and also applauded Greg's
efforts. He asked hQw the streetscape of garage doars would be addressed and that a
maximurri cap is needed_ He said the one car garage limit should be changed and
rnentioned that it wi11 change the appea6ance pf khe rweighborhood.
TOW~ti'
*YAIL
1
~
Chas Berrrhardt thaught this was a great idea, but feels it needs further consideration to
successfully implemenf. He said he is uncomfortable with the concept as proposed, but
feels more study is needed. He too asked about the garage doors and ta continue with
this idea.
John Schofiefd stated that the PEC needed input fram the housing authority anc! aRB.
He shares a concern with regard fa density. He felt there needed to be an amendment
to the 300 square foot garage lirnitation. He asked how GFiFA wauld affect this proposal,
how does this impact enforcement and haw do you deal with the caps?
Rollie Kjesbo tabled this until April 2$, 2003.
Ghas Bemhardt seconded the mot9on.
The motion passed by a vote of 7-0
Gary Hartman rnade a motion to table i#ems 8 and 9 per the agenda.
Chas Bernhardt seconded the rnotion.
~
The motion passed by a vote of 7-0.
~ George Lamb moved to adjourn.
Erickson Shirley secanded the motion.
The mation passed by a vote of 7-0.
~
2
r ~
+e
°r Yl~^•''
~
CSS ~
ui
~qe3°
y~rr ~ Y>,k I N 1
f,-
f~
E !',•ra~~` L ~
~ ~ ~f`r y`•~~~~~ jt~y r e
~ ~ ~'•-~~.1-~ x ~ co
m J ~ ~
Z, u r 1, f~1 ~ {l1 4~ ~ Q ~
~ j •t a1 m ~ ~ ~ ~
7~ ~
~ IL
a b
~L.~~
r
~w
Y l. .Y . J r ~ i
L ~
t p
t
tA
n~
C ~ ? ~
~
'u~ ~
a~
~
~
~
~ MEMORANDUM
TO: The Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Department of Comrrzunity Development
DATE: Apri! 28, 2003
SUBJECT 1/ariance and Appeais section of the amended Titie 11, Sign Regulations, Vail
Tawn Code_
Applicant: 1`own of Vaii
Planner: Matt Gennett
1. SUMMARY AND DESCRIPTI+aN OF REQIJEST
The purpose of this worksession is to present the new format af the propased Sign
Code amendments to the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) and
review the new variances and appeaFs language with the PEC, as variances from the
Sign Regulations are the only aspect of signage uncier the authority of the PEG_
~ II. BACKGROUND AND GOALS OF REVI5ION
The Town Qf Vail Sign Code was first adopted in 1973. Since that time there have
been numerous rewisions to the sign code. Major revisions that occurred in 1993
resulted in an increase af allowable sign area in West Vail, and more specifically, in
the Commercial Core 3(CC3) and Arterial Business Districts (ABD). In recent
years, the sign code has been variously labeled as:
a} Too complicated
b} Difficult to enfarce, and
c} Lacking a purpose statement.
The merchant cammunity and staff haae been working together dn revisians ta the
existing code in arder tfl correct the problems listed above. The Towra Council has
stated that ta#al s6gn area should not be increased far the VaiQ artd Lionshead viliages
based on the pedestrian nature of the villages. However, sign area could be
increased in West Vail since those businesses depend on vehicular traffic versus
pedestrian traffic. The folYowing abjectives shael be aehieved in developing a revised
sign code:
• Devel4p a clear purpose staternent for the sign code (complete).
• Deuelap a new sign code, camplete with graphics, for the Town of Vai) that
contributes to the Town's visian statement of being the "Premier Resort
Community." Signage and display elements should add samething to the Vail
~ experience... not a'etract from it.
• Make the code easier to understand and implement.
t
~
~ .
• Make the code easier to enforce by the Tawn, ~
III. ROLE OF REVIEW QODIES
Town Council: The Vail Tawn Council has the final au#hority in reviewing and
approving a sign code amendment. To change the Sign Cade requires approval on
two readings of an ordinance.
Planning and Environrrtentaf Comrinission (PEC): The PEC has the
respansibility to hear variances on a sign code application. Since the sign
code is in Ghapter 11 of the Town Code, the PEC daes not need to make a
formal recommendation.
aesign Review Baarct (DRB): The QRB has primary responsibility fa review and
make final decisions on sign applications. Althaugh the eode daes not require a
formal reGOmrnendatian from the Design Review Board, staff would appreciate
forwarding a recomrnendation from the Design Review Board an the revised sign
cade fo the Tawn Council.
IV. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS
A. TITLE 11, SIGN REGULATIDNS, Vail Town Code
B. Lionshead Master Plan
On page 6-2 of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan the plan states:
Creativity is eneouraged in individual retarl business signage.
Ordinary sfock or prefabr+cated signage shauld be avoided in favor of
cusfom designed and fa6ricated artisan signage.
V. ITEMS ClF INTEREST TC1 THE PEC:
A. General Format: Part of the impetus behind the ef#ort to draft a new sign
code has been the need for an easier to follow set of regulations. The
merchant community has stated that the existing code is too complicated for
most people to readily understand and use it correctly. Therefore, it is difficuft
to actually know when and why a sign is in violatian, for the town and public
alike, and to aciequately enforce the regulatioros. The layout and style af the
new sign code draft is meant to make it eas6er to understand and enforce.
The following outline demonstrates the proposed farmat and structure of the
new sign code:
TITLE 11 SIGN REGULATIONS
~
Chapter 1- Title, F'urpose and Applicability ~
Chapter 2- Administratian and Enforcement ~
Chapter 3 - Definitians
Ghapter 4- Sign Categories, Saze and Quantity ~
Ghapter 5 - Design Guidelines (Graphical)
Chapter 6- Variances and Appeals
2
~
~
~
B. Chapter 6 af the new code - Variances and Appeals:
(The exssting code language for Variances is attached at the end af this
memo. Stafif has not changed the substanee of the language.)
VARIANGES AND APPEALS
11-6-1 VARRANCES
A Purpose
To prevent or lessen practical difficu(ties with a givcn sign in relation
to physical hardships resulting frortt the size, shape, or dimensions of
a structure, or the location o# the structure, and from topographic or
physical conditians on the site ar in the imrnediate vieinity, or from
other physical limitations, street locations, or traffic conditions in the
immediafe vicinity of proposed signs.
B Application
1. An application #o the Planning and Environmental Comrnission
(PEC) for a Variance from the Sign Regulations shall be made
upon a form provided by the Community Development
aepartment. The variance application shall include the sign
permit application as uvell as the reasons for requesting
~ variance_
2. A variance application rnay be made with respect to any
regulatian subject to the requ+remenis set forth in this title.
3. Findings and Criteria;
a The appiicant must prove physical hardship.
b The applicant must prove special conditions exist
applicable to the land, buildings, topography,
vegetation, sign structures or ather matters on adjacent
lots or within the adjacent right nf way, whicYr would
subs#ant6ally restric# the effectiveness of the sign in
question. The special eircurnstances ar canditions
unique t4 the particular business or enterprise or
individuaE requesting the variance shall not apply
generally ta all businesses, enterprises, or similar
facilities.
c Applicant shali not have created the Circumstances
#hat have pr+aduced the conditians frarn which relief is
sought by the vari2nce application.
d Applicant rnust demonstrate tha# the granting of the
variance will be in general harmony with the purposes
of this TitEe.
~ G Fee
The adopted fee shall be paid at the time of application ar,d
shall not be refundable. The fee shall be set by the 7own
3
~
Council in accordance with guidelines set forth in Terwn ~
drdinances.
D Applieation Review
1 Upon receipt of a camplete application, that signage Variance
application will be subject to approual of the Administrator, and
appointed Design Rerriew Baarci at fhe discretian of the Administrator.
11-6-2 APPEAl.S
An appeal to the Town Council of a Planning and Enwironrrtental
Cammission (PEC) action on a sign variance application may be
made in accordance with the appeal process as written in section 12-
3-3 of T1TLE 12, ZONI9VG REGULATIQNS, Vail Town Cade.
VI. ACTIC7N REQUIRED BY THE PEC
No action is required by the PEC for text amendments to TI7LE 11, SIGN
REGULA710NS. The purpose of this memarandum and +nrark session is to
present the praposed variance language of the amended sign regulation
land address any other comments made by the PEC.
VI1. ATTACHMENTS ~
A. Chapter 7, Variances, Ttle 11, Sign Regulations
~
4
~ Attachment: A
11-7-1 - 11-7-5
i . ~ . .
CHAPTER7
1lARIANCES
SECT[ON: , variance appfication shall include the appli-
eaSion for a sign permit and shall alsa state
11-7-1: Purpose; Lirn6tations the appiicant's reasons for requesting vari-
7 i-7-2: Applicataon ance in accordance with the criteria set
11-7-3: Fee €arth in 5ection 11-7-5 af this Chap#er. .
71-7-4: Hearing (QTd, 9(1996) § 3)
11-7-5: Criteria FQr Approvaf
11-7-6: Appeal To Town Councii
11-7-3: FEE: The Tawn Cauncil shall set
a _ reasarsableVariance fee for
fiiing a sign variarice appliGatian. The iee 11-7-1: PURPOSE; LIMYTATIONS: shall be sufficient to cover the cast of 7awn
staff time and other expenses 6ncidental to
A. Considerations: In order to prevent or the review gf the application. The fee wiEl
to lessen such practical dif+iculties be ac#ooted in a fee sehedule. The fee shall
and unrecessary physical hardships be paid at the time of application and shall
inconsistent with the objECtives of this nof be refundable, (Ord. 9(1896) § 3)
Tit1e, variance from the regufations
- may be gTanted. A practical dif€iculty
or unnecessary physical hardship may 11-7-4: HEARING: Upon receept of a -
result from the size; shape, or dimen- complete variance application,
. sions of a structure, or the lacatian of the Administratar shall set a date far, and
the structure, from topographic ar conduct a hearing before the Planning and ~
physical cbnditions on the site ot in EnvironmentaE Commissian in accordance :
the imrnediate vicinity, or from other with the requirements of Title 12, Chap#er ~
physieal I'smitations, street lacatkons, 17 of this Code. Public notification of the I
or traffic cflnditions in the immedyate hearing shall be required ard shall follaw
vicin9ty. Cosf or inconvenience to the the natificatian requirements as stated in
applicant of strict ar fiteral compliance Section 12-3-6 oi this Cade. Where the
with a regulation shall no# be a reason provisions of Title 12, Ghapter 17 of this
far granting a variance. Code conflict with' C3r C{IffEf ffOffl, ?he specif-
ee provisions conta6ned in this Ghapter, the
B. Scope: A variance may be granted provisians of this Chapter sha]{ override
with respect to any regufatian con- andlar ntaflify the confl9cting pravisions at
tained in this Title. (Qrd. 9(1996) § 3) Tit1e 12, Chapter 17 of this Code. (Ord.
9(1996) § 3)
71-7-2: t1,PPLICATIOn: Application far a I
wariance shall be made upan a 11-7-5: CRITERrA FC}R APPROV.4.L:
form provided by the Adminsstrator. The Befare the PEanning and Envi-
~
Town of Vai1
. ~
11-7-5 , 71-7-6
. ~
ronmental Cornmission acts on a variance 11-7-6: APPEAL TO Tt]WIti COUNCIL: f` . appiication fram this Title, the appticant An appe4l to the Town Council must prove physical hardship, and the Plars- of a Planning and Environmental Commis-
ning and Environmental Commission must sion action an a vGriance may be rnade in
find that: ac;.ordance with the appeal process as
ou#fined in 5ection 12-3-3 of the ?oning
A. Speciaf Circumstances Exist: There Code', (Ord. 9(1996) § 3)
are special circumst2nces rar cond's-
tions applying ta the land, buildings, . topography, veaetation, sign strvc- =
tures or ather matters on adjaeent dats
or within the Gdjacent right of way,
which would substantiaily restrict the
~ effectiveness of the sipn in question:
: .
~:riC.iViC+at:~, il:~'v`vc'vci, iiiut sUci, saGGlui ' : • , „ -
~ GIrCUiT15to,nCE5 di COfidetiDtl3 @f3
unique to the pa~icular ~usiness or ~
. enterprise to which the applicant de° - sires to draw at;entian, and do not
apply generaily to ail businessES or
enterprises.
B. Applicant Not Responsible: That sueh ~
special circumstances were noi creat- r
ed by the applicant. i
i
C. Harmony Maintasned: Tha# the grant- -
ing of the variance will he in general harmany with the purposes of this
Ti#Ie, and -wifl not be materially detri- '
mental to the persons residing dr
warking in the vic€nity, To adjacent prQperty, to the neighborhaod, or ta
, av
the pub[ic welfare in general.
D. ln Line With Provisions. The variance
applied for does not depart from #he
provisions of this Tiile any more than
is reqUired to identify the applicant's -
business Qr use. E. Cther Factors: Such other factors and
c; iteria as tne P,anning and Enviran-
rnentai Commission deems applicable
to the proposed variance. (Ord.
9(1996) § 3)
~
i
1. See Title 12 of this Cade.
2'own of Vaii ~
,
f
~
.
[
19 -7-5 11-7-6
.
I:-
ronn-sental Commission acts an a variance 1 i-7-6: APPEAL TQ TQWN COV:ti'CIL: appjication from this Tit12, the appiican# An appeal ta the Town Council '
must prove physical hardship, and the Plan- of a i'Yanning and Environmental Commis-
ning and Environmental Commission must sion action on a variance may be made in
ffnd that: accordanee wi#h the appeaf process as
Qutfined in 5ection 12-3-3 af tne Zo,nirag
A. Special Circumstances Exist: There Code'. (Ord. 9(1996) § 3)
are speeial circumstances or condi-
tions applying to the land, buildings, - topography, vegetation, sign struc- _
#ures ar other mat:ers on adjacent lots
or within the adjacsnt right of way,
which would substantially restrict ihe
EffeCtIVen@55 af the sign in question:
ICJCIJ.9'd"UwCvef, IIiai uL;~-i 5pCl.S[!1 . _ . . . . . , -
Gj,~.llm sianCcS oF cond-itions ara
unique to the partfcular busirress or ° enterprise to which the applicant de-
sires to draw at#ention, and do not appiy generaily to all biISInE:55E:S or ` enterprises.
~ B. ApPlieant Not Responsible: Yhat such
special circumstances were not crea4- .
ed by ihe applic2nt.
C. Harmony Maintained: That the grant- ing of the variance will be in general harmony with the purposes af ihis
i itle, and -wila no# be materially detri- mental ta the persans residing or
working in t'he vicinity, 'to adjacent '
property, ta the neighborhood, nr to ,'Aw",
the ,public weli'are sn general.
D. ln Line With Provisions: The variance
applied far dQes nat depart from the
provisions of this Title any more than
is required to identify the applicant's . business or use.
E. Other Factors: 5uch ather factors and
criteria as the Planning and Environ-
mental Commission dearns applicable
to the praposed variance. (Ord,
9(1996) § 3)
~
1. See Titla 12 of this Coae.
1"ocun o/" Vai1
.
~ MEMoRANauM
TO: Planning and Enuironmental Commussion
FRC?M: Department of CQmmuni4y Development
DA7E: April 28, 2003
SUBJECT: Areques# for a recornmendation to the Vaif Town Council for a major amendment to
Special Development District No. 36, pursuant to Sec#ion 12-9A-10, VaiG Town Code,
ta allow for a mixed-use hatel; a request for a final review crf a condi#ional use permit,
pursuant to Sectian 12-7A-3, Vail 7own Code, to allow for Type I!I Employee
Housing Units and a fractional fee club; and a request for a recammencfation to the
Vail Town Council for a proposed rezoning o# Lot 9A, Vaii VilEage 2 Id Filing from
Heavy Service (HS) district to Public Accommadation (I'A) distriet, located at 28 S.
Frontage Road and 13 Vail Raad/Lots 9A& 9C, Vail Village 2"" Filing.
Applicant: Nicallet Island Development Company Inc.
Planner: Allison Ochs
SUMMARY
~ The applicant, Nicollet Island Development Cornpany Inc., is requesting a major amendment
to Special Development District kVo. 36; a conditional use perrnit for 34 Type I1I Emp{oyee
Hausing Units; a conditional use perrnit far a 22 unit Fra,ctional Fee C1ub; a rezaning of Lot
9A, Vail Village 2"d Filing from Heavy Service zone district to Public Accommodation zone
district, to faci9itate the development of a Four Seasons Resort mixed-use hotel. Staff is ~
recammending approval of the applications, with the findings and conditions as cautlined an
Section XII of this memorandum.
I1. DESCRiPTION {)F THE REQUESTS
The Four Seasons Resart is a mixed-use development proposal, located at 28 Sauth
Frontage Road and 13 Vail Road I Lots 9A and 9C, Vail Village 2"d Filing. A Wicinity map has
been attached #or reference (Attachment A). The proposal is far the redevelopment of the
existing Ghateau of Vail and the Vail Amoco sites. Uses within the develaprnent include
residential, hotel, commercial and recreatian. The appficant is request'tng a major
amendment to Specia[ Development District No. 36, conditional use permits to allaw for a
Fractional Fee Cfub and 34 Type Ilk Emplayee Housing Units, and a rezoning of Lot 9A, Vail
`Jiilage 2 nd Fi[ing from Heavy Service zane district to Public Accommodation zane district.
The applicant`s written staternent of their request and Prograrn analysis has been attached
for reference (Attachrnents B and C).
A square foota_ e breakdowrt af the praposa9 is provided below:
~ 47,592 sq. ft. - fractional fee club units (22 units)
¦ 53,421 sq. ft. - condominiums (18 units)
~ • 76,978 scE. ft. - accommodation units (118 keys)
* 10,202 sq. ft. - empGoyee hou5ing units (34 unots)
¦ 7,695 sq. ft. - restaurant/retail
1
~
¦ 11,726 sq. ft. - canferencelEneeting racrms ~
¦ 14,416 sq. ft. - spalhealth club
Malor Amenciment to Special Develoqmer,t District No. 36
The Four Seasons Resort is requesting a major amendment to Speciaf Development District
No. 36, pursuant to Section 12-9A-10, Vail Town Code. According to Sectian 12-9A-1,
Purpose, Vaii Town Code, the purpose of a Special Development District is, in part:
The purpose of the Specia! Developrnent District is to sncourage flexibility and
creafivity in the development of land in arder to,promote its most appropriate use; to
improve the design charaeter ancf quality af ihe new development with the Tawn; to
facilitate the adequate and econvmrcaf provision of streets arrd utilifies; to preserve
the nafural and seenic features of open spaee areas; and fv furtirer the overall goals
of the commurrrty as sfated in the Vai! Comprehensive Plan.
A Special Development District allows for deviations from the developrnent standards as
regulated by the underlying zoning. It does nat ailow for deviations from the perrnitted or
conditionaE uses o# the underlying zoning. The Four Seasans Resort proposaC contains the
following deviatians fram the underlying Public Accommodation zone district.
Heiqht -as proposed, the maximum heEght of the buildirrg is 89 feet, w'hich is 41 ft.
higher than the 48 ft. allowed under the Public Accomrnodation zone district
regufations. `fhe primary roof ridge (wh'rch runs parallel to South Froniage aaad) is
proposed to have a maximurn height of 77.5 ft. ~
Siie Coverage (below grade) -as proposed, the site caverage below grade exceeds
the maacimurn allowable by the Public Accommodation zone district. The Public
Accommodation zone district allows 65% site coverage (77,199 sq. ft.) As pro,posed,
the applicant is praposing below gracie site coverage of 71% (84,402 sq. ft.) and
above-grade site coverage of 58% (69,346 sq. ft.).
Wall Heipht- as proposed there are two locatians where the wall height exceeds the
maximum allowa:ble retaining wall height. The maximum retairring wall height in the
front setback is 3 ft. At the entrance into the parking structure, the wall height is 11
ft. This wail is part afi the foundation wall af the parking structure below and is
therefore not cansidered a retaining wall. In addition, fhe wall which is adjacent to
the driveway of the loading and delivery bay is 10 ft. in height. This wall is alsa part
of the faundatian wall of ihe parking structure below and therefare not a retaining
walL However, because both of these walls will appear to be retaining walls, staff
believes that it is important to note these as deviations,
The review criteria for a major amendment to a Special Develapment District are eontained
in Sectian VIII af this rrzernarandum.
Conditional Use Permit Requests
Sectian 12-7A-3, CQnditional Uses, Vail Town Cade, regulates the cQnditional uses allowed
in the PublGc Accamrnodatian zone district. Fractional Fee Clubs and Type III Employee
Hausing UnPts are allowed as conditional uses in the Public Accormmodatican zone district.
The applicant is requesting a Ganditicnaf use permit to allow for the establishment of a ~
firac#ionaf fee club, which includes 22 fractional fee club units. In addition, the applicant is
requesting a conditional use permid to altow for the construciion af 34 Type Ilf Employee
2
~ Housing Units. The review criteria for the conditianal use permits are con#ained in Sections
IX and X a# this memorandum.
Rezaning Request
Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail TQwn Code, regulates the process for zone district
baundary amendments. The proposal tor the Four Seasons Resort includes a prapased
rezoning of L.ot 9A, Vail ViMlage 2"d Filing from Heavy Service zone district to Public
Accommodation zone district and inclusion in 5pecial Develapment District No. 36. The
review criteria far a zone district boundary arnendment are contained in Section.X! of this
mernorandurn.
Ill. BACKGRQUND
Information regarding the exis#ing Chateau at Vail is limited. The Town of Vail files do not
contain information regarding the original construction of the ha#el. The existing hotel
con#ains 120 hotel rooms at approxirrrately 280 sq. ft. each. Development activity on the site
to date has been limited ta minor alterations.
In 2001, the Town Council approved Qrdinance EWo 14, Series of 2041, adopting a
deuelopment plan for the estabiishmsnt of Speciaf Development District No. 36, Vail Plaza
Hatel West on the existing Chateau at Vail site. At that time, the develapment site did not
incCude the Vail Amaco site, located at 28 S. Frontage Rd. / Lot 9A, Vail Village 2"d Filing.
Generaliy, Ordinance No. 14, Series of 2001, approved a development plan which included
~ 15 dwelling uni#s, 116 accommodation units, 40 fractional fee cCub tinits, and 14 Type Ili
Employee Housing Unuts. The deviations irom underlying zoning inefuded deviations from
the maximum height and site cowerage (undergrounc!).
Informa#ion regarding the existing Vail Amoco site is also fimited. The site is currently zoned
Heavy Serviee. In 2001, an applicafion was rece+ved from Alpine Ventures to amend the
Heavy Service zane district. The application was intended ta faciiitate a rnixed use
development (service station and multiple family dweliing units) an the site. This appGcatian
was subsequently withdrawn and na further aet4an taken.
IV. ROLES OF REVlEWING BOARDS
Special Develrrpment Dist_rict
~C7rder af Revrew: Generally, applicatrons wrll be reviewed frrst by the F'lanning and
Environmental Cornmissron for impacts of use/rlevetopment, then by the Design Review
Board for com,pliance of proposed buildings and site planning, ano' final approval by fhe
Town Council.
Planninq and Environmental Cammission: The Planning and Environrnental Commission
is advisary ta the Town Cauncil. The Planning and Environmental Commissian shall review
the proposaf for and make a reCOmmendation to the Town Council on the foElowing:
¦ Permitted, accessary, ar+d conditianal uses
¦ Evafuation of desfgn criteria as follows (as applicabEe):
~ A. Compatibility: Design compa8ibility and sensitivity ta the immediate environrtient,
neighborhoad and adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk,
building height, buffer zones, identity, character, visual integrity and orientatian.
3
~
B. Relationship: Uses, activifiy and density which pravide a compatible, efficient and
workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity.
C. Parking And Loading: Compliance with parkireg and loading requirements as autlined
in Chapter 10 of this Title.
D. Gomprehensive Plan: Con#ormity with app9icable elements of the Vail
Corraprehensive Plan, Town policies and urban design plans.
E. Natural andlor Gefllogic Flazard: identificatiocr and rni#igatian af nafural andlor
geologic hazards that affect the praperty on which the special development district is
proposed.
F. Design Features: 5ite plan, building design and facation and open space pr4visions
designed to produce a functional development responsive and sensitive to natural
features, vegetation and overall aesthetic qvality of the comrnunity.
G. Traffic: A circulation systern designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing
on and off-site traf#ic circulatian.
H. Landscaping: Functional and aes#hetic landscaping and open space in order to
optimize and preserve natural features, recreation, views and funetian.
1. Vllorkable Plaw Phasing plan Qr 5ubdivESion pian that wilf maintain a workable, ~
functional and effieient reEatianship throughout the devefopment Qf the special
development district.
- Recommendation on developcnent standards including, loi area, sits dimerasions,
setbacks, height, density control, site coverages, landscaping and parEcing.
Desiqn Review Baard: The Qesign Review Board has no review autharity on a Special
Development District proposaf, but must review any accompanying Design Review Board
application. The Design Revieuv Board review of a Special Development District prior to
Town Councii approual is purefy advisory in nature.
The Design Review Board is responsible fflr evaluating the Design Review Board proposal:
- Architectural compatibility with other structures, the land and surroundings
- Fitting buildings into landscape
- Configuration of building and gracfing af a site which respects the topagraphy
- Rernoval/Preservation of trees and native WegetatiQn
- AcJequate provision for snow storage on-site
- Acceptability of building ma#erials and colors
- Acceptability of roof elements, eaves, overhangs, and other building forms
- Provision of fandscape and drainage
- Provision of fencing, walls, and accessory siructures
- Circuiatian and access to a site including parking, and site distances
- Location and design of satelliie dishes
- Pravision of outdoor lighting ~
- Cornpliance with the architectural design guidelines of applicable master plans.
4
,
~ Staff:
The staff is responsible for ensuring that all submittal requirements are provided and plans
conforrn to the technical requirements of the Zoning Regulatrons. The staff aEso advises the
applicant as to campliance with the design guidelines.
Staff provides a staff inemo cantaining backgraund on the property and provides a sta#f
eva6uation of the praject with respect to the required criteria arod findings, and a -
recommendation on approval, approval with conditions, or deniaL Staff also facilitates the
review process.
Town Gauncil: The Town Council is responsible far final appror?aUdenial of a Special
Development District. The Town Council shali review the proposal for the following:
Permitted, accessory, and conditional uses
Evaluation of de5ign criteria as follows (as applicable):
A. Campatibility: Design campatibility and sensitivity to the irrimediate environment,
neighborhood and adjacent prflperties relative ta architectural design, scale, bulk,
building height, bufier zones, identity, character, visual integrity and orientation.
B. Re1a#ionship: Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and
workable relationship with surrounciing uses and activity.
~ C. Parking And Loadinge Gompliance with parking and foading requiremerats as outlined in
Chapter 14 af ihis Title.
D. Comprehensive Plan: Conformity wi#h applicalale elements af the Vail Comprehensive
Plan, Town pokicies and urban design plans.
E. Natural andlor Gealagic Hazard: Identification and mitigation of natural and/or geologic
hazards ihat affect the property on whicn the special develapment dis#rict is proposed.
F. Design Features_ Site plan, building design and lacation and open space pravisians
designed ta produce a functional development responsEVe and sensitive ta natural
features, vegetation and averalC aesthetic quality of the cammunity.
G. 7raffic: A circulation system designed for bath vehieles and petiestrians addressing an
and off-site traffic circulation.
H. Landscaping: Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize
and preserve natural features, recreation, views and function.
I, Workable Plan: Phasing plan or subdiwision plan that wi[I maintain a workable, funetiona]
and efficient re(ationship throughout the develapment of the special development district.
- Approval of development standards including, fQt area, site dimensions, setbacks,
height, cEensity cantrol, site coverages, lanc{scaping and parking.
~ Candittonal Use Permits:
Qrder of Revrew: Generally, applicatrnns wrll be revrewed first by the Planning and
Envrronmental Commrssron for acceptabilrty af use and then by fhe Desrgn ReviewBoard for
5
.
compliance of prvposed buildings arrd site planning.
Planninq and EnWiranmental Comrnission; The Pianning and Enviranmental Camrnissian is
responsible for final approval/denial of a conditional use permit. The Planning and
Enviranmental Commission is respansible for evaiuating a conditional use perrrzit proposal
for;
1. Relationship and impact of the use on developrrtent abjectives of the Town.
2. Effect af the use on light and air, distribution of papulation, transportation facilities,
utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities and public
facilities needs.
3. Effect upan traffic, with particular reference to congestion, autornotive and pedesirian
safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and remavai af
snow frorn the streets and parking areas.
4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the propased use is to be iQCated,.
including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surraunding uses.
5. Such Qther fiactors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the propased
use.
6. The ertwironmental 4mpact repart concerning the proposed use, if asn environmental ~
impact report is required by Ghapter 12 of this Title.
Can#ormance with development standards of zone distrECt
- Lot area.
- Setbacks
- 8uilding Height
- Density
- GRFA
- Site coverage
- Landscape area
- f'arking and loading
- Mitigation of deWelopment impacts
aesi n Review Board: The design Reuiew Boarci has no review authority on a conditional
use permit, but must review any accompanying aesign Review Board application, The
Design Reuiew Board is responsible for evaluating the Design Review Board proposal for:
- Architectural cornpatability with other structures, the land and surraundings
- Fitting buildings into landscape
- Configuration of building and grading of a site which respects the topography
- RemovaVFreservation of irees and native vegetation
- Adequate provision for snow storage ort-site
- Acceptability af building materials and colors
- Acceptability of roaf elerraents, eaves, overhangs, and other building forms
- Provision of landscape and drainage ~
- Provision of fencing, walfs, and accessory struetures
- Circulation and access #o a site including parking, and site distances
6
~ - Location and design of satellite dishes
- Provision of outdoor lighting
- The design of parks
Staff:
The staff is responsible far ensuring that aA submittal requirements are provided and plans
conform to the technical requirements of the Zoning Regulations. The staff also advises the
applicant as to compliance with the design guidelines.
5taff provides a staff rnerna containing background on tne praperty and provides a staff
evaluat9on of the project with respect to the required criteria and findings, and a
recommendation on approval, approva[ with condctions, or denial. Staff alsa faeili#ates the
review prac€:ss..
Town Council:
Actitrns of Qesign Review Board or Planning and Environmental Commission maybe
appealed to the Town Council or by the Town Council. Town Council evalua#es whether or
not the Planning and Enviranmental Commissian nr Design Review Board erred vvith
appravals or denials and can uphold, uphofd with modifications, or overkurn the board's
decision.
ZoninqlRezoninq
~ Planning and Environmental Commission: The P1anning and Environmental Cammissiort
is advisary to the Town Council. The Planning and Environrnental Cocnmission shall review
ihe praposal and make a recammendation 1o the Tawn Councii on the eQmpatibility of #he
proposed zoning with surrounding uses, cansistency with ihe Vail Comprehensive Plans,
and smpact on the general welfare of the cornrnurrity.
Design Review BoarcB: The Design Review Board has no review authority on
zoninglrezanings_
5taf#;
The staff is responsible for ensuring that all subrnittal requirements are provitied. 7he staff
advises the applicant as to compliance with the Zoning Regulatians. Staff provides a staff
mema containing background on the property and provides a staff evaluation of the project
with respect to the required criteria and findings, and a recommeradation on approval,
approval with conditions, Qr denial. Staff also facilitates the review process. ~
~
Town Cauncil: The Town Counci1 is responsible for final approvaUdenial of a
zoninglrezoning. The 7own Council shall review and approve the proposal based on the
compatibility of the propased zoning with surrounding uses, cansistency with the Vail
Comprehens+ue Plans, and impact on #he general welfare of the community.
V. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUIVIENTS
Vail Land Use Plan
~ The Vail Land Use Plan was adapted by the Vaii Town Council on November 18, 1986. The
plan is intended ta serve as a basis fram which future decisions may be made regarding
land use within the vaEley. The primary #ocus af the Vail Land Use Plan is to address the
7
long-terrn needs and desires of the Town as it matures. The Town of Vail has evoEved from ~
a small ski resort founded in 1962 with approximately 190,000 annual s€cier visits and
virtualiy no permanent residents to a community with 4,500 perrnanent residents. The Town
is faced with the chaElenge af creatively accomrnodating the increase in permanent
residency as well as the inerease in skier visits, while preserving the important qualities that
hawe made Vail successful. This is a considerable challenge, given the fact that land within
the Valley is a we61-defined fiinite resource, with rnuch af the land already developecf at this
juncture. The Vail Land Use Plan was undertaken with the goal of addressing this challerage
in mind.
The goals articulated in the plan re#iect the desires of the citizenry. The gaal statements that
were developed reflect a generaf cansensus of the camments shared at public meetings.
The gaals contained in the Vail Land Use Plan are to be used as the Town`s adopted policy
guidelines ira the review pracess fQr new development proposals. Staff has reviewed the Vail
Land Use Plan and believes the following policies are relevant to the review of this proposal:
1.0 General GrowfhlDevelopment
1.1 Vail shoUfd corafinue to graw in a controlled enviranment, maintaining
a balance between resideniial, commercial arrd recreational uses tv
senre 6oth the visitor and the permanenf resident.
1.2 The quality of the environment including air, water artd ather raatur'al
resources should be protected as the Town grows. ~
1.3 The quafr°ty of develvpr»enf should be maintained and upgraded
whenever possible.
1.4 The orfginal theme of the o!d Village Ccre shauld be carried rnio new
development in fhe Village Core through continued rmplementation of
the Urban Desrgn Guide PJan.
1.12 Varf should accommodate mpst of th€ addrtional growth in exisring
developed areas (infrll areas).
2.0 Skrer/Tourlst Concerns
2,1 The comrraunrty should emphasize rts rofe as a destination resort
whrfe aecommodatirrg day skrers.
2.2 7"he ski area owner, the busrness community and the Town leaders
shauld vvork together closely fo rnake existing facrllties and the Town
funcdon more efficreRtly.
2.3 The ski area owner, the business cammuniiy arrd the Town leaders
should work tagether to improve facilitres far day skiers.
2.4 The community should irnprove summer recreational and cuftural
opportunlties to encourage summer tourisrr7. ~
3.0 CQmmercia!
8
~
3_ 1 The hatel bed base should be preserved and used more efiiciently.
3.2 The Village and Lionshead areas are fhe best location for hotels to
serve the future needs of the destination skiers.
3.3 Hotels are tmportant to the continued sUCCess vf the Town of VaiJ, I
therefore conversion to condominrums should be discouraged.
3.4 Commercial growth should be corrcenfrated r'n existing commercial
ereas to accomrrrodate bofh local and visifor rreeds.
4.0 VrJlage Core / Lianshead
4.1 Fufure cvrrrmerciaf development should continue to occur primarrly in
existing cnmmercral areas. Future commercial developmenf rn the
Core areas needs to be carefully canfralled to facilitate access and
deJrvery.
4,2 Increased densiiy tn the Core areas is aceeptable so lang as the
extsting characfer of each area rs preserved fhorough rmpJerrrentation
of the Urban Design Guide Plan.
~ 4.3 7he ambiance of Vail Vi!lage is important to the identfty af Vail and
should be presenreci. (scale, alpine character, srraall town feefirrg,
mountafns, natural setting, infimafe size, cosriavpofitan feeling,
environmental quafity.)
4.4 The connection beiween the Village Core and Lionshead shaufd be
enhanced through:
a. lnstallaliQn of a nevv type of people mover
b. lmproving the pedestrtan system with a creatively desigRed
eonneciion, arierated toward a nature walk, alpine garden, and/or
sculpture plaza.
c. New developrnent should ,be controfEed to frmit commercial uses.
5.0 Resideratial
5.1 Additiorraf residentiaf grawth should corrtlnue to occur prrmarily in
existrng, platfed areas and as appropriate in new areas where high
hazards do not exisf.
52 Quality time-share uraits should be accammodated to help keep
occupancy rates Up.
5_3 Affordable ernpfoyee housing should be made availa6le through
priuate efforts, assisted by limited incentives, provided by the Town of
~ Vail with appropriafe restrictions.
5.4 Resldential grouvth should keep pace wrth the marketplace demands
9
#or a fcall range of housing types. ~
5.5 The existing employee housrng base should be preserved and
upgraded. Additional emplayee hausing needs shauld be
accornmodated at varied sites throughoui fhe cammunity.
According ta the Officiai Town of Vail Land Use Plan map, the appEicant's proposed
redevelopment site is 1QCated with the "Resort Accomrr3adations and Service" and
"Transition" designations. A Land Use Map is attached for reference (Attachment D).
R@sort Accommodations and Service
7his area irrcludes activrties atmed at accommadating the overrtlghf and short term
visiiQr to the area. Primary uses rncfude hotefs, ladges, service statlorrs, arrd parking
structures (with derrstties up to 25 dwelling urrifs or 50 accamrnodatron unrts per
buildable acre). These areas are oriented toward vehicular access from 1-70, wrfh
other suppart commercial and bUSiness servrces included. Also alJowed rn thrs
category, would be instftutional uses and various mcrnicipal uses.
Transition
The transition designation applies to the area between Lianshead and the Vall
V111age_ The activities and slte design of this area is aimed at encouraging
pedestrian flovv fhraugh the area and strengthenrng the connection 6etween the fwo ~
commercial cores. Appropriate acftvitaes rnclude hotels, lodging, and other tourist
ariented residential urttts, ancillary retail and restaurarrt uses, museums, areas of
pubfic art, nature exhibits, gardens, pedestrian plazas, and other types of civic and
cu(turally oriented uses, and the adjacent properties to the north. This designat+on
wauld include the righf-of way of West Meadow Drive and the ad,iacenf properties ro
the north.
Town of Vail 5ireetscape Master Plan
The Town of Vail is in the process of preparing arevision ta the adopted Town of Vail
Streetscape Master Plan. The ariginal Stree#seape Master PCan is an outgrowth of the VaiE
Village llrban Design Guide Plan. The Urban Design Guide Plan was created in 1982 to
give guidance to the overall physical developrrtent for the Viflage. In additiQn to providing
broad design guidelines, the Guide Plan suggested specific physical improuements for the
Village. Improvements such as new plazas, new landscape area, etc. Alang with the
canstruction of these public impravements included praposals to complete numeeous private
sector improvements. Impravements such as building additians, outdoDr deck expansions,
and fagade im}arovements_ The Streetscape Master Plan was written in park #o provide clear
design directican far coordinated public/private irnprovements. According to the Jllliaster Plan,
the purpnse of the plan is to pravide a comprehensiue and coordinated conceptual design
for streetscape improvements that:
1. is supported by the community;
2. enriches th€: aesthetic appearance of the Town; and
3. emphasizes the importance of cra#ismanship and creative design in order ta ~
create an exceflent pedestrian experience.
10
~ The Town of Vai{ Streetscape Nlaster Plan states, jn part, the following with regards to West
Meadow Drive:
West NJeadow Drive is heavify used by pedestrians. If rs the primary pedestrian
route betvveen Val! Urllage and Lionshead Mal1. Cut'rerttiy, mosf pedestrians wualk rn
the street; hovuever, a small nUmber use the narrow (5 tt. wrde) cancrefe sidewalk on
the north srde bordering the hosprtal. There appears fa be no preference by the
pedestrrans for one side of the street over the other, except at the east end, where
mast of the pedesfriarts cross Vail Road on the north side of the intersecfians.
The prelrrrainary concepts for ENest Meadow Drive focused on defining the existing
pedestrian circulatian patfems. This rreed fia define the pedestrian circulatior+ systerra
fed to the development of the fvllowing prelirninary corrcepts.
• (Jse differenf paving freatments ta create in-sfreet pedestrian paFhs at the
roadway leuel. 7his cancept builds on the idea that part of the charm and fur+ of
Vail rs the abNrty fo walk in the street. A street-level walk system is easrer to
mainfain, bUt it was felt ihat the high volume of cars, ,buses and trucks usirrg
West Meadaw D'rive would create street-level pedestrian paths that would
appear [o create an even wider road withaut providing pedestrian safefy.
• To canstrucf sPdevvalks of equal width on both sides of the streef. Si,nce this is
the pattern that masf people are familiar wrth, i1 would be user friendly, but wauld
~ resuft in relatively narrow walkways and increased pedestrians walking 6ehlnd .
parked cars. In additian, it was felt that this system would do little to break up the
monotany of the street.
PREFER,4FD STREETSCAPE PLAN ~
The concept ihat received the broadest pubJic suppnrt was fo creafe a prrmary
pedestrian path (1(1'- 12' wide) orr one srde of the street arrd a smaller srdewalk (5'
wide) an the other. The prl,rrrary pedestrian path crcasses from the north to ihe sacrth
sr'de and then back again, ta avaid the head-irr parking_ Curb and gutter would !'ae
used ta defrne the street which has been narrawed to the minimum wldth of 26;
eurb-to-curb.
Town of Vaii Zonina Recaulations
Staif has reviewed the Town of Vail Zoning Regulalions {Title 12, 1/ail Town Code}. We
bel6eve the follov+ring code seclions are relevant to the review of the applicant's request:
Section 12-2-2 Definitions:
HEIGNT: The disfance measured vertically fro,-rr any pornt on a proposed or existing
roQf or eaves to the exisfing or frnished grade (whichever is more restrrctive) focafed
directly below said poirrt of the roof ar eaves. Within any burlding footprint, heighf
shall be measured vertically frDrn any poirat on a propased or existing roaf to fhe
~ existirtg grade directly below said point an a proposed or exr'sting roof
SITE COVERAGE., The ratio of the total buifding area an a site to the tofal area of a
site, expressed as a percenFage. Far the purpose of calcula£ing site coverage,
11
"[auilding area" sha1J mean ihe tofal horizontal area of any buildrng, carpar[, porte ~
cochere, arcade, and covered or roofed walkway as measured from the exferior faee
of perimeter wa11s or supporting calumns above grade or at groUnd level, whrchewer
is the greater area. Far the purposes of this definitr'on, a balcony ar deck projecting
trom a higher elevation may extend over a lower balcony, deck or waJkway, and in
such case the higher balcony crr deck shall not be deemed a roof or covering for the
lower balcorry, deck or walkway. In addrtion to the above, building area shaJl also
irrclude any portioR af a roaf overhang, eaves, or cavered stair, covered deck,
covered porch, ca vered terrace or ccrvered patio that extends more tharr four feet (4)
fram the exterlor face of the perimeter 6uildrng walls or supporting columrrs.
SectFOn 12-3-7, Zane District Boundarv Arnendment
C. Crrteria and Flndrngs:
1. Zone Dfstrict Boundary Amendment
a. Factors, Enurnerafed: Before acting on an applicatlort for a zone disfrict
boundary arrrendmeni, the Planning & Environmental Cornmrssion and Town
C'ouncrJ shall consider the fallowrng factors with respecf to the requesfed
zone district boundary amendrnent:
1. The extent fa whlch ihe zone district amendment rs consistent with a11 the
applrcable eJements of the adopted goals, objectives and palicies ~
autlined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan and is compatible with the
development objectives of the Towra; and
I
2. 7he extent fo which the zvne disirict amendment is suitable wifh the
existrrrg and potential land uses on the site and existfng and pofential
surroundrng land uses as set out in the Town's adopted planning
documents; and
3. The extent tcr which the zone districf amendment presents a harmonious,
convenient, worka6le refationship among farrd uses consistent vvith
murrrcipal development objectives; and
4. The extent to which the zone district amendmenr provides for the grokvth
of an orderly viable cornmunity and does not constitute spof zoning as
[he amendment serves the best interes[s af Che cornmurrity as a whale;
and
5. The extent to which the zone district amendment results rn adverse or ~
benefieial impacts on the natural enviranment, rncfuding 6ut nof limited to '
vvafer quality, air quality, rtoise, vege[ation, riparian carridors, hillsides
and other desirable natural features; and
8. The extent to which the zone drsfriet amer+dmer?t is cansisfent with the
pcrrpase staterrrent of the proposed zone district,
7. The extent [o which the zone drstrict amendment demQnstrafes hQw
conditrons haue changed since the zorarng designation of the subject
12
~ property was adopted and is na longer appropriafe.
8. Such other factars and criteria as the Commission and/or Gouncil deem
applicable io the proposed rezoning.
b. Necessary Firrdrrrgs: Befare recommendirrg and/vr granting an a,pproual of an
application fcrr a zane district boundary amendment the Plarrning & Environmental
Commission and the TQwn Council shall make the folfowirrg findings with respecf to
the requested amendmerat:
i. That the arnEndment ts consistent with the adopted goals, objectives and
policies auflined in the Varl Comprehensive Plan and compatible with fhe
development vbjectfves vf the Town; and
2. 7hat the amendment is cornpatibie with anaf suifable to adjacent uses
and appropriate for the surroundrng areas; and
3. That the amerrdment promotes the health, safety, morals, and general weifare
of the Tawn and promotes the coordr'nated and harmonious developrrrent of I
the Tourn in a rraanner fhat conserves and enhances rfs natural environment
and its established character as a resarl and residential community of the
highesr quality.
~ Article 12-7A, Public Accammodation (PA) District (in part)
12-7A-1: PURPOSE:
The Public AecomrrrodatiQn District is intended to provide sites for Iodges and
residerrtial aecommadafians fcar visitors, tvgether with such public and sernipublrc
facrlities and limited professinnal offices, medical facilrties, privafe recreation,
commercral/retail and related vrsltor-arrented uses as may appropriately be located
wrthln ihe sarne d+strici and compatible with adjacent land uses. The Public
Accommodatrorr District is intended tv ensure adequate lighi, air, operr space, and
other amenities cornmensuraie wirh ladge uses, and to malntain the desrrable resort
quaJrties of fhe District by estabfishrng approprrate site development starrdards.
Additronal narrresideniial uses are perrnitted as eanditional uses whrch enhance the
nature of Vail as a vacation comrrrunity, and where permittecl uses are intended to
functran compatibly with the high a+ensify Jodgrng character of the Drstrrct.
12-7A-2. PERIVIITTED USES:
The tollowirrg uses shafl be perrrrrtted in the PA Drsfrict_
Lodges, rncfuding accessory eating, drinking, or retail establishments located within
the prlrrcipal use arrd not occupying more than fen percent (10%) of the total grass
residenlial fJvpr area of the main sfructure or siructures on the site; addifionaf
accessory dining areas may be lvcated orr an outdaar deck, porch, ar terracs.
12-7A-3: CONDITlQNAL USES:
7he following conditivnal uses shall be permiffed in the PA Disfrict, subject fo
issuance of a condrtional use permit !n accordance with ihe provisions af Chapter 16
~ of this 7itle:
Bed and breakfast; as further regulated by Sectiorr 12-14-18 of thi5 Ti[!e.
13
Churches. ~
Fractional fee c1ub as further regulated by subsecttarr 12-16-6A7 of ihis Titfe.
Hospitals, medreal and dental clrnics, and medical centers.
,Major arcade, so lang as if does not have any exteriar frontage on any public way,
street, walkway, ar ma11 area.
Private clubs and elvlc, cultural and fratemal organizations.
Prafessional and business affrces.
Publrc buildings, grounds and facllities.
Public ar commercral parking factlitr"es ar structures_
Publrc ar private schoals.
f'uhlrc park and recreatlorral facilities.
Publrc transportation terminals.
Public utility and pu,blic service uses.
Ski lifts and Iows.
Theaters and canventiorr facilitres.
Type IfI employee housing units as ,provided in Chapfer 13 of this Title.
12,7A-8: DEIVSlTYCQNTROL:
(Jp fo cane hundred fitty (150) square feet of gross resrdentral flovr area (GRFA) rnay
be permitted for each one hundred (100) square feet of,buildable site area. Firral
deferrrrinatiQn af allowable gross residential floor arEa shalf be made by the Planning
and Environmenta! Cammrssiorr in accordance with Section 12-7A-12 of this ArFicle.
Specrfically, in determirring allowable gross resrdential floar area the Planraing and
Environmen#al Commissian shall malte a finding that praposed gross residantial flonr ~
area is in conformance with applicable elements of the Vail Village Urban Qesign
Guide Plan and Design Consideratrans. Tofal density shall rrot exceed fwenfy five
(25) dwe!lirrg unlts per aere of buifdabfe srte area. For the purposes af calculating
density, employee housrng urrits, accvmmodation unrts and fractional fee club uniis
shalf nof be counted towards derrsify.
12-7A-9: Sl7'E GOVERAGE:
Sife caverage shall not exceed sixty five percent (65%) of the total site area. Final
determinatian of aflowable site coverage shall be made by the Plannrng and
Fnvrronmental Corrrrrrrssion aRd/ar !he Desrgn A'evfew Board rn accordaRCe with
Section 12-7A-12 of thls Artrcle. Specrfrcally, in determinirrg allowable sitE coverage
the Plannrng and Environmerrtal Commission and/or fhe f7esign Review Board shail
make a finding fhat proposed srte coverage is in conformance vvifh applicable
elemen[s af the Vai! Village Urban Design Gu1de Plan and Clesign Considerations.
12-7A-11: PARKING AIVD LOADIAIG:
C?ff-streef parking and loadrng shall be provlded in accordance with Chapter 10 of
this Title. AP least seventy tive percent (75l) of fhe required parking shallbe located
within the rnain building or buildings and hidden frorrt public vr`ew. !Vo at grade or
above grade surface parkrng or loading area shall be located in any required front
seiback area. 8elow gradc underground structured parkrng and sharl-Ierm guesi
laadrng and drop-off shall be permitted in the required fronf setback subject ta the
approval of the Plannrng and Environmenta! Commission and/or the Desrgn Re!view
Board.
12-7A-13: COMPLIANCE BURIJEN: ~
!t shall be the burden Qf the applicanf to prove by a preponderance of the evidence
14
• before the Planning and Environmental Commission and ihe Desrgrt Review Board
fhat the proposed exterior alferation or new development is in compliance with ihe
purposes of the PublicAccvmmodafiorr Zone Drstrici, that the proposal is cansistenf
wifh applicable elements of the Vaif Village Master Plarr, the Vai! ViIlage Urban
Design Guide Plan and fhe Vail Sfreefsca,oe MasFer Plarr, and thatthe proposal does
not otherwise have a srgnifrcant negatrve effect on the character of the
neighborhood, and thaf the proposaJ substantralJy corrrplies with other applicable
elernents of the Vai! Comprehensive Plan.
72-7A-74: MITfGAT1CJN C7F DEVELOPMENT lMPACTS:
Property owners/developers shall also be respansrble for mitigatrrag dlrecf impacts of
their development an publfc rnfrastructure and in a11 cases mitigatron shall bear a
reasonable relatron to the development lmpacts_ lmpacts maybe determined based
an reports prepared by qua!lfred consultants. The extent of mifigatr`arr and public
ameraity rmprovements shall be balarrced with the gaals ofredevelopmentand will be
determrrred by fhe Plannrng and Errvironmenta! Cammission rn review of
development projects anc+ condrtronal use permits. Substantial atf-srte rmpact$ may
iraclude, but are not Ir,mrted to, ihe followiRg: deed restricted employee housfng,
roadway rmprovemenFs, pedestrran walkway improverrrenfs, streeiscape
irnpravemerzfs, stream tractlbank restoration, loadrng/delivery, public art
im,orQVemerrts, and similar improvements. The infent vf this Section fs ta only+require
mirigation for large scale redevelopment/development prvjects which produce
substarrt+al off-sife impacts.
Articfe 12-9A Speciaa Deve9opment Gistrict (in part)
12-9A-1: PURPOSE:
The purpose of the Specra! Development District is fo encourage flexibility and
creativity in the development pf land in order ta promate rts mostappropriate use; fo
improve the desigrr character and qualrfy of the new development wifh the Town; to
facilitate the adequate and economical prQVision of streets and ufilities; fo preserve
the natural ar+d scenlc feafures of open space areas; and tQ further the overall goals
of the cammurrity as stated in the Vail Corrrprehensive Plan. An approved
development plarr for a Specra! C+eveloprrrent District, in con1unctian with the
praperFy's urrderlying zone disfricf, shafl esta,blish the requirements for guiding
development and uses of properfy included in the Special Develvpment Distriet The
Special Development Distrrct daes not apply ta and is not available irr the fallowrng
zone drstricts: Hillside Residentiaf, Single-Family, Duplex, Primary/Secorrdary. The
efements of the development plan shall be as aut[ined in Sectian 12-9A-6 of this
Article.
12-9A-6: DEV,ELOPMEIVT PLAN:
An approved development plan' is the principal documenf in guiding the
deveiopment, uses arrd activities of a special development district. A development
plan shall be ap,praved by ordinance 6y the Towrr Council in conjurtction with the
review and approval of any special development disfrict_ The develapment plan shall
be comprised raf materials submitted in aceordance with Section 12-9A-5 of thls
Article. The development plan sha1J contain a1l relevant material and information
~ necessary io establish the parameters with which the special development disirict
shall develop. The development plan may cansist af, but nof be limited to, The
approved site plan, floor plarrs, buifding sections arrd elevatians, vicinify plan,
15
parking ,pfan, preliminary vpen space/landscape plarr, densities and permitted, ~
carrditronal arrd accessory uses.
12-9A-7: USES:
Determrnatron of permrtted, corrditr'onal and accessory uses shafl be rnade by the
Pfanning arrd ERVirorzrrrenta! Commissron and Town CouRCil as a part of the formal
reurew of the proposed development ,olarr. Unless fUrther restricted through the
review of the propased specfal development clrstrict, permfffed, conditronal and
accessary uses shall be limlted to those permiited, conditiQnal and accessory uses
rn a property"s underlyrng zone districf. Under certaJn condrtions, commercial uses
rrlay be permitted rn resldential special develapmeni districts rf, rrr the opinion of the
Town Councfl, such uses are ,prrmarily fvr the service and corrUenience of the
resfdents af the developmerrf and the immediate nefghbarhood. Such uses, rf arry,
shall RQt change or destroy the ,predomirtantly resrdentral character of the special
development distrtct. The amouni of area and type crfsuch uses, ifany, io be allowed
rrr a residentral special development drstrrct sha11 be establrshed by the Town CaunGlf
as a part of the approved development plan.
12-9A-9: DEVELOPMFNT STAND.4RDS:
Development standards rnclUding !ot area, site dimensions, setbacks, helght, density
control, srte coverages, Jandscapfng and parking shaU be determined by the Town
Councif as part of the approved develapment plan wiih consideration of the
recamrnerrdatrons of the Plarrning and Envrronmental Commissron. Before the Town
Council approves development standards thaf deviaxe from the underlying zane ~
district, rt should be determined that such devr`ation prvvides benefits to the Tovvn
that outweigh the adverse effects of such deviafian. This determination rs to be made
based ora evaluation of the prnposed speclaf development dfstrrct's compfiartce with
the desrgn criterra outlined in Section 12-9A-8 of this Article_
Ghapter M Conditional Use Permits
12-16-1: P(1RPOSE; LIMlTATIOlVS:
In order fo provide the flexibility necessary fo achieve the objecfives of fhis title,
specified uses are permiffed in certarn drstricts sUbject to the granting of a
conditronal use permrt. Because of therr unusual or special characteristics,
conditional uses require revrew so [ha[ fhey may be located properly with respect to
the purposes of this title and with respeet to fheir effecFs an surrounding praperties.
The review process prescribed ira thrs chapter is irrfended fa assure compatibilityarrd
harmoRious development betvsfeen condt`tional uses and surraUnding prQpertres in
the Town af large. Uses listed as condifianal uses in the variaus disfricts may be
permitted sub,+ect to such earrditicans and limitafions as the Tawn may,prescrrbe to
insure that the IQCation and operatian pf the condrtiQnal uses wifl be in accordance
with the developmerrt objectives of the Town and wi11 rrotbe detrrmental to ofher uses
or properties. Where conditions cannot be devised„ to achreve these ab1ectives,
applicafions for condrtianal use permits shalf be denred.
12-7G: Heavy Service Zone District
12-7G-1: PU,4PQSE. ~
The Heavy Servr'ce Dr`strict is intended to provide sites forautomotive-ariented uses anrl for
commercial service uses vvhich are nof appropriate in other cammercial districts. Because of
16
~ rhe nature of the uses ,aermrtted and their operating characteristres, appearance and
poferrtial torgenerafirrg autorrrQfive and truck traffrc, aIl uses irr the H'eauyService Districf are
subject ta ihe conditronal use permit procedure. In granting a conditianal use permif, the
Planning and Errvironrnenta! Camrnission ar the Town Council may prescribe mare
restrictive developmerrP staraa'ards than the standards,arescribed for the District in arder to
protect adjoining uses from adverse influences.
VI. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING
Land Use Zoninci
North: Government General Use
South: Residenti:al Two-Family Residentiai
High Density Mu9tiple-Family Residential
East: Mixed Use Special Devekopment District fVo. 21
Residentiaf Public Accommodation
West: Residential High Density Mudtiple Farniiy Residential
VII. ZONING AIVALYSIS
The development standards for a Special Development District shall be propased by the
applicant. Development standards including Eot area, site dirnensions, setbacks, height,
density contral, si#e coverage, landscaping and parking and Ioading shall be determined by
the Town Council as part of the approved deve[opment plan, with consideration o# the
~ recommendat%ans of the Planning and Environmental Carnmission. Before the Town
Councii approues development standards that deviate from the underlying zone district, it
shall be determined that such deviations provide beraefiits to the Tawn that outweigh the
effects of such deviations. This determination is to be rnade based upon the evafuation of
the proposed Special Develop€nent District's campiiance with the Review Criteria autlined in
the following section of this mertiarandum.
The Community Developrrrent Departmertt staff has prepared a zoning analysi5 for the Four
5easans Resort praposal. The Four Seasons Resort Zoning Analy_sis compares the
development standards outlined by the underlying zoning of Public Accommodatian fo the
Vail Plaza Hotel West proposal fram 2001 and the current propasal for the Four Seasons
Resart. A copy of the Four Seasons Resort Zonin_q Anafvsis has been attached far
reference (At#achment E).
VIIl. THE SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT UISTRtCT AMENDMENT AND RE1fIEV1! PRQCESS
Artfeke 12-9, Vail Town Code prov'tdes for the amendrneni of existing Special Development
Districts in the Town of VaiL Accflrd'ong to SectiQn 12-9A-1, the purpose of a Special
Development District is as fol[aws: ,
To encourage flexrbrlityand creatrvrtyin the developmentofland, in orderto,ornmote
r'ts mvst approprrate use,' fo lmpr'ove the design character and qualtty of the new
development withrrr the 7owrr; to facilitate the adequaie and econarnreal provision of
sxreets arrd utilitfes; ta preserve the rratural and scenic features ofopen space areas;
and ta further fhe overall goals of the carnmunrty as stated in the Vail
~ Comprehensive Plarr. An approved development plan for a Specral Develppment
District, in conjunctiorr vvfth the praperty 's underlyirrg zQne drstrict, shall esrablish the
requrremerrts for guiding development and uses of praperty ineluded in the Special
17
Develo,pment Qrstrici. ~
An approved development plan is the principal document in guiding the development, uses, j
and activities of the Special Development District. The development plan shalf contain all
relevant material and infarmation neeessary to estabEish the parameters with which the
Special Development Dis#rict shall adhere. The developmen# plan may consist of, but no# be
limited to: the approved site plan; flaor plans, building sections, and elevations: vicinity plan;
parking plan; preliminary open space/landscape plan; densities; and permitted, conditionaf,
and accessory uses.
The determination ot permitted, conditional and accessory uses shall be made by ihe
Planning and Environmental Commission and Town Council as part of the formal review of
the proposed developreient plan. Unless further resiricted thraugh the review of the
proposed Special Develcrpment aistrict, permitted, conditional and accessory uses shall be
limited to thase permitted> canditionai and accessary uses in the property's underlying zone
district.
The Town Cade provides nine tiesign criteria which shall be used as thE principal criteria in
evafuating the merits of the proposed Special Development Disirict. lt shall be the burden of
the applicant to demonstrate that submittal ma#erial and the proposed develapment plan
comply w?th each of the following standards, ar demanstrate that one or rnore of them is not
applicable, or that a practical solution consistent with the public interest has been achieued.
Reductians of the plans have been attached for refierence (Attachment F). The fol4awing is a
staff analysis of the projeet's compliance with the nine Special Deuelopment District review ~
criteria:
CRITERIA Ff)R REV1EW:
A. Design cornpatibility and sensitivity tv the immetiiate environrnent, neighborhaod and
adjacent properties relative to architectural desigrs, scale, bulk, building height, buffer
zones, identity, character, visual integrity and orientation.
In the Public Aecornmadation zone district, the rninimum setback shall be 20 feet on all
sides. The applicant is proposing ta maintain the 20 ft. above grade setbacks along
Frontage Road, Vail Road, West Meadow Drive, and the west side of the si#e. The appficant
is proposing an 18 ft. setback at the property line adjacent to the 9 Vai1 Road property. In
addition to the deviation to ths abaue grade setback, the applicant is also proposing ta
encroach into the setbacks below grade. The Public Accommadatian zone district ailows for
below grade parking and loading occurring in the front setback. Nowever, the proposal
inciudes encroachrnents into the 20 ft. setbacks underground on the FrQntage Raacf, Vail
Road, and the sast side af the site. These encroachments accommQdate starage areas and
parking. At the discretian of the Pfanning and Enuironmental Commission and Design
Reuie+rr Board, variatior?s to the setbacfc standards may be approved for properiies within #he
Public Accamrr7acfa4ion zone district, subject ta the applicant demanstrating cornpliance with
the following criteria:
A. Proposed 6uilding se[backs provrde necessary separation between buiidings and
riparian areas, geabgically sensrtrve areas and other envirvnmenfally sensitive areas.
There are no adentified gealogically or environmentally sensitive areas on this property. ~
The underground setback encroachments will have na impact on the necessary
18
~ separation between buildings. Pursuant to the prowisaans of the Town a# Vail Zoning
Regulatians and the Uniform Buiiding Code, the applicant is compfying with rrainirnum
setbacks between buildings.
B. f'roposed building setbacks comply with applicable eler,ments af ihe i/ai! Villa,ge Urban
Desrgn Guide Plan and Design Consideratr`ans.
These elernents of Vail's Comprehensive Pfan are not applicabfe to the subject praperty.
C. Prapased building setbacks will prQVide adequate availabflity of light, air and open
space.
Beeause the major setback encraachments oecur below grade, the proposed
encroachments do nat negatively affect the aWailability af light, air, and open space. At ~
i
the Planning and Enviranmen#al Corrsrrzissian worksession meefing can March 24, 2003,
the praposal included roof overhang encroachmenis into the required 20 ft. setback. ~
Roof oWerhangs are allawed ta encroach up to 4 ft. into a required setback. The
applicant has since revised the proposal to eliminate these encroachments, as
requested by the Planning and Environmental CQmmission anct staff. As proposed,
staff believes #hat the proposed building setbacks will provide adequate availability of
light, air, and open space.
D. Pro,aosed building setbacks will prouide a compatible relationship wrth buiCdings and
~ uses on adjacent properties.
The proposed setbacks adjacent to the Scarpio and Alphorn, bcath of which are
residential uses, are maintained at 20 ft. for ali above grade improvements. The
proposed building is located a minirnum of 35 ft. firom the Alphorn and the Scorpio, both
of which are non-conforming with regard ta the 20 ft. setback requirement. The
encroachment adjacent ta 9 Vail Road, alsa a residential use, is adjacent to the sharp
angle in the property line. At this paint, the propQSed building is located more than 100
ft. away fram the 9 Vail Road builcling, At its closest point, the proposed building is 45 ft, i
from #he 9 Vail Road building, which is aIso non-canforming with regards ta the 20 ft.
setback requirement. Sta#f believes that the proposed setbacks are compatible with
buildings and uses on adjacent properties.
E. Proposed building setbacks will result 1n creaPr've desrgn solutiorrs or other publrc
benefits that coUJd not otherwtse be achieved by confvrmance with prescribed set6acks
standards.
The proposed building se#backs result in a design soEution that completely eliminates all
surface parking on this site, which s#aff believes ta be a benefit of this proposaf. The
I proposed setbacks have resulted in a creative design solutian which eould not be
achieved by conforrnance with prescribed setback standards.
The site of the proPased Frur Seasan Resort is irnmediateEy adjacent to 9 Vail Road, the
SCOrpio, and the Alphorn. Thrdughout the devefopment review process, the sensitivity to
adjacent uses has been cansidered by the Design Review Board, Planning and
~ Environmental Commission, and staff. The propased building has been significantly re-
designed to provide a smoath transitiQn frpm the Four Seasans Resort to the ScorpFO.
Specifieally, sinee the March 24, 2003, Planning and Enviranrnental Commission
19
i
worksession, the applicant has revised #he north east corner of the building by taking ~
significant living space and relocating it to the eastern portion of the building.
The maxirnum buildirog height as permitted by the Public Accommodation zane district is 48
ft. The Four Seasans Resort is proposing a deviatian to this maximum height requirement.
The maximum height of the proposed building is 89 ft. at its highest point. The main raflf
ridge which runs paralaeE to South Frontage Road is 77.5 ft. in height. This is a deviatian of
41 ft. fream the maximum building height allowed by the Public Accommodation zone district.
In 2001, the Tawn Council appraved a maximum height of 53 ft. Staff believes that the
praposed building height is appropriate for the site, specifically because the height is
concentrated along Sauth Frontage Raad, which we belieue to be an appropriate Iocation for
additional height. Generally, the 48 ft. maximum building heigh# is maintained along the
port6on o# the site adjacent to West Meadow Driwe.
in addition to rnaximum building height, the building height as the building height transitions
to adjacent prQperties has an impact on bulk and mass. The building heaght of the roaf eave
of Scorpio is 50 ft, The pr4posed adjacent eave of the Four Seasons is at 44.5 ft., and the
dorrners are at 52.75 ft. and 56.75 ft, This madification from the preWious design allowed for
a srr,oother traRSition to the Scorpio.
The Design Review Board and Jeff Winston of Winston Associates continue to have
concems regarding the transition between The Four Seasons Resori to the Alphorn. The
eave of the Alphorn is 27.75 ft, The Faur Seasans Resort proposal has been modified to
add an additiona6 roof forrn adjaeent to the Alphorn. However, staff believes that further ~
review o# this corner of the building shall be required by the Design Review Baard.
The building has been designed with sensitivity to the views frorn 9 Vail RQad. Where
adjacent to views from 9 Vail Raad, #he builciing daes noi exeeed the maximum height
limitation of 48 ft. In addition, the praposal includes a significant landscape buffer to
minimize view impacts to 9 Vail Road building views.
The proposal rnaintains a20 ft. setback along the shared property line of the Alphorn and
the Scorpia, and includes a heated pedestrian walkway and iandscaping to provide a buffer
zone.
Jef# Winston, of Winston Associates, has provided an analysis of the proposed Four
Seasons Resort, which has been attached for reference (Attachment G)_ He expresses
concern regarding the roof massing of the propo5ed buiiding, specificalfy consiciering the "A-
Frame" kook of the building in several locatians. V1Jhile he states that the character of the
building is d4stinc#ive and memorable, he expresses concern about varying too rnuch frorrz
the typical "Tyrolean" character of Vail. Staff believes that his caneerns warrant further
study, particulariy with the Design Rewiew Board, as this application continues thraugh the
development review process.
B. Uses, ac#ivity and density +rvhiGh provide a compatible, efficient and warkable
relatianship with surrounding uses and activity. .
The uses, activities and densities for the Four Seasons Resort developrnent site are
prescribed by the underlying zaning. According to the Official Town of Vail Zoning Map, the ~
underlying zoning for the proposed special deve{opmen# district is Public Accommodation
(subject to the rezoning of the Vail Amoco sEte). The Ptablic Accammodation zone district
20
~ encaurages the develapment of lodges (accommoda#ion units) and accessory eating and
drinking establishments at a density of tv+renty-#ive dwelling units per acre. TMe surrounding
uses and zoning desEgnation incCude Public P,ccornmodatian tca the soufh, east and west
(Sonnenalp, Nine Vail Fioacf & Special DeveGopment District No. 6-Vail Vilfage Inn), Higha
Density Multiple Family to the west and nor-thwes# (plphorn and Scorpio), and Commerciaa
Serwice Center/Special Develapment District Nv. 21 (Gateway) to the nartheast. The same
development siandards that apply to the Fc,ur 5easons Resort deveEopment site applyto the
5onnenalp, Nine Vail Road and Vail Village Inn properties. The Commercial Service Center
underlying zoning of the Vail Gateway building is intended ta provide sites far a rnixture of
commercial and residential development.
The Four Seasons Resort is proposed as a mixed-use deveiopment. The mixture of uses
includes commercial, Iodging, recreational and residential. Staff believes the proposed
mixture of uses and ifs proximity to both Vail Village and L.ionshead is Gonsistent with the I
intended purpose of the underlying zoning of Public Accomrnodation. Further, staff believes ;
that the praposed uses within the Four Seasons Resort wiil compliment those existing uses '
and activi#ies on surraunding and adjacent properties. The proposed density of the hotel
and the presence of the conference facilities will improue and enhance the viability and
success af the existing restaurant and retail businesses in the immediate area.
Empfoyee Housinq Requirements
As "rndicated in a number of the goals and objectives of the Town's Master Plans, providing
~ affordable housing for emplayees is a critical issue which should be addressed through the
pEanning pracess for Specia! Development District proposals. In reviewing the proposal for
employee housing needs, staff relied on the Town of Vail Empfoyee Housing Report. This
report has been used by the staff in the past to evaluate ernployee housing needs. The
guidelines eantained within th+e report were used most recentfy in the review of the Austria
Haus, Marriatt and Speciaf Development Distriet No. 8- Vaii Village !nn development
propasals.
The EmpEoyee Housing Report was prepared for the Town by the consulting fiirm Rosail,
Remmen and Cares. The report provfides the recommended ranges of employee housing
units needed based on the type of use and the amount of floor area dedicated to each use.
€Jtifizing dhe guideliroes prescribecf in the Emplayes Housing Report, staff anaEyzed the
incremental increase of employees (square foatage per use), that results from the
redeveiopment.
The figures identified in the report are based on surveys of cornmercial-use empioyment
needs of the Tawn of Vail and other mountain resort communities. As of the draftang of the
report, Telluride, Aspen and Whistler, B.C. had "employment generatian" ordinances
requiring developers to provide affordable housing #or a percentage af the new employees
resulting from commercial devefopment. "New" emplayees are defined as the encremental
increase irr emplayment needs resulting from commercial recfevelopment. Each of the
communities assesses a different percentage of affardable housing a deveio{aer must
provide for the new employees. For exampke, Telluride requires developers to provade
housing for 40% (0s40) of the new employees> Aspen requires that 60% (0_60) of the new
emplQyees are provided hausing and Whistler requires thaf i 00°fd (1.00) of 1he new
~ empioyees be provided housing by the developer. In compari5an, Vail has canse€vatively
determined that deve4opers shaEl provide housing for 15°/4 (0.15) or 30°l0 (0.30) of the new
empioyees resulting frorn commerciaf tleveEoprnent. 1Nhen a project is proposed to exceed
21
the densi#y allowed by ths underlying zone district, the 30% (0.30) figure is used in the ~
calculation. If a project is praposed at, or bekow, the density ailowed by the underFying zone
district, the 15% (0,15) figure is used. The Four Seasons Resort special development district
does no# exceed the density permitted by the underlying zone district. However, the
Planning and Environmentai Gommission and Vail Town Council have indieated the 30%
figure should be used given the subsfantial scope and impact of this project.
The applicant is propasing to provide employee hou.sing for a percentage of the "new°"
employees resulting fram the hotel eonstruction. The new hotel is expected to generate 228
"new" empfoyees. The "new" employees are in add4tion ta the 85 "full time equivalent"
employees already working at the Chateau at Vail and Vail Amaco. 7he applicant is
proposing to provide deed-restricted employee housing for 30% (68 beds) of the "new"
employees. In order to maximize the benefit a# the hausing to the Town oi Vail, the applicant
has suggested that the housing will be available only to Four Seasans Resort ernplayees.
Errrployee Generation Calculations - Bottorn of Range
a) RetaillService Commercial =
2,402 sq. ft. [c7 (5I1000 sq, ft.) = 12_01 employees
b) Health Club =
14,416 sq. fit. 9 (1/1000 sq. ft.) = 14.42 employees
c) RestaurantlKitchen
12,155 sq. ft. @ (511000 sq. ft.) = 60.46 employees
d) Conference Center =
11,726 sq. fit. @ (111 000 sq. ft.) - 11.7 employees
e} Lodging =
118 units @ (.25/unit) - 29.5 employees
f} Multiple-Farnily Unifs -
40 uni#s @(.4lunit) - 16 employees
144.09 employees
- 85 existing employees
59.09 employees
Employee Generation Calculations - Middle af Range
a) Retail/5ervice Commercial =
2,402 sq, fit. ~?a (6.5/1000 sq. ft.) - 15.6 employees
b) Health Club =
14,416 sq. ft. @(1.2511000 sq. ft.) R 18.02 employees ~
c) RestauranUKitchen =
22
~ 12,155 sq. ft. @(6.5/1000 sq. ft.) = 79 employees
d} Gonference Center -
11,726 st{. ft. @ (1/1 QOa sq. ft.) = 11.7 erriployees
e} Lodging =
118 units @ (.75/unit) = 88.5 employees
f} Multiple-Family Units -
40 units 0 (.4lun6t) = 16 employees
228.$2 employees
- 85 exis#ing employees
143.52 employees
Employee Generatian Galculations - Top of Range
a) Retail/Service Carnmercial =
2,402 sq. ft_ @ (8/1000 sq. ft,) ~ 19.2 employees
~ b) Health Club
14,416 sq. #t. @(1.5/10Q0 sq. ft.) 21 _B employees
c) RestaurantlKitctren =
12,155 sq_ ft. @ (8/1000 sq. ft.) = 97.14 employees
d) Canference Center -
11,726 sq. ft. [a7 (111000 sq. ft.) = 11.7 employees
e) Lodging =
118 units 0 (1.251unit) = 147.5 empCoyees
f) Multiple-Family Units =
40 units @ (.4/urrit) = 16 employees
313.14 employees
- 85 existing employees
228.14 employees
Employee Housing Requirement Galculations:
15% Calculation Employees Na. of Beds Required
~ Battam 59.09 8.86
Niiddle 143.82 21.57
Top 228.14 34.2
23
30% Galculation Empl'oyees No. of Beds RequEred ~
Bottam 59.09 17.7
Middle 143.82 43.1
7o p 228.14 68.4
C. Campliance with parking and Ioading requiremen#s as outlined in Chapter 12-10 of the
Vail Town Code.
The Four Seasans Resart proposal complies wi#h the parking and laading requirements
outlined in Chapter 12-1 U, Va'rl Town Code, The Planning and Enviranmental Commission
determines the parking requarement for uses not specifically listed in Chapter 12-10, Vail
Town Code. The applicant is proposing approxirnately 6,082 sq. ft. of spa. Haif af the
treatments provided by the spa shall be open to the general public, wh'r1e the remaining half
will be available to hotel guests only. Chapter 12-10, Vail Tawn Code requires 2.3 parking
spaces per 1000 square feet af net floor area for "persanal services". Using this
requirement as a guide, the spa area w4uld require 14 spaces. With only nalf open to the
public, 7 af the required 14 parking spaces will be accomrnodated by the propased hatel
guest parking. As currently proposed and with all uses considered, the total parking
requirement for the Four Seasons Resort is 205 parking spaces. The applicant has
proposed a total 215 spaces.
The applicant has pravided laading facilities which exceed the requirements of Chapter 12-
10, Vail Town Code and all delivery truck rnaneuverability is accommodated on-site and
within the bualding. ~
D. Conformity with the applicable elements af #he Vail Comprehensive Plan, Tawn
policies and Urban Design Plan.
Vail Land Use Plan: The Vail Land Use Plan applies twQ land use designa#ions to the ~
property: I
Resort Accommadations and Service:
This area rncludes acfivitres armed at accommodating the overnighf and sharf-term
vrsrtor to fhe area. Primary uses 1nclude hofels, lodges, service stations, and parking
structUres. These areas are orrented toward vehrcular access from 1-70, wvith ofher
support commercial and business servrces included. Also a!lowed in this cafegory
would be institutronal uses and various municipal uses.
Transitiom
The activities and site design of this area are aimed at errcouragang,pedestrian flow
throUgh the area and strengihenrng the eonneetion 6etween the two commercral
cares_ Apprapriate activities irrclude hoters, fodging and oiher tQUrist-oriented
residential urrits, arrcilIary retatl and restaurant uses, museUms, areas of publie art,
nature exhi6its, garder,s, pedestrian plazas, and other ties to ihe north.
The goals cantained in the Vail Land Use Plan are to be used as the Town's policy
guidelines during the review process for the establishment af a special development district.
Staff has reviewed the Vail Land Use P1ara and believes ihe followirtg policies are relevant to
the review of this propasal: ~
24
~ 1. Generaf Grawth/l7evelopmerrt
1.1 Vail should contrnue to gro?v in a cantralled envlronmenf, mairrtaining a
balance between resideniiaf, commercral and reereational uses to serve both
the visitor and the permanent resident.
1.2 The quafity of the environrnent including air, water, artd ofher natural
resources should be profected as the Tawn graws.
1.3 The qualiiy of developmeni should 6e maintained and upgraded whenever
possrbPe.
1.12 Vail should accommodafe most af the addrtional growth in existing developed
areas (infifl).
3. CorrTmercial
3.1 The hotel ,bed base should be preserved and used more efficiently.
3.2 The Village arad Lrranshead are the 6est location for hntels fo serve the future
needs pf ihe destfnation skier.
3.3 Hotels are important to fhe confinuea' success af the Town of Vail,
therefore eonversion to condominrums should be discauraged.
~ 3.4 Commercial growth should be concentrated in existing commercial areas to
accommodate both local and visitar needs.
5. Resrdentlal
5.1 C?ualrty tfrrreshare units should be accommodated fo he1,p keep occu,oancy
rafes up.
5.2 AffordabJe emplayee housrng should be made available through pr'rvate I
efforts, assrsted by lirnrted incentives, prauided 6y the Towra of Vail, with
approprlate resfrictfons.
ThE Land Use Plan suggests that increased density for comrnercial, residential and fodging
uses in the VillagelLaonshead Care areas would be acceptable so long as the existing
character of eaeh area is being preserved.
Staff believes that the proposal canforms ta the applicable elements of the Vail
Comprehensive Pian_ The applicabCe e6ements of the Vail Garnprehensive Plan are
included for reference in Section V of this merrtorancfum. The Vail Land Use Plan
encourages the upgrading and preservation of hote6 beds and designates this site as an
appropriate locatian for hotels, lodging and other tourist-oriented residential units, ancillary
retaii and restaurant uses.
~ Tawn of Vail Streetscape hJ[aster Plan
The Town's Streetscape Master Plan identifies INest Meadow DrFVe as the primary
25
pedestrian rqute between Vail Village and Lionshead Mall. ~
To improve the quaiity of the walking experience and give continuity to the pedestrian ways
as a eontinuous system, two general types of improwements adjacent to the walkways are
considered:
1. Open sgace and lanciscaping, berens, grass, tlowers and tree plan#4ng as a
soft, colorful framework linkage along pedestrian rcautes; and plazas and park
greenspaces as open nodes and focal points along those routes.
2. Infili commercial storefronts, expansion of existing buildings, or new infill
development to create new commerciaf activity generators to give street [ife
and visual irrterest, as attractions a# key loeations along pedestrian routes.
Although the Town is in the process of refining the Streetscape Master Plan for West
IVleadlow Drive, staff beiieves the applicant's preliminary streetscape plan demonstrates
substantial compliance with the above-listed provisions. FinaR stree#scape design and
treatments will be reviewed by the Design Review Baard.
Staff believes the uses and activities proposed are in compliance wi#h the palicies, goals,
and objectives identified in the Vail Land Use Plan.
E. Identifiication and mitigatian af natural andlor geologic hazards that affect the
property on which #he special development district is proposed. ~
According ta the Official Town of Vail Geologic Hazard NKaps, the Four Seasons Resort
development site is not located in any geolagicalEy sensitive areas or within the 100-year
filoodplain.
F. Site plan, buildirrg design and location and apen space provisians designed to
produce a func#ianal development respansive and sensitive ta natural features,
vegetation and aWerall aesthetic quality af the community.
The site lacks many naturar features today. Hawever, staff believes that the design of the
building, including generally maintaining the 20 ft. setbacks, has created a development
which is responsive to the aesthetic quality c+f the cammunity. Where retaining walls are
necessary, generally boulder walls are used in the more visible {ocations to minirroize the
visual irnpact of the walls.
The applicant is praposing a deviatian from the site coverage requirements af the Public
Accommodatian zone district. Specifically, as proposed, the site caverage below grade
exceecis the maxirnum allawable by the Public Accommodation zone disirict. The Public
,4ccammodation zone d9strict allows 65%o site coverage, pr 77,199 sq. #t_ As proposed, the
applicant is proposing below grade site coverage af 71 °r'o or $4,402 sq. ft. Above grade site
caverage is 58% or 69,346 sq. ft. Section 12-7A-9, Site Caverage, VaiC Town Code, states
the tolfowing with regards to site coverage:
Sile coverage shaJl not exeeed sixfy five percent (65/0) of the totaJ site area. Frnal
deterrrrinatian at a!lowable sile coverage shall be made by the plannrrag aRd ~
er7vlrDrTmental Commf5810n and/Or the design revrevv baard rn accordance wrfh '
secfion 12-7A-12 of this article. Speclfica!!y, in determining allowable site coverage
26
~ the plarrnfng and enviroramental commission aRd/or the design revievy board shaif
rnake a findtng ihat proposed srte coverage fs fn conformance with applicable
elements af the Varl village urban desrgn guide plan and design conslderations.
Staff believes that the site coverage #aelow grade is an acceptable devia#ion to the site
coverage requirement of the Public Accornmodation zane district, as it is generally a result of
praviding underground parking.
Staff believes that additEonal review by the Design Review Board will continue to ymprove the
proposed landscape plan. The Design Review Board encourages landscape plantings to be
of various sizes and to be grouped in 5uch a way as to appear more naturaB.
Staff #eels the overall plan for landscap9ng and eourtyard area (adjacent to the pool) is a
functional and aesthetic imprQVement over what exists on the site today along West Meadow
Drive and is in carnpiiance with ihe general pra+risions of the Streetscape Master Plan.
G. A circulation system desxgned for laoth vehicles and pedestrians addressing an and
off-site traffic circulatifln.
Pursuant to Sectian 12-7A-14, Mitigation of Development Impacts,Vail Town Code, property
owners/cfevelopers shall be responsible for mitigating direc# impacts of their development on
public infrastructure and in alf cases mitigation shal[ bear a reasonable relation to the
development impacts. The intent is to provide appropriate rnitiga#ion to an extent that is
~ proportional to the anticipated impacts of new development. The applicant and staff have
agreed on ihe foflowing off-site irnpravements:
• Widening of the south side of the South Frontage Road and insta{lation of a left turn
lane to the Four Seasons Resort arrd the Vail Paiice Siatian, with final design ta be
approved by the Town of Vail and Calorado Departrnent of Transportation.
• Installation af landscaped mecfians an South Frontage Road From the rQUndabout ta
the western lot line of the Scorpia.
• Installation of a detached 6 ft. wide heated paver sidewalk adjacent to Sauth
Frontage Road and the Four Seasons Resort frantage.
• Insta4lation of an attached 6 ft. wide hea#ed sidewalk and all refated necessary
improvements (i.e. retaining wall, railing, curb and gutter) adjacent ta South Frantage
Raad, along the Scarpio frontage.
• Relocation of the fire hydrant adjacent to Sout'h Frontage Road.
• Fielocation af Spraddle Creek piping anc} installation of new box culveris.
• Installatian of heated paver sidewalk on Vail Road along Four SeasQns Resorl
frontage.
• Installation o# heated paver sidewalk from the west side of 1Vlayors Park to the west
property line of the Four Seasons Resort frontage on West Meadow Drive, in
accordance with the Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan.
• Irrstaflation af decorative lighting adjacent to public walkways alang Faur Seasans
Resort frontage, with final design and location to be approved by the Town of Vail
staff and Design Review Beard.
• Overlay of South Freantage Raad frorn the western end of the Scarpio to the
~ roundabout.
* Road improvements to the narth half of West Meadow []rive adjacerrt to the Four
Seasons Resort frantage, includEng curb, gutter, asphalt reconstructiora, and
R
27
drainage improvements. Final design to be approved by the 7own of Vail. ~
• Raad improuements to Vail Road from tne raundabout ta tne driveway of 9 Vail
Road, incfuding curh, gutter, asphalt, and drainage improVements.
The F'lanning and Environmental Cammissian has as'ked the applicant and staff to explare
the possibility of relocating the bus stop which is iQCated between the Vaii Valley Medical
Center and the Wes2star Bank Building. The Town of VaiC Rublic INorks Department has
cancerns abaut relocating this bus stop as it serves employees of the Vail Valley Medical
Center, the Evergreen Hotel, the Town Municipal Building, Municipal Court, and the
Weststar Bank Building. In addiiian, the Planning and Environmental Camrnission has
asked the applican3 and staff to explore adding abus stap in front of the Four Seasons
Resort on West Meadow arive. AccordiRg to the Public Works aepartment, the spacing of
bus stops vuould be tao close, impaeting service capabilities. At this time, the Public INorks
Departrnent does not suppart an additional bus stop at ihis location. However, i# in the
future, the need far a bus stop becomes apparent, the Public Works Departrment may
reconsider it.
Staff believes that the proposed improvements have successfully addresses both pedestrian
and vehicular circulation an- and off-site. The traffic studies have been aitached for
reference (Attachment H). All elements of a successful circulation system have been
considered and addressed to s#af#'s satisfaction. Overall circulation of the site has improved
with the elimination of all access off of 1Nest Meadaw Drive, the elimination of driveways
#rom Vail Road, the realignment of Vail Raad, alignment of ihe acGess with the Vail Police
Department access, Frontage Road improvements including landscaped medians, curb and ~
gutter, sidewalk, and multiple lanes, and comp9etion o# West Meadow Drive impravements.
H. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize anci
preserve natural features, recreation, views and functions.
There are no established public view corridors 'tn the immediate vicinity of this proposal. The
appiicant has submitted a lancfscape plan which indica#es that they are providing in excess
of the lanciscapirrg area required by the Public Accommadation zone district. Staff believes
that the Candseaping and open space has been designed ta optimize recreation, views, and
tunctions. Yhe final landscape plan will be reviewed and approved by the Town of Vail
Design Revaew Board.
L Phasing plan or subdivision p{an that will maintain a warkable, functional and
efficient relationship thr4ughout the development Q'# the special de?relapment district.
The appficant is proposing ta construct the praject in one phase. A subdivision of the
property is not necessary ta facilitate th'rs praposal (with the exception of a candaminium
map). Construction staging is reviewed as part of a building permit submittal #or any praject.
IX. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS FOR A CONDITIfJNAL USE PERMET - FRACTIONAL FEE
CLUB
Fractiona! Fee Clubs are aliowed as a conditional use in the Public Accommadation zone
distric#. Section 12-16-1, Furpose; Limita.tions, Vail Town Code, provides the purpose for
conditional uses, which states: !
28
~ 1n order to pravrde the flexibillty r?eeessary to achieve the o6jectives of this title,
specifred uses are permitted rn certain districts subject ira the granting of a
carrditional trse permiL Secause nf their unusuaf or special characteristics,
coRditianal uses require review and evaluation so fhat they may be located properly
wifh respect to the purposes of this title and with respect to their effects on
surrounding properties. The revrew,orocess prescrrbed in this chapter is infended to
assure cornpatibility arrd harmonJQUS developrnenf between candrfional uses and
sUrroundirrg prapertres and the town a[ large. Uses listed as condifional uses in the
various districts may be permirted sub1ect to such condr[ians and lirrrrtations as the
fown may prescribe to ensure thaf the location and operation of the candifionaJ uses
wrll .be rrr accordance vvr`th development abjecfives of the town and wrll rrot be
detrrrrrental to other uscs or prapertres. Where conditrans cannot be deVised to
aGhieVE the5£' dbfBCtlhfBS, appllcations for conditional use permrts shall be denied.
Chapter 12-2-2, Definitions, Vail Tawn Code, provides the defEnition of a Fractional Fee Club
as follows:
FRAC1`!C?NAL FE€ CLUB: A fraccional fee project rn which each condo,mirrrum unit,
pursuant to reeorded project documentatron as approved by the towrr of Vail, has no
fewer than six (6) and nQ more iharr twelve (72) owners per unri and whose use is
estabJrshed by a reservatron system. Each of the fractronal fee clcrb units are made
availabfe for shorf-term rental in a managedprogram when nof in use by fhe club
members. The projeet is managed on-sife with a front desk aperating twenty four
~ (24) hours a day, seuen (7) days a week providing reservation and registration
capabrlrties. The project shali incluo'e or be proximate to transportation, retail shops,
eating and drrnking establishments, and recreation facilifres_
A. ConsideratiQn af Factors:
Befare acting on a conditional use permit appCicatiQn, the Planning and
Environmental Commission shall consider the factors with respect to the propased
use:
i. Relationship and impact af the use an development objectives of the
Town.
The purpose of the Public Accommodation zone district is to provide sites far
Iodges and reskdential accommodations far visitors, together with fimited
amounts of comTnercial/retail and relatec# visitar-oriented uses. In 1996, the
Vail Town Cauneil adppted Ordinance No. 22, Series of 1996. ln part, this
ordinance amended the Public Accammadation zone district alfowing j
fractional fee clubs as a conditional use and set forth criteria for the
Commission to canskder when evaluating such a request.
Through the adoptian of Ordinance No. 22, Series of 1996, the Town fiurther
recognized the need for lodging alternatives for Vail's guests and visitors. in
passing the ordinance the Town Council found that quality fractional fee
clubs are an appropriate means of increasing occupancy rates, maintaining
~ and enhancing short-ierm rental availability and diversifying the resort
Iodging rnarket prQduct within ihe Town of Vail. Equally as important, ihe
Council believed that fractional fee clubs were simply another o# rnany forms
29 • .
of pubpic accommodations. It has been a{ong he6d belief that in order for the ~
Town to remain competitive and on the Jeading edge o# resort develapment,
that aiternative lodging opportunities must be created and creative fnancing
vehicles for hotef redevelopment must be impfemented.
Stafif befieves that the Four Seasons Resor# proposal to operate a fractional
fee club vwill have a positive impact an the development objectives of the
Town. The proposed praject includes 22 fractional fee club units, Qperated
in conjunction with the 118 accommodation units. 7he fractional fee club will
have no fewer than 6 and no more than 12 awners per unit. The club
inGludes a front desk operating 24 hours per day, seven days per week to
meet #he needs of the owners and ta provide reservation and regcstration
capabilities. As required, i# is proximate to transpartation, retail shops, eating
and drinking establishments, and recreatianal facilities_ The applicant, upon
approvaf, is required to file arlicles of incorporatian of the club with the State
of Colprado and the Tawn of Vail Community DevelQpment Deparkment, as
conditioned in Section XII of this memoranc#um.
2. The effect of the use on light and air, dis#ribution o# papulatian,
transportatian facilities, utilities, schaols, parks and recreatian
facilities, and other public facifities needs.
Staf# believes that the proposed club will have few, it any, negative impac#s
on the above-referenced criteria. The development meets the minimurn ~
requorements prescribed by the Town of Vail Zoning Regulatians and no
deviations are proposed in canjunction with this speeific use (i.e. density). As
a result, the praposed level of deveiopment does not exceed what would
otherwise be expecied on the site under the Public Aecarnmadation zone
district.
3. Effect upon tra"ffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive
and pedestrian safety and canrrenience, traffic flow and control,
access, maneuverability, and remaval of snow fram the street and
parking areas.
These review criteria are addressed in the Special Developrnent !Dis#rict
review portion of this memorandum (Section Vlll). Staff does not believe that
the fractianal fee club wild have any negative effect an the above-referencecf
criteria.
4. Eifect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be
located, including the scale and butk of the praposed use in relation to
surrounding uses.
These review criteria are addressed fn #he Special Development District
review portian of this memorandum (Section VII). Please rsfer to the nine
design criteria used to evaluate special development district proposals.
5. Prior to the approval of a conditional use permit for a time-share estate, ~
fractional fee, fractional fee club, or time-share license proposal, the
following shall be considered:
30
~
a. If the praposal forr a fractianal #ee club is a redevelopment of an
existirrg facildty, the fractional fee club shall maintain an
equivalerrcy of accammodatiQn units as presen#ly existing.
Equivalency shall be maintained eithEr by an equal number of
units ar by square favtage. If the prc,posal is a new
development, it shall provide at least as much accommodatian
unit GRFA as fractional fee club unit GRFA.
b. Lvck-ofF units and lack-off unit sguare footage shall not be
included in the calculatian when deterrnining the equivalency of
existing accomrr~odatian un€ts or equivalency of existing square
footage.
c. The ability of the propased projec# to create and rnaintaira a high
level of occuparrcy.
d. Employee housing may be required as part of any new or
redeveloprnent fractianal fee club project requesting density
over that allowed by zoning. The ntamber af employee hausing
units wi11 be consistent with employee impacts that are
expected as a result of the prcaject.
~ e. The applicant shall submit to the Town a list vf all awners of
existing units within the project or building; in written
statements from 104% of the awners of existing units indicating
their approval, without condition, of the proposed fractlonal fee
club. No written approval shall be valid if it is signed by the
owner more than 60 days prior to the date of fiiing the
application for a conditional use.
B. FINDlNGS
The Planninq and Enviranmental CQmmission shall make the tollowinq findin_as before
rantin a conditianal use ermit:
1. That the praposed locatian of the use is in accordance with the purposes of
the conditional use perrnit sectian of the zoning cade and the purpases of the
district in which the site is located_
2. That the propased location af the use and the conditions under whach it
wauld be operated or maintained woufd not be detrirnentaf to the public
health, safety, ar welfare or rnaterially irujurious to properties or improvements
in the vieiniiy.
3. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions
of the conditional use permit sectian of the zoning code.
~
31
X. CRITERIA AND FtNDINGS FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERM[T-EMPLOYEE HDUS1NG ~
UNlTS
Type lll Ernp9oyee Housing lJnits are allowed as a conditional use in the Public
Accommodation zone districi. Section 12-16-1, Purpose; Limitations, Vaii Tvwn Cade,
provides the purpose for conditional uses, which states:
In orcler to provicle the flexibrlity necessary to achreve the objectlves of this trtle,
specifred uses are permitted in certarn d'istricts subject to the ,granting vf a
conditional use permit. Because of therr unustral or specral characterisfics,
conditianal uses require review and evaluation so that they rnay be lacated properly
with respect to the pur,ooses of this title and vvrth respect to their effects an
surrounding properties. 7'he review process prescribed in this chapter is intended to
assure compatibility and harmorrious develQpment between conditional uses and
surrounding properties and the iown at large. Uses lisred as conditional uses fn the
varlaus districts may be permitted subject to such conditrons and Iirrritatrons as the
town rrtay prescribe to ensure that the location and operafian of the canditional uses
will 6e in accordance wrth develppment vbjectives of the towvn and wi11 raot be
detrirnental fo other uses or properties. Where corrditions cannot be devrsed to
achieve these o6jecfives, appGcatians far conditional use permits shall be denied.
Chapter 12-2-2, Definiiians, Vail Town Code, pravides the following definFtion for Employee
Housing Uni#, which states:
EMPLQYEE NC?USING UNIT (EHU): A dwelling unrt which shalf not 6e leased or ~
rented for any period less than thirty (30) eonsecutive days, and shall be occupred by
at least one persorr vvho is an employee. For the purposes of this defrnitron
"employee"sha11 mear+ a person wha works an average of fhfrty (30) hours per week
or more on a year raund basis in Eagle County, Colorado.
A. Consideration of Factors:
Before acting can a conditianal use permit applica#ion, the Planning and
Environmental Gomrnission shall consider the factors with respect to the propased
use:
1. Relationship and impact of the use an development objectiwes of the
Town.
In September and December of 1992, the Tawn Gauncil passed Qrdinances
9 and 27, Series of 1992, to create Chapter 12-13 {Em,plpyee Housing}
which prQvEdes for the addition af Employee Housing Units (EHUs) as
permitted or condFtianal uses within certain zone districts. The definitian in
that ordinance states:
Employee Nousing Uni[ (EHU) shall mean a dwellrng unit
which shall nof be leased or rerrted for any period less than
fhrrfy (30) cansecutive days, and shall be rented anly to
tenanls who are fu1l-time empEoyees of Eagle Gouniy. EHUs ~
shafl be allowed in certain zone districfs as set forth in
Section 12-13 of fhis Code. Developmeratstana'ards forEHUs
32
i
~ shal! be as provacled in 12-13 - Employee h'ousrng. For the
purposes of this Section, a full-time employee shalf inean a
person who works a rninimurn of an average of thirty (30)
hours per week. There shafl6e five (5) categories of EHUs:
TyPe 1. TYPe U, Type lfl, 7ype IV, and rype V. Provisions
relatrng to each type of EHU are set forth in Ghapter 12-13 -
Employee Housrng of this Cade.
The Town of Vail has consistently encouraged #he provisian of ernpioyee
housing with significant develapment projects. As the proposed Four
Season Resort is a Special Development District, employee housing units
are generally required as part of the public benefiit associated with deviations
frorn underlying zoning.
Staff believes that the provision of employee housing units will have a
positivE impact an the development objectives of the Town of VaiL E3y
prouiding 34 employee housing units, the praposal has met the requiremen#s
of the Tawn of Vail to provide hausing for 30°/a of the neuv employees
generated by the devefopmcnt.
2. The effect o# the use on (ight and air, distribution of papulation,
transportatian faGiiities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation
facilities, and other public faeilities needs.
~ These review criteria are addressed in the Special Develapment District
review partion (Section Vlf) of this memorandum.
3. Effect upon traffic with particular re#erence to conges#ion, automative
and pedestrian safety and canuenience, traffic flow and control,
access, maneuverability, and remawal of snow frorn the street and
parlcing areas.
These review criteria are addressed in the Speciai DeveEopment District
review part9an of this memorandum'(Section VII).
4. Effect upon #he character of the area in which the proposed use is to be
located, including #he scale and bulk of the propnsed use in relation to
surraunding uses.
These review criteria are addressed in the Special aevelopment Distriet
review partian of this rnemorandum (Section V11). Please refer to the nine
design criteria used to evaluate special development district proposals.
B. FINDfNGS
The Pianninq and Enviranmenta.f Commission shall make the fallawing #indings before
cirantinq a conditional use qermit:,
~ 1. That the proposed location of the use is in accordance wpih the purposes of
the canditionaG use perenit sectian of the zoning code arad the purpases of the
distnct in which the site is lc?cated.
33
~
2. That the proposed 6ocatian of the use and the canditions under which it
wQUld be operated or mainfained wouid nat be detrrrnentaf to the public
health, safety, or uvelfare ar materially injurious to properties or impr4vements
in the vicinity.
3. That the prQposed use wau9d carnply with each af the applicable provisians
of the condiftonal use permit section of the zoning code.
XL REZONING REQUEST
The propased~roject includes a request for a rezoning af 2$ South Frontage Raad / Lat 9A,
Vail Village 2" Fiiing. A Zaning Map has been attached for reference (Attachment The
lat is currently zoned Heavy Service zane district, the purpose of which is provided in Section
12-7G-1, Purpose, Vaii Town Code, and is as fiollaws:
The Heavy Service Distrrct is rntended to provide sites for autorrrorive-oriented uses
and for commercial servrce uses whrch are not appropriate in ofher ccammercial
disrr;crs. secaUSe of fhe nature of the uses perrrritted and their operating
characteristics, appearance and potentra! for generating automotive and truck iraffic,
all uses in the HeaUy Service Drsirict are subject to the cvndrtional use permif
procedure. !n grantirrg a conditronaf use permit, the Planning and Environmenfal
Commission or the Towrr Gouncil rrray prescrrbe more restricPrve develo,oment
standards than the standards prescribed for the Disfrict in order to protect adjaining ~
uses from adverse influences.
As nQted in the purpose statement, thE Heavy Servbce zone district is intended tar
autornotive-oriented uses, including gas and service stations. The appliean# i5 requesting a
rezoning from Heavy Service to Public Accornrnodation. The purpose of the Public
Aceomrnodation zone district, as provided in 5ection 12-7A-1, Purpose, Vail Town Code, is
as folCows:
The public accommodation districf is intended to provide sr`tes far ladges and
resrdential accommodatlons for visitflrs, together with such public and semipU6lic
facilities and !imited professiorral offices, medical facilities, private recreation,
comrr7ercrallretail and related visitor oriented uses as may ap,oropriately be Iocafed
within the same district and compatible wrth adjacent rand uses_ The public
accammodatian rlrstrict is infeno'ed to ensure adequare right, arr, open space, and
other amenitres comrrrensurate with lodge uses, and to mainfain the desirable resort
quaJities vf the district by estabfishing appropriate srte development standards.
Additronal nonresidenfial uses are permifted as cona'itional uses which enhance the
nature of Varl as a vacation community, and where permitted uses are iniended io
function corrtpatibly with the high der+srty fodgrrrg character of the dlstrict.
The applicant is proposing ta include LQ# 9A as part of the development site of the Four
Seasons Resart_ In addition lo the rezaning, Lot 9A will be inciuded in the Special
Development District designation. A zoning map has been attached for reference
(Attachment
Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Cot1e, provides the review criteria for a zone district ~
boundary amendment. It provides the following criteria for rewiew af a zone district boundary
34
~ amendment:
A. Factors, Enumerated: Before acting on an application far a zane disiric# boundary
amendrnent, the Planning and Environmental Cammission and Town Couneil shall
cansider the following factors with respect to the requested zone district boundary
amendment:
i. The extent to which the zane distric# amendment is consistent with ail the
applicable elements of the adopted gvals, objeetives and policies outlined
in the Vail Comprehensiae Ptan and is compatible with the developmen#
objectives of the Town; and i
The Town of Uail Land designates this site as Resort .Accommodation and
Servrce, which states the following:
This area includes activitres arrned at accommodatirrg the avernight and '
short tenm vrsitor to the area. Primary uses include hotels, iodges, service
stafions, and parkirrg structures (with densities up to 25 dwellrng units or 5+7
accommodatr"dn units per buildable acre). These areas are oriented foward
vehicular access from I-70, with other sUpport commercial and busrrress _
services incJuded. ,4/so aNowed irr this category, would be instrtutional uses
and varrrrus municipal uses.
~ The Vail Land Use Plan further explains this designation as follows:
This area has been designated for the area which extends from ihe
Lionshead hotellaccommodatron unit area easf alang the Frontage F3d. to Vail
Rd. Cascade Village has alsa been designated as Resort Accammodation.
These are ths areas where hafel uses w1fJ 6e concentrafed during the
planning perlod, reflecting fhe community goals to concerrtrafe hofels withl`rr
the core areas...
Whiie this Land Use designation also contemplates "service stations" as a Use,
staff believes that the rezQning fram Heavy Service to Pubfic Accornmadation to
be rnare cansistent with the goals and objectives as outlined in the Vail Land Use
Plan with respect to this area. While thws site is not contemplated specifically
under other planning documents, statf believes that it is the intent ofi the Vail
Comprehensive Plan, to encQUrage more tourist-ariented uses, including oodges,
from Lianshead to Vail rnad, specifically along the Frontage Road.
Vlfhi9e nat specifically included in the study area for the Vail Village Master Plan,
there are same important aspects which staff believes are applicable to the
rezoning request:
#I-10 StudvArea: 4-Wav Stop Intersectian
The 4-Way Stop intersection is the main enfry to Varl- Confinue to sfudy
traffic volume and best configuration for traffic ilow. Aesihetr`c improvements
should include su6stantial landscapirrg on all 4 corners and the construction
~ of a landscaped median east and west Qf the intersectaon.
When the Vail Village Master Plan was approved, the intersection of South
35
I
Frontage Road and Vaif Road was a 4-way stop. Since then, the Main Vail ~
Raundabout was eompleted. As the majar portal into Uail, staff believes that the
propased rezoning is in cornpliance with this sectian of the Vail ViElage Master
Plan.
2. The extent to which the zone district amendment is suitable with the
existing and potential tand uses on the site and existing and potential
surrounding land uses as set out in #he Town's adapted planning
documents, antt
Lot 9A is adjacent to the following:
Property Zanin_q ~
Vai1 Gateway 5Da (underlying Cornmercial Service Cen#er) ~
Chateau Public Accomm4dation
Tawn of Vail Offices General Use ~
i
The existing use an the site is the Vail Amoco gas statian, which operates under
a conditional use permit a$ allowed by the Heavy Ser+rice zone dis#rict. WhiEe
staff recognizes the benefit of having an automobile service station in the center
ofi Town, there is also a benefit to hauing a ma}or resort hotel at the main
entrance into the Tawn. Rezoning the property to Public Accommodation zone
districi allaws far the develapment of the Four Seasons Resort at this site.
Previous designs far the Chateau at Vail site have been rnore difficult as a result ~
o# the development site not ineluding the gas station property. With ihe qnclusion
of the gas station site, traffic circulation is irraproved and the development plan is
more suecessfu6. The rezoning of the Uail Gateway from an underlying zoning of
Commercial Core I to Commercial Service Cenier allowed far many of the
existing comrr7ercial spaces in the Vail Gateway to be converted to office space,
while marirrating the ability to haue commercial uses on the site. Staff beiieves
that the rezoning of Lat 9A will have a positive impact on the uses within the Vail
Gateway by crea#ing a large bed base.
Staff befieves that the rezoning of Lot 9A fram Heavy Service zone district to
Public Accommodatian zone district is 5uitable with the surraunding 1and uses
and the potential uses on the site and on adjacerrt siies.
3. The extent to which the zone district amendment presents a harmoniQUS,
convenient, workable relationship among Fand uses consistent with
munRCipal develapment objectives; and
As the main entry into the Town of Vail, staff believes that the aane district
arnendment presents a convenient, workable relationship among land uses
consistent with municipal objectives. Specifically, the Neavy Service zone district
lists no permitted and limited coraditional uses, oriented entirely to autamotive
uses and other commercial uses nat appropriate in any other zane distriets. S#aff
believes that the site is more apprcapriately zoned as Public Accammodation,
which allows for uses oriented mare toward visitors. As the main entry into Vail,
staff believes this to be a more appropriate zone district, consistent with municipal ~
objeciives.
36
~ 4. The extent to wh ich the zone district amendment provides far the growth of
an orderly viable carnmunity and dves not constitute spat zoning as the
amendrnent serves the best interests flf the community as a whole; and
Staf# believes that the elimination of a use (gas and service statian) which is a
high intensity commercial/industrial use will provide for the growth of an orderly,
uiable corrrmunity. Other uses allowed by Heavy Service zone district include
uses which have the potential te generate heauy automotive and truck traffic,
have adverse impacts on adjoining properties, etc. The Public Accommadation
zone district is intended to provide fQr sites for lodging, residential, and limited
commercial uses. Statf believes that these uses are more appropriate for the
location, carnpatible with the land use designation, artd does nut canstitute a
r spot zoning. However, staff belie+res that it is important to note that the proximity
af the exis#ing gas and service sta#ion to the Tawn is abenefit that will be last by
this rezoning. 5. The extent to which the zone district annendment resufts in adverse or
bene#icial impacts on the natural environment, including but not timited ta
water quality, air quality, noise, vegetatian, riparian corridrtrs, hillsides and
other desirable natural features; and
Uses allowed by the Heavy Service zane district have the potential to be have
more adverse impacts on the natural environment tnan the uses allawed by the
~ Public Accommodation zone district_ Staff believes that the efiminafion of the
gas station vuilk have beneficial impacts on the natural environment and that the
uses ailowed by the Public Accommodatian zone district wi{I have minimal
negative impacts on the natural envaronment on this site.
8. The ex#ent to which the zone district amendment is consistent with the
Rurpose staternent of the proposed zone district.
Section 12-7A-1, Purpase, Vail 7own Code, provides the purpose statement o#
` the Public Accornmadatian ze+ne district, which states:
The publte aceommcrdatron district is interrded to provide siies far lodges and
residential accarrrmodatlons for visitors, together with such publrc and
semr'pUblic faerlities andlimrfed professranal affrces, medleal facrlrtres, private
recreatron, comrnercra!/retarl and related vrsr'for orierrted uses as may
approprtately be located wlthin the same district and compatr`ble wrth adjacent
land uses. The,oublrc accommodatron district r`s intended to errsure adequate
lrght, air, opeR space, and other arraentfies cvmmensurate wrth lodge uses,
and to rnaintain the desr`rable resort qualrties of the district by establlshrng
ap,oropriafe srie development sfandards. Ad'drtional nonresidentr'al uses are
perrnrtted as condr`tronal uses whr`ch errhance Ihe nature af Var1 as a vacatrora
commUnrty, and where permrtted uses are intended to functron compatibly
wrth the high densfty Jodging character crf the district.
Staff beiieves that the zone district amendment and the praposed development
~ on the site is consistent with #he purpose statemertt of the Public
Aecammodalion zone district. The Publie Accommodation zone district is more
cansistent with the land use designation of Resort Accommadation and Senrices.
37
~
1'he site is adjacent and near other sites zoned Public Accornmodation, including
the existing Chateau at Vail, 9 Vail Raad, the First Bank Building, Uaii Village Inn
Plaza The proximity to Vail Village and Lianshead make the site a desirabCe
lacation for the uses aflowed by the Public Accamrnodatian zone district,
specifically lodging, residential, aimited cammercial, eic.
7. The extent tv which the zane district amendment demanstrat+es how
conditions haue changed since the zoning designatian of the subject
prvperty was adop#ed and is na langer appropriate.
Staff believes that conditions have substantially changed and that the zone
district designatian of HEavy Senrice is na Ipnger appropriate. Infarmation
regarding the original construction of the Vail Arnaco +s lirnited. From the Town af
Vail legal file, it appears as though the bu9lding was eonstructed around 1969.
The Heavy Service zone distrkct was adapted in 1973. Lot A, Vail Village 2"d
Filing was part of the original Town of Vail. Conditians ha+re changed
dramatically from the tirne of originaf incorporation to taday. As the Town has
grown, the more intense automotive-o riented and cammercial uses have shitted
to other areas of 7own, such as West Vail, and furkher away fram the more tourist
and resort-oriented areas Qf the Vil[age and Lionshead. The gas and service
station which +nras previously located on the site of the Vail Gateway Buildfng was
derr-hofished and this sute was first rezoned to CQmmercial Core 1 in and then
Commercial Service Center. ~
8. Such Qther factvrs arnd criteria as the Cosnmission andlor Council deem
applicable to the propvsed rezaning.
B. Necessary Findings: Before recommending and/or granting an approval of an
application for a zone tlistrict boundary amendrroent the Planning & Environmentaf
Commission and the Town Council shall make the following fincfings with respect ta
the requested amendment:
1. That the amertdment is consistent with the adopted gaals, objectives and
policies outlined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan and compatible with the
development abjectives of the Town, and
2.. That the amendrnent is campatible with and suitable to adjacent uses and
appropriate for the surraunding areas; and
3. That the amendment promotes the health, safety, marals, and generaf
weffare of the Town and promotes the coordinated and harmonious
development of the Town in a manner that cpnserves and enhances its
natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential
cammunity of the highest quality.
KII. STAFF RECQMMENQATfQN
The Community Develapment aepartment recflmmends thaf the Planning and ~
Environmental Commission forward a recommendatian o# approval with conditions to
the Town Council for the proposed major amendment to Special Development Disirict No.
38
~ 36, to ailow fnr a mixed-use hotel, located at 28 South Frontage Road and 13 Vail Road !
Lats 9A and 9C, Vail Village 2"d Filing; and a rezoning from Heavy Service zone district to
Fublic Accamrnodation zone district located at 13 Vail Road / Lot 9A, Vaii Village 2"d Filing;
and
The Community Development Department recommends that the Planning and
Environmental Commission approves with conditions the requests for a conditianal use
perrn4t ta allow for a Fractional Fee Glub, and a condit'ronal use permit to allow for 34 Type I I I
Emplayee Housing units, located at 28 S. Froratage Rd. and 13 Vail Rd. / Lots 9A and 9C,
Vail Vi]lage 2"d Filirtg.
Staff's recommendations are based upan a review af the criteria and findings as outlined in
Sections VIII, IX, X, and XI a# this memorandum.
Shauld the Planning and Environmentai Commission choose to forward a
recommendatian of approval with canditions the applicant's requests, staff recorrtmends
that the following findings be made as part of the motion:
I
Maior Amendment to Special Develapment District IVo; 36
~
1. That the propased major amendment to Special Development District No. 36 complies
with the nine design criteria outlined in Sectican 12-9A-$ af the Vail Town Code.
~ Furthermore, the applicant has demanstrated to the satasfaction of the Commis5ion,
based upon the testimany and eaidence presented during the public hearing, that any
adverse efifects of the requested cieviations frorn the deve6opment standards af the
underlying zaning are outweighed by the public benefits provided. Lastly, the
Commission #inds that the request is consistent with the devefopment gaals ancf
objectives of the Town.
2. Wiih regards ta proposed building setbaeks, that:
a. Propased building setbacks provide necessary separation between buildings and
riparian areas, gealogically sensitive areas and other environmentally sensitive
areas.
b. Praposed building setbacks cornply with applicable e{ernents of the Vail Village
Urban Design Guide Plan and Design Considerations.
c. Proposed building setbacks will provide adequate awailability of light, air and
open space.
d. Propased building setbacks vvi91 provid2 a cornpatible relationship with buildings
and uses 4n adjacent prQperties.
e. Proposed building setbacKs will resuCt in creative design sgFutions or other public
benefits that cauld nat otherwise be acheeved by conformance with prescribed
setback standards.
3. That propnsed site coverage is in conformance with applicable elements of the Vail
Village Urban Design Guide PIan and Design Gonsideratians.
~ 4. That propased gross residentiaE ffoor area is in conformance with applicable elements of
the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Pfan and Design Considerations.
39
5. That the developrrr7ent is in compaiance with the purposes of the Public Accammodation ~
zone district, that the proposai is consistent with applicable elements of the Vail Village
Master Plan, the Va'rl village Llrban Design Guide Plan and the Vail Streetscape Master
Plan, and that fhe proposal does not otherwise have a significant negative effiect on the
character of the neighbarhoad, and that the proposal substantially complies with other
applicable elernents of the Vail Comprehensive Plan.
Zone Districf Baundary Amendment
1. That ths amendment is consistent w+th the adopted goals, objectives and policies
outlined in the Vail Camprehensive Plan and campatible with the dewelopmertt objectives
of the 7own.
2. That the amendment is eompatible with anol suitable ta adjacent uses and appropriate
for the surrounding areas.
3. That the arrmendrnent promotes the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the
Town and promo#es the eoordinated and harmonious de+relopment of the Town in a
manner that canserves and enhances its natural environment and its established
eharacter as a resart and residential community of the highest quality.
Shauld the Planning and Envirortrnental Carnrnissian choose to appraval with conditions
the applicant's requests for the conditional use perrrtits, staff recommends zhat the folbwing
findings be rnade as part of the motion: ~
Conditional Use Permits
1. That the proposed Eocation of the Four Seasons Resart fractional fee club is in
accDrdance with the purposes of the Town of Vail Zoning Regulations and the purposes
of the Public Accommadation zane district. ,
i
2. That the proposed location of the Four Seasons Resort fractianal fee club and the ~
conditions under which it will be operated and rnaintained will nat be detrirnental to the .
public heaith, sa#ety, or welfare, or materiafay injurious to properties or improvements in
the vicinity of the Four Seasons Resort.
3. That the Four Seasons Resort fractianal fee cfub operation will comply with each of the
applicable provisions of the Town of Vail Zaning Regulations
4. Adciitionally, the Four Seasons Res4rt fractianal fee club proposal complies with the
criteria and starrdards prescribed by Sectian 12-16-7, Use Specific Criteria and
Standards, Vail Town Code.
5. 7hat the praposed lacation of the 34 7ype EII Employee Housing Units is in accordance
with the purposes of the Town of Vail Zoning Regulations and the purposes of the Public
Accamrnodatian zone disiric#,
6. That the proposed location of ihe 34 Type I I IEmployee Housing Units and the conditiQns
under which they will be operated and mainfained wifl not be detrimenfal to the public ~
health, safety, or welfare, or materially injuriQUS to properties ar improvements in the
vicinity of the Four Seasons Resart.
40
~
7. 7hat the 34 Type III Employee Housing Units will comply with each of the applicable
provisions of the Town of Vail Zoning FCegulations
Staf#'s recommsndations include ihe following conditions:
1. That the developer shall pravicfe deed-restricted hausirrog that camplies vwith the Tavun
of Vail Empioyee Housing requirements (Ghapfer 12-13) for a minimum of 68
emplayees on the Four Seasons Resort site, and that said deed-restricted emplayee
housing shall be macle availabke for occupancy, and that the deed restrictions shall
be recorded with the Eagie County Clerk & Recorder, priar to issuance of a
Temporary Certificate of C,7ccupancy for the Four Seasons Resort.
2. That the deveiaper shafl meet +nrith the Town stafif to prepare a memarandum of
understanding outlining the responsibilities and requirements of the required off-site
improvements, prior to second reading of the ordinance appraWing the majdr
amendment to Special DerreEopment District IVo 36. ThiS memorandum of
understanding shall include, but not be iimited to, all streetscaping improvements
along Sauth Frontage Road and V11est Meadaw Drive in accordance with the Town of
Vai] Streetscape Master Plan, as amended.
3. That the develQper shall recard a drainage easernent for Spraddle Creek. The
easement shall be prepared by the developer and submitted #or review and approval
~ by the Town Attarney. The easement shall be recorded with the Eagle County Clerk
& Recarder's Office prior to the issuance of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy
for the Faur Seasons Resart.
4, That the developer shali submit a final exterior buiiding materials list, a typical wall
sectian and complete color renderings fnr review and approval of the Design Review
Board, prior to submitta{ of an app]ication for a building permit.
5. That the develaper shall submit a cornprehensive sign prograrrr propasal far the Faur
Seasons Resart for review and appraval by the Design Review Board, prior to the
issuance of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for the Four Seasons Resort.
6. That the developer shall submit revised architectural plans of the building at the
corner adjacent to the Alphorn for review and approvai by the Design Rev4ew Board
prior to second reading of the ordinance approving the major amendment to Specia!
Developmeni District No. 36.
7_ That the develaper shall subrnit a written agreement to maintain #he current number
of parking spaces for 9 Vail Road condominiurris which is proposed to be telocaied
in conjunction with the constructifln of ihe Faur Seasons Resort. Any Town of Vail
Design Review applications andlor FOanning and Enviranmental Comrroission
applications which are reqGired to refocate thrs parking shall be submitted, reviewecf,
and approved by the appropriate reviewing body ta ensure cornptianee with all Town
of Vail regulations prior to second reading of the ordiroance amending Special
aeveEopment District No. 36.
~ That the developer shall submit a rooftap mechanica[ equiprrient plan for review and
approval by the Design Review Qoard prior to the issuance of a building permit. All
41
rooftop mechanical equipment shall be incorporated inta the overall design of #he ~
hotef and enclosed and visually screened from public view,
9. 7hat the developer shall pos# a bond to provide financial security for the 150% of the
tatal cost of the requAred aff-site public improvements. The boRd shalC be in place
with the Tcawn prior to the issuance of a building permi#.
10. 7hat the developer shall ccarnply with all fire department staging and aceess
requiremen#s pursuant tfl Title 14, Development Standards, Ilail Town Code. This
will be demanstrated on aset o# revised plans for Town review and approvaf prior to
buildong permit subrnittal.
11. That the required Type III deed-restricted emplayee hausing units shall not be
eligible for resale and that the units be owned and operated by the hotel and that
said ownership shall transfer with the deed ta the hotel property.
12. That the developer shall coordinate the relocatiora af the exis#ing electric
transfarmers an the property with Iocal utility providers. The revised locatian of the
transforia-iers shalf be part of the final landscape plan to be submitted for review and
approval by the Design Review Board.
13. That ihe developer shall submdt a written letter o# appraval from those adjacent
propertFes whose property is being encrQached upan by certain irrrnprovements
resulting from the construction of the hotel, prior to the issuance af a building permit. ~
14. That the developer provides a 6 ft. to $ ft. heafed paver pedestrian wafkway from the
Frontage Road bus stop adjacent to the Vllest Star Bank then continuing east to Vail
Road and then south to the 9 Vail Road property line. All work related to providing
these imprawements inciuding Iighting, retaining, uti{ity relocation, curb and gutter,
drainage and landscaping shafl be inclucied. A plan shall be submitted far review
and appraval by the Town and the Design Review Board prior to submittal of a
building permit.
15. That the developer shall provide a heated pedestrian walk connection from the
Frontage Raad to Vu`est Meadow prive, 7he developer sha[] recard a pedestriart
easement far this connectian for review and approval by the Town Attorney.
16. That the developer shall prepare anc6 submit alf applieable roadway and drainage
easements for dedication to the Town for review and approval by the Town Attorney.
AlI easements shall be recorded with the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder's Office
priar to issuance of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy.
17. That the developer shall be assessed an irnpact fee af $5,000 far all net inerease in
pm traffic generation as shown in the revised April 4,2003, Traffic Study (Attachment
H). The net ancrease shall be calculated using the proposed peak generating trips
Iess the existing Resori Hotel and Auto CarE Center trips, respectevely being 155- ~
(108+7) = 40 net peak trops @ $5040 =$200,0{7Q. This fee vvill be offset by the cost j
of non-adjacent improvements constructed. ;
i'
18. That the developer shali receive approval far all required permits (CDOT access, ACC?E, dewatering, storrr3v,+ater discharge, etc.) prior to issuance of a buisding permit.
42
~
19. That the developer shall submit a full site grading and drainage plan for review and
approval by the Tawn and the Design Review Baard. The drainage plan will need to
be substantiated by a cirainage report provided by a Colarado professional Engineer,
include ali drainage, roaf drains, landscape drains etc., and how they will connect
with the TOV storrYa system. The developer shall submit all firnal civil plans and final
drainage report tQ the Town for civil approval by the Department of Publie Works,
prior to submittal of a bualding permit.
20. That the developer shall provide detailed cival plans, profiles, details, limits of
disturbanee artd construction #ence for review and civil apprdval by the aepartment
o# Public Works, prior to submittal of a building permit.
21. That the developer shall be responsible for all wark rela#ed ta providing landscaping
and fightEng within the proposed Frontage Rd. medians. A de#aiFed iandscape plan
of the medians shaEl be prouided for review and approval by the Design Review
Board.
22. That the developer shall pravide addi#ional suEVey informatian of the south side of
the Frontage Road to show existing trees to be removed and additional survey in
front of the Sccarpio buifding in orcier to show accurate grades for the construction of
the path fram the Four Seasons ta the bus stop at West Star bank. Final design
shall be reViewed and appraved by the Tawn and the Design Review Board.
~ 23. That #he developer is responsible fnr 100% af final design improvements along'JVest
NGeadow Drive frorn the cenferline of the road back to the Four Seasons prQperty line
from Nlayors' park to western most property line o# the Four Seasons, including any
drainage and grade tie-+ns beyond the west property [ine. This includes all
impravements, incfuding, drainage, lighting, art, streetscape enhancements, edge
treatments, curbs, heated walks, etc. Final plans shall match and be coardinated
with the proposed Town of Vail Streetscape plan far West Meadow Drive and shall
be provided for review and approval by the Design Review Board.
24. That the developer shall incorporate public art inta the development, and shall
coordinate all art prapasals with the Art in Public Places Board, subjec# to review and
appraval by the Design Review Board.
25. Thai the developer shall resolve a41 af the following design-related issues for finaf
Design Review Board review and approval:
a. Proposed hydrant relocation at the NW camer of the property shali be graded to •
be level with the proposed sidewalk and landscaping will be located as ta nat
interfere with the operation ofi the hydrant.
b. The cross-slope on the West Meadow Drive walk shall main#ain a max. 2.0%
cross slope that is sloped towards the road.
c. The boulder walls and grading at the SE corner af the property shall fae modified
as to not impact the existing 2-36" CMP's,
d. The foundation wall at the SE corner af the parking structure shaEl be modified to
40 accommadate the existing Spraddle Creek vault.
e. 7he proposed Spraddle Creek vault and cancrete box culwert shall be modified
to work with the existing phone vault.
43
I
!
f. All known ex'rsting utilities shall be shown on a plan with the proposed drainage ~
and utilities in arder to clarify poiential conflicts.
g. The proposed walk that rneets the frontage road walk at the eastem portion of
the property shall be reaiigned slightly to the west to avoid the existing inlet.
h. Fire staging turning rnovements shall be show on plans.
i. Re#aining walls west of the loading and delivery access drive shall be
eurvecllangled in order to "bench" access drive wall.
j. Top of wall elevatian for the IFrontage Rd-West Meadow Drive path reads as
185.5?(Typo)
k. Railings shall be pravided for paths where necessary
Show edge of existing pavement for Frontage raad on civil plans and show
match point.
m. Erosion control plan shalf be updated.
n. Show grading around proposed electric vaulfi,
a. 5hnw driveway grades, spot elevations on civil plans.
p. Show additianal TOW/BOW elevations on poal walls.
26. That the approvai af the conditional use permits is nat valid unless aR ordinance
approving the assaciated S}aeciaf Development District amendment request is
approved on second reading.
27. lhat the developer shall begin initial construction of the Four Seasons Resort within
three years from the tirrae of its final approval at second reading of the ordinance
amending SpeciaP pevelopment District No. 36, arrd con#inue diligently toward the ~
completion of the project. If the developer does not begin and diligently work taward
the completion of the special deuelopment district flr any stage of the special
development districf within the tirne IirrZits imposed, the approval flf said special
development cfistrict shall be void. The Planning and Environmental Commissron and
Town Couneil sha[1 review th+e speciaE development district upon submittal of an
application to reestablish the special development district following the proGedures
outlined in SectiQn 12-9A-4, Vail Town Code.
XIII. ATTACHMENTS
A, Vicinity Map
B. Applicant's Statement of Request
C. Program Anaiysts
D. Land Use N1ap
E. Four Seasans Resort Zoning Analysis
F. Reductions o# Plans
G. Analysis by Jeff Winston
H. Traffic Studies
1. Zoning Map
J. Planning and Envirflnmentaa Commission Meeting Minutes (1f13103)
K. Planning and Enuironmental Comrnission Meeting Minutes (3/24103 - draft)
~
44
Attachment: A - -
~ . ~ F ~ • - ~~Y » r.y.lf'~~ ~ ~y Y . ~,'LT~{ _I~
A U
f,
4~
4 *
9
' ~ ~ ~ a ~ •~a~'y,, 1 ~ ~a ~ d} ~ I
x
Nii;
ty ^^+n~~ , ' ~p f
-egg
, . . , . ' . ' _
- CG""
- . . . : . . - .
i
"Q,
r X-A_
tL • g `
~ "
•k, 4 y ey? • Wp.y ^ 14 M 4.~. t
~ ~ " ~ -<o ~S ~ r~ ~~•,w''a ~ ~ yf•- ~
i r. ~y y" ~ R, , p.'~. ~°'I
~ E C6 ' 'L
. I . CL
~ . i. x a Z i ° ~ ~m°` ` a.. x ~ ~ '.,'~~.g,~'e!; e
X ~'r ~
V
~ 0
~`.\.~t Y .
cc'a
f I ~ ~ i n E 4 1 ,v a ~A4~
~ ~ S•F ,
>
?
. ~ v~"~`
y~ ~Y'~,. :r
A:,,~'«q~:~.
r 1,31
r
~
~~z sE 3 . z L.• ~ a
>1 CI) U)
rf
ry,~d`
~ a t
~ U. EL ~ ~ _ r •
'.f~'kr
~
` Attachment: B '
ZE H R E N ~
AND ASSDCIAT€S, INC.
December 16, 2042
Town of Vail
Degartment of Community Development
75 South Frantage Road
Vail, Co3orado 81657
Re: Four Seasons Resort - Vail
This letter is ta address design criteria A#hrough I as outlined in section 12-9A-8 of the tawn code. lt is the
applicant's understanding that these nine eriteria are to be used in evaluating the merits of the creation of
the new Four Seasans Resort - Specia3 Development Distnct.
A. Compatibility: Desrgn compatibr'lity and sensitivity to the immediate environrnent, neigtiborftood and
adjac,ent properties refatrve to architectural desigm, scale, bzrlk, building height, bufj"er zones, iclentity,
character, vi.sual itrtegrity and orientrrtion.
The proposed hotel is designed in such a way ftt is bath compatible and sensitive to the irnmediate ~
envsrananent, neighbarhood, and adjacent pragerties while at the sarne ti.me giving the project an identity as a
cammercially viable hotel praject within both the irnmediate neighborhpad and the community at large.
The predominant orientation of the proposed lzo4el is toward existing pedestrian areas along the eastern edge af
the site. Public, pedestrian ariented functivns includinb the predomunant pedestrian entrancc to the hatel, spa,
canference facilities, retail area, and the restaurant have been located a1ong Vail Road. 'I'he areas along West
Mcadow Dzive axe intended to buffer the larger scale of the prnposed hote] against the resiciential natuze of some
of the smaller scale buildings to the southwest. This area has the largest setbacks, greatest amaunt of
landscaping, and lowest building heights in orrier to relate to the exisiing buildings atong East and West
Meadow Drive, maintain a com#'ortable pedestrian scale, and to provicle for a bransition to the smailer scale
residential properties to the south.
In order #o czeate tliis transition and buffer zone along West Meadow Drive, #he greatest density and subsequent
height for the hotel have been located along the South Frontagz Road along the uorthern edge af the site. The
building height in this area, although exceeding the underiying zoning, directly relates tn the heights af existing ~
and proposed structures east of VaiI Road. The intent is to create a"gateway" #o the village, as stn?ctures would
step up to similar heeghts on either side of Vail Road.
Other proposed buffer zanes are also consistent wi[h or exceed the underlying zaning an that they meet or
exceed the minimum required property Iine setbacks and coverage requirements.
The mass anci bulk of ttae praposcd hatcl, as deternvned primarily by the prescribed setbaCks, site coverage,
landscape coverage, and gross residential floar area requirements within the toAm code, all canform to the
underlying zoning_ It is I.he belief of the applieant that because at is the underlying zanina which detertivnes tlie
building envelope far any given site, and because the proposed project eomplies with these portions of the
underlying zoning, it is the intent of the Vail Camprehensive Plan that a hotel of this size, densiky, mass, ancl ~
hullc is iniended this site. Furthermare, #he site's locati4n, proxirnity, access to main thoroughfares, and
prescribed uses, hclp to lend credence ta tlus belief.
ARCHtTECTt1RE • PLANNING • Ir*;T[321C3R5 • lANDSCAPE ARCNITECTURE
Pn Rnx 1976 - Avnn. Cnlnradn 81620 - ?970; 949-0257 • FAX ?9701 949-1080 • e-maiE: vailafiC(u-)zchren.COm ' 4utvw,zehren.CDm
~ Va'rl Plaza Hotel Zehren and Assaciates, Inc.
021471.00 12l1612002
The architectural design, character, and visual integriry of the proposed hotel with ather stzuctures within the
coenmunity is meant to be both campatible with the immediate neighbnrs w•hile at the same tirne relateng to some
of the farger, rnore recent hotel projects east of Vail Road. The praject has been desiened wish stepging and
broken ridge lines, variatians in building rnaterials, and varied wall and deck planes acting ta break down the
overall mass and bulk of the project, add pedeserian scale and interesi, and relate the hotel Eo the swrxounding
neighhorhaod.
B. Relutiansliip: Uses, aetivity, and density, wfsich provicle a campatible, efficient and wQrka$le
relationship with surraunding uses and activity.
Tlze uses, activities and densities are consistent with those listed within the underlying zoning.
C. Parkirrg utad Loading: Canzpliance wilh 11iepurkirrg and Inading requirernents a.s autlined in Chapter
10 of this Ti'tle, (Zoning).
The proposed parking and loading facilities are in cQmpliance with the requireYnents of the zoning iitle, adopted
town standaads, and staffpalieylrequirements.
D. Cn?riprehensive Plart. Corzfonnity with the upplicuble elc.~ments of the Vaal Conzprehen,sive Plan, Towri
policies and Urbari Design Plan.
~ The proposed deveiapment substantially complies with applicable goals and policies as expressed in both the
Streetscape Master Flan and the Land Use Plan.
The Land Use Plan identifies por[ions of the site as both "resort accommodation and service" and as
"transition". As suc}t, the plan zecommends accivities and uses consisten# with the underlying aoning aimed at
accommadating the ovemight and short-term visitor. As such, the uscs and fetnctions aze orienGed in order to
maintain a clear separation between the vehicular orientation af the resort accammoda#aan zane along the Sauth
Frontage Raad and the gedesirian arientation of tlle transition zone along West Meadow Drir+e.
~
The proposed improvements to the South Frontage Road, Vail Road, and West Meaciow Drive coneepiualiy I
cornply with the applicab3e elements af the Streetscape Master F'Ian by pxaviding improvements in the matezials, I
configurakions, and sizes as indicated ur the plan. ~
E. Nrttrrrul and/or Geologic Hazards: Iclenrr.frcadlori and rrritigatron of n.aturaI qnd/or geologic huzcrrds
that affect the property un whreh the special developnient d'istrict is propased.
We believe that thera are no natural or geologic hazards that rray affect tie develapment of this site.
F. Design Features: Site plar2, building design, und Ivcation and open space provisians designecf to
produee a furacttanal developinent respansive und sensitive to natural features, vegetczlion, and overall
aesthetic quality vf the communiry.
1'he praposed building lacation, site plan, building desi;n, and open space provide for a f'unctional and efficient,
fiill service, conference hotel that is both responsive to the location and circulation patterns Nvithin the tt~Am,
orientakion of the site, and aesthetic quality of the irnmediatc neighborhood and the cammuniry at large.
~
2
Vai1 Plaza Hotel Zehren and Asscaciates, Inc.
021471.00 I 2116/24(12
Because of tlae proposed hotel's location within the town and proximity to the main Vail roundabout, the
projeet's impacts on existing traffic volumes and infrastructure wilI be minemal. The site plan and buildin;
design fiiTther minianize ixnpacts by simplify existing traffic patterns into ane-way, right turn patterns.
In addition, the site plan and huilding design improve upon the aesThetic quality af tkte immediate environment,
especially with regard to the pedestrian orientation along West Meadow Drive and Vail Rcaad, through the
elinvnation of vehicular traffac, the provisian for additiona] open space and landscaping, and provisions for
pubiic improvements and infrastructure including public plazas and amvork.
G. Traffic: A circulAtzan system designed for both veirrcles and pedestrians addressing on and ~rff-site
traffic circulatian.
The propo$ed pedestrian and vehicuIaz traffic circulatican systezra provides for rninimal impac# on existing
infrastructure through the lirnitation of multiple turning movements and siniplification of craffic patterns, while
at tlie same time protiAiding a safe and efficient meaxis of circulation thraugh an effective separarion of guest and
service vehicles on the South Froniage Raad, condUmunum owners on Vai] Road, and pedesuian systems on
West Meadow Drive anti Vail Roaci.
H. Lar:clscapilig: Functional and aesthetie landscapnig and open space in order to optimize and preserve
natural features, reereatiora, views, and functioi:.
The proposed landscape design provides for an effective anc3 aesthetic buffering of vehicular circulation and ~
service areas, for the privacy and shading requirements of private residential areas, and for pedestrian scale and
interest in and along the public areas of the proposed hotel development. There currentiy exist no significant
natural features, reGreation, or functians, public views to be preserved or enhaneed on, irom, or over these sites.
1. Phasittg Plan; Phasing plan or subdavision plan tfiat will niairrtaiir a worka6le, functitrnal and
efficierit relationship lhrcracghoui the development of the special rlevelnpment distract.
1'he dEVelopment wi11 be constructed in one phase.
It is alsa the applieant's understanding that in addition to dernonstrating compliance wi#h the nine criteria
abave, that it is the applicant's respansibality to demonstrate that, "any adverse effects of the requested
deviation from the deveIoprnent standards of the underEying zoning are outweighed by the public benefits
provided". The fo3lowing is a 3ist of the proposed deviatians fcozn adagted devclapment standards, adverse
effects, and proposed mitigatiQn measures as prapased by the applicant as weld as the perceived public
beneF'it's derived fram the project:
Deviations from 17evelopment Standards - Adverse effectslMitigatian Measures (1)
• Buildin_q Heights - Impaets from this deviation in,clude iancreased shading an the 5outh Frontage Road
public right of way amd impacts on views to the south from that rxght of vY•ay. Public and priva[e benefits
derived tlxrough unpleFnentarion of this deviatian include lower densicies, mass, bulk, and building heights
along West 3vteadow Drive. Proposed mitigatinn measures include snawmelt systems, retention and addition
of Iarge trees and landscaping features including berms vaithirt the right of way, and enhaneement af pr'unary
pedestrian areas along Wesr Meadow Drive including provisions for incrcased setbacks and landscaping
caveraee.
Setback Deviations to tae Reviekved in Accordance with Criieria ldentified in 12-7A-6. (2} ~
• Be9ow Grade Sethack-s - Fvo adverse impacts vccur from this deviation. Public and private benefits derived
from this deviation include mcreased area of landscaping coverage, and an increase cn the amflunt of full
size parking space$ provided.
3
~ Vai] Flaza Hntel 2ehren and Assacia[es, Inc.
(}21471.00 12/16/2002
Pub_lic_Benc;fits Provided - General (21)
• ImplemencaCion of agp3icable goals; objectives, and policzes as ou#lined in Vaii Compreherisive Plans.
• Economic redevelopinent of an a;ing hotel property.
• Impraved residential character in the desi;n of the structure.
• Increase ui number of short-term aceammodation units.
• Increase in size and quali[y of short-term acenmmodatidn units..
• Increase in size and c}uality of canference faeilities.
+ Increase in size and qualicy of restaurant facilicies.
* Increase in size and quality of retail facili#ies.
• Increase in size and quality of spa and health club facitiries.
• Elimination of surface parking.
• Elimination of vehicular traffic oai West Meadaw Drive.
+ ]Elirzunation of vehicular rnaneuvering on wikkxin the town's right of way.
• Elimination of a surface laading clock witliin a front setback.
• Irnproved vehicnlar safety thraugh decrease in turning movements.
• Imprc,ved vehicular safety khraugh unplemenkation of one-way traffic pattems.
• Improved peciesuian safetv through pravision of grade separated sidewalkss.
• Elimination of existing setback encraachments.
• Elimination of existing landscapiz3g deficiency (developznents standards).
• Increase in amount and quality of landscaping,
Potential increase in year round 9uest occupancy.
• Potential increase in hotel, resort, and town marketing and resources.
Public Benefits Provided - Potentiai Econamic Beaefits (4)
• Fvteratial increase in recumng revenues (property taaces, lift taxes, franchise fees, business licenses, etc.).
• Potential increase in recurring sales i[ax revenues (town and county).
• increase in non-zecurrizzn buildin- pemut revenues.
• Increase in non-recurring real estate tax revenues.
Pu61ic I3enefts Provided - Development Standards 19)
• Provision of setbaclcs in excess of deveiopment standards.
• Provision of landseaping in excess of developnnent standards.
• Provision of open space in excess of development standards.
• Provision of on site, deed restricted employee-housing units in excess of develapment standards (number of
unita).
• Provision af can site, deed restricted emplayee-housing tanits in excess of e3evelopment stanciards (size)..
• Provision of densities belaw preseribeci development standards.
• Provision af uses eonsistent vvith prescribed clevelagment standaards.
• Provision of parking in excess of pre5eribed development standartis.
• Provision of loading facilities consistent with develapment standazc3s,
Direct Ecofiamic BenefiCS -1Public InfrastruLtu.re (5)
• Construction of publie infrastructure with private n}aney on West yleaciow Drive including sidewalks,
~ zoads, medians, plazas, liahting, landscape, hardscape, snowrnelt, cuzb and ;utter, and drainage facilities.
• Caitsmtction of public infrastructure wiih private money on the South Frontage RQad incEuding sidcwalks,
roads, medians, liQhting, landscape, hardscspe, snow'melt, curb and gutter, and drainage faeilities.
• Co»struction of public in&asiructure witl} private rnoney on Vail Road includin- sidewalks, roads, medians,
lighting, landscape, hardscape, snournelk, curb anci gutter, and drainaoe facilities.
4
Vail Piaza Hotel Zehren and Associates, Inc. ~
021471.00 12/1 b/2602
• Pptential improvements and provision of easements for SpraddIe Creek infrastrncture.
• Provision of public art in compliance wzth development standards,
Public Bcnefits F'rovided - I]irect $enefits to Neig
_hboring Properties (14)
• Elimuiation of adjaeent surfacc parking lot, (al] neigtibors).
• Tncrease in acijacent landscaped buffering, (all nei$hbors).
• Improved residential character of the propased hotel, (all neighbots).
• Physical improvements to Vail Road parking aecess easement, ('vine Vail Road Condominium).
• ConPanued aceess ta Vail Road ren€wabl€ parking access easement, (Nine Vail Road Condominium).
• Elimination of adjacenl loading dQCk and traffic eontlicts, (Nine Vail Road Condominium).
• 2'otential increase in landscape coverage at West Meadow Driwe, (Niz1e Vail Road Candonunium).
• Increased setbacks adjacent to property, (Nine Vail Itoad Candaminium)_
• Increase in salar access, (Nisie Vail Road Condominium, Alphom Condominium).
• Improved view corridors to south, (Nine Vail Road Condominium, Scorpia Condominium).
• Elimuiation of vehicular traffic acrbss casement, (Alpine Standard).
• Elimination of trwo-way hotel traffic at the South Frontage Road access point, (,Alpine 5taaadard),
+ Eluninatian of left turn movernents at the South Frontage Road access pnint, (A,lpir,e 5tandard),
i Location of Vail Road access drive to north, (Alpine Standard).
F'lease do not hesitate to cantaci me with any questions or cancerns regarding the information presented.
Additionally, if you need any additional inforpnation, please do not hesitate to eantact me. ~
Sincerely,
~
Timothy R. Losa_, A.I.A
Senior Associate
Zehren and Associates, Inc.
~
5
-
~i
~ H$ DEVELOPMENT CQ.
Nlarch 20, 2003
Ms. Allison OGhs
Town of Vail
Planning Departmcnt
75 South FrQntage Raad
Vail, Colorado 81657
R.e: Four Seasons Resort - Vail
Dear Allison:
This letter shall address the written stateinent requiremenls set forth on the Canditional Use
Pei-mit 5ubmrttal Requirements form far the Y•equested conciitional use permit in Connection with
the above referenced project and shall specificalIy addi•ess the criteria set forth in the Town of
Vail Cade for Type III En-iployee Housing Units and For a FraGtional ree Club.
A. Descrabe tlie precase nature of tlte proposed use diad rrieasures proposed to rnake the
~ use coiazpatible witlz other properlies irt the vicinity.
We aFe proposing to construct a Four Seasons Resotrt, which shall inclrade in asingle building, a
Fractianal Fee Club, Condominiurns, Type III Employee Housing Units and other functions
coinmon ta hotel projects such as, rest.aurant, retail, spa, and meeting rooms. The site we are
developinb comprornises the Chateau at Vail site and the Alpine Standard site. The Chateau at
Vail srte is zoned PA (Puhlic Accommodation) and the Alpine Staiidard site is zoned HS (Heavy
Servace). We are staying with in and compiling with all GRFA requiretncnts for t.his site, whicb
keeps the project within the standards set up for densit}r in tlus area. Our building height is scaled
down frarn a hr-h point alon- the Frontage Road to just 48 feet high alonb West Meadow Drive.
We have also taken special notice of the surrouncling buildings and have made sure from a size
and mass standpaint that our proposed h+uilding transitions well with the adjacent buildings and
that the height of aur buildino directly adjacent to the surrounding buildings are at or below the
eleuations as were approved by the Town of Vail in the Vail Plaza Hotel West project. ~
B. Tlae relationslxip aixd ifyapuct o,f'the use on develcrpmea:t objeetives of the Towri.
The 'I'awn of Vail is encauraging development of more "hot beds" in Vail. Our Fractional Fee
Club project wili have an occupancy rate cqua] to or higher than tlie average occupancy of
current hotels in Vail. Owners of f7-actiona] fee units typically use their units for their allatted
vaeeks or allow family and friends to use the units since Lhe owner has already paid for tlle use of
the unit and owners generally will nat "waste" this prepaid lod-ing. Our Type lII Employee
Housinb Units are being developed for hotcl employees based on the size of aur project. `i'hese
~ units are also desired by the Town to allow Viliage employees to live in Vail and not be forced
out of it7wn by the cost of housing.
Onc'iabor Cenrer 821 h4arquette Avcnue
1200 17th Street, Suite S70 Siute 600 - Fnshay
Deia+•cr, C:U 80702 .l4inneapalis, MN 5$402
,303 825 7800 % Fax 303 825 7801 612 332 1-500 / Fax 612 332 2428
Ms. Allison Ochs
Town of Vazl
Re: Faur Seasons Resort - Vail ~
March 20, 2003
Page 2 of 4
C. The effect of the use on light and uir, disfrihution vf papulation, transportation
facilities, utilities, schaols, parks and recreutiola facilities, rtnd other public facilities '
and public facilities iieeds.
The impact of this praject should be a very positive for the Town of Vail. VVe have completed
and provided the Town staff with a traffic study to determine the impacts af traffic on the
adjacent streets and we are proposinb improvements for the rrontage Road to improve traffic
safety. By desic,ning the project with the tallest pcartian adjacent to the Frontage Road we have
rninimized the effect the pz-aject wil] have on the Iight and aar far the neighboring properties. We
are adding sidewalks alon~ the Frontage l~oac~ to the bus stop az~d alon.g our vuest property line i
from the Frontage Road to VJest Meadow Drive to enhance pedestrian traffic in the at°ea. We are
als4 creating a primary walkway from West Meadaw I)nve into the center of aur projeet to
enhance pedestrian traffic frorn Vail Village to the hotel. Finally, we have designed this projeet
to enhance this nverall area of Vail and so that it should have a pasitive impact on the Town
facilities and the neighboring praperties,
D. T1ze effect upan tra~f'~e, with particular referettce to cvngestioit, aiitnnzvtive and ~
pedestrian safety ayid eoituenienee, traffic fltrw and caiitrol, access, muneuverrahility,
and removal of sraow from tlie streets and parking area.
The impact af traffic from this project can be seen in the traffic study that was completed for this
submittaL The study recommended in;zprovements be rnade to the Frantage Road to improve
turning movements in and out of this site. We have incorporated these recommendations into our
plans. They include new left turn lanes as well as widening the Frontage Road. We are also
eliminating all of the curb cuts that currently exist on Vail Road from this site as we11 as the curb
cut currently existing intn the gas station frorrx the Frontage Raad. Our access points on the
Frontage Road are bezng moved west to aiiun with the palice statian enxry to improve traffic flow
and safety in this area.
L. 7'lae effect upnri the character of the area in wlaich tlxe pr-oposed use is to be locateaC,
ittclurling tlte scale and bulk of the propased use irz relation to surrauraditag uses.
We have designed this pro1ect to minimize the feel and Iook of the height. This can be seen in the
north elevation. VVe have designed a roofing system that includes a nramber of gables and pitches
that allnws the scale of the buildincy to be brought down to camplement the suFrounding
buildings and to somewhat standardize the lransition from the surraunding buildings to this
project. We have also broken the building up into smaller areas by breaking up the north wall
into a number of recessed piains. This is enhanced by using different exteriar rriaterials on these
different plains. The project also changes dramatically in height as you move sauth toward West ~
Meadow Drive, At West Meadaw Driv`e the height of the building is similar to the buiidings on
either side with a maximum height of 48 feet. We have broken up the West Meadow Drive
. Ms. Allison C3chs
Town of Vail
~ Re: Four Seasans Resort - VaiT
March 24, 2003
Page 3 of 4
farade of the building vdith a large open $pace centesed on the swimming pool. The project wrags
the pool area with two arms apening up to West Meadow Drive and inviting pedestt`aans to cr,me
in. This project should be a vvonderful additian La t17e Vail Village and a new stap far many
visitors to Vail.
F, Cotftpliance with Criteria for Type ITI Etraployee Housirig Units.
The Type TTT Employee Housanc, Units to be constructed in this project comply wi[h all of the
applicable requirements contained in the Town af Vail Code. Specifically, the Type III
Ennployee Housing Units will be operated and maintained hy the hotel operator and shall be
leased to the hotel's employecs that work an average minimum of thirty (30) hours each week at
the hotcl. These units will be leased in intervals equal to or exceeded thirty (30) cansecutive days
and shall be at a lease rate consistent with or lowcr than those market i-ates prevalent for similar
Tylpe III Employee Housing Units.
The 7"ype III Employee Housing Units and the building in which they are lacated has been
developed and planned sa at to not exceed the maximurn GRFA germitted by the Town af Vail
Code and we have located the trash facilities so that they are enclosed within the building; have
~ provideri separate entrances to each Type III Emplayee Housing Unit; and have provided parking
and storage for ernploy=ees in the undergrouncE garaQe. The individual Type III Employee
Housin-, Units have been designed at three hundred (300) square feet each and shall be accupied
by no more than two (2) employees. They shall contain, at a zninirtauzxz, a kitchenette (as that term
is defined in the Town of Vail Code) and a hathraom.
G. Comp2iarxce with CriteriafaY Fractional Fee Clrcb.
The Fractiona] Fee Ciub praposed in this project camplies with all of the agplicable requirements
contained in the Tawn of Vail Cade. 5pecifically, the Fractional Fee Club shal] be managed and
agerated by t11e hotel operator and each unit shall have no fewer than six (G) and no rnore than
twelve (12) owners per unit (we are currently planning to have nine (9) owners per unit). The use
of the Fractional Fee Club shall be contralled by a reseY-vation system run by the hdtel operatar
and controlled on site by a front desk operation located in the hotel lobby whieh is operated
twenty-faur (24) haurs a day, seven (7) days a week, three hundzed and sixty-five (365) days a
yeaz, providing registration, reservaticn and othes• amenities to the owners.
This proje;ct is prpximate to bus stops on the Fronta~e Rc~ad and West Mcadow Drive and is
wallcing distance to the Vail V'illage wliich offers retail shops and eating and drinking
establishrnents. fihe project also offers retail, restaurants, spa and health club facilities in the
hotel for the use by the fractional owners.
~ The onQoin~ maintenance, repair and caPiLal imProvernents shaJl be managed by the hQtel
aperator and paid for throu~li annual or spec3~~l assess~nents to the owners. The Fractional Fee
Club -overninc, documents shall include (among other provisions) a control pravision which sets
Ms. Allison Ock?s
Tawn of Vai1
Re: Four Seasons Resort - Vail ~
March 20, 2003
Page 4 of 4
certain rnaintenance requirements that must be maintained and appQinting the hotel operator as
the managin'- agent. Finally, as can be seen on the plans, the Fractional Fee Club rnaintains an ,
equivdlency of accammadation units as are cuzrently existing. ~
~
"Thank you for your c4ntinued help a.nd effort in this matter.
Very truly
Thomas . Bri k
C
TJBlvjh
i
a
i
I
~
~
. Zehren and Assaciates, Inc. Chateau Vail Site AttaChrnetlt: C gram Totals
20021471.00 Prcagram Analysis 4l2312003
~ Proqram Totals
Qwelling Units Area Bedrooms Baths
Unit 18 (Flat) 4,164,0 4.0 5.0
Unit 17 (Flat) 2,422.0 3.0 3.5
Unit 16 (Flak) 2,576.0 3,0 4.0
Unit 15 (Flat) 1,992.0 2.0 2.5
Unit 14 (Flat) 4,450.0 4.0 5.0
Unit 13 (Upper Level) 2,791.0 3.0 3.0
Unit 12 (Upper Level) 2,673A 3.0 3.0
Unit 11 (Flat) 3,065.4 4.0 4.5
Unit 10 (Flat) 3,300.43 4.0 4.5
Unit 9(Flat) 2,576.0 3.0 4.0
Unit 8(F12t) 2,717.0 3.4 4.0
Unit 7(Flat) 3,157.0 3.4 4.0
Unit 6(Flat) 3,fl24A d,Cl 4.5
Unit 5(Flat) 2,576.0 3.(} 4.0
Unit 4(Flat) 3,169.4 4.0 5.4
Unit 3(F12t) 3,024,0 4.0 4.5
Unit 2(Flat) 2,575.0 3.0 4.0
Unit 1(FI2t) 3.169.0 4.4 5.0
7otal Dwelling Units 53,421.0 61.4 74.0
Fractivnal Fee linits Area 8edroorns Baths
Fractional Fee Unit 22 1,653.0 2.0 2.0
~ Fractianal Fee Unit 21 1,785.0 2.0 2.0
Fractional Fee Unit 20 2,12$.0 3.0 3.0
Fractianal Fee Unit 19 2,128.0 10 3.0
Fractionai Fee Unit 18 1,653.0 2:0 2.0
Fractiona! Fee Unit 17 1,785.0 2.0 2.0
Fractionaf Fee Unit 16 2,128.0 3,0 3.0
Fractional Fee Unit 15 2,128.0 3.0 3.0
Fraetional Fee Unit 14 2,128.0 3.0 3.0
Ftaciional Fee Unit 13 2,538_0 4.0 4.0
Fractional Fee Unit 12 2,486.0 4.0 4,(}
FracEional Fee Unit 11 2,128.0 3,4 3.0
Fractional Fee Unit 90 1,648.0 2.0 2.0
Frackional Fee Unit 9 2,538.0 4.4 4.0
Fractipnal Fee Uni# 8 2,488.0 4.0 4.0
Frackional Fee Unit 7 2,128.0 3.0 3.4
Fractional Fee Unit 6 2,538.0 4.0 4.(}
Frackional Fee Unit 5 2,4$6.0 4.0 4.0
Fractional Fee Unit 4 2,128.0 3.0 3.0
Fractional Fee Unit 3 2,358.0 4.0 4.0
Fractional Fee Unit 2 2,486.0 4.0 4.0
Fractional Fes Unit 1 2,128.0 3.0 3.0
Total Fractional Fee lJnits 47,592.0 69,0 69.0
~
Page 1
Zehren and Associates, Inc. Chateau Vail 5ite Program Totals -
24021471.00 Program Analysis 4/23/2003
Aceommodation Uraits Total Area Total Kevs Kina DbI.ID61, Ex Suite 1 Bdrm. 2 Bdrm Pres. M
Levef Fiwe (202) 10,416.0 11.0 7.0 1.0 0.4 2.0 0.0 1.0
Level Fouf (192) 14,687.0 22.0 14.0 4.0 2.4 1.0 1.0 0.0
Level Three (182.0) 15,967,0 26.0 16.0 5.0 3.0 2.0 0.0 0.0
Level Two (172) 95,514.0 26A 17.0 5-0 10 1.(] 0.0 0.0
Level One (162) 11,699.0 19_0 12,0 3,0 3.0 1.0 0.0 0.0
Level Zero (1521 9.095.0 14.0 7.0 3.4 3.0 1.0 0.0 0.0
Total Accommodation Units 76,978.0 118.0 73.0 21.0 14.0 8.0 1.0 1.0
Employee Hausinq Units Area Unit Area Units 8eds
Levei Five (202) 600.0 300.0 2.0 4,0
Level Four (192) 600.0 300.0 2.0 4.0
Level Tltree (182.0) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Level Two (172) 0_9 0.0 0.0 OA
Level One (162) 4,801.0 300.1 16.0 32.0
Level Zera (152) 4.201.0 300,1 14.0 28.0
Total Emptoyee Housing Units 10,202.0 1,200.1 34.0 68.0
Retail Areas Area
Level Minus Qne (142) 1,270.0
Level Two (172) 2,402.0
Total Retail 2,402.0
Resta ura nVBa r Area ~
Leve! Two (172) 2,174.0
Leve! Zero (152) 2,925.0
Level Minus One (142] 194
Total RestaurantlBar 5,293
Conference FaciliEies Area
Level Zerv (152) 11,726.0
Total Gonference Facilities 11,726.0
S oa Area
Level Minus One (142) 6.0$2.0
Total Spa Facilities 6,082.0
Healthclub Area
Level Minus One (742) 8,334.0
Total HealtMclub Facilities 8,334.0
~
Page 2
- Zehren and Assaciates, Inc. Ghateau Vail Site Zoning Analysis
001348.00 Program Analysis 4f2312003
~ Deve(opment Standards
Site Area 3ite Area
Chateau Vail Site 101,143
Alpine Standard Site 17,625
Sub-Total 4Yestern Site 118,768
Publie Accomodation (PA) Zene GRFA Dwellinq Uniks Retail Si(e Govera4e Landscaoinq Hardscape
Pecent af Sife Area 3 5D°!o 30% 'f p% 65% 30°/a 20%
Total Areas 178,152.0 53.445.6 17,815.2 77,199.2 35,630.4 7,126.7
GRFA Total p.rea Max Allow Area difference
Total pwelEing Unats 53,421 53,446 -24.6 5
Total Fracfion Fee Units 47,592 48,400 -408.4
Total Accommpdation Units 76,978 76,76Ci 272.0
Total GRFA 177,991 178,152 -161.0
Retail Areas Total Area Max Allaw Area Difierence
Total Retail 2,402 17,815 -15,413
Site Coveraqe 5ite Area Max Ailow Area Difference
Above Gracie 69,346.0 77,199.2 -7,853
Below Grade 84„402.0 77,199.2 7,203
~ Landscape Area Area Aliowable Area Difference
Landscape Area 39,654 35,630.4 4,054
Hardscape Area 6,968 7,126.1 158
~
~
1
Zehren and Associates, Inc. Chateau Vail Site Parking/EHU Aa?alysis -
001348A0 Program Analysis 4123l2003
Employee Housinq Generation Area/Llnits Cakc. Range MultiplNer Emplnvees ~
Total [?welling Units 1$.0 Standard 0.40 7.2
Total Fractional Fee Units 22.0 Standard 0.40 8.8
'Fotal Accvmmodation Units 118.4 Top 1.25 147.5
Total Restaurant/Bar 5,293.0 Top 125.00 42,3
7otal Conference Facili#ies 11,726.0 Top 1,000.00 19.7
Main Kitchen 6,8E2.0 Top 125.60 54_9
Tota1 Retail 2,402.0 Top 125 19.2
TotaP Spa Facilities 6.082.0 Top 666,66 9.1
1'otal Healthelub Facilities 8,334.0 Top- 666.66 12-5
Tota] Employees 313.3
Existinq Empiovees Emplovees
Existing Empfoyees (Ghateau Vail) 73.0
Existinq Employees (Alpine Standard)) 6.4
Total Existing Emqloyees 85.0
New Ernployees ErnplL)yees
7otal Employees 3113
Total Existinq Emplqyees 85,0
To4al hfew Employees 228.3
New 8ecffs Required 30°f. 68.5
Employee Nnusinq (ged$ Provided 68.0 .
Difference -0.5
~
Page2
• Zehren and Associates, lnc. Chateau Vail Site ParkinglEHU Analysis
001348.00 Prograrra Anaiysis 4/23/2003
~ Parkinq Totals
Dwellinv Units Units 5aacefUnit Total Soaces
Total Dwelling Units 16.00 1.4 25.20
Frational Fee iJnits Units Space/Unit Total Suaces
Total Fractional Fee Units 22.00 0,70 15.40
Accommodation Units Kevs Space/Kev Total Soaces
Tatal Accommodation Units 118.00 0.7 82.60
Emvlovee Housinq Units Uni[s SpacelUnif Ta!Eal 5oaces
7otal Employee Fiousing Units 34.00 1,4 47.60
RestauranVBar Area ArealSpace Total Spaces
Total Restaurant/Bar 5,293.00 250 27.17
Retail R,reas Area ArealSoace TotaE Spaces
Total Fietail 2,402A 250 9.61
spa Aeea ArealSpace Total SAaces Mulitplier' Total Spaces
Tota] Spa Facil3ties 6,082.0 330.00 18.43 0.5 9.23
' maximum Of 112 of total treatment available by appointrnent Dnly
Healkhclub ,4rea Area/Space Total Saaces
~ Total Healthc#ub Facilities 8,334.0 0.00 4.00
Parkincs Totals Total Spaces
Tokal Dwelling Units 25.20
Total FracSional Fee Units 15.40
Total Accommodation Units $2,60
Total Employee Hausing Units 47.60
RestauranVE3ar 21.17
Total Retaid 9.61
Total Spa Facilities 9.2
Total Mealthclub FaCiliEies 0.0
Tatal Parking Requiced 210.80
Parkinq Provided Full size Gomoact Valet Accessible Total Srmces
Lsvel Minus One (142) 48 B 35 R 91
Level Minus Two (132) 106 18 0 0 124
Total Parking Provided 154 26 35 0 215
Fot21 % 71.6% 12.1% 16.3% OA% 100.0%0
~
Page1
. ~
- - -
r+ r.4
_ ..cl~.. /~ttaChr7leflt: I~
~ h `
~ ~`'..4 . \~~`y '1 ~ 4 1,~ ~ V~\~`i . ~y - ~ •
`~t.,''~ ' ~`((~.,,"'ti ~
~ 4 ~ ' y ` ' i.Lf'
m ~ -~..ti~~,.~~~•,, '•;~,~~-•..,.~~,y , ~ >.''~,•;N~•. t M1~', ~
. ~
q [L \ ' ~ 1" \
E ~ `.,7 ~ `~4~ ~ ' .
U
~ \ " • 4~~ ~
m ? ~ ~ ~ .,ti~ t , f4;~.~c . .
0 ~ o ~Qo ~d+A ~
~
l~ ~ ~ \l~- ~1l~O ? ~'C 1
1 ~~~,,'t 4 `,ti. 4 h~'1. ti.`zy 4
` jij\ ~ ~ • ? ,.j ,
•1~ ` \k ;
~ ~ . ..Qd'TIVA '
fl7 ~
~ ~ ~
~ /
XJ ~ z Q~ CR.'(S~^ I <[,rj T ~ ~~Q~~
wQ ~ Z ~['~V O~ ~ "l~ ~'Q
7 ~ J Q ~ ~ 0
Q P v u~ T ?
~WCL~,F~}~~
cO,
,
F-
.
~ . o
6
-
M ~x :rp '
C Li
. I
-
co . ~
.
. ~
.
,
, I
. ~
N
. . . _ y . . .
w ,`t.;,•...•.'.•.'.
Q-r`
~ ~I4./ . ~ ' _ . . 1 ~ I ~ ~.I-s ~ 'r _ _ ~
N - il; ~CV ~ .
s
' ~ . - ~ i -
~ 13
. . .
p
. f~ T I cli
4 ~ f,~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~
y _ ~ ~.,,~5 l , g . _ .
L)
<
¢
~ r-~
Z ~
0 cI3 ~
L)
.~''~'53.~'• ~ ~ t ~f tJ • VJ ~ +'J i I ' ~ i i~.~},y~ ~ - ut
,r
C%j
Lli
}~1 1
~i i ~y
~ ~ .
r
0
LU: cv -co-+e")--
/ >
-1 ¢ S>~
C.i
>
~ w L'
~
. . - . ~ . -
. . . .
CD Q
I Z
.
, . . i ~
CO a
~ L u.,
. , , .
J LL a , ~ ~ is ~
~ .
~
~
CV / -
CV
R7, ~
~
Attachment: E
~
~
o a
o
Rd~° r [`a
00 ~
•
~ ~
~ ~~6C:'{3~ LT C:3"
us cn u9 in
~~~~N LL! n O W ~
~ ~CS~ Ci C4 N
flr~r~rLC7 r~r~CwI~C'7 Ca C\IC\3~~{V n OC]ONODm CV C'?
+
~
~
O p Q o ~
Q o ~ ~
CO
~ o ~ co qj
~ ~
CO~~~~N u3
G) O
~ c!D (n cn CT Q
O C, if7 c!J
,r-- h-- N OQ t.C) ~ N ~ ~ ~ L[] l.~ c7 C ~
CY7 m IL Co lf7
O a LL~ C7 lf) I.L~ ~ Cp ~ tf7 ; lf') ~ LC) .T tC? Q C,~ j
Ci1~TT ~N~r4tTT h IS~~CV~N EC31'~NhICV417[+3NC?
Qi?
~
U -o
`C 3
~ U
TJ o ' ~
c ~ Q
O T ~
Q a ~
0 ~ n3 cQ
ca O
~
S~ • • ~ ~ ~
~
~
~
,7+ - } a N cO ~ ~ 0 ~ tl.j ~ tl ~ [i
~i ~ t~ ~
(y~ o lC7 C7 lC7 Lf3 ~ s-- ~
c~"
C ~ Q r I- V~ = M . . . . _ . . . . . • c'7 n
~ 0 O C6 ,i 'CI' CO co 00 !r}
Of`-~ NM~ c CflO C h Ob~CSC] C7C] OOOCO [f)cJ~ ~
CD Qrrr Li7rN M M CD 3 1~- NNNNCV CVCVCUCIJ{Vqzr COt-'ce) ~y
G Q
a o
N
>
o c~ cs ~ c~ts ~
Ul L-o i
~ ~ ~ ~3 C3} f7C G~
~
(D
(1) c) ~ j cv (1)
C ~ ~ ~ ~ U ~ 0 0) -O N C3 ~ ~ ~ U7 ~ O ~ . . Q
Q ~ c ~ o -o Q) °o -Gy ~ U)
0 C7 (1) _ ~ C- US rn R3 (f) ~ CSS G
~ M C\P E D~ CU~D LL ~2 O ~S qS"fl`cT~ (1) cz ~`y" C6
i~ 4?CCLL L 1,1J > i~2~i.~.> ~ Lu 2~EL~~W ctt
y
(~7 ~ 2 ~ ~ 0 'J U ~ C ~ N
16.. ~ a L d U cz cK5
- c~ -C3
< LL ~ -0 • C m ~
LL Q ~.J CJ Q Cn Cf) ~1 J 0- ~ ~
N ! R 6
E
t
--rfT-~1~ ~I f I e i f~
I 9-1 I E-1 I I-111=1 J-~
~.r ~fi~ll! I11-111-~11~1i1_I-_ f-111~~ III I~fll
Illli! Il,il(=11f-IfI-iI;~ Ifl.l
VI-ElI IIII~
lfi=19 " ~ ~ ° II:`~~
IIill
~
If--.
If'I_ III ~
1I_~ I 5 g '
I I 4~ IP~~ ~
~II1 r g -71 1~ If~
~
IIII - ~ ~ -111-1
I I I I ~ - a 4 I Ii~l! I I J ~
f I=1 I I
_
I I I. 4 ~ ~ a 11 ~=1 ~
f 1-1! i ~
II1=1
s I LI I I a
I I~ ~
I,II } ~ - -~Illfl~Il
Il U ~ ~ {III~Ili
~ f ~-74
1 l~~l1 IFI
~
€l=1ll
II,'~ II~=f1 L
f
I~ I_.~ h I
LLJ ~
f -r s ~ J Vl
-1 I 1.=1 I I~I I I-I I I ! I I-~- i I- I C I_ ~
I I I-I I 1=1 I E-l I 1=1 ~ 1=1 I I_I I I I I I~I ~
_1_I i I-+ E I I-1 I I-E I 1-3 1= a v ~ ! I--1 ! I
I I I-1 I 1=1 I II--I 117711 I-I I l-I I f I I 1=1 ~
_ I I1=1 I L€ I I-1 I i-I I 1=1 1= i 1-1 I I-
I I 1~=1 I j=I I ~I---1 I I-I P I-I I f I I I I I 1=1
I 1=i M I~i I k~) I I-I I 1~1 1= 1- E -I! I
I I~ I I I f- 1 I 1= 1 f 1= 1 I I-- I I I ~ ~ = I I k- 1 ~ ~ w
I I I I-1 I 1= -1 I 1=1 ~ I 1-1 ~ I ~
117 -1! I-1 I I- ~ r I.I 1-1 ~
~ _ ~ ~ ~ ~ II_III f
1 I, ~ -1l~I I f I I I-1 l
;I - _ ~ fllll~:lll
IIl~II1 ~
Il IIs I I~
-IIt-._.I ~ f
a 1 EI I I
IIlI a II Illllflll 1
~ I _ I I s . ~ ~ ~
I E I ` Z A Y E @ E H ~ $ y I~ I
I I I = r °
_ E1 ILd ~ I i~ I ii I i=l 1-I I f-f I 1-11 I I 117 1 I I771~~
~-9 I I~I I f I~.~l.I_I i I-~ Il-1 I i~I I!-1 I I~I I
~ + ~W - - - - - ~ ~
~
:1uawOU11'd
. ~
. ~
. ~ _ ~
f ~
~ ~s <
a ~ x 1
~-Ti!° L~ I I T! I I I I I I I f I 1_
~ III_II!1 IELlli=111 111=111 III w
E ~ I~III IIV II~IIClII il' IILIII iU _
. o I I I i 11-11 L.l i 1LT_ I I l-11 F-=11 IQ I I-111-1 i 1-111-I f l
! II I ~I I I I I II I I"
1 F{
lillll z m ~ r~ , Illkll~
iiei ~
-i i
I Ii i
iiM
IIIT6~I a~~ A~ 9~ ° Illllf~
I~I l x ~ n g A I l l- -1
111i113
I~~~II ° n aa ilia J r-..`~~I ~ t~
1=lI RII~
1=II R
o: € I 1=1 k r=I I i=1 ~
I~i I -=1 I!=1 I1-11 H l i~ I ~
III " _z llllll14llI9IIlIIIIIIIIIIIEIIII~IIEI ~
k I-I I I . R ` a" t I I I f 1=1 I I I I I-I I! I f I-I I ~
~ I I _ I I I-I 19 I I I I I 1 I I_ 1[ 1=1 ~
f I Il L111=1 1= = 1 I1=
fl~l~ill I _ ~f I-II€- ~ ~1r~i\!
If191111 I~' y !IHIII r~
I
IHII~I t z `I1=1 I ^G
ICILII ~I li_Tl P ,y , z o
111=_II _ _ o ` ~ ~4 V
~
111=11
liF
IIIIIII
~ ~-I I i n ~ ~ F+rl
00
I~ III1 ~ ~ m ~ , ~
I I I I I I' - - ~ ~ II =I I 11:-_
III . , 111---E 0
II F119
1-11
- flil~l ~
1Ii-1I-1ILIII-I1=1
II -11IIIITEIIII i
`I I E I~I I il I
I I L=11
fi ~ u IEIII 9
=-II x Idl
911~i ~ -
la- ~ Illil
II k ` • • ~
° ^ „ ~ ~ ~I -1f
Clf-ll-f-
-
II ~ ~b IIIII`II.
119-_
IIIII ~ IIIIII~
=11 , . ~Illllllil
I I{ - ~ ~ I I{=-I I
II = III-Ifl ill lILI11=11I
II ' 1~1=f1i 1~1--=fll
I I ~T-m-lTr_-~rrrr~rn~ ~ ~ - - I I I-I I I I I I 911-1I 1-
II I!I III IIE IILIII 161 II'IILIII III '1;=111 l1f-111 III III I Ik1-111 111~If I~''
I I I I! 1=i I i I I LI i I I I 1-1 I I I I1---I I l-I I I I I I I t-I I 1=1 I I I I I I I 1=I 11 I I I-! I! I I 1--IlL!
lil ill IIf-1lLlll III_iI" ICII III ! I: Il1-111=~IJll.~~~-~- ~
IFIEI-111 Ilf_ll 1 117111 I1 1=1 IFIII 1 IF III-III_ly
I~I-111 III-11L1l1=1 I 1-~11=111--I'I III il'~ II-~II ~
-LIL-mi-1J_.li I=~1 I I~ I I I=I If, I I i~ I I; ; I i~l IlI_1-~-~ , E
M
F
. ~
~ a
L _
~
f
~ ~
,
cn
o _
F
5 ! r'r
5 ` }
i
, .
III-~ ~ (
III~ ~ ~ ~ I
~
0
lll~ _ ~ ° '
~ -
~ a
C=~ ~
r
{.i ~
j_
.
Ull
? l} ' y~
IC ~ , t 1 7-4
II I E ~
Ilt~ ° ~
0
114 ~ o ~ ~
111~ ~
o E
111 ~ ° 1 ~
lll~ ~ ~ 1
I f
I I' k - . f
III~
}
9 ~
I!I'I ~s 1
I
i
_
~ ~
~
7-1
~
~
*
;
I ~
V ~ , ~ • ~
~ 9~~, •
_r
,.fi• ~ -
! ~
I ~
PL' § -
_ ~ -~l ~ ~ ~{tJ -
~ ~ ; ~ ° r
.
~
+ ~ J ~ it ~ t / fi
j i ,N xD ~ 1
W A
- ~
,
5I = _ ~ { ~ K~ - -
4
x ~
I f ~
~ ~ f t
h ~ f
¢ r
~
,
i `
~ - _ - - _ a - J
I ' 1
f , ` _ _ . . • 1
~
i ~
~
-
- - - - ~
~
a
0
~
. I
f
y
N H 4 4
t
! ~ -
i
~
f ~
.
1 r f ;t
,
I k0~~'
I 1
I _ 10 co
f ~
I I CY I
? ~ ~ -
:
k
d
~
s
L - - - ~
~
~
I • 1~
,
~ 1' ~ ~ • - _
g ~ V ~ F
~
' ( Q
C5
~ T~l 1 7 I`~ 1
4 ~LJ~ ~V 1
1 Y Y ay ~
s ~
F r ~
f "A1
~
~
_--7 • jN
~
• ~
y ~ _ f Y ~ a u~ii
~
~
tn ~
9c,ci 1 ~
~ r
' i
1 ~
1
i - ~C7~
. ~ . , ~
~ cz
I
~ _ - - -
~ - ]W µtl3dX`~
~
- 1 ° .
~
I l t ~ r
~ aov ~ W
~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ • f~' ~
~
~
z
0
~
w
1
G ~
.
I
~ I
I
~ i i s ~
~
~ ~ ~ -
I ,
~ ~ ~
_ ~ ~ f 1 ~
~ ~ ' t ~
C ~ ~ ~ ~ '
I ~ ~
1 ~ ~
I ~ ~ ' j' ~ ~
~ j ~
~ ~
r ~ - I ~ \
I _ ~ ~ -
~ /f ~
I = ~ ~ W
~ } _ - ~ _ { C~
~
_ ' ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~1 ~ o
~ ~ ~ ~ f ~ ~ ~
~ I~~ I ~ ~ ~
i ~ ~ ~
j ~ ~ I ~ ~
1 W~
~
~ ; ~ ~ 1~ ~
~ ~ _
' 1 ~
~ ~ I
~ '
~ ~ , - - i ~ C)
E ~ ~I ~ J ~
I - .-1 ( I
I ~ I
a ~ ~
~ 1~ _ ~ -
1
I k ~ ~
! ~ ~
~ i ` f
I I ~ ~ I ~
~ C~ X~ ~
~ - - ~ - ~ ~ii~1~
~ J_ ~
g~ ~ - - .,d~~ ~ - _ _ ,
~ ~ ~
~ 'E
~
f -
• ~ -
r
~ i I I I I I I " R
I I I I I I i ~
i I i I I ! I a
I I ! I I 4 I
~ I f I I r { I ' '
I I I I ;
I
~ i.•'....~ ~
,x ~ e. ~a
F -
p W d , d I I I
j~ ~.3 9 4 I i I i(
~ i~ w i I I I I l
. ~ I i = I I I
9 I I I
E.~ 4• I II U1 1, f I t I I I I
I ~ I I I I
r ~ ~ ~ I~I cV
= I ' 1 I I I
I I• I F' e o~~ ~ I I I
I I. I~~ s.~ - I I I
<
~
I I-.,' I I I I
I I? i ~ I I I ~
I I I_ y I I I
I I~ j ~.y . I I I
I I I I I I I a
I I'~ vl i I I I ~
I I >
j , I I I;Ti7 y~ i-~
~
I I. ~ - ti~ ~y- I 1 I ~ d
O
V U
I I I I ~ ~"~t} t, I I I~+ f/11
1 I I l , ~ - I I I ~ ~
I I I I ~ - I I I~ ~ ~
I 1 I I I i I I I I
lQ~
id
~
I I I I I I I I I I l I T I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I h ~I ~ I I I
I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I C
I I I d ! I ~ ~-7 I I I
I ! I . i I I ' I I
~ I I I I i I
I I i I I ~ ~ i 1
I i I
= I I I i 1 I V ~ ~'i . 1 L I
I 6 I ~ I I I I E f I E I
7 E 9 I 1 I I I C+ ~ I f - I 4 I
I I 9 ~^I I I i I ~ I I ~ , ~ I k l s,; ~
I ~ ~ I I I I II I f I I I k~ ~n a I P 4
I f I I I I 1 1 I. t Y I I [ s- I ! I ~{i
~ I i ] I I I i I I. t I I I I l 1 1 ~
I E l I I I 1 l I t ! i I l t I
I I I. I I I 1 I I l I I I I I I
I l I I I I I I I I I I I I f I ~
I I 1 I I i I 1 I I I I I I I ~
I I I I I I I 3 I I I I N~ . I I I ~
I f 1 I I I I, 1 I I I I
I I I I I I I 1 I I I 1
. I I 1 I I I I I I 9 I I ~
• 3
L~
. I
_ i
i T
-
~ ~ o e v 4 e • s a .
ea : as : :a; _g-{..o " ~
s
ay -
- - x
i
I
r
7
t
j -
~
i i i i i~-•.
j ''~i I I I I
j I I I I I
~ I I I I F-4
j - 6±_, ' I f
j O I I I I li F
I I I I ! ~
i
i i i ~ a fTl
, .
i
k Fu ~
' 7 O
G~I I I_ I `
Q
Ei~:}
I ~i`• k'i ~ i i, - I _ ~ § ~ ~
O j
p l ;
~ , ; <
,~I tf ~ I~~1 i I II I I I I
I .I I I I I ~ I I I I I ! I
~ IE I I I' I I I I I ! i I I ~
I
~
~
~
,
i I I
E i i i V i i i i i I i ~
1
~ - _
«
~ .
. . s ~ e
ra a. -
~ ' ' ~ . . . , ~ V,
+ } v a s p
ss ~ . I
~ ~ 1 I • I ~
I ' I I I.. - I J
f I I ~ Idl' ~ °o
! I II ` J i 1 I I I I; j Q
I N
zE I f f I
i ~ ca~ II ~ ~ I
a I I
~ 14 I ~ ~ o
~ I I I ~
I ! I f I 0 U
m~~` ~~ti o. a~ wa ea aa an aa~ -a"a-F aa aa_ ax
I
I I I I I ~
II'~~ , I I I I I
''~~,I I I I I
AT
, I I I ~ -~wY I ~
I I I I ~ _1i ! ~
I ° I I I I~" - ! W
I I I f I`: ! I f I r~
I tl I 1 I i € I I I,, ~ ~ ti~ a I ~
- -
I I I I I i 1 1 I fY s" - E Q~
I I I I I i d 9 I 1= , f Pa
I I I f I I I I 1 I x==~ I: k
E I I I I i I I I Ix,. , j
I f I I I I I I f ~
I I I
I I I I! I ~ I f ~ i
I I I! I I 1 I E I I f ~ '
I I I i ~ I! I f I I I ~
4
. ~
L--~ ~
L l
~ 1 ~ 1 7
~ 1 €
I [ ! G -
.
I e= = r ' '
~ ~
P L ~ f/ ~ a
~ r
~
! r / \ } _ Y - - ~
r F ti 1 .
C°~
a
~ -
~ 1~ ~ ~
1 ti l i r
~t ~ I I i ) .cCa, f ~
I ~ ~ 71
I t' t .
~ , r-af r
~ I I I
~ I I I I '
II I ~ j - I
II I ~ ~ 1
r
zR
U,
s ~ 6
g~
u 3`s ~s2 ~i / / l ~ ¦
LO
14
~ t ! E ! ~ j , • ~r
~
ff/
\ ~1
1 ~~D` ~6 ` i y ~ sd ~ • , Q
~j 1 t _ 155 ~
l W,
1 ~ 1 E ~ yi, ; ~~a G'
~ b o-o
rJ~ 1i f
i~ ~ ~ ~i ~I~ ~ 4 ~ F~~ - • r~
I ~
1 ~
~ I
~ I
I f ~ j
I! 1 ` ~i Z:'
~
`ur~R
;
1 1
I i I Z e~;n
t
9 f i ~
~ ~ -
t t ! ~
~ _ t`'f ° ' ~ ~ -
~ " ~ "
~'`J „~....a~s - I -r` ~ f 1 p~, ~ ~ Y
- - _ ~ ~ ~ ~
_
_ ~ ~ ~
t i _ ~
~ ~Y f 5 ~
S ~'r~",
~
,
~ ; ~+3 ! ~
~ ~ ~
- ~ ~ ~
~ ~
- _ ~ `P+~ ~
!a ,r~f`'`4 /
. ~ ~t s± i 1
r !
i ~
~ j
_ ~ f . f _ ~t . !
~ ~ r ~ t~ ~ ~
~ ~ ,f' ~ ~ ~
! 3 j>i ~~`~"/f~~ \ ~ ~'i
I rf . f ~ ~¢J. . ~ d ~ f
I 4 r 1^
' f s,~'I y'~ti ~ 4
~ g ~f~ ~ ~ 1 ~
; ~
~ ~ ~ ' - ~
J
a - - ~
~ ~-M' f f t jx ~1]
~ _ - - ~ ~ `._1 ~
~ - ' o
- ~
0 1 ~ ~
_ t 7' ~ a
, ~ ~ ~ ; a
_ f ~''.y, ~ v
- r ~ ~
_ _ 1 ~ . t "r ?
° ~ . ~t= I ~f: . - t F~"~
_Vt ~`1~y ~ -
' Vf
' i
o
r ~
h ! ~ t ~ ~
t Q
° a ~ r
~ ~ _ ~7 ~ ~ ,
~ ~
~
~ e
o _ e !
~
a . • I
o +
~ I
t
~i - ~ - - g
~ ~ ~ ~
t~ i -
~ ~
~
~
_ ~ ti-- ~ .
~ ~
- _ - _ -e' - ~ _
. a---- ~ ~ ,
- ~ -e~ _ ~ ( ~ " ~ ~ _
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ - , ,
~ s - ~ ~ 1~"~~,.1
~
~
_ ,
_ ~
_ ,
~ i - , ~ -I ~s
~
• I~ ' ~
1
~ I i fl ~ ! 1~ ~ 4
I 1 VVI r J~
~ / - j
4f
15~ ~y 1 F-4
4
1 ~ 1 0 ~rl
~1 c~i11 I o ~ r, n
ti l ~ ~ O
Qu°
I S ~ t ~
l ~ 4 I F . -
l
I
6 I . . . -
~ I +
r
I I ~ F :
4 I~ I ,
If p i !
I E f
i
I } I - L
I I I a , W~,_~
~ R ~ I - -
~ 1 ~ ~ -
~ Ffi
_
. ~
_ _
~ a ~ \ la
.~r
=1,• f~.. ~ .l` , 1 V
~,w ~ a
•
~
~
a ~ r
~
~
. ,
. ~
o - ,
~
_
~
? ;
~
a .
~ -
~
Z x=:s
. , .
A
w
~ N~
~
; . * «
I • ~ ~a
,
I y ~
t 1 ¦ 1 i ~
\`Y5 ' [ ~ ~ _ J ~ ~ :
E
1 I A
il I I I Y ! I ' ~ f 1 I,
141
I ~ 1 ~ Y
r ~
i ~ ~ ~ ~ i / r / l ~ ~ ~t•.
i ~ 1 ~ _ ~ ~ ~ s (i~ _ ~ . -i . ~ ~Y ~ ' /rr rf ~ ' . a.,r r ~ • tS~
Jr ; 1 , ~ a
I i ' ~ r. ~ i ?i + ; h~rt
j 1 r r ~ i
~ w
tj f {li i < < f
A i ' ' f r ' ; s ~ 1+ -
~
L~ ~ I 1_ 1 ~.s ,4 '~••~i i ~
i
• , ' ~ ~ 3 4- , ~
4 I 1 J 1 _ 14 4 '
I 1 3 a=~a
aP~
~ty.
I~
1` ' 4 i I
t- W
1
1
~ -a~ I I F ~ t ~r 1 1 I
~ I ~ l 1 1 I
• ~ ~ ~ l~y~ ~I"-d,~_ ~ ~ I ~ ~ I
11
rl I a . ~ e ~ ~ ~ ~ .n
, ! ~ n ~ 1 1 . Y~ :
i
~
~ t
' /~r
!
,
•
~ ~ t \ 1
~ ~_^t_ ~ ~ y~~ i f ~
i
, 1 t ~ ; r~' ~A T' ~ r
~
1 ~ 11~ t + 1 1 ft~'
t ~
tl ~ i Y f 7 f t M' I i>
~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~~f, ~ ~ ~ s'~' , I~ ' ~ ~H r ~ ~ n>
~ I f ' i 1' ~ i i f 17 O
~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r ~ r ~ f~ h' ~
t1 j ~ ~ 1 P 1 . ~"~'s f~ ~
~
r ~
i +
r ~ -
k t ~ t ' t
Jr ~
I t
i
i
~i
! a ; ~ / ~l
i ~
t
.
1 t r t. ~
~ ~ % ~ ` y~ r ~ ~ `400• ~ ~ ~
- ~ ~ ~ ~ e
a ~
w
Ay ~ f
~ ~ ~
- 'yi~~~J- G ~ ' -
~
C
~
mu~
, 1 ~ ~
~ ..l:._...... t' }
i r
i
~ ~ .~,•.,;•~0 0
ti. ~
! ~ru.r =y r' Q
9 ? ~ ~
El / ~ ~ : _ , ~
- - - } ` _ ~
' + r ~ ~ ~ y F+•i
r
+ ~ ~ - ~ i
I I f I ~
I ` EF r ' fl r^
b _ • J . I[F
1I - I ~ ~ ~ IY
I ~
~ ---L__
? E
' ~ ~ - - ;
I I 6 ' # Y ~ ~ / ~
~ d - - I-- - - - - - -
. - '
' ~ - -
' P - - - - - -
_ - ~ Ill w
-
=a-
~
• i r
~ ~ ~
~
, g~ ~J ~ y ~ ~ ~ w
I + 1 p _
' 1 ~ } . Y ^
, J ~
x
1'~ t 11 ~ fv' 1~
1~ '
! x, -
; 11 ~ 1 ~ ~'k ~
1 S
~ I I
I
1 ~ I
~ ~ !
1 ~ ~ ~ ~
i 1 t ~ ~ ` '
~ ! I ~ ~ ~ _
~ ~ ! !
/ J } ~ ~ ~ f ~
1 I
f ' 1 ~f
~ t ~r ~
_ _ ~~y ~ C~ ~
_
_ ~
~
~ -r ~
` " C~
, - ° C1~
5 1 ~ = ~ ~
~~r o
, ~ ~
, + ' ~r ~
r' r' ~ 1 ~ a
j ` ~ C7
~ i ~
_ : i
w~ , ~ 1 f ~ ) ~/y
w., - _r f ~ r t ~ .r
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ t
w
~ ~ ~ ~
~
~ ~1 ~
V ~ r- _ ~
~ , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~f ~
. ~
_ ~ ~
, ~ _ ~ ~
, ~ , ~ ~
~ ~4 ~ ` 1 _
~
4 ~ ~ ~ ~ _ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ :
1 ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _r
1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ 1 ~ 1 r ' j ~ ~
- ~
~ ~ ~~.J
~ ~ I' 1~ ~ ~ I
~ ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~
L i~~i f
1~ 1~ ~ _
~ 1 ~ ~ !
~ ~ ~
f 1 } ~ ~ -
~ ~ 1 ` _
' t 1 , ` ~ -
1 ~ o ~ ~ ~
~ 4 1 ~
~ ~ ~ i
1 4 ~ ~
1 ~ ~ f~
j I ~ I .
--I ` t ~ -
1 1 ~ ~ - ~
~ ~ I 1 1 r ~ ~ ~ ~-'~~f~~~ ~
t
a`
~
C) 0
~ ~ %
1 j ~ ~ ~r
\
OF,
~
~ ~ 7 : . ~ ,f •y~, ~"j, r+
'Qi { A'~. ~ .,.9 Z 1 • ;~~n~, ~ ~
~ ~ ?:l . t r /r ~ E 1% t
~
~
,
: I
~
i
~
I ar _
~i
W - '
~ ~ •
0
~
O u
g ~ r 1 ~
r
v
ar
~ w
~ t
W
~
~ - ~
. Y -
I~!
~ I
1 1
~ .r
S
c ~ ` F+
w
- ~ - - ~
~
~
~ I - . .
~ F.
~
~
ZgF:g
~ E
! F ~ - - l
i _
-
\ -
a
f ~
\ti ~
Ali,.
f ~
~r.
T I
1i
~ r
1 4 T~
~ ' r ' - !1 ~
` I • E L ~ 1
> "1 r
~ I " ~ ~ . - _
I ~
1ti ~ r ~
~ i I r
~ 1 1 I r ' ~
f
i ~ - ' ~ - - - ll~~- i
~ ,
r
i
~
- i
u,
I I I ~y 4 {
~ ~ - } I
I } I
~ I
. ;
L-- - - ~ -
_
_ _ - ~
~
,
x
0
i ! Q
° u
L
0
I ~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
,
.a i.~ ~4 ~ . ~ i.....~1 •1.~. v.iv.._
b
~ =t
t
~ W
~ I ~
t~ L~
1 y~
I ~
I
~
1
1
~ ~ ti
1 ~
` -
~ I
j 1 1'
-t '
F ' ~
¦
~ ~ ~
1 ~
1 a__
!i y~
. 1 ~
r ~
m @ i ~'r~ ~q,
e i N ~ F~
, ~y ~
Q ~ti` B A ~ ~
~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ r~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ e
~ t~ 1 4 ~ ~ ~
I ~ 1 ~ ~y
, o
1 ~ I ~ ~i j
1 G ~ o
sy. 1 a ,,,,~I
1 .y
v ~ ~ 43•'~
~ a ~ }--^~y
l -
~ ~ ~
t ~
~ f Fr'
~ r
~ ~ '
i
i r ~
~
, r~~=, ~
~
; ;
'i
a
,
~ ~
aAa g,
~ `I
0~g~ ~
aaea -
+
6~~R.
R q A fi
1
~
.
- ? , w . . . ~r ~ ~ ~ ~•s---~~
~ ~
t ~
~ _n r
_ ~ 1'"' ~ ~C ,s•: e ~Y •,5 F ~ 4r~° ~`i~ ~~r^v i ~'Y
e ' F t +r
i~;' ~ ~ 1~ y • ,i~~yi.~~t ~ ~ +c~r~*- f" r -
a C1 ,~E ~m N m y Y k 5~ ~ 5 EE ,k, s» ;_.t re ~c. :5=.^ , r;.
~ . Z~.~
~ 3r f ~ K .4 } ~y ~ . ~ p~ T ~ 1 A~•'.
d r ~b L k~ L5~ r
- I r '
Y
I?y ~ ~ e~,
~ ~ ~'ir~ . .l ~ }7 t sy N Y f a 1 I
~ x'~'Cwk~ T/w' , iM~ LZ G.'' ~ GC e 1t nt F~ i
€'a:as~M,. 1, }.~w.a~h~~.~'.~~ .~Ei~-,`_.~.~- 4i~.y['Ir~..*s-.•.
'~1 ~n~~ ' 4y"f..y~ ~,~i{~~,~s,~ i ~^~at'~y~ w~.ry'~.
p~
gm ~'~Jj r ~ s•¦~t ~ r a : r li a3-~
..o I_ "~E~`~,4'~~#-~ ~ ~ ~ 5 ..t. w"€r+~ ,c~: ,ifiil
CD +s+r i~, ~'~5- F~'~,'"i¦ ~ ' i~ i ~ ~r ~ a'~,e i ~ i~,.! y
- ~
6 Y`^
~ ~ ,3 pl ? ~R ~ ~ ~ ~1, ~ 4t ~ ~ ~ ~ C F
~r++}' ~ r~y,4-¦~!. 6 S r ''r f'~ w"sk d ~ 'S Q,
a ~
? t~ • 1 I .f'0~ ~y j ~
~ S; k'~~G~ ~r. : t ~'S`7' ' .
4 ~ p y
y+ r`
04
}'g~ s
J-.
~~t~~
s; ~ -.+'t~ fi ~ `wo- ~ ~-s n i a• ,r ~ .h
r ~ ~Y ~ n • ~r= ~ - ~ r. A t ,
TZI
Q k~yA ~7 ..a.~.,~A~')~~~+,~~' # I s :~,u•~ w 1~ `'~iz . ~ 3 ~~fF X .'1Y~S-~ . ._~iy/' ~~~~1~, P 4J..
C e` k, S `h ~ xr ry:}~r ~l.fP
~ ~.f~pp~tt~~
7• ~ 'y,P w3~~~~ ~~i~f:^"f .rg~' ~ ~g; y x`~ ~,k,~"~ ~y",~
~ML'?~ •'~'R\^i ~ x .~1~ sp4t F T ~f P ~r .~r`',
.
x y~ . ~ • t°' h ' ~
T..~riFr~~~a~
4 _ x ~ ~ 5' V,
r .
~ nZ e p m
8 /
„ ° Y . 'y~ U r:~.• ~ ~ "~",,~~y..-~+~s- X~ -7~ 5.,,~,'- ~w„' ~ t
ml
I y~,~4! ~ .~~k
~
- u } , ~ ~ '~''~1 F ~~11~ ~ +.~:~s`~ £*i y . ~ . j
jL
{ ~a _ d
ap
ti"iµ ~ K„ ~am
AA, f~.y,~ .x zy ~ f
( ~,F~P~+~Y / • ~ ~ 9.~~R~~.Iv^` ~
fRS- tR"1'?c1'~r~~,'-.3
~ j y~~ l . .
1'~ •.~y ~ '~9` 44`"R
.~i.X
~ J°k ~.~A+"~ • r ~ ~
' .t 3 ry5 f
<
ra,~
e ~
Y~'! ~ i r y 3 g} ~
~
~ 3Hk ~ pY ~ ~ k ~ ~ i
a ~ 4 F it
. t. A a , ~ ~a{ a R > 5 - 4
n r x. t h+ °s'" ?,~",F`~'
.
m
` n z ' - ;u
` sr + t'*`~,,,~'=,~~.` yqt .
+ 4 ~
Fi,
t 5 ~ ~ ~.~u
{T~ s?~ ' f ~ +
re~~
CD
k
~ ~ i>•~, , ` r~.
ao
~
&a w + +::•`-3`Ta' .n
MOCD
Vxf
~t
` • ~ ~ rt ` ~ ~ ' ~ yr~ .
Xi
l ~ ~ R sv.rks~, t
1 t ` S
. ~ • a . ~x ~ + si f ~ • k~ g,k ~ .
. Y
e A 1( y~
t ~
7
F~ ~ x .i' ~ ~ ,t • . ~ I ~a~ r
.y s: h 3
~ '4e
0 L~',
~ ~ ~ • ~5 k~~
~
Q+
o„ p
r , zo
4 tl~~f'
,r
g4jr G ~ ~y.ry9.
= .
~
. .i'' M.,+~
~
°r r
~ , 1 + ~1 ~~'R n-~~, • -
F yn ,
0
~ ,y.. r ~ • . ~ ~
8• fi ~ l I
Y ;1 r q 1
~ ~ r~+ •f~~. ~ T m ~ ,M f 2 - : f ~i~..+~+~1
~e
~ 'T
o ~ . i 1 . ~ ~
,a'.
Ofol~Z
. ~ X'~, k
~ `31
~f ~ 1.; 5 I~ s+.~~ r ^Y ~ ?',~i •~py
3 ~f T ~ ~ry?i4 ~~~~Ab~.
~
" ~ k
kt
W~..16
~ ~
p rj~?
' y . :
x~, ~ 7
p~~.""~ _
jfl ~ ~y,7'-•
n ~ a1t~ 1
~13~m~ ~r' t; y~T t ~~'r~',~~~?~'~ =n
7~k l_
. x~ ~ ,~y 1~~}~._;~~1'F.~k~.,~~~ ; _
h.3~ R ~ A
~t-
~
y,. .
Vi
~LniI? ~ ~1 ? ~ '
, P a Y ¢ w
Y
~ n k F. A 1~'r t~~4
~
.f.9•~ s ~~jk~~
a.
~
F
t
t
- ~ .Y 1l ? ~ i~'~ ~ ~'f` .Y'-.
ITJ 1 . . 4~T °s . Y
b 1W,
t r
. rri "y W T
co '
ca.
4 4 VI 1k ~~T S . f+y~ yq h'.c~
~ d ; ~iY?Y.:14.Sd" "-W e•*'
~
ry
, ~ nZ o ~ u _ ~ ~.x 1•s'M4 . ~ . - . .
r~ ~ •
F vR ~ f~
,2 r t~ j J} ' •~y ,
~ ~ ~ h ~ - " L'~ ~ : ~•F . _ '
00
y S E
a~; ~ -~C~•H; § e
~ y
Jr ~ ~
y^* ~ s s•~~. rd*1:~
eTQ~a
°to
r~
i
rw ~ f4 e
L
t
Ix t
m
~
2
~ nZ o ~.Z7 ~ N e~ _ (y Y
A 4
41''r
f ~-.w,~ t r
r~r~k
w ti ~~i x++~
w~• Y ;'w
~.~r i :
~ ~.~'*e '~r~~~~ a t ~ •
~~x~"•~ A "a ftyll-4
fl
Y` . W
~ L~4~a,4.r~ . -I'•.F . ~
~F
4 # { ~ ~ 'i
O LC+YV'~~^~r L~i ~
• f}
' - iE
~ ? I
~ 4t ; { .
I If
f - -t ~ 1 4'r: °y~,~, I:~E R . t~.
i ~
, r
1 ~R1~wM1. ~ ~ .'S y`~
. ~1` Jy"``.~~~,~~i::.i" ~ 4~,.j'-~' ~ ~•e~ i
tr`~:~~ ;r`•,.
~ r ~y ~ ~ ~ T~~}•„t ~ ~ ~ ~ s'
aF
~
~ ` ' ~
}-'Y,`~-.
~'-a,~ ~ ~
~hw~
i
v'`~ ?A7+4 ~ ?
{
~ ~
1 T
L-
ti •
~~e ~ G ~ • - ~ ~ ~i Y`~~ ,
oz ° ;u
,r r o
c-
c
j"A
41
~ ~ ~ ~
• ~f
. L/~ ~ ' ~v~~~~ -rti ~ .
CD
. ~
. ..t; ~a w . . . -
~Q ~ •
ap
pC ~
. P Q CD ~ ~ _ _ ~ ~
v
p~ "L Y g V f
4~ ~ I 1( m~
r u~
~ :~`•+a,s,in ~t ' -';e~ a ~zt _;y,,C ~ .
6
" ~
- ~ 1 S~f¦
5
r: rT t TrYf r~ f
1 ~ 4 10
~ t
+
r+ ~ i;1 , ' ~ . ~i•. ~.R ~S ~k'~~~,V ~ ~ i j~ ~
io• ,1~:' r~~ ~qti, ~y~
:.1 _
~ e M A ~ _ ~ ~ ~ r r.....W.....~..a:.._.......
n A ~•"iqs3~'wy`:P~^4
14
I
~
~ k t
~
,
p~-
V. N
~ r
[ ? ~ A ef ru~1~~ '~s F E ~ ~ h ~'jn ;'C
~o Lrz
oa
fl . . t - '~..~Z"'F .+~e~rr-n~~,l~•
- tw
!
,J-{ •`'N
t^ .
O.v
1 i'S ~ ~ s6c,65 :
1 F
m
~
'~~3
s y
06
a f ..I'FI,
I ~ oZ : ~'e ~ry,~ - .
. ^ . ~ . .
~ X-, 1Y~tr~w°"s~rr7 ~
~
g o.
~o
~ .~N' ~ 1 } - ~,~P*,_~.,.~t~F ~"a JJ//'"~+~ ~ F
3
f.
;
~ ~ : . ~
~ry ~ ~ .Zk+r:"6f+r}~ ~ v~ ;.c
~ 'r-a - . ; '
L~
4q
"y
m
~
,"~..a77rz; r~~r,x
} }s
~ zN ry ' ~-e"'i
~Xa 6 jaw
e~ {a y~ W ~ i t .atpy -~i ~ ~+~"4 • ~ ;
?ib ;t m ~ ~-.x3 ~f~,,~ ~ -~"R r:
4'~
,y ? i~',`~ a .
M~
hT
~
~
-Y fq7,~` 4 "w "~.i ~'g.-~ ~ . ~ yt i{."Ap'
7~~ #..'r x~• '~r;;~V` . -'k ,:~i`~ ! `
f
k,r.5u~ r:Ai''A t~ ~~y` ,V,':xd..~~a1~+~~{} .."''R `~~""'c,..~,'~,~' ,e 7 _ ' .
z~l
r
t1
e ~ p dd # f
CD
~
~
a
5 . ~
.a
~
~ [~-?o ` r ' y a ' ~.js~ ei . ~ ~:a
4 ~
F ~
,y
' du.f~ ~ F ~ C ~ Ir- 6~: e~f .i
1 . ~ ~r : ro T pv
.r~ i A ~ z e
gl
~ 9 s2,ny, ~
• '°r~r ~ ~ ...9 l - . ' ~i~.2' zi ~.A i„}
~
~ y t
-`i,. y
T~'
CY 2 - ~
.7"
Qa
~
m
~
~1~ R ~'i i ; y ~
~g~lmm m e'~
nz
f::`~ - ~i~`~a i.:~i ;
J
,
lV
~rw
V1
S 10
'm
e
rir~ s = r = ` - r~,3
N ~ f
7 .
•a J~ 1, '~(T' ~ # t fy~''G-'-F~, ` ~ , 1
fq1.p,.FC
~ x~ ; ? i~'~~ ~ : J , ~ ~ 7#~~~~j. F°k # .2...t .
~
f ~ f ~lb_
F
T ~ . • ~ ~ ~
~1-
CIJ erMul - y~~ ~
} 4.~ ti ~#.,_~~Ce.- ~ i,,
[1Q ~ +
- - r t ~•R ,Q} ~ ~ .{f .ia,i ~y~;~ :1 f
eb
~
mQ
to
~
Attachment: G
~
NVINSTON ASSOCIATES
VAIL URBAN DESiGN REVIEW
FOUR $EA50NS RE, 50RT ~
2] Apri12003
(Jiverview:
The PEC requested DRB input Uefare the PLC reviews the praject on 28 April. These cammezats foalaw
the DRB warksession review of 16 April 21, 2003,
Seueral uia,portant ehanges have heen made since the last review:
1. The NW raaf adjacen# to the Scorpio has been recanfigured to create dormer windows that rnake a
gentle trazasition to the ScorPio.
1 The I'dF, corner hati hee:n transtilured to create a 45 8 fa~ade to the RQUndabout.
3. The south side pedestrian path has been widenec3 and a plaza created where it joins ihe propased West
Meadow Drive sidewalk (proposec3 in WMI7 plan), In fact the sidewalk section eastward from the
Faur Seasons entrw has also becn widcned, which we believe wil] further strcngthen the pedestriari
canneciion to the Viilagc.
From an urban design perspcctive, there are scill two cancerns:
~ t. ai the SW corner, the Faur Seasons stil] laoms over the Algharn, making xhe Alpham appear aut of
scale, and
2. a potential concern about the character and overall size caf large roof planes visible from the Frontage
Road and Roundabout (:sce Addition Comment,s at end).
Urban Dcsign
¦ Cam lies 0Partiallv com lies 0 Non-com liant ? 1*Iat anal zed, information not available
¦Pedestrianization Public walkway is along strect edoe for Soraih Frontage Road, Vail Road, and
West Meadorv Drive. The retail is intemal and not intended to adtract walk-by
traffic. However, there are strong pedestrian desire lines frc7rn the hotel to the
Village and I.ionsHead via Vail Road and West Meadow Drive_ This suggesLs
Uroad sidewalks on tlie soutli side of the buifding (tcr West Meadow Drive) and on
the east end of the buildii3g, The appticant has been responsive to Town
sug estions and reconfi trrccf sidcwaiks in these Iflcations.
¦ SteCet k',nclosare .Althouah no streeE sections in dr3wing set, street bui3ding appears to fall within
the 2:1 enclosure ratio tor 2C1 surroundin stree#s.
¦ Street Edge Although pcdcstrianization i5 not vcry xelevant to South Frontage Road, it is stil]
impartant to present a varicd faGadc to the street to be consisteiit with Vail Vi3lage
charactcr. Thc applicant has heen vcry responsive to previous TQwn coiments
and on the Snuth Frontage Road has varied the buildima massing to create a lively
faqacie_ Similarly, the cast eler•ation has varrety, anci Chc 45-dcgree ang6e no# only
responds tc, the roundabout, hut also creates a plane paral3el to the 9 Vai] Road
buildin«_
¦ BuildiRh Height Sec TOV staff commcnts re9arding haight. A[ong the 5outh Frontage Raad ane
builciing element in the cent~:r c~f the north elevation slightly exceeds tile zoning
height. However, in our opiniort, the resulting varzety and tapering of [hz bui9ding
~ to [he east and «-est compensate for a height exceptian.
Vail-Fo1 Page JQf7
2299 PEARL STREET, 5UlTE 100 •BQULWR. CO 80302 303-440-9240 - FAX 303-449-6911 *
jtwinstonCwwinsionassociates.com
Faur Seasons Resort
YarC (1'rban L7esign Reuiew ~
Winston Assot•iales, Inc.
9/15/1003
A previous areas of concem, the NW comer of the building (where it meets the
Scorpio) have been addressed. ~
With regard to the SVV corner, the roof has been stepped down to better transition
ta the Alphbm. Nowever, as one apprnaches the 4 Seasons alang West Meadow
I7rive, it still ]ooms over the Alpharn, especially the gable end_ Lotivering this
gable end (ridge edev. =225.5 ) by !5 l0 25 feet would help make a more gradual
transitroM arrd resent less o a wull to t12eA1 h4r•n.
¦Views This uadrant of antersection is not a re ulated view c:orridor
¦ Sunfshade The sun/shade analysis 4hows thai for the new building placement and avassing,
the 5 rin and Fall eriod, a ve minmr shadow will be cast in the ublic ROW.
¦5erviceldeliver Service arlcin is rovided below rade widcr orte-cochere.
ArchitecturelLandscape Architecture
¦Roofs The gable roofs are generally consistent with Village Guidelines. There are
potential concems with severa] af the ronf farms. See comments below,
¦Overhanes Goc+d
¦Facades Good
? Colar Nat shown
¦Window•s Gond
¦Wind4w details Good
¦Doors Good ~
¦Trim Good
¦Decl:s! atios Good
¦Balconies ' Geod
¦Accent elements Good
¦Landsca e Gaod
Additional (3bseY-°vations:
Roof massing.
Several of the narth elevarion roofs have planes that extend ]ower toward the gnound has created almost
an `A-frame' look in several locations. This brings a character to the building that is distinctive and
memorable, and the elevations are very appealing. Hdwever, this roof form is morc reminiscent of a
"hiational Park" building character, than the Tyrolliaii character typical of Vail. Wc think this is warthy of
a detailed anaiysis, and are hopeful that the 3D madel, showiDg the building in a larger context, will shed
light an whether the roof character is different enough to wa;rrartt a change. If change is warranted, it only
affects a few of the roof forms and we c3o not think it wou[d cause any major building change to raise the
fascia edges of these roof planes.
The A-frame farm also increases the size bf the rpof Planes, especially the planes with nnrth-snuth ridges,
as viewetl from the Frontage Aoad. "Fhe elevation drawings do not fully convey the resulting scale of the
roof forms, which are now lower and more uisiblc. The photomantages are very he3pful, but anly hint at
how large, Qr visible, the roof planes may bc. Nate spccifically the roof planes visible in the
photqmontabe frorr9 the Roundabout, and the pMotomoniagc from Spraddle Creek. These are static vievws
amd the roaf planes may bc more, or less, visihle in reality as one pnoves by the building. Yt may alsts turn
out that at eye Ievel ttsc roaf planes are not nut of scalc with the context.}
ffa~veuer•, an our apinion, thP:ce a,spects nfPhe rnnfform needs to be evaluated carefulfy,by, acctrrately ~
visualizing this butlding in its surrnunding setling-whicl'a we hope ta be able to da via the 3D model in the
Vaoi-Fot Page 21
303-440-9200 • FAX 303 449-6911 . 1Nin1320@? AOL.COM a 2299 PEARL STREET, SUITi E 100 • BOULDER, GO 80302
Four Seasons Resort
~ T'ail G~rban flesign Review
Wirtslon Assaciates, Inc.
4f25/2003
PEC meering. This is very nice building. It will make a significant contributian to VaiL Given its critical
koeatian, we need to be as sure as we ean abQUt every aspect of its design `fit'.
JT W
Drawings Reviewcd: FC)CJR SEASONS RE,SORT-Vait, Colarado, Zehren and Associates, Inc./Hil1 Glazier,
March 5.?003
r
~
I
~
Vail-POi Page 3l
303-440-9200 • FA7t 303-449-6911 . 1Nin1320(_aAOL.GQM ~ 2299 PEARL STREE7, SUITE 100 • BOULDER, CO 80302
, Attachment: H
~
VAIL FOUR SEASONS
ACCESS STUDY i
Februaz-v 2003
. ~
Revised March 10, 2003
Revised March 17, 2003
Revised April 4, 2003
~
I
f~
~
~
~
I
VAiL F()LTR SEASQNS
~
~ ACCESS S'I`UDY
~ February 2003
Revised Maxch 10, 2003
~ Revised Mareh 17, 2003
~ F;.evised Apri14, 2003
~
~
~
~ Prepared for: HB Development Company
. Mr. John Kohler
~ $21 Marquette Aue.
Suite 600-Foshav
Minneapolis, Minnesata 55402
Prep . ared b: .4lPine Engineering, Inc.
~
P.O. Box 97
f Edward Colorado 81632
'
i _
. Existin6 Average Vehicle Trip Ends:
~ . A.M. PEAK FiOUR P.M. PEAK HQUR ~
GENERA70R GENERATOR
LAND USE ITE SECTiON UNITS RATE: % enterlexit Total Enter Exit FtA7E: % enterlexit ~ Total Enter Exit
I Resort Hotel 330 Peak Hr. 120 .47: 63°10/37°!a 57 36 21 _90: 50%r50% '4 108 54 54 ,
Generator rooms
Gas S#ation 844 (Peak 10 fueiing 92.27: 51°/0l49% 123 63 6{} 14.56: 51%!49°'~ 146 74 7~
~ Stl°eEt OSItlOnS
Auto Care 840 Peak hir. 3 1.52: 68°f4132% 5 3 2 2.'f7_ 50%4/5a°/n 7 3 4
Center "8 Generator Stalls '7
Tota I I 185 10 2 83 261 131 1129
I
Praposed Vehicle Trip Ends:
~ F(lUR SEASQNS RESQRT REVISED TRTP RATES 5/29I01, 611/01, 3110f43, 3l17f03, 4/4/03
P.M. F'EAK
~ A.M. HQUR QF HDUR
GENERATOR GENERATQR
RATF:
LAND L1SE ITE SECTION UN1TS RATE: %enterlexit Total Enter Exit %enterlexit Total Enter Exit i
~ 330 Peak
Resart Ho#el Hr.Generator'4 119 rooms .47: 63°/a137% 56 35 21 .90; 50%150%+4 107 54 53
Em IC~ ee Housin *2 '5 ~ 6$ b2d5 .10: 75%/25% 7 5 2 .124 5C1°,/o/50°a 8 I 4
232 Peak Hr, g ;
~ CondolTimeshare Generator ! 40 units .34; 17%!B3% 13 2 11 .47: 68%132%'9 19 13 6 i
P u b l i c S a 493 ' 3 ~ 37 K S F , . 3: 4 B° l o 1 5 4% 2 i 1 4. 0 4: 6 1%l 3 9% 15 9 6
Heath Ckub Hotel j ~
( Guest Onl I 3.7 K5F
5ubtotal-Site 78 43 35 149 80 69
Total Adjusted for I PCE's *6 78 43 35 155 $6 76
X1 PCE = passenger car equivalent
*2 Having employee housing an site shnuld rednce hotel trip xates. NQ reduCtiDn ha5 been
I pravided for hotel trip rates.
"3 The spa is to be a massage/spafparlor, for which no correspanding ITE uses exist, LTsed Town
of Vail vaiue per 3I12103 memo for p.m. peak hour
~ X4 Trips vs, oceupied rooms. Used Town vf Vail value far p.m. peak baur.
X5 I1sed Town of Vail value for p.m,. peak hour per 3J12/03 ruema.
I *6 Assume ane p.m, delivery truck and Z p.na, buses enter or exit.
*7 Assumed distribution, no ITE distribution available.
"S a.uto Care Center added per meetinbwJ T.Q.V. on 412/03.
~ *9 Comb'rnation of Resort Hotei and Hotel per meeting wl T.O.V. on 412/03.
Per the 1998 State Highway Aecess Cade Section 'j.13, South Frontage Road is categcary F-R (Fronta;e
Road). The posted speed limit is 25mph.
~
Functional Characteriskics and CaLeaory A.ssignment Crateria far Frontage Roads.
~ 1_ Cateuoiy F-R shall be assigned only ta roadways that are designated as frontage nr service roads ~
where there is no intended purpose of providing far lona distance traffic movernents. Categary F-R
may be assigned for high-speed rural frontage roads. Access need.r will take priorit~~ over• tl~ough
~ tt-affc lazvvemerazs~ i~~ithoa~t compr•onzising the public Izecrlth, ivel{are, or ,safeiy. Provicling reusonable
and safe access tv uhulring prnperty is theprin7ary pzirpcyse of this crccess ccrtegory.
~ February 2003 Vail Four Seasons Access Study 4
~"L=103t"77, dvrgAt.ccess-.~~ }\Sk~'~~ ~4~ < < . ti ~ti AI~^; -1EREItG~
177
~
,m
W a rrt ; i41 r.. :
f -
I ^i'{
~ _ /
m rn
m rn
O 4 ~
m
~ ~ m~ ~
Z r GD
m
o~i u 3 s x
~
m
~ +a+ cn m o
~
v ~
v
~
I'• ~g„~ ~
~
cc &-r.~r~ w
9,. F
~r~ 4 .
~
.
x.
ncs~cnea wo o,rc R"NMs ur
FdtJR SEASONS RESORT ~ i
° rn ~„z~Ep PI~Q~'OSED PEAK HC~UR
m Fn;c;iNEEhwc Itie. ..,~5
TRAFFEC D1ACFtAM
DRTE 3/17Jb3 a0B nfl. -
~~iC ..t'•.:,.~a`- cc~s ..~c Sr.~ „ ~
~
O -1 A O •
>U7 --j
p ~
z ~
a ro> r ~
~
°
~ I
. C~b _ A ~ ~1 J
X] . ~
a a ' ~
F ~ Q o ~ o ~ p r y ~ .
~ N r
~
~ } -
~ bA
C
p
cn
CY ~
e;
w
1
of--141
r
+
~ W C7 N N N !
ko
4 @
s
o u ~
AI
r~v-
PM
r w
~ N
~ <
>
. ~~i~ .k r rnu r
~
' O O
VA1L RDAD _ . u~
s
k 7
(II e .
r~-- • ~ c+
m wN
~
CY)
C? f ~
i~
z~ DES-:JVEO LOa . k0. DATE
o y B„D FOUFI SEASONS RESORT
m cllkEa G„R EXISTING PEAK HOUR ~
FNCB1NG.
7FiAFF1C DIAGRAM ,
-
oAr[ 2/6/03
.os wo. • . •
NOU 12 '02 09t57 FR FHU 303 ?21 0832 TO 19704792166 P.02/06
~
AttaehMent: t
FELSBURG
(4HOLT &
ULLEVIG
enginee7ir.g jhurhS [a transporcaLiart svluiianS
hlovember 11, 2002
Mr. Greg Hall
Tov,rn of V'aif
aept. af Pub14c 1Norks(Transporta#ion
Vail, Coforadfl 81657
RE: Chafeau Deve[oprnent Propasal
Site Access Review
FHU F'ro}ect Number 02-056
dear Mr, Hall:
We hawe campleted taur review vf the Chateau site plan rela#ive to aGCess. The propQSed plan
is comprised of finro separate deveEopments aiong fhe Frantage Road separated by Vail Road.
~ The fo[lovving are our comments relative to site access to eacl'? eiement.
East Dewelapment Comqanent
The east development proposal is somewhat buedened by the need to also provide access ta
the adjacent Vitfage lnn Plaza. The inbound cvnsicierat3an af this companent shou(d not be
problematic, and inbound movements should be alIowed fram the Frontage Road and from Vail
Raad. The outbound rrto+rernents are less than icfeal since nnuch o# the development's autbaund
traff'rc vvill tend to tum torrvard the rnundabout. Ful1 mnvernent access onta the Frontage Road
wi11 be t#ifficult during peak hours reRative to the autbound left tuming Vehicle. As such, the
access point onta the Frontage Road should be limited to three-quarter rnovement only (na left
out) with the pravision tMa3 an internaf cannectian be maintain between #he Frontage Road
access ar,d the fuN-movement access onto Vai! Rvad, This wi!l ensUre that a means of turning
toward the roundabout is provided (Wia Vail Road} for Chateau traffic as well as for the adjacent
Vi31age Inn Plaza traffic. It should be noted that #he Vif{age Inn Pfaza development currentPy has
a full-movemenf access anto the Frantage Road on the east end of their building.
Therefare, the eastem component shauCd provide a three-quarter rnovement onto the Frontage
Road and a full movement access anto Vai1 Road.
~
.303.7Z1.14,40
{bx 3a3.721.0832
fl7Athueng,coin
Grrestwood Connratr PIaza
79411 E. Maplewnod Ave, Sec, 200
. r.1..-...,.,,1 %r:1L..._ rn on, ,
NOU 12 102 09=57 FR FHU 303 721 0832 TO 19704792166 P.03/06
November 11, 2002 ~
Mr, Greg Hafl .
Page 2
West t7evelopment CompQnent
Ac;cess ta the western ccamponent entai9s other issues. Like fhe east component, it maices
sense #o allow an access onto the Frontage Road and one onto Vail Road, but the nature of
fhese access points is different. Relative to access onta Vail Road, it wvrA be diffcuit to make a
left ttarri Qut of the site onto Vail Road (ivward the roundabout) dunng peak tRmes. As such, the
Vail Road site access shauld be limited to in6vund mawements only.
Access #o the Frontage Road is cornplicated by the proxjmity of the roundabout and by the .
afignment of the Frontage Road, First, it should be recognized that outbpund righ# turn-oNy
movemsnts anta the Frontage Road is approprrate. 1Nith the Vatl Road access being limited to
inbound only, FrDn#age Road access would clear(y need to provide for outbaund movemertts.
Qutborand ieft turn movements necd not be accomrnodated at the Chateau's Frontage Road
access given the abifity for exi#cng site traffic ta make use caf the roundabout antt ccanducting a
°IJ" turn to travel west alortg the Frontage Road.
The inbaund site traffic mavement fram the Fronfiage Road needs to de Iocated away firom the
raundabout. An access located toa close to the roundabaut coutd result in lef#-in vehicular
qUeues that stack back into the taundabout, thus negatively affecting the roundabout's
operafi4ns. We suggest that the inbound site acce;ss from the Frontage Road be lvcated as far
west (and away from the rflundaboiJt) as passibfe ta accommodate 1eft-in s#acking. Doing sp ~
wifl require special provision given an access #o fhe Town's facility aEang fhe north side af the
FrontagE Road. 5pecicqliy_, a means of preventing head-an callisions between.opposing left
tuming vehicles shc~uld be explored. This couid potentially be 2cF~ieved thrc~uc~h side-by-side
opposing ief# turn ianes.
The western locatian is also advantageous in #hat that its placement may ailov+r for greater sight
distance for the dnver attempting tv tum left into the site given the raadways aiignment. Today
the sight distance is adequate fQr any access Iocation along the site's fcontage, but it is possible
that a raised median could be installed aIvng the Frontage Road in the future. Pending the
nature of this future raised median (and if i# could be built up significantly ot perhaps be used for
snow storage), an access_Eocation at approximately the mid-pQint of the sfte's frontage nnay nat
provide adequate sight distance fQr the inbQund Jeft turn movement givep the curvature of the
rpadway. Providing the left-in access at the western ertd af the prdperty would better lend itself
to maintaining driver sight distance in the event that a future raised median with a high prof'rfe is
constructed (or if the median is used for significant snow storage).
Therefore, the westem camponent should a(lovv an inbound access oniy fram'Vefi'lRaad, a right-
nut anly access anfo the FrQntage Rc6d (and perhaps two right-out ranly accesses could be
provided if delivery vehicles needed to tae aceommodated separateiy), and a fhree-guarter
access (no Ieft ouC) onto the Frontage Road as far wes4 as possible.
~
NOU 12 '02 09:58 FR FHU 303 721 8832 TO 19704792166 P.94/06
Nravember 11, 2002
~ Mr. Greg Hald
Page 3
This should provide some insight relative to the Chateau access' prefsrerices and the operataon
of the adjacen# streets. Clearly, there are many other cansideratians that would go into the final
pfan. The mentivned items shoufd be cansidered in the ptannirig of fhe site development If you
hava any questions or need additional information, please calt_
Sincerely,
FELSgURG H4LT 8 ULLEVIG
.
h
Christopher J. Fasc ing, P.E
Principai
~
~
Feb 25 03 04;32p PLPINE ENGIHEERIMG 97092E3390 p,I . I
~
AL~~ -
. ENG#NEERdNG 1NC. ~
{#Iplne Engincering, [nc_/"P.(b. Box 97/Edwarda, Coloradoj81632f970-926-3373,/FAX 970-926--3390
FACSIMILE TRANSMISSIpN
aArE: aOa IITLE: ~J~. .~~•r~a,~s - ~~fc
Ndf(9e; ' {I r~
NafT7E: NaR}4:
~
Company. Compcny. Campan}r
Fax: 61 ~ - ~37 Fox: Fax-
Name: ~,'y~ L.4S,r'~ Narne: Narne:
Cornpany. ckel,~iV 5p~ Company. Carnpn€?y.
Fcsx: ,r'f~) SD Fax: F'ax:
Numbar of pages (induding cover shee#) ReMaRks:
D ~ L r ~G fI ,sc_ o 7-7- ~ c i;A-R r C . TJ r.S . S ~
r.~L t" tJC ~ i i::]rj T~XIJ
?(ylrTi F"/ f,T.~; ~ C CG :v2 1 f g~ .
J~-- -;LU vff -/Lfn.+ P -rJ r'f[-' Z~Fi
~
S':` i} r.-~ Z~ s z- S ~'i> ~Y1 /ltJ i C+~ r's?c/ ! S i !/~G L (/K. N ~ . .S ~ 3 /17"d r~~L. 4~'-C,9f ~ c'1. ,,~.7 frY r-:l ~
CC f
i/7~r-Io
~;_~%G? J r,l~ ?CA2 F.j r S /.+L1Ch'A-1-1) ~o n.i F(,Jrl /F-% 0:/f fe. i ~L' L ~ f?c: ft S
PC~c~Jll~~~ ~
rSS r GQ~ f C./ .
S
t~Dt- ~CF- S ; 7-~ v,,J
?0 L /6) vf 4, 7 y rL~I,' Ii`
ryA iL't.' T1ff •Z~vrS ir_a ~
%i'~. tSc ~~r 5.
G 5L iZFsS~~S rr
i .
° Feb 2E 03 04: 32p RLPEI`iE EI`tGTNEERING 9703263390 p. 2
~
,Jf c, S
x rt :~~*:1
c,,/ C 5 c le, ..~i
W~
/,~If3?E~t
A--o cer
t,-YF Ar°"r 7-D d
! L ~'~Cr~~f;'~ In,~~ ~~r c',~Hv'E,~~,ti ~U.~ .~~'cf?~t1~ ?~~~cc~
/Y~/~ ft r rJ G (~r 7ft/ C /•~-7 ~ . c ~i s~
Y,r~ y C ~'r~,r~': ~"Cf 1~f ~.f'~.~?t `f.J c/, r r-" f~! frl r ,~;,firC : - ~
C ; G L Fwd LX
,
v f i~^i 1-~ c ti°~~ L
~
Feb 26 C3 04:33p RLPIHE ENGIMEERInG S709263390 P.3 .
Feb-26-03 13.54 L5C#Denver 303 333 11U7 ue
I.SC'I'RA?NSk'O127 ATI(3N C{1NSEJI„TANTS, iNC.
1899 York Street ~
Deaver, CO $pyQ(
[341~) 3.~3-I105
FAX (343} 333-1107
E-mail; Isc@tsrdenver.corra
Web Site: http:/lwww.lscdenver.com TRANSPURTA,TiUN
CC]NSUL7ANTS, CNC.
Fc4ruary 24, 20031
Mr, Tirn Leiniriger
Alpine Cngin,eering, Inc.
Edwarr3s Business Center
P.O. Box 97
Edwa,rds, CO 81632
Re: Vail FotLr Seasons
. Vai1, Calorado
(LSC #430220)
Dear Tirn:
Ac vQUr rrquest, •hr havr evaluated the propascd access conCtguration fur the Vail Four
Seasflns redevelopmcn[ project as it relates to the I-70 South Frontage Raad. Our review was ~
timi[ed to Levrl ,3C Senice analyses and qucue length determinations. The follawing
summarir.cs aur eva}uation.
Traffic Proiections
Thc prapased accesti plen and trafFie projections were taken fro,tra the L'ait Four Seasans Aceess
Siudy, prcpared hy Alpine Engineerir?g and are illustraced in the encln,
sec3 tig?i res, n'ace thai
a sznall amoun[ aC tratTic was alsn includrd for the 1'aliee Station lacaEed tzarth af the I-70
5ou#h Frpntage Rcrad.
Estirnafed Traffic Irn acts
[n ordcr to as%ess 41tie imgacts of the proposed prQ;ject, j7€aC-}lflttr Cap3Cli)' 2i7iilyses have been
preparecV for the kcY stttdy intersection assuming txisting and 2015 backgruund JALis site-
gcz:erated trafCc cond.itions. Thc methvdolopr uscd is tlzat presentcd in the 200€} Ffighwcey
Capaeity Manual, puhPishcd by the TransparEatian Research Board of EEie Natiojaal Acac3erny
of Scicnces. The c;unccpt af Level of Servict (LOS) is used as a basis for computing
combiriations of roadway optrating canditinns ru4-jich accarrunad'zte variorjs icvels of traffic I
actiuity. By clefinition, six c€ifferent I.euels of 5enrice a.re used {A, B, C, D. E, and Fd wz'kh "A"
beijig a free-fiow eoiid[tioti and "E" repi'zsenting clie capacity of a given intek-scction or raad-
way. Table l, ciicltisccl, aurrimarites the results oP the avesage weekdiey, pcak-tzour LC7S
an2lyscs for the proj)used praject (actuaJ eQrnpu ter analysis printouts are m1c:Iosed), using the
Synchro dna.lysis peogram,
~
. _ _ _ _J
° Feb 26 03 04:33p RLPINE ENGINEERING 97092B3390 p.4
Feb-26-03 13s00 tSL&DenveY
~ Mr. Tim Leininger f'age 2 FcEaruary 24, 2003
TahiP I indicaxes ahRt, for existing plus site-generated traffic conditaons, the u•estbound lefi-
[urn moveeriei3t wIff opevarr at an exctllent LOS "A" and that the 95"' pereeritile queue for this
mavetnent will be 60 feet. In 2015. 4wzth the addition oFfiite-gene.ratecl crafrc, ihis tnovement
vrrilt operatc at a gooci LOS "C" with a 95' percencile queue of 62 feet. With a sEeirage of 75 Cect,
the proposcci lefr-tuya kar,e should provide adequate starage far wessbounct leCt-turn vrhicles
at the site access.
In arlciitir,n, t'hF srzta4l nurnber aCvehicles (I1 during the atterhoon peak pcriocl) exitirig I-70
castb4itnd ar?d boti nd far the westhound 1e[t-turn lane at the sitP accc--ss (Iulovcrnent '2)j did nat
appear to cause any nperatiQnat prrablerns during simul.1tion of the prajectcd nperations using
the SimTraffic peogr;un. This_assumes therc arr no sight diseance or operatioraat issues
hincienng this iner•gfng and weaving maneuver.. * * *
We krust that [Ycis infnrmation wili assistyou iri plann.ing af the Vai3 fiour 5ea~:on5 prnJeck.
Please cali if ,ynu 11_ave axxy quesuons.
- Sincerely.
.
~ LSC Transportatiart C:nnsultants, Inc.
• ~ 0~:
E3y. C~ t~,
AleycJ. Aririi~o, P.E., P.T.4.E '4982
-
AJA,/ivc ,"r`-v~
. ,Si~e,}~.•~,'1,4~.s•~4~1f '
Ei3clnsures: Table E
S}.rtt.hrto Figures
Ct.spac:ity Ana3yses
t.11 `It;yf1'epl~4\lW13•.~l3~il-1C1K-lw.r7~1°-L-~ikF,ur.5rrwrStiw}W
~
v
~
r ; tfi ~
O G ~ r~•~ 3~'
~ Q ~N Gl- ~64
~
U
~Y
ym G J LO
tv
V1 ED
S
U7 A~ G Q~ ~ !
~ N c a ~ ~s
d ~
~ ~ D y ~ ~n
a 3' N
~Y
~ ta
~ t[ T ~
°3 su
6
N~~ ~3 C t3'3 R1
G G'4 G j ~`~'L ~
L t~T U
. ~ C7 ro ~ ~ N ~ ~Y
. ~ (Jr} ui 3~ Ln .
Ln
~
. ,
~
.
'
• Feb 26 03 04:34p RLPINE EhGIhEERING 970S263390 p.6
Fed-26-03 23:00 L5C#Donvor ttu/ N.u~
~n
~ r
~ ~y o
~ a: t!
Q?
•y
;~~4t} w
~ o
CL 11
. d~.
i:3
Q
Cd
. r
~
~
~
~
r
~ m
~
Q
~Ln~
r
~ p' ror~
~ r p,
OL1f1
:
~tl . .
~
6 N
N ~,ry
N I .
O
M
a ~
"M M
U . N
0
ua
o
~
8
ws I J
f% f C b7
w O ~
O ~
} O ~
LL
>
0. ~p
~
ro ? Q
~
O ~
~
Ji
c
r
W
~
. ~
0
o»
+
. 5
~
t{~
c(T
rn
~
} ;~~?y+
M
{
~
a
m
r
c~
O
~ N
4
~
C
s
t
c+
N
0
t'+
G
ix
~
~
?
~
C
EY
N
flt ~
O
W
y
~
~
' Feb 26 03 04:34p RLPInE ENGInEERIMG S709263390 p-8
Feb-26-a3 13:d~ L~G#Den~er 303 333 1~U! w.u!>
, Queuing and Biocking Report F'M Ex[sitittg Pius Site- Vllinter
PM Exisiting Plus SEte- Winier 2126i2003
IntPrser_ttnn~ 1: 5r?ut.h, Frontage Road 8. Site Access
~ky.~.E7irections Serued L L T R R
Maximum Qveue (ft) 30 70 56 74 24 : Auerage Queue (ft) 9 33 2 26 12
95Ch Queue (ft) 31 60 1$ 51 31 . link aislanee (ft) 25 144 144 126 75
Upstream 6ik'firne 0_03 . . .
- Queuing Penalty (veh) 11
Storage F3ay Dist ({t}
Storage Slk Time (°Ia}
Queuing Penalty (veh)
lntersecti4n~ 2; Scwuth Frantage Road & Truck Loading Access
MOvQIrtEflt f ~ ` N 13'.i. ° F ra 74,; 7~;
- -
()IfQCtl13f1S SQN2d R Maximum Queue (ft) 24
Average Queue (ft) 2
95th Queue (ft) 11
Link Distance (h) 124
Upstrearn B9k Time (°ro)
C]ueuing P2nalty (veh)
Storage Bay lJist (ft)
S€orage 6ik Time
flueusng Penafty (veh) .
~ in4ersection: 3: South Frantage Road ~
~fDirections Servec{
Maximurn oueue (ft)
P,verage Queue (ft)
95th Queue (ft)
Lmk Distance inl
LfFstream B}k Time (°A~) ' Queuing Pznaity Even?
Starage 8ay Dist (ft)
5tarage Blk Timp ("/o)
+Queuing Penaltiy (wehi
Vail Fnur Seasons (LSC 9 030220) PM Exisiting Plus 5i+e- Win;er
AnalysE, Alam 5M Rage 3
LSCINCCS2-5T51
~
FeG 26 03 D4:34F RLPInE ENGIMEERING 9709263390 p•S -
Feb-Gb-U3 13:01 1--iPLOIJ2nVer sus s~~ itui r.vo
Queuing ar+d BVackis?g Repoct 2075 PM Tota!- Winter
2015 PM Tatal- Wnter 2/2612003 ~
~
intersection: 1: Sauth Frantage Road & S`rte AccesS
. i L'-- °i'•' `L _
Direct+ons Senred L TFt L T TR R Rµ
Maximum Queue (ft) 6$ ' 23 ` 68 377 264 73 -5p ° .
Average Oueue (ft} 14 1 3 12 9 25 14
95th ausue (ft) fas 7 I s 106 .,88. ss 37
l,ink Dist$nCe (ft) 25 25 143 143 143 726 75
UpsirOerrt 8dk Tirne (°fq) 4.16 - 0.Di3 . 0.01 . - ' . :._.Queuing Penalty (veh) 98 ~ 5 4
SiaraCe Bay DisE (ft) . ° . , .
5lor2ge Blk Time (°A)
Queuing Penalty (veh) : • . . .
Intersection: 2: Soufh Frantage Roac! & Truck Laading Access _
R
Direclions Served TFi R
Maxirnum Queue (ft) 28 25.' . . . ° Average Oueue (ft) 1 2 .
.
951h Queu2 (ft) 9 11
-
l.ink Distance (ft) 3 124
U,pstrsam B6k Time (9~a} . • _ -
Queuing Penaliy (ven)
Storage B3y Dist (ft) • _ .
SEorage Bik Time
Queuing Penalty {veh} . .
1rtteesecto i n- 3: South Frontage Road & ~
Directinns Served T T Maxirnum Queue (ft) 62 206 . - . t . Average Queue (ft) Z 7 .
95th Queue (ft) 20 68,
Link Qislanca (ft) -T 146
Upskream Blk Time I7.00 a.pa ' . . . ° ' -
Queuing Penalty (veh) 1 6
. . . , , . . . . .
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Starage E31k Time (°!o}
Quauing Penal4y (veh) • -
- -
Vail Four 5easoRS (LSC 0 030220) 2015 QM Total- Wsnter
Anatyst, Aiarn $M Page 3
LSCINCGS2-ST51 ~
Feb 26 03 04:35p RLPINE EnGINEERING 9709263390 p.lO
Feb-26-Q3 13:02 LSC#aenver 303 333 IlU!
• SimTratfie Performarrce Report PM Exisiting PIus S€te- 4'lrnter
PM Exisitin Plus Site- Winter 2126r2003
~ 'f ' South Frontage Road S, Site Access Performance by movement
Total Delay {hr} 0.0 a.i O.o~ 0.2 03 0.0 0.1 0.0
.
Deray l vL-h (s) 11.5 z.z 0.1 . 0.7 :..:•~3 _a '-5.3 ~ 3.1
rotal srops s o~ o st 1.. p ~ 72 17 .
1: South Frontage Raad & Site Access iratersectic,n Performanee
Tatal Delay (hr) 0.1 0.5 0.1 0.0 p 7
Delay 1 Veh (s) 0_2 1.9; - 5.3 ' 3, i d.9
, Yotal Stops 9. . 62 72 17 160
2' Sauth Frontage Raad & Truck Load'rn qccess Performance by mavement
- z,n;,,. CTs w
~i~,q F1y
~ x
- r-1(YQ~ :.H~
Tolal Delay (hr) 0.4 0.0 0.1 D.d
Delay 1 Veh (5) Q1 1.4 (1.2.. 1.2 : . . . -
-rorar Stops o o p~ 2
2: 5outh Frontage Raaci 8 Truck Loadin Access Interseciion Performance
fF'), ]t~ _ "??t: K ' .~i . R Y
r-1.~ ll: Y i.~.)r y_. ~ -~~'~'1y~ ~~A'~, ~r4` iYf7_ ~~:'I d~i~l 4 ~~~a~ M1 e a
Total Delay {hr} 0,0 0.1 0.0 0_1 - -
Delay 1 Veh (s) 0-1 02 1.2 0.1
Total Stogs 4 0 Z 2 I
~ 3- Sauth Frontage Road & Perforrnance by rriovameRt
~ , .
- ' _ . _ "d ~ :
Toka1 Delay (hr) 01 00 0.7
DeEay 1 Veh (s) 0.4 01 5.4 '
Tota! 5tops 0 0 0
3: Svuth Frontage Raad 8 lntersection Performance
~~y~i~~'iA"~"7'r FF';'i' ~~!r_~~ 3~~~I~F~ ~~~,,.pSy~~r~y~ w+--ti~~T, T4.~aj
~-.:..i.d. '~F~~'~ . .1 : ~~`1....,,.
_ • . . _ ,
Totaf Delay (hr) 0.1 0.0 0.7 0.9
~ Delay ! Veh (s) 04 0.1 5.4 1.4
Total Stops 0 d D p
Vail Four Seasans (LISC #03Q220) PM Exfsiling t'lus SiCe- WintBr
Anatyst, Alam $M Page 1
LSGINCCS2-ST51
~
Feb 25 03 04:35p ALPIHE EHGIhEERIHG 3709263390 p.ll '
Feb-26-03 13002 LSC#DenveY 303 333 1107
F
SimTraffic Performance Report 2015 PM Total- V+rnter
2015 PM Total- W;nter zJ26l2003 ~
-
1: South Frontage Raad & Site Access Perforrnance by movemeni
:Wj 3Ta~1C~314~}.
Totak Delay {hr}~ 0.1 0 1 00 0.3 Q.9 4.0 0,2 0.0
Delay J Veh (s) 37.0 0.2 2.3 172 1.4 3.6 9.1 4,8 ~
Total Stops 7 D 0 50 20 0 63 11
1: Sauth Frontage Road & Site Access Intersection Petformance
Totaf DeiaY (hr) 0.2 . 1.1 02 . 0.0 1.5 ~
C3slay/ Veh (s) . : _ ._.Q.d : 8: 4.8 ~ - 1,3
. ~
Total Stops 7 70 63 11 151
- 2~ South Frontage Road ~ Truck Loading Acce;3s Perforrrtance by mavernen!
~'.s;~:~ ~k„~..r,~ ~e ~~'~.ai~~f~Y;~~s'~~~~~r:; r~$F~,i~=~i'•';`~ i?'~ n.:~:~~I~~^sk;s'~!~;~' T w.~Ca.~,2
, , . . . . . . . . . . . ~ . . . c .
%'s x
rosal Delay (hr) 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.0
DeEay 1`Veh (s) 0.2 . 1.4 4.3 4_0
Tatal Staps D D 0 4
2: South Frontage RoacE & Truck Loading Access intersection Perfarmance
dta
Total aelay (hr) ~ 0.i ' 0.2 . 0.0 . . 0.2
De{ay 1 Veh (s) . . 0.2 03 4.4 -0 2 ~
TptaG St[sps a 0 4 4 ~
3° Sauth Frontage Road & Performance by movement
~t.-}i?Z~.:
Takal Deiay:(hr) 0.3 01 1.0
Delay! Veh (s) 0.5 0,3 '5.4 ~ ~ . • . ~ ' ~ ~
TQtal Stops 0 12 4
3: South Frantage Road & Cntersection Perftrrmanee
~Otc'i~
To9al Delay (hr) 0.3 0.1 M1.p 1.4
Delay I Veh (s) 0.5 0.3' 5.4" ' 1.3
Talal 5[aps 0 12 0 12
Vail Four Se2sons (LSC ~ f130220) 2015 PM 7ota[- Winter
Anadyst, A3am SM Pege 1
E.3CINCGS2-5T5i ~
'Feb 26 03 04:35p RLPINE ENGInEERIHG 9709263390 p.12
. . ~~',';1:~
j
~
~ ~Z ~ a
I • ~ ~ z'
r.:
. W
i ~
- ~
~ .
. + -
t+ ;
i ~
+
.
t r ,
,e
Ir v~ ~
Y
x~
~
~
4ii;rr ~~'E
F_r
~
`e
'~-Ctf1
o ~
~
~ -
r~^ •
I~ vf
~,t Y _ ~ ~
Attachment: I
~
m j ~ o~o
a~ ~ o ~ t z ~ R'~
' ~ x •
NE .J f.C,l
j~ r f,, If <
a
>
~
i
z
n ~
o ~
~ A.9.. ~ .
Z t(
fl
L!J ~ ~ ~----_~..~---•-=--°'"j'
~ C¢7 0 ~ Q21 "IPc'_~
~ ~
~
~ > `*'r-w ~ LU (!'1
X
~ <
w¢
1 ~ .
~
r}~ %~rv.ry 31:~ ~ .
Fti ~:a:.m . . .
H l
~ '
<
z
d
>
CD F-
~
~
f/~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ ( F 1 • ' ~ ._t~
Z
C ~ a. LN
O CN
r.
Q
~9 ~ ; , ~
O
~ 4'7~ ~ ~I~!~S. _ ~ ~
z
0 3
1:3
Q z N '_..-~"Td w
~ w
~ • w ~ . .'.~-',~.:-J.':.;•
> ~ • ~ ~ B5 ~
0 I~..-• . ~ f.~' ' ~ ` ~ ~ r , f d 9
~ f.:..•.:" ~ ~ . ' ~ ~A~e _ ~
Q W w W
CL iJ7~ `x3 LU C14
;
j - cn
~ti CV
~ ~ ~ ~ 1/` ` ~ ~ SsE
E
. .
' N LL a { ~ ~ _ ~
Ln m~ M _
- J. co cv ; Q F•..
Approved 1l27I03
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMEN7AL CQ111iMlSSION
~ PUBLIC MEE7tNG MINllTES Attachment: J
Monday, January 13, 2003 I
i
PROJEGT ORIENTATION Community Develapment Dept. PUBLIC 1NELCQME 11:0(} am
MEMBERS PRESENT MEMSERS A85ENT
John Schofield Erickson 5hirley
Chas Bernhardt
Doug Cahill George Lamb
Rollie Kjesbo
Gary Hartrnan
Site Visits : 12:30 pm
1. Gorsuch residence - 1193 Cabin Circle
2. Tivoli Lodge - 386 Hanson Ranch Road
3_ fulountain Haus - 292 E. Meadaw Drive
4. Four Seasons Resart 13 Vail Road -
5. Sonnenalp Hotek - 20 Uail Road
6. Hospitai Parking Structure -18'1 W. Meadflw Drive
~ Driver: George
rL(l~
MDTE: lf the PEC hearing extends until 6:00 p.m., the board may break far dinner from 6:00 - 6:30
i
Public Heariraq - Town Cauncil Charrzbers 2.00 pm i
1_ A request for a candi#ianal use permit, pvrsuant to Section 12-6C-3, VaiC Town CQde, ta
allow for a 7ype II Erriplayee Housing Unit and arequest for a variance from Sectian 12-6C-
6 (Setbaclcs), Vail Town Code, to aIlow for additions in the side satbacks, located at 1193
Cabin CircEe/Lot 4, B[ocic 2, Vail Valiey Fifing.
Appiicant: David & Renie Gorsuch, represented by Resork Design Associates, Inc.
P{anner: Bill Gibson
Bikl Gibsan gave a repW per the staff memo.
Dave Gorsuch asked the baard to cansider allowing the plan to reduce #he parking from the required
five to four, allowing thern #o preserve two trees on the site
There was no public input,
~ George Lamb had nothing specific and said the neighbors have had a chance ta review the plans and
he would iike to see the trees preserved if possible.
Roflie Kjesbo and Gary Hartman had no additionaf camments.
1
Approued 1127l03
Dcaug Cahaifl asked staff several questioRS regardeng the need for five spaces and as'ked if the space -
cou{d go within the setback.
8ill Gibson referred #he Board to drawing A2.0 and stated thai parking Gould go in the setback.
Chas Bernhardt had no additaonal comments,
John Schotie{d referred to a previaus variance, as he stated that this was a minor increase in bulk and
mass in the setbaek. He said he supported the EHU and also favared saving the trees and added that
thss neighborhond has several varianees.
Daug Cahill mo#ion to approve the variance with the findings on page 19.
Gearge Lamb secanded the rnotion.
The motion passed by a vote of 6-0.
Doug Cahill motion to approve the EHU, in accordance tirvith the stafF memorandum and findings on
pages 14 and 15 and with the twa conditions on 14 of the memo,
George Lamb seconded #he ma#ion.
The motion passed by a vote of 6-0.
2. A request for a variance frorn Sectian 12-7A-9, (Site Coverage) and a request far a proposed
minor exteriar alteration, pursuant to Section 12-7A-12, Vail Town Code, to allow for a
residential addition, located at 292 East Meadaw DrivefA part af Tract B, Vail Village Firsfi Fiding,
AppEicant: Mountain Haus Homeowner's Association, represented by K.H. Webb
Architects
Planner; Bill Gibson
Bill Gibsan garre a repart peT the s#a€f rnemorandurn.
Kyle Webb gave a preserstation and stated that there was currently one porch enclosed.
Rollie Kjesbo asked if that enclosure was appraved?
Kyie Webb stated that the Rabertsan's unit on the 7th or 8t" flovr was enclcased in the early 90's.
Gary Hartman asked if the enclased space was ta becorrie a part of the unit.
Kyle Webb stated that currently it is na# proposed to be heated and the sliding rloar would remain. ~
Doug Cahill asked wha# was the reason behind the request far enclosure.
Steve Hawkins, the applicant, stated that it was a methad to try and mitigate the negative impacts of
the new canapy.
There was no public cornment.
Gary Hartman stated that he fe1t the noise would be mitigated by the new canapy, hovuever, he was not ~
in fa+ror af setting a precedent on the buifding.
Doug Cahil9 asked aboUt the number of enclosed porches.
2
Approved 1127103
. Chas Bernhardt stated that a 250 addition was not a right and he was not in fiavor of the setting o'F this
precedence.
~ George Lamb wanted the applicant to try and incorporate the balcfltay into the new canopy.
RolCie Kjesbo agreed with Doug Cahill and Ghas Bernhardf and €elt it was too much of a preeeden#.
John Schofield stafed that the building was overbuilt on the site, according to current zoning
requirements. He felt the hardship was self irrEpQSed and variarrces are not granted for seEf imposed
hardships. He added tha# currentBy obtaining the 250's on the si#e would be practically ciifficult #o
achieve as the site, is sa over-bui6t and that passibly a camprehensive plan would receive a better
reception.
Kyle Webb asked if the Board would be receptive to George Lamb's comments regarding a redraw of
the canopy incorporating the deck.
Rollie Kjesbo said he would look at it, hovveuer the deck should blend in and disappear.
The remaining members stated they would giwe a comprehensive plan a kook.
3. A request for a conciittonal use permit, pursuant to Section 12-9C-3B, Varl Town Code, to allow
fflr a tourist/guest servace related facifity accessory to a parking structure, and a request for a
variance from Title 11, Uaif Town Code, to allow for propased signage and settirrg forth details
in regard thereta, focated at 181 W. fW4eadow DriwelLots E&F, `Jail Village 2"d filing.
Applicant: Stan Anderson
~ Planner: Bil( Gibson
Bill G'rbsan gave a presentation per the s#aff repart.
Tarn Braun, representing the applicarat, gave a presentatidn and stated that this was rnore of a public
ssrvice and not a money maker by the hospital.
There was no public input.
George Lamb stafed that, at first 6ook, the proposal is very beneficial and added that he was not clase
to the operation of the parking structure of the hospital, but he was familiarwith the'Weststar banEc next
door. He stated that traffic flow can be confusing and since traffic flow may be a problem, maybe 50
cars is a better place to start.
Rollie Kjesbo #hinks iYs a great idea, but is eoncerned abaut traffie eniering the strucfiure and the
potentiai for staeking out on the Frontage Road.
Gary Hartman asked Tom to explain how the traffic sftuation, as it was tough ta play auf.
Tom Braun said there would be an attenciant in the garage and if things go# bad an employee coufd
stand in the sfree# to ge1 the cars off the Frontage Road.
Gary Hartman stated that he was eoncerned about the traffic ra-iavement when ala the spaces were filled
and there were cars still in line and questfone€i how the would they get out.
. Doug Cahil3 stated that maybe the top fevel shou6d only be used in the structure.
Chas Bernhardt would like fo see how tfie turning movemeerts wor9c and akso questioned haw the shifts
worked. He said he befieved there was overlap and aslced if this would leaue enough parking for this
use.
John Sehvfield asked Tom if he was on board during the hospital phasing plan,
3
Approved 1127103
Tom Braun stated that he was.
Jahn Schafield cantinued that during the phasing #hat there were concems rEgarding enough parking. ~
He continued by discussing the fact #hat employees were no longer given free bus passes, that surgery
occurs on weekends, and finally that spaces that were ncst previausly accupied by the hospital, were
now being used by offices. He said he didn't have a prablem with the content af the sign, but was
concerned with the locatian, since traffic would be past the sign before they eould read it. He stated
that he too was concerned about traffic mavernents.
Ghas Bernhardt made a motion to table the application until a further study is corrtp[eteci.
Doug Cahill seconded the motion.
The motion passed by a vote of 5-1, with John Schofield apposing it.
Rolfie Kjesbo made a motion to table the sign variance request,
George Lamb seconcfed the mo#ion.
The rno#ion was unanimousfy approved.
4. A request for a recomrriendation to the Vail Town Cauncil for a majar amendment to Special
Development Districf lVo. 36, pursuant to Section 12-9A-1{}, Vail Tawn Gode, to allow for a
mixed-use hotel; a request for a final review of a conditianal use permit, pursuant to Sectian 12-
7A-3, Vail Town Code, to aIlaw for 7ype III Emplayee Housing Units and a fractional fee club;
and a request for a recommendation ta the Vail Town Council for a proposed rezoning of Lot
.
9A, Vail Viliage 2"d Fifing from Heavy Service (HS) District to Pubkic Accamrnodation (PA)
Destrict, ioca#ed at 28 S. Frontage Rd. and 13 VaEI RoadlLots 9A& 9C, Vail Village 2"d Filing.
App3icant: Nicaliet Island Development Company Inc.
Pianner: George RutherlAilison Ochs
Allison Ochs gave a Tepart per the sfaff memorandum.
Tim Losa started his presentation by discussion traffic flow on the site; both pedestrian and vehicular
as it currently is. He continued by showing a proposed plan fior trafific circulation and stated that
vehicular traffic wouid remain consian#, as a gas station typically generates a great deal of traffic and
its elimination wauld balance aut with the e6ements af this praposal. He cantinued by talking about tYrs
public space along Meadow Drive and whether or nof retail belongs along this portion of Meadow
Drive. He then moved onto the floor plans and deseri'bed the flow into the building from the port
eochere. He explained the uses on each flaor in terms 4f hatel rooms, EHU's, and stairwells and
stated that the 25,000 square foot spa is similar in size to that of the new Ritz Cark#on in Bachelor
Gulch. He said currently the program for the number and iocation of the different types af units is
being decided by the operatar and the fractianal fee units wiEl be reached by private eleva#ors. He then
moved on to the height of different elements of the proposal and presented a diagrarrG shawing the
previous approval and the current proposal. He stated that they would faak in#o reducing the height.
He then showed the elevations and crass-sections and concfuded his preseniation by showing some
3-D studies which digitally piaced the proposal in the streetscape.
Jeff Winston began by statpng his first reactian was that this was big building and referred ta his
Comrr-ients, which were included in the packet. He referred #o the Vail Master Plan v,rhich discusses ~
putting taller bui[dings against the Frontage Road and s#epping down towards the rnountain and added
that thr5 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 smaller pieces. He feels one item which makes Vail "Vail" is the
intimate scale and feels this is a mansard roof, because you cannot see the top at the roof from grade.
He said the roof needs to be addressed, as it is not cansistent with the rest of Vail and said he does
4
Approved 1127103
iike the way the building steps down on the ends.
~ John Schofeld asked the applicant to distribute the drawings around the rvorn far viewing.
Dr. Paul Schultz, frorn the SkaaC House, stated that they were in support of the plan and raised
questions to whether or not retail belorsgs along Meadow Driue as there is currently a surplus in Town.
Gwen Scalpello voiced several concerns on par€cirtg and circulation, as it wauld impact 9 Vaii Place,
She saad the height would affect noise from the patios,
R. G. Jacabs expressed cancerns abouf praximity to the two properties he manages and has concerns
about the foUnda#ion closeness to the property line.
Joe Staufer, representing Phase 4 and 5, said the proposal is iarge, but one must considered where it
is aocated. Ne said that at #wo assaciatian meetings, the proposal received favorabie cornments. He
said it is a positive o get rid of the gas station artd get a Four Season hote[ in Vail.
Jirn Lamont, representing tne Lionshead homeowners association, stated that this design is better
than the prevFOUS. He said the height cauld be an issue discussed at future meetings. He discussed
the PA Zoning and the benefits of an SQD and suggested there may be an apportunity to move the
building more to the center af the site. He brought up the perennial Vail Land Use Plan of 1986, that
staff brings up as a"red herring." He said he does not feei that street front retail belongs along
Meadow Drive in this stretch. He said access is critical, in terms of the pedestrian and Wehicular. He
said he is curious hflw #rucks will turn into the site_ He said future prajects in the works down Vail Road
will potentially increase traffic alang it, therefore creating more conflict between vehicles and
pedestrians. He said the largest change is that there should be a stunning draw along Meadow Drive
~ and the Frantage Road aiong the roundabout.
Tim Losa and John Koehler rehashed the public comments and Jeff Winstons comment's. They stated
fhat 9 Vail Road would still have their access as it exists today and they will IQak at breaking dQwn the
mass and providing better pedestrian access fram Meadow Drive.
Gary Hartman recused hernself_
Doug Cahill said it loaks like a great project. He is focused Qn rnassing, stepping down, and traffic
circulation, and said height is not a problem„ as it ss in the right places. He said he would like to see
better pedestrian access an Meadow Drive and doesn't see a need far the retail aspect an the Meadow
Drive frontage. Fie said he would like to see the fagade along the Frantage Road broken up and
rr3oved around to better match the character of Vaii.
Chas Bernhardt thinks this is a grand hotel and askec4 if JefF Winston's commen#s could be
incorporated, with regards to breaking the farm up. He agrees that retail does not belong on Meadow
Drive.
Gearge Lamb agreed with the previous comments, especially massing and pedestrian connectiort. He
suggested sorne publ§c art.
Roilie Kiesbo merrtioned the lang linear roofs along the Frantage road. He suggested ta posaably
tweak the peak which encroaches on the Alphom away frorn the building. He then asked haw the
trucks are going to access the site.
~ John Schofield thinks the removal of the gas station is great and it rnakes sense to incarpora#e it into
the site, but that access for pedestrians on Meadow Drive is mandatary and would like to see the bus
stop incorporated a[ong Meadow Drive. He said the Frontage Raad traffic is of concem and that Public
1Norks uvill need ta examine it and he added that maybe truck traffic should go down to the West Vail
exit and come east an the Frantage Road. Me said the Meadow Driue streetscape project needs to be
incorporated into the des~gn and there was a need for an employee starage fac3lity. He said height
5
Approved 1127103
shouod be tweaked to address the guaranteed right of 48 feet and adjacent neighbors. He suggested '
rr3aybe going higher in #he middfe and lower on the srrds ta mitigaie the height efFects. He said the
rnore employee housing the befter. He said if the undergrocand encroaches, thera take it to the properry ~
line and rnake it work. He said he does not see a need for retail on Meadow Drive and he personally
thinkS a grand building would make a grand statement at the entrance af a granci ski resort.
The Board, as a whole, an general supported going up a floor in the rniddle and bTinging it dvwn on the
ends.
Chas Bernhardt made a motion to table this vntil March 10, 2003.
Rollie KjesbQ seconcfeci the motion.
The motivn passed by avote of 6-0.
5. A, request far a final reuiew of a proposed majar exteriar alteration, pursuant to Section 12-7A-
12, Vail Town Code, to allow for a hotel redeuelopment and addition; a reques# for afinal review
of a canditional use permit, pursuant #0 5ection 12-7A-3, Vail 7own Cacie, fo allow for a
fractiana] fee club; a recornrnenda#ion to the Vail Town Council of a te]ct amendrnent Secfiion
12-7A-3 (CvnciitiQnaf Uses), Vail Town Code, ta allow far retail uses in a lodge in excess af 10%
af the total gross residential ffaar area of the structrare as a condetional use; a request for a final
review of a variance from Section 12-7A-1 a(L.andseaping & Site Deve[opment), Vail Town
Code, #o allow for a deviatian from the total landscape area requiremen#; located at 20 Vail
Raad, 62 E. Meadow Drive, and 82 E. Nieadow arivelL4ts K& L, Block 5E, Vail Viliage 15r
Filing.
Applicanf: Sannenalp Properties, 1nc,, represented by 8raun Associates, lnc, ~
P[anner: George Ruther/Warren Campbel[ .
George Ruther gave a presentatian per the staff report.
Tom Braun and Mike Fosfer gave a presen#atian. He stated that George Ruther gave a goad synopsis
af the proposal and then summarized the changes #o the project since the kast meeting.
Jeff Winston presented his memorandum regarding the proposal and statecf that the building is a nice
looking buiiding. He stated tha# it is too bad #hat we can't da something ta Iink the 3 buildings. He said
tne key fo Vai['s success is the pedestrian experience of Vail and it's no# a city af manuments; it's a city
of continuous experience. The question af what is the rufe with sunlshade is ansvwered by the fac# that
it shali no# substantiaPly increase. He said the current experience, even witn the park€ng Iots, is a very
pleasant experience with the berrns, landscaping, suro, etc. Jeff states that fhis proposal will
substantially increase #he shading on the street and on the pedestfian experience. In addition to
shading, the proposal does not create fhe same sense o# ins and outs at the 1N1. The buildings at the
WI are turned an a 45 dagree angle, which is very successful to adding variety and interest to the
streetscape. He sta#ed that there rnay be same areas where the fauilding could get shorter to add to
variety and this would add vitaiity to the Village, creating sun pockets. He said there uvas more
movement in the fagade of the building by moving it further frorn the street, so that it doesn't entirefy
shade the street. Ne said stepping the upper building back fram the arcade, popping indentations inta
the fagade, and varying the stepbacks are the major issues identified. Jeff stated that the proposa{
does meet the street width recamrnendations af the rrzaster plans.
Marilyn Fleischer stated she has iived here since 1962 and is not opposed to grovvth in the Town afi
Vaif, but it needs to be in a safe, economical, and sensitive way. She stated tha# the }aropc+sal is not in
keeping with the zoning, with respects to site cauerage and setbacks. She said she doesn't want to ~
came and ga within a Talzsman cave_ She requests #hat the Sonnenafp abide by #he 20 ft. setbacks,
ancf provide safe and efficient access to the TaEisman.
6
aaprovea 1127103
Fred Haynes, from the Talisrnan, stated that it was interesting to hear the cornmen#s with regards to
the Four Seasons. He said the Talisman opened in 1970 and they have owners that have been there
~ since it opened, so this is not a praject which has turnover. He said they consider this a secoerd horne
and that this is a residential prcaperty and that this shouid be taken under cansideration when reviewing
#he praposal. He stated that the goafs fior the Sonnsnalp are for profit only, however, the Talisman's
interests are residential interests_ All he is asking the PEC, is that they take inta consideration their
needs and that it is very important that they maintain the residential character of their building. He said
they sper,t $118,000 on 3 ciifferent cansulting groups to wark aut an agreement wsth the Sonnenalp
and they looked at changing property lines, easemen#s, etc. He said the Sannenalp said that it was
tcao difficult to cantinue working with the Talisman. He asked that the PEC to consider these 3 things:
1, That character ds enhanced with a pedestrian-ariented deue{opmen# and if there are
cars on Meadow Dr., if is nat successful;
2. Thaf the height of the building should consider the sunlshade impact; and
3. That the 20 ft. setback needs to be addressed, even !f it means moving prcrperty
fines.
He said the PEC mcast naw resofve these issues, He hopes that they support the TaEisman as much as
they suppart the Sonnenalp.
Bill Amos, an owner within the Talisman, stated that he was the person wha began uvorking with the
Sonnenalp, and he has realized how difficult it is to get 13 people to agcee and that they have been
thrown into a lifeboat an the sea ofi progress. He stated that there are overiapping issues, and that they
are ali in the same boat and need to work togetlier. He stated that the Talisman must have access #o
their building and failure is not an optian, so they have to work together. He befieves that there is a
solution and that he is willing to sit dawn and work on a solution.
Larry Eskwith, representing thA Talisman Condo Association, stated that he is giving the official Board
,pasition an the Sonnenalp praposal. He sta#ed that there is no setback on the interiar property Iines.
~ He stated that the PEG cannot grant a deviatian from the 20 ft. setback, but he statsd that he daES not
beiiewe tha# the Sonnenalp can rneet the criteria, He stated that staff did a wery good job of identifying
the issues with regards to the design and that the Talisman wou6d liice to see Meadaw Dr. remain
peciestrian, however, they do not have the abelity to enforce this, as it would be through the Sonnenalp
property. He said he is warried about the safety aspect of putting cars Qn Meadow Dr, and is also
concerned about the shading on the decks of the restaurants across the street.
Jim Lamant, Vaii Village Homeowners Associatson> stated that this business of exactions is difficult. He
would hate to see an attitude deWelop that heating #he streets is a requirement of the developer and is
heating of the streets an essential part of making the economic engine work better? Yes, if it vuauld
make business better, the lodging business wauld be better. He said he's an advocate for koading and
delivery, but some public functions should be paid for by developers, same by the public, and some by
sales tax.
John Schofield said he wonders why this has #o be a joint development of this Swiss Haus and stated
that the Sonnenalp provides the best product in the valley. He said he was disappointed that the two
parties can not work together, as it creates a lost opportunity and that a coaperative effort affords the
Commission mare flexibility in revievving the applicatian.
George Lamb stated that he tao is mQSt disappoin#ed that the twa praperty otirtirners can nat work
together. He said the most significant issue in his mind is the sunlshade and it must be addressed
creatrvely. He addressed Jeff's camments and suggested stepping back the upper floors arad to
explare the land trade. He said the corners and angles of the property iines negatively impact the
development of the sites. !
Rollie Kjesbo said the praperty lines are a solutior+ to your problem and he wiil be hard pressed to
~ approve a deviation to the setback lines.
Gary Hartman stated that the line of communication between the tv,ro parties needs to be open and if
they came in v,rith a united front, it wi61 make a better project ftir a!1 involved. He said dn looking at
Meadow Dr., what is the urban context of this project? He said the peaestrian experience at the Swiss
Haus is good, but the theme needs to cantinue at the 5onnenalp wirtg. He said regarding the street
7
Appraved 1127103
context, that the e1evations articulate the building, but more needs to be done on the push and puff of
the enviranment, breaking it ciown into smaller pieCes. He said the Swiss Haus sicie has mQre uvhat h€:
is looking for, but the Sonnenalp side needs to do mare to pull baek different elements. He asked what ~
is gQing on with the shop frants to make people stay in the arcade? He said if i# is looked at as 2
separate projects, the setbacks are a huge issue (af the Talisman) and that no one will be happy with
#he decisions if they come in as 2 projects. He said, with regards 1a sun/shade, to bring art analysis of
where the outdoor dining decks are, and how they can be protected.
Doug Cahill stated that previous prajects of the Sonnenalp are great and asked where do we stand
now on site coverage and landscape area without the Talisman included in the project and da you
need the Talisman far this prQject to work? He said the setbacks, with 2 separate projects, will be
loaked at and a 20 ft setback will be the minirxium, He said there was too much af a straight fa(;ade on
the Sonnenalp and the encroachment into the 20 ft. setback along Mead4w Drive is pnfy on the firs#
level. The other ievels w'c11 respect the 20 ft. setback.
i
Chas Bernhardt stated that they need to work tergether to make this project successful. He stated that
he didn't be9ieve that the Sonnenalp is purely prafit driven and that they have a lot of pride in #heir
product. He stated that the stree4 enclosure and street width formulas a;re a good guideline, but that on
north-south oriented buifdings, they ere better. He said #he sun on the decks and streets is an
important element for why peop{e come here.
John Schafield stated that he wouid encaurage everyone to read through the 1990 minutes #hat are in
the memo. He stated that he would like to re-visit the stream walk discussion and feels that it is an
important aspect of this praposal. He stated tha# they will have to address access for the Talisrnan and
if the projec# stays as is, setbacks wilt be an issue. He said the setbacks at Meadow Drive will be an
issue and he wan#s a sun shade analysis €or a building setback 20 ft, at 48 ft. in height. He sta#ed that
if no agreement can be made, then loak at a land swap, as it will be beneficial to both of you. He said,
with regards to the floc,d plain, the Town has to look at the adapted F'EMA study and to pester your ~
senators. He said to spend rnoney on mediators; not on p9anners and lawyers.
Gary Hartman made a matian to tab!'e this unti6 February 10, 2003.
, Roliie Kjesbo seconded the rnotian.
The motian passed by a vote af 6-0.
6. A request for a rec4mmenaatian to the Vail Town Council for the es#ablishmen# of Special
Development Distrect Na. 37, to allow for fhe redevelopment af the Tivoli Ladge, IoGated at 386
Hanson Ranch RoadlLot E, Block 2, Vail Village 5'h Filing.
Applicant: Robert & Diarse Lazier
Flanner: George Ruther
George Ruther presented an overview of the staff inemorandum.
Jay Peterson, representing the applicant, presented an overview of the project.
Jeff Winston presen#ed an overuiew of his rrsema, with regards to this project. He stated that the roof
structure is very similar to the discussion with the Four Seasons and safc3 that you can't mix the gable
and gambrel roof.
Diane Milligan, manager of the Ramshorn, stated that they welcome a new view, however, they have
concerns abaut height and they want the density and height to be according to the guidelines of the
Towro. She said they haWe cancerns regarciing the traffic impacts, especially on Vail Va[ley Drive. She ~
asked abauf the impacts of lighting.
Jim Lamant, Vail Village Homeowners, stated that they would like to revisit the notice provisions. He
said the issue of traffic on Vail Valfey Drive remains an issue and that the Town needs to revisit what
the skier drop-off at Golden Peak. '
~
Approved 7127103
There was no mare pubfie cQmrment.
~ Gary Hartman stated that he believed that it is time to look at height. He believes that the hefght is
appropria#e and that the roof works really well in this situatian. He stated that the scruth side, however,
seems to be a liftle dyslexic in what it is trying to accomplish. Wi#h regards to sefbacks, he sees na
impacts on the east, west, or south side and likes the addition of the turret element on the norkh side
and helieves that it works uvell. He asked the applicant, with regards to the loading area, ta please
peovide information regarding the laading schedule and to please address the trash issue.
Doug Cahi11 thanked Jirn for his casnments and likes the roaf form. He said he wouid like to see 48 ft
achieved adjacent to other properties. He said the height and mass works with good architecture. He
questioned 4 parking spaces, which aren't accessible. He said Jay Peterson sfated that they will rneet
their parking requirement. He said setbacks are not an issue on the south side, and the bumpout an
the nor#h side reaEly is a nice feature.
Chas Bemhardt stated that he thinks it is a great looking build3ng. He s#ated that because if is a
compact building, the gambrel roo# really works. E-le believes that 56 ft. height is acceptab4e here.
George Lamb stated that now they really seem to be on the right track and all that's left is DRB_
Roflie Kjesbo stated that he believes that the 56 ft, in heigh# works.
Jahn Scho€ieid stated that the 3 parking spaces in fron# should be treated as temporary parking. He
requested a plan of the parking on p3 and J and he had no probCems with the sunlshade. He said he's
totalfy fine with the height, bu# waufd suggest pushing the building as far as possible to the south. He
said the raof eoncems are generafly DRB and also stated that his solution to trash is an elevator to the
planter above.
~ Gary Fiartman made a motion fa fable this tantil February 24, 2003.
George Lama secandEd the mation.
The motion passed by a vote of 6-0.
7. A request for a recorramendatian to the Vail Town Cauncil of a proposed text amendment to
Section 12-1 0-9: Loading Standards, Uail Town Gade, to amend the size requirement for
loading berths & setting forth details in regard thereto.
Appkicant: TQwn of Vail
P6anner: Allison Ocns
Allisan Ochs made a presenta#ion, per the staff rrEemarandum.
Jim Lamant spoke on behalf of a loading and delivery plan and propased centralized loading and
defivery_
George Lamb said he ]iked the proposed amendments.
Rollie Kjesba r,vanted to know if we coukd limit the size af delivery trucks in Vasl?
Greg Hall indicated that the size of trucks has increased aver time.
~ Gary Hasirnan stated that he thought larger trucks wauld become the norm in the future and we
shou6d take this into cansideration. He believed that staff recarrsmendation was a move in the right
direction.
dQug Cahilf agreed that this amendment was a move in the right direction. He reeornrnended that
some flexiiaility would be useful in the future.
9
Approved 1/27103
Chas Bernhardt had no new carnments.
John Schofield recammended that we laok #o determine how the loading and defivery standard is ~
determoned. He stated that 25 feet is no Ionger acceptab{e and he urged staff to fook at loading
and delivery in fhe fron# setbaek.
Gary Hartman made a motion to tabie this until February 10, 2003.
Gearge Larnb seconded the motion.
7he mation passed by a vote of 6-0,
8. A request for text amendmen#s to Sections 12-7H-11 (Height & Bulk) & 12-76-11 (Height &
Bulk), Vail TQwn Code and ihe Lionshead Recfevelopment Master Plan to allow for a
clarification to the maxirnum height and caiculation of average maximurn height
requirements far buildings constructed in the Lionshead Nlixed Use 1 and the Lionshead
Mixed Use 2 zone districts, and setting forth details in regard thereto.
Appiicant: Town of Vai[ Community E3evelopment Departmen#
F'lanner: George Ruther
George Ruther presented an overview of the staff memorandum.
Tom Braun asked abaut the cafculation af average maximum height sentence.
George Ruther stated that they woGld recommend that that serrtence wou[d be taken out. ~
Tam Braun asked about another sentence, with regards to aprimary roaf ridge.
George Lamb had no camment.
Raalie Kjesbo had no comment,
Gary HarErnan said that it was a gaod start.
Doug Cahili had na comment. '
Chas Bemhardt had no carnment.
,)ahn Schofield stated that he feels tha# it is always necessary to look back at #he intent. He
suggested sending it oufi to the architects and see what happens and if there are issues, bring it
back to the PEC.
Doug Cahili made a mation to farward a recommendation of approvaf to the Town Council.
Rollie Kjesbo seconded the motion.
DQUg Cahili asked, with the maximum height, are we setting how muclh can bE at 82.5 ft.?
George Ruther stated that there is not a maximurri length af 82.5 ft. ~
The motian passed by a vate Qf 6-0.
9. A request tor a modification to the 1 00-year #loodplain, to allow for grading in the floodplain
to modify the Gore Creek Whetewater Park, located at the Gore Creek Promenadell`racts I
& A, Black 5B, Vail Village 1S' Fi1ing, and se#ting fiorth details in regard thereto.
10
Approved 1127/03
Applican#o Town of Vaii, represented by Gregg Barrie
~ PlannEr: Biil Gibson
WITHDRAWN
1(}. A request for a variance frorn Sec#ion 11-4C-3 (Building Identificatian Signs), Vail To`rvn
Code, ta allow for a sign that exceeds the allowab1e rraaximum height above grade, located
at 250 S. Frontage RaadfTract C, Block 1, Vaii Lionshead 2`1a Filing.
Applicant: Evergreen Lodge at Vail Ltd.
Planner: Matt Gennett
WITMDRAWN
11. Approval of December 9, 2002 minutes
George Lamb made a motion ta approve the December 9, 2003 rninutes
Rollie Kjesba seconded the matian.
The motion passed by a vote af 6-0.
12_ lnformation Update
* Advise of a pubiic meeting on 2/4/03 with the Town Council, the PEC anc€ the DRB to discuss a
format for carnmunication arnong the governing baards
~ The applicatAQns and information about the proposals are available for pubfac inspection during
regular office hours in the pTOject pfartnec"s officc located at the Town af Vail Cammuni#y
Development aepartment, 75 Sauth Frontage Road. Please call 479-2138 for information.
Sign language interpretatinn available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479-
2356, Te9ephone for the Hearing Impaired, far informa#ion.
Community Development Department
~
ll
A#tachment: K
PLANiVClVG AND ENVIRONNfENTAL COMMlSS{ON
PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES ~
DRAFT
Monday, March 24, 2003
PROJECT C?RIENTATiQN 1- Cammunity Developrnent Dept. PUBEIC VIfELGOME 11:00 pm
MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT
John Schafield Gearge Lamb
Erickson Shirley
Ghas Bernhard#
Doug Cahifl _
F2o[lie Kjesbo Gary Hartman
Site Visits : 12:30 pm
1. Hud Wirth - Vail das Schoroe 1S` Fiiing
2. Four Seasans -13 Vail Road
3. Sonnenalp - 20 Vail Raad .
Driver: George
NiDTE; l# the PEC hearing extends until 6:00 p.m., the board may break for dinner fram 6:{}0 - 6:30 ~
Public Hearinq - Town Council Chambers 2:00 pm
1. A raquest far a final recommendation of a majar arnendrnent fa SpeciaE Develapment
District hJo. 5, pursuant to Sectian 12-9P,-1f1, Amendrnent Procedures, Vail 7awn Cocie, ta
alfow for a change to the existing conditNOns of approval (C}rdinance Na. 21, Series of
2001), located at 100 East Meadow DrivelLots M, N, & O, Block 5-D, Vail Vilkage First
Filing,
Applicant: Waldir Prado, Daymer Gorporation
I Planner: George Ruther
George Ruther presentecf an overview af the staff memarandvm, including ths staff
recorrimEndation of approval with rnodifcations to expire the approval on Septernber 4,
2004.
Waldir Prado explained the request to extend the approval. '
Jim Lamont, Vai6 Village Hameov+rners Association, asked if the recrmmendation of staff
was based upon fairness and consistency for the approval process of thE Special
Development Qistrict and not based upon the fact that there was litigatian involved. He
nQted tha# they favor approval of the extension, but that it ps unfarr to use the lavvsuit as a
basis of the extension of approvaB. ~
Railie Kjesbo asked why the cour# case shouEd have no bearing an the decisian.
Jim Lamont explained that it is not reievant.
1
~ Erickson Shir{ey stated that he daes not see things #he way Jim Lamont does, but asked
why the appiicant requested the 2005 extension date.
Waldir Prado siated that to abtain financing, he needed time after the litigation ended.
Erickson Shirley asked ahou# the timing,
Waldir Prado stated that he could start demolition tomorraw, but to go to the lending
cammunity, he needs it to be litigation-free.
Gary Hartman recused himself. ~
I
Doug Cahi11 stated that he supported staff's recomrnendation. ~
i
Chas Bernhardt sta#ed that he did not believe that they were giving any spec3al
considerations with regards to the extension and if they need to go beyond the given date,
the applicant can reappiy.
Jphn Schofeld stated that the applicant has been diligently pursuing this project. He further
stated #hat the cade allows for a phasing plan, and that phase 1 was fitigation. He noted
Chuck Lipcon's absence frorn this meeting. He supported staffs recommendation, and
further stated that, if for legal reasons, it is unable to moWe forvvard, they would be willing to ~
]ook at an ertension to the project. ~
~ Erickson Shirley stated that he would be o,pen to an extension far any reason.
Ctaas Bemhardt made a motion to recommend appraval, in accordance with the staff
memarandum.
Daug Cahill seconded the matian.
The motion passed by a vo#e of 5-0 (Gary Hartman recused).
2. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of proposed text amendments to
Sectians 12-6B-2, 12-68-3, 12-6C-2, 12-6C-3, 'i 2-6Q-2, 12-6D-3, Vail Town Code, to allow ~
a Type 11 employee housing unit as a permitted use and to eliminate a Type If employee !
hausing unit as a conditional use in the Sirtgle-Family Residential (SFR), Two-Family '
Residential (R), and Twa-Family Primary/Secondary Residential (PS) districts, and setting ~
fosth tie#aiis in regard thereto. ; i
ARpficant: Town of Vail
Planner: Bifl Gibson Bill Gibson presented an overview of the staff memarandum. '
Jim Lamont, Vail Village Homeowners Association, aSked that this item be made part of the
discussion regarding GRFA refarm. He stated #hat they found that in discussions regarding
the Halaby Residence, that the approval af the EHU caused the buifding and parking area
to get larger, which lead to #he elimination of landscaping. He explained the development
~ standard which requires the circulation of cars to occur on sife. He stated that he woufd lilce
to see this applicatiorr discussed with GRFA and would liice additiona] #ime to present this
information to the public.
2
Gary Nartman stated that he believed th$t the timing oi` this application is very pertinent.
He stated tha# changing EHU's from a conditional use #o a permitted use wilC streamline the
appeovaE process. ~
Daug Cahfll resterated Gary's comments.
Chas Bernhardt and Rollie Kjesbo had no further comrnents.
Ericksan Shiraey stated that he is in favor of this proposal.
John Schofield stated that he believes that this will remove an impediment to EHUs and
that as will all applications, applicants have the abi(ity to appeal any staff decisian to the
PEC. He stateti that the Housing Authority stated that they befieved that GRFA had na
impact on EHUs.
Dcaug Cahill made a motion tor approval.
Gary Hartman seconded the motion.
The motion passed by a vate of 6-0.
3. A request foe a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 2-6D-3 (Conditional Uses), Vail
Town Code, to aliow for a private educational iRStitution, located at Parcel B, a
resubdivision of Tract D, Vail das Schone 1 " Filing, generaEly known as the "Hud Wirth"
praperty. (A ful[ metes & bounds descriptiort is availabke at the Department af Community
Development upon request).
App3icant: Children's Garden af Learning •
P6anner. Allison Ochs
Chas Bernharcft rnade a mation ta table this until April 14, 2003.
Ral[ie Kjesbo seeonded the rnotian.
The mo#ion passed by a vate of 6-0.
4. A request for a recarnmendatiQn ta the Vail 7own Council for a major amerrdment to Special
DeWelopment aistrECt No. 36, put'suant tv Section 12-9A-1 Q, Vail Town Code, ta allow for a
mixed-use hpte9; a request for a f nai rewEew of a conditional use permit, pursuant to 5ection
12-7A-3, Vail Town Code, to allow #ar Type kll Employee Housing Units and a fractianal fee
club; and a request for a recommendation ta the Vail Tawrr Couneil for a praposed rezoning of
Lot 9A, Vail ViElage 2"d Fif ing from Heavy Service (HS) Qistrict to Public Accammodation (PA)
Qis#rict, located at 28 S. Frontage Rd, and 13 Vail R,aad/Lots 9A& 9Cr Vail VfIIag@ `L"d Fi{ing.
App9icant: Nicollet Isaand aevelopment Company Inc,
Planner: Allison Ochs
AllESOn Ochs presented an ovenriew of ihe staff rr9emarandum.
Jeff Winston commented an the praposal reEative to the Town`s Design Guide[ines. Jefif noted
that t'he treatmen# along the Frontage Rd. is appropriate for pedestrian circulatian, and since ~
the last rneeting, the applicant has improved the pedestrian ways to Meadrw Dr. He noted that
the applicant could go further ta pedestrian connection to Meadow Dr.
Erickson Shir[ey asked if ,1eff recommended sidewaYks on only one ar both sides of Meadow
D r.
3
Jeff Winston noted tfnat he was not famEliar enaugh with the Streetscape Master Plan to
~ comment. .
Allison Ochs commented that the sidewalks in this [oca#ian are only along one side of the
street.
Ericicsora Shirley noted that this is an opportunity to examine this project in the overall context
of Vail,
Jeff Winston noted that the pedestrian connectian will be ver,+ impartant to the hcatel guests and
commented on the buifding height at #he locations where i# meets with the Scarpio and the
Alphorn. He said fhe Four Seasons needs to make an architectural gesture to these buildings.
He cflrnrr°:ented that tlne scale of the roofs, specifically the amount af roof pfain, needs to be
further discussed. He gave an example: what does it look like from the Frontage Road or I-70,
and w'ha# is the sense of scale compared to ather buildings in Town, etc. ,leff feels that these
are questicans of jus# fine tuning #he plans.
Tim Losa presented the changes to the propasal that havs occurrecf since their East
presentation to the PEC.
Jahn Schafeld asked Tim to eanfrm that all foading and delivery wilf be occurring frorrr
Frantage Raad.
Tim Losa confiirm,ed this and eomrrtented on relocating parking tor hline Vail Roacf to the
southern por#ian of the Nine Vail Raad property.
~
~ ,Jahn Schofiefd noted that the PEC wilf want to see ttie parEcing agreements between the Fauc ±
Seasons and Nine Vail Road as part of the finai subrnittal package. i
Tim Lasa described the l4cations for prQposed public art appartuni#iss and pedestrian 'connectians. ~
~
John Hill addressed the previous PEG and DRB camments pertaining to the hatel building
itself. He also described the changes that haue occurred since their kast presentafion to the
PEG. He further described the roof form, massing, and hierarchy. He described the pedestrian
and vehicular circu{ation for the building, and then presented an overview of the [ayout for the !
various hotel spaces. He also further noted that #he internal eirculatian will accommodate the ~
turning movements of a Cisco ar beer truck sized vehic[e whiCh will address 99°/p of their ;
deliVeries. i
Tim Losa cammented on how the proposed deviations #rom under1ying PA zaning are ~
acceptable given the prop4sed public benefrts. He nated thaf the roof height is equivalent to j
the formee proposal, however, the building has been shifted to the south and thus increased ~
the measured building height. He cammented on the proposed setback er,croachment ;
adjacent to EVine Vai] Road. He cammented Qn the unusual Eat line configuration in this location.
Tim nated that the new hotel project wil9 generate approximate(y half the vehicular trips of the
existing hotel anc£ gas station. He further described the anticipated parkingftraffic demands ;
genera#ed by this proposal. He commented that they have submiited for GQOT access permits
for the proposal and next presented the public improvernent plan including streetscaping and '
other impraWements. ~
~ Erickson Shirley asked Tim to further describe the extent of the streetscape improvements. .
Tim Losa noted the lacatian caf the improvements and commerited that the sidevralks will be
snawmelt heated.
4
Tim Losa describsd the surveying af Spraddle Creek and the proposed re{ocation of the creek.
The PEC took a 15 rninute recess to allow #he Commissioners and the public an opportunity to ~
review the appl9cants° presentation materials,
Riehard Kent, president af Scorpio Condo Assoc., expressed their continued concerns about
the mass of continuaus walls for the proposed hatel adjacent to their building. They are also
cancerned about any compromis'rng of their building do to the propased excavation so close #o
their properky line.
Jahn Schafield noted that the excavation is addressed by the building code.
Gwen Scapella, Nine Vail F2oad, coenmented that this project r+eeds a larger site and parfcing,
as parking for Nine Vail Road continues to be a concern. She said there are 27 unfts and 27
enclosed parking spaces and in the winter this is adequate, however, in the summer season
they do not have adequate parking. She said they alsa do nat have adequate parking far
servicelmaintenance vehicles, whicn are too large to access thsir parking structure.
John Schofielsi asked if they haVe explored parking at the Gatevtiray for their awners.
Gwen Scapello commentec! #ha# they have explared that option, but it is cast-pro hEbitive.
Chas Bernhardt asked if the Qutdaar parking is monitared.
Gwen Scapello answered that they are monitored. -
I Doug Cahill questioned if their main concern is for larger contractoE/maintenance vehicles. ~
Gwen Scapello rep1ied yes.
RG Jacabs, a maintenance vuorker fiar Scorpio and Alpharn, commencied the applicant orr the
revisions, bu# still sees room for improvement.
Jirn Lamont, Vail Viflage HomeownErs, expressed exciternent aboUt the communication
between property owners to work together to improve a project. He said the applicant has done
a very good job of working with adjacent property Qwners and alsa noted that the involvement
af Jeff Winston has been a posiiive addition to the pracess. He eommentsd ihat the northwest
and southwest carners as needing further refnement and that the potential exists for a closed
neighborhood space such as the Scarpio parking lot. He said his group dnesn`t wan# to be
sn+rolved, but they want latitude for the property owners #a work together.
Rollie Kjesbo commented that setback encroachments underground are not a concern. He ~
ques#ianed if the applicant has considered a land swap with Nine Vail Road tor the unusual
property line eoniguration. He has cor?cerns about roof height an the southeast corner. He
questioned how ouerFlow parking will address large groups and the appEicant noted that the
parking structure will accommodate the bali room, but akso commented that parking needs to
be vuorked out with Nine Vail Road.
Erickson Shir{ey noted cancems about minimizing the constrtaction impact ta the street and
timirtg the epnstructian improvernents with the Meadow Drive streetscape plan. He noked tha#
it's +n #he best interest of #he community far the hotel guests to have pedestrian access to ~
Meadow Drive and ta the in-Town bus, as this praject will help connect Lionshead and the
VEflage.
aoug Cahill was empressed with the changes to the proposal and withdrew his past "cruise
ship" comments. He noted the impQrtance of the DRB's review of the praject. Ne coenmented
5
that usdng a 3C7 computer madel of the project may be helpful. He agreed with Jeff Winston's
~ comrr3enfs abou# pedestrian circulation, and he was akay with #he praposed setbacks. He
questioned Tirra about the potential EHU numbers.
Tim Losa responded tha# the will be increasing their EHU numbers.
Doug Cahill commented that parking for contractorlmaintenance vehicles at Nine Vail Road sti11
needs to be addressed, bu# overall he is impressed and thanked the applicant for working with
the neighbors.
Chas Bernhardt nated that a land swap, but not sale, with Nine Vail Road rnay need to be
explored. We questianed if a utility truck could be could be parked at the Faur Seasons for
Nine Vail Road. He said he is not in favor of additiana6 parking along Meadow Drive.
Alfison C)chs clarified the proposa[ for relocated parking for Nine Vail Road along Meadow
Drive.
John Schofield commented that he agreecE with ,lim Lamont that .leff Winston's input has been
helpful. He noted that the applicant has the oppprtunity to make this pra}ect something special
with being located at a prsmier lacation in Vaii. He woulci like ta see greater detail an the
clesign a# this corner. The PEC is asking staff to examine the cumulative effECt of all the
redeveloprnent of fhis erea of Town. He would like to see #he use af 3D madeling expiored. He
discourages the use of a private shuttle to the ski mauntain, but to rely rnore on the Town bus
system. He said the hotel shuttle should be used to transport peaple ta other lacations. He recomrnendEd relocating the bus stop on Frontage Road #o better aecammodate their hateC ~
guests. He encouraged the applicant to continue workirrg with Nine Vail Road. He noted that R
~ the design is close ta the PEC's requirements, but may need further review by the DRB. The
two foot setback in the corner doesn't bother him, but a land exchange can be consicfered. He
said the underground encraachments are acceptable. He said the PEC is asking Staff ta '
prepare a complete {ist a# aff-site improvements and their exten#. He is nat concerned if there I
are 33 or 34 EHU's. He recommended relocating the bus stap rather than building a heated '
sidewalk to the existing bus s#op. He acknawledgeti that building height may be the bigges# ~
remaining issue. He has asked staff to com}aare the building height elevations ta ttte stree# I
elevations. He asked that the applicant to subrnit further details concerning the operation of
the frac#ional fee club.
Doug CahilE cQmm,ented that the massing model looks good, but additional landscaping and
screening may be needed along Meadow Drive.
1
Jeff Winston cornmented that the farade elevatiQn could be adjusted near the Scarpio and !
Alphorn, and that roof massing may need to be adjusted. He recorrrmended that some of the i
proposed chimneys and elevator overruns may need to be elirninated. He also cnmmented that
the model in context of the whole Ti own would be helpfuL ~
s
Jim Lamant questiorsed if additional bus stops could be examined instead of relflcating the i
existing shuttle. ~
Erickson Shirley askecf the applicant to ccrmment on the use of the Town's shuttles.
The response from the applicant was that if it is more cnnvenient, then it is something they wifl
~ consider.
Rollie Kjesbo made a motioru to table thi5 ta the Aprif 14, 2003 o-neeting.
Ghas Bernhardt secanded the rnotion.
6
The motion passed by e vote of 6-0.
5. A request for a final revieuv of a propased major exterior alteration, pursuant to Section 12-7A- ~
12, Vail Town Code, to allaw for ahotei redevEloprnent and addition; a request for afinal
review of a conditional use perrriit, pursuan# ta Section 12-7A-3, Vaii Town Gode, to allaw for a
fractional fee club; a recommendation to the Vai{ Town Council of a text amendment Section
12-7A-3 (ConditionaC Uses), Vail Town Code, to allow for retail uses in a iodge in excess of
10% of the total gross residential floor area of the structure as a conditionai use; a request for a
final review of a variance from Section 12-7A-10 (Landscaping & 5ite Development), Vaii Touvn
Code, to a91ow for a devia#ion from the totai landscape area requirement, located at 20 Vaii
Road, 62 E. Meadow Drive, and 82 E. Meadaw Drive/Lots K& L, Block 5E, Vail Village 1"
Filing.
Applicant: Sonnenalp Prflperties, 1nc., represented by Braun Associates, Inc.
f'lanner: George Ruther/Warren Campbell
Rollie Kjesbo made a motion to table this to the April 14, 2003 meeting.
Chas Bernhardt seconded the matiorr.
The motion passed by a vote of 6-{}.
6. R request for a recprnmerrdation to the Vail Town Council of proposed text amendments to
Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail 7own Code, to amend the Gross Residential Floor Area
(GRFA) regulation$ in the Hiliside FZesidentiai (HR), Single-Family Resitiential (SFR), Two-
Family Residential (R), Two-Family Primary/Secondary Residential (f'S), Residential
Clus#er (RC), Low Density Multipie-Farnily (LQMF), Medium Density Multipie-Family ~
(MDMF), High Density Multiple-Family (HDMF), and Housing (H) distrECts, and setting forth
details in regard thereto.
Applicant: Vicki Pearsan, e#.af.
Planner: Bill Gibson
BiIP Gibson re+riewed the staff Enemo and stated #ha# staff is requesting additional direction on
this appiicatian.
Vic9ci Pearson reviewed the intent behind the application. She stated that peaple shouid be
able to rroaxirnize wha# they da undemeath a bui9ding and within their shell.
Estacquio Gortina agreed with Vicki Pearson's position. Hs felt this could improve the
ecanomic vitality of Vail by creating more flexibility for the developer
Jim Lamont stated that his organization would be open to rrieeting with #he applicants
group.
He felt that a longer discussion is needed. Jirn feels the County has a good process for
palicy change. He said he has not been irnpressed with the dialogue with siaff.
Er3cksan Shirley questioned Jim's commentary.
Jim Lamont indicated his opposition to the process.
Caroi Cook, a local real estate agerrt, stated fhis prficy change in GRF,A would help incent ~
improvemants on private prQperty and also felt that the GRFA formu8a is complicated ta
understand.
7
tarry Eskwith believes that this review of GRFA has been a long term problem. He stated
~ that every time the Town has tweaked the GRFA policy, it has been made more
compiicated. He also believes that people are illegally cresting floor area and they are
doing it without building permits and creating unsafe situations. Larry thanked the staff and
#he applicant for the thoughful work that was done.
Gwen Scapello stated that she was a real estate agent and that in her previpus commun9ty
her community toak measures to protect the alder structures. She believed that it is a
critical check and balances
Lynn Fritzlen stated that the professionals in her Office want to get rid of GRFA. She felt
that professionals do manipulate the system. She fielt site coverage and design guidelines
can effectively deal with bulk and mass_ She did feel that we should clasely Eook at
remavaa af GRFA for mvlti-family zone districts. She felt that GRFA does vvork against
safety in mechanicad spaces. Lynne also stated that FAR has been around for a while and 'tt
could be simpler. Lynne stated that we need to project the built enviranment, while creating
rnore flexibility.
Jahn Schofield asked Lynne whether our C7RB regulations are adequate to contral bulk and
mass.
Lynn Fritzlen thaugh# we wouid still need same quantitative standards ta effectively contral
bulk and rnass.
Steve Ridden adrnitted that he has cfeverly worked around the regulations. He felt it would
be ok ta put more an the DRB and give thern bet#er standards for reviewing applications.
~ He argued to make regulations more qualitative vs. quantitative. Steve stated that we need
better standards with the design review pracess. Steve offered to talk more with Jim
Lamont's grouP.
Kyle Webb stated that he shares some of his concerns with Jim. Kyle stated that he is
willing to work with others ta create new soEutions. Kyle also stated that eliminating GRFA
would increase property values at the end af the day.
Chuck Baker asked about staffs respanse on this issue.
Russell Forrest responded to that question and restated some af the concerns expressed in
the staff merna.
A developer stated that a farmula is needed to reEy on and s#afed that he would be
concerned if site caverage was reduced.
Steve Ridden stated that we need to think abaut EHUs further and he questioned whether
the EHU incentive was effective.
Lynne Fritzlen suggested making all sub grade not cmunt towards GRFA
Gary Hartman said he believes there is a sirnpler solu#'son. He sta#ed that he wished Jirn
Lamont would have stayed. He said his recommendatian is to elimina#e GRFA and use the
existeng guidelines, but with more specific bulk and mass guidelines and we may want to
~ consider a max limit on GRFA or setbacks.
Daug Cahill encouraged the public to provide their comments to staff ancC stated we should
have maximums on GRFA. aoug beiieves we need to keep the same basic rnass and we
need to keep some measure of floor area to reduce the complexity of this change.
8
i
Chas Bemhardt said he felt it was good that people in the corrimunity can came fiorward
and suggest changes in the code, as it was part of the demacratic process. He said
subterranean space should not count toi,+vards GRFA. He felt that there should be a limit to
~
bedraoms or that bedrooms should be connected to parking and generally felt the other
developrnent parameters work well.
Rollie Kjes'bo said he believes we shauld do a way with GRFA, bu# dan't reduce site
coverage on all fots. He indicated #hat we should study lot sizes maee and evaCuate a max
of FAR andlor site coverage.
Erickson Shirley said he can not make serase of GRFA today. He does not feel it is Iagical
that you can not have basements in the Town af Vail. He felt that the aegument that
elirninating GRF'A would destabilize the real estate market is not valid.
Jahn Schafield said anything that has been changed 13 times has a problem. He said
setbacics, height, and site coverage crea#e the bax and GRFA contrals what gaes on in the
bax. He also askecf staff to discuss this with aR8 to ask, if in their opinion, 'rf they have
enaugh regulatians to control bulk arad rrzass. He said if GRFA is eliminated then we need
a specific parking requirernent, with a porti4n of that parking being caaered. Jahn asked
for more specific inforrnation on iots and their development potential, especially the large
lats in the Town df Vail. Jahn aCso reiterated the Housing Authority that GRFA daes no# ~
impact EHUs_ John asked on page T of the memo, abflut net fEaar area and how to
address parking and afso asked about a net #laor area definitian. John was concemed that
GRFA has created a safety issue and an equEty issue and we also need to create an
arnnesty issue. John suggested we laok at optians far a cap on FAR and we Iook at site
covErage on larger lots.
The PEG indicated their support unanimously to elimsnate GRFA, with the condit9on that ~
staff make recommendations on how to change other deve.lopment ancE or design
guideiines #o keep builefing in 1ine wifh bufk and mass of existing homes today.
Lynne Fritzlen asked that we eWaluate graphically the trade-offs between the various tools.
Chas Bernhardt onky believes we need to worry abaut larger lots and felt a rnaximum cap
on floor area is a gaod approach.
Rollie Kjesbo still wondered about the trade-off with how to approach the alternatives and
wanted more information on those trade-offs.
Ericksan Shirley believes there are adequate protections for the smaller lots and the issue
is an larger lots. Erickson believes we still need gcaod criteria and objeetive standards for
reviewing projects if we elirrainate GRFA.
John Schofield was alsa open to an adjustment of site coverage and/or landsca,ping. He
said DRB rnay need some additionaf taols to regulate bulk and mass.
Rollie Kjesba made a motion to table this to the April 28, 2003 meeting. ;
I
Chas Bernhardt seconded the motian.
The rnotion passed by a vote of 6-0, ~
7. A request for a recammendatian to the Vail Tawn Council, to allow for tex# amendments to
Title 11, Sign Regulations, Vaif Town Code, and seiting farth details in regard #hereta.
Applicant: Town of Vaif
9
Planner: MafE Gennett
~ Matt Gennett presented an arrerview of the staff rnemorandum. He made special nate that
outdaor cornmerciaf safes and dispiays will be regulated as part of the zoning regulations
and not as part of the sign regulations.
Rolife Kjesbo had no cornment.
Ericksan Shirley had no camment.
Gary Hartman had no comment.
Doug Cahiil had no comment,
Chas Bernhardt asked if the meechants have been involved.
Matt Gennett commented that #he mercnants have been heavily invo1ved in the revisions
process.
.3ohn Schflfield recommended that staff contact sign cantractors to receive any input they
may have.
Rollie Kjesba made a motion to table thls ta the April 28, 2003 meeting.
Chas Bernhardt seconded the motion.
~ 7he motion passed by a vote of 6-0.
8. A request for a recomrnendation to the Vail Town Councii of proposed text amendments to
Title 12, Zaning Regufations, Vail Town Code, for praposed "house keeping" amendments
andfor corrections, and setting forth details in regard thereto.
Applicant: Tawn of Vail
Planner: Bill Gibson
Biil Gibson gave an overview of the staff memo and stated that same feedback has been
received, from aominic Mauriella. Ball asked for any comments.
Rollie Kjesbo had nane.
Doug Cahill asked what Dominic's comment was.
Bill Gibson answered that Dominic asked why all the p[ans under the rubric of
"cornprehensive plan" (i.e. the ceme#ery plan) would apply to dissimilar propasals.
George Ruther gave c3arification on the ra#ianaie'behind why all plans need to be part of a
comprehensive p1an.
Chas Bernhardt had no comrnent. '
~ Gary Hartman had no comment.
John Schofield agrees that "physical" can be taken out of the comprehensive plan
lartguage, as it is aIready covereci in other parts of the code.
Doug Cahif1 made the mation ta apprave the text amendments as wrutten wsth the condatian
that the definition of "Vail Comprehensive Plan" be r revised to e8iminate the word
10
°phySlCaO."
Rollie Kjesbo seconcied the rnotion. ~
The motion passed by a aote of 6-0.
9. A request fior a recommendation to the Vail Tawn CounciE af a presposed text amendment to
Section 12-10-9: Loading Standards, Vail Town Code, ta amend the requirement for loading
berths & setting forkh details in regard thereto.
Appl9cant: Town of Vail
Planner: AI[ison Ochs
TABLED UNTIL AP'RIL 14,2003
10. Approval of March 10, 2003 minutes
Gary Hartman approved the minutes af 3!1 Q/03.
Chas Bernhardt secanded the motion.
The motion passed by a vote of 5-0 (Rollie abstained).
11, Information LJpdate
Z Greg Amsden text amendment proposal
7ne appfications and infarmation abaut the proposais are available far public inspection during ~
regular -office hours in the prajec# planner's affice lacated ak the Town of Vail Cammunity
Develapment Department, 75 South Frontage Road. Please ca11 479-2138 for information.
Sign language inter,pretatian aWai€able upon request with 24 hvur notification. Please call 479-
2356, Telephane for the Hearing impaired, for informatian.
Communi#y Development []epartmen#
~
~
11
~ MEMC)RANDUM I
TO_ PCanning and Environrnental Commissian
FRQM: Gammunity Developrraent Department
DATE: April 28, 2003
SUSJECT: A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for an ou#door dining deck, in
accordance with Section 12-713-413, Conditional Uses, Vail Town Code, Iocated at
the Vista Bahn Building, 333 Hanson Ranch RaadlLat C, 81ock 2, Vaal Village 15t
Filirrg.
Applicant: Remonav & Gomparty, Inc., represented by Terrill Knight
Flanner: BiIC Gibsan
1. SUMMARY
The applicant, Remonov & Correpany, Inc., represented by Terrill Knight, is requesting a
conditional use perrnit, to al{ow for an outdoor dining deck at fhe Vis#a Bahn Building,
focated at 333 Hanson Ranch Road. 7he same conditional use permit proposal was
approved by the Planning and Environrnental Commission on July 10, 2000; hQwever, this
~ previous appraval has sinee lapsed and become void. The applican# is now re-applying for
a conditional use permit using the same proposa9.
Baseci upan staff's review of the criteria in SectiQn VIII af this memorandum and the
evidence and testimony presented, the Gdmmunity Development Departrnent recommends
thaf the Pkanning and Environmentac Commission approve the requested conditional use
permit, subject to the findings no#ed in 5ection IK af this memarandum.
I
II, DESGRIPTION C)'F REQUEST
The applicant, Remonov & Campany, Inc., represented by Terrill Knight, is requesting a
conditional use perrnit ta allow for an outdoor dining deck at 333 Hanson Ranch Road. This
proposal will involve an appraximately 510 sq. ft. expansion of the Tap Ftoom's existing,
second-floor deck located on the south side af the Vista Bahn Building.
A copy af the applicant's request and the associated architectural drawings have been
attached for reference (see Attachment C and D).
IIl. BACKGROUhIa
On July 10, 2000, the Planning and Environrnental Comrnission approved this same
conditional use permit proposaf by a vote Qf 4-0. Since construction of the previously
apprcaved outdoor dining deck was not camrnenced within two years af fhe conditional use
~ perrnit approval; #he Pianning and Environmental CommissiQn's JuEy 10, 2000, conditional
use permit approval has 9apsed and become void.
~
The Tcawn of Vaii Design Review B4ard will be reviewing the associated design review ~
application for this praposal at its upcoming May 7, 2003, public hearing.
IV. ROLES OF REVIEWING BODIES
Planninq and Environmentaf~Cammission: '
Acticrn: The Planning and Environrriental Commission is responsible far finaf
approvalfa,pproval with conditivnsldenial of a conditional use permit.
The Planning and Enuironmental Commission is responsible for evaluating a praposal for:
1. FZelatiQnship and impact of the use on developrnent objectives of the Town.
2. Effect of the use on light and air, dis#ribution of population, transpdrtation facilities,
uti[ities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities and public
facilities Reeds.
3. Effect upon traffic, with particular reference to conges#ion, automotive and
pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and contraf, aCCess, maneuverability,
and removal af snow from #he streets and parking areas.
4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the propased use is to be lacated,
including the scale and bulk of the proposecf use in relation to surrounding uses.
5. Such other factars and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the
propased use. ~
fi. Conforrnance with development standards of zone district.
Desiqn Review Board:
Action: The Dssign Review Baard has no review autharity af aconditional use permit, but
must reWiew any accompanying Design Review application.
Town Councik:
Actions of Design Review Board or Planning and Environmental Commission may be
appealed to the Town Council or by #he 7awn Gouncil_ Tawn Council evaluates whether or
not the Design Review Baard or Planning and Environrnenta! Commission erred with
apprnvals or denials and can uphold, Uphold with modifcations, ar overturn the board's
decision.
Staff:
The staff is responsible for ensuring that all submittal requirements are provided and plans
canfarm ta the technical requirements of the Zoning Regulatians. The staff also advises the
applicant as fv compliance with the design guidefines.
Staff pravides a staff inema containing background an the property and provides a staff
evaCuatian of the project with respect to the requirecf criteria and findings, and a
recommendatian on appraval, appraval with conditians, or denial. 5taff aiso facilitates the
review process.
~
2
~ V. APPLICABLE PLANNING dOCUMEN7S
Town af Va61 Zoning Rec~ulations (Title 12, Vaii 7own Code)
Article 12-78; Commercial Core 1(CC1) District
~
12-7B-7: PURPOSE: The Commercial Core 7 District rs intended to provide sites
and to marnfaln the unique characfer of the Val! Vtllage cammercial area, with its i
mixture of lodges and cammercial esfablishments rn a predominarrfly pedesfrian
errvFronment. The Gommercial Core i Disfrict rs inrended to ensure adequafe ltght,
arr, open space, and other amenrties ap,pro,priate to the permiited types ofbui(dings
artd uses. The 17istrict regulations in accordance with the Vail Village Llrban Design
Guide Plan and DesJgn Consideratrons prescrrbe sife development starrdards that
are rntended to ensure the mai,nfenance and preservation of the tlghtly elustered
arrangements af buildings {rontirrg on pedestrianways and pubfrc greenways, arrd to
ensure continuation of the building scale and archr`tectural qualrties thaf d'istinguisfa
the Village. 12-78-4: PERMITTED AN'D CQNDITfONAL USES; SEGONQ FL0014:
B. Canditional Uses: The follawirrg uses shafl be permitted on second fJoors above
grade, subject to the issuance of a conditional use permr`f in aceordanee wrth fhe
provisiQns of Chapfer 16 of #his Title:
~ I)og kenrrel.
Nousehold appliance stores.
Liquor sfores.
Luggage stores.
Meeting raoms.
Outdoorpattos.
Raclio and TV sales and repair shops.
Theaters.
7ype 111 employee housrng units (ENU) as provrded in Chapfer 93 of this
Title.
Chapter 12-14: SUPPLEMENTAL REGULATIONS
12_14_14: RESTAU'RAN7S, BARS OR SIMILAR USES:
In districts where resfararants, ,bars, ar simllar Uses are allovved, fhey shall be
subjecf to the following requirements:
A. 1Vcsise generated 6y the use may not at any time exceed fifty (50) ofecibels
outside the enclosing walls ar ceilings of fhe use.
, B. D wellrng units in the same structure orin structures adjaining restaurants,
bars, or similar uses shall have fhe right to privaey and the restaurarrt, bar,
or similar use shall be desfgned in such away thaf view from the use is not
~ directfy rnto adJornrng rlwellrng unit or units. Wrndows may be treated with
approprtate covering.
3
Chapter 12-16: CONDITIONAL USE PERMl7S ~
12-16-1: PURPOSE; LIMfTATIC7NS: !n order to prourde the flexibility necessary to
achieve the objectives of fhis title, specified uses are permrtted in certain districts
subjecf to the granting of a conditional use perrrrif. Because of their unusraal or
special characteristies, conditianal uses require revlew and eualuation so that they
may 6e bcated proRerly vwith respeet to the purposes of this frffe and with respect to
fheir effecfs an surrounding proAerties. The revrew process prescribed in thrs
chapfcr is iratendEd to assure campatibilify and harmonious development 6efween
conditional uses and surroundrng ,properties and fhe tawn at large. Uses listed as
conditional uses in fhe varrous distrrcts may 6e perrnil#ed su6ject to such conditions
and lirnitations as the town may prescr'rbe to ensure that tfie lacatian and operation
af the cranditianal uses wfll be in accordance wfth developrrrerrt objecfives of the
town and wr!l not be detrrmental to other uses or propertles. Where co»ditians
cannaf be devised to achieve these objectives, appfications for conditional use
permits shaN be denred.
12-16-8: PERMlT APPRC7VAL AND EFFFCT: Approval of a cor+drtional use perrnit
shafl lapse and become void rfa building permif is not obtarrred and construction not
cammenced and drligerrtly pursued foward completion or the use for which the
approuaJ has beerr granted has naf camrnenced within two (2) years from wherr fhe
approval becomes final.
Vail Village Master Plan ~
The Vail Village Master Plan includes the following goals and objeetives that staff
believes are applicable to this propasal:
2.1 Recagnize the variefy ofland uses found throughvut the Village
and aNQw for develapment that is corrrpatible with fhese
established fand use patterns.
2.5 Encourage the continued upgrading, renavafion and maintenance
af existing lodging and cammercial facrlifres to better serve the
needs of our guests.
2.3 Encaurage a wrde varrety ofacfivrties, evenfs, and street!!fe along
,pedestrian ways and pfazas
3.3.2 Outdoor dining is an impartant sireetscape feature and sha11
be encouraged in commercral infiJf or redevelapment projects.
Vl. SITE AM'ALY51S
Zoning; CommereiaE Core 1 District
Land Use Plan Designation: Vi[lage Master Flan ~
Current Land lJse: Mixed Use
4
~ Devefopme_nt Standard AllowedlRequired Existing Propased
Lot Area: 5,000 sq, ft. 4,646 sq. ft, no change
Setbacks:
Frant: Per Va'tl ViIlage 4 ft. no change
Sides: Urban Design 0 ft.l2 ft. no change
Rearv Guidelines 22.5 ft. no change
Stream: 3[} ft. 19 ft. no change
Building Height: 60% at 33 ft, ar Iess 60°Io at 33 ft. na change
40°Io at 33 ft. to 43 ft. 40% at 43 ft. or less no change
Density: 25 unitslacre 1 units no change
GRFA: 3,716.8 sq. ft. 3,507 sq, ft. na change
Site Coverage: 3,716_8 sq. ft. 3,949 sq. ft. na change
Landscape Area; Per the Vail Village 314.6 sq. ft. no change
Urban Design Guide
Plan
~ Parking: 15.7 spaces 0 spaces no change
VII. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING
Land Use Zoning
North: MixecE kJse Commercial Core 9 District
Sauth: Qpen Space Agricultural & C?pen Space District
East: Capen Space Outcioor Recreation aistrict
West: Mixed Use SDD #31 Cammercial Core 1District
VIIL CRITERIA AND FINQINGS
The review criteria far a request of a conditional use permit are estabEished by the Town
Code. The proposed public utility and public service use is Iocated within the Outdvar
Recreatian zone district. Therefore, contingent upon adcaption af the aforementioned
proposed text amendments, this proposal is subject to the issuance of a conditional use
permit in accardance with the pravisians af Chapter 12-16 (Conditiana6 Uses), Vail Town
Code.
A. Consideration o# Factors Reqardinq the Coraditianaf lJse Permit:
1. Relationship and impact of the use orr the deveioprnent objectives af the
Town.
~
5
i
~
Staff believes the applicant's proposal i$ in concert wifh the Town's genera! ~
devefopment objectives and more specifically those objecfives of the Vail
Village Master Plan as identified in Section V of this memorandum. StafF also
believes that this praposal will have minimal negative impacts on existing or
pofential uses in the surrounding area.
2. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population,
transportation facilit:'es, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facslities,
and other public facilities needs.
Staff believes that the proposal will have minimal, if any, negative impacts an
the abnve-described criteria.
3. Effect up4n traffic ?nri#h particular reference td congestion, autamotive
and pedestrian safety and canvenience, traffic flaw and con#rol, access,
maneuverability, and reivroval of snvw from the street and parking areas.
Staff believes there v+rill be minimal, if any, negative impacts on the aboWe-
descriiaed criteria.
4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be
located, inclu+ding the scale and bulk o# #he proposed use in rela#ian to
surrounding uses.
Staff believes that the propasal has many positive aspects and that the ~
eharacter of the area wi91 be enhanced as a result af the presposed
improvements. Los Amigos has an autdoor dining deck similar ta the propased
Tap Fioom deck. As this site is adjacent to the ski yard, staff believes this will
be an amenity to the public. Hawever, staff recognizes that there are residential
uses adjacent to the praposed outdoor dining deck. All Tawn of Vail naise
ordinances are applicabEe to this site. As a conditional use permit, the Planning
and Enuironmental Cornrnission has the ability to revisitthe conditions irnposed
upan it, should any conflicts arise between adjacent uses.
B. The Planninp and Environmental Commission shall make the following ~ndir~,gs
before granting a eoncfitional use permit:
1. That the proposed loeatFOn af the use is in accardance wi#h the purposes af
the conditional use permit section of the zoning code and the purposes of
the Outdoor Recreation zane district.
2. That the proposed location af the use and the conditions under rlvhich it will
be operated or ma"rntained wilE not be detrimental to the public heal#h, safety,
or welfare ar rrzaterially injurious to properkies or improvements in the
vicinity.
3. That thE propased use will comply with each of the applicable prouisians of ~
#he conditional use permi# sectian of the zoning code.
6
~ IX. STAFF RECOMMENOATION
The Community Development Department recammend5 approvaf with condi#ians for a
conditional use permit, to allow for an outdoor dining deck, in accordance with Section 'd 2-
7B-4B, Conditional Uses, Uail Town Code, lacated at the Vista Bahn Building, 333 Hans4n
Ranch RaadlLof C, Block 2, 'V'aii '+,e'iIlage 15C Filing. Stafrs recornmendation is based upon
the review of the cri#eria in Section Vlll of this memorandum and the evidence presented,
subject to the fQElowing findings:
a. That #he proposed location of the use is in accordance with ihe purposes of the
conditiona[ use permit sectian of the zaning code and the purpases of the
Cammercial Ctire 1 (CC1 ) District.
2. That the praposed facation of the use and the conditions under which it will be
aperated or maintained wili not be detrimentaa ta the public heal#h, safety, or
welfare ar material{y injurious to properties ar irnpravements in the vicinity. ~
3. That the praposed use will compEy with each of the applicable provisions of the
conditional use permit section of the zanirtg code.
Should the Planning and Environmental Cammission chaose to approve fhis conditional use
permit request, the Community Development Department reeommends the fallowing
~ conditions:
1_ This conditior,al use permit approval is cantingent upon the applicant receiv`tng
Tawn of Vail design review approWal for this proposal.
2. The noise output from the use ?F the outdoor dining deck shall comply with the I
provisians of Section 5-1-7 (NOISE PROHIBiTED), VaiV Tawn Code; and i
amplifed sound shall not be permitted in association with the use of the outdaor dining deck.
X. A7TACHMENTS
A. Vicinify Map
B_ Public IVotice
G. Applicanf's letfer of request
D. Architectural pkans
~
7
~
:,•"~A~ r r.i! ! ~ r~. ~ , ~ ~ IItlM -t
v
d ~ l19M
~tlm
~ ~ , ~ Nk~,~"~ . _ r~ ~ i' ~~W ~ r ~ ~ i. ' ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ; ' a . r,ir ~ .
,
~ ~7: _ ` ~ ~ :.:.k~, ~~~;1 •~ti r~~ 2 , '~i *t:.. o Y' ~ . ~ ~ .
° W
_ ~ .~g' ~a. ' ,y~,~` ~ Y.~~. . ~ . "n ~ ~
~ 3 . ~ ~ t~~ y. ~ l3~~ ,~j - „y ~t. • ^F. ; '°S.~ ~ ~
t - .~s, ..I~. y4 ~ Y' i~?a . 4 tii } ~ _ .
-x ~ ~ z N ~ , . + ~
a . ~ r -„s - "`~k: r•i ~~i~' ~`,~'.s,~~~.,. ~ ~y~
xt ~
y. M.~ ~ •y;~.~~_ - x''A.~...
-)ki R
IL ;
/.T~. .'.J`. •
# ` S ~ e~
ZPI
14
~k~~4~~ ~4~ ~ ~ l ~~t,~~' ~ s ~AR ,~r,,~#~`+-,+F . •L~ .
1+l~.
~~~a. t f~~~ ? '`~S f~~f~J~ L: W A
..a 1
t ~
' . R
. y
W-31.
, c
~ ~ p. - ~ r~?~{''..~ ~ YF,_~ ~ °pya :~y M,~ .
a~q d y'ry a` r I'~M1,.r~~~ + ~dr~-^' ~ . L . t~'~ ~ ~ . -
~ ~ } i . 9~ ~ { • - t Y~ _ r {
P ~
, ~ ~f rv r ~ 'ic
j g r ~ t w,r : - • y~ at
i ' ~ ` N ~ ~ Y .:~~}y ~ a i r {i s ~
.I~Yc~.,~ i."~j ,~h . y F~' 1, - Y ~'f t . _ 9_i`
yy~ 4~'Ir 7 ~T, t I 3 y' i. ti t + . ,
"iC r ~ ~r .z' ~ ~t~~ '~*•~~.m~ 7 4 r
~mu~ ~
Y ~ a
r+oi`
~s.+~
.
. ~
, .
. . + ~y~~ l f .~-3#. R ' 4~` r~.
.~'a . r ~ rr~ t..~~ ~ ~ Cp`,~•k ~;y~ v°Y ~;t ~.r~~~..
.171
~R~~~.jr
z t 9S "5 s h~ {I .5,, ~ s^~+ ~ t 1"
. f.a ~ r~' . i , ? A ~ ,a' r j- - , ~'c. t['~
`he. ~ r i awd ~ ~ r ..•~.r'H - ~ - . ~ ` -~y,
~ ~~y + ^;~a raa~~. .:+A `a~~~r~ . i n9R ~~~x~r,~a~ •1
. -N~ ~ ~ Ct ;'isfed y ~7 1 ' i.. ~ . ~~'~ij ~ i~ V
\
r ~ ~ h ~ ~ f ' . .A ~ . ~'y~.• ~ 3 ~ fi~~~ e
. ~ ~r? . r' ~ ~ ~ } +1 a+;+~r ~r i..' ~ ;~r~, . '?X~'` ~N+''~~~.~
•t~"'" a r*~ - rt ,,,'s~'{ -:k ~ .;~j,~ . i A- Lw .•,a~ vt~;
~ s
~ r.
<
f w ~ r S''' k ti ~.n~~
. r ~ , ~ . . . 7~ _
- y
L - -i; R' •a,y~,~l .,P~ ~ L ~w} ~ r ~.'~-w. F~ t 46~~
. "
r
. . - `
~ ~ :q,'J~~ ~ A~9 5 ,F . n d k, ~ ` '~,~tl i 'r~~ . ~•#a ~
~
~Y
lY- 1r .~,.`'s f^ t . d r J ~~ti a~ ~3~'" .,c, ~ ,
e+4 a,~~ _ r V~ ~f ~q
"k ~ .
v
r _
~ • ~
.r " - sr~M~'.~ , :L~.,_,,~~ • ~.•e' . Yx.~.~1F~~~"
-
TH15 ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PRORERTY
~ PL]BLIC NOTICE ~ttachment: B
N4TlCE lS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Enuironmental Commissian of the To+r,rn of
Vail will htild a public hearing in accordance with Section 12-3-6 of the Vail Town Code on April
~ 28, 2003, at 2:00 P.M, in the Town of Vail Municipal Building, kn cansideration af:
A request for a variance from Section 12-78-15, Si#e Coverage, Vail Town Code, to alfow for a
covered pedestrian entrance, lacated at tfie Vista Bahn Building, 333 Hanson Ranch RoadlLot
C, Block 2, Vail Village 1s` Filing.
Applicar,t: Rernonov & Company, Inc., represented by Knight Planning Services, Ine.
Planner; Warrsn Campbel[
A requesfi for a recommendatian ta the Vail Town Council of a major amendrrment to Special ~
Develapment District No. 6, Vail Vi{lage Inn, pursuant to Section 12-9A-10, Vail Tawn Code, to
allow for a change in use, ta increase the GRFA and to increase the number of dweiling units,
Icscated at the Vail Village Inn, 100 E. Meadaw DrivelLot 0, BIock 5Q, Vail ViIlage 1 51 Filing.
Applican#: Edna & Claus Fricke, represented by Fritzlen Pieece ATChitects
Planner: Matt Gennett
A request for a recammendatian to #he Vail Town Council, to ailow for text amendrnents to Titfe
11, Sign Regulations, Vail Town Code, arrd setting fortn details in regard thereto.
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: Nlatt Gennett
A request far a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of proposed text artnendments ta fiitie
~ 12, Zoning ReguEations, Vail Tawn Cade, to amend the Gross Residentia9 FloarArea (GRFA)
regulations in fhe Hillside Residen#ial (HR), Single-Family Residential (SFR), Two-FamiEy
ResidentiaE (R), Two-Family PrimarylSecandary Residentiai (PS), Residential C6uster (RC), Low
Density Mul#iple-Family (LDN1F), Mediurn Density hllultiple-Family (f+.+1DMF), High Density Muitiple-
Family (HDMF), and Hausing (H) djstricts, and setting farth details in regard thereta.
Applicant: Vicki Pearsan, et_ai. .
Planner: Bill Gikasan
A request for a canditional use perrnit, to a11ow for an outdoor dining deck, in accordance with
Sectiorr 12-76-46, Cond€tiona6 Uses, Vail Tawn Cade, located at the Vista BaFrn Building, 333
Hanson Ranch RoadlLat C, Black 2, Vail Vil[age 'f S' Filing.
~
pplicant: Remonov & Company, inc., represented by Knight Planning Ser+rices, Irac.
Planner: Bill Gibson
P,n appeal, pursuant to 5eetion 11-2-1 B(Administratinn; Appeal), of an adrninistrative
determination that a business identifica#ion sign does not meet the technicaf requiremen#s of
Section 11-4E3-1 2B5 (Prajecting and Hanging Signs), Vail Town Code„ located at the Vista Bahn
Building, 333 Hanson Ranch RoadlLo# C, Black 2, Vaii Village 1S' Filing.
Applican#: Remonov & Company, Ine., represen#ed by Knight Planning Services, Inc.
Pdanner. Warren Gampbell q ~ 10
~ tll/
41L
TO Y~lY
The applications and informatian about these propasals are available for public inspection during
regular business hours at the Town of Vail Community Development Department office, 75 Sauth t
Frontage Raad. The public is invifed to attend the projec# Qrientatian held in the Town of Vai!
Community Development Uepartment office and the site visits that precede the pu6fic nearing.
F'lease call (970) 479-2138 far additionai information. ~
Sign Eanguage interpretation is auailable upan request with 24-hour notification. Please call
(970) 479-2356, Telephone for the Fiearing ]mpaired, for additianal infarmation.
This notice published in the Vail Daily an April 11, 2003,
~
~
I
~
z
t
~ VIS'TA BAHN ADJACENT P124PERTY OWNERS
March 18, 2QD3
2101-082-42-UU1
Remonov & Ca. ~
298 Hanson Ranch Road ~
P.O. Box 18$$
Edwards, CO $1632
2101-082-42-008
Vail Corp.
Hanson Ran,ch Road - W5 Tract E
P.O. Box 7
vail, ca 81658
21 a 1-os2-4z-oo9
'I'own of Vail `
Hanson Ranch Raad - WS Tract H -
75 S. Frontage Roa.d
~ Vail, C(] 81657
2101-082-39-404
Town of Vail
e!o Finance Dept.
75 S. Frantage Road
Vail, CO 81657
21 al -D82-69-O1+D -Unit 112
Vail Corp. `
P.O. Box 7
VaiI„ CO 81658 2101-082-42-009
Tawn afVail
75 S. Frontage Road
Vail, CQ 81657
~
r
Red Lian Inn Condos ~
304 Sridge Steeet
Vail, CQ $1657
2101-082-53-007 - Unrt R-i
Oscar L. Tang
600 5`b Avenue, 8'b Floor
New Yotk, NY 10020
2101-082-53-010 - Unit C-1
Landrrrark Comrnereial Dev. Cv.
610 W. Lionshead Circle, Suite 100
Vail, CCj 81657
2101-082-53-(}09 -Unit R-3
Tap af the Bzidge Corp.
110 1 Brickell Avenue, Suite 840-5
Miami, FL 33131
Brid~e Street Lodge -
278 Hansan Ranch Road
Vail, CO $1557 ~
2101-482-69-001 -Unit 101, 101-A
Riley-B5L LLC
22$ Bridge Street
VA CO 81657
2101-082-69-004 -Unit 102
Rad Three LLC
228 Bridge Street
vail, eo 81657
2101-082-69-013 -unit 221, 221-A
Balanovzch TruSt
c!o Jahn Kaemmer
434 Gore Creek Drive
Vail, CO 81657
2101-082-69-416 -Units S-2, 5-12, 401, 403
Rabert E. Cannan
P.U. Box 80407
It!Iemphis, TN 3 8108
~
y
~ 2101-082-69-018 -Units s-s, 301, 308, 3 lo
A.rnald Bissegger Liuing Trust
2625 S. Atlantic Avenue S NE
Daytona Beach Shores, FL 32118
2101-082-69-020 - Uzuts 5-8, 202, 204
Bridge Street A.ssoc. LLC
30100 Telegraph Road, Suite 20
Bingham Fatzns, NII 48025
21 Q 1-082-69-b22 - Unit 5-10
I3ridge Street Irtvestments LLC
Felix Guzman No. 16 Col EI 1'arque
53390 Naucalgan Mexica
21 Q 1-Q82-69-035 - Unit 309
Arthur C. Cox QPIL Trust
Emir,a rane Cax QPR Trust
12001 Guilfard Road
Annapolis Junction, IVff) 20701 ~ 210 1-482-69-040 -'Uifit 501
Bridge Street Investments LLC
Felix Guzman: No. Ib Col El Parque ,
53394 Naucalpaii Mexica
2I 01-0'82-b9-Q02 - Units 100, 102-A,, 104, 105, 106
Colflrado 5ki Service, Inc.
P.O. Box 2796
Vaal, CO 81658
Z 101-082-b9-006 - Unit 103
Karl & Ursu},a Hoevelrrann
161 South Golden Drive
silx, ea 81652
2101-082-69-011 - Unit 220, 220-A
Iohn Kaemmer Trustee
291 Bn'dge Street
Vail, CQ 81657
2101-082-69-015 -Uni:ts S-1, 5-13
NiBV4' Realty
cfo Ron Riley
~ 228 I3rid,ge Street
Vail, CQ 81657
r
210I-082-69-0I7 Unu.ts S-4, 302 ~
Robert & Natahe Bissegger
5345 Wznd Paint Road
Racane, WI 53402
2101-082-69-019- Uzits S-7a 303
Robert E. Mastersan Real Estate
Revocable Trust
P.O. Be,x 390186
Omaha, NE 68139
2101-082-69-021 - Units 5-9, 306
Georgi LLC
30 1Vladisan Hause, The Village
101 Aznaies Street
London S W 11 21V4', England
2101-082-69-023 -iJnits 5-11, 201
Robert & Nancy Bartels
Revocable Trust
3425 South Twryckenharn Drive
S. Bend, IN 46614
2101-082-69-03$ - Unit 402 ~
R. Howard Cannon
clo Buckeye Cellulose Corp.
7574 Poplar Avenue
Gerrnantown, TN 38138
2101-1752-69-032 - Unit 304
Peter A. Bissegger
3 021 Garretson Avenue
Corona, +CA 92881
~
~ Attachment: C
~ Variance Request Deck Addition
The Vista Bahn Building has been, and continues to be, a key element in the fabric of the
cammunity center of Vail. It was a aornmitznent by the awners of the Vista Bahri
Buijding to upgrade and improve the intezior as well as the exterior of the structure upnn
gurchase. Thc first priority was to camplete major interior upgeades and quality
irnprovements.
The second and already accomplished priority was to improve the appearance af the
building exteriar. The approved deck was to be bu11t last year but was nat done due to
cash flaw considerations. Positive benefits to the public were demonstrated with that
approved application.
To summarize the discussion caf the hearing on the onginal application, the following
were the main points:
1. The benefits of allowing the addition Qutweigheci any gotential negative
irnpacts of the irnpravernents_
2, Tiae proposed use met key Master Plan goals.
3. Irnprovements to eacisting structures are strongly encouraged, '
4. Concentration of'tourist services should occur in the CC1 Zone District ~
5. .A hardship clearly exists due to the lack of alternatives for provision of aut
~ side dining space.
6. The space below the new deck is, fflr the most part, pave,d so very little
new impei-viaus sur#'ace wi11 be added.
The planned improvernents in thi,s new application are identical to the previous one. NQt
only are the conditions essentially the same the need has intensiied. More services for
the guests of the resort are desired. And this is the apprflpriate location.
Na negative impacts are anticipated. In this area other restaura.nts offer otatside seating.
Thfs is a very popular service. Additionally this is an area where fi'he Master Flan
encouragesthese uses.
i
~
ro 1+~~~ s~-...~y } y -...'-0. G Y ,•[W ~ ,n3.ti~~~Y ,L" 4.~ _t+. a1F ~ i
, :
9
, a~~y 4~ s a _ Attachment: D
- ; . .
' , x
_~A
_ . ,
: . . . . `3 .e. f
r.~: . . ~r.,_ . . . . ~ . , ry . .
_ ~
- : _ I,~~ .
J d` i. a .
~q ' ~ " rq4 ~ ~ ^ I
. . . La 9 y I - ~ :
l/~((~/-~ y~I1.,~ ~r v
. I ~ ' `O ~ Q ~I P.~~, 1- I lJ~ ~ ~ _ j: ~Dg~ ~ j~.
.1 Y {
T NLI~LLTVNGdNV] t TlYl`t A6 s
~r~J.~~4~I~4~ ~~.1.. ~n~.'~~t~f~ A~1~ ry~01~ A?e'~~~ 1C., l. ~.4
~ { o
11
4 v--^ ~ 1 , . -
~ / . , .,.i b ~f~~ v ~ + ~ ' t
~ ' ~ ~ J .y , ~ ~
i' . y ~ " - ' . ~
I . . ' - ' - . ~ ' ~1
. , . . . .
t
_ ~ 1 , , , ~
~
~rt C F., 4y i iy. v'}( i _
F.' Y. K". :
"T r' f' ' 4 Wl ]
y l k"~ I4
~ ~ . t 1 S ~ ,
e R; ' T n r - i .
~ + ~ ~ E~ ' " ~
r + S ._~~i~t ~ i ~ rr.. f ~ ~,-~.k r~-~1
~ -
K ! , ~ I. . Y2 . ~ I
..~t 4 a : L ~ K `S . ~ 'G . ,i'.; ~ ~ I ~ i s ' ~ 6 r I t ~ ta r N'~ ~r p ry~ ~ Ij .
~ ,~y, .1 r ~ , . ~ ` ~ ~ ~ . ?r j ~
~ r ,R., ' ~ . q :
' L`
~
- . . r ~ a ~~l~l
5 i 1 . F ~ i I ~ (,`~-'~}1$
Y .xi.r~ '1 5~ . ` L!1 t+ i~ -~-4 ~~t~.'?-i t . . r 'C y~ ~ - 'v If 1
~ ; ~ ~ ~ . " Y' ~ ? ~ ~ f r~a f{ f# ,K L v . ~ ~ 1 j }
~ ~ - . A... i X ~ 4 a ' ~9 ' i~ y, j ~ 7 I'~" ~A pIr q ~ ' . J ~-~{t :
~ ~ F ~ . ~ - , , - , . ~ . . .,d . - ~ . . ' ~ , ' _ -7,L ~ ~
" [ I I
~ s y C . ~j~~ ~~~r ~ S ~ - a' i , i e . 'is ' w } q ! , - ~p , ~ ~ l'... _ i-
~ y I
~ , , ".t;~~ t4 _ a ' -
Y 3~.~~. p~.r / ~fa ~ I Ah v y 5 ~
~ °y'. : , - 4 ~ ~ i . 1 , # k.~- k
f Y: y , . 44 f~Fr O 3 ~ (ejY { . 7 J` { ' `s'.
L] , J 1 _ 1~ " . , Y.. K , a 1.
~ r l~'°ri'.1i . , 4 a i _i a ~i ~ ~ ~ ' w . ~ . i ,~r .
, ' ~ 1 . ; F ' ) ~ e , ~
'11 ~ ~ a' - ~ 4~r~ i : I 1 'r
3bF'°~ k. . l s,4] 1
l J ~ ~ sv~ k~a J~I1a `.x"3 r, :53' ,!f.i3S ~a L.., s i f. ~i' I k r `
: z~
` ' S 1 - ~ A , ~r esr,c3._. w-.. . L t . + t ' ~ ~ 1
~rk; 7~-- a'T} ~ ~ a pa -T ~c ~ ~~l~~ 11.1 , y C t 1 - a i
r~r5:f 1A !k!'. q` 4. M~-~~ 7 ,w - ~ ~r~ ~ ~ f f C: _y ~ c.. ~ v ~~,r~
~ .w r ~ t~. . I t~' ~,r 7 ~~j r i n y~--~. 5 9t`
S ° . l~ ~ " ~ .
~ P- ~ . 't fi
'r,~. n ~rr,xa;~ ~q ~ ,~,.:h ~ t~ ti , ~ ~ .':v'~~ r~?~). ~ ~ ~ y f' t'~
P b f 1 V ' L .c .r1. f Y ~ v-~' \ ~ 9 rx ~ ~f ~Y d~1 ~ , t F j r 1. f ~ / ,~-y6.
~ 1 . lc \ /I,~ ! ~ ,~u,L l~ }f 5 ` 4 ~ r~~
'L ~ , ~ iI F _~I ~ l ' . .S . /
" 1 V Y J..
r n ~ z µ 7ra. ~ ~ J . ~ i ~t~ ^,_Y", ,
~ ~ € ~J1 r ~
l t
~ ~ ~ ~L`.+, ' ~.z
_ ,
~ FU
w ' ~ ~.',CF'
1[,f~ , , . } ~.I ~
~ ,
a ~ ,
. . F ,
. ~ . . ~ : . ~ • ~ . . .
, ..n ' . ~ y' 6 .1
p ~f. " Y1 ~ .Q K~
`q ~r T . F ~e . f ~Lr~.. ; ~ _t ' ~ } 1` ' { m
a ) ' I s ~ .Y. / xt ^r~ pA '
~ ~
~ ~ `1I s , W ` g-~a~ , V~ ` Lr~~
~ ~ t .~,,y{ i
, C ~ v . OGGL-A Sf4`~@4N :.C `Tti ~~-f-» t~ t11Y w ..d, l 4 `f~` 1 J
r/ , t s , L ~ t „`3
T~ ~ ) `
~ x r . w y . ~ ~ "f'~°
h 1' ,n !
~4,~ r 4x ~q il~' ~ w~ t`' d i~ ~ Ry„ ~ a e ~~:a Ft nxl+ } x~ .~y ~n ~ . ; ~ ~ $j
~
ti ~~._t ~Lr t ~ s:Ill.. r..,.. ,~s s~ ~~i.~~ _ i"r-. 3• • s i A rir"~~. I
~ . SC -'v- I V
I ~ ` m n ~ ,~4QO '
;ti Ty: ~ ~.r ~ . Y' ~ i ?.~-k Cr m-;~0 b4-r-: c ~ :-i - C
h.: ~ :u= X,
L 5 I f £ti1' - -l ~ ~ - rf
o ~ ~ ~ } `Q t , . - . . -@~- Y , ~~i
I i 1' , :
N {f , ' + L ~~I
/F 4 ~ ; b
~t ,l~ . l. - F ~ ' . ~v . -4 ~ k ; , I
. ,
. f . . 7' Y A
p ,
.W' ' . . 4 .Q.. W _ w~ - • .
`
`
~ . ry ~ x ? , . ~ . . , 6 ~ ~ ` ' . ~ f I
, . : . , .
~ ` . : ~ . , .f. ~ . . ` . ~ t } I
~ I
X =c~ .~I w J ~ s ~ , . +
: f ; ~R o oi, ~ ~ ' •~tt . ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ , z
~ , :o . ~ I
I . U ~ . i J u .
a I
. ~ 2xa ~.Q ,r'
I 7 . ` 'Q _ t 4
F S d~ . . . . { II _ 1
K ~t ~ _ 7 <
j $ , ~ ~ ~ W ~1 . ~ ~ k _ `~1 ~ ~ ~ ~ `a
fi±, .1.- ' ~ - . , . -.f.~ > ~e'.~ J ~
. . II } ' I
.X.e-1~ . . . ' 1 ~~y _
1. .
:~1 _
r .e . ' . ~ . . .
. . . . . I~ I '4 i
, s. ' ~ a iq i. t
i ' . . . . ~ i r , w t,~ - ~ . ~ ''.J xFl r~Fa,.•.
. ~
. . ~ . . . . - . J ~
" ,
Li tl - r r .
. _ ' . ' . ' 'u~'} . "
~ .'u r 1_
- . , . , . . . . . - v Z '`7 . i . 0
~
, . . ,JN T r:~ ~ .
: - : ` ~
. - . . . : . . ~..T o5~ u~i ,~r. .
. . _ . _ . ~ u . ,
. ~ ' L q ~ r`.
' . ~ t 4
-f flz,~L: .-w - " - ~ .
' . , ' . ~ i: f 1 . f ~.t} ~ F~-.~'" ~ - 7
. . I . S . . ' . . ~ r . r . . r: . " . , . 5 ~.t-~~- ~ F u~. . . i . .i. i~..
aci ~a c. 3 ~
•~i~m„ Gfi`11D 29'7`,1-1En II'd/1 a99 ~
~I~~ ~~~°!9 ~ u $ ~ 1
-
~ a z-a : a 653~5 ~ a 9 8~~4 ?~r,
~
. . . ,
. . . - . . . - _ , w .
~
E - -
,
, F~'ti i, ! i " A' . I•{ 1 e y. l
x , '1
. . " ' . I~ ..+14~ - .i ~ f I 1 ~ I ~4 ~f ta-,
• . , , 1 I , ~ ' . ~ - . ~ "r"T"^' I, J , ' I i - I ' . . ~
. I. ' :.j .
- i - - - . -.-~r n • - .r - --•-r
. . . , I i ~y , I ` ~ .:J 1 .L~,a.] t +i ~ r 5~. !
. _ 3 1 _'y,~l: , , T7 , ~p-,.~,~.
aa:-
, ~ i . u ~ ! ` ~ I r~~' ' I I.'. i • 4~ f/~..
• - 1 ti l I 3 f I , I r~- 1 r j. ~5
f a /_},~"v
° ; ~ ~ p~ , ~ ~,t
~ - ~ ~ . ~ J
i f ~`~`f . i # i i ~
' , - . . ~ ' .tJ 'ti ~ v~ H i. ' J ~ r ~ ~ i ~,s~ I i : . ~ : .f . . ~ . , r,r~~~th :
. .
I !
~ ~ . i• ~ ~t~- .}r ~ r i ~ ~ I f~ .
! • ~ ~ r~: i h r ~i ` ~ ' ~ ' I
~ i . . _ i---i ' --5-- r. = t . ° ° •,t 6~~ `
~ V I L. ~ .k .~~.,-'1 _ I ~ yxi
1
~ . , I~ .I . ~ 1 ~ , . ~ I - . f • . -~f 7 . ~a ~l''I
' i i j _.._i___._w_._ i ~i . i i' . •
. i • i i' . l ---°--a----`~ _ i,. i a
_ , ' • I . 1 i ~ i . . 'i' . l . . :;,i'
1 .I, ' . . y'rt 4kit~
. • . ~ , , r P g ; s.~
. . . . . . .
. ' ~ . ' • . . ~ i~?.s~
' . . - ~ ' • ~ ~ + • . h~~y..
h rv I
. .
. . ~
. , . . . . _ . ~.i+•^r~•. ~ z
. .i
, -
.
. ' '
. . . . . . . . , . . .
.
.
. . . a
3~ { y . . _ - ? r[r~~
. . . . - . ~ } . . .i,~ ~4.... . . 4 .a i~. t~ .7 +si.-..:k~± a±3.
' ' _ . _
Gn~~ ~~'V-nIn ,-riVA
. _ ,
~ . ~ . Y. ~ . . ~
Rp ~~yP'~~
t;
a a a 4 a B~9 Z 3 o kG,'
. ~ . ;p.r;•.
_ - -
I ~ ~I~ e~ ~ ~ f l;~' 1~ ~ Y. °•,t•~l
i
! I ~ y~~ 'I ~ i ~ 1 F'.9•.
~ ! i I I i=:
' _ _ ~ c i I • ` I ,.r ~ ~l ~ r '~y .
-~-~_.r.~._._._.__,_..~.~._._ ~.x,,_._._.T'-• .~~-'83 - -0' ~t!
~ r1 i _ i r y'•~~`y~ i I 1 ~ ~
~
.
:
i . -----f-
aI
~ , i _ .~•~~1 ~ _ ;
i i ,~;i ' f r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 't / ~ ~
? 1. J
6p t I I -
i .__.il ry I 1 ' f ~ I 1~..
, ' I f.,'~ • i ~ . ~ [ ! ~ . 6
I ' ! 'I ? I .O• i - • .
"1...__"..~__.-___:-_'.e~.-.e_~,~ L A-_~ . I I w=~• ' R '
ye ; I 1 4~
0i
, j ~ ~ g + ~•~a9`~ ! I•' . .
i ~ i .o • '
. i i
i, i i i. i •'ry t'
F
• • - ~ -s~:', ~ ~ ~ ~ . sa~ ~x
.
. . , .y
. . ~
w
. . .t,..,.,~
• ~ , . . : - -
_ . . ' - . . _ . . t [
' . . . . . ' , - . . . f~;. I
i . . - . iu
. • - . . , . - . . , . ' . . " ~ ~
s . , . . . . . . . ~
a - . _ . . . • , ~ . . ' . . .
. .
' ' . . . . . . . . . . _ .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . ~~1.
' ' . . ~ . . . . . . . ~ . . . ` _ - . . 5.::~11~~
71Vn
~ . :
. :h
E~ t~ ill `f~~-~~
- ~ ~ I I I I I-~~1 ~ I I~ I E
.~i Y~ II II 1~'. . ~4 II II • ~.~I~ I .
il ~ I I I' 1
I I-,Z ~ . 3
~
= r~w 77~1 . ~ , G~~~_~. $p ~el I I~I ~ I~I I I ~II _~~..,I~• ~ ~ I ~,4A~ ~ SC I
--I
IIE~I I F- IIj I~~
~
f 1 a5$~- ~
tl~5Mq.
ic•
,
ri~
I
. . _
.
, • - . ~ ~ ~ ~ . . _ .t ~
_ i i ~kw - S =¢~j ° " , • ' . ~~t r .
~ rx~~e i ~~gy+~v~ f # Ya.r r iW e< <~`af fi1[~a~~ d~ a a ~x~'~ ~ . ~C~~ . . ' ~
~3 F a th yJ sot ~ ~ a ~~z~~ 2 1 4'~t y~~. ~ r6c ' ~xj.~~e p p :d
' ~ -k 'z4 c., ~ ~ 8 c FS¢s~` t3 y g ~ r~ t~,~}@ C~ X~~.~g 9~ , ~ ~ ~i 'c~~ ~y ~~Ga . ..•r
f.~3
F !
3~~
®R
~q gn~~ ~i~• jP y~ ~ ; ~7 # 7 d ;i~ ~ L x • ~ r 3 t ' ~~P ~rn ~ ~ M s'
I g f
,;~,:d~sx „~r r ~~r~~¢ L~~,~}iywl3xi~'!6 a ~~~yxF ~~K~ i `_:~SH3 r t .a~3 ~j ~ ~ ~~4~ ~ . , • :
~Z H. S d ...ae gf:yn.~6~~ . R^~Y3<..y}~4l4S~ ~ 3~~2-.~~"~?1~~~' akru~ ~i ~'~~F°{ .txp~yk£C 1i...~.t~~ ~x ~4 Y-.•.a~ ~d~r~ C i r .i ~ 'u~L'~ i~ :s . . , .`r.:':
~Y~ • ~ f~~s ~~E,~ ;~''3~~° f.~ ti,~ ~~~.'s dC = ~`G ri a;.E 3,~ ,~.Z~ r ~ d~ t_~v=: ~ ~4 ~ ~t~ s ~ {~t3 ~y~y
y 3 ~~`c. '~r7~~4 . ~ Y K ~p Y ~ ~'.~~s a~j r 1 ~ = .k'i!:p t
[__.9~ R~.a.YL
. . . . . . - , . ` 5.~ ~
, . , -
. :
.
: . : . -
~ . . .
5 ~
. . . ' , ~ ,
. . . . '
.
. w ` . ' . , . . ~ . . . . _ ~ . ` . . , b. ? M { ~f~.
f, " . .
.
.
3.,.. i. . . . . .a3~. . .o~ . . . , .
I
Planning an+d Enwironmental Cvmmission
ACTIDN FORM
Departmerrt vf Communit}r Revelapment
TO WN Of rAi~{ 75 SouEh Frontage Road, Vail, Colorado 81657
te1:970.479.2139 fax:970.479.2452
web: www.ci.vail.co.us
Projec# Name: Vista BahnBuilding ptnrning PEC Numher: PEC030021
Project Description:
Varianee for site coverage far an awvning for the entranee ofi Aa1ta Sports tenant space.
Participants:
OWNER REMONQV & CO INC 03/24/2003 Phone:
Po Bax isss p
EGWARDS CO
81632 ~
License: ~
ARPLICANT Knight Planning Services 03/24/2003 Phone: 328-6299
Terri4l Knight
POB 947
Eagle, CO
Kps@vail.net 81631-0947
License:
~ CONTRACTOR ALL VALLEY CONSTRUCTION 03/24J2003 Phone:
P Q BOX 276
VAIL CO
81658
License: 133-5
Projecfi Address: 333 BRIDGf ST VAIL Location:
278 HANSEN RANCH ROAI?
Legal Description: Lot: C Block: 2Subdivision: VAIL. VILLAGE FILiNG 1
~
Parcel Mumber. 210108242001 !
I
I
Comments: See conditions ;
I
BOAitD/STAFF ACITQN Motion By: Doug Cahill Aetion: DENIED
Secand By: Rollie Kjesbo
Vote: S-Q Date af Approval:
I Conditions:
Planner: Warren Campbell PEC Fee Paid: $500.00
- - - - - - - - _ + - ]
i
~ N'IEMC?RANDUM
TQ; PEanning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Communi#y Development Department
DATE: April 2$, 20{}3
SUBJECT: A request far a variance from Section 12-78-15, Site Coverage, Vail Town Code, to
allow for a covered pedestrian entrance, located a# the Vista E3ahn Building, 333
Hanson Ranch RnadlLot C, Block 2, Vaif Village 1 " Filing.
Appiicant: Remonov & Campany, Inc., r€presented by Knight Pianning Services
Pianner: Warren Campbell
1. SUMNIARY
The applicant, Remonov & Company, represented by Knight Planning Services, is rEquesting a
varaance from Section 12-78-15, 5ite Goverage, Vail Town Gode, Eocated at 333 Hanson Ranch
RoadlLot C, Black 2, Vail Village 1 51 Filing. The variance is requested to allow the applicant to erect
a covered canvas awning aver a pedestrian entrance at the Vista Bahn Building to provide
~ protection from the weather and far future signage. As the proposed covered pedestrian walkv+ray
extends mflre than four feet frorn ths exterior tnrall af the s3ructure the awning will count towards the
allowable site eoverage on the site. As ihis site is currently at 85.0% site coverage, 80% maximum
allowed by Commercial Core 1 zone district, the proposal requires a variance to be consiructed.
The proposed awning wpuld increase site caverage to 87.2°/p. Staff is recammending denial of the
requested variance as a practical difficulty or hardship does nat exist and would constitute a granting
of special priWilege to this individual property.
II. DESCRIPTIO'N OF REQUEST
This request is to allaw far the erection of an awning to create a covered pedestraan errtrance at the
Vista Bahn Building and provide a location for sigraage for Aalta Sports (attachment A). The Aal#a
SpQrts tenant space is Iocated on the far eas# end af ihe Vista Bahn Building. The praposed awning
extends oui from the building approximately 16 feet and is appraximately 9.5 feet wide (attachrnent
B). Ttae awning would provide a structure upon vuhich signage could be located (attachment C),
The Planrrirag and Environmental Commission is not being asked to review the signage shown on
proposal. Sectian 12-78-15 Site Coverage, Vari Tarrvn Code, limi#s site coverage in the Gommercial
Core 1 zone distric# to 80% af the total site area. This prapasal wili increase the site caverage fram
85-0°lo bv 2,2% to $7.2°l0, artd therefare requires a variance.
Ill. BACKGROUND
+ This property is a part of the oraginal 7ax+un af Vail which became effective by the electiQn of
August 23, 1965, and the eourt arder of August 26, 1966..
• On March 13, 1995, a request for a major exterior alteration in the Commercia! Gore 1 zone
~ district and site coverage, stream setback, and common area variances and conditional use
1
permits to allow affice space on the third ffoor and to allow an +autdoor ciin'rng deck, to ~
pravide for the cedeveiopment of Serrana's was approved by the Pfanning and
Environmental Cammission. This apprpval granted a site coverage variance of 83.9°te as
several buildings in the vicinity had site coverages in #he neighborhood of $3°l0,
• On August 24, 199$, the Planr?ing and EnWironmental Commrssion approved a varianee and
minar exterior alteration to allow for a new entry to the ibuiEding which increased the site
coverage by 53.5 square feet t4 atotal of 85.0%fl. The reason far the mirtimal increase in site
coverage is that most of the additian occurred within the Town of Vail right-of-way which
does not count against the site coverage calculation for the site.
• On January 11, 1999 the Planning and Enviranrnental Commission denied a variance
request for addi#ional Grass Residential Floor Area in excess of that allowed. The praposal
was to cnnvert the 3~a and 4th floars to a dwelling unit. The request was denied as it was
found that it would be a granting of special privilege.
IV. ROLES O'F REVfEWING BQdIES
The PEC is resqonsible for evaiuatinq a proposal for: ~
Actron: The PEG is responsible for finaI appravalldenial of a variance.
The PEC is responsib4e for evaiuating a proposal for:
1. The relationship of the requested wariance to other existing or potentaal uses and struetures in
the vicinity.
2. The degree to which relaef from the strict Qr literal interpretation and enforcement of a ~
specified regulatian is necessary to achNeve compatibifity and uniforrnity of treaiment among
sites in the wicinity, or to attain the objectives of this Ti#le wifhout grant of special privilege. I
3. The effect of the requested variance orr light and air, distributian of papufatian, transporCation ~
and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety.
4. Sueh other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed
variance.
aesiqn Review Baard:
Action: The DRB has NO revievv authori[y on a varfance, buf must review any accompanying
DRB a,pplleatrorr.
Town Council•
Actions of DRB or PEC rr,aybe appealed to the Yawn Council or by the Tawn CounciE. Town
Gouncil evaluates whether or not the PEC or DRB erred with apprQVals or cleniafs and can uphald,
uphoad with modifications, or averturn the board's decision.
5ta3f:
The staff is responsible for ensuring that all submittal requirements are provided and plans
conform to the technical reguirements of the Zoning Regulatians. The staff also adwises dhe
applicant as to eompliance with the design guidelines.
Staff provides a staff memo containing background on the property and provides a staff evaluation ~
of the prajeet w6th respect tQ 4he required criteria and findings, and a recommeradat`ron on appraual,
2
- ° ~
~ approval with canditions, or denial. Staff also facilitates the review process.
V. APPLlCABLE Pl.ANNING CIOCUMENTS
Zoning Regulations
Sec#ion 12-2 Definitions
S17E COVERAGE: The ratio af the tatal buifding area an a site to the tatal area of a site, expressed
as a percentage. For the purpase of calculating site covsrage, "building area" shall rrrean the totaP
horizontal area of any building, carport, porte cachere, arcade, and covered or roofeci walkway as
measured from the exteriar face af perimeter walls or supparting columns ahove grade or at ground
level, whichever is the greaier area. For the purposes of this definition, a balcony or deck projecting
from a higher elevation may extend over a lower balcany, deck ar walkway, and in such case the
higher balcony or tieck shall not be deerned a raaf or covering for the lower balcany, deck or
walkway. In adaition to the above, builtling area shall also include any portion of a roof ouerhang,
eaves, or cavered stair, covered deck, cavered porch, covered terrace or covered patio that extends
more than faur feet (4") from the exterior face of the perimeter building vvalls or supporting columns.
Sec#ion 12-7113 Gommerciaf Core 1(M) District (in part)
12-713-1: PURPQSE:
The Commercial Coce 1 District is intended ta provide sites and ta maintain the unique character of
~ the Vail Village commercial area, wath its rni7cture o# Iodges and commercial estabiishments 'rn a
predominantly pedestrian ertvironment. The CorrimErcial Core 1 District is intended to ensure
adequate light, air, open space, and other amenities apprvpriate #o the perrnitted types of buildings
and uses. The District regulations in aceordance with the Wail Village Urban Qesign Guide Plan and
Design Considerations prescribe site development standards that ace intended to ensure the
maintenance and preservation of the tightiy clusteretf arrangements of buildings fronting on
pedestrianways and public greenways, and to ensure cantinuatEQn af the building scafe and
architectural qualities that dist'rnguish the Vidlage. (prd. 21(19$0) § 1)
12-713-15: SfTE CBVERAGE:
Site caverage shall not exceed eighty percent (80°/a) af the tofal site area, unless otherwise speci#ied
in the Vail village urban de5ign guide plan and design considerations. In commercial core 1 district,
ground level patias and decks shall be cncluded in site eoverage caGculations. (Ord. 17(1991) § 8:
Qrd. 21(19$0) § 1) 12-713-20: VAIL VILLAGE URBAN DESIGN PLAN:
A. Adoption: The Vail village urban design guide plan and desrgn consoderations are adopted
for the purposes of rnaintainirag and preserving the character and vitality of the Vail village (CC1 )
and to guide the future aIteration, change and improvenrtent in GC1 district. Coppes of the Vail village
design guide plan and dasign considerations shali be fln fife in the department of community
developmen#.
~ 5ection 12-17 VarianCes (in part)
3
12-17-1: PIJRPOSE: ~
A. Reasons For Seekrng Variance: In order to prevent or to lessen such practical difi€iculties and
urrnecessary physical harciships inconsisient with the abjectives of this title as would resuit firom
strict or literal interpretataQn and enforcerr7ent, vardances from certain regu9ations may be granted. A
practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship may result from the size, sMape, or dimensions
of a site or the 9ocation of existing structures thereon; from topagraphic or physical conditions on
the site ar in the immed'+ate vicinity; ar from ather physicai limitations, street kocations or conditions in
the immedia4e v9cinity. Cost or inconvenience to the applicant of strici or literal compliance with a
regulation shaU not be areason far granting a variance.
12-17-5: PLANNING AND ENVIRQNMENTAL COMMiSSION ACTION:
Within iwenty (20) ciays of the clasing af a public hearbng an a variance application, the planning and
environmental cornmissian shall act on the application. The cornmission may approve the
apRiica#3on as submirted or may apprave the application subject to such ranodifications or conditions
as it deerrzs necessary to accomplish the purpases of this title, or the commission may deny the
application. A variance rnay be revocable, may be granted far a Igmited time period, ar may be
granted subject #Q such ather conditions as jhe commissian ma}i prescr'rbe. (Ord. 8(1973) § 15.500)
12-17-7: PEF{MIT APPROVAL AND EFFECT:
Approval of the varianee shall iapse and become void if a 6uilding permit is not obtained and
construetion not cammenced and diligeniAy pursued toward compleiion within twa (2) years from
when the approval becomes fna0. (Ord. 48 (1991) § 2: Ord. 16(1978) § 5(c)) ~
Vail Viltage Master Pian
The Vail Village Master Plan is based on ihe premise that the Village can be planned and designed
as a whole. The Vail Village Master Rlan is Entended to be consistent with the Vail Uillage Urban
Design Gu6de Pfan, and afong with the Guide P'kan, it underscQres the importance of the relationship
betvueen ihe built environment and public spaces. Furtherrnore, the Master Plara prar?ides a clearly
stated set af gaals and objectives outlining hovv the Village will grow in the future.
Goals for Vaif Village are surnmarized in six major goal statements. W hiie there is a certain amount
af overCap between these six goals, each focuses ora a particu6ar aspect of the Village and the
communcty as a whaGe. A series of objectives outline specific steps that can be taken toward
achieving each stated goal. Policy statements have been develaped to guide the Town's decisivn-
anaking in achierring each of the stated objectives.
The stated goals of the Vail Village Master Plan which pertain to this app6ieation are:
Goa! #1: Encourage high quality development while preserving the unique archi4ectural scale
c,f the Village in order to sustain its sense of commuraity artd idenfity.
1.2 Objective: Encourage the upgrading and redevelopment of resideniial artd
commercial faciGties.
Goal #2: To foster a strong taurist industry and promote year-rovnd econamic health and ~
viabilFty far the VilEage and for the community as a whole.
4
~ 2.2 Objective: Recognize the "histaric" cornrmercial core as the main actuvity
center of the Village.
2.2.1 Poiicy: The design criteria of ihe Vail Viflage Urban Design Guide
pfan shall be the primary guiding document to preserue the
existing architectural scafe and character of the core area of
Vaif Viilage.
2.5 Objec#ive. Encourage the cantsnued upgrading, renauation and rrraintenance of
existing lodging and commercial facilaties to better serve the needs
of our guests, ~
Goal #3: To recognize as a top priarity the enhancement of the walking experience throughaut I
the Village.
3.1 Objective: Physically improve the existing pedestrian ways by Iandscaping and
other improvements.
3.1.1 Policy: Private developrnent projects shall incarporafe streetscape
improvements (such as paver treatments, landscaping,
lighting and seating areas), afong adjacent pedesirian ways.
Vail Village Urban Design Plan
This Guide Plan represents callective ideas about functional and aesthetic objectives for Vail
VilEage. Diagrammatic in nature, the Guide Plan is entended to suggest the nature of irnprovements
desired. It is baseci on a number af urban design criteria determinEd to be appropriate for guiding
change in the Vail Village. The Guide plan is intended to be a guide tor current planning in both the
public and private sectors.
Accent Elements:
The life, and festive quality of the Village is givera by judicious use of accent elements whieh
give color, mavement, anci contrast to the Village.
Colorful accent elements consistent with existing character are encouraged, such as:
Awnings and Canopies-canvas, bright colar or stripes of two colars.
VI. ZOhI1NG AhIALYSIS
Zoning: Commercial Care 1 District
Land Use P1an Designation: Village Master Plan
Current Land Use: Mixec! Use
aevelopment Standard Alfowed/Rectuired Existin Prapcased
Lat Area; 5,000 sq. ft. 4,646 sq. ft. no change
~
5
Setbaeks; ~
Frant: Per VaiV Viilage 0 ft. no ehange
Sides: Urban Design 0 fit.l2 ft. no change
Rear: Guidelines 22.5 ft. no change
Stream: 30 ft. 19 ft. (received variance) no Change
Building Height: 60% at 33 ft. ar Eess 80°!o at 33 ft. no change
40% at 33 ft. to 43 ft. 4(}°/p at 43 ft. or less
Density: 25 unitsfacre 1 units no change
GRFA: 3,716.8 sq. ft.(80alm) 3,507 sq. ft. nfl change
Site Coverage: 3,716.8 sq, ft. {$0%} 3,949.1 sq. ft. (85.0°l0) 4,052.1 sq. ft. ($7.2a/o)
Landscape Area: Per the Vail Vtilage 314.6 sq. ft. no change
Urban aesign Guide
Plan
Parking: 15_7 spaces 0 spaces na change
V[l. SURRf}UNpING LAND USES AMa ZONING
Land Use Zon9rtQ
North: Mixed Use Commercial Care 1 District ~
South: Open Space Agricultural & Open Space Disirict
East: Qpen Space Outdoar Recreation District
West: Mixed Use SDD #31 Commercia! Care 1 District
Vfll. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
A. Consideration af Factors Reaardina the Setback Variances:
1. The relationship of the requested Variance to other exis#ing ar potential
uses and structur+es in the viciRity.
5#aff befieves that the proposed site coverage variance is neither cornpatible
with nor comparable to ihe surrounding development aiong Hanson Ranch
Road. Many of the existing properties in #he vicini#y of the applicant's
praperty have site coveeages in the range of 83%. However, many of those
which exceed the 80% limit do nat have improvements an the Tawn of Vaif
right-af-way. With the August 24, 1998, Planning and Environmental
Gommission appraval of a new front entry the Vista Bahn Building vtiras
allowed to construct 39 square feet of additional site coverage within the
Town of Vail right-of-way, This site couerage was not included in the Zoning
Analysis found in Section Vi of this staff report. If that 39 square feet were
calculated irotfl the site coverage the existing Vista Bahn Building would
cover 3,98$ square feet for a total of 85.8°Io site coverage. With this
proposal the awning would #ake the existing site coverage af $5,$°/4 to 88.0% ~
site coWerage. Those sites with higher site coverages are the result of either
6
_ i
~ Special Development Districts ar specia4 circumstances_ Below is a iist of
sorne sites in the vicinity with their current s'rte coverages Cisted and how they
obtained that site couerage.
A. A & D Buildinq
October 8, 19$4 - The PEC approved a GCI exterior alteration. Na variances
were requested. Site eoverage was proposed at 79.0%. The exterior
alterat+an was approved with the condiiion that a floodplain modification
request be approved by the Town prior ta construction.
May 8, 1985 - The PEC approved a flaodplain modification for the A& D
development. No stream setback Wariance was required.
February, 1995 - Applicant proposes expansion to Golden Bear. Propased
site coverage is 79.95%.
B. Red Lian Building
April 9, 1990 - The PEC approved a view cnrridor encroachment, stream
setback variance, site eoverage variance, CCI exterior alteration, and
conditional use permit (#o allow ara outdoar dining deck). Prior to
redevelopment, the Red Lion Building encroached into the Mill Creek stream
~ setback 1 to 18 feet. The proposed redevelopment requested 5 additianal
feet of encroachment. The staff memo cited ihe location of the existing
buiCding and the A& D improUements as significant issues that v+rould nat
make fihe request a grant of special priuilege. The staff recommended denial
ofi the requests, although the PEC ult+mately approved the requests.
Concerning site coverage for the Red Lian redevelopment, the proposal
included 50 square feet of additional site coverage. However, as part of ihe i
redevelapment, 27 square feet of existing site coverage was to be I
eliminated. As a resul#, there was net increase of 23 square feei of site
coverage. At the time of the praposal, the existing Red Lion Building had a
site coverage of 83%. Though the staff recammendation for the site
coverage variance request was denial, the PEC u[timately appraved it.
One caf the conditioRS of the exterior alteration was an agreemerat between
the Tcawn and the Red Lion developers that the GRFA approved through that
pracess be the cap. Language has been incorporated 'mto the condominium
declarati4ns lhat the existing 8,714 square feet of GRFA and three dwellirag
units are the maximum allowed for the property and that na other GRFA ar
dwell'rng units may be added to the praject in the future_ The standards for
CCI zoning wauld have allowed appraximately 11,200 square feet of GRFA
and eight dwelling units.
Qn October 22, 1990, the PEC approved an exterior alteratiorr and a site
~ coverage variance ta allow an airlock to be constructed for the Szechuan
Lion Restaurant, At the time of the request the buiiding had a site coverage
7
of 83.2 percent. The proposeci airlock was an additiona[ 60 square feet. The ~
approval allcawed the builc{ing to reach a site coverage of 83.6 percent. Staff
recommended approval, primarily because the Zoning Code at the time
emphasized the need far airlacks.
C. Bridge Street Lodge (Golden Peak HouseI
November 2,1993 - Town Council approved a Special Clevelopment District
for the Golden Peak Hfluse. This included, amang other things, a sixe
coverage reques# which exceeded the 80% allowed in CCO. At the time ofi
the proposal, the exasting Golden Peak House Qrr the existing lot had a site
coverage of 91.6%. Under the approvecf plans with the expanded lot, the
site coverage will be 94%.
D. Curtin Hill Buildirtp
March 1993 - The PEC appraved a CCI exteriar alteration forthis buildang.
Site coverage a# the time o# this praposal was 71 The approvad site
coverage is 71_6%. I
I
E. Slifer Buildinq ~
February 24, 1992 - The PEC appraved a site coverage variance. The
existing site coverage at the time was 92.1 °fo or 2,956.7 square feet. The ~
request was for an additional 57 square feet of site coverage or 1.8°/fl. Since
the construction of this addition, the current Slifer Sui4ding has a site
coverage of 93_9% or 3,013.7 square feet. The basis for staf# supporting the
request was a concept proposed at the time by a cansultant hired to analyze
the Zaning Code who recommended changes. These changes included
modifying the site coverage section for CCI to reflect the setback section for
CCII. In Lionshead (CCII), setback standards can be waived if proposed
additions are in carripliance with the Urban Design Consicierations. 7hat
same concept uvas suggested to be applied to site coverage and was
praposed to be used in the Village. It is important tQ note tha# these code
modifications were not approved.
F. Clock Tower Buildina
August 12, 1991 - The PEC den'sed a requesf for a Site coverage rrariance at
the Superstars Studio w€thin the Clack Tower Building. The PEC found that
the property was not encumbered with a physical hardship. The existing site
coverage was 87%. The request for an additional 28 square feet would have
put site coverage at 87.2%. The staff recommended denial and the PEC
cancurred.
G. Cavered Bridqe Building
The Ccavered Bridge buiiding was approved for redeveloprnent in 1993. The ~
applicants ariginally requested fiWe variances and a floodplain modificatian,
8
~ but uftirraately designed a build'rng which conformed with aCi zoning standards
was approved.
2. The degree to which relie# fram the strict and literal in#erpreta#ian and
enforcement of a specified regulatian is necessary to achieve
compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity nr
to attain the objectives af this title withaut a grant of special privilege.
Staff believes that this variance request should not be appraved as it would
be a grant of special privilege. This structure received appravai on March
13, 1995 and received a variance at that time for site coverage. Qn August
24, 1998 this structure received a second variance far site coverage with #he
approval af the new entrance feature, some of which was within #he Towra af
Vail right-of-way. Staff feels that the variances granted previously alfowed
the projeet the increased privilEge given to ather praperties in the area. As
listed in Criteria 1 above buildings in the vicinity rneet the requirement,
exceed to the tune of approximately 83°10, or exceed due ta the approval o# a
Special Development District. The size, configuration, existing s#ructure, and
location af this site in the Village are similar ta all the properties. StafF
believes there are no physical hardships on this lot which rnake #his site
different under the Uail Town Code.
In addition, it is the intent of the applicant ta utilize the proposed awning as a
structure upon which signage can be rnounted {attachment C}. The design,
~ depicting the awning caming to a pairat with the potential to place signage an
each plane is not permitted under the Sign Cade as anly one sign is
permitted per frontage and that would be considered tvvo_ The signage
shown on this avwning is not under review of the Planning and Errvironrnental
Commission. Any such proposal would require an application and review by
the Design Review Board. Staff understands the desire to have greater
visibiEity on Hanson Ranch Road and patentially from Siebert Circle an
Bridge Street but, the lack of visibility is not considered a hardship. The fact
that #he appficarrt divided the tenant space and created this problem does ncat
meet the requirements #or a hardship. Approual of this awning would be
granting a special privilege upon this site that na other sight in the vicinity can
enjoy.
3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution o#
popuia#ion, transpartation and traffic fiacilities, public facilities and
utilities, and public safe#y.
This prapasal to ereet an awning as a covered pedestrian entrance at the
Vista Bahn Building will create a physical and mental obstruction to
pedestrians and the usage of the platted pedestrian easement to the east of
the building running along N1ill Creek. The fiown of Vail Fire Departmenthas
also expressed concern over the flarnmability of the material. Staff alsa feels
this praposal will negatively affect #he light anci air of the Village. This
prapasal will create shade irt an area currently receiving sunlight at ground
fevel.
~
. 9
4. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to ~
the proposect uariance.
The Planninq and Environmental Commission shall make_the followinct
findings before arantinq a variance:
1. That the granting of the variance wiil not constitute a grant of special
privilege inconsistent with the limitations on ather properties
classified in the same district.
2. That the granting af the variance wiil not be detrimental to the public
health, safefy ar welfare, or materially injurious ta properties or
improvements in the vicinity.
3. That the variance is uvarranted for one ar more of the following
reasons:
a. The strict literal irrterpretatian or enforcernent of the specified
regulatian wouid result ira prac#ical difficulty ar unnecessary physicaf
hardship incansistent with the objectives af this title.
b. There are exceptiaRS or exiraordinary circumstances ar
conditions applicable ta the same site of the variance that do not
apply generally to other properties in the same zone.
c. The StflCt interpretation or enforcemend of the specified ~
regulation wovld depreve the applicant of privileges enjayeti by the
owners af other properties in the same district.
!X. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The Community Deuelopment Depariment recommends denial of #he request far a variance from
Section 12-713-15, Site Coverage, to allow tor 87.2% site caverage. Sta3f's recommendation 9s
based upon the rewiew of the criteria in Section 1lI11 of this memorandum and the evidence and
testimony presented. ShouEd the Planning and Environrr-rental Commission choose to deny this
variance, the Cornmunity Development Department recommends that the following findings be
made:
a} 7hat the granting af the variance will canstitute a granting of special privilege incansistent
with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district.
b) That the granting o# the variance will be de#rimentab to the public health, safety, or welfare, or
mater[ally injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.
c) The strict literal interpreta#aorr ar enforcement of the specified reguEation does not result in
practical cEifficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this
title,
d) The strEct interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation daes nat deprive the ~
applicarrt of privileges enjoyetf by the owners of other properties ir, the same district.
10
~ X. ATTACHMENTS
A. Vicinity IVfap
B. Si#e Plan
C. Awning elevatiort
Q.. Publication Notice
~
~
11
r~~
~ .
-
A N - ~ ~ r os ' W ~ ~
4•'
116 .
~ f R"~'• 4 `x N k' ~ ~RI;' ~
i7{
e
,a"V
~ ~ ~ d
P t&-~r ~ ~ r a ~~~~~5~ ~~,~,•.si~,~ pf .,.y~~'~aa .~v r,.~`~8+4''~, ~m a.~y ~ ~ ~d'' rw
t~ . a,ti+~ #~'~ay-.r z. • a"~: ~7'1 :
a`~:,...~~,. ~ ~fi ~ . • ~ ? t ..a I ~ ~~~q ~
z.~'°",.~~. x,~,~-r °•s;f sp- ~.lE ~i . ,ti. n~s ° as` 1m . ~ ~ ;.i~~
~w•', . . ~ ~n t~ . ~ ~ ~ w..'->''-'r'_..r~ ~
s ~ r
~.~-^~f~z`,~` ' ' ,
~~,,~-~~"i _4
'~P ,
1y
DO ,<<;...,•r'-- ° ~C~ ~ k ~ N~ :y
NI
~ ~~~+a-.'.•a,~ t ~~r.~
S t ~~r ' ' ` - aai~,~:` ~r K~ ' xvT
,
.3( . . . ~
~ ' ~ . . " -1- k
xA
2kz~
'~:`'s',~}.r ~*s,~z•~~.~:. . F
,.f
x~:- w~* .Y _'4 , h t ~aE~~y ~y~"t^r~ r .ma-.~*
,u.,.ZZ~
~'-~r r 9 ,°t~5o-?'~' ` +r .q ~ I_ t u i : ~ .r ~~S . s a~ f t
~'-~y"~~~ 3 ,T, N ~ ! '^--+-s ~....'.,~C°'e'" 1~ - y. ~',~.m~-' ~
~ ~ t-- ~ Y ~ _ 5 rr ~-A~ " t""•ra`-',~ ~ s~3 a S' ~ . . , ~I~~,~,~„s .
~A,
t~~..~ i,'~F. ~G~~'.~.~ +~s.., x;• ~ $ ~ ~~in.~ s ~ ~+v~~R R..'.' ~ E J .
G - „~.vL r ~,r' ~'~"~'~~lt, ~K,,, ' p~°' ~9 ~ x ~ I ~
~z ~~~~--~k ~ 1~ ^~r ~+r caf~l,f / ,~'rk~~sY_•y~`~W,~+.~ k ~ ~ ~ ~
3 - f
4~F
' v
"7XA`~
G' i ~4r
~ p {
(D
~
: i, tl" I~F k . ~e . J' ~y ...A S n`~ ~ .
~,,f i ~ ~"~'r. . ,Y' ~ LL~~ ! 's 3'~
.e"~ r 3~ ~
t~i
~~f
'F '`~''s,s s < s 9~t 'c s sr~ s . ~F t
. .dt~+•' 'r '"^y .
'7,~~-~~ u .
LLI
~ , } ! 1 ~ ~ ~FN\ LL
C~
tLi
}C
UJ
n.
LL~ I
,
~
. ~ i . .
1 ~ ~ . .
Y s
0
~ = L~ . • .
~ - ~ i
w a _ ?
-•w;. e~t+snNaoecx . J / . .
LU
~L----
~
w . ~ _
W C17 4~ Fy
-j
. ~ ~ w ° ' ` ~ r , ~ .~'a~ nrc PA
~ov;P ~ti
~ .X
~ 7 l r- a
i r ~J A N' ~ NG' P.4JI ~
w , ~ . .
n r•k 3nn arm-1o-:wwn otane 1 •
`
o ~Ks
<
w
~ ui ~
~
Attachment: B
' ~w; ~
1.+..
Q
.
~ ~ .
.
.
.
~"~Gr~ . ~
wo~
ktl
~
Z
u~
-
~
~ _
~
}
1 ~
t t ~ '
r,- ~ ~+d ,rvr a~ ` . 3 , '
Vwx
~c ,:'°~r~'y e z~' ~SW v~r '~T 7..r~fi~ 4'~'"~~ . i'~, :4
~R+vu~.n~t~ - r~~ a ~ T F ~"'~"",c ~ . .G ~~e °
~ F r S
~ v
°#c
~ ~ ~,J~.,~~J' ~ ` ,Y`~ ~•w- .~~E y'~~ ' # 3 : ~ ~ E ~ r'~~ ,
•~e~,e'.+, - .b~i .'.r C'Xl~._"F~„~ ~C . k~ rr r.~~E ~ ' ~ ~ '~i-~' , 1 p# - v'_t`.
Or yc' I~ ~ ~ ~ G'+PE`~ 'L •$'A ! i'~JyF~
~y IE
iM1 v
Y~ S } 5
§ ; g
S_
*y
~~,,~'x-~
'F,`"~k3'..
~ t.t ~ i ' . z.. =v
~
"l`w.-
~ ~t , ~ ` ~ . •r i ,~~w ' ~a s ~ .a ~ ,-~.a~,M --~«i ,y;,.,,. .p
~
x ~w
V
{ y
"r''- MA N Tnn.
.~MK ~
. ..v :~:a7..~ai4~a' e~.~~~+• xr.K~i:r .~~.Mx.~ .-.~a.....r.~~s.r=_ -~,e~
~ I
~
Attachment: C
. ~
;
. a~ S~
ri
$
~LI
i
. s O
3
. . ~ 4 ~
cc '4 p
a
i
z'
u
3
z
f
ya ; .
o
u
v Y ~ ~
~ ~....r_..`' .:i.-.~ -
e
6
• ' . _
. . _ - : .
. . . _ . . .
• $t=~? ~i~
~
i i re r 1!1t-jE•
ei~.~I~L
At#ar-hment. G
~ VZSTA B.AHN ADJACENT PROPERTY C3WNERS
March i$, 20fl3
210I-UN2-42-UUl
Reztaanov & Co. ' 248 Hanson Ranch Road
P.O. Box 188$
EdNvards, Cfl 81632
2101-(}82-42-008
Vail Gorp.
Hansnn Ranck? Road -VV S Tzact E
P.O. Bos 7
Vail, C4 81658
21{}1-082-42-009
Town of'Vail `Hanson Ranch Road WS Tract H
~ 75 S. Frontaoe Road
Vazl, CC+ 8I657
2 I 01-Q82-39-404
Town of VaU clo Funance Dept.
75 S. Frontage Roaci
Vail, CO 81657
2101-082-69-010 -7Jnitt 1112
Vail Corp.
P.Q. Box 7 Vail, CQ 81658
2101-082-42-009 .
Town of Vail
75 S. Frontage Road
Vaal, CO 81657
~
Attachment: D
Red Lion Inn Coadas ~
304 Sridbe 5tree#
Vail, CQ 81657
2101-082-53-007 -Unit R-1
bscar L. Taug
600 5~' Avenue, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10020
2101-082-53-414 -TJnit C-T
LandnZark Canmercial Dev. Co,
610 W. Lionshead Gircle, Suite 100
Vail, CO 8I657
2101-082-53-009 -Unit R-3 ,
Top of the Bridge Cozp,
1101 BrickeU Avenue, Suite 800-5
Miaini, FL 3 ' ) 131
$ridge Street Lodge
278 Hanson Raneh Road ~
Vail, CO $1657
2101-082-69-001--Un.it 101, 101-A
JR.iley-BSL LLC
228 Bridge Street
Va, CO 81657
2I01-082-69-004-Unit 102
Rad Three LLC
228 Bridge 5treet
Vail, C4 81657
2101-082-69-013 -unit 221 , 221 -a
Bolanovich Trust
clo Jahn Kae=er
434 Crore Creek L7rive
Va.i1, CO 81657
2101-082-69-016 - lTn1.tS S'2, 5-12, 401, 403 .
Robert E. Cannon
P.O. Box 80407
Memphis, IN 38108 ~
I
~ 2I01-482-69-0I8 -Units S-5, 301, 308, 310 .
Arnold Bissegger Livinb Trust
2625 S. Atlantic Aven-ue 5NE
paytona Beach Shores, FL 32118
2141-082-69-024 - U-n.its S-8, 202, 204
Bridge Street Assoc. LLC
30100 Telegraph Road, Suite 20
.
Bingharn, Farms, MI 48025 ~
2I0I-0$2-69-022 - Urut S-1 0
Bridge Street Investments LLC
Felix G-uzman Nca. 16 Col El Patque 5339U Naucalpan Mexico
2101-082-69-{735 -Unit 309
Arthur C. Gax QFR Trust
Emma 7ane Cox QPR Tntst
12001 Guiiford Road
Anaapolis Jun.ction, MD 20701
~ 2101-082-69-040-Unzt 501
Bridge Street InVestments LLC
Felix Gumau Na. 16 CoI El Parque ,
53390 Naucalpan Mexiea
2101-(}82-69-002 -Units 100, 102-A, 104, 105, 106
Calorado Ski Service, Inc.
P.Q. Box 2796
VO, CO 81658
2141-082-69-C106 - Unit 103
. Kari & Ursula Hoevelmann
lbl 5outh Golden Drive
Silt, CO 81652
2101-082-69-011-Unit 220, 220-A
John Kaemmer Trustee
291 Bridge Street
Vail, CO 81657
210I-082-69-015 -Units S-1, S-13
TVIBW Reaitv
T
c/o Rvn Rilev -
~ 228 Bridge Street
Vail, Ct] 81657
2101-082-59-017-LTnits S-4, 302
Robert & Natalie Bissegger
5345 Wind Poirii Road
Racine, WI 53402
2101-082-69-019 r Units S-7, 303
Robert E. Masterson Rea1 Estate
' Reuocable Trust
P.O. Box 390186
Omaha, NE 68139
2101-482-69-021 --Units S-9, 306
Georgi. LLC
3(} Madiso.nHouse, The Vi11age
101 Amies Stzeet
London S WI 1 2TW, EngFand
2101-082-69-023 - Units S-11, 241
Rabert & Nancy Bartels
Revocable Tz-i.Tst
3426 South Twyckenham Drive .
S. Tdend, IN 46614 ~
2 1Q I -032-69-03 S - Unit 402
R. Howard Ca.n.non
cfo Buckeye CeUuiose Corp.
7574 Poplar Avenue
Germantown, i 38138
2I01-082-69-032 -ilnit 304
Peter A. Bzssegger
3021 Crarretsan Ayezaue
Corona, CA 928$1
~
YHIS CTEM MAYAFFECT YOUR PROPERTY
, PUBLIC NdTICE
NOT]GE [S HEREBY GiVEN that the PEanning and Environmental Cammission of the Town of
~ Vail wiil hofd a public hearing in accordance with Section 12-3-6 0f the Vail Town Code on Aprit
28, 2003, at 2:00 P.M. in #he Town of Vail Maanicipal Building. In considerateon of:
A request for a variance from Section 12-7Ba15, Site Coverage, Vail Town Code, to aIlow for a
covered pedes€rian entrance, Iocated at the Vista Bahn Building, 333 Hanson Ranch RoadlLot
G, Bfock 2, Vail Village lst Filing.
Applicant: Remonov & Campany, Inc., represented by Knight Planning Services, Inc.
Planner: 1Narren Campbell
A request for a recorrtimendation to the Vail Town Cauncil af a major amendment to 5pecial
Developmen# pistrict No. 6, Vail Vil9age Inra, pursuant ta Section 12-9A-10, Vail Tvwn Cade, to
allaw far a charrge in use, ta increase the GRFA and to increase the number af dwsiling units,
iocated at the Vail Village Inn, 100 E. Meadvw Qrive/Lot C), Black 5D, Vail Village 1" Filing,
Applicanf: Edna & Claus Fricke, represented by Fritzlen Pierce Architects
. PEanner. Matt Genneft
A reques# for a recomrnendation to the Vail Tawn Council, to allow for text amendments to Title
11, Sign Regulatians, Vail Tawn Code, and setting forth details in regard thereto.
Appiicant: Town of Vail
Planner: Maft Gennett
A request for a recornmenda#ian to the Vail Town Govncil of proposed text amendments to Title
~ 12, zoning ReguRatROns, Vail Town Code, to amend the Gross Residentiad Floor Area (GRFA)
regu6atians in the Hillside Residential (HR), Single-Farniky Residential {SFR}, Two-Farnily
Residentiaf (R), TwaFamuly Prirnary/Secondary Residential (PS), Residential Cluster (RC), Low
Density Muitiple-Family {LDMF}, MecPium Density Multiple-Family (MDMF), High aensity Multiple-
Farnily (HDN1F), and Housing {H} districts, and setting forth details in rega6d thereto.
Applieant: Vicki Pearsnn, et.al.
Planner: Biil GibsQn
A request for a canditionaf use permit, ta alfow far an outdoor dining deck, in accordance with
Sectian 12-76-4B, Conditional Uses, Vail Town Cotie, located at the Vista Bahn Bualding, 333
Hanson Ranch RoadlLat C, Block 2, Vail Village 15t Fiiing.
Applieant: Remanov & Cornpany, Inc., represerrted by Knight Planning Services, Inc.
Planner: Bill Gibson
An appeal, pursuant ta Section 11-2-18(Administration; Appeal), af an administrative
deterrnination that a business ielentification sign does no# meet the technicai requirements of
Section 'E 1-4B-12B5 (Projecting and Hanging Segns), Vail Town Code, located ak the Vista f3ahn
Building, 333 Hanson FZanch Road/Lo# G, Slack 2, Vail Vil[age 1 St Filing.
Applicant: Remonov & Gampany, Inc., represertted by Knight Pfanning Services, lnc. ~
Pianner: Warren Campbell p~
~ i
u
TOYY.+~' Q
*YAM
~ MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Enviranmental CQmmissian
FROM: Community Develapment Department
DATE: Apri6 28, 2003
SUBJECT: An appeal, pursuant to Section 11-2-1 B Administratian; Appeaf, of an
administrative deterrnination that a business identification sign does not
meet the technical reqUirernents of Section 11-4B-12B5 Projecting and
Hanging Signs, Vail Town Code, IQCated at the Vista Bahn Building, 333
Hansan Ranch Road/Lot C, Block 2, Vail Village 1 St Filing.
Appellant: Remonov & Company, 1nc., represented by Knight PEanning
Services, Inc.
Planner: INarren Campbell
t. SUBJECT PRQPERTY
Ti he Vista Bahn Building is located at 333 Bridge StreeULot C, Block 2, Vaii
Village 151 Filing. Th9s building was formerly referred to as Cyraraa's_ See ~
~ attached vicinlty map (attachment A).
I[. PLANING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSI4N JURISDICTION
Pursuant to Section 12-3-3B-1, Appeal of Administrative Actions; Auihority, Vail 7awn Code, the Planning and Environrnental Commission has the authority to
hear and cfecide appeais from any decision, determinatinn or interpretatiort by
any Tawn of Vail administrative official with respect to the pravisions of the
Zoning Code.
111. PR(3CEDURAL CRITERtA FOR APPEALS
Pursuant to Sections 12-3-313-2 and 12-3-313-3, Appeak of Administrative Aetions;
Initaatjon and PrQCedures, Vail Town Code, there are three basic criteria for an
appeal: 1) standing of the appellan#; 2) adequacy of the notice of appeal, and 3)
timeliness of the notice of appeal.
A. Standing of the Appellant
The appeEland has s#anding #o appeal staff's decision related tQ the denial
of a sign applicatiQn at the Vista Bahn Building as he is the owner of the
properiy.
B. Adequacy of the Notice af the Appeal
~ The applicateon for this appeal was filed by Remanov & Company, Inc.,
represented by Knight Planning Services, on April 7, 2003. The
1
r
applicataon has been determined to be complete by the Carrkmunity ~
Developmeni Departrnent.
C. Timeliness vf the Notice nf Appeal
The Adrninistrative Sectwon of the Town's Zoning CQde (12-3-38-3,
Procedures) states the follawing:
"A written notice of appeal must be filed wiih the Admrnistrator or
with the deparfinent rerrdering the decisiorr, defermrnatiQn or
interpretaiion wrfhin twenty (20) calendar days of the decrsran
becomrrrg final. !f the last a`ay for filing an appeal falls an a
Saturday, Sunday, ar a Tawn-Qbserved holiday, the last day for
fllrng an appeal shall be extended to the next busrness day. 7he
Adminrstrator'$ decision shall became final at the next Planning
and Environmerttaf Gomr°rrission rrreeting (or in the case of design
refated decision, the nexf Design Review Board meeting) folldwing
the Administrator's deeision, unfess the decision is called up and
madified by the Board ar Commissron."
Staff denied the appellanf's application far a new hanging sign on March
28, 2003. On April 7, 2003 the applicant submitted a ccarnplete appeal
application within the twenty (20) day requirement.
N. NATURE OF THE APPEALS ~
On ,A,priE 7, 2003, Remonav & Company, represen#ed by Knight Planning
Services, submitted a farmal appeals form #a the Town of Vail Gommunity
Development Department. The nature of the appeal is generally described
befaw.
The appeliant is appealing the fallawing staff interpretation:
1} It was determined by staff that the appellant's praposal to p6ace a hanging
sign on the deck attached to the Tap Room, laca#ed in the Vista Bahn Building,
daes not meet the requirements of Section 11 -4B-12B-5, LQCation, which states:
• "Perpendicular fo or hUng from a projecting structural element of the
exteriar wall of the indfvia'ual business dr nrganization, adjacerrt to the
street or major pedesfrianway which the building abuts, sUb1ect to design
teview. °
Staff determined that the Tap Room deck was not a structural elemenf for the
Aalta Sports location. The Tap Room deck previausly had the signage for the
Polar Revofutaan attached to the face of the deck. A recent division afi the tenant
space previousfy occupied by Polar Revolution created twa new tenant Spaces.
The location of the inierior tenant wall resuIted in the J. Phillips tenant space
occupying aEl the space under the Tap Room Deck on both the nflrth and east
elevations. Please 5ee the attached site plan (attachment 6). ~
2
~ Sta#f does not dispute that thE Aalta Sports tenant space has frontage on Hanson
Ranch Road. However, this eength ort frontage, labeled segment FjA" on the site
plan (attachment B), is approximateky 14 feet fong and permits the minimum
three (3) square faot sign under Section 11-413-1913-2, Wall 5igns, The
determination that the Tap Room deck is not a struc#ural efement of the Aal#a
5ports tenant space changes the proposed sign to a wail sign as it daes not meet
the definition of a hanging or projecting sign any longer. Section 11-4B-196-2,
Wall Signs; Size states:
"Size: Une square toat for each five ('S) frarrt lineal feet of the indivrdUal
business or organization havrng iis own exteriQr pu6lic entrance in a
rrrulti-tenant building, wifh a maximum of thrse (3) squar'e feet aIlorved far
a,business with insufficienf frontage. Gombirred maximum area for more
fhan one sign shall not exceed twenty (20) square feet."
According to Section 11-2-213-2a (Applica#ian Pracedures: Criteria for Qecisian),
Vai] Town Code, requires staff to deny all sign applications whiGh do not meet the
technical requirements of Chapter 11-4 of the Town of Vai1 Sign Code. Sectian
11-2-28-2a states:
"!f the Adminr`sUafor determrnes that the sign application does not meet
the desigrr guidelines containad in Chapter 3 of this Title, and the
techRical requirements, contained in Chapter 4 of this Title, the
Adminrstrator shall deny the applicatiQn. LJpan denial af an application by
~ the Admr'nfstrator, based on lack af compliance vvith the fechnical
requirements, the applrcant may resubmrt a mQdified application or file an
application for a varfance in accordance with Chapter 7 of fhfs TItle. Upon
derrial of fhe application by the Administratflr, based oR fhe design
guidellnes, the applicarrt may resubmlt a madified application or file arr
appeaJ wfth the Desrgn Revrew Board ira accordance wffh the procedures
outllned rn Secfr`on 11-2- f of fhis Chapfer. „
The appellant's sta#ernent as to the specific nature of the appeal is attached '
(attachment C).
V. REQUIRED ACTION
UpholdlaverturrlMoc3ify the staff interpretation.
Section 12-3-3B-5, Findings, details the requirements far actian taken by the
Planning and Environmental Cammission as foifows:
"The Planning and Envrronmental Camrrrissiorr (or the C+esrgn Review
Board in the case af design gurdefines) shall on a!1 appeals make specifrc
findings of fact based directly on the particuJar evidence presented to it.
7hese firrdrngs of facr must support conclusians that the standards and
conditiorrs imposed by the requirements of this Titfe have or have nat
been met."
~ The appellant is requesting that the Plannang and Environmentaf Carnmission
review the following staff interpretation.
3
1} The staff's determinatian that the praposed Iocation (Tap Roorn Deck) of a ~
hanging sign is not on the exterior wail ar a structural element of the individual
business (Aalta Sports) requesting signage as required by Section 11-4B-12113-5,
Location.
Background:
• On December 18, 2002, the Design Review Board approved twa 5.5
square foat signs for the Aa1ta Sports locatian. As a part of that
application the applicant proposed a sign an eastern end of the Tap
Room deck. The approved signs were to be iocated over the capper
awning entrance tv Aalta Sports and over the rear entry. The Design
Review Board agreed with staff's anterpretation and denied that proposed
sign as the deck aboWe did not meet the requirements af Section 11-4B-
12B-5. The applicant disagreed but, did nat file an appeal of the Design
Reuiew Board's decision within the required time frame,
• In a letter dated March 28, 2003, (attachrnent Q) from s#aff, the applicant
was informed that his appiication subrnitted on March 10, 2003, did not
comply with the requirements flf the Sign Code. In that letter the
appe6lant was informed of his option to utifize a joint-directory sign
meeting the requirements of Section 11-413-12C, Joint-Direetory S9gns far
Multi-Tenant Building, to obtain more visible signage far Aalfa Spflrts on
the Vista Bahn Building. ~
• On March 2$, 2003, the staff denied an appfication by Remonov &
Company, on the behalf Qf Aalta Sports, for signage to be lacated an the
Tap Room deck as it did not meet the requirements of 11-413-1213-5.
• On April 7, 2003 the appellarrot filed an appeal of staff's interpretation that
the Tap Room deck was not a structural elecnent of the exterior walf of the
individual business.
VI. STAFF RECQMMENDATION
The Cammunity aevelopment Qepartment recarrimends uphvlding staff's
interpretation and the Design Review Board's agreement with staff's
interpretation ta deny the placement ofi an Aalta Sparts hanging sign on the Tap
Room deck as the Tap Room deck is nat an exterior wall or a structural element
of the individual business, 6ocated at 333 Hanson Ranch Road/Lot C, Block 2,
Vail' Village 1s' Filing. In accardance with the inforrnation presented in this
memorandum, and the exhibits attached hereto, staff recommends that the
Planning arad Environmerttal Commission rrzake the fol4ovving finding:
1. That the Gomrnun4ty DeveEopment deparkment staff, the Design Review
Baard, and the Planning and Environmental Commission, nave
appropriately de#ermined that the Tap Raam deck is not a structural
element attaehed to the exteriar walf of the Aalta Sports tenant space.
2. That the appeliant has a legal method ta obtain rn4re visible signage for ~
Aalta Sparts on the Vista Bahn Building under Sectian 1 t-4B-12C, Joint-
Directary Signs for Mu1ti-Tenant Building.
4
~ 3. That the appellant has frontage on Hanson Ranch Road and that which
does not meet the required frantage to exceed #he minimum three (3)
square faot sign under Section 11-46-19, Wall Signs.
4. That the existing 5.5 square faot sign lacated over the Aalta 5ports
entrance exceeds the three (3) square foot maximum allowed and must
• be reduced in size and meet all the requirements of the Sign Code no
later than May 9, 2003. The appe{lant shall submit a replacement sign
proposal to staff which meets all the requirements of the Sign Code, prior
to replacing the existing sign by May 9, 2003. The existing sign size was
approved as stafif counted the frontage along the pedestrian way tawards
the caleulation for size when staf# interpreted the frorrtage to be along the
pedestrian way and the rear of the building,
VII. ATTACHMENTS
A. Vicinity rnap
B. Site plan
C. Appellants letter dated April fi, 2003 describing appeal
D. Letter from staff dated March 28, 2003
E. Publicatipn Notice and Affidavit of Publicatiorr
~
~
~
~
IN f~'"^~ry` ~ : : a ~°^~~..^,~r? i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~~.~'.c~ e ~ r t~ v,~-.~.~r.z_~. t ._ez " . I = ~ 4"i'.7
55
W ~ ' r'' ~ Wt,,5 ~ rw¦
"w~4~` A
1~`"'` ° 5 w 5 l ~ C2 .
_c1 3
CL
4 a i~ .~.~r" ' +°°'r- i~ i`S ` ~ j} 1F'1 i • ~ ,s T' ? ~ 3 ~ "r,z'°r`~
Y r
r s •
~ f, ~ ~ 'k y~'Sf on
'M ~ !p ~ i vA
• ~ 6:-.~f t~, ~y~~„~. ~z~a ~ r~ ~ Il~~f
?
a
S.r ,r"T7
.
$$t
Yr 1 b
w.
~q~
-§a~'' rt ; ~ r ~ ~ '6~ w"~""`1 ~ ti r s • s~' ~
~ r „~-,~i-r~°w~,,,.~.~ r~ v~,,6r~• ~p~» e!'
4 ..o. "'i'°'. F z ~ ~ x ~+5 ~,6 ! r~ ~a N~~
77,
OD
.'a
rg,g.~ ~ ` } b~•`1~ ~ `',z~~ ; / ` ~ y ~ ' "
T
...,..i" .'Yr t . Xi ~~1 k~.
~~^9' ~ ~ Y` 4 ~+f »M..~J~~,44~ ~ ~M ~ ~ •~X 4 t i'
a ~
_ s-"F' ~ & " ! r ~f .1 'r
- ~ N~~ f A . . ~ ' . , . . f k'~ ~y .,+~~c-,ey, S +'9
- -
~ ' .,Y ~6~r'~. ~r; F.~: ,~i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '~r= ~ .
04 ...r: .~w~.'~,~,~~ ? ^"r^+.~^~r,~,+?`;~«•
r
+1
~ ~~y, ~ ~ ~ ' s~y~.
S ~
~q. S;j'.~
K+' a'°~~ ~y..~ ` t 1 +7r`}9` 7 + -`1yr t i •w - ~
? / 'd~ '.Y~y - . ~k. -T~y ~ F ,P,NF ~.r^ F
. . s
.~AX~
.
0A, Q ~ ~ ~
'a F ~
'.A ~M7?~~~'~ f` ~ . `r ` a ~ ~ f~" .a : ~ej.'A- ~ Yf ~ _ e..~ . , ~ i - : i sP '7 '~V ~ 4
Mr ~~,~,t kf~.
s ` ~ i •
<
. 5 ~ ~ ~ 4 s~ ~'~"~5~ f y c jy'
~
~ lw,+A +r s s .e'~` fi ~-~a~~ ~ +J~Fd J , ~ ~{z
~~~f
' ~ ~ "°'"~.r~t fp / ,e~r~r ~,'S~
~
~ x i ~ .r ~ ~ - ; ~gr Yr
. -77
~ i
~ c+ow xa~+ I ~ v,~pn+ I{
• $HTtFV~'O''L _ _ 1
CY I
~
c
~ 4 ~ ~
' 1 i,1 ~7 . y i ~ '~•Y ~ y~ a
~
u
1. ~ 4 `•~`y' p
til fw' 1~ 7+ Ll.l ~t
'n_. 7 I.~ 4d ~ r tu
'd Q ~
~ ~ .
3' ~ 1
I . .
. ~ .
a ~
a
Si1 C?9gr1+0 C¢IX . _ I, NF ~ ~LLl t ' I ~ . _ ' - - - J ~ .
X _
~5C) ~ .
_ - = 6 . ' . ~a o : I • ~ ~
FA
~ ~ ~ i x r c i,m GUrn
~~NLC fh l ~ .
p ~ ~ 3WZ' AVM-yp=111'~Itl 7110'N a~ M1} 0 .
~ . ~ • eJ` ` ' ~ ~K ~ ~ e ~ . ,
p J W /
r
Attachment, B
&
97C~1-92fi-6226 • FAX 970-926-6227
Sunday, April 06,2003 P.0. Box 18$8 - Edwards, Colorado 81632
Planning and Environmental Commission
CJo Warren Campbell
I'own of Vail
75 S. Frontage Raad
Vail, GO 81657
Re: "Nature of appeal"-sign application for the Vista Bahn Building - Aalta Sports
Dear Wazren:
Included is item # 2 for the appeal as per your requirements.
Submittal requiretnents:
2. Speeify the precise nature of the appeal.
Carnmunity Development has nQt provided details nar shown nor proven haw the applicatian
under section 11-4B-12B-5 fails to meet the criteria. The Section states:
Section 1 ] -4B-12B-5
Lacation; Perpendieular tcr or hung from aprojecting structural element of the
exterior wall of the individual business or organization, adjacent to the street or major ~
pedestrian way which the building abuts, subject to desegn reView.
In review of the building layout tlaere is clear and undisputable visual and physical
evidenee that a"projecting structural element of the individual business or organizati4n"
(second floar deck) is attached and projecting from the exterior wall from the Aalta Sports
location. This projection faces Hansan Ranch Road and the pedestrian way.
The door to Aalta 5ports is at a 45 degree angle to Hannsen Ranch Road. There is no
barrier, no wa11, no planter which wauld impede a direct access to the Hansen Ranch Road nar to
the pedestrian w•alkway°.
The reguiation states "adjacent to th+e street or majox pedestrian way". The front doar
access is adjacent to both Hanson Ranch Road and the walkway. TYae regulatian does nat define
which street or pedestrian vvay is the aj1Iy applicable access nar does it define primary or
secondary access. Community Developmcnt has not demonstrated a regulation contrary to
Section 11-4$-12B-S for wliich to base a decision of denial. Botn accesses are available as per
the regula.tions and both direct accesses are acceptakale.
, In addition it is our estunate that ]ess than of 1 percent of the foat traff c in tawn uses
the access ta the east of the Vista $ahn Building. This hardly by any whim of the imagination
qualifies as a"MAJOR PEDESTRIAN WAY". In additian, there are no additianal businesses
on the side ar the rear of the building for pedestrians to travel thus further eiiminating the east
walk way as a"MAJOR PEDESTRIAN WAY".
Staff has deterrnined that the Aalta Sports does not have business frontabe on Hanson
Ranch Road. I would be happy to supply the Planring and Environmental a video to show where ~
the business traffic cornes frorn, Tt clcarly comes from Hanson Ranch Road.
Atiachment: C
&
970-926-f522cS - FAX 970-926-622'7
P. c7 1888 • Eclw rds. Calo ado $7632
~ Denial of this sign would deny a person or business e a~fity to effectave~y operate t~ieir
business. I do not believe there would be any opposition frc,m ather businesses in the community
nOr would lt sh0w or indicate any Ienuency or favoritism. I da nat believe that approval af this
sign would in any way establish a precedent contrazy to the sign code. In fact this sign
application fits exactly what the eode states.
This application clearly meets the criteria for signage as proposed. In the absence of a
reguiatian to the contrary this applieatian should have been approved in December af 2002. The
' sign request clearly demonstrates:
1. "a projeeting structural element" I
2. "adjacent to a major pedestrian way whach the building abuts" '
I would request a hearing to pravide additional materials, F1hOt05 Of eX15t1T3g S1I111la5'
situatians and a physieal iayout of the building to shaw compliance.
Si erely,
Rick Mueller
President
Remonov and Company, Inc.
~
~
~
~
?j
Tow~r aF v
17epartment of Community Develapment
75 South Frontage Road
Yail, Colarada 81 657
970-479-2138
Ft1X 970-479-2452 MarCh 28, 2003
www ci.vail. ca. us
Remonov & Company
c/o Rick Mueller ,
P. O. E3ox 1888 ~
Edwards, CD 81632
Re: Proposed Aalta Sports signs at fhe Vista Bahn Building, 29$ Hanson Ranch
RQad/Lof C, Block 2, Vail VilEage 1sx Filing
Mr. N1ueller:
This letter is to infarm yau that your Design Review Board application submitted ~
an March 10, 2003, for twa, 5.5 sguare foot signs for AaIta Sparts has been
administratively denied pursuant to the pravisions of Section 11-2-213-2a, Vail
Town Gode. This letter will also pcovide you with yaur options regarding this
appfication.
As yau are aware, an application for signage at the Aalta Sports location was
reviewed and approved by the aesign Review Baard on Deeember 18, 2002. As
part of that application a hanging sign was praposed an the secand story deck of
the Vista Bahn Buifding which fror+ts Hanson Ranch Road and is used by the Tap
Room. In review of that applicatian, staff determined that Aalta Sports did not
have business frontage along Hansort Ranch Road which is required by Section
1 i-46-128-5 (Location of Projecting or Hanging Signs for Individual Businesses
within a Mult+-Tenant Building), Vail TQwn Code.
5ection 11-4B-12B-5:
Lacatian: Perpendicular to or hung fram a projectrng structuraf element of
the exterior wafd of the fndivrdual business or argarrizatian, adJacerrt iQ the
street ar major pedesfrianway which the buildrng abuts, subject to desrgn
review.
In reviewing that application at its Decernber 18, 2002, public hearing, the Design ~
Review BoaTd agreed with sta#f's interpretation of Sectian 11-4B-12B-5, Vail
Attachment: Q
ow~ REG7CLEDPAPEli
_ i
i
~ Town Code, and its application to the Aalta Spprts focation. Therefore, the
Design Review Board denied the proposed hanging sign an the deck along
Hanson Raneh Road and approved two 5.5 square fiaot signs which confarm fo
the Tawn af Vail Sign Coeie by a WQte of 5-0.
Your application submitted on March 10, 2003, is being administrativefy denied
far the reasons outlined in Section 11-413-128-5 (Location of Prajecting or
Hanging Signs for Individual Businesses wrthin a Multi-Tenant Bualding), Vail
Town Code. Section 11-2-2B-2a {Applicat`ron Procedures: Criteria for Decision},
Vail Tawn Code, requires staff to deny all sign applications which do nat meet the
teChnicaf requirements of Chapter 11-4 of the Town of Vail Sign Code. As it was
determined by staff and the Design Review Baard on December 18, 2002 that
the Aalta Sports lacation did not haue business frantage alang Hanson Ranch
Raad this application does not meet the technical requirements of Section 11413-
1213-5, Vail Town Code, Below you will find the complete text of Sectian 11-2-
213-2a, Vail Town Code.
Sectian 11-2-213-2a:
2, Criteria For aecisiorr: The Administratar shall accept and review the
properly completed sign application. The Adminisfrator will approve,
conditionaffy apprave, or reject the slgn application based upon its
~ conformance with this Tr'tle as follaws:
a. If the Admrnistratar determines that the sign application dQes not
meet the design gUidelrnes cantarned r'n Ghapter 3 of thrs Trtfe, and
the technical reqUrrements, contarned in Chapter 4 of this Trtle, the
Admirristrator shall deny the application. Upon denial of an
application by the Administrator, based an lack of compltance with
the technicaf requiremerrts, fhe appiicant may resubmit a modffled
application or file an application for a varrance in accordance with
Chapter 7 of this TitJe. Upon denial nf the application by the
Administrator, based an the design guidelines, the applicant may
resubmit a modified application or file an appeal with the Design
,4eview 8oard rn accordarrce with the procedures autllned in Section
11-2-1 of this Cha,pter.
Denial of this application feaves you with three options regarding signage at the
AaCta Sports location.
• You can modify your application to comply with the technical requirements
of Chapter 11-4 of the Town af Vail Sign Code in terms of purpose, size,
height, number, location, design, and lighting.
~ You can apply far a variance as detailed irt Seetion 11-2-213-2a, Vail Town
~ Cade, far approval to place a sfgrr on the second story deck of the Vista
` Bahn Building adjacent to Hansan Ranch Raad.
2 !
_ i
~
~
• YoU can appeal this denial to the Pianning and Environmentai ~
Cammission and request that the Planning and Enviranmenta6
Commissian overtums staff`s determination #hat the propasal does not
meet the technical requirements af Section 11-4B-12B, Vai! Tawn Code.
I understand yaur desire to harre visibili#y for Aalta Sports from Hansan Ranch
Road. Hawever, the recent reconfiguration of the Vista Bahn Building tenant
spaces created a situation where Aalta Sports does not have business frontage
along Hansan Ranch Road. The Tawn of 'Uail Sign Cade daes provide an
opportunity to display signage far Aalta Sports on Hansan Ranch Raad thraugh
Section 1 1-4B-12G (Joint Directory Signs for Multi-Tenant Building), Vail Town
Code. A jvint directdry sign is a legal means to dESplay signage alang Hanson
Ranch Road which may provide the tenant of the Vista Bahn Building with
visibility frcrm Bridge Street. Under the Town af Vail Sign Gode you can submit
an application for a joint darectory sign which meets the requirements of Section
11-4B-12G, Vail Town Code, below and does not violate any other pravision of
the Town af Vail Sign Code.
Section 11 -4B-12C
C. Joint Direcfory Signs For Multi-Tenant 8urldrng: ProJecting and
hanging srgns, joint directory signs for a multi-tenarrt burlding shall
be regulated as follows: ~
1. Purpose: To list all tenants within a multi-terrant burldr'rrg and to
guide the pedestrian to an individuaJ tenant withfn the building-
2. Size: C7ne square foot per tenant within the mulri-tenant bullding,
with a maximum area of flfteen (15) square feet.
3. H'eight: Minimum cleararrce of eighf feei (8') to bottom of srgn
above pedestrianways, and rninimum elearance of fifteen feet
(15') to bottom of sign above vehicular ways. !Vo part af fhe sign
shall exfend abave twenty five feet (25) from existing grade.
4. Number: Dne sign per vehrcular street or major ped'estrianvvay
which the busrrress abuts, subject to design revrew. !f a burlding
has two (2) ar mare major public entrances an dfstinct, separafe
pedestrianways, propQSafs for addltional jo1nt-business
drreetorles may be approved subject to desigrr reuiew, and the
proposaf shall cnnform to other provisiarrs of t17rs Article.
5. Locatron: Perpendicular to or hung from a prajectrng structural
elemenf of fhe exterior wa!l adjacer?t to the street or major
pedesfrianway which the building abUts, subject to design ~
review.
3
~ 6. Design: Subfeet to desrgn review.
7. Lightrng: lrrdirect or pan-channeled.
8. Larrdscaping: Subject fo design review.
9. SpeciaC Provisiorrs: Specfal provisions shall be as fo!lows:
a. All1oint directory signs must be kept current,
b. Five (5) square feet may be included rn a profecting rrr hanging
jaint directory sign far the purpase of identifyrng the buildin,g, in
Ireu of any other sign for rhe same purpose.
I
i loak #orward to assisting you through the develapment review process to
achieve signage for Aalta Sports which confarms with the Town af Vail Sign
Code. Aalta Sports has received approval for a 5.5 square foot sign oWer the
frant entry and over the rear entry. Please review these comments and if you
have any questions regarding this letter please contact me at (970)-479-2148.
I
With regards,
~ gmi"
Warren Campbell
Planner II
Cc: File
Ludwig Kurz, Mayor
George Ruther, Chief of Planning
. ~
i
i
~
~
~
VISTA BAHN AD3ACENT pROPERTY OWNERS
March 18, 2403
f Z l i~ l -~f~2~4`l-UU1
Remonav & Co. .
298 Hanson Ranch Road
P.O. Box 18$8
Edwards, C1D 81632
2101-082-42-008
Vail +Corp.
I-lanson Ranch Road { VVS Tz'act E
P.O. Box 7
Ve.iJ, CC7 81558 21 01-082-42-009
Town of Vail ~
Hanson Ranch Road WS Tract H
75 S. Frontage Road. ~
Vail, CO 81657
2I OZ-0&2-39-004 Town of Vail .
c!o Fiuance Aept. .
75 S. Frontage Raad
Vail, C4 81657
2101-082-69-010 - Unat 112 ' .
Vail Corp,
P.O. Box 7
Vail, CO 81658
2101-082-42-009 Town of Vail
75 S. Frontage Road
Vail, C4 81657
~
Attachment; E
i
. F
~
Red Lioa Inn Condos
344 Bridge Street
Vail, CO 81657
2101-082-53-047 -Unit R-l.
~ Oscar L. Tang
600 5'h Avenue, 8"` Floor
New York,TTY 10420
2101-082-53-010 -Unit C-1
Laudmark Commercial Dev. Co.
610 W. Lionshead Ciscle, Suite 100
Vail, CO 81657
210I-082-53-009-UnitR-3 ,
Top of the Bridge Corp. 1101 Brickell Avenue, Suite 804-5
iNvfia.mz, FL 33131
°
~ Brxdge Stree# Z,od~~
278 Hanson Ranch A.oad
Vail, CO 81657
2101-082-69-001 -Unit 101, 101-A
Riley-B sL r.Lc
228 Bz7.dge Street
VaiL CQ 81657
21 Cl I-082-69-Of}4 - Uni.t 102
R.ad Three LLC
228 Brzdge Street
VaiL CO 51657
2101-082-69-013 --Unit 221, 221-A
Balanovich Txust
c/o John Kaemmer
434 Gore Greek Drive
Vail, GO 81657
2101-082-69-0I6 --Units S-2, S-12, 401, 403 .
Robi~-rt E. Cannon -
P.O. Box 80407
Memphis, TN 38108
i
2101-082-69-018 --Units S-5, 301, 308, 310
Amola BisSegger Lxving Trust
2625 S. AtZa.ntic Avenue 5 NE Daytona Beach Shores, FL 32118
x 2101-082-69-020 --unit~ s-8, 202, 204
Bz-t,dge Street Assoc. LLG'
34100 TelegraphRoad, Suite 20
_ . w
Bingharn Farnas, MZ 48025 2101-0 82-69-022 -Unit 5-10 '
Bridge Street InvestmenLs LLC
Felix Guzazan I'To. 16 Col EI Parque 53390 Naucalpan Nle~dco
2101-0$2-69-035 -Unit 309 .
Arthur C. Cox QPR. Trust
Emma Jane Cax QFR Trust
12001 GuiIford Xtaad
Annapolis 3un.etion, NID 20701 2101-0 82-69-040 -Unit SQI i
' Bridge Street Investments LLC
Felx Guzman No. 16 Col El Farque .
53390 Naucalpan Mexica
2101-082-69-002 -Units 140, I02-A, 144, 105, 106 Colorado Ski Servi.ce, In.c.
P.O. Box 2796 Vail, CO 81658 2I01-082-69-446-Unat 103
. Kari & Uzsula Hoevelma.un
161 South Czolden Drive
S-ilt, CO 81652
2101-0$2-69-011 -'Unit 220, 220-A
John Kaemmer Trustee
291 Bridge Street
Vail, CQ 81657
210 1-082-69-015-Units S-1, 5-13 -
11BW Realty ~
clo Ro n Riley '
228 Bza.dge Stxeet .
Vail, CO 81657
~I
2101-0 82-69-417 --Units 5-4, 302
Rabert & Natafie ~.3issegger
5345 Wind Point Road
F.acine, WI 53402
X2101-082-69-019 -Units S-7, 343
Robert E. IMastersan Real Estate .
Revocable Trus~ P.O. Box 394185
C3maaha, NE 6$139
2101-082-69-021 -Units S-9, "s06
Georgi LLC
30Madison House, The Wa.ge
TOI .Amies Street
London SW11 21W, England
210I-0$2-69-023 --U'nits 5-11, 201 Robert & Nancy Bartel.s
Revocable Truslt
3425 South Twyckenham Drrive
~ S. Benti, IN 46614
2101-0 82-69-03 $ - Unit 402
K T-iaward Camon
Cf0 Bl1CkBye C4llulC15E C4Ip.
7574 Poplar Avenue
Gernxan.town, TN 38138
2101-082-69-032 -Unit 304
Peter A. Bissegger
3021 G°arzetson Avenue
Corana, C14. 928$1 .
.
t~'r
~
. 7HiS 17EM MAY AFFEGT YOUR PROPERTY
PUBL.IC NOTICE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of
Vail will hoCd a public hearing in aecordance with Section 12-3-6 of the Vail 7own Code on April ~
28, 2003, at 2;00 P.M. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. ln cansideration of:
A requesf far a variance from Section 12-78-15, Site Coverage, Vail Town Code, ta allow far a
cavered pedestrian ent.rance, located at the Vista Bahn Building, 333 Hanson Ranch RoadlLat
C, Block 2, Vail Village 1s1 Filing.
AppE9cant: Rernonov & Gofnpany, Inc., represended by Knight Planning Services, Ir,c.
Planner: Warren Campbell .
A request for a recvmmendation to the Vail Town Council of a rnajor amendment ta SpeciaP
Development District No. 6, Vail Village Inn, pursuant ta Sec#ian 12-9A-10, Vail TQvvn Cods, to
allvvu for a change in use, to increase the GRFA and ta increase the number af dweliing units,
located at the Vail Village Inn, 100 E. Meadow QrivelLot O, Block 5D, Vail Village 1 S' Filing.
Appficant: Edna & Claus F'ricke, represented by Fritrlert Pierce Architects
Planner. Matt Gennett
A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council, #a allaw for text amendments tr 7itle
11, Sign Regulations, Vail Town Code, and setting fc rth details in regard thereto.
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: Matt Gennett
A request for a recommendation to the Vail Tawn Cauncil of proposed #ext amendments to Tit1e ~
12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code, to arr7end the Gross Residen#ial Fioar Area (GRFA)
regulations in the Nillside Residentiaf (HR), Sing6e-Farnily Residential {SFFt}, Two-Family
ResicEential (R), Two-Family PrimarylSecondary Residentia! (PS), Residential Cluster (RC), Law
Density Multiple-Family (LDMF), Nledium Density Multip9e-Family (MDMF), High Density MultipEe-
Famiiy (HDMF), and Housing (H) districts, and setting forth detai[s in regard thereto.
Applican#; Vicki Pearsan, et.ai.
PEanner: Bill Gibson
A request for a conditional use permit, to alEow far an outdoar dining deck, in aecordanee wi#h
5ectyQn 12-7B-48, Conditionai Uses, Vail `fown Cade, located at the Vista Bahn Building, 333
Hanson Ranch RoacflLo# C, Bloclc 2, Vail Village 1'' Filing.
Applicant: Remonov &Company, Inc., represented by Knight Planning Services, inc.
Planner: Bifl Gibson
An appeal, pursuant to Sectian 11-2-1 B(Administration; Appeal), of an adrreinis#rative
deteemination tha€ a busoness identificafion sigrr does not meet 3he technical requirements af
Section 11-4B-12135 (ProJecting and Hanging Signs), Vail Town Code, lacated at the Vista Bahn
Building, 333 Hanson Ranch RoadJLot C, Bloc'k 2, Vail Village 15t Fi9ir,g.
Appiicant: Remonov & Company, Ine., represented by Knigh# Planning Services, Inc.
Planner: Warren Campbell
~
~
Y
L
I1 ?'0WN OF yAfL ~t
w ~ MEMORANaUM
7Q: Planning and Environmental Cammissian
FR€3M: Gommunrty Development Department
DATE: April 28, 2003
SU BJ ECT: A request for a recommendatiQn to the Vail Town Gouncil on a proposal to establish
Special Devefopment District No. 37, pursuant to Section i 2-9A-6, Development
Plan, Vail Town CQde, to allow far the redeveloprnent of the Tivoli Lodge, located at
3$6 Hanson Ranch Road/Loi E, Block 2, VaiE Village 5'h Filing.
Applicant: Bob & Diane Lazier
Planner; George Ruther
1. SUMMARY
The applicants, Bob and Diane L,azier, represented by Jay Petersarr, are requesting a
recommendatiQn from the Town of Vail Planning and Environrnen#aI Commission to the Vaif
Town CaunciB of a development application to establish Special Development District No.37,
Tivoli Locige, to allow for the redevelopment of the Tivoli.
~ Upan review ofi the applieable elernenis of the Torrvn's planning documents and adopted
eriteria for review, 4he Community Develapment Department is recommending approval of
the applicants' request with conditians. A complete summary of our review is pravided in Section Vlll of this memorandum.
II. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
The applicants, Bob and DCane Lazier, reprasented by Jay Peterson, are requesting a
recomrriendation fram the Tnwn of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission to the Vail
Town CounciG of a developrnent application to estabEish Special Development District No.37,
Tivali Lodge, fio allow for tne redeueloprnent of the Tivoli.
The establishment of Special Develapmerrt District No. 37 is intendecE to facilitate the
redevelopment of the Tivoli Lodge, located at 386 Hanson Ranch Raad. The applicants are
proposing to demalish the existing Iodge and reconstruct a new lodge on the site. According
to the Official Town of Vail Zoning Map, the proposed development site is located in the
PUbIIC ACCC}1'Y11T30CI21tEoEl ZOfIe d9Stl'ICt. AS SuCFI, development on the site shall ae gaverned by
the regulations outlined in Chapter 7, Public Accommodation (PA) District, Title 12, Zoning
Regulations, Vail Town Cocie. The key elements af the new Tivoli Ladge include;
• The implementatian of the Town of Va1 Streeiscape Master Plan recomQ°nended
improvements along Hanson Ranch Road and Vail Valley Drive;
•The construction of ane new on-site deed restricted empfoyee housing unit;
• Expansion and upgrading of one of Vail's Public Accornmodation zoned properties
~ with 62 new hatel rooms at the base of Vail MQUntain;
• Improved live-bed base added to the existing lodging inventary; and
• Elimination of a portian of existing surface parking and the provision of a new
underground parking structure.
~
w
Pursuant to 5ectian 12-9A-9, Develapment Standards, Vail Tawn Code, the appficant is ~
requesting deviatians frorn the presGribed development standards for building height, aff-
street parking and Ioading requirernents, and minimurn landscapeci area.
A vicinity map showing the location of the project and cornp{ete set af reduced plans
iilustrating the praposed development nave been attached far reference (attachments A& B)
Ili. BACKGROUND
On August 26, 2002 and September 9, 2002, the applicants appeared before the Town of
Vail Planning and Environmental for warksession meetings to discuss the proposed
development application. As ariginafly submitted, the applicants were requestang a text
amendment to the Public Accommodation zone dis#rict development standards to allouv for
an increase in the maximu6n allowable building height from 48 feet for sloping roofs ta 56
feet for slaping roafis. After discussions and deliberations on the proposed text arnendrnent,
the Rlanning and Environmenta! Commissian recommended that the applicants amend their
applica#ion from a request for a text amendment to change the maximum allowable building
height in the zane district to a request for the establishment of a new special development
district. Upon consideration of the text amendment application the Carnmission believed
that an increase in the maximum allowable building height from 4$ feet to 56 feet art the
proposed development site may be acceptable but were cancerned that 56-foot tall buildings
an other development sites in the Publgc Accammadation zone district rnay not be
acceptable. 7he Commissifln did not belieae that a building height wariance cou6d be
supported and instead recammended that the applicants pursue the creation of a new ~
spec+ai development district. Furthermore, the Gammission recommended that the
applicants appear before the Vail Town Couneil for a worksessian meeting ta discuss the
merits of a text amendment versus a speciaf development district as a vehicle to facilitate
the redevelopment of the Tivoli Lodge. A copy of the approved August 26« and September
9`" Planning and Environmental Corrmmission meeting minutes hawe been attached for
reference (attachment C)
On September 4`" 2002, the applicants appeared before the Town af Vail Design Review
Board for a conceptual review of the proposed redevelopment of the Tivoli Lodge. Upon
rerriew of the plans, the Boaed recammended the following majar revisions:
• 7hat the building mass on the west end of the lodge be redesigned to reduce the
height of the lodge in that 6ccation.
• That the west elevation be revised ta add variety and mmvement to the west end af
the ladge.
• That the raof form atop the architecturaf towee elements be redesigned to lessen the
volume of the tovuer roots.
• That the street aevel windouvs alang Hanson Ranch Road be redesigned to change
the appearance o# the first floor of tne lodge
• That the west enci of the lodge be stepped back aviray from the praperty line.
• That the east stair tower be lowered in height to minimize the height of the building.
fln Septernber 17, 2002, the applicants appeared before the Vail TQwn Council for a
worksession meeting to discuss the merits of a text amendment versus a special ~
development district to facilita#e the redevelopment of the Tivofi Lodge. Atter briefiy
considering ihe pros and cons of a text arnertd versus a speciaf development district, the
Town Council recammended that the applicants pursue the creation of a new special
2 I
development district. A copy of the approved September 17'h Vail Town Gouncil
worksession meeting minutes have been attached far reference (attachment D).
IV. RC?LES OF REVIEV4'ING B4ARD5
Special Development District
Order of Review: Generally, applicairans will be reviewed firsf by the PEC for impacts of
use/developmerrt, then by the aR8 for compliance of praposed bcrildings and site planrring,
and final appraval by the Town Council.
Planninq and Environmental CammissiQn;
Action: The PEC is advisory to the Town Council.
The PEC shalG review the proposal for and make a recommendation to the Town Gouncil on
ihe following:
• Perrnitted, accessory, and canciitional uses
• Eualuation af design criteria as fiollows (as applicable):
A. Gompatibility: Design compatibility and sensitivity to the irremediate environment,
neighborhood and adjacent properties reiative to architectural design, scale, bulk,
building height, buffer zones, identity, character, visual integrity and orientation.
~ B. Relatianship: Uses, activiiy and density which provide a compatible, efficient and
workab4e relationship with surrounding uses and activity.
C. Parking And Loading: Compfiance with parking and loading requiremenis as Qutlined
in Chapter 10 of this Title.
D. Comprehensive Plan: Conformity with applicable elements of the Vail
Comprehensive PEan, Town policiQS and urban design plans.
- E. Natural andlor Gealogic Hazarcl: Identification and mitigation of natural aradlar
geolagic hazards that affect the praperty an which the 5pecial development district is
proposed.
F. Design Features: Site plan, bu'rlding design and location and open space provisians
designed to produce a functionai development respansive and sensitive to natural
features, vegetation and ovetalE aesthetic quality of the community,
G. Traffie: A circulation system designed far bo#h vehicles and pedestrians addressing
on and offi-site traffic circulation.
H. Landscaping: Functianal and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order ta
optimize and preserve natural features, recreation, views and function.
1. Workable Plan; Phasing plan or subdevision plan that will maintain a workable,
functional and efficient refationship throughout the development of the special
40 developmerat distriet.
Desiqn Review Board;
Action: The DRB has NO review authority on a Sdd proposal, but must reuiew anV
3
accom an in QRB a iication The DR8 review of an SDD rior to Town CaunCil a roval ~
is qurelv advisorv in nature.
The DRB is responsibie for evaluating the DRB proposal:
• Architectural compatibility with other struc#ures, the land and surroundings
• Fitting buildings into iandscape
+ Configuratian of building ancf grading af a site which respects the topography
+ RemovallPreservatian of trees and native vegetation
• Adequaie pravision for snow storage an-site
• Acceptability of building materials and colors
• Acceptability of roof elements, eaves, overhangs, and other building forms
• Provision of landscape and drainage
• Provision of fencing, wafls, and accessory sfructures
• Circulation and access to a site including parking, and site distance5
• Location and design of satellite dishes
• Provision of outdoor lighting
• Compliance with the architectural design guidefines of applicable master plans.
Staff:
The staff is responsible for ensuring that all submittal requirements are provided and plans
conform #o the #echnFCal requirernents of fhe Zoning Regulations. The staff also advises the
applicant as to compliance uuith the design guidelines.
Staff prouides a staff merrao containing backgeaund on the property and provides a staff ~
evaluatiQn of the project with respeCt ta the required criteria and findings, and a
recornmendatian on approval, approval with conditions, ar denial. 5taff also facilitates the
review process.
Town CQUncil:
Action: The Town Council is responsible for final approval/denial of an SD[7.
The Tawn Councii shalf review the propasal for the fallowing:
Permitied, accessory, and conditional uses
Evaluation of design criteria as follows (as applicable):
A. Cornpatibility: Design compatibifity and sensitivity ta the immediate environment,
neighborhood and adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scafe, bulk,
building he'sght, buffer zanes, icEentaty, character, visual Entegrity and orientation.
B. Relation5hip: Uses, aetovity and density which provide a campatibEe, efficient and
workable refationship with surrounding uses and activity.
C. Parking and Loading: Compliance with parking and loading requirements as outlined in
Chapter 10 of this Title.
D. Comprehensive Plan: Conformity vuith appl9cable elements of the Vail Comprehensrve
Pian, Town polECies and urban design plans.
E. Natural and/or Geologic Hazard: Identific,atian and mitigation of na#ural andlor geolpgic ~
hazards that affect the property on which the special development district is praposed.
4
. ~ F. Design Features: Site plan, building design and location and open space provisions
designed to produce a fiunctional develnpment respansive and sensitive tv natural
features, vegetation and averall aesthetic quality of the cQmmunity.
G. Traffic: A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrNans addressing on
and off-site traffic circulation.
H. Landscaping: Functianal and aesthetic landscaping and open space in Qrder to optimize
and preserve natural features, recreation, views and function.
1. Workable Plan: Phasing pEan or subclivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional
and e#ficient relationship throughout the development of the special development district.
V. APPLICABLE PLANNIMG D4CUMENT'S
Vail Land Use Plan
The Vail Land Use Plan was adapted by the Vail Town CouncFl on November 18,
1988. The p6an is intended to serve as a basis from which future dECisions rnay be
made regarding land use within the valley. The primary facus of the Vail Land Use
Plan is to address the long-term needs and desires of the Town as it matures. The
Town of Vail has evolved from a small ski resort founded in 1962 with approximately
190,000 annual skier visi#s and virtually no permaneni residents to a community uvith
~ 4,500 permanent residents. The Town is faced with the challenge of creatively
accommodating the increase in permanent residency as well as the increase in skier
visits, while preservirrg the impartant qualities that have rnade Vail successful. This
is a considerable challenge, given the fact that land within #he Valley is a wel!-
defined finite resource, wi#h much of the fand already developed at this juncture. ~
The Vail Land Use Plan was undertaken with the goal of addressing this challenge in
mind.
A secondary purpose of the Vail Lanci Use Plan was to analyze a series of properties
ouvned by the Town of Vail, to determine their suitabi6ity far uarious types of
cornmunity facilities.
The goa9s articulated in the plan reflect the desires of the citizenry. The goal
statements that were deve[oped rEflect a general consensus of the comments
shared at public meetings. The goals coniained in the Vai9 Land Use PJara are to be
used as the Tawn's adopied poiicy guidelenes in the revievv process for new
deuelopment prapasals. Staffi has reuiewed the Vail Land Use Plan and believes the
following policies are relevant to ihe reviev++ of this proposal:
1.0 General Growth/Development
1.1 Vail should continue to grow in a eontrolled envdronmerrt, maintaining
a balanee between residential, commercial and recreationai uses to
serve both the visitor and the permanent residen#.
~ 1.2 The qual3ty o€ the environment including air, water and other natural
resourees should be protected as the Tawn grows.
1.3 The quality of cEevelQpment should be maintained and upgraded
5
a
whenever passible. ~
1.4 The ariginal theme af the ald Village Core should be carried intv new
developmen# in the Village Core thrQUgh continued implementation of
the Urban Design Guide Plan.
1.12 VaiF should acccammodate mast of the additianal growth in existing
developed areas (infill areas).
2.0 Skier/Tourist Concerns
2.1 The community shaufd emphasize its role as a destination resort
while accommodating day skiers.
2.2 The ski area owner, the business community and the Tawn leaders
should work together ciasely to make existing facilities and the Touvn
function more efficientky.
2.3 The ski area awner, the business cornmunity and the Town feaders
shoufd work together ta improve faciiities for day skiers.
2.4 The community should improve summer recreational and cultural
opportunities to encourage summer tourism.
3.0 Cammercial
3_1 The hotel bed base should be preserved and used mdre efficiently.
3.2 The Village and LionshEad areas are the best loca#ion for hotels to ~
serve #he future needs of the destinatian skiers.
3.3 Wotels are important to the continued success of the Town of Vail,
therefore conversion to condominiums should be discouraged.
3.4 Commercial growth shauld be concentrated in existing commercial i
areas to accommadate both Gocal and visitor needs. i
4.0 Village Core 1 Lionshead
4.1 Future cQmmercial deveEopment should continue to occur primarily in
existing cornrnercial areas. Future commercial development in the
Core areas needs to be carefully controlled to faeilitate access and
delivery.
4.2 Increased density in the Core areas is acceptabfe so long as ihe
existing character of each area is preserved thorough
implementatian of the Urban Design Guide Plan.
4.3 The ambiance of Vail Village is irrrportant #a the identity of 1lail and
should be preserved. (scale, aEpine character, small town feeling,
mountains, natural setting, intimate size, cosmopaiitan feeling,
environmental quality.)
5.0 Residen#iaP ~
5.1 Additional residential growth should cantinue to occur primarily in
6
i eX4Sting, platted areas and as appropriate in new areas where high
hazards do not exist.
5.3 Affiordable employee hausing should be made avaklable through
private efforts, assisted by [imited incentives, provic{ed by the Town of
Vail with appropriate restrict`sons.
5.4 Residential growth should keep pace wi#h the marketplace demands
for a full range of hausing types.
5.5 The existing ernployee housing base should he preserved ancf
upgraded. Additionaf ernployee hausing needs should be
aceommodated ai varied sites #hroughaui the community.
Accarding to the Official Town of Vail Land Use Plan map, the applicant's proposed
redevelopment site is lacated wiih the "Vail Village MasferPlan"Iand use category. _
Pursuant to the Plan, the "Vail Vr!lage Master Plan"land use category description,
"Vai! Village has beerr designated separately as a mrxed use area and
accourrts for 77 acres or about 2°1 of the Plan area. This area has nof been
anaJyzed rn this Plan document because the Vai! Villa-Qe Master Plan sfudy
addressed this area specrfreally in more detarl."
~ Tawn of Vaif Streetscape MasiEr Plan
The Town of Vail is in the process of preparing a revision to the adopted Town of
Vail Stree#scape Master Plan. The original Master PEan is an outgrowth of the Vaif
Village Urban Design Guide Plan. The Guide Plan was created in 1982 ta give
guidance to the overall physical deuelopment far the Vilfage. Irr addition ta providing
braad design guitielines, the Guide Plan suggested specific physical improvements
far the Village. Irnpravements such as new plazas, new landscape area, ete. Along
with the constrUCtian of these public improuements included propasals to compEete
numerous private sector improvements. Improvements such as building additions
outdoor deck expansions, and fagade irnprovements. The Streetscape Master PCan
was wriiten in part to provide clear design direction for coordinated publiclprivate
improvements. Acccarding to the Master Plan, the purpDSe of the plan is to provide a
comprehensive and coordinated conceptual design for streetscape improvements
that:
1. is supporied by the community;
2. enriches the aesthetic appearance of the Town; and
3. ernphasizes the impartance of craftsrrzanship and creatiue design in order
to ereate an excellent pede$trian experience.
Vail Villaqe Master Plan
The Vail ViIlage Master Plan is based on the premise that the Village can be planned and
designed as a whole. It is intended ta guide the Tawn in developing land use laws and
~ policies for coord'onating derrekopment by the pubEic and private sectors in Vail Village and in
implementing community goals for public irnprovements. It is intended to result in
ordinances and policies that will preserve and iErrprove the unified and attractive appearance
of V'ail Village. Most impartant{y, thes Master Plan shall serve as a guide to ihe staff, review
7
baards, and Touvn Council ira analyzing future proposa[s for development in Vail Viilage and ~
in legislating effective orciinances to deal with such develapmeni. Furthermore, the Master
Plan provides a elearly stated set of goals and abjectives autlining how the Village will grow
in the future.
The Vail Village Master Plan is intended to be consistent with the Uail Village lJrban Qesign
Guide P1an, and along with ihe Guide Plan, it underscores the importance of the relationship
between the built environmen# and public spaces.
{aoals for Vail Village are sumrnariaed in six majDr goal statements. Vl/hile there is a certain
amount af overlap between these six goals, each focuses on a particular aspect o# the
ViHage and the community as a whole. The goal staternents are designed to establish a
framework, or direction, for the future growth of the Village. A series af objectives outline
specific steps that can be taken toward achieving each stated goal. Policy statements have
been developed to guide the Town's decision-making in achieving each of the sta#ed
objectives, whether it be thrQUgh the review of private sectmr development proposals or in
implementing capotal improvement projec#s.
The Vail Village Master Plan's objec#ives and palicy statements address key issues rePative
to grov,rth and development. These statements establish much of the context within which
future deveGopment proposais are evaluated. In implementing the Plan, the abjectives and
policies are used in canjunction wi#h a nurrtber of graphic planning elements that #ogether
comprise this Plan. While the objectives and policies establish a general framework, the
graphic plans provide more specific direction regarding public impravements or developraient
potential on a particular piece of proper#y. ~
The Vail Viliage Master Plan is intended to serve as a guide to the staff, review boards and
Town Councii in analyzing future proposals for development in Vail Village and in legislating
effective ordinances to deal with such development. The rnost significant elements of the
Master Plan are the gaals, objectives, policies and action steps. They are the working toals
of the Master Plan, They establish the broad framework and Wision, but also layout the
specific policies and actian steps that will be used to dmplerr}ent the Plah.
As raoted an page 35 of the MaSter Plan,
-it is importani to note that the likefihond af pro,ject approval will be greatest for those
praposals that can fulfy comply wrth the Vail Vrllage I'Vfasier P1an.'°
Staff believes this statement re-emphasizes that ihe Master Plan is a general document
providing advisory guitEelines to aid the Town ira analyzing developmen# prcrpasals and that
full compliance is not required in order for a project to be appraved.
The stated goals of #he Vail Village Master Pian are:
Goal #1 Encourage high quality redeveloprnent while preserving the unique
arehitectural scale af the Village in order to susiain its sense of community
and identity.
Qbjeetive 1.2: Encourage the upgrading and redevelapment of resicfentia! ~
and commercial facilities.
C7bjective 1.3: Enhance new development and redevelaprraent thraugh
public irnprovesr?ents done by priuate developers warking in cooperatian with
8
~ the Town.
Goal #2 To faster a strong taurist indusiry and promote year-round economic health
and viability for the Village and far the cammunity as a whole.
Objective 2.3: Increase the number of residential units available f4r short
term overnight accammodations.
Objective 2.4: Encourage the development of a variety of new cornmercial
activity where compatible with existing land uses.
Objective 2.5: Encaurage the cantinued upgrading, renovation and
maintenance of existing lodging and carnmercial facilities tcr better serve the
needs of aur guests.
Objective 2.6: Encourage the development of affardabGe housing units
through the efforks of the private sector.
Gaal #3 To recognize as a tap priority the enhancement of the walking experience
throughout the Vilfage.
flbjective 3.1: Physically improve the existing pedestrian ways by
landscaping and dther improvements.
~ Objective 3.2: M3nimize the amaunt of vehicular traffic in 1he Village to the
greatest extent possible.
Objective 3.4: Qevelop ad'ditional sidewalks, pedestrian-only walkways and
accessible green space areas, including pocket parks and stream access.
Goal #4 To presenre existing open space areas and expand green space
oppartunities.
Qbjective 4.1: Improve existing open space areas and create new plazas ~
with greenspaces and paeket parks. Recagnize the different roles of each
type pf open space in forrning the overall fabric of the VJllage.
Goal #5 Increase and improve the capacity, efficiency and aesthetics of the
transportation and circulatian system dhroughout the Vi{lage.
Qbjeetive 5.1: Meet parking demands wifh public and private parking
facilities.
Goal #6 To insure the continued improvement af the vital operatianal elements of ihe
Village.
Objective 6.1: Provide service and delivery fiacilities for existing and new
developmerat.
~ Objective 6.2. Provide for the safe and efficient functions of fire, police and
pcrblic utilities within the context of an aestheticaily pleasEng resart setting.
Vai! Villaqe Urban Design Guide Plan
9
This Guide Plan represents collective icieas about functional and aesthetic objectives for Vail ~
Village. Diagrammatic in roature, the Guicfe Plan is intended to suggest fhe nature of
improverrroents desired. It is based on a number of urban desigrt criteria determined to be
apprQpriate for guiding change in the Vail Village. The Guide plan is intended to be a guide
for current planning in both the publEC and private sectors.
Vail Village Desiqn Cansideratpons
The Tawn of Vail aciapted the Vail Village Design Considerations in 1980. The Design
Consideratiarrs were revised in 1993. The Design Considerations are considered an
integral par# of the Vail ViPlage Urban Design Plan. The Qesign Considerations are intended
ta:
• guide growth and change in ways that well enhance and preserve the essential
qualities of the Village; and
• serve as design guidelines instead of rEgid rules of develapment; and
• help influence the form and design of buildings.
The Vail VifBage Design Considerations are divided into two categaries (urban design
consideratFOns and architecturalflandscape considerations):
1. URBAN aES1GN CONSCDER,4TIONS ~
These considerat9ons relate to general, large-scale land use planning issues, as well as
form considerations whieh affect more than one property ar ewen whole areas. These
considerations are primarify the purview of the Planning and Environmental Commission.
A. PEDESTRIANIZATION
A major objective for Vail Village is to encourage pedestrian circulation
through an intercannected network af safe, pleasant pedestrian ways. Many
of the improvements recognized in the Urban Design Guide Plans, and
accompanying Design Conssderations, are ta reinforce and expand the
quafity of pedestrian walkways throughout the Village,
Since vehicular traffEC cannot be removed frnrn certain streets (bus routes,
delivery access), a totally care-free pede5#rian system is not achievable
throughout the entire Village. Therefore, seueral levels of pedestrianization
harre been identified.
B. VEHICLE PENETRATION
To rnaximize to fhe extent pnssible, all non-resident traffic should be routed
alang the FrontagE Road to Vail Village/Lionshead Parking Structures.
In conjunction with pedestrjanization objectives, major emphasis is focused
upon reducing auto penetration into the center of the Village. Vail Road and
Vail VaIley Drive will continue to serve as major rautes for service and ~
resident access to the Village.
Road consirictians, traffie circles, signage, and other measures are indicated
in the Guide Pfans to visually and physicaily discourage all but essential
ia
I
~ vehicle penetration upon the Frontage Road. Alternatiwe access points and
privaie parking relocation, where feasible, should be considered to further
reduee traffic canfGcts in the Village.
C. STREETSCAPE FRAMEWORK
TQ improve the quality ofi the walking experience and give continuity to the
pedestnan ways, as a continuaus system, two general types of
improvements adjacen# to the walkways are considered:
t. Open spaee and landscaping, berrns, grass, flowers and tree planting
as a soft, colorful framewark linkage along pedestrian routes; and plazas and
park greenspaces as open nodes anci focal Raints alang thase routes,
2. Infill commercial storefronts, expansion of existing buiEdings, or new
infill development to create new cornmercial activity generators to give
streetli#e and visual irrterest, as attractions at key Iocations along pedestrian
routes.
lt is nat intended to enclose all Village streets with buildings as in the core i
areas. Nor is it desirable to beave pedes#rian streets in the open in I
somewhat undefined condition evident in many other areas of VaiL Rather, it
is desired to have a variety of open and enclased spaces, both 6uilt and
landscaped, which create a strong framewark for pedestrian walks, as we{I
as visual interest and activity.
~ D. S7FtEET ENCLOSURE
While building facade heights should ngt be uniform from tauiiding to
building, they should provide a"comfortable" encCosure for the s#reet.
Fedestrian streets are mutdaor rooms, whose walls are formed by the
buildings. The shape and f2el of these "rooms° are created by the variety of
heights and massing (3-dimensional Wariatians), which give r-nuch of the
visuaE interest and pedestrian scale unique to Vail. Very general ruies, about
the perception of exterior spaces laave been developed by designers, based
on the characteristics of human uision. They suggest that:
"an external enclasure is most comfortabie when its walls are
approximately 1l2 as high as the width of the space enclosed, if the ratio
fails t0 1/4 or less, the space seems unenclosed; and if the height is
greater thaR the width it comes to resemble a cartyon".
In actual application, facades are seldam uniform in height an both sides of
the street, nar is #his desired. Thu$, some latitude is apprQpriate in the
applicatian af this 112 to 1 ratio. Using the average facade height on both
sides will generaliy still be a guide to the comfortab[eness of the enclosure
being created.
in some instances, the "canyan" effect is acGeptable and even desirable. For
example, as a short connee#ing linkage betvueen larger spaces, to give
~ varie#y to the walking experience. Far sun/shade reasons it is often
adwantageous to orient any 4onger segments in a northfsauth directifln. Long
canyon streets in an easUvvest directian should generally be discouraged_
11
Vllhen exceptwons to the general height criteria occur, special consideration ~
should be given to ereate a well-defined ground floor pedestrian emphasis to
overcome the "canyon" effect.
Canopies, awnings, arcades and building extensions can a!I crea#e a
pedestrian focus and divert attention from the upper building heights and
"Ca11ydG1" 2ff2Ci.
E. STREET EDGE
Buildings in the Village core should form a strong but irregular edge to the
street.
Unlike rnany American towns, there are no standard setback requirements
for buildings in Vail Village. Consistent with the desire for intimate
pedestrian scale, placement of portions Qfi a building at or near the property
line is allawed and encouraged to give strang de#inition ta the pecfestrian
streets.
This is not to imply cantinuaus building frontage afong the property line. A
strang street edge is impartant for continuity, but perfectly aligned facades
over tao long a distance tends to be monatanous. With only a few
exceptions in the Village, slightly irreguEar facade lines, building jags, and
landscaped areas, give the life to the street and visual interest for pedestriara
traveL
WhEre buildings }og to create activity packets, ather elements can be used to ~
continue the street edge; low planter walls, tree planting, raised sidewalks,
texture changes in ground surface, arcades, raised decks.
Plazas, patios, and green areas are important focal poinrs for gathering,
resting, orien#ing and should be distribu#ed throughou# the Village with due
consideration to spacing, sun access, apportunities far views and pedestrdarr
aCtivity.
F. BUILDING HEIGHT
Vail Village is perceived as a mix of twca and three story facades, although
there are also faur and fiue story buildings. The mix of building heights gives
variety to the street, which is desirable. The height criteria are intended to
encourage height in rnassing variety and to discourage uniform building
heights along the street.
G. VIEINS AND FOCAL POINTS
Vail's mountainfvalley settirag is a fundamental part of its identity, Views of
the cnountains, ski slapes, creeks and other natural features are rerninders ta
our visitors of the mountain envirorrment and, by repeated visibRlity, are
arierttation reference poinis, Certain'building features also praWide important
orientation references and visual focal paints. The most signifrcant view
carridors in the Viflage have been adapted as part o# Chapter 18.73 of the
Vail MunFCiFaI Code. The view carridors adopted should not be considered
exhausted. When evaluating a develaprraent proposal, priority shoUld be ~
given ta an analysis of the iimpacted project on public views. Views that
should be preserved originate frarn either major petiestrian areas or public
space5, and include views of the ski rnountain, the Gore Range, the Clock
12
~ 7ower, the Rucksack Tower and other important man-made and natural
elements that contribufe to the sense af place assaciated wifh Vail. These
views, whieh have been adapted by ordinance, wece chasen due to their
significance, not only from an aesthetic stanclpoint, but alsa as orientatian
reference points for pedestrians. Development in Vaif Village shall not
encroach into any adopted view corridar, unless appraved under Gnapter
18.73. Adopted corridors are listed in Ghapter 18.73 of the Vail MunieipaI
Code. Whether affecting adopted view carridors or not, the impact of
propo$ed development on viev++s from public ways and public spaces must
be iderrtified and considered where appropriate.
H. SERVICE AND QEL6VERY
Any bui[ding expansion should preserve the functions of existing service
alleys. The few service alleys that exist in the Village are extremely
important to minimizing vehicle congestion on pedestrian ways. 7he use of,
and vehicular access ta, thase alleys should nat be eliminated except where
#unctianal alternatives are nat provided.
In all new and remodeled construction, delivery which avoids ar reduces
irripacts on pedestrian ways should be explored; and adopted whenever
prae#ieal, for immeciiate or future use. Rear aecess, basement and belovv
ground delivery eorridors reduce congestian. Weather protectian increases
delivery efficiency substantially.
~ Be6ow grade defivery corr'sdors are found in a few buildings irr Uail ViPlage
(Sitzrnarkl"Gore Creek Plaza, VilPage Center, Vail Village Inn). Consideration
should be given to extending these corridors, where feasible, and the
creatian of new ones. As buildings are canstructed or rernodeled, the
opportunity may exist to develop segments of afuture system.
1. SUNJSHADE
Due to Vail's alpine climate, sun is an impartant camfart factor, especially in
winter, fall and spring. Shade areas have ambient temperatures
subs#antially befow those of adjacent direct sunlight areas. On all but the
warmest of summer days, shade can easily lower temperatures belaw
comfortable leuels and thereby, negatively impact use of those areas.
All new or expanded buildings should eoot substantially increase the sprang
and fall shadow line (March 21 - September 23) on adjacent properties c+r the
public right-of-way.
In all building construction, shade shall be considered in massing and overail
height consideration. Notwithstanding, sun/shade consideratians are not
intended ta restrict building height aElowances, aut rather to influence the
massing of buildings. Limited height exceptians may 6e granted to meet this
criteria.
Town of Vail Zoninq Regulations
~ Staff has reuiewed the Town of Vail Zoning Regulations (Titie 12, Vail Town Code).
We believe the following code sections are relevant to the review of the applicanYs
request;
13
Section 12-2-2 DEFINITIC7NS: ~
.4CCDMMODATICaN UNfT: Any room or group af rooms withouf kitchen
facilities designed for or adapted to occupancy 6y guests and accessrble
from eommQn cQrridors, wa!ks, or 6alconres without passing fhraugh another
accommadation unit or dwelling unit. Each accommodatron unit shall be
caunted as ane-half (112) of a dwe!ling unit fQr purposes vf calcufatirrg
allowable unr'ts per acre.
DIMELLlNG UN1T.• Any raom ar group af rooms in a two-famriy or muliiple-
farnily building with kitchen facilifies desrgrred for or used by vne family as an
independent hvuselseeping unrt, A dwe!ling unit in a muftiple-family bullding
may fnclude ane attached aceommodaflon unit no larger than one-ihird (113)
of fhe tofal flaor area of fhe dweNing.
LODGE: A 6urldirtg or group of assocrated buildlrrgs desrgned far accupancy
primarily as the temporary lodgrng place of indrvrduals or famrlr'es either in
accomriaadation unifs ar dwellrng units, irr which the grass resrderrti,al floor
area devvted to accommodatian units or fractional fee club units, ds equal to
or greater fhan seventy percent (70 of the fotaf gross residenfial floor area
an the site, and in which all such urn'ts are operated uncfer a single
maraagement provlding the occupants thereof customary hotsl services and
facrlitres.
Notwrthstanding the above fQr properties contar'nrng gross resfdeniial floor ~
area eqUal to Qr less than eighty (80) square feef of gross residentral floor
area for each one hundred feet (100) of buildable site area, such properties
shall be defined as lodges, provided thatgross residenfial floorarea devoted
to accommodation Units or fractional fee club uni[s exceed the g'ross
residenfial floor area devoted to dwelling units.
Article 12-7A, PUBI..IC ACCC7MMODATlON (PA) DISTRICT (in part)
12-7A-1: PURPQSE:
The Public Accommadatran (Jrstrict is intended to provrde sites for lodges
and resrderrtial accommodafions frr visitors, together with such publrc and
semipublic facilrties and lrmited professronal offices; medreai facilitie,s, privafe
recreatrv,n, commercialfreiail and refated visitor-ariented uses as may
appropriately be located withirr fhe same distriet and compatibIe uvith
adjacentland uses. The PublieAccommodaCion District rs intended to ensure
adequate light, air, open space, and other amenities corrrmensurate wlth
lodge uses, and to maintain the a'esirable resort qualitie$ of the District 6y
establishing apprapriate site development siandards. AdditionaJ
nvnresideratial uses are perrnitted as corrditional uses which errhance the
rraiure of Vail as a vacatron communrty, arrd where perrrrrtted uses are
interrded to function eompatrbly with the high derasity lodgrng charaeter of fhe
Drstrict.
12-7A-2- PERNJlTTED [1SES:
The fn!lowing uses sha!l be permr'tted rn the PA Qlstrret: ~
L odges, irrcludirrg accessory eaPirrg, drfnkrrrg, or retail es#ablishments lvcated
wviFhrn the prinerpal use and not occupyrng more than ten percent (10°fo) of
[he total gross residentiaf floar area of the mairr structure or structures an the
14
~ site; additional accessory dinirrg areas may be locared an an oufdoor dack,
pQrch, or terrace.
1 2-7A-4.` ACCESSC?R Y USES:
The fcrllowing accessary uses shall be permitted rn the PA Districi:
Home occupa[ions, subfect ta issuarace of a home occupatiorr permit in
accardance wi[h the provisions of Section 12-14-12 of thrs Tftle.
Meeting rooms.
Nlinor arcade.
Svvirrrming pooJs, iennis courts, patias, or other recreatinn facilitres
custo,rrarily incidental to permitted ladge uses.
Other uses customarrly incidental and accessory to permitted or
conditional uses, and necessary for the operation thereof.
12-7A-6' SETBACKS:
In the PA Districf, the rnlnr'mum tront setback sha11 be twenty fee[ (20'), the
mfnirrlum side setback shall be twenfy feet (20), and the minirnum rear
sefbaek shall be iwenty feet (20). At the discretlQn af the Planning arrd
Envrronmentai Commission and/or the Design Review Board, variations tn
the setback starrdards outlirredabove,may be approved durirag the revrew of
exterior alternations or modffrcatiorts (SeCtion 12-7A-12 of this Arficle)
su6ject to the applicanf demansiratfng compliance wrth the followtng crrteria:
~ A. Proposed building setbacks provide neeessary separation
between burldings and riparian areas, geafagrcally sensitive
areas aRd other environmentally sensrfive areas.
B. Pro,pased btrilding sefbacks comp/y wrth applicable elements
of the Vail VillagE Urbarr Design Guide Plan and Design
Cpnsrdera tions.
C. 1'raposed building setbacks will provide adequate availabilify
of light, arr arrd open space.
D. Proposed buildfng setbacks wiEl prouide a compatible
relationship with buildings ar+d uses on adfacent properties.
E. Praposed buiEding setbacks will result in creative design
solutions or other public benefrts that eould not otherwise be
achievea' 6y conformarrce wifh prescribed se[back standards.
12-7A-14: IVIITIGATlON 4F D'EVEL4PMENT IMPACTS:
Property ownersldevelapers sha!l also be responsible for rnitigating direct
rmpacts of therr develvpmen[ on publie infrastructure and irr af1 cases
mrtigation shaJl bear a reasorrable relatron to the development impacts.
Impacts may be determined based an reports prepared by quafified
corrsultants. The extent vf mltr'gatron and pu6lic amenity rmprovements shall
be baJanced with the goals of redeveJopment arad will be determined by the
Plannrng and ERVlrorrmentaf Commrssion rn review of develapment projects
and cond'itrorral use permrts. Substantial otf-site rmpacfs may include, but are
not frmrted to, the fo!lowrrrg: deed restrrcted employee housfng, roadvuay
~ rm,orovemerrts, pedestrian walkway r'mprovements, streetscape
r'mprovements, siream tractlbank restoratioR, loadirrg/dellvery, public art
improvemerrts, and similar irrtprovements. The intent of thls SectioR rs ro only
requrre mitigation for large scale redevelvpmenG'developrnent projecfs which
prodvice scrbstanrial off-sire impacts.
15
~
VC. ZONING ANALY5IS
Lega! Description: Lot E, B1ock 2, Vaii Village Fifth Filing
Zoning; Public Accommodation (PA) Qistrict
Lancf Use Designatian; Vail Village Master Pian
Lot Size: 17,707 sq. ft.10.4065 acre
Deyelopment Standard Aliowed Proaosed
Density (dwelling units/acre): 10 DUs (251acre) 1 DUs (2.5/acre)
Accommodatidn Units (AUs): unlimited 61 Alls
Employes hausing Unit (EHUs): unlimited 1 EHU
Gross Rcsitientia! Floor Area: 26,561 sq. ft. ar 26,584 sq. ft. or
Up to 1 50% 150%
Gross Residential Floor P,rea:
(70% AlJs) 18,593 sg. ft min. 23,560 sq. ft (89°!a)
(30% DUs) 7,968 sq. ft. max. 3,000 sq. ft (11°!0)
(EHUs) Unlimited 450 sq.ft.
Retail Area: 2,856 sq. ft. or 10°!0 0 sq. ff. or 0%
Site Coverage. 11,506 sq. #t. or 65% 11,200 5q. 1#. fli' 63% ~
Landscape Area: 5,312 sq. ft. or 30% 5,312 sq. ft. or 30%
harciscape t20%y 1,062 sq. ft(max.) 1,356 sq. ft. or 25%
softscape (80%) 4,250 sq. ft.(mirt.) 3,956 sq. ft. vr 75%
Setback5: 20 ft. minirnum Varies
unless approved (see development plan)
atherwise by
the PEC
Gore Creek Setback: 50 ft. rrsinimurn NA
Parkeng: 46 spaces 40 spaces
Laading; 1 bay 1 bay (in the fron# set6ack)
Height: 48 ft. maximurn 56 ft.
BQLD indicates deviations frorn the prescr6bed development startdards.
VIL SLiRR[3UNDING LQND USES AND ZONING
Land Use Zoninq North: Residential Public Accommodatian ~
South: Open Space/Park Agriculture and Open Space
East: Residentia! Pub9ic Aecommadatian
West: Residential/Lodging Public Accommodation
is
' i
~ VlII. THE SPEGIQL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT E5TA8L15HMENT AFJD REVIEW PF30CESS
Chapter 12-9 of the Tawn Cade proVides for the establishmerrt af special development
distriets in the Tawn of Vail. Accarding to Section 12-9A-1, the purpose of a special
development district is,
'7a encourage flexibifity and creatrvi#y in the development of land, in Qrder ta
prorrrote its most approprrate use; to improve the desrgrr character arad quality of the
rrew development within the Town; to facilifate the adequaPe and economreal
provrsion of streets and utrlitles; to preserve the natural and scerarc featUres of apen
space areas; and to further rhe averall goafs of the commurrity as stated in the Var!
Cornprehertsiwe Plan. An appraved development plan for a Specla! Developmen[
Drstrrct in conJUnction w1th the property's underlying zone drstrict, sha1l esfablish the
requr'rements fQrguidirag development and uses of praper7y Included in the Specia!
Develapment Drstrict,.'
An appraveci development plan is the principal document in guiding the development, uses,
and activities of ihe special development distriet. The development plan shall conta9n all
relevant material and information necessary to establish the parameters with which the
special development district shall adhere. 7he development plan may consist af, but not be
aimited ta: the approved site plan; floor plans, building secfians, and elevations: vicinity plan;
parking plan; preliminary apen space/landscape pfan; densities; and permitted, conditional,
and accessory uses.
~ The determination of permitted, conditional and accessory uses shaEl be made by the
Planning and EnvirQnmental Cornmissian and Town Cauncil as part of the formal review of
the proposed development plan. Unless furthar restricted thraugh #he review of the
proposed special development distric#, permitted, canditionaf and accessory uses shall be
limited ta those permitted, cond'rtianal and accessory uses in the property's underCying zane
district.
The Tawn Cade provides nine design criieria which shall be used as the principal criteria in
evaluating the merits of the proposed special development district. It shall be the burden of
the applicant to demon5trate that submittal material and the proposed development plan
comply with each of the following standards, ar demonstrate that one or more af thern is not
applicab6e, or #hat a practical solution consistent with the public interest has been achieved.
The foC1owing is a staff analysis of the projeet's compliance with the nine SDQ review criteria:
~ CRITERIA FOR REVIEIN:
A. Qesign campatibili#y and sensitivityto the immediate enviranment, neighborhoad and
adjacerat properties reiative to archifectural design, scale, hulk, building height, buffer
zones, identity, character, visual integrity and orientatian.
The Tivoli Ladge development site is loeated at the southwest corner of the interseciion of
Hanson Ranch Road and Vail Valley Drive. An attaehed vicini#y map has been provided for ~
reference {attachment A}. The development site is adjoined on the narth, east and west by
multiple-farniiy residential development and on 1he south by Town of Vail owned open
is space. The adjoining residential propertiES include the Villa Ualhalla, Galatyn Lodge,
Christiania Lodge, and Ramshorn Conclor`niniums. All af these properties are lacated in the
Public Accommodation zone district, and thus share the same development standards. Each
of the ad}`oining properties have very similar lat sizes with #he range in size being fram 0.31
aCres to 0.50 acres.
17
The adjaining properties enjoy similar development characteristics. Each of the adjoining ~
residential properties have recently undergone various farrns of redevelopment and each
has utilized the special development district process #o accomplish their goals. Each of the
adjoining properties addresses their off-street parking requirements, in part, at an off-site
location. The buildings canstructed on the adjaining properties are all three and faur stary
tal4 buiidings and ail have been granted deviatians from the minimurn setback requirements.
Similar to the proposed Tivoli Lodge, all the adjoining developments cQmply with ihe
prescribed site coverage and GRFA regulations.
The architectural clesign of the Tivoli Lodge, like its neighbors, is governed by the design
guidelines prescribed in Chapter 11, Design Review, of the Vail Town Code and the by the
recommendations outlined in the Vaii Viilage Urban Design Considerations. As such, the
architectural design of the proposed lodge is intended to be compa#ible with the unique
Eurapean alpine viilage character preseribed for Vail Vilsage. The exteriar design of the
lodge is a rnixture of stone, stucco and wood. Accent elements of the desigra inclucie
decorative windov,r shutters, diWided light windflws, irrigated wooden flower boxes and
steeply pitched roof forms and architectural elements rr3ost af#en seen in alpine design.
The applicarats are requesting a deviation #rvm the maximum allowable building height
regulation. pursuant to Section 12-7A-7, o# #he Vail Town Code, the maximum allowable
building height in the Public Accommodation zone district is 4$ feet far slopirrg ar mansard
roofs. The applicants are requesting a maximum allowable buifding height within the special
deveiopment district of 56 feet. The applicants contend that the 48-foot limitation does no#
adequately address current hotel accommodation building trends. A 48-foot height limitatian ~
permits 9-foot floor to floor sections with an additional 12 feet far sEoping roofs as
recommended in the variaus tawn master plans (9' X 4 floors +12' = 48). According to the
applicants, the proposed 56-faat heaght limitation is justi#ied as i# permits four floors of hotel
with 11-foot fioar to flaor sec#ians and 12 additional feet ta accommadate the s6oping raof
(11' x 4 floors +12'= 56').
Tlae applicants are requesting a deviation from the minimum 20-foat setback requirement.
Accorciing to Section 12-7A-6, Setbacks, Vai{ Town Cods,
In fhe PA Drsfrict, the rninrmurn frant set6ack shall be twenfy feef (20'), the minimum
side set6ack shalf be twenty feet (20), and ihe minirnum rear setback shall be twenty
feet (20'). At the discrefion of fhe Planning ancf Environrr+ental C'omrrlission and/vr
the Design Review Baard, varia[ions to the setbaclc standards ou[lined a6ove may
be approved a'uring ihe r'eview of exterior alternations or mQdifrcatfans (Section 12-
7A-12 of this Article) subject tQ the applicant demonstrating compliance with the
following criferia:
A. Pr+aposed building setbacks provide necessary separation befween buildings and
rrparran areas, geofogically sensirive areas and other envirpnrrrentally sensitrve
areas.
Stafif Response:
There are no identifiecE geolagicaEly car environmentally sensitive areas on this property. ~
Pursuant to ihe Uniform Building Gode, the applicants must provide a minimum
separation of 20 feet between the proposed lodge and any adjacent buildings. The
applicants' property is bordered on all sides by Town of Vail right-of-way or open space.
Staff believes #hat the applicatian cornplies with this criterian.
i~
~
B. Proposed burlding setbacks comply wifh applicable elements of the Vai! Village
Urban Design Guide Plan arrd Design Corasiderafions.
The applicable elements of the Vail Village Urbara Design Guide P9an and Design
Considerations are outGined belaw: '
1. URBAN QESIGN CC?NSIDERATIONS
Thcse considerations relate to general, large-scale [and use planning issues, as well
as farm considerafions whieh affect more than one property or even whale areas.
These considerations are primarily the purview of the E'lanning and Environmental
Cornmission.
A. PEDESTR1ANfZ.ATfGN
A majar objective for Vail Village is ta encourage pedestrian circulation
through an interconnected network of safe, pleasant pedestrian ways. Many
of the improvernents recpgnized in the Urban Design Guide Plans, and
accompanying Design Considerations, are to reinfiorce and expand the
quality of pedestrian walkways throughout the Village.
Since vehicular traffic cannot be removed from cenain streets (bus routes, delivery access), a totally eare-free pedestrian system is not achievable
thraughout the entire Village. Therefore, several levels af pedestrianization
~ have been identified.
5taff Respanse:
The Tivoli Lodge deWelQpment site is bordered by Vail Valley Drive on the
east and Hanson Ranch Road to the narth. Both Vail Valley arive and
Hanson Ranch Fioad are designated as streets intended to accommodate
pedestrian and vehic{e traffic. Vail Valley arive Fs also a designated Tawn of
Vail bus route.
The applicants are propo5ing to implement the recommendations of the
Tawn a6 Vail Streetscape N3aster Plan. According to the Plan, the Tiuolo
Lgdge is located in the East Village Sub Area. The Eas1 Village Sub Area is
predorninantly made up of lodges and condominiums. Vehlcular traffic in this
area is not restricted, nor is it recommended that it be restricted in the future.
Accornmodating pedestrian movernent, while mainta'rning vehicufar fCow, is
one of the challenges in 1he Sub Area. The primary gaal of the East Vilkage
Sub Area is ta provide an ef#ective and safe pedestrian system, while
I accommoclating Wehicle and bicycle tra#fic.
Ta this end, the Plan recommends that the west side of Vail Valley Drive be
a heated 8-foot wide canerete unit paver walkway and that the south side af
Hansan Ranch Road incluBe a brick ar concrete unit paver band be added at
the edge of asphalt to better define the raadway. The $-foot wide concrete
~ unit paver walkway was constructed when Vail Valley Drive was rebuilt along
witfa the construction of the Grald Peak ski base, however, the heated
snawrnelt system was never installed. The concrete unit paver band has yet
ta be completed on Hanscan Ranch Raad. The applicants will be required to
install and operate a heated snawmelt system beneath the portion of
19
sidewalk fram thae intersection of Vail Valley Drive and Mill Creek Circle to the ~
west side of Tract A to the west of the Tivoli Lodge to mitigate the impacts of
their development and ta prowide a public benefit that outweighs any adverse
impacts of the building height dewiation may create. This requirement uvill
afso include the installation of street IigFating and street furnishings avong the
sarrae portian of right af way.
Staff believes that the praposed applicatian complies with this criterion.
B. VEHICLE PENETRATIOhI
To maximize ta the extent poss'rble, a91 non-resicient traffic shauld be couted
along the Frontage Raad to Vail VillagelLionsheaci Parking Struetures.
In conjunction with pedestrianization objeetives, majar emphasis is focused
upon reducing auto penetration into the center af the Village. Vail Road and
Vail Valley Drive will continue to serve as major routes for service and
resident access to the Village.
Raad constrictions, traffic circles, signage, and other measures are indicated
ira the Guide F'lans to visually and physically discourage all but essenrial
vehicle penetration upon the Frontage Raacf. Altematiwe access pain#s and
private parking relocation, where feasible, should be considered to further
reduce traffic confiicts in the Village.
Staff Fiesponse:; ~
`Che 7ivali Lodge dewelopment site is bordered by Vail VaAey Driwe on the
east arad Hanson Ranch Road to the ncarth. Both Vail Vailey Drive and ~
Hanson Ranch Road are designated as streets intended ta accommodate ~
pedestrian and vehfele traffic. Vail VaIley Drive is aEso a designated Town of
Vail bus route. Neither street is intended ta be pedestrian -only. Staff
believes that the proposed applicatiQn camplies with this criterion.
C. STREETSCAPE FRAMEWQRK
Ta improve the quality of the walking experience and give cantinuity to the
' pedestrian ways, as a continuous system, two general types of
ienprovements adjacent to the wal3cways are considered:
1. Open space and laradscaping, berms, grass, flowers and tree planting
as a sDft, colorful framework linkage alang pedestrian rautes; and plazas and
park greenspaces as open nodes and focal poin#s along those routes.
2. Infill cammercial storefrants, expansion of existing buiEdings, or nevtir
infiCa development to create new commeccial activity genera#ars to give
streetlife and visual interest, as attractians at key locations along pedestrian
routes.
It is not intended to enclase all Village strsets with buildings as in the core
areas. Nor is it desirable to leave pedestrian streets in the open in
s4mewhat undefined eondition evident in many other areas of Vail. Rather, it ~
is desired ta have a variety of open and enclosed spaces, both buiit and
landscaped, which create a strong frameworls far pedestrian walks, as well
as visual interest and activity.
20
~
Staff Response:
The applicants are proposing to improve and enhance the streetscape
framework along Hanson Ranch Road and Vail Valley Drive. To this end, a
landscape plan has been proposecf that incorparates a new pedestrian
sidewalk around twa sides of the Ladge into the new landscape design. Of
greatest impartance, however, the applicants are proposing to preserve five
maturing evergreen trees located an the northeast corner of the deveiopment
site. The new sidewalk and a new Iandscape design that includes new and
existing trees, shrubs, grasses and flowers ensure campliance with the
streetscape framework criteria. Staff belisves tha# the proposed applicatean
eomplies with this criterion.
D. STREET ENCLQSURE
WhiPe building facade heights shoulti not be uniform from building to
building, they shauld prQvide a"comfortable" enclosure far ths street.
Pedestrian streets are outdoor rooms, whase walls are formed by the
bui[dings. The shape and feel of these "rooms° are crea#ed by the variety of
heights and massing (3-dirraensionaE variations), which give much of the
visual interest and pedestrian scale unique to Vaii. Very generaf rules„ about
the perception of exterior spaces hawe been developeci by designers, based
on the characteristics of human visiarr. They suggest that:
~ "an external enclosure is most cornfortable when iis walls are
appraximately 1/2 as high as the width of the space encfosed; if the ratia
falls to 1/4 or less, the space seems unenclasetf, and 'of the height is
greater than the width it corrzes to resemble a canyon".
In actual application, facades are seldam uniform in height nn both sides of
the street, nor is this desirecf. 7hus, some latitude is appropriate in the
application ?f this 1l2 ta 1 ratio. Using the average #acade height on both
sides will generally still be a guide to the comfartabfeness of the enclosure
being ereated.
ln some instances, the "canyon" ef#eci is acceptable arad even desirable. For
example, as a short cannecting linkage between larger spaces, to give
variety to the walking experience. For sun/shade reasons it is aften
advantageous to orient any longer segments in a north/south direction. Long
canyon stree#s in an EasUwest direction should generaily be discouraged.
When except9ons io the generaE height criteria occur, special considera#ion
shouid be given ta create a well-de#ined ground floor pedestrian emphasis to
overcome the "carsyan" effect.
Canapies, awnings, arcades and building extensions can all create a
pedestrian focus and divert attention from the upper building heights and
~ "canyan" effect.
5ta#f Restaonse:
7he configuration of the Tivoli Lodge developrnent site largely dictates the
21
orientation of the buifding and the impacts that result regarding street ~
enclosure. The #wo street facades of the lodge are articulated and varied,
both harizantally and verticaPly, along the Iengths of the building. Two
architectural features are praposed on the north elevation (Hanson Ranch
Road) of the lodge ta create wisual interest and variety in the massing of the
building. A similar architectural feature Es propased on the sautheast carner
of the lodge to create a focal point on that end of the building. Additionafly, a
mansard roof design has been proposed by the architects to physically and
visually reduce the apparent height of the lodge. The miansard roof design
envelops the mass of the lodge arad lowers the eave Yine of the buiiding. The
net effect of this is a building thai appears much lower in height than it
actually is. Staff believes that the appGcation complies with this criterion.
E. STREET EDGE
Buildings in the Village core should form a strorag but irregular edge to #he
street,
Unlike many American towns, there are no standard setback requirements
far buildings in Vail Village. Consistent with the desire for intimate
pedestrian seale, plaeement of portions of a building at or near the property
line is allowed and encouraged to give strang definitian to the pedestrian
streets.
T'his is not to EmpEy continuous building frontage along the property line. A
strong street edge is important for cantinuaty, but perfectly aEigned facades ~
over too long a distance tends to be monotonous. With only a(ew
excepdions in the Village, sEightly irregular facade lines, buifding jogs, and
landscaped areas, gEve the iife tQ the street and visual interest #or pedestrian
travel.
Where buildings jog to create activity pockets, other elements can be used to
continue the street edge: Iow planter walls, tree planting, raised sidewalks,
texture changes in graund surface, arcades, raised decks.
Plazas, patias, and green areas are important focal points for gathering,
resting, orrenting and should be distributed throughQUt the Viclage with c#ue
consideration ta spacing, sun access, opporturrities forviews and pedestrian
activity.
Staf# aesponse:
See the staff response to Criteria D above.
F. BUlLDING HEIGHT
Vail Village is perceived as a mix of twa and three story facades, although
there are also four and five story buildings. The mix of building kteights gives
variety ta the street, which is desirable_ The height criteria are intended to
encourage height in massing variaty and to discourage uniform buifding
heights along the street. is
Staff Response:
The applicant is proposing to construct a four story tall Iodge with an
22
~ additional stary tucked Mnto the attic of the building. On September 4, 2002,
the applicants appeared before the Town vf Vail Design Review Board for a
conceptual review pf the proposed buifding design. Upon reviewing the
design, the Board directed the applicant #o cantinue with the mansard roof
design, even though it may be somewhat of a foreign desigra to Vail Village,
and to introduce more harizontal and vertacal s#eps in#a the west elevation of
the ladge. In directing the applicants ta corrtinue with the mansard raof
design, the Board indicated that not all buildings in the Viflage should pursue
this roof form since if the design is nat done well, it will visually detract from ~
the architectural therne established for the Village. The Board did indicate, ~
however, that the architects had designed the mansard rQOf very well, and as I
such, the roof form could be approved. Most irnportantly, #haugh, the Qoard
believed that as a result of the well-designed roof form, the perceived
building height is much lower than it actually will be oncs constructed.
The applicants also redesigned the west elevation of the lodge as requested
by the Design Review Board. The redesigned elevation now incEudes steps '
in the mass of the building that articulate the building's form both vertically
and horizon#ally. The design changes create variety in the height and mass
of the lodge. Staff believes that the application complies with #his criteriora.
G. VIEINS AND FOCAL POINTS
Vail's mountain/valley setting is a fundamental part af its identity_ Views of
the mountains, ski sdopes, creekS and other natural features are reminders to
~ our visitars ofi the mountain envirorament and, by repeated visibility, are
orientatian reference points. Certain building features also provide important
orientation references and visual foeal points, The most significant view
carridors in the Village have been adopted as part af Chapter 18.73 of the
Vail Municipal Cade. The view corridors adopted should not be considered
exhausted. V1/hen evaluating a deveiopment proposal, priar9ty should be
given to an analysis af the impacted praject an public views. Views that I
should be presenred ariginate from either major pedestrian areas ar public
spaces, and include views of the ski mountain, the Gore Range, the Clock
Tawer, the Rucksack Tower and other important man-made and natural
elements that contribute to the sense of pEace associated with Vail. These ,
views, which have been adopted by ordinance, were chosen due to their
signi#icance, not anly from an aesthetic standpoint, but also as orientation
reference points for pedestrians. Deuelaprnent in Vail Village shail not
encroach into any adopteci view corridor, unless approved under Chapter
18.73. Adopied corridors are listed in Chapter 18.73 of the Vai! Municipal
Code. Whether affecting adopted view corridars or not, the impact of
proposed development on views from public ways and public spaces must
be identified and considered where appropraate.
Sta## Res onse:
The Tivoli Lodge devefopment site is not located within any of the Town af Vail adapFed view corridors. It is important to note, ho+rrever, that due to the
Iocation of the deveeapment site at the base of Vail 11/lountain and on the east
~ end of Vail Village, special consideration has been given to the building's
irnpacts on views. The location and eonfiguration of the built environment
surrounding the development site contributes largely ta the impacts on views.
Because the propased lodge v+rill be located amongst a number of similarly
23
si#ed buildings, any negative impacts on views from majdr pedestrian ways ~
and public spaces is minimizecl. The greatest impact to views resulting frorn
the construction of this proposed 4odge will be on the eastern view to Gold
Peak fram the top of the chute between Hanson Ranch Road and Gore
Creek DriUe. Though nat an acfopted view carricior, this view can be
considereti important as the view to Gold Peak fram the tap of the chute will
help orient pedes#rians to their location in Town. The impact on this view
increases the claser vne gets to the buifding. The view is fiully res#ared,
however, once one reaches the intersection af Hanson Ranch Road and Vail
Valley Drive. In response to this concern, and as also expressed by the
Design Review Board, the applicants lowered the heEght of the west end of
the ladge and stepped back the mass on the Upper floor. Staff befieves that
the application complies with #his criterion. !
H. SERUICE AND DELiVERY
Any building expansion should preserWe the functions of existing service
alleys. The few service alleys that exist in the Village are extremely
irnportant to minimizing vehicie cangestion an pedestrian ways. The use of,
and vehicular access ta, those alleys shou6d nat be eliminated except ?nrhere
functional afternatives are not provided.
1n all new and remfldeled canstruct6on, delivery which avoids or reduces
impacts on pedestrian ways should be explored; and adopted whenever
practical, for irnrnediate Qr future use. Rear access, basernent and below
ground delivery corridQrs reduce congestion. Weather protection increases ~
delivery efficiency substantiafly.
Beaaw grade deliwery corridors are found in a fevu buildings in Vail Village
(SitzmarkfGore Creek Plaza, Village Center, Vail ViGlage Inn). Consideratian
shvuld be given to extending these corridors, where feasible, and the
creation af new ones. As buildings are canstructed flr remadeled, the
opportunity may exist to develap segrnen#s of a future system.
Staff Response:
The applieant has designed a service and delivery system which will auoid
and reduce the negative impacts an the pedestrian ways adjacent to the
lodge. In response to eflncerns expressed by staff to the ariginal service and
deiivery design, the applicants relocated and redesigned the service and ~
delivery area. As originally designed, all service and delivery activity would ~
have takerr place an an unprotected pedestrian area in front of the lodge an
a portion of the pedestrian sidewalk. The original design would have also
required delivery vehieles fo back across the pedestrian sidewalk which
created safety concerns. The relocated service and delivery area is now free
of the pedestrian sidewalk and permits delivery vehicles to enter and exi# the
area in a forward rrlotion. Na unsafe backing movements are required.
While the development standards prescribed for the Public Accommadation
zone district prohibit service and delivery frarn occurring in the front se#back,
staff beaieves that the applicants' request for a deviatian from this ~
requiremerat is justified. The greatest negative impact af service and delivery
in the proposed Ipcatian will be on the guests and owners of the lodge and
nca# necessarily on o#hers. The new location wil3 eiimina#e the need for ,
24
~ backing across the pedestrian sidewalk which staff believes is a significant
benefit that outweighs the negative visual impact it may have by being
located in #he front setback. Staff believes that the application complies with
this criterion.
1. SUN / SHADE
Due to 1/ail's afpine climate, sun is an important com#ort factar, espeeially in
+rvinter, faA and spring. Shade areas have ambient temperatures
substantially below those of adjacent direct sunlight areas. On all but the
warrrtest of summer days, shade can easily lower temperatures below
camfortable levels and thereby, negatiuely impact use of those areas.
All new or expanded bUildings shauld not subsfantially increase the spring
and fall shadow line (March 21 - September 23) on adjacent properties or the
}aublic right-of-way.
In aIl building canstruction, shade shall be considered in massing a:nd overall
height cansideration. Notwithstanding, sun/shade cansiderations are not
intended to restrict buildirrg height allowances, but rather to influence the
massing of buildings. Limited height exceptions may be granted ta meet this
criteria.
Staff Response:
~ The proposed lodge does not substantially increase the amount of shading
on adjacent properties or the public right of way. The applicants Mave made
several design changes to the building mass to minimize the negative impact
af shade on the street. For exarnpfe, the raaf farms of the cocner tower
eIements have been redes6gned #o include a slQping roof +rersus the
priginally design mansard raof. The volume of the mansard roaf form was
much greater arod thus created a earge shadowed area on the street
adjacent. The applicant also clipped back the gable end of the roof form
aver tap the front entry tower and bwered the mass of the building on the
west end af the ladge. As a result of these changes, the applicants ensured
that the amaunt af shade cast by the new lodge was not substantially
increased from what exists today. To demonstrate the impacts to sunlshacie
along Hanson Ranch FCoad, the appl'rcants prepared a sun/shade s#udy. A
copy of the Sun/shade study has been attached far reference (attachment
E). Staff believes that the application complies with this criterion.
G. Praposed buiJdrng seFbaeks w111 provide adequate availabrJity of Irght, airand open space.
Yhe Tirrali Lodge developrrient site is campletely surraunded by town-owned Iand_ The
Tawn owns the right-of-way loca#ed on the eas# and north sicles af the property as wefl
as the open space parcefs on the west and sauth sides of the praperty. The open space
parcels ensure the availability of capen spaces areas adjacent to the site. Additionally,
the applicants made revisions to the proposal to ensure that sunlight reaches the public
street and adjacent properties. Sta#f daes not believe that the proposed setback
~ encroachments will have any negative impacts an adjacent praperties or surrounding
uses. Staff believes that the application compfies with this criterion.
D. Proposed building setbacks will ,provide a compati6le relationship with buildings arrd
uses on ad1acent properties.
25
The Existing uses on the properties adjacent to the TiWOIi Lodge developrnent site are ~
listed in SECtion VII of this rnemorandum. As previously men#ioned, the surrounding
buildings and uses are all located in ihe Public Accommodation z4rte district. As such,
each of the surrounciing uses benefits from similar developrnent patential and
development characteristics as the Tivoli Ladge. Staff believes that due to the similarity
of the adjoining uses and the applicants development patential and development
characteristics, compatibifity amongst the properties is more easily achieved. The
proposed setbacks rnaintain the intent of the setbaclc regulations as prescribect in the
Znning Regulations and the Uniform Building Code. Staff believes that the application
corrtplies witn this criterian.
E. PrQposed buildrng setbacks will resuli in creatrve desigrr solutivns ar other publrc
benefifs that could nat athernrise be achieved by canformance wilh prescri6ed setbacks
standards.
According to the Official Town o# Vail Zoning EUlap, there are seventeen properties in the
Town of Vail that are in the Public Accommodation zone district. Of thesE seventeen
properties, the Tivoli Lodge development is the second smallest in terms of Iot sixe at
only 17,707 square ar 0.406 aeres. The smallest Iot is that of the Villa Valhalla. The
Villa Valhalla is legally established non-conforrning with regard ta density and use as the
bui[ding has a density of 38.4 dwelCing units per acre (25 DUslacre allowed) and is 100°Jo
condominiurns (DUs} and has no hotei rooms (AUs). The Tivoli Lodge is proposed ta be
nearly 100% hotel roams. The applicant believes that the only way to ensure that a hotel
project gets redeveCaped on thas site is to grant some relief from the setbaek ~
requirements to increase the °develQpalale" portion of the site. Failure to allow
developrnent to encroach into the setback would result in a builcfing envelope of
approximately 5,735 square feet in size. The only dwelling units propased in the lodge
are the ane required emplayee hausing unit on the secand floor of the ladge and the one
top floor candominium. The top floar condominium is simply the replacement of ihe one
condominium that is currently in the iodge. Staff believes that some deviation is needed
to the minimtrm setback requirements ta facilitate the rede+relopment of the existing
lodge into a new, nearly 100°la hotel project. Staff believes that few, if any, negative
impacts will be created as a result of the proposed setback deuiations. Any negative
impacts dhat may result are outweighed by the public benefit that this new lodge will
provide in terms of guest accommodafions and off-site improvements. Staff believes
that #he application complies uvith this criterion.
B. Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and wnrkable
relatxonship with surrnunding uses and activity.
The uses, activities and densities #or the Tivoli Lodge development site are prescribed by
the underlying zoning. According to the Official Town of Uail Zoning IVlap, the underlying
zoning for the proposed special development distrdct is Pubiic Accommodation. The Public
Accornmadation Zone District encourages the development of lodges (accommodation
uraits) and aceessory eating and drinking establishments at a density of twenty-five (25)
dwelling units per acre. The surrounding land uses and zaning distriet designations are
outlined in Section VII of this memorandum_ As previausly discussed, the same
develQpment standards and uses that apply to the Tivafi Ladge development site apply to
the all of the surrounding prQperties_ ~
The Tiwoli Lodge is propaseti tca be a new 61 room lodge with on-site accessory guesf
amenities (i-e., meeting room, work out room, guest ski storage, [obby bar, outdoor spa, ete.}
26
~ With the exceptian of requested deviatians to the building height, service and delivery area,
and landscape area requirements, the proposed lodge conforms to the deuelopment
standards prescribed for the development site and the surrounding properties. Like aEl of the
adjdining praperties, the applicant is proposing to utilize special development district process
to facilitate the successful redeveloprnerat of the Tivoli Ladge. Staff believes that the
applrcation complies with this criterion.
Employee Housinq Requirements
As indicated in a number of the goals and objectives of the Town's Master Plans, praviding
afforciable housing for employees is a critical issue which should be addressed through the
planning proeess for special development district proposals. In reviewing the proposai for
employee housing needs, staff relied on the Town of Vail Empfoyee Hausing Report. This
report has besn used by the staf# in the past to evaiuate employee housing needs. The
guidelines eontained within the report were used rnost recently in the review of the Austria
Haus, NEarriott and Special Qevelapmertt District Na. 6- Vail Village Inn development
proposals.
The Employee Housing Report was prepared for the Town by the consulting firEn Rosall,
Remmen and Cares. The repart provides the recommended ranges of ernployee housing
units needed based on the type af use and the annount of flaor area dedicated to each use.
Utilizing the guidelines prescribed in the EmplQyee Housing Report, staff analyzed the
incremental increase ofi ernployees (square footage per use), that resurts from the
redevelapment.
~ The figures identified in the report are based on surveys of commercial-use ernployment
needs of the Town af Vail and other mountain resort communities. As of the drafting of the
report, 7elluride, Aspen and Whistler, B.C. had "employment generati:an" ord`uraances
requiring developers ta provide affordable housing fnr a percentage af the new emplayees
resulting from commercial development. "Ne+rd" ernployees are defined as the incremental
increase in employment needs resulting from commercial redevelopment. Each of the
communities assesses a differEnt percentage of affordabfe housing a develaper must
proWide for the new employees. For example, Tellur?de requires +developers ta provide
housing for 40% (0.40) of the new ernployees, Aspen requires ihat 60% (0.60) of the new
employees are pravided housing and Whistler reqvires that 1[}0% (1.00) of the new
emplayees be pravided housing by the developer. In c4rnparison, Vail has caraservatiwely
determined that developers shall provide housing far 15% (015) ar 30% (0.30) of the new
employees resuEtirag from commerciaC development. When a project is proposed to exceeci
the density allowed by the underlying zone dislrict, Xhe 30% (0.30) figure is used in the
calculation. If a project is proposed at, or beEow, the density allowed kay the underlying zone
district, the 15% (0.15) figure is useci. The Tivol i Lodge special development district does not
exceed the density permitted by the underlying zQne district.
Employee Generation Calculations - Middle of Range
a) Lodging
11 units @ (1.25/unit) _ 13.75 employees
b) Multiple-Family Units
~ 1 units @ (.4lunit) = 0.4 employees
14.15 employees
27
- 9.0 existina employees
5.15 new employees
x .15%
1 new employee
The applicants are proposing to provide one, Type III deeded-restricted ernployee housing
unit approximatefy 450 square feet in size an the second flooe of the 7ivoli Lodge. Staf#
believes that the application complies with this criterian.
C. Compliance with parking and loading requirements as outlined in Chapter 12-10 of the
Vail Town Code. ,
The applicants are proposing deviatians from the prescribed parking and loading
requirements outlined in Chapter 12-1 D of the Vail 7own Code. The proposed devia#ions
are to the total number of required parking spaces and the location of ihe rec}uired laading
and delivery Eaay.
As indicated ira the Zaning Analysis outlined in Section VI af this mEmorandum, the total
nurnber of required parking spaces for the Tivoli Ladge is 46 spaces. The applicants are
proposing to provide a total of 40 spaces. Twenty-two (22) o# the requ'rred parking spaces
are ta be proWided in the underground parking structure. The rernaining 18 parking spaees
are provided offi-site on Lot P-2. Accorcfing to the Qfficial Town of Vail Zoning Map, Lot P-2
is lacated within the Parking zone district. The applicants can meet the total parking ~
requirement of 46 parking spaces. In order ta da so, the applicants can simp'ay increase the
total number of valet parking spaces. The increased number of spaces can be added inside
the undergraund parking structure and on Lot P-2. Whils this would technically meet the
parking requirement, it wauld likely not be used in such a manner. Therefore, staff
recommends that the deviation of six (f) parking spaces be granted as the farty (40) space
configuration is Iikely to be how the parking struc#ure and parking lot will actually function. If
the Commission is unwiliing ta grant this deviation, the applicants can simply draw mcare
parking spaces onta the plans to meet the technica6 requirement. The totaP number of valet
spaees perrriitted an a site shall not exceed 50% af the total parking reqGirement. In this
case, the applicants could provide a tatal crf twenty-three (23) vafe# parEcing spacas. The
applicants are currenily proposing anly nine {9} vaket parking spaces. Staff believes that the
application cortiplies with this criterion.
D. ConfQrmity with the applicable elements of the Vail Cc,mprehensive Plan, Town
policies and Urban Design Plan.
The goals conta.ined in the Vaii Land Use Plarr are to be used as the Town's policy
guidelines during the review process far #he establisnment of a special develapment distric#.
Staff has reviewed the Vail Land Use Plan and belisves the following palicies are relevant to
the review of this proposal:
1.0 General Growth/Deveiapment
1.1 Vail shcauld continue to graw in a controlled environrnent, maintaining ~
a balance between residential, comrnercial and recreaiional uses to
serve both the visitoe and #he permanent resident.
28
~ 1.2 The quality o# the environment including air, water and other naturai
resources should be protected as the Tawn graws.
1.3 The quality af develaprnent should be maintained and upgraded
whenever passible.
1.4 The original theme of the old Village Core shauld be carried inta new
develapment in the Village CQre through cantinued implementatian of
the Urban Design Guide Plan.
1.12 Vail should accorr'imoda#e mast of the additional growth in existing
t(eveloped areas (infiU areas).
2.0 SkierlTourist Concerrrs ~
;
2.1 The community shauld emphasize its role as a destination resart
while accommodating day skiers.
2,2 The ski area owner, the business cammunity arad the Town leaders
should work together cEosely ta make exi5ting faciiities and the Tawn
function more efficiently.
2.3 The ski area owner, the business community and the Town leaders
should wrork tagether ta improwe facilities far day skiers.
2.4 The community 5hould improve sumrner recreational and cuitural
~ apportunities to encourage sumrrrer tourism.
3.0 Cammercial
3.1 The hatel bed base should tae preserved and used more efficiently,
3.2 The Village and Lionshead areas are the best Incatian for hateCs to
serve the future needs of the destination skiers.
3.3 Hotels are imparfant ta the continued success of the Tawn of Vail,
therefore conversion to condQminiurns should be discauraged.
3.4 Commereial growth should be concentrated in existing commercial
areas to accommodate both local and visitar needs.
4.0 Viliage Core / Lionshead
4.1 Future commercial development should continue to occur primarily in
existing commercial areas. Future commercial development in the
Gore areas needs to be carefully controlled to facilitate access and
delivery.
4,2 Increased density in the Core areas is acceptable sa long as the
existing character of each area is preserved thflrough implementation
of the Urban Design Guide Plan.
~ 4.3 The ambiance d6 Vail Village is importarat to the identity of Vail and
29
shouGd be preserved. (scale, alpine character, small town feeling, ~
mountains, naturaC setting, intirnate size, cosmopolitan feefing,
environrnental quality.)
5.0 Residential
5.1 Additional resiciential growth shauld ccrntinue to occur primarily in
existing, platted areas and as appropriate in new areas where high
hazards do not exist.
5.3 Affordable emplayee housing should be made avaifable through
priwate efforts, assisted by limited incentives, provided by the Tauvn a#
Vail with appropriate res4rictians.
5.4 Residential growth should keep pace with the marketpiace demands
for a full range af housing typQS_
5.5 The existing employee housing base shfluld be preserwed and
upgraded. Additional employee housing needs should be
accommodated at uaried sites throughaut the cammunity.
According to the Official Town af Vail Land Use PEan map, the applicant's prapased
redevelopment site is loca#ed uvith the "Vaif V'i!lage Master Plarr"land use categary.
Pursuant to the Plan, the "Vai! Vi1lage Master Plan"land use category descrip#ion,
"Vail Village has been designated separatefy as a mixed use area and accounts for 77 aeres ~
or about 2% of the Plan area. This area has not 6een analyzed in this Plan document
because fhe Vai! Villa_qe Master Plan sfudy addressed this area specificaUy in more afetail."
Staff believe5 that the appEication camplies with this criterion.
Town ofi Vail Streetscape Master Plan
The Town's Streetscape Master Plan identifies Wes# MeadQw Drive as the primary
pedestrian route between Vail Village and Limrtshead Mall.
Ta irnprove the quality of the waEking experience and giue continuity to the pedestrian ways
as a continuous sysfem, two general types of impravements adjacent to the walkways are
consiciered:
1. Open space and landscaping, berms, grass, flowers and tree planting as a
soft, coiorful framewark linkage along pedestrian routes; and plazas and park
greenspaces as open nodes and facal points along those routes.
2. Infill comrreercial storefronts, expansion of existing buildings, or new infill
developrnent to create new cornmercial activity generators ta give street Eife
and visual interest, as attractions at key focations along pedestrian routes.
As previously discussed in Section V114 of this memorandum, staff believes #hat the
application complies wi#hr this criterion. ~
30
~ E. Identifca#ion and mitigation of natural andlor geologic hazards that affect the
praper3y an which the special development district is proposed.
According to the C}fficial Town af Vail Gefliogic Hazarcf Maps, the 7ivali Lodge development
site is not located in any geologically sensitive areas or within the 1 Da-year floodplain. Staff
beGeves that the applicatian complies witFt this criterion.
F. Site plan, building design and locatian and apen space pravisions designed to
praduce a functional development responsive and sensitive to natural features,
vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the community.
The applicants are requesting a deviatidn from the tatal landscaped area requirement.
Accordang to Section 12-7A-10, of the Vail Town Code, the minimum landscaped area
requirement for development is the Public Accornmadation zone district is 30%o af the total
sile area. Of the 30%, not rnore than 20°/a afi the landscaped area can be hardscape (i.e.,
walks, decks, patias, terraces, and other Eike teatures).
The tatal landscaped area requirement for the Tivofi Lodge development site is 5,312 square
feet or 30% of the total site area. Of the 5,312 square feet, 1,062 square feet (20%) can be
hardscapE wi#h the remaining 4,250 square feet (8fl%9) as softscape (i.e., trees, shrubs,
grass, fiowers and ather like plant ma#erials). The app[icants are requesting a deviatian to
the landscape area requirernent ta permit up to 25% of the total landscaped area
requirement to be hardscape and 75% of the area ta be softscape.
~ Statf believes that some deviatifln could be granted. Hawever, we have reviewed the
proposed landscape plan and identified a number of areas that could be redesigned to
minimize the arnount o# hardscape and increase #he amoun# of softscape area. Staff
recammends that the Planning and Environmental Cornmission direct the applieants to ~
reWise the propased landscape plan ta increase the amount of softscape area prior to ~
submitting the plans to the Design Review Board for finaf revievu. As you are aware, the
approvaf of the ]andscape plan generally rests with the Design Review Board, In no
instance, however, shall the amount of hardscape area uncrease beyand 75°to of the fotal site
area.
Once rewised, staff believes #hat the application wauld comply with this criterion,
C. A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and
off-site traffic circulatiQn.
Pursuant to Section 12-7A-1 4(Mitigation of Develapment Impacts) of the Vail Town Gode,
property awners/developers shall be responsible for mitigating direct impacts of their
development an public infrastructure and in all cases mitigation shall bear a reasonable
relation to the development impacts. The intent is ta provide appropriate rriitigation to an
extent that is proportional to the anticipated impacis af new develapment.
The Town of Vail Public Works aepartment has reviewed the propQSed p9ans far adequacy
of the circulatron to ensure that it is designed far both uehicles and pedestrians an and off
~ the site. Following the review of the plans the Public Works Department forwarded their
vuritten final camments in a memorandum, dated ApriC 24, 2003, Many of the final commer+ts
are time sensitive actions that can only be accomplished at a later date or are only
31
necessary to address if the applicants receive approval of this request. To require fuH i
compliance at this time would thus be inapprQpriate. None of the comments, hawever, when
addressed, significantly alter the firaal outcome of the projec#. A copy of the memorandum
with the final wriiten comments from the Public Works Department has been fvr reference
(attachment F).
As previously discussed, staff believes that the appltcation complies wi#h this criterion.
H. Funclional and aesthetic landscaping and apen space in ortler to optimize and
preserve natural features, recreaEion, views and functions.
The applCCants are propasing #o preserve five maturing evergreen trees located on the
northeast corner of the development site. 7hese trees add a significant aesthetic value to
the Tivo[i Ladge development and could not be replaced in their existing condi#ion on the
site. Like the applicants, staff believes that these trees are a valuable asset to the
development site and surrounding neighborhoad. As such, staff recommends that the
Planning and Environmental Commission requires the applicants to submit a tree protection
plan prepared by a Certified Consulting Arbonst to the Design Review Board for review and
approval prior to final approval by the Board of the proposed project. Upon accepta.nce af
the tree pratection by the Town of Vail, the applicants shakl submit a written agreement
between the applicants and their can5tractdr, to the Town, stating that afl mitigation
measures recommended by the Certified Cansulting Arborist will be implemented and strictfy
adhered to by the applicants and their contractors throughout the duration of the
construction process.
' Fhasing plan ar subdivision ptan that will maintain a wor3cable, functional and ~
efficient relatianship throughaut the development of the special development district.
The applicant is proposing to cflnstrue# the project in one phase and a subdivision of the
praperty is not necessary to facilitate the development of the Tivoli Lodge.
IX. STAFF RECOMMENQATION
The Cornmunity Development Department recommends that the Planning and
Environrrjental Cornmissian forward a recommendation of approval with eonditions to
the Vail Tawn Gouncil of the develapment application ta estabfish Special Development
District No. 37, Tivoli Ladge, located at 386 Hanson Ranch Raad/Lot E, Block 2, Vail Village
Fifth Filing. Staff's recommendation is based upon a review of the eriteria and findings as
outlined in this memorandum and from the evidence and testimony presented.
Should the Planning and Environmental Carnmission c'hoase to forward a
rec4mmendation of approval with conditions of the applicants' request, staffi
recornmends that the following findings be made as part of the motion:
Special DeveRopment Distric# No., 37, Tivoli Lodtle
"That the praposal to establrsh 5peeral DeveJapment Distrrct No. 37, Tivoli Lodge,
complres wrth the nine design criterra outllned in Sectron 12-9A-6 af the Vai1 Town ~
Gode. FurthermQre, fhe appfican[ has demorastrated to the satisfactron of fhe
Commissian, based upon the testimony and evidence presented during fhe pu,blic
32
~ hearing, that any adverse effects of the requested deviatrans from the development
sfandards af the underlying zonrng are outwerghed by the public benefifs prQVided.
Lastly, the Comrnrssion finds that the requesr rs consistenf with the deveIvpment
goals and objectrves af the Town.
With regards to prapcrsed building setbacks, that:
a. Proposed building setbacks provide necessary separation between buildrngs and
riparlan areas, geologrcally sensitive areas and other errvironmerrtally sensrtive
areas.
,b. Proposed building setbacks comply with applrcable elements of the Vail Vi1lage
Urban LJesign Guide Plan and Design Consrderations.
c. Propased building setbacks will pravide adequate availabrlity of Irght, arr and
operr space.
d. Proposed burlding setbacJcs wrll provide a compatible relatroRShfp wirh builcirngs and crses on adjacerrt propertres.
e. Proposed burldirrg setbacks will resulf in creative design solutions or otherpublic
benefits that could not otherwise be achieved by canformance wrth prescrfbed
setback standards.
That praposed gross resr'dentlal floor area of 150% rs fn conforrnance wrih applicable
elements of the Vail Vi1Jage Urban Design Gurde Plarr and Design Corasideraliorts.
That the development +s rn compliance with the pur,poses of the Public AccommoG'ation
~ zone district, that the proposal is consistent with applica6le elements Qf the Vaif 1/ilfage
IVlaster Plan, the Vail village Ur,ban Design Guide Plan and fhe Vai! Streefscape Nlaster
Plan, and that the propasal daes raot vtherwise have a significant rregative effect on the
character of fhe ,neighborhoad, and that the prapasal substaratrally complies with other
applicable efements of the Vai! Comprehensive Plan. "
i
Staff's recornmendation of approval includes the follov+iing conditians:
1. That ihe developer provides deed-restricted housing that complies wi#h the Town af
Vail Employee Housing requiremenis (Chapter 12-13) for a minimum of nne (1)
ernpioyee an the Tivoli Ladge develapment site, and that said deed-restricted
ernployee housing sha{1 be made available far occupancy, and that the deed
restrictions shall be recorded with the Eagle County Clerk & Recarder, prior to
issuance of a Temparary Certificate of Oecupancy far the Tivoli Lodge. The required ~
Type III deed-resfricted em}aloyee housing units shall not be e[igib6e #or resale and
that the units be owned and operated by the hotel and that said ownership shall
transfer with the deed to the hotel property.
2. That the developer meets with the Town staff and prepares a rnemoranciurn of
understanding outlining the responsibilities and requirements of the required off-site
improvements, prior to second reading of the ordinance approving the establishment
af Special Development District Na 37, Tivoli Ladge. 7his mertzorandum of
understanding shall include, but not be limited to, all streetscape irnproaements
~ along Vail Valley Drive and Hanson Ranch Raad, in accordance with the Town of
Vail Sireeiscape Masier Plan.
33
3. That the developer submits a fFnal exteri4r buiEding rnaterials list, typical wall sec#ion, ~
architectural specifications, and a complete color rendering far review and approval
of the Design Reuiew Board, prior to subrnittal of an application for a buiiding permit.
4. That #he devefoper submits a comprehensive sign prograrn proposal for the Tivali
Lodge fiar review and approval by the Design Fieview Board, prior to the issuance a#
aTemporary Certificate of OccupanGy for #he prajeet.
5. That the developer submits a roaitop mechanical equipment plan for review anci ~
approval by the Design Review Board prior ta the issuance of a building perrnit. Alf
rcaoftop mechanical equipment shall be incorporated into the overaiB design af the
hotel and enclased and v3suaBly scEeened frorra pubfic view,
6. That the deveioper posts a bond to prorride financial security for #he 150% of the total
cost of the required off-site public improvements. The band shall be in place with the
Town priar to the issuance of a building permit.
7. That the developer eorriplies wi#h all fire department staging and access
requirements pursuant to Title 14, Clevelopment Standards, Vail Town Code. This
will be demonstrated on a Construction Staging pfan for Town rewiew and approval
prior to building permit submittal.
8. That the developer submits a written letter of approval from the utility cocnpanies
permitting encroachrnents inta the platted uticity easements priar to second reading
of the approving ordinance. ~
9. That the developer provides a 6 i#. to 8 ft. heated concre#e unit paver pedestrian
walkway from the intersection of Vail Valley Drive, north the intersection of Vail
Valley Drive and Hanson Ranch Road, then west ta the westernmost praperty line of
Tract A, Vail Village Fifth Filing. All work related to praviding these improvements
including street lights„ retaining walEs, utility relocatian, curb an{i guiter, drainage and
landscaping shall be included. A plan shall be subrnitted far reWiew and approval by
the Town and the Design Review Board prior ta submitta{ of a building permEt. The
applicants shafi submit civil drawings depicting said off-site improuernents to #he
Town of Vail Camrnunity Deweiapment Departrnent for review and approval prior ta
the issuance sf a building permit far this project.
10. That the develaper sha91 prepare and submit all applicable roadway and drainage
easernents for dedicatian to the Town for review and approval by the Town Attorney.
A[I easements shafl be recorded with the EagCe County Glerk and Recorder's Office
prior ta issuance of a Temporary Gertificate of Oceupancy.
11. That the develpper shall be assessed an impact fee of $5,000 for the net incrEase in
p.m. traffic generation as determined by the Tov+rn of Vail Pub[ic Works Department,
as addressed in attachment F of this memorandum.
12. That the developer shall providE detailed civil plans, profiles, detaias, limits of
disturbance and cQnstruction fence for review and civil approval kay the Department
of Public Works, prior to submi#tal of a building permit. ~
13. That the approval of the c+andational use perTnits is not valid unless an orrlinance
34
i
~ appraWing the associated speciai development district arnendment reauest is ~
approved on second reading,
14. That the developer shall cornmence initial constructian of the Tivolf Lodge withGn
#hree years from the time of its final appravai at second reading of the ordinaroce
establishing Special Develaprnent District No. 37, and cantinue diligently toward the
completion o# the project. If the developer does nat begin anci diligently work toward
the completion of the spec9al development districi or any stage of the speciai
deve9opment district within the time limiis imposed, the approval of said special
development district shall be vaid. 7he Planning and Envirnnmental Gommission and
Town Council shali revlew the special development district upan submiftal of an
application to reestablish the special deWelapment district fol{owing the procedures
outlined in Section 12-9A-4, Vail Town Code.
15. That the develflper to rewises the proposed landscape plan ta increase the amount
of softscape area on the development site prior to submotting the plans to the Des3gn
Review Board for final review. The revised landscape plan shall be revieweci and
approved by #he Gesign review Board. In no instance, howEVer, sha91 the arnount of
hardscape area increase beyond 75% of the tatal site area.
16. That the developer submits a tree protectian plan prepared by a Certified Consulting
Arborist ta the Design Review Board fQr review and approval prior to final approval i
by the Board of the propased project. Upan acceptance of the tree protectian by the
Design Review Board, the applecants shail submit a written agreemeni between the
~ applicants and their constractar, to the Town of Vail Community De+relopment,
stating that all mitigaiion measures recommended by the Gertified Consulting
Arborist will be implemented and strictly adhered to by the applicants and their ~
contractors throughout the duration of the construction pracess. The written !
agreement shall be appraved arad accepted praor to the issuance of a building permit
for this project.
17. That the developer addresses the written final cornrnents of the Town of Vail Public
INorks Department outlined in the memr randum #o George Ruther from the Town of
Vaei Public 1JVorks Departmerat, dated April 24, 2003, pr'ror to submitting an
application to the Town Qf Vai! Comrrrunety Department for the issuance of a building
permit fior this project.
X. ATTACHMENTS
A. Vicirtity Map .
B. Reduced Set of Plans
C. Approved August 26 and September 9, 2002, Planning and Environmental
Commission meeting minutes
D. Approved September 17, 2002, Vail Town Council worksession meeting rninutes
E. Tivoli Lodge SunJShade Study
F. Memorandum fram Public Works Department autlining the final written comrnents,
dated April 24, 2003.
~
35
F 43 , ~S
1
x: • -s - i ~ , ~ ~ ~
.d '~R _ - . ~ .N:;t ' ~r~ ~ . ~ w~,
PW Vu,
54~
~ ,
i:
t Y
~n'r
.
i '
~
. . r,. ~ . . ~ "
tt :'i. ~ . •'t~ ..t)~. ~i~'
~ r
T" 4 ~i ~Myy,,. . R ~ ,rki{~* ~
ta.
s ~ ~t
~jM~~. ~ • ~ R,~ ~ ~ y i ~~~~~;K y~,~ ~ ry~ ~ I
itn:~Xx.
. :k 1~ ~ ~ : .'t°e'_
P ~
~
.3 -
. .
~ e- ~ ~~r• ~~a~ g p~ ~t ~ ~ ~
~ . <
. ~a~,.:. 'wr~'' d• -
~ { J
.
- • .
~ .
> . , , ,
. ~ ~k~¢ ~ ~t ~ ~
~
"•i
y a
~
R ,
S
1
- `6~a.~~, ~ ~ y~ J• +yf~ { N r* u.~i? _
~ . ~''s'~'' ~ ~f ~ ~ • _
~ ~ ~ - f .
F~~ . .
~ Memorandurn
Ta: George Rutber, Chief of Planning
From: Tam Kassmel/Greg Hall, Town of Vail Public Warks Department
Date: 4-24-03
Subjec#: Tivoli Lodge Final Commer?ts
1. Since our requirement of the 12-03-02 comment # 1 regarding addirional survey has not yet
been completed, the Tivoli may use the Town's survey camglated by PLC. The Tivoli musc
rnatCh their design to ihe Town's 5treetscape Design, as provided.
2. The existing fence mustbe relocatcd within the Tivoli property line or removed,
3. All disturbances, grading, etc.. must be contained within property.(except that being done
within the Tawn af Vail's ROW, which wi19 require a puhlic way pennit anci areWOCable right
of way permit), un.Eess appxova] From adjacent property owner is acquired.
4. The two foot drainage pan shall be rernoved and replaced with a 4' pan, as per the Town of
VaiE Streetscape Master Plan.
5, The driveway must meet the standard of 30' at 4°/o beginning at tlie back of proposed canerete
pan. Flease revise prior ta building pcrmit submitting a building perinit application.
b. Proposed shzubs on the northeast side af driveway must be less then 3' in heiglit ta provide
adequate sighi distance.
7. Please show drainage plan for the parfcing strwcture, pzavide a sandJail segarator, and show
where it will daylight or connect to the TC)V storm sewer system.
Please coordinate with AIPP to uicorporate public art into the project.
~ 9. A traffic Impact fec of $5000 per net peak hour trip will be assessed. This will be determined
using the ITE trip gerseration rate of 0.9 vips per hotel roam at peak hour.
ID. The owner will be respansible for constructing all improvernents from the intersectian of
Harasan Ranch Rd. with Vail ValIey Deive to the west side of the intersection vf Hanson
RancEi Rd. with the bilce path and excending out to the northem paver/aspktalt line. This
inclucEes the 4' pan, curb and gutter where necessary, 8' heated concrete unit paver walkway,
and Vail village stree[ lighting asang this corndor as defined above. T'hey will also be
responsible tea heat the existing paver walk along Vail Valley Dzive from Hanson iZanch Rd.
to Mill Creek Circle.
11. Thc ear pull off at the rnain entrance wil! need to be separated from the Hanson Ranch itd.
pedestrian walk by a small planter,
12, Please show a11 site drainage, ineluding patio ckrainage, roofdrainage! gutter daylight, parlcing
drainage etc...All siie drainage shail tie into the Town of Vaii storm sewer.
13. Al] work within the existing utility easements shall be approved by the utility companies prior
to subjrutting an applicatibn for a building perrnit to construct the project.
14. The pull-off and loading area does not nyeet town standards. Entrance angle shall be a
minimum of 70 degrees for 30'. ~
15. The maximum grade on die parking structure ramp curved sectian shall be IQ°lo as pee TOV
standards.
~
Attachment: F
~
Approved 8f26102
~
a iication for the ne Iocation of the m ular structures w in 8 months of
the proval of this con 'tional use permit.
~ 9. The Vai ountain Schoal s II rrot use any pu 'c right of way for rking.
A debris flo erm should be d igned and canstr ted prior the locat n af
the cabin an t northern portian lot 12. A qualifie ngineer or geolo 'st
shall eonclude in written letter to t Cornmunity Dev pment Departme
hat the berm wEll equately pratect t cabin fram a de 's f4ow with out
a ersely impacting ivate or public pro erty.
11. The a licant shall verify ith a qualified Cigh ' g expert that Ium ance for all
types o xterior Iighting do ot exceed 125. applicant shall s mit a
report to t Town that the lig ing camplies with e Town's develo ent
standards, 'or to the issuance # a Temporary Ge ificate of Occupa
12, The applicant s IE submit revised velopment pians t the Town identify
dequate snow 5t ge for the narth rking area and th arking area for
ct G prior ta the i uance of final Qes' n Review Board proval_
13. 7he a licant will move Bus Shefter to t ncarth sitle of the s Iane tp a
location ' accordance wit he Public Works partment_ The B lane and
shelter sh 4 be maintained t ughaut construct n of the project.
MQTIQN. oug Cahi{l ECOND: Gary H rnan VQTE: -1(Lamb recuse
~ APPRQUAL ELIMINARY PLA FOR THE MAJ4 SUBDIVISION H THE FINDING
QN PAGE 26-2 IN TNE STAFF MORANDUIVI A TWO CONDITlO S:
1. W ithi one year of the R ning and Enviro ental Commissio ' appraval,
the app ' ant shall submit a inal plat to the De rtment of Camm 'rty
Qevelop nt far review by th Planning and Err ' anmental Commi ion.
2. Prior to submi 'ng a final p9at the piicant shafl ad ss all comments the
reviewing agenc s to the satisfacti of the said agen ' s. Any commen
haPl be incorpora d into the final p!a
4. A request for a recommendation to the Vaol Town GounciC ta af an amendmen# to Section 12-
7A-7 (Height), Vail Tawn Code, to increase the macirnum aIlowable building height in the Public
Accommodation Zone District.
Applicant: Bob Lazier, represented by Jay Peterscan
P[anner: Gearge RutherlWarren Campbel!
George Ruther presented an averuiew of the staff inemorandum.
Erickson Shirley asked about the notification requirements af this type of application.
George Ruther eiarified that applications of #his naturs are published in the newspaper, but do not
require adjacent property owner notification. George Ruther provided the official TOV zoning map,
~ outlining a11 praperties zoned Public Accammodation Zone Districts.
Jay Retersen, repre~entsng Bob Lazier, presented the applican#'s proposaL
Erickson Shiriey asked Jay Peterson for clarification regarding other pro}ects.
7
Attachment: G
e
Approved 8f26/02
j
Jay Peterson identi#ied ather praperties zoned P,A and described what renovations had recently been
done and that many of thern exceed the PA maximum fheight through the use of SDDs. ~
John Schofieid as{ced far public camment.
Paul Johnston, Christiania, gaue an example of the Bridge Street Lodge and the mechanical issues,
due to the design of the building. He stated that i# you want to build a hatek an a small site in tocEay's
econorny, you are crazy. He stated that frorn a function standpoint, additionaE height would nat be ,
perceived.
Gary Hartman stateci that he is encauraged by this application far the future of Vail. He would like to
see regulations uuhich focus on articulation of buildings and pereeptions from the spaces adjacent. He
believes that the PEC needs to fook at what is a comfortabie flvor to flaor ratio. Also, how do we
encourage develQpers to continue to put fivable space in roofs to keep the heights iawer in perceptian.
Doug Cahill stated that 48 ft. is a tough height. He stated that 7 ft. ceiling heights is not apprapriate for
an upscale hotel produet. He stated that raof pitches need to be increased, darmers used for additionaE
head height, etc.
Rollie Kjesbo stated that he agreed wi#h the applicant, regarding ceiling heights. However, he has
concerns about a 5-story building which 6s a mQre difficuli issue ta grasp.
Jay Peterson stated that he is s#ill trying ta eome up wi4h ideas on how to ensure quality buildings.
George Lamb stated that he feels 4his is a case +rrhere fram the functionality of the building, additiQnal
height should be balanced with Q#her regulations like setbacks, etc. ~
Erickson Shirley stated that he feels this applica4ron flies inta the face of the Master Plan. He stated
that Vail Village is a unique situation and it is what makes this Town special and he would be against
changing it. He would not be against adding additional f[oor heights, but is against adding an additional
floor.
Jay Peterson clarified the floar ta floor heights and the building height.
Erickson Shirley asked about how rnuch bulk is on ihe fifth floor. He then asked for the impacts to view
corridors.
Jahn Schofield stated tha# there are really 3 ways to make this application; SDD, variance, ar code
change. He stated thai they have rrrade other amendments to the PA Zone District, but height was one
they couldn't agree an in the past. He asked the applicant and staff to loak at some sort of graduated
scale for heighf, instead of an abso9ute. He asked for comrnents alsa from the DRB to help them Iook
at this issue.
Jay Peterson askecC far comments from the PEC in regard's ta pursuing a eode change, versus an SDD
to increase the height.
Gary Hartman, Daug Cahill, Rollie Kjesbo, George Lamb, Erickson Shirley, and John Schofield were
suppartive of a zaning change, instead of an SDD.
Daug Cahill made a motian to table this until tha August 26, 2002 meeting.
George Lamb seconded tYre motion. ~
The motion passed by a vote of 6-0.
$
!
Appro+rad 919/02
.
C s gernhardi seco ed the motion, ;
~
~ ThE tion passed by a te of 7-0.
The boar aid they would li~. ta see a jaint me 'ng.
2. A requ t for a conditiona se permit, to allo for a temporary s sonal struciure a he Vail
Marriott untain Resort, lo ted at 715 West 'onshead Circie/L 4& 7, Block 1, il
Lionshead `d Filing and Lots & D, Morcus 5ub °vision.
Applicant: ail Marriott Mount ' Resort
F'lanner: ren Campbell
1Narren C pbell presented n overview of the aff memorandum, 'ncluding the staf
recommen ion and conditio
lVlatt VinsancE, r resenting the Ma 'oTt, stated that he ad nathirrg to ad .
I
ere was no publE 'nput. ~
RoIIi Kjesbo said he h no problem with e application as p sented.
George mb agreed.
Erickson Shi y agreed.
~ Gary Hartrnan c curred.
D g Cahill asked if e dates in ihe co ition were accept le.
Nlatt ' sand agreed.
aoug Cah made a motion f appraval.
Gary Hartman econded the moti The motion passe y a vote of 7-0.
3. A request for a recommendation to the Vai! Town Council of an amendrnent to Section 12-7A-7
(Height), Vail Tawn Code, to increase the maximum allowable building height in the Public
Accommodatian Zone District and seiting farth details in regards there#o.
Applicant: Bob Lazier, represented by Jay Peterson
Planner. Gearge RutherNJarren Campba6l .
Allison Ochs gave a background as George was out af the raom.
Jay Peterson sta#ed that what he would like to do today is clear up some con#usion regarding what
the current Tivo1i is and the how they came #0 56 feet. He said the current Tivoli is nine feet f[oor to
floor with room heights at 7.5 feet and there are four ffoors with the first floor five feet into the
ground with a roof with rooms in the roof. He said what the applicant is asking for is four ffaors with
~ a floor height of 11 feet. The appficant unrolled the plans for the new Tiwali. He said there was
parking underground to rneet current parking requirements and added that the roaf has never been
caunted as floor in the master plan. He said a fulf floor of rooms will nflt fit in a roof and vrhat ihe
town needs to decide is if rnotels are going to becorne up to date, it won't happen with 7 foot ceiling
heights. He continued that if the Town wants to encQUrage redevelopment, then heigh# increases
~ 7
~
s
Approved 9/5/02
are necessary and it wiil help to accommodate fire sprinEclers and current building cade
requirements. He said the SonnenaEp did faur staries in 48 feet with nine foot ceilings, however it
cost mare and now they are retrofitting air conditioners an the north side because af the buses. He ~
added that eave lines are also a consideration, as it helps ta bring the scale dawn. He stat€d that
flQOr plates were increased in Lionshead to eleven feet.
. Bob Lazier added that he has a great hotel, but they need an elevatcar and larger foblay and need to
upgrade the praject ta the quality af their Iocation and to compete. He said this plan has larger
bathrooms and better matched to the guests.
There was no pub9ic comment.
George Ruther stated he had nathing to add.
Erickson Shirley asked George Ruther if the applicant has requested a change to the Master Plan?
George Ruther stated no, anc[ he stated he would check to see if an amendment was needed.
Erickson 5hirley asked if amending the Master F'fan would affect the entire area?
Gearge Ruther stated no as only the PA zone height would be increased.
Erickson Shirley asked what is the likelihoad of ather property owners in other zoning districts
coming in asking for height increases. He feels a5 if changing the Master Plan might have sorne
unintended consequences. He continued that he is concerned with the can of worms that may be
apened.
GEOrge Lamb stated that he is concerned with the unintended consequences as well and if #hey are ~
unsure the SDD should be used.
Gary Hartman stated that a charege was needed and in his apinian 10_5 to 11 feet was necessary
along with a steeper raof pitch.
Doug Gahill agreed with Gary, but he #eels that the entire structure being 56 feet may be
inappropriate and so just a portion of the building may be more appropriate.
Rollie Kjesbo was confused if eleven feet was ideal, then why were the plan's showing 14.2. ,
Jay Reterson added that they would be increasing closer ta eleven in order to haWe a higher Iobby
ceiling.
George Lamb stated that although they voted for 5r+veeping change at the previous meeting he now
feeks arr SbD is appropriate.
Ericicson Shir{ey agreed that the SDD is the way to go, but the complexity of changing the entire
district is immense.
Chas Bernhardt pointed out that the nine foot floar piate in ihe Master Plan may be outdated, a$
Codes have required more and rnore.
N1r, Mike Arnett, from the public, stated that he was involved with the Lionshead Master Plan and ~
the discussion af eleven foot plate clistances.
John Schofield stafed that eleven feet is where things got ta be to accommodate new Code
requirements and he wanted staff to research empacts on light and shade and an the Master Plan.
8
e
Rpproued 9I9/42
~ aoug Cahill moved to table ihis item untal September 9, 2002.
i
~ Second by George L.amb The motian passed with a vote of 7-0.
4. A req est for a recom ndatian to the il To+rvn Councif r an amendme to the Tvwn vf ;
Vail La Use Plan and e Vail Village ster Plan, to faci ' ate the eonstru 'an of "Vail's ~
Frant Do r" project and a ociated improve ents and settin forth details in r ards r
thereto, Io ted on an unpl ted parcel, gene Ily 9ocated saut a# the l.odge Ta er and i
west of the ista Bahn Ski Y d. A rr,ore com ete metes and b unds descripti~a 's ~
~
available at t Department of ommunity Deve pment. !
pplicant: al Resorts Devel ment Campan
anner: Ge rge Ruther
Doug Cahil ade a motion table this until tober 14„ 2002.
George Lamb econded the m'on,
he motion pass by a vote of 7-
5. A request far n interpreta#ion f tne maximum ~ight ancE calcui Ean ofi average ximum
heGghtt reguire ents in the Lion sad Redevelop ent Master Plan.
plicant. To n of Vail Comm ity Developrne Department
~ F nner: Gea e Ruther
Daug Ca hi F l a de a motian to a ble t his un ti l S tem ber 9, 2002.
George Lamb s conded the mot n.
e rnotion passe by a vote of 7-0.
f. A request for conditianaC use ermit and an am ndrnent to ihe a roved develop ent
plan, ta aClauv fo a temporary pri te educatianal i titution, lacated t the Lionshead V
at, 395 S. Front e RoadCLot 1, ock 2, Vail Lions ead l'Filing.
Ap lieant: Child n's Garden af L arning
Pla er: Aflisan chs
TAQL UMTIL SEPTE BER 9, 20{}2
A request r a recommend ian to the Vail T wn CQUncil for a amencfinent ta e Town of
Vail Streets pe Master Plan, o allow for modi 'cations to ihe pr osed streetsca e plan
and to propo improvements, cated af Meacfo Drive from Da on lce Arena to il6aw
Bridge Road.
p{icant: To of Vail, repres ted by Otak, !nc
Pl ner: BiII ' son
~ WIT RAWN
8. A reques for a major ame dment to an app ved developme t plan, in accar nce with
Section l 8D-6 of the Vail own Code, to al w for impravem ts totheGolde Peak Ski
Base, locat at 458 Vail Vai y Drive/Tract F, il Village 51h Fili and 498 Vail lley
9
a
7OV Add 21 Sept. 17 Uail Town Council Highlights
~
--Proposed Application to Amend Building Height Limits in Public Accommodatian (PA)
Zone ?istrict
Rather than pursue a text amendment ta request a change in building height (from 48 ft.
ta 56 ft. for sloping roofs) vuithin #he Pubfic Accommodation Zone District,
Councilmembers said they would be more comfortable with a Special Development
District (SDD) process #o review height changes in tha# zone district on a case-by-case
basis. The question was posed by the owner ofi the Tivali LodgE, who is preparing a
recievelaprnent appiication for the properky. For additional details, contact George Ruther
in #he Comrnunity Devefapment Department at 479-2145.
--Pedest 'ar~ Bridge Qiscus 'on, re: lntegrated rt
In prepara ' r~ fc~r the evening eeting, the Cou il reviewed abric! railing art feature
recommend by the Art fn Pu 'c Places Board a part of the Gore eek pedestrian
bridg~ replace ent ptoject. As pr osed, the bridge ailing will use ove apping
perFvrated steel create images o ayaking, snowsh eing and other ou oor activities.
reviewing the pr asal, Diana Qon ar~ and Rod SCife suggested additio ai
difications to imp ve the design's tr sparency. See e ning meeting bri s for
det 'Is.
--PECI B Repork
During a view of the most ceRt meetings of e Planning and vironmenta!
Commissio and Design Revie Board, there we no cal!-ups by G uncii.
--Matters from yor and Counci# ~
Diana Donovan s gested the need create a system a retain Caur,cif p cket.
cc~u be reused from t reading to secd reading, thus s ing paper.
tat
also inquire abcaut the rationa behind prapose i creases in the gd` pass
%C=
- (whi was increased ! t year) and tha bl pass (which has 't been iracrease
severa ears). Lastiy, Da van shared feed ck from several nsfituents who s they
don't like he new park iden i icatton signs, say g they're foo col nd sterile. Dona n
said the ol wacrden signs, aIt augh requiring m e maintenance, g e Vaii rnore
character an uniqueness.
Chuck Ugifby sh ed an update on e Lionshead Tas arce meeting he earlier in the
ay in which the gr up identified the n ed to create an o rall funding scen io for the
n erous public praj cts associated wi redevelopment i ionshead, capita
imp vement needs in ail Vi!{age and eFs where thraughou owvn. In particular, Ogilkay
sugge ed the need ta id tify how revenue am the prapose roperty tax incre e wiil
be spen And, what option the town will face ' the tax isn't appr ved. Gauncilmem rs
agreed to t an all-day budg t discussion on O. 1 kaeginning a# _15 am.
Rod Slifer ask ta receive infor tion an a priuate nd-raising carnp ' n underway in
Aspen to buifd a ice rink, paol an limbing wali. He so noted survey atisfics from
#he Ford Amphithe er showing its su ess in driving vis tion to Vail.
~
Attachment: D
~ Oavai ! $
.~ua W V :]Nilli HimA ~VO71 FDl+l' MI 7
HOSNVH 99£'310 ~ 444
I "
~ 30001 11U/1,11
- _ ~
~ ~ -
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ° ~ ~ ~ a
- ~ rr
~ a ~~sYo~4 j~~ M
1~
3 , a
`z
o4~oa°s• ~•f= ~
AU AN
AJA ~ Jj
~ w.l WAdk rdui. +rrMrl~ ~ ,
~
...~.ra ~ dWO
~ f~
~
!i 1 tf F I
~
.,a
E ~ ~ ~T; 84 2~ri '4 CEC,r g~ q ~ p
y~,F fli~fh .'~°~4~ ¢ Y CY ~ W
Q64~L.1
g ~~y, E 7
f&
q$3.e, e b
»a
Q 'ssG 4Y~9'it ' Y
~ rj _ _ _ _ • ~ ~ ~ 1
3 ~ ti 4: t~:
3 `ti ; t ~ 1 ~ ti1
s
f 4
-,•.~a,_ ~ - s~ ~ ~ ' ~ 1~ `y ~
03 a ~ _ ~ 51 ~
l ~
G} ~ n 1 ti ~ 1
~
,~y, ~ ~ ' • ~ 1 ~ ? ~
' g
rr
~
; -
r 4
mz ~ P
~ n u
s
~j. o
~.i c.~
S2
~
j~-.~- a sY'~~+.°-Nk~ew>apY o F~--
3"','"y
=Y~ W
y IsS
LJ _j
da~._~ w
~.a,
S
F- 4 0
xa~ o
r--
~
ED
Y
ri' N
ij
1 ;
N
Yy
~ l ~~'ayv
i ,
~~s f
,
, ~ .
J ~
i~
! r
~
ROw7
GIJRE CREEK RQAfl ( 50' '
<
,
~ry$~
Y~~a
w9y~
a
~ LO
~
~ ~L =
LL J
~ O
q I
L'J
~
CY ~ Q
J ~
<
CL ~
~L W
rzi j ~
0 ~-7
LLJ
, t 0- W
1 t~l q '~J'
Q
~ ~ ~
W J LL O
.
h^~ ` I i a i
a ^ P
!U
h -
~ ~ .
4
•I ~ ~ ; _
't-_--_-
a° ~
~ U7
I ~
~ ~ _ . ~
v N V n~ • • >
F- N N
N {1 ~ m
1 {
_ I 1 ~
-
i
i ~
_ ~ ~ ~ 5 ~7•s('S5' € 58.D5' ,f-< < - ~
. ~
~ jt
a
1f ~
'ryn~
h_
t
mz
=p#3
. c~
~ ~•ai~~ ~~il, t ~ ~
1i?i1 ~ y..
616
} CD ' ~ it; a ~ ~ ~ • ~ ~ t'~~~~ii`~~g~; ~ x
i~I''c~'~~~~~~
jA
o~
n^ Y'~
Z LL'
F-s a a} 'rtI : r x Y
0 a iiI'f ~ j e~~l i e
~ __j
~-j~
~ .Q r~~ro~~?~a Yi'~~_f~!7~j~~s~~~~~ ~ y ! 1 ~''fj~i~ 1~~~•tt~/+gS~irF~"~}'`~1~7
s ~ ~ ~ . 3b 3~{~~'YY b
! = ~i
i 3~y s;'~~9`=z~i3
..~C i ,~~r ~~q a.~r ~1S ~ -
\ \ o .
~ ~ ~ j ~ 's'
~ Q yc
~ ~ r J ' r ° 3 tl~ ~~d ~
r! ~ ~ ~ ' . ~ •t
~ v ~d 1I
i ~4 ~ f~ a~~ ~ F~ ai t u l~ ~ l~~~I 1 4«•4~ ~ f
I i } Ja S~ ~ Y d iqlY~ 1. ~ w E' f
r
\JR ~ -15 1
~q
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ; ~ x
• \ _ / \ ~ :
~ Raeai « w°tacuurr.
I
oaraox»~rivn
DNlllA E-LLd1A`30Y!'11A INA'I X3blS'3 lOl
avoa anriva HcxNv" 9es
C%4
~t7O1 174/\11 1 ~
i ~
YAIL VqLLEy DRIYE
30 k I], Y.
:
I
i L
? 1 w~; ~L~.r . 'T'""T ~
W / ~ , ~5~-+~\S~ "4-~~. - ~ ~ i t . _1~. •J.,
l\! ' E4 i ~9
~
\~`,.y~.~~~~~~~\•~` I
XL,
\\`'t' k ~ I
~ ~ • , : ~ ~ z
; `~?++~yy',~` ` ' ! a, 1
W . \ \ ± `t ~ e5A\ ' M1~\„~?~ ~ 1 ~ . ~L ~ ~ . J.
{
l~~ O~~\\ ~,1 . f1 I I
~ ~;A \ S f, ~ ti'``.`;~~ ; I P,9 i" I I
, ~ - •
,
~ I~ ~~.`~`4~ ,,~,\y•~.,• , , a1 -a _ 1
I I
z y . ~ ~
t~ f
~x r• :IX~__~
,1 \ :~54~ \ `\4\.~ 1 1
. I ~ 4 _ " ~--1~7' I
. ~ ~ ..i • \ ~.~k i \~,~4~\ ` ~ ~ ~
iq\ . 1
I 1 ~ `t t.4.y \01~y,\\t ~
1 Y I ~ E y\O 4~• 1 E I
..a..~ .
@ + f i/
P ~
k f
01
~ ~ • ~ ~ ~
~
~•J~~ -J ? ~J ; ~ ~
f I
1 I
~
I
q [xavaoxotirvn B $
7NI1IdFkuId'3oY1lkA91VA`XX3019'31lQ7 i ~,LE;~
18AVQ7€Fi~I1liINOSNM-V9BE ^ ~
3JC701 11O/~11 ~ i a
VAIL VALLE'r DRivF- ~ ~ .
~ ~i° ~ 50 R~1A4 ~ ~ .
>
~~~~t~~ r' •
, !lT-- - • ~
- - - ~ ~
~6 > •,r,J,rl,l~~' ~ I I _ ~ ~ -
~ i
.i'
I I ~
e 1
~
:
-
^ ' '
~ 1 I I !
~~p ~ ~ j ~ ~ I
#pj
9
- - - - o
11,1he ,1 Is : xL~~
~ r ; ~a ~ t
~ I 'I I
HARN
~ a I I I
: ~ ~ ~!5 ! Owniaat~d~~rnn,~ivn''rxx~,a34A), cl
41~D71 H7NV31 NC)SPiVH 9oE ~
1D
300+C)-1 I-IOI'\11 i
i
Y
.
1
~
~ b 1 I ~ 1•a~l~.~~ ~
r---•-•-- a I ! I
I I I I 1 ~
~b \ ,r1 j ` 1 { P ~
I ~ ~ I l I
n
ql--
s k ~ ' \ y
1 I
i F
1~ • ~ r r~
~ I h1d
~ ~r•
~ ~ ~ ~ _ ~ ~ ~ 1
~R
i1~ili~ 131~~~
-3 W
,
m
0
-ED
~ 1 _ ~ ? ~ a I ~ ~1 1
~ .
1 1
~
tM : k 1 7'
r ~ t
~ r- ~ ~ ~ ~4~ ~1
f' : J f $ r y
~ s ~ ~
oawaoIM ^irvn
ONni3 FttAa'nYntn uvn'r x0oie '1101 t1VO21 F4NVM NC15NVH 9"
~ ~ •
3000-1 I-IO/1.~j- ~IIUd
8
R
~
d
r` i _ ~ s $a
7, T ~
~ ~ • - o ~ a
LA
~
I
~
~ _ , •
~
~
,
~
. E~
~
~ ~
~ i~ 111 1111
3- a
~ p3
~
aawa0103tirvn
a9vnia wA~ '~ny~, ~wn 't ~079 141 ~
Y
` OV07t ?X]fJV21 NO4NVH 4@r C t
a0-1 FIonii
YAIL VALLEY DRIVE
~iao SO' R. LL W. _ .
o - - - - - - - - - - - -
o c K,m' ~
k
a - t-., 2
, ~ ~ ~ 1
54
5
IF; -
1. L
4
f f
I \ I
~ se
~1~
~_.71
-77_-.
1 ~ ~ _ a ( I
I
- ~
~ 4 ~
~ _
onulei wUia'3O+n°nn 7twn'z x~c~e ~ io-i I i '1~
nwoa Fnntva NosNV" see k#r ~ l11
I`IO/r?11 r
~
m{~a YAIL V.4LLET DRIYE
50' RAILt I ~
~ ~ ~ ~ _
i
~ ; ~ . ~ . .1 ~
~ - ~~_~~L ~
~ t i i ~ • ~ ~
. . ~ . ~ + ~
`
,
,
~
,
I i
~ r - - - - d
. , ~
. A
( ~ ~ <s~ ~
~ t ~ -
-
~ I 1
1 I
~
- ,
~ ~!x ~ ~ni~?a~ii'~a~i~~'~ic~~s'~~o-+ ~ ~ ~ 3 ~
4mb FDNwn rrcRrvri gov
3JC]C:~1 ilC]/~11
~
~
a
a • ~
~ r~ rJ
r ' .
. . , ~
.
n-
~ z
• ~ ~ r i$ ~A ~ ~~~z
3 ~ gry
~
=--t• • •°J ~ ~ ~ ~ 3
i
~
1 I I
- -
~ I I ~•J 3 3 s
l - ~
~
OanrA wei3 `iuQiiv~n'irv-1e 1101 avoa HOnva r~aswvH 4cs
.
3JC7 I01 I1C]/~.11
~Ti! ~
~
i ~
~
„'i'-
l~~
A-AR
~ ~ ` ~
..f- ~ - ~ ~
rI j :
~ I I I I {
i
_.~w
~ . ~
ti
~ ~ - - - j 6
r I I ~ ~
I 1
5 ~
, I
f
rp P
. .
; .
, „ .
~
~
e
_ to
w
_ ~ ~ ~o
i
oNi~ie w~aei'iom ivn z~~rne'aioi
avob rtaN+ra wosravia sae
3~aC~1 i`1+C7/\11 I ~ h QW
Io
~ LL
e
:
.
,
~
r
- ~ _
. •
::l~~i ' :;Y~- ~ r____I i
~ r -
, . ~..Il 4 . ~ N ~ ~ . . . I.,.. ~ • ~
,
. ~ ' •
a i
--J .
~ 1 f~i .
i I I f r~
{ I . ~ .
; I I I ~
~ e
i
i
I • ~
I ~
i ~
I ~ I
l I ~ i
l i
rr=----T ~ -•-•-1~1
~ I
~ .
. • .
~ i ~
`f ~ I
~ ~ r~ . I I
r•. , ,~I~.
-•81- - ~ ~ •tlJ
I
) 1! 1 I
~ ~ ~ 1 I r I!
.r
~~,-.-H ~ • - • ~ '~J
. , ~
~
~ i
oaveoxw7rvn
~s DNnIdRIAIe'30vnan1rvn)Mae13101 avoa HDN" nPa&4vri 9"
y r ~ ~
3JCIC]7 11C7A11
1114
~
i
f ~ i-
~s , , - ~
~ I I ~I
~ I .
- - ' ~
~ ' ~
; I I ~ I
~
; C I I
~
L~~.+
3 I
i ~
1 ~
l i ~ l I I
, • ~
f~:~-•-•T _.~..._.~J
;
~ . . ~
_ _ ~
i
oi I ~ 1 I + i
f•~ ~_i_1J
, r
~ \ 1 ~ _ : ` ;
~
I 1 ~ ~ ~ ! i I tl
i I 'r I '--i
~ I
V
I
oa"010:)71Vn
]NI'tld HJ.ild "3DYI'lIA'1Pr"A'Z7C018'3141 9 ~
CIV~II FCWVV NOSMM
30aC71 IlU/4I1
~
~
0
- ~ - - - - ~ ~
~ . .
~ -
. . i . . 4 ~ y?
~ -_-___'__""'l 1 I ~
F~ 1 1 I e
b~
1 '
t ~ I1 ~
I
I l~
1 ~
i
I ~
1 I
~
~
I
E ~
4 !
f
I
l '
I ~ f t ~
~
~
~
~
~
1 ~
~
, .
I
1
1
~
l 1
I
I ~
i e t
FJF
i ~
i
i
i
i
i
i ' -
i
~ --i
• ~ ~ ~ f I
r ~
\ I ` ~
i j
~ • n 1
' I
n 1
i ~
r
1 ~ !
1
1
1 j
1 ~
1 R
1 ~
7 O ~ J
1
~ . i _ . i
1 I I I L______J ~
' ~ 1 I L ~ I 1
1 i
~
~
~nr~ ~ii'~~oinn zrv~ioia'aiai
OVQM H3[V71 NC7SNVH'9Q£ J ~
tF 3~d0-! Il~/~11 ~
~ ~ A
i ~
~
~
e
I I I ' ~
, ~ e _ L _ J •
~ ~,Y_J_I-°-'-'-' Y.
I ~
' ' • ~ 2y i
9 J~ ~ _'l._...~..a,.~~ . Y ~ I...
~ i
1 I
I
1 '
"_'_"1"
f
,
I
~ ~ I
, ' I I I¦~r
T~'---• - - ..._._.~sJ
~ ~ L g
~ . I I E
i I
i ~
~ ' _ f u I
I
r• . _ ' .s•
~ - - - l-- - ` ~
I , I f E ~
I ; I I ;
9
1 I i I - I I ~
I 1 l I
I 1 I I
~
~ nvoa Erx~+va r~osr~t ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' r ~
30C]07 110All
- ~ ~
f w
~
i
.
f~ I I I I
J~
~
~ w~•_, _ r-'- r _ i1 .
n i i y
~
~
~ _ _ .W~
' i t d ~ xo
, ~ ~ ~ • ~ I
Fu' .,,t~. ~ • f .~_.1J ~ `d,~~t
, , ~ ~ ~ ~
1 ~ ~ ~ ~~~n!i~
1 ~
~ JI -_.i
- _._t.'r?
~ ' ` . .
~ ° I O&P EP-4
1 E I ~ - I
` ; ! I I I
,0,1 . F- ' - •~J
~ ~ ~ ~ • I { '
~ ~a _ if 1 ~ I !
I ~ E I
I ~
~ • i • - ~ ' ~ ~ ' •
~ - - - - - ' ! ~ ~
I I f
~
oavaoy03'11Yn 9 ; FU' 7N1lRi H1~13 3oYTI1,A I(YA "Z X3010,3 101 } ~
a ^ ~
Uvo11 F9_1tJVl1 NOSNVFI 49s
~ IZ 30001 I-iC)/'1?Il
~M ~flw ~ I 111~
~
~
~
~
0
ii
ii
%
--T
I s+ %
~ , ~
N.- F~
a: •
4-a- E
IEEEEI
~ t I I~ 1 ~ I 1
~
I
~ ~
9~ p ~q
23 c3atvao~o~~uan ~ ,
~sl~ ~~53~ 39
Ot~nIAH~ii'3~v'~iv,~ivn`z~~1e'~io~ ~E8
~ avaa Fonwa NOsrm+ eef
3Dd01 I-i0A11
~bba ww ~
~
i ~
;
c
~
f t ^ ~
I ~ E 1 6 1 { 1 I 1
I~ I I I I~I !
r. -
l'rl ; ~ ~
~
,
ao-
~
~ I r I I I II I
~
~
~
~
~
oavao10~1evn I
ONrns ru~ia'3~vi3inirvn'rraais'aioi
Fud
UVO7I H74VM h10SNVH 98E
30Cl(Dl IIC)/\11 ;
W
- - ~
~
~
a
:
~
I do
\ ~4 } + I
{~E~1MA.
F... . 4
p t I
Pr N K ~ h° y~
• f ~ I P ~ ~
~L
¢ - I
~ ~ ~ _ ~ k~ i
I I
o-
+i
I` I d
r '
,
~~I f t e{
a~ ~ i III F
1
N ' ( i; tl
p
I? ~5 ~
s` I
I I
I
I 4 I
I '
- ~ „l! y 1
I ~ L ~ r
I
~
~
oava0103'1rvn y I I I
}
Z~ JNIH
IHJ~Id '3~JY1L,A 'NVA'Zl17019'3 1i0i ~ y ~
l7Ydb FC1IvIV1F NOSNVH 99f 4 4 . rt
gill30Q01 FIOA11 J
~ W
~
~
~
~
4
Q
T
~
• ~
I ~ 1 I I ~ I ~ '
fl
I~
I
0
~ I - ° I Q f }-I
I I P {
.
, . i ~ E
- ~ t
, . .
~ M
_
I~ Mr Ell~' tl' ~ I
I ~ UI ~ 1
I ~ i ~ I ~ I I ~ f 1~ 1
~
to
I
cxmotootirvn
ON1II1 ii"lA 'IDY7lV1lfVA`ZxDm9'3107 ~ k
i4W071 ~
P{]NVaI MDSM4}1 9B£
1~onil A-
•
i ~
Q3
0
,
. . . - . . -T - " q
. . ~
. ~
. . . ~1
.f ~ I I C ~t~ ~ ~ ~ ~
j • . ~ _ - y~
~ ~ ~ •
i I a I j
u ~ •
~r - ~ , W~ •
a e
3^ ~ ~
i'
~.i
1:-
x;'
` O T f
' r - - - - - - n1
- - I
I f. ~
t
~
1 r i, t' I ~
1 k ~ __1
1 f,^ ~
_ r~rf,` I F
. 1
! e .
I ~ C r 1 ii
, .
ii E l . ~ .
i
~ I I a
' R 5
. I
~ C
~
fs
~
.
~ - -
' . . ~ . . . - . . . . . M1
, _ . - ~
T~In7Tl77' . . . . - _ ~ _ . . _ . . _ , -
' . ^ .
: . . . . . . l /y S]
. . . . . ~ ~ I ~
_ ~ • ~ ~ . . '
~4.
.
.
. . _ . _
, . . . . . ~ ~ ` . ~n
I
xv ' ( r ~
a ~ ~ .
a h ~
e ~
. . . . . ~ ~ ~ ~ .
p ; 'o
~
-
~
~ ~
R
~
u,
f }
~
. . . ~ t , • . ^ . . .
rJ~
IrE
.
; Z
~
~ . ~
~ M
. ,
~ r
,~y _ . . .
~
. . '
M~ .T, ~.P v 7 ._,n ' . . ~ i~~ s
, . . . _ . . _ . , _
.
. .
. ,
~ N
06
. . . .
~
_ w
. ,
r - ~
: " . . . . L_ . " y/ f
- . . - ' ' . . . ~ 6
~ I
w ~
~g. f V mI`~~I ' ~ ~ Z
~ ~
a.'. ~
Zad
_ ~ - $as
L ~ •
,
R ~
. ~
-'s
3 ~P •
-
- {
. ~ _ . . . . : ~ . ~ ' .
. . f~ . ~
. : ~ ' ; . . .
. . . " . " • ~ ' ~ , .
, . . . . ,
~g
~ -
~
~
~
. ~
I _
- -
, ~ . -
~x
Y
. r
. . . _ ~ ~ ry~ r
• ' . ~ . ~ . ~ ~ ~ w
w
r
N
x 2
u
oc c
F
Y
' ~ e,:~' _ . . . . . ' . „ . 4
- _ . , _ . . . . . _e_
. . - . . . . . ~ry
LU
. : . ' - :
.
-
~
~ - ~ • ~ ' ~ t~ ui
. . . . . . . . . . t
. _ . . . . . ra..
4~
~ ~ ~ ~
~y ¢
r ~
~ - J
0
~,n J
w- ~ a s
c sk- &
~ z tL
- ~ ~
r'
.r . •
4?
i
~
,
~Li
~
.
~
. ~ :
- 3 :
~
N
S ~
, Y
.
-
w
~
r'
~
Ammk
~ - _
f.L.l
Z J
~ ~ry}
!L
W
- pIXb~~i• - _
• ~Sh 'r-` 8 1" 6 e
. M n a~,~4 0, :
f
Ai1
~
~
A
11
- ~ ~
' =a
- = = a ~
y
f
R
x - ~~a
f.
x
~
.k
~
~
Z
~
f ~
~
1
t
r
. . ~ , . , • ,...>J~Sb
{
~
pNC,y~ ~
s
t a~
a ~ . . ~E". .
~
4
1P N'1 _
~t
. .E~.. .
n..,_Ar I ~ ~ s r [
~
r- r
~~aFw°~ k`S k :a
s- a
~ > r x5
3
~ ~ .
S4 ~ 1~ F L 5
~ £ 1 Y
~ A T ~ 7 .}'*a~• ~ 7 • . .
r
, y
~ ~ ro
tl d' '~y ' A e ~y
~
V
~
~
.
. ' . E < , . , " ,
2
i
~
~
~
t
~
t
i ~
~
4
~
~ G .
C ry
t fi
~
t
-v
$ ~
. ~ A~~~ .
4M
a w
l a 1~ 6 ~
Nk
' x ~ 4
~ , , . . . . . ~ , . .
T7
~
~
Z ~
i'
4
E~
• ~ ~ ~ e?, * v` 7 ~ r,€'',;,• x ~ e
t: ~ ti ~ t~ x ~sr v ~g sy ~x-
t °F Aa",~e 'k ~e }ri t r ~ 1
°
~ ? H~ ~ ~ ,
+ 7 s d ~s . aw ~
~ ~~5? y } 7
#a A ~
4 ,~~t~'oF
~ g
.~"G~
. p Y f~' S' t.GS
_
~3
~ -
~f
3~~~~~
~ d
~
~ , .
L ~
~ ~ -
~ ' _
4
~
~ I
; .
,
~
3
~A ~ n r
1
i -
i
dy,:
7
y~^l
s x
~ F •~3
y~ry L Q~~`-~j~ §
.y [ 'S .
D r a q~'~
i ~
`
~r ~ .r F q ~
lz' ~
fl,
'R~
d ~ rtf ti^ s' x ~ ~ ~ Y ~°`~"e •~h5~. 'gy"p~~'~`
v.
-
~
k
`
~ ~ a~~'~Y~ k~~~~hy~`~~,~~w~{t`~~' 3`~~~r , ; .
. , . . . ,
~ • ~ ~ a. „ , ~
~
, . , . . ~
. , , • . . ~ :
. . ~ . . . . ~
. . . . . - ~ . . . . . , , . . . ~ ~ .
` - . . . . . . . . ~ , . ~ . ~
~ ~ . . . ~ . . .
~ ' ~ . ~ ~ . z . . . . - . , . . . ~
rf , . . . ~ . . . ' ' . .
2 , .
~ MEMQRANDUM
T0: Planning and Environmental Comrnission
FRLIM: Department of Corramunity DeWelopment
DATE: April 28, 2003
SUBJECT: A work sessian to discuss the questian of whether it is acceptab9e to convert retail
space to Gross Residential Flaor Area (GRFA) in 5pecial aeuelopment Qistrict #6
(SDD IVa. 6) zone district, specifically, within the Alpenrose Restaurant, 100 E.
Meadow Drive, Lot 0, 83ack 5E, Vail Village 1" Filing.
Applicant: 7ed Leach, represented by Davicf Baum of Fritzlen Pierce
Planner: Matt Gennett
1. SUMMARY
Siaff has requested a work session wi#h the PEC ta ask whether it is supportive of the
concept behind the applicant's proposal, which Es fo turn 700 square feef of commercial,
restaurant space into GRFA, and add an additional 1,432 of GRFA and gross square
footage to SDD No. fi to crsate a residerrtial dwellirrg unit above the Alpenrase restaurant
space (totaling 2,132 sq ft of GRFA).
~ II. DESCR'lPTlON OF THE REQL7EST
The applicant, Ted Leach, represented by David Baum of Fritzlen Pierce, is requesting a
rnajor amendment to SDD Na. B, Vail VilEage Inn, Phase I, to allow for 2,132 sg ft of GRFA
for a rrew residence to be located above the existing Alpenrose Restaurant. l"he praposai
calls for taking a portian of existing r°estaurant space, locateel ora the second floor o# the
restaurant, and making it part of the new propnsed residence, which will encompass a
modified third floor as welf. The applicant is proposing an increase in dwelling units (DU)
per acre for SDD Na. 6 fram an existing 12.75 Dlf per acre to 13 DU per acre. If approved,
fhe total GRFA of SQD No. 6 wauld increase 2,132 sq ft, from 182,325 square feet to
184,457 square feet, in the forrn of Unit 5, the proposed new residence. All other zoning
standards, such as setbac9cs, site caverage, and parking, are proposed to remain the same
as existing. With the reduct3on of apprcrximately 700 sq ft of praposed restaurant space, the
overall requiremen# for parking spaces may be reduced as weCi.
The major arrrendment applieation is not ready for final approval and has not yet been
reWiewed by the Design Review Board. The purpose of the work session is to ask the PEC
for its colCective opinion on the merits of this proposal.
StafF is asicing the PEC whether it is supportive of the concept of the applicant's
proposal, which is to convert 700 square #eet of cemcnercial space presently within
the Alpenrose Restaurant into GRFA, anti tn create are additional 1,432 square feet of
new GRFA. The propased new residence is to camprise a total of 2,132 square feet of
~ presentty nonexistent GRFA in SDD Na. 6 and wauld be the second dwelling unit in
~
Phase t, Vail Village Inn. ~
The applicant has stated that the 700 square fee# of commercial space to be conver#ed ta
GRFA has never been functianal ar profitable as retail square faotage. The restaurant
owners haVe likewise stated that the Alpenrose wril6 function better in its proposeci, srnaller-
capacity forrra_
III. BACKGRQUNI]
in 1976, the Vail Town Gouncil aclopted Ordinance No. 7, Series of 1976, establishing
Special Development District No. 6, Vai{ Village Inn.
Project His#ory
7"he follawing is a summary af fhe existing phases and devefopment for the Varl
Vrllage !nn Specral Devefopment District {SDD No. 6):
i'hase I- This phase consists af the buildings iocated et the southeast carner of the
District. Phase I includes one resicientiat dwelling unit approximately 3,927 square
fee# in size and nine commerciallretail spaces. The original davelopment plan far
Phase I called for 16,128 square feet of cornmercial space, and no GRFA. The
Alpenrose Restaurant is part of Phase I.
Phase II - This phase cansists of three residential dweliing units totaling
approximately 3,492 square feet in size and three commerciallre4ail spaces. Phase ~
11 is generaCly located in the center af the District.
Pfiase III - This Phase consists of twenty-nine eesidential dweliing units totalirrg
approximafely 44,830 square feet in si2e and six ccarrtmercial/retail spaces. phase III
is Eocated at the nartheast corner of the Distr'rct.
Phase IV-7his is the original and oldest Phase in the District. This Phase consists
of ane residential dwelling unit approximately 5,000 square feet in size and seventy-
two accorramodation units cornprising a}aproximately 16,585 square feet of floor area.
Phase IV is generally located in the northwest corner of the District.
Phase 11 - This Phase cansists of eleven residen#ial dwelling units and #hree
accommadatian units totaling approximately 9,972 square fee# af floor area and four
commerciai/retail spaces. Phase V is located in the southwest carner of the District
at the intersection of Vail Road and East Meadow DriWe.
ardinance No. 1, Series af 1985 (March, 1985) granted 120,600 square feet of GRFA to
SDD Na. 8. This ardinance alsQ required a min6rnum af 175 accommodation units (AUs)
and 72,400 square feet of GRFA, devoted entirely to AUs in Phase 1V.
Urdinance No. 14, Series of 1987 (May, 1987), amended Phase IV of SDD NQ. 6. The
amendment allowed Phase IV to be braken into two distinc# and separate phases, which
were called Phase IV and Phase V. This ordinance also set fhe maxcrnum GRFA for the
SDD ai 120,600 square feet. Further, the ordinance required a rriinimum of 148 AUs and
~
2
~ 67,367 square feef of GRFA devoted t4 AUs in Phases IV and V.
Ordinance N4. 24, Series of 1989 (November, 1989) amended the density sectbon of SDD
No. 6. This ordinance modified the SDD by increasing the allowable GRFA to a total of
124,527 square feet. This allowsd Unit No. 30 (ariginally Good's retail) in the Vail
Village Plaza Gondaminiums to be converted from cornmercial ta resiciential use. The
space consists of 3,927 square feet of GRF'A, and the canversion ta residential use
has aeen completed. This ardinance also maintained the appraval for a minira-rum of 148
AUs and 67,367 square feet of GRFA, devoted to AUs, in Phases 1V and V of SDD Na. 6.
In 2000, a major amendment to Special Development District No. 6 was approved to allow
for the redevelopment of the Uail Vialage Inn.
I
Ordinance Na, 15, Series of 2001 adopted a reWised Appraved Development Plan far Phase I
11, which brought the total allowable GRFA for the entire SaD #F to 121 ar 182,325 square ~
feet. ~
i
Ordinance hio. 21, Series of 2001 adopted a revised Approved Develapment Plan far Phase
IV, and did not specify, in the form of a revised Approved Qevelapment Plan, #he total
allowable GRFA for the entirety of SDD Na. 6.
1V. DISCUSSION ITEM
Qrdinance No. 24, Series of 1989, enabled the conversian of commercial space tv retail and
~ created the one dwelling unit that exists in Phase I, Vail'Jillage inn, as detailed iro Section lll
of this memorandurn, and i5 the most pertinent example of a similar amendment being
previously granted.
V. ROLES C7F REVtEWING BOaIES
Special Development f]istrict and Major Amendment
Order of Review: Generally, applicaticans uvill be reviewed first by the Planning and
Environrnental Camrnission for impacts of useldevelopment, then by the Design Review
Board for cornpliance of propo5ed buildings and site planning, and final approval by the
Town Councif.
Planning and Enviranrrrental Cornmission:
The Planning and Environmental Commission is ad+visory tQ the Touvn Council. The
Planning and Enviranmental Commission shall review the proposal fvr and make a
recommendation to the Town Council on the following:
• Permitted, accessory, and conditional uses
• Developrryent standards including, Iat area, site dimensians, setbacks, height,
density contrai, sife coverage, landscaping and parking
• Evafuation of design criteria as rtollows (as applicabie):
A. Compatibility: Design cornpatibility and sensitivity to the immediate
environment, neighborhood and adjacent properties relative #o architectural
~
3
design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer zanes, iden#ity, character, visual ~
integrity and oTientation.
B. Relationship: Uses, actiuity and density which provide a compatible, efficient
and warkabRe relatianship with surrounding uses and acfrvity.
C. Parking And Loading: Gompliance with parking and loading requirements as
outlined in Chapter, Vail Town Code.
D. Campfehensive Plan: Conformity with applicable eCements of the Vail
Gornprehensive Plan, Town policies and urban design plans.
E. Naturae and/or Gealagic Hazard: Identificatian and mitigation of natural
and/or geolQgic hazards that affect the property on which the special
develapment district is proposed.
F. Design Features: Site plan, building design and 9ocatian and open space
provisions designed ta produce a functianal davelQpment responsive and
sensiti+re to natura4 teatures, vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the
eomrnunity.
G. Traffic: A circulation system designed faf both vehicdes and pedestrians
addressing on and off-site trafFic circulation.
H. Landscaping: Functianal and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order
to optimize and preserve natural features, recreation, uiews and func#ion.
i. INorkaLle Pian: Phasing plan or subdivis9on plan tha# wi11 maintain a
workable, functianal and efficient relationship throughout the develapment of
the special deve4aprnent district.
I
Desiqn Review Board:
The aesign Review Soard has no review authority on a Specfal DeVelopment aistrict ~
propasal, but must review any accornpanying Design Review Baard app9ication. The Design
Review Board reView of a Speciai Development District prior #o Tc?wn Council approval is
pureJy advisary in nature.
The pesign Review Baard is respansible for evaluating the Design Review Board praposal:
• Architectural eompatibility with other struc#ures, the land anci surroundings
~ Fitting buildings inta landscape
• Gonfiguration of building ancE grading of a site which respects the topography ~
• Rernoval/Presenration at #rees and native vegetation ~
• Adequa#e provision far snow storage on-si#e
~ Acceptability of building materials and colars
• Acceptability of roof elements, eaves, overhangs, and ather building forms
• Provision of landscape and drainage
• Provisian of fencing, walls, and accessary structures
• CirGUlation and a:ccess to a site including parking, and site distances
• Location and design of satellite dishes
• Provision of aufdoor lighting
~ Gompliance with the architectural design guidelines of the Lionshead
Redevelopment Master Plan
itaff;
The staff is respQnsible tor ensuring that al] submittal requirements are provided and plans
conform to the technical requirements of the Zoning Regulatians. The staff also advises the
~
4
!
0
~ ap;plicant as to compfianee rrrith the C]esign guidelines. Sta#f provides a staff memo
containing backgraund on the praperty and provicies a staff eva9uatQOn of the praject with
respECt ta the requored criteeia and findings, and a recommendation on approyal, appravaf
with canditions, ar dertiaL Staff also facilitates the review pracess.
Tawn Councii:
The Town Council is responsible for final appro+raUdenial of an arriendment to a Special
Develapment District. The Town Council shafl revwew the proposai for the fallowing:
~
+ Permitted, aCC255ofy, and conditional uses
• Approval of develapment standards including, fot area, site dimensians, setbacks, ~
height, density controE, site coverages, landscaping and paeking ~
+ E+raluation ofi design criteria as fallows (as applicable): ~
A. Compa#ibility: Design compatibility and sensitiwity ta the immediate
environment, neighb4rhood and adjacent properkies relafive to architec#ural '
design, scaEe, bulk, building height, buffer zones, identity, character, visual
integrity and orientation.
B. Relationship: Uses, activi#y and density which provide a compatible, efficiertt
and workable relatGonship with surrounding uses and activity.
C_ Parking And Loading: Compliance with parking and loading requiremenrs as
cautlined in Chapter 10, Vaii Tawn Code.
D. Comprehensive Plan: Conformity witht applicable elements of the Vail
Comprehensive Plan, Tawn policies and urban design plans.
~ E. Natural and/or Geologic Hazard: Identification and rrzitigation of natural
andlor gealogic hrazards that affect the property on which the special
deveeopment district is praposed.
F. Qesign Features: Site plan, building clesign and location and open space
pravisians designed to protiuce a functianal development responsive and
sensitive to natural features, vegeta#ion and overall aesthetic quality af the
community.
G. TrafFic: A circulation sys#em designed for bath vehicfes and pedestriarts
addressing on and off-site traffic circulation.
H. Landscaping: Functiona{ and aesthetic landscaping and apen space in order
to optimize and preserve naturaf features, recreativn, views anci funetiora.
I. Warkabfe Plan: Phasing Plan or subdivisian plan that will maintain a
workable, functional and efficient relatiQnship throughout the development of
tYre special development district.
VL APPLICABLE PLANNiNG DOCUMEINTS
According ta Chapter 12-9A, a rnajor amendment to a special development district is defned
a 5:
MAJOR AMENDMEN T (f'ECAND/OR COUNCJL REVIEM: Any proposal ta change
usesr increase gross residentiaf floor area; charrge #he number of dwelling or
accorrrrrladation units; , modify, enlarge or expand any approved speeial
develapmenf ciistrict (rfher than °'mrnor amendments" as defirted in this Section),
~ except as provided under Secficans 12-15-4, ",fnterror Conversions"; or 12-95-5,
5 ~
I
"Gross Residential Floor Area (250 Ordinance)" of fhr's Title. ~
Chap#er 12-9, Vail Tawn Code, pravides for the amercdrnent of existing Speeial
Develapment Districts in the Tovvn of Vail. According to Section 12-9A-1,1Jaii Town Code,
the purpase of a Special Development 7is#rict is as folfvws:
"To encourage t7Exrbifify and creafivity in the development of land, rn order ta
promote 1ts most appropriate use; fo lmprove the desrgrr characterand quallty of the
nevir development within fhe 7'owvn; fo facilitate the adequafe arrd economical
provrsion of sfreets and ufilrt«s; to preserve the natural and scenic features of apen
space areas; and to further the overall goals of fhe commcrnity as stated in the Vail
Corn,aretrensive PJan. An approved development plan for a S,necial Developrrlent
Distrfcf, in corr1unction wifh the ,properties underlyrng zone district, shall establish the
requiremenfs for guiding development and uses af property irrcluded irr fhe Specral
Developmenf Dlstrrct. "
An approved develnpment plan is the prineipal document in guiding the develapment, uses,
and activities af the Special Development Qistrict. The development plan shall corttain afi
relevant ma#erial and informatian necessary to establish the parameters with which the
Special Development District shall adhere. The deuelopment plan may consist af, but not be
limited to: the approved site plan; floor plans, buiiding sections, and elevations; viciniry plan;
parking plan, preliminary open spaceflandscape plan; densities; and perrnitted, concfitional;
and accessory uses.
Tne Town Code pravides nine design criteria that shall be used as the principal criteria in ~
eualuating the merits of the proposed major amendrr,ent to a Special Qevelapment Dis#rict.
I# shalE be the burden af the applicant to demonstrate tnat subrrEittal material and the
proposed development plan comply v,rith each of the foliowing standards, ar demanstrate
that one or mare of them is no# applicable, or that a practical solution consisdent with the
public interest has been achReved.
Vil. CRITERfA FOR REVtEW
A. Design cornpatibili#y and sensitivity to the immediate enviranment, neighborhood and
adjacent praperties relative to architectural design, scafe, bulk, tauilding height, bufferzoroes,
identity, character, visual integrity and arientation,
B. Uses, activity and density which provide a corropatible, efficient and workable reEationship
with surrounding uses and aetivity.
C. Compliance with parking and foading requirements as outlined in Chapter 12-10 of the Vail
Town Gode.
D. Canformity with the applicable elements of the Vai4 Comprehensive PIaR, Tawn paiicies and
Urban Design F'ian.
E. kdentification and mitigation of natural andlor geologic hazarcls that affect the property on
which the special development districi is proposed.
~
s
~ F. Site plan, building design and location and open space provisions designed to praduce a
functianal development responsive and sensitive to natural features, vegetation and overall
aesthetic quality of the community.
G. A circulatian system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing an and off-site
traffic circulatian.
H. Functiana{ and aesthetic landseaping and capen space in order to optimize and preserve natural features, recreatian, views and functians.
1. Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional and effiicient
relationship thraughout the development af the spec9al develaprnent district.
VIIL STAFF RECOMIUIENDATION
5taff recammends tha# the PEC cansiders fhe infQrmation in this memorandum to answer
the question of the cQncept of the applicant's praposal, which is to convert 700 square feet
af cornmercial space infa GRFA, and to create an aciditionaf 1,432 square feet of new
GRFA, is acceptable. The propased amendment would allow a tatal of 2,132 square
feet of new GRFA, and 1,432 square feet of total gross square footage, in SDD N0. 6.
IX. ATTAC HME NTS
A. Qrdinance No. 21, Series of 2001
~ B. Ordinance No. 15, Series of 2000 Exhibit A,)
C. Section 9.D. of Orcfinance No. 44, Serues of 1983
D. Vaik Viliage Inn, Chapter 18.54, Special Development District 6(SDD6)
E. Pubfic Natice
F. Appficant`s Let#er pf Request
G. Reduced Floor Plan & Elevations
~
7
AtTachment: A
ORDINANCE N0.21 ~
SERIES aF 2009
AN ORR1NAtJCE ADOPTING A REVlSED APPiZUVED DEVELQPMENT PLAN FbR
SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DIS'fRICT NO. 6, VAEL VtLLAGE INN, PHASE IV, 70 ALLOW
FDR THE CONS'6RUCTION OF 7h{E VAIL PLAZA HDTEL; Ah1D SE'tT1hEG FDRTFi
DET,4ILS IN REGARD THERETD.
WHEREAS, ln 1976, prie Vaia Town Cauncil adopted Ordinance hfo. 7, Series of 1976,
estabfishsng Special Development bistrict No. 6, Vai! ViIlage Inn; and
WHEREAS, Section 12-9A-10 of the Zoning Regulations permits major amendments to
prewiausly Approved Development Plans far 5peciaf Development Distrfcts; and
WHEREAS, Daymer Corporation, as owner of the Phase IV praperty, has submiited an
application for a rev6sed major arnendment to Special Development District No_ 6, Vail Village Inn,
Phase IV; and
V+JNEREAS. Daymer Corpcaration has submitted this new application far a majar amendment
to Special Development District No. 6 in response to an alleged errar in the pubfic notif'rcatian of a
previousty held publie hearirrg, and
WfiEREAS, the pvrpase of this ordinance is ta adopt a revssed Approved Development Plan
for the Vail Viliage I n n Speeial Development District, Phase [V ta allaw for the cons[ructian of the ~
Vail Ptaza Hotel; and
WFiEREAS, the revised maior amendment io the Special Development District is in the bes#
interest of the town as it meets the Town's develcrpmeni ob}ectives as identifred in ihe Town of Vail
CQmprehensive Plan; and
WhiEREAS, in accordance wiEh the provisiQns aullined in the Zaning Regulations, the
P{anning & Environmental Commission held a pualic hearing c,n the major amendment application;
and
WHEREAS, the Planning &Envirpnmental Commission has reuiewed the prescribed criteria
for a major amendment and has subrnitted its recflrnmendation af approval and findings to the Vail
Town Council; and
W#iEREAS, all publie notices as required by the 7own of Vail Code have been published and
ssnt fa the sppropriate parties; and
WHERE,AS, the Vail Town Council considers 4k in dhe best inteeest of the pvblic health,
safe#y, and weffare ta adopt the revised Appraved Development f'lan for 5pecial Development
District No. 6, Vail Village inn, Phase IV, Vail Plaza Hatel; and
~
1
S7rdinance Nv. 21, Series of 2001
WHEREAS, the approvaf of the major amendment to Speeial Development gistrict No. fi,
~ Vail Vtlage Enn, Phase 1V, Vail Plaza Ffotel and the develapment sfandards in regard thereto shail
nat establish precedent or entitlements elsewhere wikhin the Tawn of Vail.
NOW, THEREFDRE, BE 1T QRDAtNED BY 7NE TOWN COUNCIL OF TNE TOWN OF
VAIL, COLQRADO, 7HAT:
Section 9. Purpose of the Ordinance
The purp4se of C7rdinance No. 21, Series af 2401, is to adapt a revised Appraved Development Plan
for Special Development District No. 6, Vail Village Inn, Phase aV, Vai[ Plaza Hatel. T'he Appraved
Development Plans for Phases I, Itl & V remain approved and unchanged for the deveiopmenl of
5pecial Development District No. fi within the Town oi Vail, un9ess they have otherwise expired.
Only thE Approved Development Pian for Phase N, the Vail PIa2a Hatel is hereby amended and
adopted.
Sectian 2_ Amendment Procedures Fulfiffed, Planninq Comrrtission ReAOrt
The approval procedures descoibed in 5ection 92-9A of the Vail Municipal Code have been fulfiCl@d,
and the Vail Town CaunCil has received the recammendatian Qf the Planning & Esrvironmental
Gammission for a rrtiajor amendment to the Approved Development Plan far Special Development
~ District No. 6, Vail Vil6age {rin, Phase fV, Vail Plaza Hofiel, Requests for arnendmenis tn the Apprcaved
Development Plan strall foik'dw the pracedures outlined in Section 12-9A af the VaiE 6vlunicipal Code.
5ection 3. Special Development "Uistrict Na. 6
The Special Devefopment District and the major amendmertt to the Appraved Development Plan for
Pttase IV are estabEished to as5ure comprehensive developrnent and use of tha area in a manner that
wouid be harmpnious with the general character of the Tawn, pravide adequate open space and
recreation amen+ties, and promote the goals, ?bjectiwes arrd policies afi the Town of Vail
Cc,mprehensive Plan. Special Development District Na. 6 is regarded as being complementary to the
Town of Vail by the Vail Town Gauncil and the Planning &Envirenmental Gomrnission, and has been
estaladished $ince there are significant aspECts of the SpeCial Development Disirict that cannot be
satisfied through the imposition of the standard Public Accommodatian zone district requirements.
Section 4. Development 5tandards - Special Development Distr6ct No. 6, Vail Village lnn,
Phase CV, Vail Plaza ttiotel
~
i 2
Grdinance Na 21. Senes of 2001
Development iPlan-
The Approved LeveVoprnent Pfan fnr 5pecial Deve4opment District No. 5, Vail Village Inn, Phase IV, ~
Vsil Pkaza Flotel shall mcfude #he following plans and materiafs prepared b Zehren and AssQCia#es
Inc., dated Apnl 4, 2000 and stamped approved by the Town af Vail, dated April 18, 2000:
(as rnay be further revised by the Tawn of Vaii Clesign Review 8oard)
A. 5ite IIlustrative Plan
B_ Si3e Vignettes Key Plan (nated "for iIlustration ,purposes onlyl
C. Site Vignettes
D. Site Plan (revised) .
E. Level Minus Tv+ro
F. Level Minus Dna
G. Level Zero
H. LevelOne
L Level One & 112
J. Level7wo
K. Level Three
L. Level Four ~
M. Level Five
N. Levei Six
O, Roof Plan
P. Roof Plan (Mechanic.al Equipment)
Q. Streef Sections (Vail Road ElevationlNarth Fronkage Road Elevation)
R. Plaza Sections (Souih Plaza EIevatipnlEast Plaza Elevation)
S. Building A Elevations
T. Building A Sections
U. Building 8 Elevations
V, Building 8 Sections
W. Buiiding Height Plan 1(Absolule Heights/lnterpolated Con6vurs)
X. Building Height Plan 2(Maxicnum Fieight Abave Gradellnierpolated Goniours)
Y. Pvol Stutty (Pool Secliorrs)
Z. Vail Road Setback Study
,4A. Laading and [3elivery plan
~
3
- Ordinanee Na. 21, Series oi 20D4
8B. Street Erolry S#udies (Vail FifladlSouth Frontage Raad)
~ GC. Sun Study
DD. Landscape Improyemerats Plan
EE. Ufi-site Irnprovements Plan
• Permitted Uses- .
The permitted uses in Phase IV of Special Deve6opment District IVo. 6 shall be as set forth in Section
12-7 of the Vail Tawn C4ds.
Canditional iJses-
Cond+tianal uses for Phase IV shall be set forth in Sectioro 12-7A-3 of the Town of Vail Zoning
Regulations, All conditionaa uses shall 6e reviewed per the procedures as autlinad in Chapter 12-16 of
ttae 1'own of Vaii Zoning Regulations_
Density- Unifs per Acre - Dwae1ling Units, Rccammrrdatian Uni#s, & Fractional Fee Club flnits
Tne number o# uni#s permitted in Phase !V shall not exceed the following:
Dwelling Units -1
accommodation Uni#s - 99
Fractianal Fee C9ub Units - 50
~ Type III Empfoyee Housing Units - 18
(38 empEoyee beds totaling 9,618 square feet of flaor area)
Density- F1oorArea
. The gross residenfial fioor area (GRFA), comman area ancf commercial square footage permitted for
Phase IV shall be as set forth ira the Appraved Qevelopment Plans referenced in Section 4 of this
ardinance.
SetbaCks--
Required setbaGks for Phase IV shall be as set forth in lhe Approved {3evelopment Plans referenced
in Section 4 of this ordinance, The franC selback alang Vail Road shall tae a minimum of 16'.
Height=-
The maximum building height far Phase IV shall be as sef farth in the Approved Development Plans
referenced in 5ection 4 af this ardinance. For the purposes of SDD No. 6, Phase fV, calculatians af
height, height shall mean the disiance measured veRicalfy from the sxisfing grade or finished grade
(whichever is more restrietive), af any given point to the tap of a flat roof, or mansard roof, or to the
hsghes# ridge line of sioping roof unlsss otherwise specified in Approved DevePnpment Plans.
Site Covarage-
~
4
Ordinance No 21, Senes of 2001
The maximum allpwable siie coverage for Phase IV shall be as set fQrth in the Approwed
Deveiopment Plans referenced in Section 4 of this ordinance. . ~
Landscaping..
The minimum landscape area requirement for Phase IV shall be as set fortfi in the APproved
Develapment Plans rEferenesd "an Sec#ion 4 of ihis ordinance.
Parking and Loading--
The required numbee of off-streeE parking spaces and laading(d2livery berths for Phase IV shall be
provided as set forth in the Approved Development Plans referenced in Section 4 of this ordinance.
In no instance shall Vail Road or the South Frontage Road be used for IoadingfdeGvery or guest
drop-offlpick-up without the prior written approval of the Tawn of Vail. The raquired parking spaces
shall not be individually sold, transferred, leased, conveyed, rented or restricted to any person other
than a tenant, occupant or user of the building for which the space, spaces or area are required to
be provided by the Zoning Regulations or ardinances of the 7own. The faregoing language shalE not
prohibit the temporary use of the parking sp2ces far events or uses outside of the building, subject Co
the approval of the Town of Vail.
Section 5, A roval A reements for S ecial Develo ment bistrict Na. 5 Phase aV Vail
PEaza Notel ~
1. That #he DevelQper submits detaifed clvil engineering drawings of the tequired aff-site
improvemenEs (street lights, drainage, curb and gutter, sic#ewalks, grading, road improvements,
Vai{ Road 1andscape median improvements, etc.} as identified on khe of€-site improvements plan
to the Tawn of Vail Public Works pepartment for review and approvaP, prior to application for a
building permit.
2. That the Developer submits a detailed final landseape plars ansi final architectural elevations for
review and appraWal of the Town of Vail besign Review Board, priar lo application for a building
pe rm it.
3. 7he SDD approval tirns requirernents and fimi#a#ians of Section 12-9A-12 shall apply to
prdinance No. 21, Series of 2001. In addition, the phasing of the constructuon of the hotrel shaq
not be permitted.
4. Th2t the Deve{aper submits the following plans tm the Department of Cornrrounity developmeni,
for review and approval, as a part vf the building permit application for the hatQ1:
a. An Erasion Control and 5ed'amentation Plan;
b. A Construction Staging and Phasing P1an;
5
Ordinance No. 21, Series of 2001
c. A Stormwater Management Plan;
~ d. A Site Dewatering f'lan; and
e. A Traffic Control Plana
5. That the Deve4oper receives a canditional use permit to allow far the canstruction of 18, Type lll
Employee Housing EJnifs in Phase IV of the District, in accordance with Ghapter 12-16, prior to
the 9ssuance of a building permit, for the housing of 3$ ernployees totaling 9,618 square feet of
floar area,
6. 7hat the Developer submits a e4mplele set of plans ta the Colorado Deparkment of
Transportation for eeview and approval of a revised access permit, priar to applicatian far a
building permit.
7. That fhe Ueveloper mee#s with lhe Town staff to prepare a memorandum of understand+ng
outfining the responsibilities and requirements of the required oif-site improvements, prior ta
second read9ng of an Qrdinance approving the major amenciment.
That the Develaper submits a Complete se# of p6ans responding to the design concerrss
expressEd by Greg Hall, Director of Public Works u Transportatian, in his memorandum to
George Ruther, dated 12f13l99. The dravuings shall be subrnitted, reviewed and approved by
~ the Tawn Engineer, prior #o final Design Review 8oard approval.
9. 7hat the developer records a public pedestrian easement between ihe hgfeC and the Phase II1
Condominiums and behn+een the Phase V Building praperky lines. The easement shall be ~
prepared by !he developer and submitted far review and approval o# the Taurn Attamey. The
easernent shall be recarded with the Eagle County Clerk & Recordsr's Qf#ice priar to the
issuanee of a Temporary Certifica3e of Occupancy.
10. That the Devaloper rea6rd a deed-restriction, which the Town is s party ko, on the Phasc IV
property prohibiting the public use of the spa facility in the ha#eE. Said restric4ion may be revoked
ifi the Develaper is able #a demonstrate to the satisfactian of the Town that adequate provisions
for vehieke parking have been made to arcommodate the public use of the spa. The restriction
shall tae reeorded prior ta the issuance of a building permit.
11. 7hat the Developer subrrEits a final exterior building materials list, a typical wa{I-section and
complete color rendering fnr review and appraval of fhe Dssign Review Board, priar to making
an epplication far a building permit, i
~
6
Orainance No_ 21, Senes of 2001
12. TY+at the Developer submits a campreflensive sign program praposal for the Vail Plaza Hotel for
review and apptoval of the Dssign Review Board, prior to the issuance of a Temparary ~
CerEificate of C3ccupancy.
13. That the Deve9oper submits a roof-top mechanicai equipment pla» for review anti approval of the
Design Fteview Board prior to lhe issuance of a building permit. All roof-top rraechanical
equipment Shalf be incarpprated into the averall design of the hotel and enclosed and sereened
fram puhlic wiew.
14. That the Develaper pos€s a band with the Town of vai3 to provide financial security far the 125%
of the total cost of the required off-sila public irnprowements. The bond stsall be in place with the
7awn prior to the kssuance of a building permit.
15. That the L7eveioper installs bollards ar similar safety deviees at the intarsecfion of the delivery
access driueway and the sidewalk along Ihe South Frontage Road to prevent eonflicts between pedestrians and uehicles, grior to the issuanCe of a Temparary Certificafe of flccupancy.
96. That the Develaper studies and redesigns the entrance on the north side of ttte hatel across from
the entrance to the Gateway Building #a create a more invating erttrance or a design that cedirects
pedestrians to another entrance. The fina[ design sha11 be reviswed and approved by the Design
Review 8oard prior to the issuance of a building permit.
17. Shat the Developer caordinate efforts with the owners of the Gateway Building to create a beEow i
ground access ior loading and delivery to the Gateway from the Vail Plaza Hotel to resolve
potential loading and delivery concerns at the Gateway. !f a coardlnated effort can be reacheci
the Develaper shall submit revised plans to the Town of Vail Gommunity Qeveloprraent
Departmen# far review and approval, prio: to the issuance of a building permit.
i B. That the Dewe{oper revises ttse praposed floor plans for the Vaif Pdaza Ffotel to provide freight
elevator aecess to the iowest level of khe parking structure. The revised pians shaq be submitted
tb the Tawn of Vail Cam+nuniry nevelopmant Depariment for review and appmval priar to the
issuance o# a builaing permit.
19. That the Developer, irs coopera4ian with the Town of Vail Public Works Departrnent design and
construet a left-turn lane on Va'sl Fioad and rec4nfigure the landscape island in the South
Frontage Road median to eliminaie left-tums frorn the loading/delivery. 7he constructian shall
be completed prior #o the 6ssuance of a Temporary CerCifrcate of Occupancy.
20. 3hat the Qeueloper pravides a cenira6ized foadingldelivery faci6ity for #he use of ali owners and
tenants withi€i 5pecial Development Distriet Na. 6. Access or use of the facila4y sha11 not be
~
7
O:dinante N.0, 21, Ssriea of 2Dfl7
unduly restricted for Special Development District No. 6. The loadingldeiivery facility, including
~ docks, berths, fre6ght elevators, senr'rce corridors, etc., may be made available for public andlar
privafe loadingldelivery programs, sanctioned by the Tawn of Vail, to mitigate loadingldelivery
irrpacts upon the Vail Village Ioadingldeliuer}+ system. The use of the facifity shalf on9y be
permitted upon a finding by the Town af Vail and the Developer that excess capacity exists. The
Developer wil3 be campensated hy the Town of Vai1 andlor others for the cQmrnon use of the
facility. The fnal determination of the use of the facility shall tae mutually agreed upon by the
Developer and the 7own of Vai[.
21. That the Developer submits a written ietter of approval frram adjacent praperties whose praperty ,
is being encroached upon by certain improvements resulting from the eanstruckion of the hotel,
priar to the issuance of a building permit.
22. That the Developer executes a Developer Improvernent Agreement to cover the completion of
the required otf-site improvernents, prior to the issuance flf a building permit.
23. That the l7evelaper record fype lll deed-restrictoons of each af the required employee housing
units, wikh the Eagle Coun&y Ckerk & Recorder's C}ffice, prior ta the issuance of a Temporary
Certificaie of Occupancy.
~ 24. That the required Type III tieed-restricted emplayee housing un'rts not tae eligible for resale and
lhaf the units be owned and operated by the hotel artd that said awnership transfer with the deed
ta the holef property,
i Section 6. Approval Exniratipn; Time Limi#afions
The Developer must begin initial canstruction of the special deuelapment district by no later than May
1, 20(}3, and continue diligently toward the completion of the praject. If the Developer does not begin
irsitial construction and diligenlly work toward the completian of the special davelopment district wikhin
the time limit imposed above, the approval of said special develapment district shaEl become null and
void.
Sectian 7.
If any part, sec#ion, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of ihis ordinance is for eny reason hefd
to be invafid, such decision shall not affect the vaiidity of the remaining porti4ns o6 this ardinance;
and the Town Council hereby declares it would have passed lhis ordinanee, and each paTt, section,
subsecfiora, senlence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless af the fact that any ane or more parts,
secti4ns, su'bsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be deelared invalid.
~
8
. drdinance No_ 21, Series ot 2001
Section 8.
The repeal or the repeal and re-enactment of any provisions of the Vail Municipal Gade as provided ~
in this ordinance shafl not affect any right whicn has accrued, any duty imposed, any violation that
occurrecS prior to the efFectove date hereoi, any prosecution commenced, rror any other action or
pcoceecfing as commenced under or by virtue of the provision repealecE or repealed and rsenacFed.
The repeal qf any prvvision hereby Shatl nat reviue aroy provisiort or any ordinance previousfy
repealed ar superseded unless expressly stated herein.
Section 9.
A11 bylaws, arders, cesolutions and ordinances, or parts thereof, inconsistent herewith are hereby
repea6ed to the extent only of such inconsistency_ The repealer shall not be construed tca revise any
by(aw, order, resolution or ordinance, ar part therevf, heretafore repealed.
9NTRQDUCED, READ ON FIRBT READING, APPFtQVED, FIND ORDERED PUBLISMED i
ONGE iN FULL ON FIRST READING this 2'fs' day of August, 2009, and a pub9EC hearing for second i
reading of this Qrdinance set for the 41" day of September, 2001, in the Council Ghambers of the Vail ~
Municipal Buikding, Vail, Colorado.
Ludwig Kurz, Mayar ~
ATTEST:
Larelei Donaldson, Tawn Clerk
I
- READ AND APPROVED ON SECC}NC} READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED this R'h day af I
Septernber, 2001.
Ludwig Kurz, Mayor
ATTES7:
Loeelei C?onaldsQn, Town Gferk
~
S
Ordinance No. Zi, Series of 2001
- Attachment: 8
~ oRoiN,aNcE No. 15
SERIES OF 2009
Ah] ORDINANGE ADOPTING A REVISED APPROVEd DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR
SPEClAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. G, VAIL VILLAGE WN, PWASE Il, TD
ALLOW FQR TFtE COFiSOLlDATION mF TWfl EX45TfNG FtESIDEN71AL DW€LLiNG
UNITS; AND SEITING FO}2Tli DEfAtLB IN REGARb TliERETD.
WHEREP,B, In 1576, the Vaii Ti own Council adapted Ordirtance No. 7, Series of 1976,
establishing Special Development District No. 6, Vail'Jillage Inn; and
WHEREAS, Sectron 12-9f1-10 of the Zoning Regulations perrnits rnajar amendments to
previousky Appraued Development Plans for 5pecia9 Develflpment Districts; and
WNEFZEAS, Patricia and Gerardo 5chrcreder, as owners of the subjeet Rhase !I
property, have submitted an appGca#ion for a major amendment to 5pecial Development District
Nn. 6, Uail Village Inn, Phase Il; and
WHEREAS, the purpnse af this ordinance is ta adopt a revised Approved Development
Plan for the Vail Village lnn Specia{ Development District, Phase II ta a11ow for the consolidatson
af twQ existing residential dwelling units; and
WHERPAS, the revised majar amendment to the 5pecial Development Disirici is in the
~ best interest of the tawn as it meets the Tbwn's development abjectives as identified in #he
Town of 11ai1 Comprshensiwe Plan; and
WHEREAS, in accardance with the provisions autlined in the Zoning f2egula#ions, the
Planning & Environmental Cammission held a public hearing on the major amendment
application; and
WHEREAS, the Planning & Environmental Commission has reviewed the prescribed
criteria for a major amendmenC and has suUmitted 'its recomrnendatian of approval to the Vai4
Town Council; and .
WFlEREAS, all notiCes as requiretl by the Town of Vail Municipal Code have been sent
, to the apprapriate parties; ancf
WI-lEREAS, the Vail Towm Counci{ considers it in the best interest of the public health,
safety, and welfare to adopt the revised Approved Development P1an for Specia4 Development
I7istrict No. 6, Vail Village Inn, Phase II; and
~
1
Whereas, the approval of the rnajor amendment to 5pecial Development Qistrict No. E,
Vail Village lnn, Phase fl and the development standards in rEgard thereto shall not establish ~
precedence ar entitlaments elsewhere within the Town o#'Jail; and
Whereas, the Vaii Tawn Council finds that the proposed major amendment to 5pecial
Development District 46, Vail Village fnn, complies with khe nine design criteria outlined in
Section 12-9A-6 of the Town af Vail Municipal Code. The applicant, as required, has
demonstrated to the satisfaction of #he Cauncil that any adverse effects of the requested
deviations from the development standards of the underlying zoning are outweighed by the
public benefits provided or has demonsYrated that one tar more af the development standards is
nat applicable, ar that apractical solution consisfent with the pub9ic interest has been achieved.
NOW, THEREFORE, 8E tT ORpAINED 8Y THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF
VAIL, COLORADO, THAT:
Section 1, Puraose of the Ordinance
i
The purpase of Ordinance No. 4, Series of 2000, is to adopt a revised Approved Development
Plan far 6pecial Development District No. 6, Vail Village lnn, Phase II. The Approved
Development Plans for Phases a, lil, IV & V remain approved and unchanged for the
~
deveVapment of 5pecial Development Qistrict No. 6 within the Tnwn of Vail, unless they have ~
o#herwise expired. Only the Approved Development Plan far Phase ll is hereby amended and
. adopted.
Section 2. Amendrnent Procedures Fulfi{led. Planninea Gommission Report
The ap,prnval procedures described in 5ection 12-9A af the Vail Municipal Gode have been
fulilled, and the Vail Town Council has received the recommendation of the Planning &
Enviranmental Cnmm'rssion af approval for a reiajor arnendment to the Approved Development
Pfan #ar Special Development District fVa. 6, Vai1 Village lnra, Phase II. Requests far amendmenis
to the Apprawed Development Plan shall follow the procedures outlined 'an Section 12-9A of the
Vail MuniGipaf Code.
Section 3. S ecia! Deveko ment IDistrict No. 6
The Special Development QistricY and the Major Amendment to the Approved Development Pkan
ior Phase II are establislned to assure comprehensive develapment and use of #h@ area in a
manner that would Ue harmonious with the general character of the Town, provide adequate open
space and recreatican ameni#ies, and pramote the goals, aajectives and policies of the Tpwn of
~ I
2
Vail Comprehensive Pian. Special Development District No. 6 is regarded aS being i
~ casnplementary ta the Tawn of Uail by the Vail Town Gouncil and the Planning & Environmenta! I
Commission, and has been established since there are significant aspects af the Special
Development District that cannot be satisfied through the imposition of the standard Publie
Rccomrnodation zone district requirements.
Sectian 4, Development Standavds - Special Development District No. 6, Vail Village
Inn, Phase I[
Development Ptan-
The Approved Development Plan for 5pecial Development Qistrict No. 8, Vail Village Inn,
Phase ll, prepared by Royston, Hanarnato, Back ancf Abey on February 12, 1976, shaal be
hereby emended to include the fvAowing plan amendments prepared by Fritzlen Pierce
Architects, Inc., dated May 25, 2001 and stamped approved by the Town of Vail, dated
August 7, 2001:
A. Proposed Entry Plan;
B. ProposecE Second Level Plan;
C_ Proposed Third Level Plan;
~ D. Prpposed Roaf Plan;
E. Proposed 5outh Elevation;
F. Proposed North EleVation;
G. Proposed West Elevativn.
Permitted llses
The permitted uses in Phase 11 af 5pecial Development Disirict No. 6 shaN be as set forth in the
development plans referenced in uection 4 ofthis ordinance_
Conditianal Uses -
Gonditional uses for Phase 91 shall be set faRh in Section 12-7A-3 of ihe Town of Vail Zorying
Regu9ations. Akl conditianal uses shall be reviewed per the procedures as outlined in Chapter 12-
16 of tfie Town vf 1laif Zaning Regulatians.
i3ensity- Units per Acre - Awe!lirrg Units
The number af units permitted in Phase 11 shall not exceed the foliowing:
Dwelling U nits - Two
~
3
Densi#y-- Floor Area
The gross residentiai floor area (GRFA), common area and commercial square footage permittecf ~
for Phase II shall be as set forth in the Approued Development Plans referenced in Seetian 4 of
ths5 drdinance.
Specifically:
Gross Residential Flocar Area: 4,098 square feet
Commercial Floor Area: 6,473 square feet
Setbacks--
Required setbacks for Phase 11 shall be as set farth in the Approved Development Plans
referencsd in SeCtian 4 of this ordinance.
Neight--
The maximum building height for Phase II shall be as set forth in th2 Approved Development
Plans referenced in Section 4 of this ordinance. For the purposes of 5DD No. 6, Phase II,
calculations of'height shaVl mearo the distance measured vertically from the existing grade or
finished grade {whichever 'ts more restrictive}, at any given point ta the top of a flat roof, ar
mansard roof, or to the highest ridge line of sloping roof unless othenwise specifed in Approued
Development Plans_ ~
5i#e Coverage-
T"he rnaximum allowable site coverage for Phase li shalf be as set forth in the Approued
Development Plans refereneed in Sectoon 4 of this ordinance.
Landseaping--
The minimum landscape area requirement for Phase II shall be as set forth irs the Approved
Development Plans eetereneed in Section 4 af thrs ordinance.
Parking and Laading-
The required number of off-streei parking spaces and loadingldelivery berths for Phase l1 shall
be provided as set forth in the Approved Development Plans referenced irr Section 4 of this
ordinance. fn no instance sha91 Vail Road or the 5auth Frontage'Road be used for
loadingJdelivery or guest dro,p-offfpick-up without the prior written appravaf of the Town of Vai{,
The required paricing spaces shall not be individuaily sold, transferred, leased, conveyed,
rented ar restricted to any person other than a tenant, oecupant or user +af tfne building for whjch
ttre space, spaces or area are required to Y>e provided by the Zoning Regulat+ons or ordinarnces
~
4
of the Tawn. 7he foregaing language shall not prohibit the temporary use af the parking spaces
~ for events or uses autside of the building, subject to the approval of the Town of Vail.
Section S. Apnroval Aqreements for Saeciat Develcrnment Destrict No. 6 Phase II
1. The appiicani shall submit a revised candominium map to reflect the approved
amendment for eeview and appraval by town staff by no later Ehan June 25, 2002.
Section 6.
If any pari, sec#ion, subsecttan, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reasan
Meid to be invalid, such decision shali r3ot affecf the validity of the rernaining portions ot this
ordinance; and the Towrn Council hereby declares it would have passed this ordinance, and ~
sach part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase ther@of, regarddess of ihe #act that
any ane or rnore parts, sections, subsections, sentences, etauses or phrases be declared
invalid.
Section 7. ;
The repeal or the repeal and re-enactment of any prvvisions of the Vai1 Munieipal Code as
provsded in this ardenarece shall nflt affect any nght which has accrued, any duty imposed, any
~ Wie,tativn that occurred prror to the effective cia#e herevf, any prosecution commenced, nor any
o1her action or praceeding as commenced under or by virtue of the provision repealed or ~
repealed and reenaeted. The repeal af any provision hereby shall not revive any provisian or
any ordinanee prsviousfy repealed or superseded unless express(y stated herein.
5ect9an 8.
A$I by(aws, arders, resolutians and ordinances, or paRs thereaf, inconsistent herewith aa-e
hereby repealed to the extent anty af such incansistency. The repealer shall nat be construed
to revise any bylaw, order, resolutian or ordinance, or par# thereaf, heretafore repealed.
i
~
5
INTRODtJCED, READ QN FeRST RF.4DING, APPRa'VED, AND ORDEREQ
PUBL]SHED ONCE IN FULL. OiV FIRST RERQING this 1r day af July, 2001, and a public ~
heanng for second reading of this Qrdinance set for the 7' day of August, 2001, in the Cauncil
Ghambers of the Vail Municapak Building, Vail, Colorado.
.X-r' .`JvdN C%~
~ Ludwig Kurc, Mayor
ATTEST;
",w,r; r! u, sa ia v.u
/
Larelei Danaldson, Town Clerk
REA.D AND APPR(7VED QN SEC4ND FtEADING AND ORQERED PIJBLISHED this 70' day af
August, 2001. mr„a.;.
C•,7 .
~
~ ~E A L Ludwig Kurt, Mayar ~
~
ATTEST:
` orele'/Donaldson, Town C1erk
~
6
~ ExHIBIT A
ZOAIfNG J DEVELOPMENT STATISTICS -
SCHROEDER MAJOR 5DD #fi AMENOMENT
Lot size: 3.45 acres ar 950,282 sq. ft. (All Phases)
D€velopment 2000 SI]D Major 2009 Schraeder
S#anclard Amendment Appraval Maior Amendment
Lat Area: 150,282 sq. fC. na change
Total SDD6 GRFA: 121 %0 or 181,719 sq,ft. 121% ar 182,325 sq. ft. .
Phase ]I GRFA: 3,927 sq. ft. 4,533 sq. ft.
Unit 3351337 GRFA: 1,fi47 sq. ft. 2,253 sq. ft.
Dwel{ing
units per acre: 13.0 dulacre 12.75 du/acre
Site coverage: 61 °/u ar 92,036 sq. ft. no change
Setbacks:
frant: '16' na change
sides: 5'. 2', & Q' no change
~ arear: 5' no change
Ffeight: 77.25' sloping no change
Parking: 291 parking spaces no change
Laad6ng: five berths no change
Cornmercial
sq. footage: 25% af GRFA or 45,22$ sq, ft. no change
~ .
-rl^
subject t4 i:he issuznce of 1 canditional use {aermiz i.n necordance wath ~
the provisi,ons of Chapter 18_60 of the ntunicipal Corle of the Tawn of
Vai7..
Section B. Accessorv uses in the sgecinl c3istriet. A1J. accessary
uses as defi,ned in the public accommodaLian district, Chapter 18.22
of the hlunicipal Code of 1:lie Totvn of Vail.
Section 9. DCvCIOpR1e17t standards. The follorving develapment
standards are minimiirn development standards in sPecia7, districts: .
A. Lot area and site dirnension. The specinl district sha11 cansist of ar? area totaling
4.005 acres.
. B. Setbacks
The tcqviired setbacks shall vary as indicsted in the
.
developrneut plara i,roejidi»g space for planLing and 1n acce,ptable
~
' relationsliip to ac3jaGent iaroperty qwners. Portians of commercial
space m1y nbutt t1ie soutli nroperty line.
C. 13cight
It is the intent of tlie Totvn Council i:hat the hesght limits ~
and ranges of the bui.lrlings constructed tvithin special deveYapment
cEistrict #G shoulei be :rs low as possible and as outlined on development
plan and mQClel of Gordon R. Pierce, Archi;tect, In no etrent shall the
average height of ihe bu.i J.dings construCted in spccial rlevelopment
#G exceed 45 feet. !it thc level of cletail presently a.vai7.ahle to the
. Tati+°n CounciJ., it is nat roalistic to tie dotivn a precise maximum
elevatian. The fin11 designs tvith regaxd to elevltion will depencl unon
Sur'ther detailed Gi:udy anel px-ajecti.or: of the Uuil,ding mass on to photas
of the actual sitc condi Li.ors. Iti is the intent of thzs ordinance that
1:13e height massing aT tlye builcling deve7oped in special development
clistrict #6 maintain the cluality rind feeling of Va.il Village a.lnng Ea.st
h4ead4w I7rive and tliat tix+•o story elevat.irans are the predominent heigYs#.
Tlyis twa story e]evation hr.ight c1n vasy upw:axd ar dbwnwarcl by half a
level.
D. Density Ccntz•Q1. The gross residential floor area devated
' 1:o accommodation units -,ha11 etceed Lhe gross resiclential floor area ~
devoteci ta dwelling uni.ts. 3'or n].1 phlses of the development, the
. #'olJ.owing standarQs s]ia],l ;iPply:
. ' Attachment: C
-6-
bwe2xing or
~ Phase Accnmmoda.ti i on Un x1:s GRI'A
IZ 4 3,315
III 29 dwelling 44,830
ZW 155 accommadation 74,470 3 ernployee units 2,700
~ 10 dwelling 16,585
3 emplayee unzts 1,000
Pha.uc~ Comme3-cial spacefsguare feet
I 16,128 square feet
I Z 8 , 473 11 ,T
IIY 10,600
IV 14,800 t, 11 _
v 6,850 Total cammercial space 54,851 ~ Conventi.vn spaCe = Total I6,611 square feet.
E. Bualdirrg Dulk Contrnl. Buildirig bulk control ma;:imurn wa11
iengtlz, maxamum dimenszons tor build5.ng e].ements requirements for iva11
offsets and vertical steppi,ng of roof lines shall be indicated on the
mocleT of tlze approved development plan, by Gardan R. Pierce, Architect.
F. Site Coverage, The site area tv be covered by the builclXngs
shall be as generally indzcatetl on the de'velopment pIan, Uut in no case
shall 5.1: exceed 55 percent of 1:tie tvtal site az-ca.
G. Usavle apen space. Usable open space shall be pravided as
requirerl in pubTie accomrnadation c1i.sLricl: Chapter 1$.22 af #:he VaY1
P.3uniaipal Code.
H. Landscaping and site development. At least tilirty pexcent
ot the total site area sha],1 be lanclscaped and glaza area. Landscaping
and otlier si.te develc?pments sliall dUserve the landscaping concept as
inclicated in the aPprovec3 develonmenL pian.
10. Parking anrl 7.ozrling,
~ 1. Parking aiyd loada.ng shall uc Pz-ovided as set forth on
Llle appz-ovec3 development p11n. There shall be Ilb iess -tltan 350 sp2ces
within the main building or Utiildings.
Attachrnent: D
VAIL VTLLAGE INN
~ Chagter 18.50 ~
SPECIAL DEVELC}PMENT DISTRICT 6 (SDD6)
Sections:
18.50.010 EstabZished
18.54.020 Purgose
18.50.030 Development Plan--AppravaZ Procedure
18.50.040 Development Plan-rContents
18.50,050 Pe3:mitted Uses
18.50.050 Conditianal Uses
1$.50.070 Accessory Uses
18.50.080 Development Standarcl.s
18.50,090 Lot Area and Site Dimensions
18,50.100 Setbaeks
18.50.110 Distance Between Buildings 18.50.I20 Height
38.50.130 Density
18.50.140 Building Bulk
18.50.150 Coveraqe '
18,50.160 tipen Space
18.50.170 Landscaping and Site Development
18.50.180 Parking and Loading ~
18.50.190 Fi.replaces
18.50.200 Consezvation Controls
18.5(}.210 Recreational Amenities Tax
18.50.220 Li:nitation on Existence
18.50,230 Amenities
18.50.010 Established
Pursuant to the provisians of Chapters 18.02, 18.40 and 18.66,
as amended, Special Development District 6(SDD6), a Special
Devel,opment zone district, is estab3.ishecl fnr the development
on a certain parcel of }.and eomprising 3.455 acres in the Vail
ViZlage area of the tawn, and the zoning ardinance and the
offa.cial zdning maQ are amended by the additian of this
chapter, which shall become Chapter 18.50, the caption of which
shall be "Speci,al Development District 6" and a map which shall
becorile an additidn ta the official zoning map.
(ord 7, 19761 ord 8, 1973)
18.50.020 Purpase
A Special Development ]7istrict is established to assure
compreh,ensive development and use of an area in a manner that
woul,d be har.nonious with the general character af the Tawn, ~
provide adequate ogen space and recreation amenities, and
SDD6
~ promote the objectives of the zoning ordinance of the tawn.
Oxdinarily, a special development district will be created only
when the development is regarded as complementary to tha tawn
by the Town Council, Planning and Environmental Cammission, and
Design Review Board, and there are significant aspects of the
development which cannot be satisfied under the existing
zonzng. (ard 14, 1987; Ord 7, 1976; Ord 8, 1973)
I8.50.030 Development Plan--APPraval Procedure
A. The development p1an far the Vail Village Inn, which is
part of its application, shall be incorporated by
reference, and made a part of Special Development District
6 and canstitutes a general plan and guide for development
within the special develapment district.
B. Amendments to the approved develapment pZan which do not
chaMge its substance and which are fully recommended in a
report of the Planning Cornmission may be agproved by the
Tawn Council by resolution,
C. The envzronmental impact repart and a supplemental report
far each phase of constnzction which shall be submitted to the zoning administrator in accordanca with Chapter 18.56,
~ priar to the commencement of site preparation, building
construction, ar Qther improvements of open space. Each
phase of the development shall zequire review and
recommendations of the Planning Commission and approval by
the Town Council.
D. Each phase of the developrnent shaZl require the przor
approval of the Design Review Board in accardance with the
applicable provisians of Chaptez 18.54. Each phase shall
be reviewed by an autside cansultant at the expense of the
developer, who shall give their recammendations to the
Design Review Baard. The development plan sha11 be
amended to reflect architectural detail of each phase.
(Qrd 7, 1976; Ord 1973)
18.50.040 Development PZan--Contents ~
~
The proposed development pZan sha11 include, but is not Zimited `
ta, the fallowing data as amended by exhibits provided by
consultants Roystsan, HanamotQ, Beck and Abey, on Februaxy 12, ~
1975: '
A. Existing and proposed contours after grading and site
development having contour intexvals of not moxe than twa
feet and preliminary drainage plan. Supglemental ;
~ dacumentatian of propased contours and drainage shall be ~
submitted to the zoning administrator with the plans for
each phase of the development.
~
!
SDD6 ~
B. A site plan, at a scaZe of one inch equals forty feet dr
, larger, shnwing the Iocations and dimensions af all
buildings and stxuctures, uses an the buildings, and a1I
principal site develapment features such as landscaped
areas, recreational facilities, pedestrian plazas and
walkways, service areas, driveways, and off-street parking
and loading areas.
C. A preliminax-y landscape plan, at a scale of ane ineh
equals fdrty feet or larger, shawing existing landscape
features to be retained or removed, and showing proposed
landscaping and landscaped site development features sueh
as outdoor recreational facilities, bicycle paths, trails,
pedestrian plazas and walkways, water features, and other
elements.
D. Schematic buzlding elevatians, sectzans and flaor plans,,
at appropriate scales, in sufficient detazl to determine
flaor area, general circulatiom and use location, and
general scale and bulk af the proposed development.
Specific detail fQr these items and the appearance shalZ
be submitted on a phase baszs.
E. For Phases 3, II, and III, a volumetric model as amended ~
by consultants Rayston, Hanamoto, Beck and Abey on
February 12, 1976 of the site and praposed development •
documented by photagraphs at a scale of 1 ineh equals 16
feet oz larger, partraying the scale and relatianship of
those phases of the development to the site and
illustrating the form and mass of structures in said
phases of the development. For Phases IV and V, a
valumetric modeZ as amended by Gordan Pierce, Archxtect,
of the site and the propased development at a scale of 1
inch equals 20 feet, portraying the scale and relationship
of the development of Phases IV and V, to the site and
illustrating the form of mass of structures in said phase,
~
F. A phasing plan of the proposed devslopment indicating
arder and general timing of construction phases, amenities
and praposed interim developmen-1Z. (Ord 14, 1987; Qrd 7,
1976; Ord 8, 1973)
18.50.050 Permitted Uses
' The permitted uses in Phases I, II, III, IV and V of Special
DeveZopment District 5 shall be in aecordance with the approved
deve3apment pZans an file in the Tvwn af Vail Community Development Department. {Ord 14, 1987, Ord 7, 1975, Ord 8, 1973} ~
~ S DD6
18.50.060 canditiorial Uses
coriaitionai uses for Phases I, 11, zII, zV and V of Speczal
Development Bistrict 6 shall be as found zn Sectiort 18 .22. fl3t7 ~
of the Vail Zoning Code and as below:
A. A papccarn autside vending wagon that conforms in
agpearance with those existing in Commercial Core I and
Cammereial Gore ZT. Except, no office uses except thase
clearly accessary to a principaZ use wil.l be allowed on
the Plaza level of Phases IV and V. (Ord 14, 1987; Ord 22,
2983; Ord 7, 1976; Ord 8, 1973)
18.50.070 Aecessory Uses
A1l accessory uses as defined in the Puhlic AccQmmeadation zone
district, Section 18.22.040, ShaZZ ]ae permitted in SDD6. (ord
7, 1976; Ord 8, 1973)
18.50.080 Development Standards ,
~ The developrnent standards set out in Sections 18.50.090 through
18.50.230 are mini.mum development standards in Special
Developraent District 6. ((7rd 7, 1976; Ord 8, 1973)
E
18.50.090 LQt Area and Site Dimensions ~
.
The speciaZ district shall consist of an area tota3.Zing 3.455 ~acres as specified in SectiQn I8.54.0I0. (ard 7, 1976; Ord 8, F
1973)
18.50.I00 Setbacks ~
The required setbac3cs shall vary as xndicated in the +I
develoPm ent Ian, !
p providing space for planting and an
acceptable zelati.4nship ta adjacent prcaperties. Portions of
the commercial space may abut the south property line, (Ord 7, t
1976; Ord 8, 1973) i.
18.50.110 Dzstance Between Buildings ~
r
For Phases Y, 11, and IIT the minimum distance between
huildings on adj acent sites shal3 be as indicateci in the ~
develapment plan, but i.n mo case shall be less than 50 feet. ~ For phases IV and V, the minzmum distance between busidings on
adjacent sites sha1.1 be as indicated in the deveZopment plan as
suhmitted by Gordon Pierce, Architect, (dated February 19,
1987, revised April 14 and Aprxl 17, 1987). ~
((?rd 14, 1987; Ord 7, 1976; Ord 8, 1973)
SDD6
18.50.120 Height ~
A. For Phases 1, 11, and III the allowable heights shall be
as found vn the development plan, specafically the site
plan and height pZan dated 3/12/76.
B. For Phases IV and V, the maximum building height shall be
as set forth in the appraved development plan by Gordan
Pierce, Architect (dated February 19, 1987, revzsed Apri1
14, and April 17, 1987).
(Ord 14, 1987; Ord 7, 1976; Qrd 8, 1973)
18.50.130 Density
The Gross Residential Flaor Area (GRFA) of a11 districts in the
Special Developrnent Dzstrict shall not exceed 120,600 square
feet. There shall be a minimum of 148 accommodatian units and
67,367 square feet af GRFA devoted to accommodation units zn
Phases IV and V of Special Development District 6.
18.50.140 Building Bulk
Building bulk, maximum wall lengths, maximum dimensions for
building elernents, requirements for wall offsets and vertical ~
stepping of roof lines for Phases I, II and III shall be
indicated on the development plan submitted by cansultants,
Roystan, Hanamata, Beck and Abey on February 12, 1575. For
Phases zv and V, buzlding bulk, maximum wall lengths, maximum
dimensions for building elements,.requirements fcr wall offsets
and vertical stepping of roof lines shall be as indicated as
per the approved development plans submitted by Gardon R.
Pierce, architect (dated February 19, 1987, revised april 14 ;
and April 22, 1987). (Drd 14, 19$7; Ord 7, 1976; Ord 8, 1973)
18.50.150 Coverage
The site area to be covered by buildings shall be as generally
indzcated on the develapment glan, but in na case sha1l exceed
fifty-five percent of the total site area. (Ord 7, 1975; ord 8,
1973)
18.50.164 Open Space
Useable open space shall be pravided as reguired in the public
accommodatian district, Section 18.22.120. (Ord 7, 1976; Ord
g, i973)
~
18.50.370 Landscaping and site development SDDS
At least thirty gercent of the tota1 site area shall be
landscape and plaza area. Zandscaping and ather site
development shall obsezve the landscaping concept as indicated
in the agprcaved development Flan. (Ord 7, 1976; Ord 8, 1973)
18.50.180 Parking and Loading
Followi.ng the completian of Phases IV and V, there shaI.Z be not
less than. 12 surtace parking spaces, 324 underground parking
spaces, and 37 underground valet parking spaces as are existing
and as provided on the develapment plan submitted by Gordon R.
Pi,erce, Architect (dated February 19, 1987). 'I'he.propased site
p3an dated February 19, 1987 refl.ects the interim parking plans
between the development of Fhases IV and V.
(Ox'd 14, 1987; Ord 7, 1976; Ord S, 1973)
18.50.190 Fireplaces
Firepl.aces shall not be germitted in individual aecommodation
units. (Ord 7, 1976; Ord 8, 1973)
~ . .
38.50.200 Canservation Controls
Develaper shall inelude in the building construction, energy •
and water conservation controls as general technology exists at
the time of construction. (Ord 7, 1976; Ord 8, 1973)
18.50.234 Reereational Amenities Tax
The recreational amenities tax due for the development wzthin SDD6 under Chapter 3.20 shall be assessed at a rate not tfl '
exceed seventy-five cents per square foot of flaor area and ,
shalZ be paid in conjunction with constructian phases and prior
to the issuance of a building permit. (C3rd 7, 1975; Ord 8,
1973)
18,50.220 Lima.tation on existence
Prior to the adagtian of the approved development p?an, the Town Council reserves to the Town the right to aYarogate or
modify Spec%al DeveZopraeent District 6 far good cause thrQUgh
the enactznent of an ordinance; grovicied, however, that a.n the
~ event the Town Cauncil finds it to be appropriate to eonsxder
whether to abxogate Qr modify SDD6, the proceduxes shall be in
accordance with Chapter 18.66. (Qrd 7r 1976; Ord 8, 1973)
-
i , SDD 6 ~
18.50.230 Amenities
A. The develvper shall grovide in its approved development
plan a bus shelter af a design and lacation mutually
agreeahle to the developer and the Town Couneil. The
shelter to serve the area generally.
~ ~
Attachment: E
- L,~r,,, Ff;ule'~. ~~I:~. ~'"~',11er' FR~T~~E~J PI ER~~ ARCH ITECTS
11Iilliani F. PrLrce; Ara:hii~t:t
Th,?m3~ R. Du Quis, Archiuiet VAII, COLORARO
~ Stephdni~~ Lur[7-Icthnsun, Arc:}iile+_t
Div;d E;aum.ArchilL-~A
ICathy 1ieAn%a, [3u5ii3ess Muri,tber
MarCh 18, 2003
U nit 5
Vail Village Plaxa Candominium
(Alpenrase Resiaurant)
Adjacent Propert/ Qwners:
,osef Staufer Han[on Family Partnership
7(}2 5andy Lane 385 Core Creek Drive
VaiC, CU 81657 Vail, CO 81657
Luke Meyer
813 Potato Pateh Dr.
Vai1, CO 81657
Bill Rey
cJo Clagett Rey Gallery
100 E. Meadow De.
Vail CO 81657
~ Waldir Prado
950 Red Sandstvne Roacf
Vai1, CO $1657
Johanas Faessfer
c/o Sonnenalp Hote1
82 E. h+teadow C7r.
VaiC, GQ 81657
Vialage 1nn Plaza Condominium Assaciation
c1o Peak Properties
100 Lipnsriclge Loop, 5uite 3A
Vail, CO 81657
Tafisman Condaminium Associatiar+
62 E. Meadow [3r.
VaiC, CQ 81657
Red Sands Corporation
C/a Vail Hame Rentals, [nc.
143 East Meadow Drive. Suite 397
Vail, CO 81657
~
FRiTZLEN, It;Su Casi Va±l4'illcy Dr~vc. FaEIruEgc C:-t,
? I E R C E l'
' ail. Culor<ido R 1657
F, 97t3.4-6.6342
F; 70.47( '.41)I11
r• irif,_~(«ruailarr.h~tects.e~a~i
.•t^•••••• ylx'11.~:1i{slff:f111('.i.l3.t.:Uf11
THIS ITEM N1AY AFFECT YOUR PRC)PERTY
PUBLIG NOTICE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the PlanRing and Enviranmentaf CammissiQn of the Town af
Vail will hold a publie hearing in accordanee with Section 12-3-6 of the Vail Town Code on Apri1 ~
28, 2003, at 2:00 R.M. in the Tflwn ot Vail Municipal Building. 1n consideratErn af: '
A request for a wariance from Section 12-7B-1 5, Site Coverage, Vail Tawn Gacfe, td alEow for a
covered pedestrian entranee, located at the Vista Bahn Building, 333 Hanson Raneh Road/Lot
C, Black 2, Vail Village 1 S` Filing.
Applicant: Remonow & Company, Inc., represented by Knight Pfanning SerUECes, Inc.
Planner: Warren Campbell
A request for a recornmendation to the Vail Town Council af a major amendment to Special
Develcapment Dis#rict No. 6, Vail Village Inn, pursuant #o Section 12-9A-1 0, Vail Tawn Code, to
ailaw for a change in use, to increase the GRFA and to increase the nurnber vf dwelling units,
located at the'Jail Village Inn, 100 E. Meadow DrivelLat 0, Block 5D, Vafl Village 15' Filing.
Applicant: Edna & C1aus Fricke, represented by Fritzlen F'ierce Architects
Planner: Matt Gennett
A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council, #o allow far text amendments to Title
11, Sign Regulations, Vail Town Cade, and setting forth details in regard thereto_
Applicant; 7awrr of Vail
Planner: Matt Gennett
A regues# for a recorrtmendation to the VaiE Town GounciP of proposed text amendments to Titfe
12, Zoning Regulations, VaFI Town Code, to amend the Grtass Residential FIoar Area (GRFA) ~
regulations in the Hillsic#e Residentiai (HR), Single-Family Residential (SFR)„ Twa-Family
Residential (R), Two-Family Primary/Secandary Residential (E'S), ResitEential Cluster (RC), Low
Density Multiple-Family (LQMF), Medium Density EUlultiple-Famify (MDMF), High Density Multiple-
Family (HDIV1F), and Housing (H) districts, and setting forth detai3s in regard thereto.
Applicant: Vicki Pearson, et.al.
Planner: Bil! Gibson
A request for a condifiional use permit, ta allow for an outdoor dining deck, in accordance wifh
Sectian 12-7B-4B, Conclitional Uses, Vail Town Code, located at the Vista Bahn Building, 333
Hanson Ranch RoadfLot C, B[ock 2, Vai6 Village l5` Filing.
Applicant: Remonov & Company, Ine., represented by Knight Planning Senrices, Inc.
Planner: Bill GFbson
An appeal, pursuant tQ Section 11-2-'!B (AdrE°iinistration; Appeal), of an administrative
determination that a business identificatian sign does not meet the technical requirements of
Section 11-4B-12B5 (Prajecting and Hanging 5igns), Vail Town Code, Cocated at the Vista Bahn
Suilding, 333 Hansan Ranch Roaci/Lot C, Block 2, Vail VilEage 15t Filing.
Appficant: Rerraonov & Company, Inc., represented by Knight Planning ServiGes, Inc.
~
Planner: Warren Campbell
~
~
~ TaWA;l oF yArL '~i
The app(9cations and information abaut these proposals are availabie for puBlic inspectian during ,
• reguiar business hours at the Town of Vail Community Development Department office, 75 Scauth
Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend the praject arientation held in, the Town of Vail
Gommunity Deveiopment ?epartment offce and the site visits that precede the public hearing.
~ Please call (970) 479-2138 foT additional inforrnation.
Sign language interpretation is available upon request with 24-haur no#ifcation. Plsase caC1
(970) 479-2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for additional informatian.
Thws notice pubCished in the Vail Caily on April 11, 2001
,
.
~
.
.
~
2
Attachment: F
tli fl 6M F. ,lsciiil(:c: i FRITZLEN PIERCE ARCHITECTS I'iir.•::,
1!tr mas R. f3t.i VAIL, COLORAQO
Cbif ~j~ hYt4Uf A1
4'iE Wi liil,.li h i E_ ~
..t,?
Apri 121, 2003
Unit 5
Yail Village Plaza Condominium
(Alpenrose Re5taurant)
Descri tion of Re uest
This Proposal involves an addition and alteration to the existing Alpenrose Restaurarat in the Vail
Village PCaza Condominium. The north and south decks wil9 be maintained for outdoor dining.
The south elevation of the res#aurant will be modified to inerease efficiency to circulation ai7ct will
retain maintain the primarily glass fagade, providing a strong street presence an a year round taasi5.
7he upper level dining space (above the bar aiid pastry counler) wi[1 be converted to a twa stary
resicdenti7l dwelling unit containing 2132 sy. ft. of GRFA. This space has never been successful a5 a
restaurant space (or retail space for that matter) ciue to the fact it is two stories above the kitchen,
access is difficult for customers and staff, anci the space feels isolated frc,m the restaurant and the
street.
The Apenrose currQntly seats 71 customers. A redesign and expansion af the restaurant will pravide
the same nur-nber oi seats on the lower bevels as exists now within the restaurant's three levels.
The Proposal does not deviate from the deveaopment standarrJs of the underEying zone district_
~
Zoning Analysis (based_on SDD #6, anci Ordinance No. 15, Series of 2001 (Units 335 337))
Existi n~ I'raposed
LotArea 150,282 sq. ft. no change
Tatal GRFA 182,325 sq. ft, 184,457 sq, ft.
Unit 5 GRFA none 27 32 sc{. ft.
DU per acre 12.75 13
Si#e Couerage 61 /a or 92,036 sy_ ft. no change
Setbacks:
Front .4" no change
Sidcs 5' no change
Rear 51 no chan,e
FRITZLEN
tPIERCE
~.4: tr 6 3
d'i.~
_ ~ttislnrc•hi€t:
t'.g3{7ti:h'.Ic,05. an
_ _ I
- FRITZLEN PIERCE ARCHITECTS
VAIL, CQLCJRADQ
~
lJnit 5 Vail Uallage Condominitim Zoning Analysis Continued
Height 77.25' (site max)
30.8 '(existing Unit 5) no change
Parking 291 spaces no chi3nge in naimber of spaces but
conversion of restaurant space should
reduce parking requirement
Loading 5 berths na change
Commercial Area 25% af GRFA, or 45,228 sq. ft. 43,096 sq. ft. (45,228 - 2132)
~
~ FRITZLEN ~E.; a',- 'e-i!'•. ai Cifi -c. 4.:ilir+cl„r ! 'i.
P I E R C E
.r_:d:~i'._~a.; iL
.tl P ~
.
;
:..:'J ::,.~.....,.,s..:
I
Attachment: G
~
~
~
~
. .
; ~
~ f
qa
.
. _ ; ~ . - , .
; . ~
~
i
~
~ Q .
~
I - ,
Q !
~
_ ;
. I ~ l • J ~
I I .
_ - - ~ ~
~
, -
~
G
~
~ M1 _
I
:i
-
I
~
~
I
~
~
.
s
~ ~ o
I '
~
I E
~-_~.~~_`:~°1~SL-~-
~
i v
~
~
i
~ i
~ j
~ ) . .
cr-- 1
- - • i . . . ' I S; ~ 3~ E .
.
i ~
i '
. _ . . _ . . . ~ . .
~
_ ~l1L~lN6 ~GTIC>N .
~
•
~
:
~
I ~
r
i i .
4 M
. . . - ~ -
1; -
. .
i .
~
;
~ -
; ~
I , -s-'•
~..~i
1-y
Approved 5112103
PLANNING AND ENVlRQMMENTAL GOMMISSION
PUBLIC IMJIEETING MINUTES ~ Monday, April 28, 2003
PROJECT 4RIENTATIQN 1- Cornmunity Develcapment Dept. PUBLfC WELCOME 12:00 pm
MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT I
John Schofield Gary Hartman ~
Erickson Shirley Ghas Bernhardt
Doug Cahill
Gearge Lamb
Ralfie Kjesbo
Gary Hartman
Site Visits : 9:00 pm
1. Vista Bahn Buildirag - 333 Hanson Raneh Rcrad
2. Vaif Village Inn -13 Vail Road
Driver: George
NOTE: If the PEC hearing extends until 6:00 p.m., the board may break for dinner from 6:00 - 6:30
~ Public Hearinq - Town Council Chambers 2:40 pm
'I. A request for a final recommendation to the Vadl Town Council af prapossd text
amendments to amEnd Chapter 12-134, Requirements by Employee Housing Unit (EHU)
Types, Vail Town Code, to amend the Type II EHU requirerrients and setting forth details in
regard thereta.
AppGcant: AMS Deuelopment Inc.
Pfanner: Bill Gibson
John Schofiefci asked the appGcant, Greg Amsden, if it was acceptable to treat the application taday as
more af a worksession instead Qf a final review.
BiII Gibson presented an overview of the staff memorandum,
Greg Amsden, AMS Qevelopment, inc., presented his applscation for the EHU amendments. He
presented his concerns regarding the curren# EHU regulatians.
John Schofield asked about the marketability of an EHU, relatirre ta a free-maricet unit.
Greg Macisen said the difference is about $40,000 difference the price fQr a deed-restricted unit.
John Schafield asked about the impact of having a deed restricted unit attached to the free market
unit.
~
~i
row,vaFV~~
i
Approved 5!12/(13
Greg Madsen stated that he did nat see an impac# to a free-market unit. He further sta#ed that the
density is already there, and that sefling an EHU has no Rmpac# on ciensfty.
Bill Gibson Glarified the regulations regarding nan-conforming lots and fhe number caf units allowed an ~
all lots.
John Schofield discussed the possibilifij of only allawing this on larger lots, and limiting the type of
awnership to condominiums, instead of townhauses.
Rpllie Kjesbo discussed his concern for the structure appearing toa much like a tri-p4ex and limiting
the ty,pe of ownership.
George Larnb asked far clarificatian.
Rollie Kjesbo further clarified that he favored condo ownership, ins#ead of townhouse awnership.
Gearge Larrib stated that he likes the idea of selling Type fl EHUs and as the PEC works on GRFA, he
thought that the GRFA for EHUs shoufd be incEuded. He also stated that he does not like the idea af
structures appearing too much lilce a triplex and he has a conoern regarding maintenance.
Erickson Shirley stated that Vail is being hurt because talented professionals cannat afford to live here
and many hvmes are owned by second homeowners, thus making it ditficult for small busirresses to
make it through the off-seasan. He s#ated that we need ta encourage year-raund occupancy. He
stated that the size of the EHUs should b+e lirrmited, as he has concerns about the appearance of a
triplex. He stated that the units shauld be big enough #o attract professionals, but not necessarily for
fam`rlies, which have a bigger impact on density. He stated that he trusts the free rnarket forces, and
that he believes there is a demand #ar tlaese units. He askPd about ownership requirements and if we ~
ar+e changing currenf regulations.
Bill Gibsan clarifiad #he duplex subdivisian regulatians and how parcels are typically diwided and
owned.
Ericksan 5hirley liked the idea of a candominium awnership, but had concerns.
Doug Cahill stated that he believed that moving forward with this as a warkSessipn allows them to
further consider their cancerns about trip4exes. fHe has concerns ahout changing the character af the
Town and shies auvay from having atvvo car garage for EHUs, as the appearance fram the road is of
six garage dooes. He suggested considering certain sizes and also units selling as a conditional uses I
may be something to appease thern. He said they alI want to see something happen, but it needs
fur#her exploration.
Greg Amsden suggested that perhaps requiring a certain orientatian for garages, but if not, then he is
alright with only allowing a one car garege. He also stated that he is in favor af making it a conditional
use. He also stated that it is important to keep the ability to sell the unit and that there would be a
typical party walC agreement with the EHU as the "G" parcel.
John SchQfield stated that the way the text amendments are currently written, the motion wauld
probab4y fail, but that with some very clear direction, the applicant couA'd corne back in a few weeks.
He ss9d he likes the concept, solutions just need to be figured out. He asked if we allow sales of Type
11 EHUs, then how do we deal with exis#ing EHUs? He suggested a Type II LL,A" EHU as a conditional
use. He felt the garages should be one car garages and that there will b@ €ssues with so many garage ~
daors and that we neeci tra consult with the DRB on this issue. He liked the language of "integrated into
one unit". He felt this type of thing should be a concfitional use. Me said, regarding the requirement that
tatal square faotage not exceed 1600 sq. ft., he would rather see a percer,tage of the Iot, or a
combina#ifln of ba#h. He sfated that maybe this shouEd be limited #o iarger lflts and regarding the ABC
2
APPrQved 5l12103
; lot ownership issue, he stated that the PEC can regulate use, but not ownersh'rp and that language in
the conditianal use permit might be appropriate for regulating awnership.
~ Rolfie Kjesbo made a motion to table #his until May 12, 2003.
Doug Cahill seconded fhe motifln.
The motion passed by a vote of 5-4.
2. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council, to allow for text amendments to
Titie 11, Sign Regulations, Vail Town Code, and setting forth detaiks in regard thereto,
Appiicant: Tovvrt of Vail
Planner: Matt Gennett
Matt Gennett presented an averview of the staff inemarandurn.
Doug Cahill asked about the cornments from sign comparaies.
Matt Gennett clarified that most af the camments from sign eompanies talked about movnting,
colors, etc.
Doug Cahilf and Rollie KjesbQ hed na further camments.
I George Lamb said he liked the objectives as outPined in the staff memo.
Erickson Shirley had no further comment.
~ John Schofisld stated that he has caracerns regarding the over growth of trees and wheiher or not it
could be considered as a reason far a variance.
Erickson Shirley asked if yau must indicate a physical hardship for a variance.
Erickson Shirley made a motion to fiorward a recommendatian of appraval to the Vail Tawn
Councif.
Rollie Kjesbo seconded the mation.
The motion passed by a voie of 5-0.
3. A request far a recommendation to the Vail Tawn Cauncil for a major amendment to Special
Developmen# Distric# Mo. 36, pursuant ta Section 12-9A-1 Q, Vail Town Code, to allvw for a
mixed-use hotel; a request for a finaf review of a conditianal use permit, pursuant to Section
12-7A-3, Vail Town Code, ta allow for Type [II Eanployee Housing Units and a ftactional fee
cfub; and a request far a recommendation tca the Vail Town Council for a propased rezoning of
Lot 9A, Vail Village 2"d Filing from Heavy Senrice (HS) District #o Public Accomrnodation (PA)
District, located at 28 S. Frantage Rd. and 13 Vail Road/Lots $A& 9C, Vail ViClage 2"d Flllng.
Applicanf: Nicallet lsland Developrrient Company Inc.
Planner: Allison Ochs
~ Allison Ochs gave a presen#ation per the staff repart.
Jeff Winston stated that he wanted the Baard to iook at the roof mass and form next to the Alphorn.
He also stated that the resQlutian is nat as good as it waufd have been had there been more time.
He then started the presentation and narrated parts of it. He brough# up that the roaf next to
3
Approved 5f12103
~
Afphom may not address the stepping dowrt in scale.
Tim Losa wanted to address several cornments Jeff Winston rnade in his presentation. He said the ~
rrlodel used to create the computer drive-thru was several weeks old and there have been changes
made to the roaf in order to transi#ion befter. He aEso added that the Alphom had the right to
redevelop to 48 feet in height. He stated that there is arpund 11 ieet difference in height. He
continued talking about Eandscaping and the pathways into the paol area and vwent through a
landscape plan showing the pathway. He discussed the need to meet AC1A requirements. Me then
summarized that taday they are lovking for a recommendatian of approval to Council for the SDD
and rezaning of Alpine Standard. He cantinued by shawing a board elaborating the deviations this
proposal includes from the underlying PA zone district. He then addressed the 9 criteria for SDD
appraval and continued with abaard list in excess of 50 benefits #o #he Town.
John Hill, representing the app9icant spoke about the kawering of the roof next to Scorpiv. He
believes the issue of Nationai Park raofs has been eliminated.
Allison Ochs spoke to the DRB's request to extend the center roof peak from the Frantage Raad
side to the Meadow Creek side.
Tim Losa showed a reVised plan with the peak extending thraugh the building and said the peak on
the n/leadow Creek side would measure to a height just under 1 04 feet.
Jeff Winston spoke to the mavement of the dormers on the present plan #rQm that used in the
creation af the digital model. He then diseussed the roof Eine Qf the Alphorn and some proposal to
lower the roof line next to the Afpharn.
Gwen Scalpello, a resident of 9 Vail Road, spoke to the fact that 5 units in ane wing a6png Vail
Raad only have views #o the northwest and thase views now wEll be a!I building. She added that ~
fhe developer has been nothing but cansiderate in w4rking with the residents of 9 Vail Place. She
then explained the need for overflovv paeking and the fact that a variance will be coming soon to put
parking in the front setback. She spoke to the advantages of putting all the parking on Meadow
Drive, Wersus hawing an overflow iat aff of Vaif Qrive.
John Schofield pointed out to Gwen Scalpello condition number 7 in #he staff report.
Doug Cahill asked if heard correctly that a61 curb cuts would be removed farrn Vail Drive.
Gwen Scalpeklo stated that the entrance drives would remain.
Ron Smith, resident on the top floor carner Alphorn unit, stated he was in support of the roof line
changes adjacent to his condo and he is in support of the project.
Jim Lamont stated that Mountain Beil should have been shown on the dkgitaE made6, as it vwouBd
have shown how great this building is to the en#ry of Vail. His group is in support of the p1an. He
spoka to the fact that he has spaken to the applicant regarding the loading bays and their potential
far inclusion in a shared delivery system throughout the Tawn. He felt another condition should be
included stating that this project should be reqUired to sign and become a member of any future
TIF district in the area. He then spoke abQUt the need for a bus stop and the advantages to
placing the bus stop in front of Meadow Vail or the Fire Department, as there are mare residential
structures further down Meadow drive. He said, regarding the parking 9 Vaif place on Meadow
Drive, that the parking needs to be designed and screened as best as possible. He feels that the
appE+cant has wr rked hard to meet the request to lower roof tiines to fi# with other buildings in the ~
neighbarhood.
4
Approved 5112103
t Rollie Kjesbo stated that this project has transformed inta a great project. He said he agrees with
Jeff Winston and feels camfor#aCale sending this on and le#ting DRB review it and thfnks the eoof
iine should remain broken.
~ George Lamb liked the dFgital presentation and thought it was very helpful. He agrees with the
staf# recommenclation and feels the DRB can resolve any remaining RSSUes. He thinks this will be a
great roofi compared to gravel and tar which exists in many places. He spake #a the need for a bus
stop that uvas needed on Meadow Drive and suggested either moving La Boftega's stap, or putting
in a new s#op. He syrrapathizes with Gwen in regards to the views and he questians the fees for
traffic improvements.
Tom Kassmel spoke ta tFue numbers in traffic generation and the fact that the irr,provements the
applicant wifl be rna#cing will negate those.
George Lamb u+rould like ta see public art located on Meadow Drive.
Erickson 5hir4ey asked Tom Kassmel about the bus stop.
Tom Kassmel stated tha# bus staps are 1,000 feet apart and feels #hat the additian af a stap wauld
reduce thaf distance ta 500 feet. He said the stop at located at La Bottega is located a# an
intersection and gets great ridership and moving it, ridership would drop aff.
Erickson Shirley asked haw the guests will get to the slopes.
Tam Kassmel stated that you would walk 500 feet to the hospital stop or the Sonnenalp space.
Doug Cahill asked the applicant where the ski storage is located.
~ The applicant stated they are looking at retail space in the Village,
Torn Kassmel stated that PW is 6ooking to keep it I its eurrent locatian between Crossroads and fhe
medical bus stop.
Erickson Shirley asked for clarification on where the streetscape improvement requirements
appear in the conditions.
Allisan Ochs stated that contfitions 2 and 15 addressed the landscaping and streetscape
irnprovements and that the app6icant has seen the plan and any changes would be minor.
Tirn Losa stated that the drauvings show what is anticipa#ed as being the Streetscape
irrzpravements and they have no issue with accepting any chartges which migh# occur to it at the
time of adoption.
Doug Cahill thinks this is a wonderFul praject and the applicant did a great job addressing previaus
concerns. He said he agrees that the DRB can handle the minar changes stiif Ieft to make. He
feels that a bus stop would be great and he woulci iike to see screening for 9 Vail parking when it
comes in.
John Schofield addressed height as the biggest obstacle when this project gets ta Council and
mentianed that the way we measure height is not necessarily practical. He said he had no
problem with the below grade site coverage and the wall heights afe structural walls. He strongly
~ feels that a bus stop is raeeded and thinks the motian shauid include a requirement to put in a bus
stop. He feels DRB can handle the remaining design issues and roof reductian and would like to
see art on #he corner where the gas station is.
5
Approved 5f12103
. *
Erikson Shirley made a mation fo forward a recommendation of approvaf to the Town Councii per
the findings and conditions in the staff report and to convey the PEC's desire for roaf changes to
the DRB.
~
Daug Cahill secanded the matian.
The motion passed by a vote af 4-0 (Hartman reeused)
4. A request far a conditional use permit, to allow far an outdaor dining deck, in accordance
with Section 12-7134B, Canditianal Uses, Vail Town Code, focated at the Vista Bahn
Building, 333 Hanson RanGh RoadlLot C, Block 2, Vail Viliage 1s` Filing.
Applicant: Remano+r & Company, Inc., represen#ed by Knight Planning Services, Inc.
Planner: Bill Gibson
Bill Gibson gave a presentatian per the staff report.
Terrill Knight gave a power point presentation and spake ta the history af this prior to the approval
of the deck that expired. He said the plan depicts what the Town Council approWed upan appeal
and that the prapased deck will match #hose plans.
.John Schofield asked if there was a pr4posal to put tables an the deck west of the existing space.
Steve Kaufman, aperatar vf the Tap Room, stated that he plans to put tables in which will seat
approxima#ely twelve peaple. He plans to use dining tables, not bar tables, for lunch dining on the
deck.
Jahn, manager of Christiana Lodge and Bridge Slreet Lodge, was concerned with noise from the
prapased deck. Fle said there are currently problems in the summer when the doprs and windows ~
are open and the owner di the Christiania is adamantly opposed to the proposed deck.
Ron Riley, owner of Los Amigos, is in favor of the projec#, as he feels the after sici opportunities are
inadequate, compared to other resarts. He reafizes there are problems and issues with regards to
covenants and noise generation. He spoke ta the fact that when people get colcf, they come inside
the building on their own.
Jahn Scofield asked if Ron Riley thought that a conditian requiring the deck tv close ane haur after
sunset wauld be detrimental.
Ron Riley stated thaf he didn't belieue it wauld impact it that greatly.
Jim Larnont asked BiEI if the Commission could set hvurs of use and seasans Qf use.
Bwll Gibson stated that they could.
Jim Larrtont stated that when he hears complaints an use he starts thinking about applying
conditians in order to better fit inta the neighborhood. He had a question regarding how much
square footage was impacting the open space labeVed Tract H. He said he feels that the Town
should closely look at the pedestrian flow under the deck on the east sade of the building and taRked
about moving the existing stairs and redesigning the deck to {essen the impact on the open space,
Daug Cahill stated #hat the deck will rrsake the existing stairs dark and uninviting and asked if there
are any aptions which will make the pedestrian flow. ~
Terrill Knight sta#ed tha# this is the plan they proposed as it is what was previous9y deemed by the
7own as the best design and it was his hope that fhis des'tgn would be met with little resistance.
b
I
J
Apprnved 5/12103
~ Daug Cahill stated #hat it is desirable to energize the area; however, he has heard horror stories
about the noise. He feeks 4his shauid be a dining decic and a time should be set to stop all activity
after a cerfiain haur.
~ Rallie Kjesbo was concerned about Iimitirag the hours of operation. He aiso asked if the speakers
on the front were approved and asked if the awner would object ta removing them.
Steve Kaufman stateci they were and he will speak to hours of operation and the speaker in a
closing staternent.
George Larnb spoke to the utilaties and the fact that he wauld like to see no time limit until there is a
prab9em.
Erikson Shirley said he is in favor of the proposaf and more after ski activities. He said h+e feels the
speakers in front need to be removed as aresull of approval of the rear deck.
John Schofiekd summarized the commenfs stated prewiously and he was nat in favor of using the
Town af Vail praperty. He said he would like to see the aptian of redes`rgning the deck to get the
deck off the Town af VaiC property. He said he has concerns over Iater hours of operation and he
suggested limiting the deck usage to one hour after sunset and agrees with thE speakers an the
ex#erior.
Yerrill Knight in closing poinfed aut that #hE Town was previously in support of this and this design
is a result of previous design work. He said hE would be happy to Iook at the proposal to move the
stairs.
Doug Cahill asked if the TQwn had any prablem with the moving of the stairs into the stream
~ setback.
Steve Kaufman said he has been in business three years and has not had any violations, but there
have been several complaints. He said the police hawe come out and nat faund them in violatiorro.
He does nat peamote exterior usege and the exterior speakers must [ae shut Qff by 1 Q:00 p.m. and
he tries #o keep doors and windows closed.
Ericksarr Shirley dtseussed the use of the speakers and the fact that being En campliance does not
mean the speakers are beneficial. He said when you ask for a requESt of a canditional use there is
some give and take w9th this type of praposal.
Steve Kaufman, s#ated that they try hard tv work with their neighbars and he doesn`t feel he shouEd I
be policed differently.
Daug Cahill made a motion to tabEe this to May 'E2th, in order to explare moving the stairs.
Rollie Kjesba seconded #he motion_
The motion passed by a vote of 5-0.
5. A reques# for a variance from Seciion 12-78-15, Si#e Caverage, Vai1 Town Cade, ta allow
for a covered pedestrian entrance, located at the Vista Bahn Building, 333 Hansan Ranch
Road/Lat C, Block 2, Vail Village 1 'Filing.
~ Applicant: Remona+r & Cornpany, lnc., represented by }fnight Planning Services, Irac.
Planner: Warren Gampbell
Warren Carnpbell presented an overview of the staff memorandum.
7
. ~
Approved 5112103
Terrill Knight presented an overview of the appficatiora. He stated the intent o# the request is to ~
provide irnproved visibility for Aalta Sports and provide protection fram weather to the entrance af
the business. He said the awning rna#erial has a five year guarantee agaanst fading and
deterioration and the material is also fire resistant. Terrill also noted how the applicatian is in ~
keeping with the Comprehensive Plan.
Rolfie 4Cjesbo noted that the building was built in 1995 and at tha# time they received a uariance ta
exceed the permitted site coverage.
George Lamb commented that the hardship was self-created by the applicant when he divided the
tenant space in the manner he did.
Erickson Shirley asked why this awning is different from athers tn Vail?
Warren Campbell respanded that this avwning requires a site coverage variance. He akso noted
that the applicant could construct an awning four feet from the building without the need for a
Wariance.
aoUg Cahill commented that the building currently exceeds the permitted site coverage and noted
that it will detract from the pedestrian flow around the building,
,John Schafield cornmented that this does not meet the minumum amount of deviation necessary
and that the hardship af building design is self-imposed. He then commented that this will be a
grant of speeial privilege if approved.
Ftick Muelier commented that this building was originally cortstructed with a bad design, and he
is working to rraake this building function. He referenced how the praposal complies with the
Master Plan goal #a upgrade existing properties to bettet serve Vaif's guests. He asked if #fie Town ~
wanted more vacant stores in the Viilage? He nated that this proposal is to imprave the viability of
a business. He described how when they originally bought this building they spent $280,000 to
upgrade #he entry and that they currently maintain the walkway around the building. He akso
commented oro haw they provided public art near this storefront, as they are trying to imprave the
Town. He said he is not sure if the tenant will be able ta make it without this canopy.
Erickson Shiriey cammented that the PEC upholds the regulations of the Zoning Code and the
applicant has the abiiity #o appeal to the Town Councip if they dan't agree with the decjsion.
Rick MuelVer eneouraged everyone to think outside the box and that the awning is appropriate.
Gearge Ruther commented that the Town has been thinking outside the box and has presented
the applicant wi#h options. He nated that this business does not have frontage on Bridge Street and
tFte eod+e cannot change that situation_
Doug Cahill mads a mofion to deny this applicat6on, per the memarandum.
Roilie Kjesbo seconded the motion.
The motion passed by a vote of 5-0.
8. An appeaa, pursuant to Section 11-2-1 B Adrninistration; Appeal, of an administratiue
determination that a business identification sign does not meet the teehnical requirements
of Section 11-415-12B5 Pfajecting and Hanging Signs, Vail Town Code, lacated at the Vista ~
Bahn BuiVding, 333 Hanson Ranch RoadlLot C, Bfock 2, Vail Village 15t Filing.
Applicant: Rernonov & Campany, Inc., represented lay Knight Planning 5ervices, Inc.
Planner: V1larren Campbell
$
. _.J
Approvecf 5112/03
~
Warren Campbell presented an averview of the staff memorandum.
~ Rick Muelfer presented an averview of the application.
George Ruther camrnented that the deck is a structura[ element of the Tap Room and not Aalta Sports.
Rick Muefler shawed examples of the other businesses with existing signs that, in his opinion, dQ not
comply with staff's interpretation of the sign code. He stated how the prapased sign complies vuith the
sign cade.
Gearge Ruther cornmented on the sign photographs that RACk presented. He noted haw most
examples are in confarmance with the code and that s#aff wi1l investigate the possible violations.
George commented on how staff has offered alternative solutians fo the applicant.
Doug Cahili cammented thaf the decic is part of the structure of the Aalta Sports space and he is in
favQr of increasirtg visibility to the business and there is a physical hardship of the builciing.
Rall?e Kjesbo asked if staff had ofFered alternatiWe soEutions.
Rick Muef{er replied, yes.
George Lamb said he was in faWOr of a building identification sign in conjunction with hanging a sign off
the deck.
EricksQn Shirley asked George Ruther to clarify haw staff interpreted the structural element of this
business.
~ George Ruther clarified.
Erickson Shirley questioned which directian the hanging sign needed to be hung.
George Ruther responded that unless the Public V"Vdrks Department had a requirement in terms of
required location and height in reference to snowplowing it woulcE need to meet Code requirements..
John Schofield recQmmended that the applicant try to thinic outside the box and redesign the front of ~
the building to supply bmth tenants with frontage. i
Erickson Shirley commented on how an attorney can interpret the code to allow this prvpvsal.
Doug Cahill made a motian to overturn staff's interpretation, with the condition that the sign is located
wothin the Aalta Sports frontage along Hanson Ranch Road and not located within the Hanson Ranch
Roati right-of-way.
Rollie Kjesbo seconded the motion.
The mation was approved by a vote nf 4-1, with John Schofield opposed.
7. A request for a recommendation ta the Vail Town Council for the estabfishment of Special
Develaprnent District Na. 37, pursuant to Section 12-9A-6, Development Plan, Vail Tawn Cade,
to al9aw for the redevelapment of the Tivoli Lodge, iacated at 386 Hanson Ranch Road1La# E,
Black 2, Uail Village 5th Filing.
Applicant: Robert & Diane Lazier
~ PEannef: George Ruther
George Ruther gave a presentation per the staff report.
Jay Peterson and Mike Foster, representing Bob Lazier, gave a presentation and said the only
9
Approved 5112103
thing he hacf to add was that fhey would like to not have to heat the walkway on Vail Valley Drive. ~
He said it is in incredi6le shape and is in a north/south arierrtation and melts easily and so
economicaldy it does not make sense to repface a good sidewalk at a cost of $30,000 plus. He ~
requested that number 6 have the bond due by TCO and not building perrnit.
Rollie Kjesba s4ated that it was a govd project and asked about Diane's concern with regard ta the
Ramshorn.
George Ruther spoke fv the changss to the turret roof and the benefits to the Ramshom,
responding ta Diane's cancerns.
F2ollie Kjesbo added that if the walkway is damaged on Vail Valley Driwe, it should be replaced.
Jay Peterson stated they would replace and hea# the road if it were damaged.
George Lamb fikes the project and said it will be beneficial.
Erickson Shirley likes the project, but would like to s+ee the walkway heated 9n return far the 8 feet
of height.
Daug Cahill agrees with Erickson and the walkway should be heated by the Tivolli and the Tiuolli ~
shauld be on the ho4k to add the heated sidewalk in the future. He asked what the reason was for ~
the Eandscaping deviance.
Jay Peterson beliewes they can get it down a few percent.
Dnug Cahill asked about faading and delivery.
Jay Peterson stated ali the trucks would Ioad and deliver in front of'tfire bui4ding. ~
Doug Cahili has a little problem with the raaf and he asked what the slope was.
IVlike Foster stated it was a12:2 slope.
John Schofield finds it refreshing to have a real hotel and he has no problem with the project. John
would like to see the sicEewaik heated. He said to size the boiler to heat it and leave a stub and if
the sidewalk ever needs repair, the facilities are there to heat it.
Tom Kassmel skated that the reason they requested the heated sidevuralk was that they request
impravements along all right-of-ways to be impraved and Public Warks wauld like it done with this ~
deveiopment. ~
Rollie Kjesbo made a motion to forward a recornmencJation of approvaE to Tawn Council with the
conditions changed, as discussed, #o number 6 and 15.
Doug Cahill secanded the motion. I
I
The motion passed by a vote 0#4-1, with George Lamb opposed to heating the sidewalic naw. ~
i
i
8. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of a majar amendment to Special i
Development District No. fi, Vail Village Inn, pursuant to 5ectian 12-9A-14, Vail Town Code,
to allow for a change in Use, to increase the GRFA and to increase the number of dwelling ~
units, located at the Vail ViClage Inn, 100 E. Meadow DrivelLot 0, Biock 5L}, Uail Viflage 1S`
Fifing.
Applicant: Edna & Claus Fricke, represented by Fritzlen Pierce Architects
10
Approued 5f12103
' Planner. Matt Gennett
Doug Cahill made a motion ta table this until Mlay 12, 2003.
~ RoPiie Kjesbo seconded the matian.
The motion passed by a vate af 5-0.
9. A request for a worksession to discuss the fvllvwing appfica#uans: a recommendatian to #he Vail
Town Council of a text amendmen# tfl Secf`ton 12-76-13, Density Controf, Zoning Regulations;
a request for a recommendation to the Vaii Tvwn Council of a praposed rezoning Qf Lots p3 &
J, Bfock SA, Vail Village 5th Filing frotn Public Accammodation zone district (PA) #o Paricing
zone district (P); a request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Cauncil far the proposed
zorting of an unplatted parcel of land commonly referred to as the "trade parcel" and Lo#s 1& 2,
Mill Creek Subdiuisiorr to Ski Base Recreation !I zone district; a request for a rninor subdivision,
pursuant to Title 13, Subdivision Regulations, Vail Town Code, to aAow for the relocation of the
common property lirte between Lats P3 & J, Biock 5A, Vaii Village 5th Filing; a request fdr a i
recommendation to the Vail Tcawn Code of a proposed majcrr subdirrision, pursuant to Section
13-3, Major Subdivisian, Uail Town Code, to allow for the platting af the "trade parcel"; a
request for a conditicanal use permit, pursuant to Chapter 16, Title 12, of the Vail Ta+nrn Gode, to
allow for a"private off-stree# vehicle parking facility and pulalic park" to be construeted and
operated on Lots P3& J, Block 5A, Vail Vilfage 5t" Filing, a request for an exterior alteration or
madification, pursuant to Section 12-713-7, Ex#erior Alteratians or Mndifacatians, Vail Tawn
Code, to allowr for an addition to the Lodge at Vail; a request for a uariance from Section 12-21-
10, aevelopment Restric#ed, Vail 7own Code, pursuan# #o Chapter 17, Variances, Zoning
Regulations, ta allow for the construction of multiple-farnily dwelling units an slopes in excess of 40°l0; and a request for the establishment of an approved development plan to facilitate the
construction of Vail's Frmnt Doar, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (A more complete
~ metes and bounds legai descriptian is availabC+e at the Town af Vail Community Devefopment
Departrnent)
Applicant: Vail Resorts, repr+esented by Jay Peterson
Planner: George Ruther
Daug Cahill made a motion ta table this until May 12, 2003.
Rallie IiJesbo seconded the rr,otion.
The motion passed by a vote of 5-0.
10. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Cauncil of proposed #ext arnendments #Q
Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code, to arrrend the Gross Resicfential Floor Area
(GRFA)regulatians in the Hillside Resitiential (HR), Single-Family Residential (SFR), Two-
Family Residential (R), Two-Family PrimarylSecandary Residential (PS), Residential
Cluster (RC), Low Density Multiple-Family (LDMF), Medium Density Multiple-Family ;
{MDMF}, High Density Multiple-Farnily (HDMF), and Housing (H) districts, and setting forth
details in regard thereto.
Appiicant: Vicki Pearson, et.al.
Planner: Bil[ Gibson
TABLED l3NTlL MAY 12,2003
~ 11. Approval of March 24, 2003 ar+d April 14, 2003 minutes
Doug Cahill made a motion to approve the fVlarch 24, 2003 amended minutes.
Rolfie Kjesbo seconded the motion.
11
4
Appraved 5112103
.
The motion passed by a vote af 5-4.
George Lamb made a motion #a appra+re the April 14, 2003 amended rninutes. ~
Rsllie Kjesbo secanded the motion.
The mot6on passed by a wote of 5-0.
12. Infarmation Update
The applicatians and infarmatian about the proposals are aWailabfe for pubfic inspection during
regular office haurs in the project planner's office 6ocated at the 7own of Vaii Community
Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. Please call 479-2138 for information.
Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479-
2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. ,
Community Development Departmen# I
~
I
I
~
There
was
12
Motion to